Intel Reports Record Revenue and Profit

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Holy cow, Intel's 3Q revenue hit a record high of $14.3 billion, up 29% over the same period last year.

Intel Corporation today reported third-quarter results, setting new records for microprocessor units shipped, EPS, earnings and revenue, which was up 28 percent year-over-year. "Intel delivered record-setting results again in Q3, surpassing $14 billion in revenue for the first time, driven largely by double-digit unit growth in notebook PCs," said Paul Otellini, Intel president and CEO. "We also saw continued strength in the data center fueled by the ongoing growth of mobile and cloud computing." On a Non-GAAP basis, revenue was $14.3 billion, operating income was $5.1 billion, net income was $3.7 billion and EPS was 69 cents. On a GAAP basis, the company reported third-quarter revenue of $14.2 billion, operating income of $4.8 billion, net income of $3.5 billion and EPS of 65 cents.
Click to expand...
 
Well done for them...no reason it isn't going to continue for the next few quarters as well.
 
I dont think anyone has ever said the pc was dying. PC gaming? Yes. Theres a new article on that subject everyday and twice on sunday but I've never heard anyone say the pc was dying.

In other news Intel continues is path to world domination.
 
DemonDiablo said:
I dont think anyone has ever said the pc was dying. PC gaming? Yes. Theres a new article on that subject everyday and twice on sunday but I've never heard anyone say the pc was dying.

In other news Intel continues is path to world domination.
Click to expand...

There was an article posted a while ago where someone/some company was saying PCs were dying and everything was moving to Tablets and other items like that.
 
Now that we all know world wide, that BD/FX is overpriced poo. their 4th quarter results should knock it out of the park! Bet they the extremely high sales of the i5 2500K.
 
It was one of the guys who helped with the design of the first PC's who said PC's are dying and replaced by tablets.

On the other hand, "driven largely by double-digit unit growth in notebook PCs," < is a little surprising. It did feel like laptops are on the way out as tablets are coming in, but tablets AREN'T powered by intel...lol.
 
etihtsarom said:
but tablets AREN'T powered by intel...lol.
Click to expand...

Not media tablets, not yet anyway, x86 tablets have been around longer than Android and iOS tablets however, but obviously in much smaller numbers then current media tablets. But there will be on onslaught of x86 Windows 8tablets coming out in 2012. 2012 will prove to be yet another record year for Intel because x86 tablets will explode because of Windows 8 devices.
 
Has intel made a CPU specifically for tablets? Or are they going use Atom derivatives?
 
One of the claims of the CPU using too much power is that apparently, the CPU's are carrying extra baggage to keep them backward compaible. The new Windows 8 tablets might be a good way to start over.
 
PensFault said:
Sounds like the personal computer is dying huh? /rolleyes
Click to expand...

As big as anybody thinks Intel is...

Google market cap for Intel (122.87 Billion), then Apple (391.45 B). Scary stuff...

It's a world domination of a different kind...


Also puts AMD in perspective at 3.34 B


...sigh... depressing...
 
Yakk said:
As big as anybody thinks Intel is...

Google market cap for Intel (122.87 Billion), then Apple (391.45 B). Scary stuff...

It's a world domination of a different kind...


Also puts AMD in perspective at 3.34 B


...sigh... depressing...
Click to expand...

Market cap is often more hype than reality. Think of a world without Intel CPUs vs Apple devices, many of which use Intel technology. Apple ain't three plus times more valuable from this perspective.
 
heatlesssun said:
Market cap is often more hype than reality. Think of a world without Intel CPUs vs Apple devices, many of which use Intel technology. Apple ain't three plus times more valuable from this perspective.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If I were looking at long term viability, I'd pick Intel in a heart beat over Apple. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks Apple is worth even half of the supposed 400 billion.
 
Originally Posted by heatlesssun
Market cap is often more hype than reality. Think of a world without Intel CPUs vs Apple devices, many of which use Intel technology. Apple ain't three plus times more valuable from this perspective.
Click to expand...

Market cap is a huge joke. Worth of a business is judged on so many other factors and thinking about it, I could list 20 major teach companies that sit before Apple in importance in the tech sector.
 
Hey!

Don't post anything bad about apple! Their reports (Intel and Apple) came out at the same time today it seems. Why no mention of apple? Because they are DROPPING?! Failed sales estimates, much?

hhahahaa, told you so?
 
Not sure why everyone is so happy to see AMD losing so badly right now, without competition we will be priced gouged to no end. Just look at how much the fastest processor or graphics card cost compared to the model that's only 10-15% slower. That's how everything will be if only 1 company controlling everything. AMD keeps Intels prices more reasonable by offering lower priced competitive processors. I don't want them to go anywhere.
 
heatlesssun said:
Market cap is often more hype than reality. Think of a world without Intel CPUs vs Apple devices, many of which use Intel technology. Apple ain't three plus times more valuable from this perspective.
Click to expand...

Genny said:
Agreed. If I were looking at long term viability, I'd pick Intel in a heart beat over Apple. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks Apple is worth even half of the supposed 400 billion.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately apple's perceived value is 3x more than Intel as far as economics are concerned... I don't agree with it either, but those are the numbers. With those kind of numbers, it is starting to rival Exxon, which means people are starting to see apple is as much needed as gas for your car is...



PsychoAMD said:
Not sure why everyone is so happy to see AMD losing so badly right now, without competition we will be priced gouged to no end. Just look at how much the fastest processor or graphics card cost compared to the model that's only 10-15% slower. That's how everything will be if only 1 company controlling everything. AMD keeps Intels prices more reasonable by offering lower priced competitive processors. I don't want them to go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Impressive a company like AMD, which is more than 30x smaller than Intel, can even be as competitive as it is! Actually more than 30x smaller when you seperate ATI. And yes, without AMD we would probably still be in the beginning of the dual core era. And paying A LOT more for it.
 
PsychoAMD said:
Not sure why everyone is so happy to see AMD losing so badly right now, without competition we will be priced gouged to no end. Just look at how much the fastest processor or graphics card cost compared to the model that's only 10-15% slower. That's how everything will be if only 1 company controlling everything. AMD keeps Intels prices more reasonable by offering lower priced competitive processors. I don't want them to go anywhere.
Click to expand...

AMD haven't provided much competition for a long long time. Intels CPUs are more competitive with themselves. Do you think the 920 or the 990x makes more money for intel overall? With competition from other tech sectors (e.g. arm) they would be silly to kill off their main income. SB mobile chips released without any real competition (try to find a med-low ) and that wasn't $1000 a chip. and above laptop with an AMD CPU in...) yet mobile computers are getting cheaper.
I was kind of a bit surprised that bulldozer doesn't have competitive pricing...makes me wonder who will want one, and who made that decision to price is so high... It used to be, intel had the performance, and AMD were the more economic option. But now...i'm not really sure who i'd recommend one to...which is kind of concerning.
 
Wow good for Intel. I would have suspected that profits would be outstanding given their competition in the PC space is asleep at the wheel. But revenue? In the face of low margin netbooks powered by atoms and the tablet craze that is impressive.
 
Yakk said:
it is starting to rival Exxon, which means people are starting to see apple is as much needed as gas for your car is...
Click to expand...

And that obviously make NO sense. Again a world without Exxon producing gas and a world without Apple devices. Whatever the perception of Apple's value, it's clearly not in line with it's true importance. Apple is like the superstar athlete that makes a 1000 times more than people researching cures for cancer.

What people will pay for something versus it's real economic value are often not in alignment.
 
That's what happens when you don't have effective competition. Profits soar at the expense of the customer.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037903990 said:
That's what happens when you don't have effective competition. Profits soar at the expense of the customer.
Click to expand...

Really? ~$280 is too much to drop for a 2600K?

The e6600 Core 2 Duo was about as much at it's release. If anything, Intel has been offering more competitive products at a lower price point. And because of that, the consumer wins as well.

Not to mention the company has been trying to expand into other market segments. Some of which are very successful (SSD's), and others which have not been (GPU's, certain software, TV's).
 
Yakk said:
Unfortunately apple's perceived value is 3x more than Intel as far as economics are concerned... I don't agree with it either, but those are the numbers. With those kind of numbers, it is starting to rival Exxon, which means people are starting to see apple is as much needed as gas for your car is...
Click to expand...

Nah...;) Market cap is a "number" all right, but unfortunately for those who think it means something substantial, >95% of the "value" market cap describes is the stock share price for stock that does not belong to Apple, or Exxon, or for any other company so described by "market cap." Those shares belong to individual stockholders and describe *their* aggregate wealth--not Apple's or Exxon's.

That's why "market cap" numbers are so often ridiculed. They serve a great purpose for brokers working on commission as high "market cap" allows them to aggressively push certain stocks, like, "Wowee-lookit the market cap of Company X, it's through the roof!" And amazingly some people do actually buy stock based on nothing but the largely irrelevant "market cap" number, whatever it happens to be at the moment.

Apple's "market cap" (share price) has diminished by >3-4% in just the last few hours because earnings and profits were "less than expected." Yet, fundamentally, nothing has changed at Apple since yesterday. No, the company has not suddenly lost 3%-4% of its worth--the only thing that has happened is that the Apple share price has dropped. It may drop even further, or it may reverse itself in a few hours. But regardless of what Apple's share price does, Apple's "worth" will have remained constant throughout the day.

Impressive a company like AMD, which is more than 30x smaller than Intel, can even be as competitive as it is! Actually more than 30x smaller when you seperate ATI. And yes, without AMD we would probably still be in the beginning of the dual core era. And paying A LOT more for it.
Click to expand...

Well you can't separate ATi from AMD since ATi is a part of AMD--it's not a separate company, and it's no spin-off, etc. A better metric when I think of AMD/Intel is market share or revenue or both. Practically any measure for the "size" of a given company is superior to "market cap." As I say, it's a "number," certainly--just a very misleading, uninformative number, imo...;)
 
AngryArtichoke said:
Really? ~$280 is too much to drop for a 2600K?
Click to expand...

It's not so much CPU price that's the issue, it's what you get for that money.

The 2600k has been out, at pretty much the same price since January. 9 Months ago! if I had knocked someone up when the 2600K came out, I would be a daddy by now!

We still haven't seen the next model up (though it should be out next week I gather).

When AMD and Intel were competing there was a new high end part almost every other month.

6261527036_2c98516c8f_o_d.gif


If there were real competition today, we'd be expecting the 3100K next week, instead of the 2700K after having seen the 2700K, 2800K, 2900K and 3000K since the 2600K launch, each of them at about the $280 price point. The 2600K would be a mid to low end part today and cost less than an i3...

Intel is saving a ton by not having to push out new models, with new documentation and new testing every couple of months, because they don't have to.

1999 through 2000 were truly magical years for a computer enthusiast because we had real competition in the market. Today, not so much.
 
xIronCrossx said:
There was an article posted a while ago where someone/some company was saying PCs were dying and everything was moving to Tablets and other items like that.
Click to expand...

Tablets are nice and all but they stand about as much of chance of killing off the pc/laptop as a smartphone does. Silly articles, anything to grab 15 mins of spotlight no matter how ridiculous the argument.
 
Yakk said:
Unfortunately apple's perceived value is 3x more than Intel as far as economics are concerned... I don't agree with it either, but those are the numbers. With those kind of numbers, it is starting to rival Exxon, which means people are starting to see apple is as much needed as gas for your car is...





Impressive a company like AMD, which is more than 30x smaller than Intel, can even be as competitive as it is! Actually more than 30x smaller when you seperate ATI. And yes, without AMD we would probably still be in the beginning of the dual core era. And paying A LOT more for it.
Click to expand...

You guys are looking for something like world impact or some other measure. The market cap is a reasonable assessment of the value of a company. You have all the shares times the value of the stock which is an indication of what people think about possible future growth. If you want the way you separate out hype from a company is to look at the value of a stock while accounting for differences in the market, public hype, and so one and stock numbers give us all we need. P/E ratio tells us who is over valued, and the yield tells us who is giving money back to the shareholders and therefore has a greater value to society. A layman's way to do this might be to normalize all companies market cap by P/E ration then multiply in the yield. If you did that too major tech companies you would find that Apple is still a very valuable company but interestingly Microsoft nearly just as valuable. However intel is about half those guys. The real loser is google whom is severely over hyped.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037904924 said:
It's not so much CPU price that's the issue, it's what you get for that money.

The 2600k has been out, at pretty much t
Intel is saving a ton by not having to push out new models, with new documentation and new testing every couple of months, because they don't have to.

1999 through 2000 were truly magical years for a computer enthusiast because we had real competition in the market. Today, not so much.
Click to expand...

Intel isn't slowing down because of a lack of competition. They still make strict roadmaps and expectations despite what AMD does. Dates only push out due to problems, and nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top