Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Announces Record Quarterly Earnings for Q2

By - Source: Intel | B 20 comments

Intel has reported yet another record financial quarter for Q2 2011.

Intel yesterday posted its financial earnings for the second quarter of 2011, revealing a non-GAAP net income of $3.2 billion, which represents a 10 percent increase over the same period last year. Revenue came in at a record $13.1 billion, up $2.3 billion or 22 percent from the same period in 2010. Operating income was posted at $4.2 billion, up 6 percent year-over-year, and EPS (earnings per share) was 59 cents, up 8 cents or 16 percent year-over-year. Gross margin was 62 percent, down 5.5 percentage points year-over-year. On a GAAP basis, the company reported second-quarter revenue of $13.0 billion, operating income of $3.9 billion, net income of $3.0 billion, and EPS of 54 cents.

"We achieved a significant new milestone in the second quarter, surpassing $13.0 billion in revenue for the first time," said Paul Otellini, Intel president and CEO. "Strong corporate demand for our most advanced technology, the surge of mobile devices and Internet traffic fueling data center growth, and the rapid rise of computing in emerging markets drove record results. Intel’s 23 percent revenue growth in the first half and our increasing confidence in the second half of 2011 position us to grow annual revenue in the mid-20 percent range."

According to Intel, PC Client Group revenue is up 11 percent year-over-year and Data Center Group revenue up 15 percent year-over-year while Atom microprocessor and chipset revenue is down 15 percent year-over-year. The company expects revenue of $14 billion, plus or minus $500 million, and gross margin percentage of 64 percent, plus or minus a couple of points, for the third quarter. Non-GAAP revenue is expected to be about $14.1 billion, plus or minus $500 million and excluding certain acquisition-related accounting impacts.

Display 20 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    whysobluepandabear , July 21, 2011 4:17 PM
    With Sandy Bridge, this hardly comes as a surprise. They're kicking AMDs ass. Have been for a while now. Can anything even match the i5-2500k for the same, or lower price?
  • 0 Hide
    pbrigido , July 21, 2011 4:21 PM
    That's great news. Now hopefully AMD will have equally good news when they report their quarterly earnings during after market hours today. A strong chip sector is always good for the consumer.
  • 3 Hide
    jacobdrj , July 21, 2011 4:53 PM
    Unless AMD decides to focus completely on some kind of new architecture or product, I don't see how they can compete with Intel unless they steal all of Intel's process engineers... If AMD doesn't learn how to shrink their process down SIGNIFICANTLY, I don't think they will be able to catch up with Intel...
  • 5 Hide
    sunflier , July 21, 2011 4:55 PM
    pbrigidoThat's great news. Now hopefully AMD will have equally good news...

    Yeah, hopefully, but it might take the release of Bulldozer to make that happen.
  • 2 Hide
    Yuka , July 21, 2011 5:50 PM
    jacobdrjUnless AMD decides to focus completely on some kind of new architecture or product, I don't see how they can compete with Intel unless they steal all of Intel's process engineers... If AMD doesn't learn how to shrink their process down SIGNIFICANTLY, I don't think they will be able to catch up with Intel...


    You can have the best engineers on earth working for you, but if you're R&D budget is 1/10th of the competition (was that the correct number?), is not gonna help that much... That doesn't work for an excuse anyway, but AMD actually gives competition to the market with penny change (on Intel's comparison, lol).

    Anyway, I also hope for AMD to make a comeback this gen, hopefully. We kinda need stronger competition.

    Cheers!
  • 4 Hide
    f-gomes , July 21, 2011 5:54 PM
    That's what happens when you have the best product line for over 5 years now. Come on, AMD, get your shit together, we need you!
  • -2 Hide
    noob2222 , July 21, 2011 6:13 PM
    jacobdrjUnless AMD decides to focus completely on some kind of new architecture or product, I don't see how they can compete with Intel unless they steal all of Intel's process engineers... If AMD doesn't learn how to shrink their process down SIGNIFICANTLY, I don't think they will be able to catch up with Intel...

    LEARNING has nothing to do with it. It costs 1.5B to build a new fab, Intel can build 2 per quarter if they wanted to, thats 8 new fabs a year. Learning has nothing to do with being able to throw money at it.

    If you want to think of something sad, AMD has 1/100th the revenue as Intel but can still compete. If AMD would be faster again, Intel would be the laughing stock of the business. This is why Intel just throws money at their problems.
  • 1 Hide
    BSMonitor , July 21, 2011 6:25 PM
    Quote:
    LEARNING has nothing to do with it. It costs 1.5B to build a new fab, Intel can build 2 per quarter if they wanted to, thats 8 new fabs a year. Learning has nothing to do with being able to throw money at it.

    If you want to think of something sad, AMD has 1/100th the revenue as Intel but can still compete. If AMD would be faster again, Intel would be the laughing stock of the business. This is why Intel just throws money at their problems.


    Throwing money at it produces a more efficient processor design?? Intel threw all their money into revamping their x86 strategy and came up with a higher performing chip without the benefit of a memory controller on the CPU die. AMD, took the easy performance jump with the memory controller integration, and it turns out it was premature. Now they are scrambling to build a CPU that can actually compete clock for clock with Intel.

    They simply busted their one nut, too soon.

    And dumb dumb, 1.5 is ~1/10 of the 13.5 in your scenario.. not 1/100th
  • 4 Hide
    ta152h , July 21, 2011 6:58 PM
    BSMonitorThrowing money at it produces a more efficient processor design?? Intel threw all their money into revamping their x86 strategy and came up with a higher performing chip without the benefit of a memory controller on the CPU die. AMD, took the easy performance jump with the memory controller integration, and it turns out it was premature. Now they are scrambling to build a CPU that can actually compete clock for clock with Intel. They simply busted their one nut, too soon.And dumb dumb, 1.5 is ~1/10 of the 13.5 in your scenario.. not 1/100th


    AMD's success had little to do with AMD, and a lot to do with Intel. The Pentium 4 design simply didn't work. That made AMD designs appear good, but in reality, they were never anything special. They were vastly inferior to the Pentium M in terms of power/performance, and when the Pentium M was the basis for the next mainstream processor, it was game over for AMD.

    The processor that helped AMD's financials the most was the Pentium 4, not any of their own.

    Bulldozer shouldn't have much market impact, since it's still going to be inferior to Intel processors in most situations. It should help a little, but it's not going to be game changer. Bobcat has much better potential for gaining market share. Much better. It's a mass market product, with very good characteristics compared to what else is available in that market. It will have a much bigger impact than BD in terms of sales for AMD.
  • 0 Hide
    jacobdrj , July 21, 2011 7:44 PM
    Well, my take on the whole Intel vs. AMD thing has always been one of brute force vs. finesse.

    The reason is as some posters have mentioned: When Intel was sticking their heads in the sand and pushing the NetBurst architecture beyond reasonable thermal limits, focusing on clock frequency and in turn voltage regulation and cooling methods, AMD took the finesse approach, ignoring clock frequency all together, and focusing on smarter innovations like finding a good way to integrate native 32 bit emmulation on a 64 bit architectured system, adding the memory controller onto the processor die, and now integrating discreet class graphics on the same die as the CPU. Intel had to run the corporate course of NetBurst, get kicked in the pants by their Israel Mobile Processor team to get them on the right track, and use some small amount of finesse, both copying and licensing ideas implemented by AMD (memory controller integration and native 32 bit emmulation, respectively) while using a little bit of finesse mixed with a huge R & D budget mixed with their knowledge of having high temperature, high frequency follies, to make a better product, all while AMD was resting on its laurels...

    Not to mention that AMD never even TRIED to advertise. I heard exactly 1 radio advertisement, once, right after AMD lost the performance crown to Core 2...

    AMD needed a better marketing department. Had they a half decent marketing campaign, maybe they could have capitalized on their being the speed king during the Athlon 64 x2 days...

    It is AMD's own fault for falling behind, and buying ATi at such an awful time...
  • 1 Hide
    JamesSneed , July 21, 2011 8:37 PM
    Lets not forget that when AMD had the higher performing Thunderbird CPU's from 1999-2003 that Intel forced all large buyers like Dell to not sell AMD CPU's or they would loose their Intel CPU discount. That of course prevented AMD from gaining market share which reduced the R&D budget which kept AMD from being a major threat to Intel. I suspect if Intel didn't play dirty AMD would be a much better competitor to Intel today. Intel only had to pay AMD 1 Billion US for that move which in my mind looks like a pretty good deal for Intel.
  • 1 Hide
    Kamab , July 21, 2011 8:59 PM
    Intel drives the fab technology and AMD has recently been heading in a new direction. They compete but are very different companies.

    Once AMD figures out some bottleneck issues with graphics engines on their APUs, they will do fine. They definitely have taken the right direction and can supply a great solution for average consumers. To be frank, most people don't need the processing power of an i5-2500k, which undoubtedly blows AMD's chips away.
  • 2 Hide
    alidan , July 21, 2011 10:22 PM
    KamabIntel drives the fab technology and AMD has recently been heading in a new direction. They compete but are very different companies.Once AMD figures out some bottleneck issues with graphics engines on their APUs, they will do fine. They definitely have taken the right direction and can supply a great solution for average consumers. To be frank, most people don't need the processing power of an i5-2500k, which undoubtedly blows AMD's chips away.


    i wouldnt say blows them away...

    we got to a point where even a slow cpu is fast enough for most end user applications.

    gamer quality even there, amd is good enough, with intel being able to push more fps, but when you look at the numbers its within 10%, nothing noticeable at 30fps and DEFIANTLY not noticeable at 150+fps

    and for the heavy cpu applications... most of them are done just as good with a gpu or gpu assistance.

    i mean yes, these programs can run faster off an intel, but really, by how much? if you are talking about 50% faster, when the application only takes 15 seconds to do, or a minute faster when its a 3 minute process that isn't repeated often if ever. the numbers really don't matter.

    MANY applications run faster with more cores, and not logical cores, but real cores. for my two cents, i would rather have more physical core than logical and i dont care if i sacrifice some single core performance for it.
  • 1 Hide
    dkant1n , July 21, 2011 10:41 PM
    let's see if they can keep this numbers with ARM getting bigger every day
  • 0 Hide
    psychotek71 , July 22, 2011 12:42 AM
    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110721-720547.html
  • -2 Hide
    whysobluepandabear , July 22, 2011 1:05 AM
    I also think that if AMD wants to continue to lay down and receive the bubba-treatment, the least they could do would be to bundle CPU+GPU combos at substantial discounts. If they could toss me a 6950 and a high end quad core (unlocked) for $275~ or less - I'd be interested.

    Currently, they're only a few Jackson's cheaper than their Intel counter-parts, and even then, nothing I know of can reasonably top a i5-2500k (in it's relative price class).


    Since Core Duo 2, Intel has been spanking AMD in literally every benchmark - from rendering and encoding, to gaming.



    Give me a steal of a deal, and you'll be able to call me a happy and loyal customer; otherwise, I'll just spend another $20-40 more and bask in the Intel superiority (both overclocking and clock-per-clock performance).
  • 1 Hide
    madjimms , July 22, 2011 6:05 AM
    Thanks Intel for screwing everyone over with your biased *Genuine Intel* compilers! Now shove those piles of money around some more while you laugh at all the "normal" people.
  • 0 Hide
    noob2222 , July 22, 2011 8:46 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    LEARNING has nothing to do with it. It costs 1.5B to build a new fab, Intel can build 2 per quarter if they wanted to, thats 8 new fabs a year. Learning has nothing to do with being able to throw money at it.

    If you want to think of something sad, AMD has 1/100th the revenue as Intel but can still compete. If AMD would be faster again, Intel would be the laughing stock of the business. This is why Intel just throws money at their problems.


    Throwing money at it produces a more efficient processor design?? Intel threw all their money into revamping their x86 strategy and came up with a higher performing chip without the benefit of a memory controller on the CPU die. AMD, took the easy performance jump with the memory controller integration, and it turns out it was premature. Now they are scrambling to build a CPU that can actually compete clock for clock with Intel.

    They simply busted their one nut, too soon.

    And dumb dumb, 1.5 is ~1/10 of the 13.5 in your scenario.. not 1/100th

    acting like a douche doesn't make your rantings correct. Intel didn't allow AMD any profits in the Athlon days by throwing money to the vendors. AMD had the memory controller first, did the testing, Intel just "borrowed" the finished product via the cross liscence agreement. Besides read what my comments were in refrence to. DIE SHRINKS. Intel just throws money at die shrinking because they have the money to do so. If they didn't, they wouldn't have introduced the tick-tock.

    and as far as calling me dumb, ya sorry i used the word revenue. It was a english error on my part because the money I make I consider revenue not "earnings". Obvously Intel most likely has no debt, where as AMD's revenue is partially going to paying off their debts (ATI, GloFlo, ect). AMD's earnings were 60M to Intel's 3B. We didn't have these figures yesterday so I was wrong, instead AMD's earnings are 1/50th of Intel. Considering Intel's earnings are twice AMD's raw revenue sales, my point still stands that it a miracle that AMD can compete. Why isn't Intel 50 times faster than AMD?
  • 1 Hide
    ProDigit10 , July 22, 2011 7:04 PM
    The Atom never was an interesting CPU! If they only kept it interesting by making optimizations worth wile!
    But the jump from Celeron M 800Mhz,to N260, to N270, to N280, to N450, to N475, to N550, to N575 was really not much!
    In fact, you could erase almost all models between N260 and N550! The N550 would give you a modest speed upgrade from the Celeron or first gen N260 Atom processor!
  • 0 Hide
    ghnader hsmithot , July 27, 2011 4:07 AM
    amd fanboys say how much intel is unfair and complain on how bad the price of sandy bridge is.