📉 NVIDIA, Dual Validation of HBM Design and Power Constraints - 2026.08.31

Hi, it’s Peanut, checking the numbers from the ground up. The key issue for NVIDIA this time is that the competitive arena has expanded beyond GPU performance to include HBM design and securing power. With AI demand continuing to be discussed, can the supply chain and infrastructure conditions needed to support real value actually keep up?

The Battleground for HBM Is Shifting to Base Dies 📉

Recent reports identified the base die as a core element of HBM performance and said SK hynix and NVIDIA are competing for related leadership ^[1]. The important point here is not simply whether enough memory is available. If design elements that determine performance become more prominent even within the same HBM, NVIDIA’s AI semiconductor competitiveness will be evaluated not only on the GPU itself but also on how it integrates with memory.

That means one more item has been added to the fundamental validation checklist. Even if product performance is strong, a mismatch between the design and supply conditions of critical components could alter the pace of data-center expansion and the cost structure. Can we verify whether the base-die competition is translating into actual product performance and supply stability, or whether it remains rhetoric surrounding industry leadership?

Power Shortages Are a Bottleneck Beyond Revenue ⚠️

Hankyung Magazine & Books reported that NVIDIA chose a new direction to avoid power shortages ^[2]. The specific response was not confirmed in the materials provided, but it is clearly a key issue that expanding AI infrastructure does not end with chip supply alone.

Power is more difficult to assess because, unlike a GPU price tag that appears directly on the income statement, it works more indirectly. Even if a company wants to add servers, installation and operation may be constrained when power conditions are inadequate. That is why NVIDIA’s growth thesis must be examined alongside product demand to determine whether infrastructure can actually scale. In a bullish environment, demand figures stand out, but in a bearish scenario, power constraints and cost burdens could press on valuation at the same time. This is where caution over the possibility of a value trap is warranted.

Institutional Buying and External Analysis, Weigh Them Differently ⚖️

MarketBeat reported that Waddell & Associates LLC bought shares of NVIDIA Corporation ^[3]. However, since the purchase size and overall institutional flow were not provided, it is difficult to interpret this broadly as the direction of the entire market or a change in the company’s fundamentals. You can’t calculate a store’s total sales from a single receipt.

A Sampro TV segment analyzed key signals identified in NVIDIA’s earnings with Kim Jang-yeol, head of the Research Center at Unistory Asset Management, and curator Park Myeong-seok ^[4]. This too is an interpretation by external commentators, not a confirmed company outlook. The continuation of discussion after the earnings report is worth noting, but the materials alone cannot establish how those signals change the quality of revenue or the cost burden.

Peanut’s Value Check 💼

Peanut believes NVIDIA should be rechecked by placing earnings momentum and supply-chain and power constraints on the same line. For short- to medium-term swings, the bigger questions are whether the HBM base-die competition is confirmed through product performance and supply conditions, and how much the response to power shortages actually improves infrastructure scalability—not the buying of a single institution.

In the end, the remaining variables may look simple, but the answers are still complex. Will the competition for HBM leadership continue to support NVIDIA’s product competitiveness, and what mark will power constraints leave on the cost and speed of expansion? These two questions are the testing ground separating earnings numbers from valuation.