Intel Reports Record Third-Quarter Revenue of $14.6 Billion

#4937821

vg24a3

2014-10-15 11:01

Yea! for intel, now will see 8 cores in mainstream in about 20 years!

#4937999

schmidtbag

2014-10-15 15:28

So intel, how about lowering those prices? Like honestly what do they need $14+ billion for?

#4938007

maize1951

2014-10-15 15:36

So intel, how about lowering those prices? Like honestly what do they need $14+ billion for?

I agree, they could lower the prices of their processors to be more in line with AMD's.

#4938015

Calmmo

2014-10-15 15:43

Blame AMD for being 2 years behind the curve 🙂

#4938030

StewieTech

2014-10-15 15:58

I hope AMD gets his cpu performing on par with intel so we can have better stuff at lower prices...

#4938053

Calmmo

2014-10-15 16:23

They won't they'll need at least a couple of magnificent years of catching up with intel who are already developing their post 14nm process, AMD aren't even close to 14 yet

#4938063

schmidtbag

2014-10-15 16:34

Blame AMD for being 2 years behind the curve 🙂

Actually, I won't blame them for that. As long as people buy intel when an AMD chip can get the same job done just fine, those are people who are fueling the problem. If your workload constantly involves something time sensitive like rendering, compiling, or encoding/decoding, then sure, go for intel. But if you're doing office work, playing games, want a media center, home server, or run tasks that have an indefinite run time, AMD is just fine. It's like buying a F1 race car or a 16-wheeler truck and using it to commute to an office every day. Of course they're nice vehicles but what good are they when your most common workload doesn't take advantage of it?

#4938412

nick0323

2014-10-15 23:01

So intel, how about lowering those prices? Like honestly what do they need $14+ billion for?

Sorry but the prices are substantially lower than a few years ago. When I bought my i5 2500k @3.7GHz Turbo I paid around the £200 mark. Now I can get an i7 4820k for £235 @ 3.9GHz Turbo. They absolutely used to take the piss with the pricing of the i7's and now they are priced quite well.

#4938426

Agent-A01

2014-10-15 23:16

But if you're doing office work, playing games, want a media center, home server, or run tasks that have an indefinite run time, AMD is just fine.

There can be a huge difference in FPS with intel CPU, i wouldnt include gaming as a menial task.

#4938432

---TK---

2014-10-15 23:19

Blame AMD for being 2 years behind the curve 🙂

Think they are more than 2 years behind intel.

#4938445

xIcarus

2014-10-15 23:36

Actually, I won't blame them for that. As long as people buy intel when an AMD chip can get the same job done just fine, those are people who are fueling the problem. If your workload constantly involves something time sensitive like rendering, compiling, or encoding/decoding, then sure, go for intel. But if you're doing office work, playing games, want a media center, home server, or run tasks that have an indefinite run time, AMD is just fine. It's like buying a F1 race car or a 16-wheeler truck and using it to commute to an office every day. Of course they're nice vehicles but what good are they when your most common workload doesn't take advantage of it?

You're partially wrong. Office work and very light tasks -> intel, because the dual core pentiums are unbeatable for the price. Mid-range cpus for gaming -> amd because they have freaking awesome deals on their fx-6300 and the likes. And that doesn't make any sense. You buy that which is the most suitable for your current needs, plus punching in your brand preference in order to make a decision. I would not buy a low-end i5, amd has better deals in that segment. I would buy a dual-core pentium because amd's offerings are bad in that segment. I would also buy an i7 (which i have) since my current needs involve anything from office related stuff to compiling and rendering (gaming included). You don't simply buy amd for office related stuff because 'it's enough'. You get more from intel with the same amount of money in that specific segment.

#4938451

Redemption80

2014-10-15 23:48

Exactly, Intel only take the piss with the extreme high end, alot of their products are actually pretty good value for money, I know my 2600k definitely was. It's nice to see anything PC related being back on the up, and with all the new negativity abit potential future PC games the better these companies do the better it is for us.

#4938452

PhazeDelta1

2014-10-15 23:48

Think they are more than 2 years behind intel.

3 to be exact. The 8350 is on par with the 2600k.

#4938454

PhazeDelta1

2014-10-15 23:49

Think they are more than 2 years behind intel.

3 generations to be exact. The 8350 is on par with the 2600k.

#4938458

tsunami231

2014-10-15 23:58

Actually, I won't blame them for that. As long as people buy intel when an AMD chip can get the same job done just fine, those are people who are fueling the problem. If your workload constantly involves something time sensitive like rendering, compiling, or encoding/decoding, then sure, go for intel. But if you're doing office work, playing games, want a media center, home server, or run tasks that have an indefinite run time, AMD is just fine. It's like buying a F1 race car or a 16-wheeler truck and using it to commute to an office every day. Of course they're nice vehicles but what good are they when your most common workload doesn't take advantage of it?

Wait what? it end users fault for wanting the faster cpu? rofl, total not AMD fault they way behind, I seem remember before they dropped the ball people bought AMD cause it was faster then INTEL. Then Intel said hello with there offering that ran over AMD and they been doing so since, Total not AMD fault they gave up.

#4938461

---TK---

2014-10-16 00:01

3 generations to be exact. The 8350 is on par with the 2600k.

No it aint. Ask Extroidinary. He got a major cpu bottleneck with his new gpu from amd. cpu at 4.9ghz.

#4938471

stevevnicks

2014-10-16 00:16

nah no way is the 8350 on par with 2600k ? good for intel gotta keep the share holders happy and with results like that they'll be a few partys I bet ya.

#4938484

PhazeDelta1

2014-10-16 00:32

No it aint. Ask Extroidinary. He got a major cpu bottleneck with his new gpu from amd. cpu at 4.9ghz.

According to the Anandtech bench I just pulled, the 8350 is on par with the 2600k. [spoiler] More or less. 😀 [/spoiler]

#4938500

---TK---

2014-10-16 00:46

^^ tbh They are having problems keeping up with sk1366. That abomination of a cpu at 220 watts is on par with a 980x at 3.3ghz. Though only a few tests. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/142?vs=1289

#4938505

BLEH!

2014-10-16 00:49

^^ tbh They are having problems keeping up with sk1366. That abomination of a cpu at 220 watts is on par with a 980x at 3.3ghz. Though only a few tests. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/142?vs=1289

Even intel can't win me over yet... HW-E is tempting, but the 4790K just isn't good enough over the 980X...