Intel says it's selling every chip it can produce, so it's feeding AI servers first

[Rapob]

Anyone who thinks "AI is a bubble" simply doesn't understand what's happening.

AI is not going anywhere but the hardware demand due to AI won't continue like now.
That is for sure. When the demand drop, sales drop, AI stocks drop, this is essentially a bubble bursting since AI companies are living on mostly hype now. Many of the stocks stagnated too.

Nvidia will face fierce competition in the coming years, forcing them to lower prices. This is the reason why Nvidia is going all in on AI right now, with pretty much full focus on AI / Enterprise. They strike while the iron is hot and it is very hot right now. Buying up massive inventory of components to keep production high and meet demand.

So yeah, I perfectly understand and so does banks and big/succesful investors, which are slowly but surely leaving the AI stocks. Risk is too high and train has pretty much left the station by now.

I bought up in AI stocks from 2016-2018 but sold most at this point, big drops are expected in xx months. Nvidia itself has stagnated too, their stock value is the same today, as 6 months ago. Far away from the 1000s of percent gains I saw ealier.

Nvidia stock can go both ways from here. It is more likely to go down, than deliver a big increase from here.

The first financial report from Nvidia showing declining sales, and you will see a huge stock value drop instantly, with chain reactions spreading to all Nvidias suppliers (entire AI stock market really).

Many companies has no ROI on AI. They just spend money, out of fear of getting left behind. Hype. Air.

So yeah, AI is here to stay, but hardware demand is not and this is what will cause a problem.

 

[JMGuy]

There may or may not be another sources.
Statistics show that without AI numbers go red.

Who’s statistics?

Harvard economist Jason Furman estimated that if you exclude data‑center & tech investment, U.S. GDP growth in the first half of 2025 would have been only ~0.1% annualized — not deeply negative.

How AI data centers are driving US GDP growth: Harvard economist's dire warning: Without data centers, US GDP grew only 0.1% in H1 2025 - The Economic Times

US GDP growth 2025: Harvard economist Jason Furman warns that almost all of America’s economic growth in the first half of 2025 came from data centers and information processing technology, with major tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta, and Nvidia driving the AI investment surge.

m.economictimes.com

At the same time, consumer spending (about 70% of GDP) helped push the U.S. economy to 4.4% annualized growth in Q3 2025.

Consumer spending pushes US economy up 4.4% in third quarter, fastest in two years

Powered by strong consumer spending, the U.S. economy grew at the fastest pace in two years from July through September, the government said Thursday in a slight upgrade rom its first estimate.

apnews.com

AI’s clearly a big contributor right now, but it’s not the entire U.S. economy by any real measure. Again, recessions are inevitable; they’re normal economic corrections so another one will eventually occur. A loss of AI overnight would hurt GDP, yes, but it wouldn’t be some insane crash of the broader economy from what I see—just a market correction in a specific, overly bloated sector.

 

[Evrsr]

That is not what the Intel CFO said!

He and LBT said that they have lots of high core count dies the market does not want. They want more CPUs with less cores (my understanding from the answers).
Add to that a lot of client chip dies in the same situation. They had $11.6B dollars in inventory!

So, obviously, that needs correction because their earnings was $0 per share last quarter.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

Who’s statistics?

Harvard economist Jason Furman estimated that if you exclude data‑center & tech investment, U.S. GDP growth in the first half of 2025 would have been only ~0.1% annualized — not deeply negative.

Growth +0.1 %
Inflation -2.6 %

 

[Axeia]

Nah, that’s a bit of a stretch I think. AI isn’t the only source of US growth. An AI correction will happen and it won’t automatically tank the entire economy. And a coordinated European dump of US bonds is pretty unlikely. Treasuries are still the global safe haven. Recessions happen and are a normal part of economic cycles, too. This scenario just stacks a lot of low-probability assumptions together IMHO.

Was an overstatement for dramatic effect. But without AI the US economy isn't looking good.
imo this video brings up a lot of good points:

Quick recap of some of the negatives summed up in it:
* US dollar devalued harder than most other currencies.
* Growth is propped up by a lot unsustainable practices
* Massive AI investments (and he didn't even get into how it's much a circular economy of companies investing in each other)
* Companies using up their inventory (high output at low costs) because they're wary of importing due to tariffs.
* Healthcare doing better than expected (due to people quickly using up what they have before it evaporates)
* Precious metal exports on the rise (because people rather have those than US bonds)

And definitely don't underestimate how badly Europe/the EU could undermine the US economy. After the Greenland threats part of the private sector already sold off some US bonds which is likely part of the reason why Trump backed off so fast with 'a framework of a deal'*. Talks were in place of doing the same in an organized way on the public level. Yes, it would hurt the European (and world really) economy as well, but it'd be short term pain for long term gain.
Additionally Europe could also started pulling gold reserves out of the US, Germany notably could make a €164bn worth of gold withdrawal from New York.
Those are the two steps that didn't make the headlines quite as much as the 'trade bazooka' or simply tariffing US tech companies which wouldn't do the US economy any favors either.

Now luckily for the world economy at large Europe/The EU is very slow to actually carry through with anything. If it was as quick as the US to flip flop on matters the whole world would be in a bit of a pickle.

* Spoiler: it'll be pretty much the same deal that was already in place - which already let the US apply for more military presence/rare earth mineral mining permits if they wanted to. It was never about not being able to do so, it was about being able to get those minerals in a cheap screw the environment way (Greenlanders like what they've got and want to keep it that way).

 

[JMGuy]

Growth +0.1 %
Inflation -2.6 %

That’s fine. Even without a cited source, let’s treat your numbers as a given.

Even using 0.1% growth and −2.6% inflation, the conclusion doesn’t follow. With consumer spending making up 70% of GDP and remaining positive, that arithmetic alone rules out a broad negative economy. Again, contractions and recessions are normal.

But even at worst, those figures describe stagnation driven by weak investment outside AI, not an economy that “goes red” once AI is removed. Concentrated growth can inflate the headline, but it cannot mask a contraction of the majority of GDP.

At this point we’re talking past each other. Agree to disagree. Moving on. Cheers.

 

[JMGuy]

Was an overstatement for dramatic effect. But without AI the US economy isn't looking good.
imo this video brings up a lot of good points:

Quick recap of some of the negatives summed up in it:
* US dollar devalued harder than most other currencies.
* Growth is propped up by a lot unsustainable practices
* Massive AI investments (and he didn't even get into how it's much a circular economy of companies investing in each other)
* Companies using up their inventory (high output at low costs) because they're wary of importing due to tariffs.
* Healthcare doing better than expected (due to people quickly using up what they have before it evaporates)
* Precious metal exports on the rise (because people rather have those than US bonds)

And definitely don't underestimate how badly Europe/the EU could undermine the US economy. After the Greenland threats part of the private sector already sold off some US bonds which is likely part of the reason why Trump backed off so fast with 'a framework of a deal'*. Talks were in place of doing the same in an organized way on the public level. Yes, it would hurt the European (and world really) economy as well, but it'd be short term pain for long term gain.
Additionally Europe could also started pulling gold reserves out of the US, Germany notably could make a €164bn worth of gold withdrawal from New York.
Those are the two steps that didn't make the headlines quite as much as the 'trade bazooka' or simply tariffing US tech companies which wouldn't do the US economy any favors either.

Now luckily for the world economy at large Europe/The EU is very slow to actually carry through with anything. If it was as quick as the US to flip flop on matters the whole world would be in a bit of a pickle.

* Spoiler: it'll be pretty much the same deal that was already in place - which already let the US apply for more military presence/rare earth mineral mining permits if they wanted to. It was never about not being able to do so, it was about being able to get those minerals in a cheap screw the environment way (Greenlanders like what they've got and want to keep it that way).

I hear you. You’re not wrong. And sure, there are a number of potential negatives listed, but most of them don’t change the core picture of U.S. GDP as I see it.

A few points:

* US dollar devaluation—yes, the dollar has weakened relative to some currencies, but it’s still the world’s primary reserve currency. Moderate fluctuations don’t automatically translate into a contraction across the bulk of the economy.

* Growth propped up by unsustainable practices / massive AI investment—I would say this reinforces my original point: growth is concentrated in certain sectors. Even if AI investment slows, the majority of GDP—consumer spending (70%) and non-AI services—continues. A slowdown would look more like stagnation in headline growth, not anything like a collapse.

* Inventory drawdowns / healthcare usage—these seem largely to be temporary, sector-specific effects. They influence quarterly numbers, but they don’t erase underlying economic activity in other areas.

* Precious metals and bond movements / EU actions—coordinated large-scale selling of U.S. Treasuries or gold reserves seems extremely unlikely. Treasuries remain the global safe haven, and any European moves would be gradual, resulting in minimal impact on overall GDP. Geopolitical risks are absolutely real but low probability relative to the size of the U.S. economy.

All this points to uneven growth and sector concentration, but not a broad negative economy in my view. Even with AI corrections or isolated shocks, the majority of U.S. GDP—driven by consumer spending, services, and ongoing non-AI investment—remains positive.

Frankly, Trump is an an a$$ and the majority knows that. He talks a lot, and he pisses people off on purpose (his “negotiating” strategy), but he’s relatively ineffective overall. Geopolitics knows this, too. And, they (our traditional partners) are starting to signal in the exact way they should—a “knock-it-off-grandpa, you’re not the only game,” kind of way. Greenland is a distraction. I don’t take the man that seriously and in 3 years (or less) he won’t be much of a factor anymore. It would be really dumb, on the long-term, to bet against the U.S. economy IMO and I think that’s what we’ll see—the U.S. repairing all this crap posturing in the not-distant future, and I expect that will be generally successful. These are all just corrections with the media inflating things to seem like it’s crisis brewing.

Honestly, this just seems like low-probability, extreme scenarios being discussed, which are interesting to posit but I think the glass-half-full view while remaining clear-eyed about potentials (positive and negative) is my personal preference.

 

[ThomasTECH]

When you look at the graph, it's a compelling argument, I always found the business clients much more business friendly, however the consumer market is still there, just needs operational optimization, less marketing, more benchmarking. I think NVIDA is going to contribute to the turnaround of Intel significantly hopefully that partnership solidifies nicely.

 

[Watzupken]

I find this narrative increasingly fishy. I get the herd mentality, but when there is a clear overcrowding of chip makers wanting in on the AI action, there is a clear opportunity to be uncontested in the retail space. Assuming retail demand falls 30% due to high prices, being the only player in the market will still give Intel a good opportunity to make money without getting into the AI action, and since they are already pretty far behind as well. Yet, they all just seems to want to join the "party" and create this artificial shortage.