[danielmarkbruce]

I can use a pen and paper for inference too. I can even do training with pen and paper.

The claim for AMD has been there for years. They can't write software. Cuda and Nvidia chips are the only real game in town and have been for longer than most expected and there is really nothing that looks like it will take over. Custom ASICs were going to take over, until they didn't.

Anyone making these claims isn't close enough to the market. The real fundamentals are in the details, not in hand wavy nonsense.

[adam_arthur]

None of that matters, the numbers matter.

Investing has nothing to do with whether technology is legitimate, real or cool, and everything to do with the amount of money you can make from that technology. And the numbers show NVDA will be a poor to middling investment in the long run even if the strongest bull case to the fundamentals materializes. Even if you 2x, 3x, 4x the numbers you provided. If you have to use extremely optimistically bullish numbers to get to a 10% CAGR (matching the index), there's a big problem.

Please show me the math otherwise.

[danielmarkbruce]

Competition drives numbers. Nobody mentioned cool or anything like it. You are grasping at straws.

Those numbers are my estimates. I don't own the stock. I don't think it's a great buy. They do illustrate that the situation isn't detached from reality. People who own it aren't idiots, they are just a little more optimistic than I am. A little more optimism on margins (which may be warranted) and market size and it starts to look good. Just increase my 3 assumptions 20% each and it goes to $2.5 tril instead of $1.5 tril, ie ~10% return. Doesn't need 2x, 3x or anything of that nature.