Blog

Threats relating to technology, disinformation, economic security and foreign interference are overshadowing traditional security concerns in Australians’ minds, according to data released by the Australian National University National Security College.

More than 12,000 people were asked across two surveys, in November last year and July this year, to rate the seriousness of 15 potential threats over the next decade.

Combining the categories of “major” and “moderate” the five most serious concerns were rated in July 2025 as:

• the use of artificial intelligence to attack Australian people and businesses (77%)

• a severe economic crisis (75%)

• disruption to critical supplies due to a crisis overseas (74%)

• the deliberate spread of false information to mislead the Australian public and harm their interests (73%), and

• a foreign country interfering in Australia’s politics, government, economy or society (72%).

Climate change rated sixth (67%), although a high proportion of people (38%) rated it as a “major” threat. This was second only to threats relating to AI (40%).

The possible threat of Australia being involved in military conflict came in seventh (64%).

Anxiety about security issues is increasing. In July half the respondents agreed with the statement “I am worried about Australia’s national security”. This was an 8% rise between November 2024 and July.

Over that time, threat perceptions increased across all 15 possible threats that were asked about.

The table below shows the threat perceptions of about 6000 Australians in July.

Threat Perceptions July 2025

The November 2024 research also asked, from a list of four, what Australians want to nation to prioritise in the next five years.

The leading priority was safe and peaceful communities, nominated by 35%. When second preferences are included, this rises to 64%.

This priority ranked top across a wide range of demographics, including age, gender, cultural background, education , income and location.

The survey found three other national priorities rated in this order:

.. increasing Australia’s economic prosperity (26%)

.. upholding Australia’s democratic rights and freedoms (23%)

.. strengthening Australia’s security (15%).

The research also included more than 300 interviews across Australia.

The consultations found national security was “consistently framed as being about the peaceful continuity of everyday life”.

National priority for the next 5 years (%)

NSC head Professor Rory Medcalf said: “On the one hand, Australians know what they want to protect, especially in terms of peace, safety, community, democracy and prosperity, On the other hand, they recognise that a complex set of rapidly emerging threats can put these cherished priorities at risk.”

The full research results will be released early next year.

The ANU National Security College is a joint initiative of the federal government and the university.

The College undertook the community consultations as an independent research initiative.

Chemotherapy-free approaches could offer comparable efficacy with less toxicity

ORLANDO, Fla., Dec. 7, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Targeted therapies and immunotherapies are increasingly offering viable alternatives to the chemotherapies that have stood for decades as a mainstay of treatment for individuals living with blood cancers, according to studies presented at the 67th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition.

“These studies point to the departure of traditional chemotherapy and shedding traditional approaches,” said Laura Michaelis, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who moderated the press briefing Emerging Therapies and Immunotherapies in Blood Cancers. “Researchers are focused on therapeutic approaches that can offer the same or better responses with less toxicity – meaning fewer early deaths, less organ damage, and better quality of life for patients.”

In the first study, a combination regimen of azacitidine and venetoclax led to better responses and improved event-free survival in patients who were fit enough to undergo conventional induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. The results suggest the combination can lead to better outcomes with substantially less hospitalization and a lower symptom burden for patients with intermediate-to-high-risk disease.

The second study reports that a chemotherapy-free combination of epcoritamab, a bispecific antibody, and rituximab and lenalidomide, an immunotherapeutic combination, brought a robust and lasting response, showing promise as a chemotherapy alternative for patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

The third and fourth studies reflect the expanding role of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which target particular enzymes to inhibit cancer cell growth. One study suggests a non-covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, pirtobrutinib, may offer equivalent or better outcomes compared with the older covalent BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib, for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma. The final study – focused on a combination therapy that included ponatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and blinatumomab, an immunotherapy – offers evidence that chemotherapy can be omitted from frontline treatment for Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia without sacrificing efficacy or safety.

Azacitidine–Venetoclax Combination Outperforms Standard Care in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Eligible for Intensive Chemotherapy
6: Results from paradigm – a phase 2 randomized multi-center study comparing azacitidine and venetoclax to conventional induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed fit adults with acute myeloid leukemia  

In a new trial, patients newly diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) fared significantly better with a combined regimen of azacitidine and venetoclax compared with conventional induction chemotherapy. The azacitidine–venetoclax combination (known as aza-ven) is the standard of care for older adults who are not fit enough for intensive chemotherapy. The trial is the first to test the superiority of this regimen to intensive induction chemotherapy, the current standard for fit patients.

“Our study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating that aza-ven improves event-free survival. It also leads to higher rates of overall response and composite complete response than intensive induction chemotherapy in younger, intensive-chemotherapy-eligible patients,” said lead study author Amir Fathi, MD, director of the Center for Leukemia at Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “A greater proportion of patients successfully proceeded to transplant following response with less early mortality, significantly improved quality of life during initial treatment, and less time in the hospital.”

AML is a cancer of the bone marrow that causes an overabundance of abnormal white blood cells and impedes the production of healthy blood cells. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation can cure AML, but this option is not available to everyone, and almost all patients must undergo initial treatments to reduce cancer in the bone marrow before proceeding to transplant. Intensive induction chemotherapy with cytarabine and anthracyclines has long stood as the standard frontline treatment, but this treatment requires patients to spend about a month in the hospital and carries a high risk of infection, bleeding, and other complications and side effects.

Azacitidine is a chemotherapy drug that has been used for years, in injectable forms, for older patients with AML. Venetoclax is an oral targeted therapy that inhibits the BCL-2 protein, which is involved in cancer cell survival. The two agents are generally well tolerated and can be administered and managed safely on an outpatient basis over time.

In the trial, 172 adult patients were randomly assigned to receive either aza-ven or standard intensive induction chemotherapy. The results were significantly better in the aza-ven arm for the trial’s primary endpoint, event-free survival (EFS), with events defined as relapse, disease progression, disease refractoriness prompting change in therapy, or death. With a median follow-up of just under 22 months, EFS was significantly longer in the aza-ven arm; the median EFS was more than 14 months among those receiving aza-ven compared with a median of just over six months for those receiving induction chemotherapy. The effect of aza-ven remained protective even after adjusting for other variables, and at one year, 53% of those in the aza-ven arm met criteria for EFS compared with 36% of those in the control arm. 

Patients whose cancer had certain characteristics, including core binding factor fusions, FLT3 mutations, or NPM1 mutations (unless age 60 or over), were excluded from the trial. As a result, the study reflects a patient population of predominantly intermediate-to-high-risk AML, although all patients were fit enough to undergo intensive induction chemotherapy.

“I believe the data support the use of this treatment in this population,” said Dr. Fathi. “It applies to adverse risk and intermediate risk patients who don’t have FLT3 mutations. That doesn’t mean that other patient populations may not benefit, but they require their own focused study.”

Participants receiving aza-ven experienced a higher overall response to treatment than those receiving induction chemotherapy, with 88% of those in the aza-ven arm seeing an overall response and 78% seeing a composite complete response, compared with 62% and 54% in the control arm, respectively. They were also more likely to progress to a transplant, which occurred in 61% of those receiving aza-ven and 40% of those receiving induction chemotherapy.

The rate of grade 3 or 4 therapy-related adverse events was similar between study arms. No patients who received aza-ven died within 60 days, while 5% of those in the control group died by this timepoint. Hospitalization was also longer among patients in the control group. Ten percent of patients in the induction arm required admission to the intensive care unit during their index hospitalization, compared with zero in the aza-ven arm. Patients in the aza-ven arm also reported a lower symptom burden and lower rates of depression at two weeks, according to quality of life assessments.

The researchers plan to conduct further analyses to compare costs, the rate of infectious complications, and other factors that may inform treatment decisions for this patient population. In addition, they will assess the use of measurable residual disease status to provide key prognostic and predictive information across arms of the study and inform the optimal amount of treatment needed for aza-ven prior to transplant. 

The study was investigator-initiated; Genentech and AbbVie Inc. (maker of venetoclax), provided the study drug and funding to support research staff.

Amir Fathi, MD, of Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School will present this study on Sunday, December 7, 2025, at 3:45 p.m. Eastern time during the Plenary Scientific Session in West Hall D2 of the Orange County Convention Center.

Adding Epcoritamab to Standard Second-Line Therapy Improves Follicular Lymphoma Outcomes
466: Primary Phase 3 results from the epcore FL-1 trial of epcoritamab with rituximab and lenalidomide (R2) versus R2 for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma  

In a new trial, patients with follicular lymphoma had a significantly higher response to treatment and a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of death or disease progression if they received epcoritamab in addition to the standard second-line regimen versus the standard regimen alone. The study is the first reported randomized controlled trial to test a bispecific antibody combination in follicular lymphoma and suggests the combination could offer an effective alternative to chemotherapy that can be safely administered on an outpatient basis.

Based on the study results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved epcoritamab with rituximab and lenalidomide for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in November 2025.

“The addition of epcoritamab to rituximab and lenalidomide very substantially increased the response rates, depth of response, and duration of benefit and therefore may represent a new standard of care in patients with follicular lymphoma,” said lead study author Lorenzo Falchi, MD, assistant attending physician in the lymphoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “We are at a point in time when chemo-free approaches based on immunotherapy can seriously challenge chemotherapy as the standard of care. We will not know for a long time if [this regimen] is curative, but it’s certainly the beginning of a bright era for chemo-free therapy for follicular lymphoma.”

Follicular lymphoma is a slow-growing non-Hodgkin lymphoma that can progress to a more aggressive form. Patients who see their cancer return after an initial round of treatment have limited options and often experience subsequent relapses.

The immunotherapeutic combination rituximab and lenalidomide (known as R2) has become a standard second-line treatment for follicular lymphoma, while epcoritamab, a bispecific antibody, was more recently approved for follicular lymphoma that is relapsed or refractory (R/R) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. R2 and epcoritamab operate through different mechanisms to enhance the ability of a patient’s immune system to recognize and eradicate cancer cells.

The study randomized 488 patients with R/R follicular lymphoma to receive epcoritamab plus R2 or R2 alone for up to 12 cycles. At a median follow-up of just under 15 months, the group receiving epcoritamab plus R2 showed a significantly higher overall response rate (95.1% versus 79.2% among the control group) and a significantly longer progression-free survival (85.5% versus 40.2% at 16 months), meeting both of the trial’s primary endpoints.

Epcoritamab plus R2 also outperformed R2 alone for the trial’s secondary endpoints, with 82.7% of patients in this arm seeing a complete response (CR) to treatment versus 49.8% among those who received R2 alone. Participants who received epcoritamab plus R2 also showed a significantly longer duration of response and CR. The results were consistent across all subgroups analyzed.

Additionally, researchers noted that very few patients who received epcoritamab required subsequent treatments during the study period, suggesting that the new regimen can help patients avoid or delay further treatments and their associated toxicities. At 16 months, 92.8% of patients in this group remained free from new anti-lymphoma treatments, compared with 64.9% among those who received R2 alone.

“A time-limited therapy that is not followed by another therapy for a long time is certainly a very good value for patients,” said Dr. Falchi.

Participants who received epcoritamab plus R2 experienced a higher rate of adverse events, with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 90.1% of patients receiving epcoritamab and 67.6% of patients in the control group. This increase was driven largely by a higher rate of low white blood cell counts and infections among those receiving epcoritamab. There was no evidence of neurological toxicity and no reports of grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS). According to researchers, this suggests that the combined regimen is safe to administer in a variety of medical settings.

“There has been some hesitancy to use bispecific antibodies in a community setting because of CRS,” said Dr. Falchi. “The prospect of a subcutaneous, completely outpatient treatment that does not result in a significant rate of CRS is good news for giving more patients the best opportunity for a response.”

The study also tested two different step-up dosing regimens for the epcoritamab–R2 combination, showing that three initial smaller doses resulted in a reduced rate of low-grade CRS compared with a course of just two initial smaller doses.

Given the study’s relatively short median follow-up time to date, the researchers will continue to track participants to assess longer-term outcomes. In addition, a separate study is underway to test the epcoritamab–R2 combination in a frontline setting. Dr. Falchi added that epcoritamab could also be investigated as a single-agent treatment for patients who are not candidates for R2.

The study was funded by Genmab and AbbVie Inc. The results were simultaneously published in the Lancet.

Lorenzo Falchi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, will present this study on Sunday, December 7, 2025, at 10:15 a.m. Eastern time in West Hall D2 of the Orange County Convention Center.

Non-Covalent BTKi Pirtobrutinib Shows Promise as Frontline Therapy for CLL/SLL
683: Pirtobrutinib vs ibrutinib in treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL: Results from the first randomized phase III study comparing a non-covalent and covalent BTK inhibitor   

Pirtobrutinib, a non-covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, met the primary endpoint for non-inferiority in terms of overall response rate in the first head-to-head comparison with ibrutinib, a covalent BTK inhibitor. Based on the study results, researchers suggest pirtobrutinib shows promise as initial BTK inhibitor therapy, including in the frontline setting, for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

Non-covalent BTK inhibitors were initially developed to overcome resistance to covalent BTK inhibitors. This study is the first phase III clinical trial to directly compare a non-covalent BTK inhibitor to a covalent BTK inhibitor in patients with CLL or SLL. It included patients who had not received any previous treatment, a first for any phase III study directly comparing BTK inhibitors, as well as patients who had their cancer come back (relapse) or not respond (refractory) after receiving treatments other than a covalent BTK inhibitor.

“Pirtobrutinib was clearly non-inferior to ibrutinib, and the response rate actually favors pirtobrutinib in the total cohort,” said lead study author Jennifer Woyach, MD, Bertha Bouroncle, MD, and Andrew Pereny, chair of medicine at The Ohio State University College of Medicine. “This shows that pirtobrutinib is a reasonable choice in both the treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory settings.”

CLL and SLL are slow-growing forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that develop when lymphocytes grow out of control and abnormal B cells build up in bone marrow (CLL) or lymph nodes (SLL). BTK inhibitors work by blocking the BTK enzyme, which plays a role in B-cell growth and proliferation.

The study enrolled 662 adult patients with CLL or SLL. Of these, 225 had not received any prior treatments, and 437 were R/R to prior treatments and had not received any BTK inhibitors. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either pirtobrutinib or ibrutinib and remain on their assigned therapy unless their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable side effects.

The study’s primary endpoint, non-inferiority of pirtobrutinib for overall response rate (ORR), was achieved in the full study population. Of 662 participants, the ORR was 87.0% among those receiving pirtobrutinib and 78.6% among those receiving ibrutinib. The results consistently favored pirtobrutinib across the majority of subgroups, including those who were treatment-naive, relapsed/refractory (R/R) to prior treatments, and those with various high-risk disease characteristics.

Survival without disease progression, the study’s secondary endpoint, will be formally assessed at a later time. Early results suggest that pirtobrutinib may offer some benefit over ibrutinib for this endpoint as well, showing 18-month progression-free survival (PFS) rates of 86.9% in the pirtobrutinib arm and 82.3% in the ibrutinib arm. Preliminary results suggest treatment-naive participants saw the most pronounced benefit for this endpoint.

“The PFS is still a little bit immature at this point, but trends toward favoring pirtobrutinib in all of the groups – in the total cohort, in the R/R group, and, importantly, in the treatment-naive cohort,” said Dr. Woyach. “That’s really important, because given the safety of pirtobrutinib, it suggests that this might be a good option in the future for some patients with frontline CLL/SLL.”

The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and treatment discontinuation due to AEs were overall similar between arms. However, those receiving pirtobrutinib experienced lower rates of AE-related dose reductions, treatment discontinuation due to progressive disease, and certain cardiovascular AEs including hypertension and development of atrial fibrillation or flutter.

These results may indicate pirtobrutinib is especially suitable for use in older or more frail patients. “While the efficacy and safety of pirtobrutinib have been very clearly established when given after a covalent BTK inhibitor, there are likely going to be subgroups of patients where pirtobrutinib is a more attractive option instead of the covalent BTK inhibitors,” said Dr. Woyach.

In addition to continuing to track outcomes from this study, Dr. Woyach said that future clinical trials could help refine the use of pirtobrutinib alone or in combination with other therapies as a frontline treatment. She added that researchers are also continuing to investigate possible mechanisms through which cancer may become resistant to non-covalent BTK inhibitors to further optimize treatment strategies.

This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company, maker of pirtobrutinib. The results were simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Jennifer Woyach, MD, of The Ohio State University College of Medicine, will present this study on Sunday, December 7, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. Eastern time in W224ABEF of the Orange County Convention Center.

New Findings Support a Chemo-Free Approach for Treating Ph+ ALL
439: First results of the Phase III GIMEMA ALL2820 trial comparing ponatinib plus blinatumomab to imatinib and chemotherapy for newly diagnosed adult ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients   

A chemotherapy-free combination treatment outperformed a combination of targeted therapy and chemotherapy among patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in a new study. The phase III trial, which included adult patients with no upper age limit, is the first formal comparison of the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in newly diagnosed patients with Ph+ ALL.

Researchers say the findings offer reassurance that chemotherapy can be omitted without detrimental effects and suggest that a chemo-free targeted agent and immunotherapy combination could become the new standard of care for this patient group.

“The chemo-free approach significantly reduced the rate of death in addition to increasing the rate of complete remission,” said lead study author Sabina Chiaretti, MD, associate professor at Sapienza University of Rome in Italy. “The significance was very impressive, a more than 20% difference in terms of molecular response achievement [a sensitive test for residual cancer cells following treatment], so this approach truly is better.”

ALL is a fast-growing type of leukemia affecting white blood cells, while Ph+ ALL is a genetic subtype characterized by the causal genetic abnormality in the Philadelphia chromosome. Patients with Ph+ ALL have historically faced a poor prognosis and increased resistance to chemotherapy, pointing to a need for improved treatments. In recent years, targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immunotherapies have brought promising results, with good efficacy and fewer side effects than chemotherapy. Researchers have sought to identify the optimal combination of therapies among TKIs, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy. 

For the trial, researchers enrolled 236 adult patients with Ph+ ALL, ranging in age from 19 to 84 years. Two-thirds of participants were randomly assigned to the experimental arm and received a TKI plus immunotherapy; one-third were assigned to the control arm and received a TKI plus chemotherapy. Patients in the experimental group received an initial course of steroids, a 70-day induction with the TKI ponatinib, and two to five cycles of the immunotherapy blinatumomab. Patients in the control group received the TKI imatinib along with either four or six cycles of chemotherapy for patients older or younger than age 65, respectively.

Patients in the chemo-free experimental arm had a significantly higher rate of event-free survival and a better response to treatment. At a median follow-up of 23 months, event-free survival was 87% in the experimental arm and 71% in the control arm, while the rate of death was 3.5% in the experimental arm and 10% in the control arm. The relapse rate was similar among arms (6% in the experimental group and 8% in the control group), although about half of the relapses in the experimental group occurred in patients who had discontinued their treatment.

Complete remission was achieved in 94% of those in the experimental arm and 79% of those in the control group. The chemo-free treatment regimen also resulted in a higher rate of negative measurable residual disease (MRD) status, an indicator that all or nearly all cancer cells have been eradicated. While only 49% of those in the control group achieved MRD-negative status, 71% of those in the experimental group achieved MRD-negative status after two cycles of blinatumomab, and 80% reached this status after five cycles. 

“The more cycles with blinatumomab, the more the molecular remission rate increased,” said Dr. Chiaretti. “This suggests that patients really should receive the planned five cycles. This is important because we have been working with blinatumomab for years, but we did not yet know how many cycles should be recommended.”

Participants randomized to the control group were offered the option to cross over to the experimental arm if their disease was MRD-positive. About 37% of patients in the control arm eventually received the experimental treatment regimen, and 62% of these patients subsequently achieved MRD-negative status.

Most of the deaths occurred in older patients, and infections were a primary cause of death among those that occurred in the experimental arm. The safety profiles were consistent with those expected for each therapy involved in the study, and researchers said that most adverse events were successfully addressed by reducing dosage.

While the study was conducted exclusively in Italy, Dr. Chiaretti noted that the results should be applicable in any country. She added that a chemo-free treatment approach can bring economic benefits by reducing the need for hospitalization and allowing patients to continue working while undergoing cancer treatment.

A separate study is now underway to determine whether patients with sustained MRD-negative status can discontinue TKI treatment without raising the risk of a relapse.

Sabina Chiaretti, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome, will present this study on Sunday, December 7, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time in W224A-F of the Orange County Convention Center.

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) (hematology.org) is the world’s largest professional society of hematologists dedicated to furthering the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disorders affecting the blood. Since 1958, the Society has led the development of hematology as a discipline by promoting research, patient care, education, training, and advocacy in hematology. Join the #Fight4Hematology by visiting hematology.org/fight4hematology.

The Blood journals (https://ashpublications.org/journals) are the premier source for basic, translational, and clinical hematologic research. The Blood journals publish more peer-reviewed hematology research than any other academic journals worldwide.

SOURCE American Society of Hematology

This article first appeared on GuruFocus.

AMD (NASDAQ:AMD) is very much the frontrunner in the next generation of computers, AI, data centers and edge technology. Its lineup, whether it is premium EPYC CPUs and Instinct AI chips or Ryzen game computers and intelligent Xilinx modules, is an all-around choice for new workloads. They are operating well, closing business with the largest hyperscalers, and continue to innovate, so it is no wonder people perceive them as a leader. The only disadvantage is that this optimism was already in large quantities in the stock, leaving hardly any room for error.

AMD Stock has rallied more than 114% in 2025, driven by the AI boom. To long-term players, AMD remains a quality growth opportunity with massive potential, albeit, though, you will have to hold tight and should be prepared for volatility

AMD is in the middle of a hard competitive environment. The former competitor Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) remains ahead in terms of revenues and size, but AMD has shortened the distance significantly. In PCs, Intel has approximately 75% of the CPU market, which is being fed upon by AMD in the high-end niche and is already edging away, as share changes demonstrate in recent years.

On the servers, Intel has fallen to approximately 50% (compared to 90% a few years ago), leaving the others to AMD and a slight margin of Arm-based Graviton. The future of Intel will depend on the new products (Xeon Sapphire Rapids/Granite Rapids, new 18A process, etc.) and a stable architecture roadmap.

Their margins are fading (single-digit in data centers), and the historic lag leaves AMD with an advantage, but a turnaround (Diamond Rapids, 18A process) could be an out-of-pocket expense for AMD. Other CPU vendors are also emerging: consider Arm-based (new cloud CPUs by Qualcomm, AWS Graviton) in servers, and M-series chips are competing with Intel in Macs and possibly in laptops. Everything that may decelerate AMD’s PC momentum.

Nvidia is far ahead in the case of GPUs or AI accelerators. They own a majority stake in discrete graphics and data-center AI cards. The majority calculate the add-in shipments of Nvidia at a greater than 90% (the remaining 10% comprises AMD and Intel). These improvements are in the Radeon and Instinct GPUs by AMD, which MI300 will compete with Nvidia, unlike the H100, but the software and market ecosystem (CUDA) is well established with Nvidia. AMD has an open ROCm stack under development, and the collision (such as OpenAI, Oracle, and others) is helping AMD get momentum; however, a significant obstacle is still Nvidia. Other players of AI chipsets (Graphcore, Habana, and others) are significantly smaller.

The AMD vs. Intel dynamic is especially important. AMD is fully fabless; it outsources manufacturing to TSMC/Samsung, whereas Intel still owns and invests heavily in its own fabs. This makes their capital structures very different. Industry analysts note that when AMD spun off its fabs in 2009, it became a formidable design-centric competitor with the money drain from manufacturing gone, allowing focus on chip. Intel, by contrast, has been pouring tens of billions into cutting-edge factories (e.g. Intel 18A, Foundry build-outs). This has led to cost overruns and delays.

AMD and Intel now run on different playbooks. AMD is fabless and capital-light, outsourcing manufacturing to TSMC and Samsung; Intel is rebuilding a foundry business with heavy capex. That divergence matters for returns: a capital-light model can deliver higher free cash flow if growth holds, but it is also exposed to foundry supply constraints

In short, AMD’s capital-light model yields higher returns on invested capital and free cash flow (helping fund R&D) than Intel’s asset-heavy approach. As one commentator put it, Intel saw the positive results with AMD, which soared after distancing itself from foundry headaches. In other words, AMD’s profitability benefits from avoiding massive fab expenses.

Long-term, AMD’s lower capex means its intrinsic value per dollar of revenue can be higher than Intel’s, but only if growth continues.

Talking about AMD’s financial performance is great so far. The latest Q3 results of AMD were off the scale. The company earned a record revenue of $9.246 billion, increasing by nearly 36% compared to the items in the Q3 of 2024. GAAP gross margin stood at 52%, indicating that the mix remains on target. GAAP operating income stood at $1.270 bn and GAAP net income at $1.243 billion, and produced EPS of $0.75 in the diluted version, a 61% increase in net and a 60% increase in EPS over the previous year.

On the non-GAAP, it was also comparable, with non-GAAP operating income of $2.238bn and non-GAAP net income of $1.965bn, and the EPS at $1.20, doing so, or nearly three times less than the previous year. CFO Jean Hu referred to it as record-free cash flow in order to match the revenue boom.

The headline numbers were maintained by segment results. Data center revenue totals $4.34 billion in Q3 ’25, 22% YoY, and was supported by high demand for 5th-gen EPYC computer processors and the AMD Instinct MI350 AI chips. Client & Gaming segments billed a record of $4 billion, up 73% in that blend. Client (PC) revenue recorded a record of $2.80 billion (up 46%), and Gaming (Radeon plus semi-custom) broke a record of $1.305 billion (up 181%). Embedded and Adaptive revenue fell to $857 million, or approximately 8% year-over-year, with ease in certain industry and networking mixes.

Management stayed upbeat. In Q4, AMD is aiming at a revenue of about $9.6 billion (approximately 30% of a year-over-year increase) and a gross margin of approximately 54.5%, despite the use of a knockout part of China shipments associated with export controls.

In retrospect, AMD’s growth trajectory of AMD has been stable and massive in the past five years. The yearly income changed between approximately $9.8 billion and $25.8 billion between 2020 and 2024, respectively, a compound growth rate of the mid-twenties to high-twenties percent. Ryzen and EPYC took off in 202122, then PC and crypto were down in 202324, and again in 2025. Projected final 12 months leading to Q3 25 will bring the trailing revenue to near $32 billion, with AI and data-center demand being the core drivers.

The increase in market share is broad-based. Desktop CPU share is 39% or so by mid-2025, which is a significant improvement over the low-teens a few years earlier. AMD has approximately 40% of the CPU revenue in servers, and has been making a reported plurality of shipments, which have hurt the long-established Intel. NVIDIA continues to be a leader in AI/data-centers chips in GPUs, but AMD is venturing further into the gaming sector with new Radeon models.

AMD has a ton of big things planned in 2025 and beyond: although competition remains stiff, the company has that so far.

Enormous generative-AI tailwind. The new Instinct GPUs (MI300/MI350) have been manufactured in bulk. In 2025, AMD recorded more than $1 billion in quarterly revenue from data-center GPUs, a first for the company, and as early as 2026, could launch an MI350X (CDNA4) with significant performance gains. The momentum supports AMD’s expansion to recent wins: AMD is collaborating to deliver six vis-a-vis sem’s of GPU power to OpenAI, and the first 1-GW rollout of MI450 units is coming by late 2026. Oracle (ORCL) is launching AMD Helios rack design with 50,000 Instinct GPUs, and Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, IBM, and others are deploying AMD GPUs in large quantities to AI/HPC tasks. These alliances and continuous ROCm software modifications leave AMD in an excellent position to take over a larger share of the AI infrastructure market.

Share Gains in CPU Servers

EPYC continues to beat Intel in terms of price to performance, and major clouds, such as Oracle (ORCL) OCI and Google Cloud, are launching new instances powered by AMD. Mercury Research and PassMark indicate that the amount of server CPU revenue AMD shares has surged to approximately 40% by mid-2025. Each new generation of the EPYC cores, Genoa, Bergamo, and the upcoming Genoa-X, scheduled to be released in 2025, has had an increase in cores and power efficiency. That allows AMD to enter into hyperscale data centers and HPC clusters. Along with the acquisition of Pensando Systems, a smart-NIC champion, and the addition of Xilinx networking IP, this can create additional data-center opportunities. The upcoming generation of chipsets, such as the Venice EPYC (Zen 5), will also drive the mid-cycle upgrades.

All in all, the AI push in enterprise and cloud represents the largest near-term catalyst for AMD. It is a roadmap, a GPU that aims at seizing that wave. The CEO continues to profile that by pursuing innovation in high-performance and adaptive computing, AMD finds itself in a position to grow in the long term.

Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ:AMD) is trading at premium levels that show just how much optimism investors have about its long-term position in AI and data centers. But when you dig into the numbers, it looks like a lot of that optimism might already be baked into the price.

As of late 2025, AMD trades near $250 per share, with trailing twelve-month earnings of about $2 per share. That translates into a trailing P/E ratio of about 125 times, which is an elevated valuation, by most standards, particularly against its past records and the rest of the chip industry.

In the future, analysts believe that AMD will report about $5.00-$5.50 per share in total profit for fiscal year 2026. Taking the halfway approach, which turns out to be approximately a 48 P/E forward. For comparison, Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) has a price-to-forward earnings ratio of approximately 34, whereas Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) has a significantly lower ratio due to its weaker performance. AMD is currently overvalued relative to Nvidia, by approximately 40 on future expectations; that is, investors are willing to pay an extra dollar for future expected profits.

The same can be said about other valuation metrics. The company’s EV/EBITDA is approximately 69x, higher than Nvidia’s (48x) and Intel’s (20x). It has a price-to-sales ratio of approximately 13x and a price-to-book ratio of approximately 6.9x, which are high in comparison with chipmakers. Concisely, investors are overpaying by far for the growth potential of AMD.

By putting in a forward P/E of 47.6 and a PEG ratio of approximately 1.2 , the market is in effect pricing in aggressive growth assumptions on the future growth of earnings of approximately 40% outside the next few years. That’s an ambitious target. Analysts now anticipate revenues per year increasing 28% to 35% through 2027, primarily as a result of demand in artificial intelligence and data centers chips. If AMD continues operating at a 5254% margin and becomes more efficient, its EPS growth could increase to 35-40%, which is still slightly lower than the implied growth in the stock price.

The stock is currently priced expensively, although not irrationally. It is priced in advance, and the firm will be required to perform to the letter to explain the prices at which the shares are trading.

In spite of this bullish case, there are a number of risks that mitigate the thesis of investment:

Supply and Geopolitical-Hiccups: AMD is fab-less, and thus relies on such foundries as TSMC or Samsung. In case those plants become full capacity or sluggish or become the target of an earthquake, supply may fail. Besides, there is a concern about U.S.-China trade tensions. One of the things that the New export rules prevented was the sale of a portion of Instinct GPUs to China- AMD went as far as to claim that its Q3 performance does not have any MI308 units sold to China. This is in addition to an earlier inventory write-down this year of an equivalent export law of an amount of $800M. Either of the trade bans may cut off a part of the AMD market or may require costly fixes.

Competition / Price Pushback: It is not that Intel and Nvidia are going to give AMD a free hand, as favored by the market. Intel may reduce the costs of EPYC or hand out favors. Each year, Nvidia is claimed to release a new chip and may beat AMD on the design or software side. Assuming excess supply of GPUs enters the market (some analysts estimate this to occur in the year 2024), there will be a low price of GPUs and CPU, and hence they will squeeze the AMD average selling price. Massive discounts on AMD and Intel server CPUs have already been observed, which is damaging the margins. And do not forget the big money-makers: such hyperscalers as Microsoft, AWS, and Google have immense purchasing power, thus they can demand their suppliers to provide them with better terms, as they rapidly gain momentum on AI.

To the point, the long-term narrative of AMD, which involves AI crunching, multi-cloud data centers, and edge stuff, is very impressive, yet all those risks should be tracked by investors. Such a high valuation of the stock provides the stock with a small leeway in terms of error.

Advanced Micro Devices has experienced all the large-scale technology trends in the recent past, including data-center AI and edge computing, and its most recent figures demonstrate that it is carrying them out so well. To long-term viewers, the attraction is obvious: AMD is no longer a niche producer of processors, it is one of the industry leaders in the production of server hardware and AI chips, and the revenue and profits are growing at double-digit percentages. Having an array of EPYC CPU, Instinct GPU, Ryzen/AI PC, and Versal adaptive chip, it can sail over a host of secular waves. And on top of that, AMD collaborated with the giants, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, OpenAI, and others and received major contracts such as OpenAI multi-gigawatt corporate implementation and Oracle AI supercluster, which confirms the fact that the industry has considered its advances.

Yet all that has driven the price of AMD significantly high and thus there can be very little buffer should the fortunes change. At this point, its valuation is quite giant by mere standards. The new long-term investors have to consider the volatile growth potential of AMD against the risk of economic cycles, supply chain nightmares, and stiff competition. Assuming the bullishness persists, then AMD might continue to realize that high-teens+ revenue growth and beat margins and the price would continue to increase. However, when the executions lose momentum or the economy loosens its grip, returns could disappoint if execution weakens.