bit-tech.net

Intel reports best quarter revenue ever

Intel reports best quarter revenue ever

Intel claims the best quarter ever in its recent financial report.

Intel has announced its best financial quarter ever, with massive gains in all areas which following on from last year.

Total revenue was $10.8 billion USD with a gross margin at 67 percent, an operating income of $4.0 billion - up 177 per cent from $1.7 billion and finally a net income of $2.9 billion, up 175 per cent from $1.0 billion.

Intel claims the $10.8 billion figure is up 34 per cent year on year, although this time last year it was getting sued for £948 million by the European Commission.

"Strong demand from corporate customers for our most advanced microprocessors helped Intel achieve the best quarter in the company's 42-year history," said Paul Otellini, Intel president and CEO.

"Our process technology lead plus compelling architectural designs increasingly differentiate Intel-based products in the marketplace. The PC and server segments are healthy and the demand for leading-edge technology will continue to increase for the foreseeable future."

Full information is available on Intel's website.

Intel's CFO actually claims revenue was up 5 per cent sequentially, despite the seasonal norm of Q2 being 2 per cent down on Q1, and that globally the company performed better with average selling prices of CPUs increasing.

With global IT markets apparently getting better and with corporate upgrade cycles in effect (moving from XP to Windows 7?) we'll also have to see if AMD benefits in the wave of new business, or if the market is just shifting towards Intel.

Do you happily own Intel shares? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

35 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
crazyceo 15th July 2010, 11:34 Quote
I do hope it's an industry upturn and not exclusive to just Intel. God, they could all use some good news like this!
Stotherd-001 15th July 2010, 11:40 Quote
This is not neccesarily a Good Thing for the industry, we need AMD and Via to be gaining market share, rather than Intel posting greater profits. They control too much of the market, and tech is being limited by Intel's dominance.

This is probably just due to upgrading with new OS's, anyway.
SoulRider 15th July 2010, 12:14 Quote
I'm not sure AMD's desktop CPU parts will be considered by businesses because they are marginally cheaper but with companies running so much software and Intels current performance leadership, many businesses will skip AMD this time round. I know of 3 companies I support that are switching from a mixed AMD/Intel enviroment to a pure Intel environment on this round of OS upgrades, the other comapnies I support are Intel only already on Desktop. Server environment is a different story, I see more AMD servers than Intel, but thats just the trends I personally see through work.
John_T 15th July 2010, 13:30 Quote
Total revenue up 34%.
Operating income up 177%.
Net income up 175%.

Yeah. But are they happy...?
rickysio 15th July 2010, 13:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T
Total revenue up 34%.
Operating income up 177%.
Net income up 175%.

Yeah. But are they happy...?

Paul Otellini is probably giggling away.
crazyceo 15th July 2010, 14:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T
Total revenue up 34%.
Operating income up 177%.
Net income up 175%.

Yeah. But are they happy...?

Yeah let's hope they all have a small penis including the women.
Lord-Vale3 15th July 2010, 14:40 Quote
Good job Intel. Now use your awesome amount of cash to make some more monster CPU's!
B1GBUD 15th July 2010, 15:39 Quote
AMD should have sued them for moar!!
tad2008 15th July 2010, 16:13 Quote
Well, since they are raking it in hand over fist, with something like $4billion in profit, why not give the consumers greater value for their money! Or at least do something with the money to help make the world a better place.
crazyceo 15th July 2010, 16:51 Quote
I think that's how they've made so much money. They are offering greater value for money than the competition. As for making the world a better place, let's just stick to making CPU's since they are making the world a better place already.
Jamerio 15th July 2010, 17:39 Quote
I'm not surprised with their rip off tactics.

After hearing they are still going to chage a fortune for the upcoming i7-970 "because they can" I have just spent my 5k rendering budget on AMD 1090T hardware :)

So long Intel and good riddance to your corrupt chipset/ram requirements.
Oh and good luck with trying to oust out the GPU market with your ray tracing BS.

What goes around comes around, all this crappy karma you've been building will come back to haunt you soon enough.
sb1991 15th July 2010, 18:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord-Vale3
Good job Intel. Now use your awesome amount of cash to make some more monster CPU's!

Looks like this is what they're doing by bringing sandy bridge forward and increasing 32nm production...
devdevil85 15th July 2010, 19:44 Quote
$4,000,000,000? Hah! I expected more from a monopoly of such potential. Must be lessening the force they're putting on AMD's back to get the FCC off of theirs!

Damn good CPU's though. Still very alarming from a consumer standpoint. AMD needs to step up their game.
LeMaltor 15th July 2010, 19:45 Quote
Sat here with 2 awesome Intel CPU's, go Intel! :D
crazyceo 15th July 2010, 19:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamerio
I'm not surprised with their rip off tactics.

After hearing they are still going to chage a fortune for the upcoming i7-970 "because they can" I have just spent my 5k rendering budget on AMD 1090T hardware :)

So long Intel and good riddance to your corrupt chipset/ram requirements.
Oh and good luck with trying to oust out the GPU market with your ray tracing BS.

What goes around comes around, all this crappy karma you've been building will come back to haunt you soon enough.

You should have bought Intel so your rig gets a longer lifespan than yesterday! (Hasn't the 1090T already been labelled as completely useless against an Intel Quad Core?)
mastorofpuppetz 15th July 2010, 21:25 Quote
Maybe they could invest in PC gaming abit more, buy a few Pc exclusives with all that profit. yeah tight.
MrGumby 15th July 2010, 21:28 Quote
Amds problem isnt the amount of cores but the fact that the are a manufactoring process behind intel (which should mean lower costs per wafer) and amds aging uarch , which has alot lower IPC than intels.
I hope Amds Fusion cpus and Bulldozer are excellent for their sake.
TheMusician 15th July 2010, 22:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
LOL what a waste of a 5K budget! You should have bought Intel so your rig gets a longer lifespan than yesterday! (Hasn't the 1090T already been labelled as completely useless against an Intel Quad Core?)

Wow, what? The new Phenom II X6s perform as well as the i7 920/930s if not better, and start at around $100 less than their Intel counterparts. Quit trolling.
Sloth 15th July 2010, 23:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
LOL what a waste of a 5K budget! You should have bought Intel so your rig gets a longer lifespan than yesterday! (Hasn't the 1090T already been labelled as completely useless against an Intel Quad Core?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMusician
Wow, what? The new Phenom II X6s perform as well as the i7 920/930s if not better, and start at around $100 less than their Intel counterparts. Quit trolling.
He's probably talking about the Bit-Tech review which showed it being worse than the i7-930 overall. Worse in gaming, a bit less or even in workstation tasks. Cinebench, for example, saw it being better than a 930 at stock, but worse with each one overclocked. Most other tests just saw it worse.

However, there was no quad core even tested there. Other sites such as Tom's Hardware tested the i5-750 against it and found the 1090T being superior in productivity tasks, and indeed being better than the 920/930 in some cases. Tom's did agree that the 1090T is indeed worse than a quad core in gaming, actually worse than the X4 as well, but Jamerio said he was making a workstation so gaming performance is pointless to him. To state that the 1090T is worse than a quad core for workstations is indeed quite trollish.

Also, saying that going Intel for a longer lifespan is laughable at best. It is quite well known that 1366 and 1156 are done, there will be a new and completely non-compatable socket coming out next year completely preventing the option for later processor releases (aside from the final refreshes due this month). AMD however has a current history of AM2/AM3 compatablity and upgradability which could be continued to AM4 or whatever it is called. Please realize that this is in no way guaranteed, but it is a better chance than the certainly doomed Intel sockets.
Jamerio 16th July 2010, 01:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamerio
I'm not surprised with their rip off tactics.

After hearing they are still going to chage a fortune for the upcoming i7-970 "because they can" I have just spent my 5k rendering budget on AMD 1090T hardware :)

So long Intel and good riddance to your corrupt chipset/ram requirements.
Oh and good luck with trying to oust out the GPU market with your ray tracing BS.

What goes around comes around, all this crappy karma you've been building will come back to haunt you soon enough.

LOL what a waste of a 5K budget! You should have bought Intel so your rig gets a longer lifespan than yesterday! (Hasn't the 1090T already been labelled as completely useless against an Intel Quad Core?)

I think you're comparing the average users needs with mine.

I already told you the 1090T is almost identical to the i7 930 upto to around the 3.8 GHZ mark in 3D rendering/threaded apps (which is all I care about).
The i7 930 is only a bit faster than it when you start hitting high clock (4+GHZ) speeds, of which I don't want to go to because they are on so long.

Secondly, the money I save on RAM and MOTHERBAORDS has allowed me to buy more units with the 1090. I was waiting for Intel to lower the price of the i7 980 or to see what the i7 970 is price wise, but its not that much cheaper.

If I build one PC with an i7 980x its costing me nearly 3 times the money a single 1090 pc, a 1090 is getting me around 20k in cinbench R10 32 bit with a clock speed I would be comfy with, the 980x was getting around 24k as stock around 30k in comfy OC mode.

Now, when you factor is my 1090T pc's are coming in at around £500 (GPU is not important) a pop and a single 980x pc was coming in at £1500, it means.....

3x20k = 60k in CB for every 3 1090 pc's.

So I'm essentially getting TWICE the overall performance of the 980x for the same money. Yes it costs more to run, but I just bath less :)

I hope that clears it up my choice, as you will see, its actually a really smart choice if you think about the big picture.

If you have a few k to spend on a rendering setup, buying the 980x will ironically provide the lowest amount of overall power. As an individual work station its king, I don't deny, but for 1500 pounds, I'm getting TWICE the rendering power of a single 980x PC, which shows how badly Intel have priced the chip.

They are only doing it becaue a small % of the market has no need for anything above a i7 930 and the rest will have no other choice but to pay the money if they want something worthwhile.

Even an overclocked i7 930 is reaching near stock i7 980x speeds.
The CPU is HIDEOUSLY overpriced. They need to slash it down to the £400 price mark to coincide the performace gains it offers over the i7 930.

They don't Intel price at how tight they can squeeze the market.
rickysio 16th July 2010, 05:41 Quote
Intel's bleeding edge cpus cost.

Remember how much the Q6600 costed originally?
TheMusician 16th July 2010, 05:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
Intel's bleeding edge cpus cost.

Remember how much the Q6600 costed originally?

How much was the Q6600 when it was cheapest? (I would imagine the price has gone up since LGA1366/1156 became the standard)
crazyceo 16th July 2010, 09:17 Quote
I picked my Q6600 for £100 at that time through an Aria special. With all Intels more popular CPU's they can't be blamed as greedy since they always reduce the prices. Even in recent times that's evident with the i3 530, i5 750, i7 920/930.

So you even with the AMD fanbois trying to make some kind of point, you have nothing of any substance to bring to this topic. You can't convince anyone to buy an AMD rig based on bang per buck since you lose on every level now.
crazyceo 16th July 2010, 09:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMusician
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
LOL what a waste of a 5K budget! You should have bought Intel so your rig gets a longer lifespan than yesterday! (Hasn't the 1090T already been labelled as completely useless against an Intel Quad Core?)

Wow, what? The new Phenom II X6s perform as well as the i7 920/930s if not better, and start at around $100 less than their Intel counterparts. Quit trolling.

and how is yours and every other AMD post in this INTEL topic not trolling?
rickysio 16th July 2010, 10:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMusician
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
Intel's bleeding edge cpus cost.

Remember how much the Q6600 costed originally?

How much was the Q6600 when it was cheapest? (I would imagine the price has gone up since LGA1366/1156 became the standard)

In the region of $220? Not too sure about that.
Anfield 16th July 2010, 14:10 Quote
There is a simple reason behind Intels current financial success, its Companies that skipped vista upgrading to Windows 7 and buying new Pcs to be able to run it, many companies sitll only consider Intel Cpus no matter what Amd does.
Sloth 16th July 2010, 18:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
and how is yours and every other AMD post in this INTEL topic not trolling?
Quite simply, they have some sort of reason or facts or proof. Jamerio, for example, has given quite an interesting description of why he decided on a 1090T workstation and how it ends up being the most bang for the buck in a multiple workstation environment due to the prices of other components. He has brought quite a bit of substance to this topic and made quite the point and has convinced me that if I need a workstation the 1090T is a wise investment indeed.

Surprisingly enough, a thread about Intel does not mean people are only allowed to gather and blow Intel's "horn" all day. You are equally entitled to go to the thread about AMD's quarterly losses and post there. The trick to not trolling is thinking before you type and not spouting unfounded nonsense such as your little "Hasn't the 1090T already been labelled as completely useless against an Intel Quad Core?".
leexgx 17th July 2010, 05:26 Quote
only cpus I will use from amd is AMD Athlon II x2 only as the phenoms just kick out to much heat I had to replace an heat sink two times as the first one could not displace the heat when under load (forget using the stock heat sink as I know it could not handle it to begin with)

high end systems Intel is the way the x6 runs the same speed as an i7 when clocked at same speeds (if you can max all the cores out), if its single threaded i7 wins normally or most other tasks (as bit tech and other sites have shown)

I norm get amd based systems as the features that come with the motherboards and the 3ghz Athlon II x2 are more then enough for any normal user even for playing games with as well (and an Video card is sold with the system )
crazyceo 17th July 2010, 05:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
and how is yours and every other AMD post in this INTEL topic not trolling?
Quite simply, they have some sort of reason or facts or proof. Jamerio, for example, has given quite an interesting description of why he decided on a 1090T workstation and how it ends up being the most bang for the buck in a multiple workstation environment due to the prices of other components. He has brought quite a bit of substance to this topic and made quite the point and has convinced me that if I need a workstation the 1090T is a wise investment indeed.

Surprisingly enough, a thread about Intel does not mean people are only allowed to gather and blow Intel's "horn" all day. You are equally entitled to go to the thread about AMD's quarterly losses and post there. The trick to not trolling is thinking before you type and not spouting unfounded nonsense such as your little "Hasn't the 1090T already been labelled as completely useless against an Intel Quad Core?".

So sorry, I should have brought the apples with me:-

"As a result, the X6 1090T BE really struggles to keep up with the similarly priced Intel Core i7-930, which has was noticeably faster in six of our eight benchmarks thanks to its far more modern Nehalem architecture. The only exception to this was our Cinebench and WPrime tests, indicating that the X6 1090T BE may be worth considering for a low cost graphics workstation. However, even then, the i7-930 retook pole position when both CPUs were overclocked to their air-cooled maximum frequency.

Ultimately, despite being a good step forward for AMD, the i7-930 still remains our first choice CPU in the £200-£250 price range. Only if you have a compatible AMD motherboard and just want to upgrade the CPU should you look to buy the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition."

Since the chap above had apparently spent £5000 on the rig, it can't be classed as a "low cost graphics workstation" Therefore, his explanation was (how did I put it earlier) ah yes, completely useless.

Nice well thought out and polite reply though, shame it didn't have any of the substance. Maybe next time you can think a little harder.

Oh and go here for the rest of the review:-

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-black-edition/10
Elton 17th July 2010, 05:35 Quote
Well, application wise if you honestly need 6 cores, it's a damn sight cheaper than the 980X.
crwl 17th July 2010, 21:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Still very alarming from a consumer standpoint..

100% agree
crazyceo 19th July 2010, 00:11 Quote
or maybe just stick to the Bit-tech.net review for only review that really matters!
Sloth 19th July 2010, 20:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
So sorry, I should have brought the apples with me:-

"As a result, the X6 1090T BE really struggles to keep up with the similarly priced Intel Core i7-930, which has was noticeably faster in six of our eight benchmarks thanks to its far more modern Nehalem architecture. The only exception to this was our Cinebench and WPrime tests, indicating that the X6 1090T BE may be worth considering for a low cost graphics workstation. However, even then, the i7-930 retook pole position when both CPUs were overclocked to their air-cooled maximum frequency.

Ultimately, despite being a good step forward for AMD, the i7-930 still remains our first choice CPU in the £200-£250 price range. Only if you have a compatible AMD motherboard and just want to upgrade the CPU should you look to buy the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition."

Since the chap above had apparently spent £5000 on the rig, it can't be classed as a "low cost graphics workstation" Therefore, his explanation was (how did I put it earlier) ah yes, completely useless.

Nice well thought out and polite reply though, shame it didn't have any of the substance. Maybe next time you can think a little harder.

Oh and go here for the rest of the review:-

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-black-edition/10
I'm quite aware of the Bit-Tech review, you'll notice I linked it earlier. There are situations in which the 1090T surpassed the 930. Non-overclocked or mildly overclocked workstation tasks still saw the 1090T passing up the 930. You might also notice that the X6 reviews were some of the most controversial ones Bit-Tech has produced, the results were vastly different from those found by several other respected review sites. Now, I'm a big fan of Bit-Tech and read them first, but when so many other sites disagree I'm tempted to listen to them instead. Try checking the Tom's Hardware review or the Guru3D review or perhaps the Overclocker's Club review.

Also, please re-read Jamerio's post. He actually doesn't have one PC that costs 5k, I'm not sure that's even possible with an AMD system, but rather multiple PCs. A cluster of sorts I assume. In such a case, each workstation is indeed "low cost". Jamerio, just how many workstations did you manage to purchase, anyway?
Bindibadgi 1st August 2010, 04:49 Quote
While we appreciate your patronage CrazyCEO, please think about the tone of your replies more. This is not the first time I've had complaints and to remove flameworthy parts of your posts.

There's a difference between discussion, opinion and calling people stupid. The latter we don't tolerate.
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