INTC vs AMD daily-return comovement over the last ~3 years
The short answer is counterintuitive to the CPU-market-share narrative: Intel and AMD tend to move together on daily timeframes, not as a neat zero-sum trade. We examined close-to-close daily returns for INTC and AMD over the last ~3 years and find a persistent positive Pearson correlation of about 0.485 — same-sign days dominate the sample rather than one rising while the other falls.
Most of that comovement reflects market and semiconductor-sector exposure, not daily share-shift swaps: removing SPY and SOXX-driven beta collapses the residual correlation to roughly 0.033, effectively zero. Scroll down for the full methodology, rolling-correlation behavior, sign-coincidence stats, and the two-factor regressions that show how market/sector beta explains the bulk of the daily co-movement.
For INTC over the past ~3 years, do its daily returns actually move inverse to AMD's — as the zero-sum 'CPU market-share war' narrative implies — or do the two rivals rise and fall together as one semiconductor-sector trade? Thesis: their daily returns are solidly positively correlated, with sector and market beta swamping any share-shift story, so the 'one wins when the other loses' inverse trade almost never shows up.
How this was measured
Resampled INTC and AMD minute bars to daily closes, computed close-to-close returns, and aligned them over the last ~3 years (2023-06-01 to 2026-05-29). Computed Pearson and Spearman correlations, the 60-day rolling correlation, and sign-coincidence shares. To test whether market/sector beta explains comovement, regressed each ticker’s daily return on SPY (market) and SOXX (semiconductor sector) and measured the correlation of the residuals. Two-factor betas and R² summarize exposure and explanatory power.
The key numbers
Reading the numbers
INTC and AMD daily returns are positively correlated: Pearson ≈ 0.485 across 751 overlapping days, and opposite-sign days are only ~31% (not >50%). After controlling for market and sector, the residual correlation falls to ~0.033, i.e., nearly zero.
The charts
The scatter of daily returns slopes up-right rather than forming an inverse pattern, matching the Pearson ~0.485. Look at the cluster around the origin (INTC mean 0.0025, AMD mean 0.0026) — most days are small moves in the same direction, while the long tails (INTC min −0.2385 / max 0.2207; AMD min −0.1177 / max 0.2625) show occasional big idiosyncratic moves.
The 60-day rolling correlation normally sits well above zero (mean 0.4495, median ~0.479), and the series often reaches strong positive readings (max 0.8152; latest 0.7869). There are brief dips into slightly negative territory (min −0.0986), but those are uncommon — overall the relationship is usually positive, not inverse.
The histogram concentrates on positive rolling-correlation values (mean 0.4495; min −0.0986; max 0.8152), so most 60-day windows show positive co-movement. Negative correlations exist at the tail only; the bulk of the distribution sits well above zero, reinforcing that positive co-movement is the norm.
The sign-coincidence heatmap shows the largest cell is 'both up' at 35.29%, 'both down' at 32.89%, and the opposite-sign days together are about 31.03%. In plain terms, about 68% of days both stocks move the same way, which argues against a persistent one-wins/one-loses daily trade and points to shared market/sector drivers.
Two-factor regression (daily returns on SPY + SOXX)
| ticker | beta_SPY | beta_SOXX | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| INTC | -0.3316 | 1.1458 | 0.3723 |
| AMD | -0.1944 | 1.3061 | 0.5906 |
The takeaway
Short answer: no — INTC and AMD mostly move together on daily timeframes, not in a consistent inverse way. Over 751 overlapping trading days the Pearson correlation is 0.485 and same-sign days make up 68.2% of the sample (both-up 35.3%, both-down 32.9%); opposite-sign days are only 31.0%. Much of that co-movement is market/sector-driven: regressing on SPY leaves a residual correlation of 0.283, and adding SOXX collapses the residual correlation to 0.033 — effectively zero. The two-factor regression shows meaningful semiconductor exposure (SOXX beta ≈ 1.15 for INTC and 1.306 for AMD) and explains about 37% of INTC's daily variance versus 59% for AMD, so sector beta dominates idiosyncratic share-shift noise. With 751 days this is a solid, real signal (median 60-day rolling correlation ~0.479), though strength varies by regime (60-day min ≈ -0.099, max ≈ 0.815). Practical takeaway: the everyday “one wins when the other loses” zero-sum trade is uncommon — to trade genuine divergence you must strip market/sector beta or target specific company events.
The fine print
- Window limited to the last ~3 years and the intersection of trading days — correlations are regime-sensitive.
- SOXX includes INTC and AMD, so the two-factor control can over-correct shared moves.
- This uses close-to-close daily returns only — intraday lead-lag or event-specific dynamics aren’t captured.
- 60-day rolling correlations swing from -0.099 to 0.815, so short windows can show temporary negative comovement.