Intel Reports First-Quarter Revenue of $12.8 Billion

[Cristian_25H]

Intel Corporation today reported first-quarter revenue of $12.8 billion, operating income of $2.5 billion, net income of $1.9 billion and EPS of 38 cents. The company generated approximately $3.5 billion in cash from operations, paid dividends of $1.1 billion, and used $545 million to repurchase 22 million shares of stock.

"In the first quarter we saw solid growth in the data center, signs of improvement in the PC business, and we shipped 5 million tablet processors, making strong progress on our goal of 40 million tablets for 2014," said Intel CEO Brian Krzanich. "Additionally, we demonstrated our further commitment to grow in the enterprise with a strategic technology and business collaboration with Cloudera, we introduced our second-generation LTE platform with CAT6 and other advanced features, and we shipped our first Quark products for the Internet of Things."





Q1 Key Business Unit Trends

• PC Client Group revenue of $7.9 billion, down 8 percent sequentially and down 1 percent year-over-year.
• Data Center Group revenue of $3.1 billion, down 5 percent sequentially and up 11 percent year-over-year.
• Internet of Things Group revenue of $482 million, down 10 percent sequentially and up 32 percent year-over-year.
• Mobile and Communications Group revenue of $156 million, down 52 percent sequentially and down 61 percent year-over-year.
• Software and services operating segments revenue of $553 million, down 6 percent sequentially and up 6 percent year-over-year.

Business Outlook
Intel's Business Outlook does not include the potential impact of any business combinations, asset acquisitions, divestitures, strategic investments and other significant transactions that may be completed after April 15.

Q2 2014

• Revenue: $13.0 billion, plus or minus $500 million.
• Gross margin percentage: 63 percent, plus or minus a couple of percentage points.
• R&D plus MG&A spending: approximately $4.8 billion.
• Restructuring and asset impairment charges: approximately $100 million.
• Amortization of acquisition-related intangibles: approximately $75 million.
• Impact of equity investments and interest and other: approximately $75 million.
• Depreciation: approximately $1.9 billion.

Full-Year 2014

• Revenue: approximately flat, unchanged from prior expectations.
• Gross margin percentage: 61 percent, plus or minus a few percentage points, 1 percentage point higher than prior expectations.
• R&D plus MG&A spending: $18.9 billion, plus or minus $200 million, higher than prior expectations of $18.6 billion.
• Amortization of acquisition-related intangibles: approximately $300 million, unchanged from prior expectations.
• Depreciation: approximately $7.4 billion, unchanged from prior expectations.
• Tax rate: approximately 27 percent for each of the remaining quarters of the year.
• Full-year capital spending: $11.0 billion, plus or minus $500 million, unchanged from prior expectations.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Fluffmeister]

I'm very happy for them, they make a great product and it rightfully sells.

Also it apparently annoys some people here, and it's fun to wind them up.

 

[SIGSEGV]

Boring

 

[leeb2013]

I'm very happy for them, they make a great product and it rightfully sells.

Also it apparently annoys some people here, and it's fun to wind them up.

yes, there's a few that don't like it when a company makes good products and people buy them and also when a company doesn't make better products cheaper despite having little competition. Unfortunately, it's only competition that does this, companies generally don't do it out of generosity. Maybe they should be angry at the completion for poor business decisions.

Still, having said that, I hope they spend some profits on improving CPU performance a bit faster than the current rate.

 

[Jorge]

There are lots of companies who make and sell excellent products but they also pay their proper income taxes and do not resort to chronic violations of law to stiffle competiton - for which Intel has been convicted in the U.S., Europe and Asia. If you're going to applaud a company you might want to pick an ethical one who doesn't exploit their customers and offers a fair exchange of value and who is a good corporate citizen. You definitely won't find Intel's name on that list no matter how much of a fanbois you are.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Still, having said that, I hope they spend some profits on improving CPU performance a bit faster than the current rate.

Not going to happen as long as nobody pushes them from behind.

 

[leeb2013]

yeah, that's the problem unfortunately. I think they may pursue energy efficiency, more than significant jumps in performance. Lets hope AMD stay in the GPU market to keep Nvidia on their toes.

 

[HumanSmoke]

There are lots of companies who make and sell excellent products but they also pay their proper income taxes and do not resort to chronic violations of law to stiffle competiton - for which Intel has been convicted in the U.S., Europe and Asia. If you're going to applaud a company you might want to pick an ethical one who doesn't exploit their customers

So, you'll be buying systems made by VIA Tech then? Considering that AMD has a blot on it's record from price fixing ( graphics sold up to a year and a half after AMD acquired ATI), and marketing blatantly false information regarding CPUs ?
Remember to boycott all graphics that use Samsung, Elpida, and Hynix memory IC's while you're at it.

 

[techy1]

actually the financial data are terrible - decline in Q to Q and 2013Q to 2014Q are allarming... few more Q's like that and there is big trouble (no matter how big the company). I think intel is loosing battle with him self... people care less and less about PC (intel is not interested to prevent that ?! )... those who care and work with PC and can compare data and ressults - those know that there is no real improvement after Sandy Bridge (so - no Intel - you will not get money from them anytime soon) and exceptions like "I just want to see 4790K OC reviews. Might replace my 4770K with one if..." - well god bless them (obviosly not very blessed with brainpower ), but they are minority and will not make any turnovver for intel.

 

[refillable]

Clearly this states that the PC market is really declining.

 

[Eagleye]

So, you'll be buying systems made by VIA Tech then? Considering that AMD has a blot on it's record from price fixing ( graphics sold up to a year and a half after AMD acquired ATI), and marketing blatantly false information regarding CPUs ?
Remember to boycott all graphics that use Samsung, Elpida, and Hynix memory IC's while you're at it.

A long-standing class action case against Nvidia for allegedly conspiring with AMD.
(Taken from your link)

Since you're clearly Bashing AMD, most of the time without a clue. Let me start by saying AMD just last year made it on the (Top spot) list of honourable companies based on the semi conductor market, something Nvidia and Intel don't even make it to to the runners up list. Am not 100% sure, but I think AMD have made that list a few times now.

P.S. NET Income down 26% is really bad for Intel, and I think its going to get worse unless Intel brings something reasonable in the CPU, and not just 100mhz added to the CPU as a refresh.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Since you're clearly Bashing AMD

Which is obviously why I linked to a story pertaining to both Nvidia and AMD price fixing
...as well as reminding Jorge about who supplies the memory IC's for both Nvidia and AMD boards

A long-standing class action case against Nvidia for allegedly conspiring with AMD.
(Taken from your link)

You know what else is taken from the link:

Nvidia would be required to pay $850,000 into a $1.7 million fund that will be made available for payments to the class, with AMD left to make up the rest.

If Nvidia's share comes to $850K out of $1.7 million, what does that leave for AMD? Hint: The same amount. Hint#2: Equal culpability.
Since the article seems not to have convinced you, and rather than research anything about it, just highlight one sides culpability - here it is from AMD's own financials

On September 16, 2008, ATI Technologies ULC (ATI), Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD US Finance, Inc., and 1252986 Alberta ULC (collectively, the ATI Entities), executed a settlement agreement relating to the claims of the certified class of direct purchaser plaintiffs previously approved by the District Court for the Northern District of California (District Court), which consists of purchasers who bought graphics cards directly from the websites of ATI or NVIDIA Corporation (NVIDIA) in the United States during the period December 4, 2002 to November 7, 2007. The settlement agreement calls for the ATI entities to pay $850,000 into a fund to be made available for payments to the certified class in exchange for a dismissal of all claims related to the lawsuit. The ATI Entities are not obligated under the settlement agreement to pay attorneys' fees, costs, or make any other payments in connection with the settlement other than our payment of $850,000. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and, if approved, would dispose of all claims raised by the certified class in the lawsuit against the ATI Entities. On October 2, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order staying the direct purchaser plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the District Court's order regarding class certification.
The ATI Entities have also reached a settlement agreement with the remaining individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the lawsuit. On July 18, 2008, the District Court denied a motion seeking to certify a class of all indirect purchasers in the United States who purchased a product containing a graphics processing unit initially sold by the ATI Entities or NVIDIA. On September 9, 2008, the ATI Entities and NVIDIA reached a settlement agreement with the remaining individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs that provides for the ATI Entities to pay $112,500 in exchange for a dismissal of all claims and appeals related to the lawsuit raised by the individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs. This settlement is not subject to the approval of the District Court. Pursuant to the settlement, the individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs have dismissed their claims and withdrawn their petition for permission to appeal the District Court's order denying their motion for class certification.

Let me start by saying AMD just last year made it on the (Top spot) list of honourable companies based on the semi conductor market

So you're comparing AMD's current conduct (so as to dismiss shady business practice from 2006-08), but having a cry about Intel's record up to and prior to the same time period. Sounds pretty hypocritical and a piss poor attempt to rewrite history TBH

 

[Eagleye]

Which is obviously why I linked to a story pertaining to both Nvidia and AMD price fixing
...as well as reminding Jorge about who supplies the memory IC's for both Nvidia and AMD boards

You know what else is taken from the link:

If Nvidia's share comes to $850K out of $1.7 million, what does that leave for AMD? Hint: The same amount. Hint#2: Equal culpability.
Since the article seems not to have convinced you, and rather than research anything about it, just highlight one sides culpability - here it is from AMD's own financials


So you're comparing AMD's current conduct (so as to dismiss shady business practice from 2006-08), but having a cry about Intel's record up to and prior to the same time period. Sounds pretty hypocritical and a piss poor attempt to rewrite history TBH

Seriously are you for real? The article has nothing to do with AMD, and here you are again bashing AMD for the gullibility of a company once called ATI.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Seriously are you for real? The article has nothing to do with AMD, and here you are again bashing AMD for the gullibility of a company once called ATI.

Cant tell if trolling or serious. You'd think if your point of view was actually credible, the AMD fanboys would be lining up around the block to post. They aren't - at least on this fact - because it is fact.

ATI came under AMD ownership 25 October, 2006

...graphics cards directly from the websites of ATI or NVIDIA Corporation (NVIDIA) in the United States during the period December 4, 2002 to November 7, 2007.

So you'd have us believe that AMD management didn't know what a substantial part of its own company were doing for 14 months ...a time period where they released at least 21 new SKU's!
I feel so much better knowing that you believe AMD management to be grossly incompetent rather than shady