/biz/ - Business & Finance

i don't think the discrepancy in valuation between AMD and NVDA is justified.
NVDA is valued three times higher with only half the shares. NVDA's number on EPS is three times higher you might say but remember, that's earnings per share, across HALF the shares. across the same number of shares NVDA's EPS is just 50% higher, despite being valued THREE TIMES higher than AMD.
balance sheets at first look a little more appropriate, with NVDA carrying triple debt and equity to AMD, as well as operating income. but their net income and revenue are so close.

anyway, three times valuation didn't sit right. either AMD is undervalued, NVDA is overvalued, or both. or i'm retarded. thoughts?