How much revenue did Intel make in 2011?...a LOT

[BallaTheFeared]

AMD's newest chipsets, I believe, have USB3.0 built-in, Intel's still don't.

AMD's higher-end consumer chipsets, give you TWO PCI-E 2.0 x16 slots, Intel's only gives you x16 total off of the CPU.

AMD has CPU core unlocking, Intel doesn't.

AMD gives you 8-core CPUs (in the consumer space), Intel doesn't.

In short, I'm still rooting for AMD, they give you more for less $$$.

Gaming isn't the only thing that people do with their computers.

1. No it doesn't.

2. And? Hint: There is no noticeable performance loss from x8x8 vs x16x16.

3. That's not a feature, AMD just can't afford to laser cut their cpus.

4. Intel only needs four cores without HT to be competitive with AMD's eight core cpus, most programs that are commonly used by people don't use eight cores.


What exactly are you using your PC for since you're so concerned about PCI lanes, are considering unlocking defective cores, and have no concern for power consumption?

 

[Phynaz]

AMD gives you 8-core CPUs (in the consumer space), Intel doesn't.

I thought we all agreed "more" doesn't mean better?

I surprised, you've been around here long enough to know better.

 

[Maximilian]

Wrong intel would not because people wont buy it.intel makes the chips and wants to sell as many as they can.

A 2600k easily beats amds offerings yet intel is charging the same as it did before it knew how well bd performed.

If intel wanted to price gauge they would do it now with the 2500k

And im pretty sure ivys will be cheaper than the sandys

Heh Intel fanboy detected.

 

[VirtualLarry]

K cpus are unlocked so I dont know why you say intel dosnt have unlocked cores.

Intel's K cpus have unlocked multipliers. Not unlocked cores. Please read more carefully.

 

[VirtualLarry]

1. No it doesn't.

2. And? Hint: There is no noticeable performance loss from x8x8 vs x16x16.

3. That's not a feature, AMD just can't afford to laser cut their cpus.

4. Intel only needs four cores without HT to be competitive with AMD's eight core cpus, most programs that are commonly used by people don't use eight cores.


What exactly are you using your PC for since you're so concerned about PCI lanes, are considering unlocking defective cores, and have no concern for power consumption?

2. But there is a difference, when AMD boards split the 32 PCI-E 2.0 lanes four ways, allowing you to use four graphics cards. Whereas, Intel limits you to two graphics cards, unless you add a proprietary PCI-E lane-splitter, which robs performance.

3. I consider your comment speculation, unless you can actually back that up with a reference.

 

[frozentundra123456]

No. Zacate is unequivocally better than Atom, and Llano is superior to Intel's low-end mobile line. Trinity will make that gap wider, and likely make Fusion the obvious choice on the desktop low- to mid-level as well. Unfortunately for AMD, they simply can't compete with Intel's process technology, and the economy sector of the market is not where the big bucks are made.

I agree on Zacate and Llano in the mobile lineup at the current time. However, lets wait and see if Trinity delivers as promised, and Intel will be coming out with improved graphics as well as already superior CPU performance. So unless your focus is primarily graphics, Intel could possibly be in a better position with Ivy Bridge.

And Fusion on the desktop is a non-starter for me. I want the superior CPU performance of intel and a discrete card.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

2. Is there? Point it out for me please, I'm just not seeing it.

Who cares if AMD is giving four lanes of x8 when it can't even keep up to a 16 lane SB board with NF200?

And that's best case, AMD processors are garbage for multi gpu platforms, throwing more gpus at them just increases the cpu bottleneck.

3. Really? You think AMD is selling cpu's at lower prices for people to gamble on unlocking as a "feature"?

 

[Grooveriding]

If AMD's CPU division ever goes under I expect Intel to buy out AMD graphics and deliver some ownage using their fabs for AMD/ATI to build GPUs on.

The GPU division is the only real shining star for the company and who else but Intel could take it, nvidia couldn't for competition reasons. One can hope I guess

 

[RU482]

samsung has been speculated as an AMD fire sale buyer

 

[nyker96]

I don't get this logic. You don't get to remain a $50B revenue corporation if you price your products such that 3 people can buy them.

Intel is competing with itself, or rather the Intel of last year.

If the Intel of tomorrow can't field products that provide a compelling upgrade valuation then their TAM significantly shrinks immediately.

That requires two things, price and performance.



Price has to remain compelling, and peformance has to be much better. Otherwise no upgrade cycle - corporate or consumer.

Really we only have to look at Microsoft to see how a monopoly knows it must remain reasonable in its prices if it wants to maintain its annual revenue stream.

Yep, sad but true, we have so called competition in CPU but it's just a solo competition really. Very sad. bet things would have been much different if BD is competitive to SB.

@BallaTheFeared love your cat!

 

[AnandThenMan]

Time for mythbusters, or fact check really.

Intel would never be allowed to buy any AMD assets. Ever. The anti-trust implications are so blatant it's not even funny. The Samsung rumor was never credible, plus Samsung would not touch AMD. No one will, because as soon as you own AMD, you are instantly an Intel competitor, and trust me no one out there wants to dance with Intel. Not even IBM wants to do this, or they would have purchased AMD a long time ago.

 

[grkM3]

2. But there is a difference, when AMD boards split the 32 PCI-E 2.0 lanes four ways, allowing you to use four graphics cards. Whereas, Intel limits you to two graphics cards, unless you add a proprietary PCI-E lane-splitter, which robs performance.

3. I consider your comment speculation, unless you can actually back that up with a reference.

The only difference is tha AMD board with its 32 lanes will bottle neck intels with only 16 lanes at 2.0 and its funny how you dont even bring up that intel has 3.0 boards that basically will give you the bandwidth of 32 lanes

take the same 3 gpus and run them on an intel chipset and you will get higher FPS with less lanes :wub:

 

[StrangerGuy]

Amazing products sell amazingly well? No shit Sherlock.

And BTW don't be bother argue AMD fanboys here. They are a lost cause.

 

[IGemini]

Guess the Cougar Point bug didn't set them back too much.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I don't get this logic. You don't get to remain a $50B revenue corporation if you price your products such that 3 people can buy them.

Intel is competing with itself, or rather the Intel of last year.

If the Intel of tomorrow can't field products that provide a compelling upgrade valuation then their TAM significantly shrinks immediately.

That requires two things, price and performance.

Price has to remain compelling, and peformance has to be much better. Otherwise no upgrade cycle - corporate or consumer.

Really we only have to look at Microsoft to see how a monopoly knows it must remain reasonable in its prices if it wants to maintain its annual revenue stream.

Why does nobody other than seemingly us two understand this fact?

 

[Arachnotronic]

AMD is not going to go under. Fusion's doing well. Just because BD is not an ideal consumer CPU doesn't mean AMD's "doomed".

SNB's IGP is used all over the place (majority of graphics in laptops!) and it sucks massively. Yet Intel's not going under.

Fusion is actually mind bogglingly good. I have never used an IGP before and though, "wow, this is actually pretty awesome". And I'm as die-hard an Intel fan as they come.

 

[alyarb]

Intel® Atom™ microprocessor and chipset revenue of $167 million, down 57 percent year-over-year.

So does this mean Atom is going to get better or what? They want people to buy it don't they?

 

[Phynaz]

You have seen the Medfield threads, right?

 

[guskline]

Intel17 makes a very valid point. Myself included, many of us got taken up in the Bulldozer frenzy because regardless of our age, I'm 60 so it spans generations, we are computer geeks. To the larger world, the Bulldozer matter is a blip on the radar.

I have for many years, starting with the AMD 386-40 been an AMD fan. Recently I bought not one but two Intel 2500K CPUs, one with an ASROck mb and one with an ASUS mb. They are now my main gamers (see sig below). From my perspective they are some of the best CPUs I've ever dealt with. For Intel the 2500K is almost underpriced for the performance.
As to the Bulldozer, I have an 1100T Thuban since I got impatient waiting and since gaming is a priority, I doubt I will buy a Bulldozer unless the prices drop rapidly. Hard to justify a Bulldozer 8150FX at atleast $239 (Newegg OEM price) when the most an Intel is $219 (179.99 at Microcenter).

 

[CHADBOGA]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm going from Intel to AMD for my upgrade. Buying a couple of Phenom II X6 1045T CPUs at Microcenter when I get the cash. Then getting a really nice SLI-capable mobo with three physical PCI-E x16 slots for $140 from Newegg.

AMD, as a total platform company, still gives you WAY MORE than Intel does, all things considered. And at a much better price, too.

Compare - Intel's premium consumer chipsets, only have TWO SATA6G ports. AMD's premium consumer chipsets? They offer SIX SATA6G ports, in fact ALL of their SATA ports have been upgraded to 6G. There's no reason why Intel couldn't have done that, but they're lazy assholes, re-labeling the same tired old PCH chipset for several generations.

AMD's newest chipsets, I believe, have USB3.0 built-in, Intel's still don't.

AMD's higher-end consumer chipsets, give you TWO PCI-E 2.0 x16 slots, Intel's only gives you x16 total off of the CPU.

AMD has CPU core unlocking, Intel doesn't.

AMD gives you 8-core CPUs (in the consumer space), Intel doesn't.

In short, I'm still rooting for AMD, they give you more for less $$$.

Gaming isn't the only thing that people do with their computers.

Thank you for your sacrifice.

 

[mosox]

It depends on your needs and budget.

For my needs Intel couldn't beat my CPUs (now running an unlocked Phenom II 555) in price/performance. Cheap unlockable (cores and multiplier) CPUs that one can use on his old mobo? Intel never did that.

The mobo itself took anything from the Athlon 64 to the Phenom II X6 1100T, CPUs spanning three sockets (AM2, AM2+ and AM3).

Even without factoring in at least one extra mobo I'd had to buy if going Intel, for me AMD was the smart choice. If I factor in the cost of the extra mobo, AMD nuked Intel. From the orbit.

LE One of the reasons AMD lost money might be the fact that, as opposed to Intel, they didn't cripple features but did the opposite, they gave us free features. Since I unlocked my CPU I skipped buying a quad from them, for instance.

 

[Markbnj]

I just grabbed a 2500k for 180 > I will not exceed the cpu for 3 or 4 years.

Nice! Was that new? I paid $219 a month ago at Newegg.

 

[Idontcare]

Why does nobody other than seemingly us two understand this fact?

I really think it comes down to firsthand experience.

We both know a thing or two about how the real business world operates, running our own businesses and having been professionals in the course of our lives.

Reality trumps the imagined in these sorts of things, but very few get to experience the reality of the industry that is being spoken to.

Most are merely imagining a reality (and one that simply doesn't exist at that) when they post here IMO.

Imagination makes for great conversation, but it is a poor substitute for experience when it comes to talking about reality.

 

[videogames101]

Like idk mentioned intels biggest comp is intel.

They will push hard for the next gen ultra books and lower power draw but its hard for people to upgrade that are running a 2500/2600 cpu now.

There is zero reason to upgrade other than self braging rights.

Nah, it's ARM.

 

[alyarb]

You have seen the Medfield threads, right?

Medfield is a SoC full of old products we are all tired of. It represents nothing new for Atom, it's just a single core version getting shoe horned into a sub-netbook form factor.

If revenue is really down 50%, they should realize we want better Atom performance, not more products with the same performance.