Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/ranked-america%E2%80%99s-largest-semiconductor-companies.18174/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Ranked: America’s Largest Semiconductor Companies

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
Ranking America’s Largest Semiconductor Companies
As our world moves further into an era of widespread digitization, few industries can be considered as important as semiconductors.
These components are found in almost everything we use on a daily basis, and the ability to produce them domestically has become a topic of national security. For example, in 2022 the Biden administration announced the CHIPS and Science Act, which aims to strengthen America’s position in everything from clean energy to artificial intelligence.

With this in mind, we’ve ranked the top 15 U.S. semiconductor companies by their market capitalizations.

Data and Highlights
The data we used to create this infographic is listed in the table below. Year-to-date (YTD) returns were included for additional context. Both metrics are as of May 30, 2023.

America’s Largest Semiconductor Companies.jpg


At the top is Nvidia, which became America’s newest $1 trillion company on Tuesday, May 30th. Shares pulled back slightly over the day and Nvidia closed at $992 billion. Over the past decade, Nvidia has transformed from a gaming-focused graphics card producer to a global leader in AI and data center chips.

In third and sixth place are two of America’s most well known chipmakers, AMD and Intel. These longtime rivals are moving in opposite trajectories, with AMD shares climbing 770% over the past five years, and Intel shares falling 47%. One reason for this is the data center segment, in which AMD appears to be stealing market share from Intel.

Further down the list we see Applied Materials in seventh, and Lam Research in ninth. Both firms specialize in semiconductor manufacturing equipment and thus play an important role in the industry’s supply chain.

Trade War Impacts
As tensions between the U.S. and China escalate, chipmakers are becoming increasingly entangled in geopolitical conflict.

In October 2022, the Biden administration introduced new export controls aimed at blocking China’s access to semiconductors produced with U.S. equipment. This impacted several companies in our top 15 list, including Lam Research and Applied Materials.

Shortly after the export controls were announced, Lam Research said it expected to lose upwards of $2.5 billion in annual revenues.

In response, China announced in May 2023 that it would no longer allow America’s largest memory chipmaker, Micron, to sell its products to “critical national infrastructure operators”.

This is not the first time Micron has been involved in a controversy with China. In 2018, the firm alleged that Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit, a Chinese state-owned company, had solicited a Micron employee to steal specifications for memory chips. The U.S. Department of Commerce imposed export restrictions on Fujian Jinhua as a result.

Chipmakers on both sides of the Pacific will be closely watching as competition between these two countries heats up.

 

Attachments

  • America’s Largest Semiconductor Companies.jpg
    America’s Largest Semiconductor Companies.jpg
    711.1 KB · Views: 101
"Largest" in this case is based on market capitalization which is an important metrics but I am not sure it's the right one when determining the "largest" company. Intel is still the "largest" among these companies in terms of revenue, profits, employee count etc. Those are all more stable parameters than market cap. As an example, less than three weeks after this report Intel MC is $152B and AMD is at $193B.
 
Not sure how Synopsys are on there but Cadence are not (similar market caps, both offer some IP). Or indeed why Synopsys is there in the first place. I guess it's supposed to be a "semiconductor ecosystem" company ranking.

But I agree - market cap isn't the metric I'd used - far too volatile.
 
"Largest" in this case is based on market capitalization which is an important metrics but I am not sure it's the right one when determining the "largest" company. Intel is still the "largest" among these companies in terms of revenue, profits, employee count etc. Those are all more stable parameters than market cap. As an example, less than three weeks after this report Intel MC is $152B and AMD is at $193B.
Not profits.
 
Wow, many years ago, never would have expected to see AMD exceed Intel in market capitalization.
Having worked at Intel, including many years ago, I'm not so surprised. Intel counted far too much on their fabrication advantage, and when it came to design and innovation shot themselves in the foot often. The worst shot, they didn't see TSMC coming and what they would enable.
 
Having worked at Intel, including many years ago, I'm not so surprised. Intel counted far too much on their fabrication advantage, and when it came to design and innovation shot themselves in the foot often. The worst shot, they didn't see TSMC coming and what they would enable.
Did that swine Krzanich have any vision that actually worked. This is the hangover from his tenure at Intel, in my opinion. He had no vision, and figured they were still selling tons of things and making huge profits, so he must be doing a good job. Gelsinger is dealing with fixing that mess, but I think he's doing a great job with what he was given. But, it takes time, just as it took time for Kraznich's time there to yield the rotting fruits of his "vision".

But, I should be grateful, because it allowed me to get Intel stock really cheap, and already make a big profit. Even so, I despise him almost as much as I love Pat. OK, more.
 
Did that swine Krzanich have any vision that actually worked. This is the hangover from his tenure at Intel, in my opinion. He had no vision, and figured they were still selling tons of things and making huge profits, so he must be doing a good job. Gelsinger is dealing with fixing that mess, but I think he's doing a great job with what he was given. But, it takes time, just as it took time for Kraznich's time there to yield the rotting fruits of his "vision".

I don't think the Paul Tortellini CEO years were good either. That was the beginning of the end in my opinion. But yes BK was the worst CEO in the history of Intel. Pat certainly is a ray of CEO sunshine.
 
Not profits.
I glanced at Statistics section of the company reports on Yahoo Finance for some of these companies. I have not seen any one of them with gross profits higher than INTC. Just as an example, INTC gross profits are listed at $26.7B vs $15.4B for NVDA. I think INTC had a loss for the last quarter though and in general, going forward, their profits might be depressed for a while because of how much they are planning to spend on FABs.
 
I glanced at Statistics section of the company reports on Yahoo Finance for some of these companies. I have not seen any one of them with gross profits higher than INTC. Just as an example, INTC gross profits are listed at $26.7B vs $15.4B for NVDA. I think INTC had a loss for the last quarter though and in general, going forward, their profits might be depressed for a while because of how much they are planning to spend on FABs.
Intel has been just breaking even or losing money for a year now. That's not an aberration, and I think their net profits will likely be depressed for at least the rest of 2023. Yes, they used to be very profitable.

I don't think the Paul Tortellini CEO years were good either. That was the beginning of the end in my opinion. But yes BK was the worst CEO in the history of Intel. Pat certainly is a ray of CEO sunshine.
Paul Otellini. Otellini made the decision not to partner with Apple, which was almost certainly a major TSMC enabler. Apple's SoC would have been Arm-based, and Intel was obsessed with x86 at the time, which was not a winning direction for mobile.


I heard PSO talk about his decision in an all-hands meeting.
 
Did that swine Krzanich have any vision that actually worked. This is the hangover from his tenure at Intel, in my opinion.
Not true, IMO. BK made some mistakes, but he had nothing to do with Intel's product design problems.
He had no vision, and figured they were still selling tons of things and making huge profits, so he must be doing a good job. Gelsinger is dealing with fixing that mess, but I think he's doing a great job with what he was given. But, it takes time, just as it took time for Kraznich's time there to yield the rotting fruits of his "vision".

But, I should be grateful, because it allowed me to get Intel stock really cheap, and already make a big profit. Even so, I despise him almost as much as I love Pat. OK, more.
Gelsinger is, in my opinion, making the correct decision about creating IFS and making it a top priority. However, Gelsinger was also Intel's CTO and led what became the Data Center Group for years before he left in 2009 to run VMW. Many of the product decisions he made were not ones I thought highly of. And I'm still not seeing great progress with FPGAs, GPUs, storage (Optane is a needless mess) or networking, not to mention that AMD has completely lapped them on CPUs.

One good thing I've seen happening, is that Intel is finally cleaning up its IA64 architecture, which will save cost and power:


Way overdue.
 
Intel has been just breaking even or losing money for a year now. That's not an aberration, and I think their net profits will likely be depressed for at least the rest of 2023. Yes, they used to be very profitable.


Paul Otellini. Otellini made the decision not to partner with Apple, which was almost certainly a major TSMC enabler. Apple's SoC would have been Arm-based, and Intel was obsessed with x86 at the time, which was not a winning direction for mobile.


I heard PSO talk about his decision in an all-hands meeting.
  • Intel gross profit for the twelve months ending March 31, 2023 was $21.630B, a 48.75% decline year-over-year.
  • Intel annual gross profit for 2022 was $26.866B, a 38.68% decline from 2021.
  • Intel annual gross profit for 2021 was $43.815B, a 0.47% increase from 2020.
  • Source
 
Intel gross profit for the twelve months ending March 31, 2023 was $21.630B, a 48.75% decline year-over-year.
  • Intel annual gross profit for 2022 was $26.866B, a 38.68% decline from 2021.
  • Intel annual gross profit for 2021 was $43.815B, a 0.47% increase from 2020.
  • Source
Why are gross profit numbers interesting? Not to investors.
 
Not true, IMO. BK made some mistakes, but he had nothing to do with Intel's product design problems.

Gelsinger is, in my opinion, making the correct decision about creating IFS and making it a top priority. However, Gelsinger was also Intel's CTO and led what became the Data Center Group for years before he left in 2009 to run VMW. Many of the product decisions he made were not ones I thought highly of. And I'm still not seeing great progress with FPGAs, GPUs, storage (Optane is a needless mess) or networking, not to mention that AMD has completely lapped them on CPUs.

One good thing I've seen happening, is that Intel is finally cleaning up its IA64 architecture, which will save cost and power:


Way overdue.
Not sure where you're getting your data from, but AMD has definitely not lapped them in CPUs, particularly design. In fact, the fastest single-threaded performance, the most difficult metric, is owned by Intel. But a decent amount. Last I checked, Intel owns over 80% of the mobile and desktop markets. Lapping, from behind?

AMD does do well with consoles, but that has nothing to do with Gelsinger.

Servers they still probably have the Edge though, mainly because of the process tech they are on. Their architecture is not any better, but their node is not only a lot more dense, but also more power efficient. For servers, that's really big, much more important than Intel's absolute clock speed advantage. But, at least Sapphire Rapids closed the gap, and Emerald Rapids probably will close it a bit more. But, again, these were designed before Pat, and were part of the problem with process tech, which absolutely pre-date his arrival at Intel.

With regards to Intel chips in iPhones, they weren't going to be ARM based, as far as I know. I've never heard that said, but I'm not 100% on it. Apple wanted Intel chips, Intel said they couldn't make them that cheap, and that was that. But, if you have information showing they were ARM based processors, please let me know, so I know better. But, until then, I'm going to assume they are x86 based.

Actually, their designs haven't been very bad, they were just delayed because of 10nm being a disaster, and the designs for it being delayed so long. Krzanich, as CEO at the time, wasn't responsible in any way for their fab problems? Not at all? How about the contra fiasco? You are dead on, x86 on phones wasn't a great idea, it made no sense at all. But, Krzanich didn't see it that way, he tried to force fit it. I remember at the time thinking what an idiot this guy was, and how it was going to bite him. Sure enough it did. Intel's problems have not been about design, it's been about their fabs being so delayed, the designs have been delayed.

GPUs came from nowhere to now having 4% market share, and finally getting respect in the industry. But, they weren't started on Pat's watch anyway. I mean, they're not crazy successful, but in terms of progress, it's been extremely fast the last year or so. They were delayed, and then had horrible drivers, and now have better drivers and are gaining market share. Realistically, that's pretty good, but again, this was all started before he got there. A long time before.

Optane again was NOT designed or marketed during his watch. He killed it. Was that a mistake? I'm not sure, if you think it was, then you could blame it on him. It was a great technology, but, I guess the improvements didn't warrant the cost, and most people were satisfied with SSD performance and endurance.

I have no idea what you mean by them cleaning up their IA64 architecture. IA-64 was discontinued years ago, unless you know something I don't. I'd love to know it, because I was always fascinated by that architecture, and am kind of sad it's gone away. But, I can easily see why too, I just don't know why they couldn't get it to work, but I think the idea the compiler would be smart enough to schedule instructions efficiently was a big part of it. But, I don't know Pat's involvement with that, but you could pin that on him if he was deeply supportive of it. But, that started with HP a long time ago, before Pat was CTO, so maybe he should have killed it sooner, but he certainly wasn't the impetus behind it. In any case, if you make decisions, not everyone is going to be correct.

I think he's a great CEO, not a perfect one.
 
Last edited:
If we want to start the blaming game, Gordon Moore (Intel CEO 1975-1987) and Andrew Grove (Intel CEO 1987-1998) must take some responsibilities too.

TSMC was actively recruiting an anchor investor before its founding in 1987. Intel denied TSMC's invitation and Philips took it as a 28% founding investor. The rest is history.
 
Last edited:
If we want to start the blaming game, Gordon Moore (Intel CEO 1975-1987) and Andrew Grove (Intel CEO 1987-1998) must take some responsibilities too.

TSMC was actively recruiting an anchor investor before its founding in 1987. Intel denied TSMC's invitation and Philips took it as a 28% founding investors. The rest is history.
I mean, they could have bought and sold the stock, but if there were not TSMC, there would be another to replace it. Intel made a mistake by not outsourcing their production long ago, and that created a vacuum that had to be filled. They only decided it might be a good idea when it was so patently obvious it had to be done, it was almost too late.

And if they had executed on their tech, instead delayed time and time again, TSMC would still be in the rear view mirror. I can't blame those two for execution mistakes that came much later, because I don't think it's reasonable to have predicted them at that time.

But, yeah, the way it played out, they sure could have made a lot of money off their initial investment. I just don't it's fair to pin that on them, unless you're saying that to make a point that you can always blame someone for something, which is a good point.

In fairness, when Krzanich was screwing up, even at that time I was extremely critical of him. That's why I blame him so much, because even at the time it was reasonable to find his "leadership" lacking and hurting the company. In fact, I made a lot of money on AMD. I bought below $2 a share, because I knew Ryzen would have to be an improvement, relatively speaking, and would help AMD. Sadly, I wish I could say I got out at $160, but I got out at $12. Yeah, I feel stupid :p . I took the money and ran, because I just couldn't predict how badly Intel would screw up. Oh well.
 
I mean, they could have bought and sold the stock, but if there were not TSMC, there would be another to replace it. Intel made a mistake by not outsourcing their production long ago, and that created a vacuum that had to be filled. They only decided it might be a good idea when it was so patently obvious it had to be done, it was almost too late.

And if they had executed on their tech, instead delayed time and time again, TSMC would still be in the rear view mirror. I can't blame those two for execution mistakes that came much later, because I don't think it's reasonable to have predicted them at that time.

But, yeah, the way it played out, they sure could have made a lot of money off their initial investment. I just don't it's fair to pin that on them, unless you're saying that to make a point that you can always blame someone for something, which is a good point.

In fairness, when Krzanich was screwing up, even at that time I was extremely critical of him. That's why I blame him so much, because even at the time it was reasonable to find his "leadership" lacking and hurting the company. In fact, I made a lot of money on AMD. I bought below $2 a share, because I knew Ryzen would have to be an improvement, relatively speaking, and would help AMD. Sadly, I wish I could say I got out at $160, but I got out at $12. Yeah, I feel stupid :p . I took the money and ran, because I just couldn't predict how badly Intel would screw up. Oh well.

"I can't blame those two for execution mistakes that came much later, because I don't think it's reasonable to have predicted them at that time."

It wasn't an execution mistake. It's a strategical failure or lacking vision. When the whole semiconductor industry and business model started changing, they failed to see it even when people kept telling them.

Obviously many people and businesses saw the change and made lots of money.
 
If people are still thinking today's Intel problem is merely an execution problem, I think they missed to see the whole picture.

The global semiconductor industry and business model have been changing for the past 30 years. It has changed a lot. Intel's leaders, one after one, just can't see it and can't admit that it's Intel itself desperately needs to change.

Until Pat Gelsinger seriously added foundry service into Intel about two years ago, there wasn't too much changes in Intel's vision, strategy, and business model.

But the world already moved forward and changed without waiting for Intel.
 
"I can't blame those two for execution mistakes that came much later, because I don't think it's reasonable to have predicted them at that time."

It wasn't an execution mistake. It's a strategical failure or lacking vision. When the whole semiconductor industry and business model started changing, they failed to see it even when people kept telling them.

Obviously many people and businesses saw the change and made lots of money.
When those two were CEOs, many companies had their own fabs, including AMD. IBM. And too many others I can't even remember.

Intel made a lot more money than TSMC, and even TSMC commented how Intel could get much higher margins. Given we're talking about the 20th century, and how companies made money by using their fabs to get the best chips out there, it's not clear how this made sense for Intel.

Keep in mind, when the 486 came out, it was $1000. Yeah, in 1989 dollars. That's where the money was.

I don't see how TSMC would factor into anything. As an investment? Maybe. But, Intel had much better fabs and tech than TSMC, why would they want to buy them? What possible good would it do at that time.

Now, if you want to say Intel should have considered outsourcing much sooner than they did, well, you could make a really strong argument. I think the 20th century was too soon though, because the competition in processors was very intense, and the cost was crazy high compared to today. But, even NVIDIA said a long, long time ago that Intel should open its fabs for others. So, I agree they should have done it sooner, I just don't think 1995 or so was that time. The money was in selling your designs, not making other people's. But when it became obvious that silicon was going to be in all sorts of devices, Intel should have pivoted to that. But I think being an anchor investor in TSMC made less sense than opening up their own fabs, given how much better their tech was.
 
You could blame the founders for two things: IDM, and paranoia.

WIth IDM the x86 dominated the fab, and the fab dominated the x86. Up to around 2012 that worked great - for the x86. But it corroded the fab in its leading perf focus at the cost of mediocre power efficiency. Even when there was no competition to speak of, Intel chips sucked Watts on laptops. And of course it left TSMC (and others, for a while) to make solid moves on the fastest growing segment, mobile.

Then disaster struck with the 10 nanometer process. The IDM lockstep - tick, tock, and copy-exact - meant that EVERYTHING froze. No new process was available anywhere, 14+++ did not really count. We got 5 generations of virtually identical CPUs on 14n.

But paranoia made it worse. Intel not only did not explain the severity of the problem externally, it appeared not even to communicate internally. A rational company would have dived into the cause, made a proper assessment of the consequences, and pivoted early. TSMC had survived a similar screw up in 2008 partly because they had a continuous improvement model rather than tick/exact AND because they acted decisively. Intel could have done things like redesign Icelake and Sapphire for 14+++ but instead they just delayed, delayed, delayed, and filled the void with Skylake tweaks. Customers were angry and lost trust, employees were demoralized. Paranoia is not a sane business model.

IDM had some other bad consequences, though not quite at the same level. x86 capture of the fabs meant that x86 captured Optane. A rational way to develop a new product would be to maximize its potential market by making it available everywhere, as well as working with potential customers early to understand its strengths and weaknesses. Instead x86 capture made it work only with a secret, proprietary extension to the Xeon bus, and paranoia meant customers did not get their hands on it until it was supposedly in high volume production, at which point its weaknesses (amplified by the weird bus) soured most potential customers.

Several generations of management shaped the culture, but of course the buck really stops with the leadership of the times when crisis happens. There sure should be a raft of business studies to be taught to future leaders from Intel. I'm glad they survive, and hope they will be better and more sane in the future.
 
Back
Top