Intel Reports Best Quarter Ever in 42-year History

It's prices like theirs that cause inflation...

I'm going to pin this on AMD being scarce in the market.
I'd love more laptops with a 25watt x2 and 5670m.
Or even any highend low-TDP AMD chips for laptops...

Honestly, I believe AMD could dramatically step up their sales if they put out a decent laptop chip already. D:

AMD already has some excellent mobile offerings, and more coming shortly(X920 BE anyone?). It's the poor adoption by manufacturers that is hurting AMD at the moment. More people need to step up and see AMD's potential. But I guess a lot of us are waiting for bulldozer and fusion. =/

Plus the fact that Intel's marketing is still better than AMD. A lot of people know or hear of Centrino, Core or Pentium, but not much of Vision, Phenom or Turion.

Yep, you nailed it there. Pretty much anyone could hum the Intel jingle for you.

Actually, i would Say Phenom is a common name similar to core 2 or core 1x, its the rest that need flaunting... Wait till bulldozer, things will change, also, keep in mind, resellers and retailers are used to pushing Intel products because of previous Intel "incentives", that has now changed and all is fair game so it will still take a little more time for AMD to catch up, but, they will...

I actually really like both but I must say I've never seen an AMD commercial where as I've seen tons of ones about sad robots and talking processors.. Most people don't really even know what AMD is when I talk to them about building systems.. They heard from a buddy of a buddy of a buddy that intel is the only market in town and thats who they listen to..

The last AMD laptop burnt my penis, sorry intel for life!

No wonder core 2 quads still cost 330 bucks...come on..wth ?!?!

I feel ya. I still have a Q6600 with B3 stepping that I can't overclock, and it's starting to get long in the tooth. I want to upgrade, but they still want almost $300 for some of their higher-end 775 processors.

I think it's the continued success of the core I7 9xx series. I'm an AMD man but I can't deny that the 900's are pound for pound(if not dollar for dollar) the best chip on the market.

Either that or they're getting a lot of repeat sales from people getting the 3 different board/cpu combos mixed up and buying multiple parts

Actually if you read the earnings report, it's pent-up demand for servers and for workstations that drove a lot of Intel's sales. With the improving US & world economic outlook, a lot of businesses are finally upgrading once again. This will also benefit AMD, Microsoft, etc.

AMD reports tomorrow so we'll see how well they fared in competition. AMD does have Magny Cours to compete in server, after all.

"I feel ya. I still have a Q6600 with B3 stepping that I can't overclock, and it's starting to get long in the tooth. I want to upgrade, but they still want almost $300 for some of their higher-end 775 processors. "

I had a Q6600 with I think the "GO" Stepping and I got 3.2Ghz out of it, then I got the Q9450 and got that to 3.4Ghz, I think I paid like $350 right when it came out. It's worth it, they are really fast.

Gee... with their reported profits, I still feel like their CPUs are overpriced compared to AMD. They are thanking themselves for their success instead of thanking their fans by offering more competitive prices. When is AMD's 8core Bulldozer coming out?

AMD should shut down and stop trying to convince the market they're any kind of competition to Intel and nVidia.

I guess Larrabee wasn't that important after all.

Well, when you a small silicon based object that costs 20 to 30 dollars to build and sell it for 1000+ dollars, you probably are going to make a great profit.

i actually built a new pc for a buddy last night he was on teh fence on intel vs amd when he bought the parts, but up until a week ago he'd never even heard of amd... then again he was also gonna buy another dell when his dell died but i convinced him to build and safe the money

intel markets good btu its still mosrtly residuals from thier anticompetitive behavior.

that said depending on my funds i'll either get a amd of intel depending on who holds the crown in my price segment. in my friends case for a sub 500 rig amd won the battle, but i'm no fanboy i'll reseach and get the best at the time in my pricepoint

As with crApple, Intel is as successful as they are because of marketing. If AMD had the budget for marketing that Intel has, this financial report would have looked a lot different.

Advertising is overrated. We mostly become immune to most advertising techniques and most companies are still clinging to this idea to gain new customers when the best approach has always just been to make sure your current customers are taken care of and happy so they will do the advertising for you.

With that being said advertising is still a great way to announce a new product or to announce significant changes to an established product customers would like to know about.

But I think the real reason has to do with many of the shady practices Intel orchestrated to gain favor with the many PC manufacturers. How quick we forget that Intel had to pay off AMD with a rather large sum of money just recently. Hmmm What was that for? Unethical buiness practices maybe???

BTW Ive been running AMD processors on 2 of my main PC's lately where at one time everything was Intel. One laptop and one desktop and Im not missing a damn thing.

right ok. see, the problem now is intel and amd are practically working together. AMD has ALL the lower end CPUs, and not very good high end ones, intel has ALL the high end cpus and not very good lower level ones. They are barely competing, they are just happily co-existing. It is in the best interest of everybody that AMD launches a very high level cpu, as it will force intel to actually compete, namely in lower levels. Once amd gets a high level cpu, intel will get a low level set, and then bite back with some super performing overpriced cpu. Once Bulldozer comes out, if it outperforms sandy bridge while keeping good price, intel will be forced to make new architecture, while in the mean time selling low level cpus. Intel is only making this from better advertising, however advertising doesnt do much in the cpu market, but also due to an undisputed mobile lead, and a decent server lead. If AMD shuts down, hate to be over dramatic, but then you have a monopoly on your hands, and intel can charge as they want, when they want, for whatever they want.

Salespeople at big-box stores don't help either. Once I overheard a sales rep telling a family that "AMD is cheaper but they'll run much hotter, meaning your computer will fry at some point". Needless to say the family was coerced into paying $100+ more for an Intel offering which apparently "ran cooler and faster".

I almost wanted to slap that guy.

I buy Intel because they are the best atm. I have been running a i7-920 for over a year now and it's nowhere near being a bottleneck in any way shape or form. AMD makes nice stuff at a great price but you can't deny the raw horsepower of the i7 when doing more than just gaming (HD Video, Audio etc..).

Thats because Intel doesn't produce LGA775 CPUs anymore and the only ones left are the ones in back stock. So the retailers keep the prices higher to profit.




COst a little more than that. Don't forget the million to billions in R&D, the cost of making the wafers and then paying the people to monitor the process. At first its much more that 20-30 bucks per CPU. But as time goes by and more are made, the process becomes better and more good than bad CPUs make it, they make more money since it becomes less.

AMD can't compete on performance these days.. They use to with some innovative design in architecture. However Intel has been eating their lunch with the best Lithography process, innovative architectural design, best Performance/Watt and a very strong roadmap. The reason AMDs are so much lower in price is because thats all they have to be competitive.

I think lots of the profit for intel lies in selling the Atom processors, and their reduction in CPU power consumption.
The performance AMD processors have is by no means bad at all, but they just are not as good in conserving energy... It's sad to say, for years as a student I was an AMD and ATI fan.
Now I can say that I'm an Intel and AMD/ATI fan.
AMD is still good in graphics cards, and if you ask me, better than NVidia. Because there AMD IS good in reducing powerconsumption, while increasing performance!

If you want the best, you've got to pay for the best.

I don't go for the best. I go for the best bang for the buck. Are you telling me you bought the $1,000 Intel processor?

good to see tom's has a lot of people on here, who have a pair of buttocks...easiest way to tell is because they are talking out of them. i don't feel sorry for amd, if they are not as successful. they have the budget to advertise, as they are a multi-billion dollar entity. and they have the capability to make as sophisticated processors, as intel. they chose to do neither, as they have the market in the $200 dollar and below range....fan bois get under my skin

You must have a bum steer? I have one of the original Q6600 that has been running 3.8Ghz from the get go, 4.2Ghz with Turbo. I never bothered to get the newer model after that.

We build and test servers all the time, huge multi-processor servers.

Intel selling more servers than AMD is pure marketing and all about ignorant fanboys. Amd has been making better server chips for years, their processors having more threads, bandwidth, and other properties that Intel doesn't even publish - Intel has only recently begun to catch up in the server market.