bit-tech.net

Intel boasts $11B record quarter

Intel boasts $11B record quarter

Intel's Otellini has declared war on the tablet market, promising to "win this segment" for Intel.

If Intel is worried about the growing threat from rivals including ARM and AMD, it certainly isn't showing it: the company has just posted its highest quarter of revenue yet, at a whopping $11.4 billion.

According to figures posted by the company this week, it has broken the $11 billion revenue barrier for the first time in its history, and has earned itself a neat $3.0 billion net income to boot.

Speaking about the bumper results, Intel head Paul Otellini claimed that "these results were driven by solid demand from corporate customers, sales of our leadership products and continued growth in emerging markets."

The biggest winners for Intel this quarter have been the PC and data centre client groups, which both grew three percent in the quarter and experienced record revenues. It's a good job they did, because Intel's Atom processor isn't doing well: feeling the pinch from ultra-low power ARM chips and the company's own significantly faster CULV processors, the Atom processor and chipset department saw revenue plummet four percent compared to the previous quarter.

During its regular earnings conference call, Otellini told investors not to worry: "I know that the big question on everyone’s mind is how Intel will respond to new computing categories where Intel currently has little presence: specifically, tablets." Name-checking Apple's incredibly successful iPad, which uses an ARM-based processor, Otellini went on to promise that "we’re going to utilise all of the assets at our disposal to win this segment: the world’s best silicon process technology, the best compute architecture and our global scale."

For consumers, Otellini promised that the dawn of the Intel-powered tablets and slates is nigh, claiming that "in the coming months and quarters you will see Intel [tablet] solutions that run on Windows, Android, and MeeGo operating systems across a variety of form factors and price points."

Finally, Otellini confirmed that its recent acquisition of a division of Infineon would see the latter company's 3G mobile broadband technologies integrated within the Atom chipset over the next three years, offering an all-in-one solution that could truly give Intel a much-needed edge in the portable market.

Do you believe that a fresh attack on the tablet market combined with Sandy Bridge could see Intel extending its lead in the processor industry, or does pride come before a fall? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

23 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
l3v1ck 13th October 2010, 14:29 Quote
The adaptability of ARM is where Intel will struggle, even if they do succeed in making a similar chip.
In the short term I expect AMD to come back with their new architecture, but given AMD's long life cycle, that come back will only last a year or two. Then Intel will replace Sandy Bridge with something better and AMD will be stuck with an old uncompetative architecture again.
sear 13th October 2010, 14:48 Quote
The issue, I think, isn't so much Intel processors, as it is the surrounding marketplace. Consumers have never really shown an interest in tablet PCs before the iPad, and now that the iPad is more or less domianting that market, Apple has a stranglehold that will be hard to release. Fixing that problem is a concern for the parties Intel works with, but not Intel themselves. Moreover, ultra-mobile products like phones have been using ARM and Qualcomm processors for so long that even at a competitive price point, Atom will likely struggle to gain a foothold, especially if it's incompatible with all existing software.
rollo 13th October 2010, 14:58 Quote
dout intel care for they have 3bil net profit which is just insane.

AMD will never be competitive vs intel who have a research budget thats bigger than AMD make a year.
roblikesbeer 13th October 2010, 17:00 Quote
Do you think they'd lend me a tenner?
thehippoz 13th October 2010, 17:38 Quote
yeah funnel some of that into my bank account.. I won't tell anyone!
cgthomas 13th October 2010, 17:52 Quote
Yeah fine .... But can that money buy a pc that will play Crysis?
Sanzy 13th October 2010, 18:37 Quote
Thats $5707 every minute for a entire year!
knuck 13th October 2010, 18:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgthomas
Yeah fine .... But can that money buy a pc that will play Crysis?

nope. This game has a framerate cap stuck at 15fps regardless of how fcking powerful your pc is
Sloth 13th October 2010, 19:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanzy
Thats $5707 every minute for a entire year!
It would be if you spread it out over a year, but unless I misunderstood, these numbers were made in a quarter of a year. Their "money per minute" in regards to this value and how long it took to make it would actually be about four times as much.

Of course, it's not like they actually see income smoothly coming in per minute anyway, most of this is probably from large multi-million contracts.
Snips 13th October 2010, 21:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
The adaptability of ARM is where Intel will struggle, even if they do succeed in making a similar chip.
In the short term I expect AMD to come back with their new architecture, but given AMD's long life cycle, that come back will only last a year or two. Then Intel will replace Sandy Bridge with something better and AMD will be stuck with an old uncompetative architecture again.

I've not seen anything to suggest that AMD has anything to compete on ANY level with Intel now or in the foreseeable future. Shame really as some really just want to buy AMD because they think they're saving something.
schmidtbag 13th October 2010, 22:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
The adaptability of ARM is where Intel will struggle, even if they do succeed in making a similar chip.
In the short term I expect AMD to come back with their new architecture, but given AMD's long life cycle, that come back will only last a year or two. Then Intel will replace Sandy Bridge with something better and AMD will be stuck with an old uncompetative architecture again.

I've not seen anything to suggest that AMD has anything to compete on ANY level with Intel now or in the foreseeable future. Shame really as some really just want to buy AMD because they think they're saving something.

...have you not checked this website recently? yes, amd is pretty far behind right now but there was a whole article on how amd's next architectures are significant and supposedly better than what intel has currently. and when people buy amd they're saving money.... that's not just "something". based on the way you've worded everything, i'm assuming you have an i7 (maybe even a xeon), in which case money probably wasn't the first thing on your mind when buying your computer. not everyone can just buy something with more power than nearly every game and application today can utilize.

yes even the lower end i7s can still heavily outperform the best phenom II, but other than bragging rights, excessive multitasking, rendering, and benchmarking, i wouldn't consider most of intel's products a good value.
tad2008 13th October 2010, 23:07 Quote
Just goes to show how much they are over charging people!!!
Lord-Vale3 13th October 2010, 23:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
...have you not checked this website recently? yes, amd is pretty far behind right now but there was a whole article on how amd's next architectures are significant and supposedly better than what intel has currently. and when people buy amd they're saving money.... that's not just "something". based on the way you've worded everything, i'm assuming you have an i7 (maybe even a xeon), in which case money probably wasn't the first thing on your mind when buying your computer. not everyone can just buy something with more power than nearly every game and application today can utilize.

yes even the lower end i7s can still heavily outperform the best phenom II, but other than bragging rights, excessive multitasking, rendering, and benchmarking, i wouldn't consider most of intel's products a good value.

You obviously have not met the Core-i5, or the i3. AMD's products at the i3 price point can't even beat it. BT's own article proved this.
schmidtbag 13th October 2010, 23:33 Quote
i can check on that but i've never heard of an i3 being significantly faster than an athlon II - i've heard of i3 being a better value, but not actually a better overall cpu. i know someone who owns 3 computers, all intel based, and even he thinks i3 is one of the dumbest products intel has ever made. personally, i don't like the i5 models with the bult-in gpu - i find that a waste of money, but the other i5s are acceptable.

keep in mind that intel motherboards are also usually more expensive, and intel makes upgrading a real pain in the ass. with amd you can go from a single core sempron to a 6 core phenom in the same socket, which can save people money by not having to buy a new board every time they want to upgrade. or, sometimes you can use the same cpu on a newer generation board.

remember, currently amd doesn't target high-end systems, they target budget and mid-range systems. if you want high end, go with intel. intel does a great job at their high end stuff (although i think theres plenty of room for improvement) and they do a great job at their low-end stuff. their mid-range products are pretty good but many of them aren't a good value. i'm not saying intel is bad, i can admit they're noticeably better.
LordPyrinc 14th October 2010, 04:09 Quote
Good for Intel.. bad for the market. The more players in the market, the better the competition, innovation, and theoretically, the pricing. I've always gone with Intel CPUs in my PC builds, but that doesn't mean I particularly approve of their dominance.
The_Beast 14th October 2010, 07:13 Quote
As much as I dislike AMD I hope they come out with something great to keep Intel on there toes and keep prices down
Xir 14th October 2010, 07:27 Quote
Atom is (over)due for an update, that's certainly true.

Interestingly, this ratio (intels research budget beeing about AMD's turnover) has been like this for...dekades. Yet every now and then AMD manages to get ahead.
rickysio 14th October 2010, 08:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
Atom is (over)due for an update, that's certainly true.

Interestingly, this ratio (intels research budget beeing about AMD's turnover) has been like this for...dekades. Yet every now and then AMD manages to get ahead.

Me thinks Intel's hoarding quite a few breakthroughs. No point releasing anything better since AMD is already finding it an uphill battle to catch up.
Lamba 14th October 2010, 08:29 Quote
Wow more for R+D :D ideally...
DbD 14th October 2010, 09:27 Quote
They'll have trouble really damaging ARM (unless they buy them) for 2 reasons:
1) ARM has a much more lightweight efficient cpu core. Intel's x86 is a huge disadvantage in this market.
2) ARM sells IP not finished chips. This is what manufacturers want so they can develop their own SOC, Intel only want to sell finished chips + motherboards. Can't see many manufacturers wanting to be constrained like that.
Snips 14th October 2010, 10:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
The adaptability of ARM is where Intel will struggle, even if they do succeed in making a similar chip.
In the short term I expect AMD to come back with their new architecture, but given AMD's long life cycle, that come back will only last a year or two. Then Intel will replace Sandy Bridge with something better and AMD will be stuck with an old uncompetative architecture again.

I've not seen anything to suggest that AMD has anything to compete on ANY level with Intel now or in the foreseeable future. Shame really as some really just want to buy AMD because they think they're saving something.

...have you not checked this website recently? yes, amd is pretty far behind right now but there was a whole article on how amd's next architectures are significant and supposedly better than what intel has currently. and when people buy amd they're saving money.... that's not just "something". based on the way you've worded everything, i'm assuming you have an i7 (maybe even a xeon), in which case money probably wasn't the first thing on your mind when buying your computer. not everyone can just buy something with more power than nearly every game and application today can utilize.

yes even the lower end i7s can still heavily outperform the best phenom II, but other than bragging rights, excessive multitasking, rendering, and benchmarking, i wouldn't consider most of intel's products a good value.


Honestly, just read again what you have written. You are hoping that all of the AMD alledged future releases will turn out to be exactly how they say they will be. I'm sorry but that has never happened. AMD have always over promised and under delivered, unless you go back 10 years but we aren't.

I recently built three systems based on the Bit-Tech and CustomPC recommendations. Now that's independently reviewed each component in the "Budget" "Mid" and "High End". The only AMD component they recommended at the time was the ATi HD5770 (Since replaced by the GTX 460) for the "Budget" and the ATi HD5870 for the "High End".

Apart from keeping the budget model around the £500 mark, Bit-Tech recommended the AMD X2 250 and MSI 770-C45. CustomPC on the other hand recommended the i3 530 and then the G6950 and the H55M board, giving full overclocking briefing in the process which ended up on here as well.

Go and look through both recommended lists and tell me where any other AMD product could be added instead of an Intel or Nvidia product.

Unless you are testing these products daily and consistantly, how can you choose AMD just for the hell of it knowing there is something better.

By all accounts on this site, Bit-Tech have only written what AMD have been saying and not from hands on benchtesting. Even their own comments are "We will believe it when we see it!" stance, which is a good one to have.

AMD should stop pretending to be the big dog and get back to developing their products to the once high standard we used to expect from them, without the smoke and mirrors.
Sloth 14th October 2010, 20:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Honestly, just read again what you have written. You are hoping that all of the AMD alledged future releases will turn out to be exactly how they say they will be. I'm sorry but that has never happened. AMD have always over promised and under delivered, unless you go back 10 years but we aren't.

I recently built three systems based on the Bit-Tech and CustomPC recommendations. Now that's independently reviewed each component in the "Budget" "Mid" and "High End". The only AMD component they recommended at the time was the ATi HD5770 (Since replaced by the GTX 460) for the "Budget" and the ATi HD5870 for the "High End".

Apart from keeping the budget model around the £500 mark, Bit-Tech recommended the AMD X2 250 and MSI 770-C45. CustomPC on the other hand recommended the i3 530 and then the G6950 and the H55M board, giving full overclocking briefing in the process which ended up on here as well.

Go and look through both recommended lists and tell me where any other AMD product could be added instead of an Intel or Nvidia product.

Unless you are testing these products daily and consistantly, how can you choose AMD just for the hell of it knowing there is something better.

By all accounts on this site, Bit-Tech have only written what AMD have been saying and not from hands on benchtesting. Even their own comments are "We will believe it when we see it!" stance, which is a good one to have.

AMD should stop pretending to be the big dog and get back to developing their products to the once high standard we used to expect from them, without the smoke and mirrors.
Snips is right, even on this site there are plenty of Intel products that are recommended for the sole reason that they are the best at fulfilling the desired role. When choosing a processor many different factors can come into play. To say that AMD provides the best value and is therefore the best option may result in purchasing an insufficient product. The needs of a computer enthusiast (the demographic this site heavily focuses on) can quite easily push past the power of AMD's quad or even hex core processors. My personal PC needs involve heavy gaming and occasional CAD work, if I were looking to buy a new PC then an i5 760 would likely be my best option, or perhaps even an i7 930. AMD doesn't have an offering which sufficiently covers my needs.

But on the other side of the coin, AMD can provide good value and shouldn't be ignored just because of their laughable high end range. The important factor is an open mind. Lock out either party and you'll likely suffer.
bobwya 14th October 2010, 22:14 Quote
The main disadvantage Intel has is actually it's size - making it a bit like Microsoft. Smaller companies (e.g. ARM) can be more nibble in the market place.
Look at the whole NetBurst farce and subsequent turn around - that wasn't exactly overnight! Larrabee- hmmm cough, cough... The ATOM architecture... Intel is far from bullet proof. It will be interesting to see whether AMDs new architecture can bring it up to the same level again... I'm not a big fan of AMD's current range of products - but I will use them in builds for other people to (1) save money (Intel can't match the price of the budget Athlon II CPUs) and (2) to encourage competition in the market place...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums