2014 was a good year for Intel with 56 Billion USD Revenue
Click here to post a comment for 2014 was a good year for Intel with 56 Billion USD Revenue on our message forum
fantaskarsef
6% increase in revenue sounds like normal revenue spread plus them making more money because of low € rates. No big deal I'd say for the PC market. They increased on data centers though with +18%, that looks impressive.
But in the end, it's not Intel that increased sales... it's the customers that bought more 😉
icedman
^customers have to buy more because what els are we going to buy?
fantaskarsef
Nothing? Ever thought about that? 😀
I meant the same as you, it's not that much of an accomplishment from Intel in my opinion.
chinobino
I love how the term "noobs" is used to describe anyone and everyone.
fantaskarsef
I would happy to have you brief me on how you see things, rather than just stating others are wrong. Please let us learn from you, sir. 🙂
FerCam™
Well this isn't that good, it means that AMD is going down...
schmidtbag
No it doesn't. Both AMD and Intel could see a steady increase in sales over a year. This doesn't mean that will happen, I'm just stating that it is entirely possible.
AMD needs to hurry up with that new architecture. I don't really see how they expect it to compete with intel at this point, but, intel has also been pretty lazy with CPUs lately. They haven't made something exciting in years and they're still not putting much effort into their GPUs. To me, AMD is going to need something that is at least as fast as Sandy Bridge at the same power envelope if their next product is even worth considering.
Ryu5uzaku
Well AMD couldn't compete even when they had the better cpus. Intel is that huge.
lorikano
TBH its quite a sad story ,wish we could have more companies like Intel .Why don't smart people get together to create a new company similar to Intel ?
BTW right now AMD is totally broke and don't have the slightest idea how to beat Intel.
vbetts
Moderator
I wouldn't say that. There are other options to Intel and AMD currently.
A large sector of profits for computing come from mobile devices such as laptops. Well that's expanded by tablets, and other smaller devices. AMD certainly isn't as big as they used to be, but I wouldn't say they got smaller either.
This is still pretty good for Intel considering that x86 machines still show some growth against ARM.
Intel has had a hold on the market for a very long time, even when the k7's and k8's were faster than Intel's offerings. Great marketing, and Intel gave deals to big companies like Dell to not use AMD cpus.
Now it is because Intel does have better offerings, and AMD is slowly coming back up though.
CalculuS
Well Intel is slowly grasping in the mobile market too, and I have to say goddamn are those atom mobile processors strong. Much better than any current ARM cpu.
red6joker
Isnt windows 10 supposed to work much better with multi core cpus like AMD? I remember reading something like that thinking that might be a huge thing for AMD once more and more software companies start producing software that ultiliezes AMD cpus the way everyone wants.
lord_zed
red6joker windows =/= games and programs that use 2-4 cors most of the time mate...
For descent gaming rig AMD is not even an option...
Black_ice_Spain
isnt this bcs they closed quite a few research centers?
I mean, they did. Is extra sales or they just cutted down expenses?
schmidtbag
Uh... 2-4 cores is still multi-threaded, and therefore can take advantage of AMD's bulldozer architecture.
I strongly disagree. If you want a decent gaming system, AMD is the BEST choice (in an economical perspective). Assuming you have a 60Hz monitor, the extra processing power and memory bandwidth intel offers is USUALLY useless. Get an AMD 6-core and you'll have plenty of CPU power for just about any game you play. I say to get a 6-core because that leaves 2 cores open for background processes.
Intel for gaming is only useful if:
* You have a 120Hz+ monitor
* You need the extra memory bandwidth
* You want something more power efficient
* You're doing something in the background (like recording the game)
Getting anything beyond an i5 strictly for gaming is like getting a Porche to commute to work. Sure, the experience is guaranteed to be nicer, but realistically, most of that power is being wasted and you'd be fine in a used Lexus.
---TK---
Intel may cost more but it has a high level of usability. My cpu will be 4 years old soon and will probably be getting replaced by another intel cpu very soon. As soon as you buy and amd cpu its outdated nowadays. They haven't caught up to sandy bridge yet not sure if they are better than first gen i7 yet. No amd cpu out could of handled 2 295 2 580 2 680 and 2 780ti all in this rig.
Corrupt^
But...
... AMD still loses every time. Outside of the whole "economical" aspect there's simply no point to get an AMD CPU I'm afraid.
Good thing they bought ATI a couple years back tbh, they've got their APU's, etc to focus on as well.
schmidtbag
Right, but loses in a way that doesn't matter because most people won't notice it. The average person has a 60Hz monitor. AMD CPUs can maintain 60FPS pretty well in just about any game out there, assuming the GPU is good enough. That's why it really doesn't matter if you have an intel or not, because you're not going to benefit from the extra performance anyway. Theoretically, an intel will give better performance, but you likely won't ever notice it.
The greatest problem with gaming and CPUs is the overhead of communicating with the GPU. Put that issue aside and an overclocked Core 2 Duo would be good enough for most games. With things like DX12/OGLN/mantle/metal being released, the CPU is even less of a bottleneck.
---TK---
Price is the only factor in amd favor, I had many more amd cpus than intel but 0 since socket 939. Been with intel since socket 775. You could also argue what I stated earlier, the intel cpus have a much longer shelf like than amd negating the lower amd cpu price as it needs to be updated more often. The only viable option for amd is if you can not afford intel.
schmidtbag
Intel CPUs do have a longer shelf life (at least i7 does anyway), but if you consider shelf life important, AMD motherboards have a longer shelf life. There are a handful of AMD motherboards that can support CPUs from a 6-year span.
Almost any overclocked quad core CPU made within the past 7 years is good enough to play most games at 1080p, 60FPS, and nearly max detail (assuming you have a decent GPU). This is also assuming you cut down on background processes and aren't using physx.
Intel does undoubtedly have a better product, but all I'm saying is for the average person, intel isn't BETTER for gaming (unless you're lazy with system optimizations).
