backtop


Print 12 comment(s) - last by StevoLincolnit.. on Jul 19 at 2:33 AM


  (Source: telegraph.co.uk)
net income increased 3 percent to $2.8 billion (54 cents a share) and revenue rose 5 percent to $13.5 billion from $13.03 billion this time last year

Leading chip maker Intel reported increased revenue and net income in its second-quarter earnings today, but predicts slowed growth in the forthcoming third quarter. 
 
According to Intel's earnings report, the company's net income increased 3 percent to $2.8 billion (54 cents a share) and revenue rose 5 percent to $13.5 billion from $13.03 billion this time last year. This was great news for Wall Street, which previously estimated a net income of 52 cents a share and revenue around the $13.54 to $13.56 billion mark. 
 
The gross margins, on the other hand, fell slightly from 64 percent to 63.4 percent. The hit likely comes from increased revenues. 
 
Looking ahead, Intel predicts a revenue of $14.3 billion (plus or minus $500 million) for Q3 2012. Analysts expected somewhere in the realm of $14.60 billion.
 
"The second quarter was highlighted by solid execution with continued strength in the data center and multiple product introductions in Ultrabooks and smartphones," said Paul Otellini, Intel president and CEO. "As we enter the third quarter, our growth will be slower than we anticipated due to a more challenging macroeconomic environment. With a rich mix of Ultrabook and Intel-based tablet and phone introductions in the second half, combined with the long-term investments we're making in our product and manufacturing areas, we are well positioned for this year and beyond."
 
The slow growth expected in Q3 2012 mainly comes from Intel's deep roots in PCs, but its large absence from mobile computing. Intel supplies 80 percent of the world's processors for PCs and depends on markets like computer servers and personal computers, which are seeing decreased demand with the recent explosion of mobile devices like smartphones and tablets.
 
The release of Ultrabooks, while still not as popular as tablets/smartphones, were supposed to add some pizzazz to the PC market for makers like ASUS and Dell. However, some worry that the high-end features of Ultrabooks make them too expensive for most consumers (and will continue getting more and more costly with options like touchscreen features). 
 
Intel cut its 2012 revenue growth prediction from high single-digits to 3-5 percent. 
 

Source: Intel



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

ultrabooks too expensive
By Bubbacub on 7/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: ultrabooks too expensive
By ilt24 on 7/18/2012 9:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
on a laptop to spending £850-£1500 (this is the current range of prices for most ultrabooks in the uk


The low side of your range seemed off compared to what you can get in the U.S., I looked at amazon.co.uk and found ultrabooks from Acer, Toshiba and Lenovo for between £525 and £700.


RE: ultrabooks too expensive
By sans2212 on 7/18/2012 9:30:35 AM , Rating: 1
There is nothing wrong in Intel Ultrabooks' suggested pricing as long as it can pressure AMD's pricing in the notebook so AMD can go out of business faster. I wish AMD's crappy product can not be found by the buyer in 2013.


RE: ultrabooks too expensive
By Adonlude on 7/18/2012 11:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Monopoly laws will keep AMD afloat unless ARM starts going mainstream in PC's. Intel wants AMD to exist for now. AMD was originally just Intel's second source for its chips until Monopoly law and AMD's own aspirations led AMD to sue away some of Intel's exclusive rights to its own products. Intel made AMD but eventually AMD bit the hand that fed them and began competing against Intel.


RE: ultrabooks too expensive
By knutjb on 7/18/2012 1:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel made AMD but eventually AMD bit the hand that fed them and began competing against Intel.
Intel needed additional producers for cpus, so it was Intel who needed the help. During the oh so wonderful P4 period Intel broke the law by pressing computer manufacturers to not use AMD through financial incentives and then paid out what, $5-6B in fines.

By starving AMD of revenues, hence R&D funds, they illegally marginalized them. When no one goes to jail fines are cheap way to knock your competitor out of the way. Intel did this because at the time AMD made the superior product, particularly the Opteron.


RE: ultrabooks too expensive
By someguy123 on 7/19/2012 12:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't think that has anything to do with it, though I'm sure it hurt them in income. Stars is still a relatively good performer but they decided to drop it in favor of bulldozer, which is just a bad performer all around except in integer math, and is diving back in history to netburst style long pipelines. Considering the transistor cost and TDP it seemed like they could've pumped out an 8 core phenom that would've outperformed bulldozer substantially.

I'm assuming they put in decent R&D and pushed out a dud, but they weren't willing to admit that they wasted their time and screwed up their roadmap so they stamped it out regardless. It actually reminds me a lot of the p4 days considering intel eventually went back to p3/M designs after dropping netburst.


just another good quarter.
By sans2212 on 7/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: just another good quarter.
By Rukkian on 7/18/2012 9:26:53 AM , Rating: 2
The only people that would benefit are Intel and its shareholders. That would not be good for consumers.


RE: just another good quarter.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2012 9:56:55 AM , Rating: 1
Nothing would change for the consumer. The idea that AMD is providing "competition" and stopping Intel from jacking up their prices is kind of absurd. AMD hasn't competed with Intel, on any front, since the Core2Duo's came out. Their marketshare is something like 10%, and falling fast.

Now this doesn't mean I want to see AMD go under. It would be really cool if they got their shit together and released a competing product. But at this point I wouldn't be holding our collective breaths for that to happen.


RE: just another good quarter.
By sans2212 on 7/18/2012 10:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, AMD's engineers are the dumbest engineers in the world who have designed microprocessor. Even, Chuck Moore was dead because its IQ is decreasing faster when he worked at AMD.


RE: just another good quarter.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2012 10:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
Okay I don't know what your problem is with AMD, but I'm not saying AMD has the "dumbest engineers in the world". Although certainly someone royally screwed up with the Bulldozer, which was supposed to herald a new age of competition with Intel.


By StevoLincolnite on 7/19/2012 2:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD hasn't competed with Intel, on any front, since the Core2Duo's came out. Their marketshare is something like 10%, and falling fast.


That would be true if you didn't count AMD's Llano/Trinity and Brazo's which have actually gained allot of ground and sold allot of units.
They don't win any speed records, but they are cheap and do have a semi-decent GPU in them. (And with everything relying on the GPU more as the years go by, this will become even more important.)


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki