No, no. You're confused. It's probably your incompetence with English that's to blame.
It was Bernstein's Stacy Rasgon who said this about AMD, not Intel:
"“Indeed, we now see the prospect for structurally lower margins, as well as cash burn [...] Frankly, the most common adjective that comes up when we discuss the company with clients is, simply, ‘un-investable.’ We are now believers.”"
About Intel Seeking Alpha says:
"Investors who like to buy low and collect meaningful dividends should consider picking up Intel shares now."
Martim Macedo advises:
"In the last 10 years it was always a good buying opportunity when the company traded below $20 per share (market cap below $100 billion). This time, there is no reason why this shouldn't be a good buying opportunity again for a 20% return (when the company returns to a market cap of around $125 billion) but my advice would be to buy slowly because it's always hard to catch the lows. In the meanwhile, while the company faces its challenges, you will be receiving a quarterly dividend, who is currently yielding more than 4%."
Wells' position on Intel:
"Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) is predicted by Wells Fargo to dominate the Windows 8 tablet market, and the firm predicts that the company will have the ability to sell components to Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) for its iPad. Wells keeps its Outperform rating on the stock."
Ken Fisher, a hedge fund manager who manages a $34 billion fund, ranks Intel as one of his favorite dividend stocks.
No one with any investment acumen has ever called Intel "uninvestable". In fact AMD is the only company that has ever been publicly dubbed "uninvestable" by a professional analyst. The only people bashing Intel are the butt-gaped AMD fantards who are all riled up over AMD's looming bankruptcy, and want someone to blame.