Friday, April 27th 2018

Intel Reports First Quarter 2018 Financial Results

Intel Corporation today reported first-quarter 2018 financial results. "Coming off a record 2017, 2018 is off to a strong start. Our PC business continued to execute well and our data-centric businesses grew 25 percent, accounting for nearly half of first-quarter revenue," said Brian Krzanich, Intel CEO. "The strength of Intel's business underscores my confidence in our strategy and the unrelenting demand for compute performance fueled by the growth of data."

"Compared to the first-quarter expectations we set in January, revenue was higher, operating margins were stronger and EPS was better," said Bob Swan, Intel CFO. "Our data-centric strategy is accelerating Intel's transformation, and we're raising our earnings and cash flow expectations for the year." In the first quarter, the company generated approximately $6.3 billion in cash from operations, paid dividends of $1.4 billion and used $1.9 billion to repurchase 41 million shares of stock.
In the first quarter, Intel saw strong performance from data-centric businesses, which accounted for approximately half (49%) of Intel's revenue, an all-time high. The Data Center Group (DCG) achieved growth in all market segments and saw increasing adoption of Intel Xeon Scalable processors, including for artificial intelligence workloads. Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group (NSG) revenue grew 20 percent as strong demand for storage continued. The Programmable Solutions Group (PSG) won new designs with server OEMs adding Intel's field programmable gate array (FPGA) acceleration to their data center offerings, and strong demand from retail and video customers drove first-quarter growth in the Internet of Things Group (IOTG).

The Client Computing Group (CCG) continued its strong execution and introduced a new lineup of high-performance mobile products including the 8th Gen Intel Core i9 processor and a new Intel Core platform extension that brings together the benefits of 8th Gen Intel Core processors with Intel Optane memory. We continue to make 14 nm process optimizations and architectural innovations in both data center and client products that will be coming this year. Intel is currently shipping low-volume 10 nm product and now expects 10 nm volume production to shift to 2019.

In autonomous driving, Mobileye continued momentum with automotive customers and recently won a high-volume design for EyeQ*5. The company also began operating autonomous vehicle test cars in Israel with plans to expand the fleet to other geographies.

Business Outlook
Intel's guidance for the second-quarter and full-year 2018 includes both GAAP and non-GAAP estimates. Reconciliations between these GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures are included below.
Intel's Business Outlook does not include the potential impact of any business combinations, asset acquisitions, divestitures (except as noted below), strategic investments and other significant transactions that may be completed after April 26, 2018. Actual results may differ materially from Intel's Business Outlook as a result of, among other things, the factors described under "Forward-Looking Statements" below. Our guidance above reflects the divestiture of Wind River, which we expect to close during the second quarter of 2018.
Add your own comment

17 Comments on Intel Reports First Quarter 2018 Financial Results

#1
dwade
This is why AMD is irrelevant.
Posted on Reply
#2
ssdpro
Intel's numbers just crush AMD's. Intel's revenue in 2017 was 13x higher and projections this year still show 13x. It is also being reported Intel's 10nm node is having poor yields so will be pushed to 2019. The willingness to push means Intel isn't feeling the pressure even though AMD is offering great values. We need a little more push from AMD - hopefully the 7nm AMD products hold their timeline.
Posted on Reply
#3
Fatalfury
Another day, Another Win for intel...nothing new..keep moving

Even if there's massive breach or whatever hell happens.. Nobody can do anything to intel.
Since there are the only major option..whether anybody likes it or not..

Intel Vs AMD, its like Qualcomm vs Mediatek.

No threat for the monopoly whatsoever..
Posted on Reply
#4
R-T-B
dwade, post: 3834398, member: 106554"
This is why AMD is irrelevant.
The fact that AMD can compete at all with 1/13th of the margins is WHY they are relevant.
Posted on Reply
#5
RH92
R-T-B, post: 3834424, member: 41983"
The fact that AMD can compete at all with 1/13th of the margins is WHY they are relevant.
This !!!
Posted on Reply
#6
Fluffmeister
Jim and Raja with a healthy R&D budget?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Posted on Reply
#7
RH92
Fluffmeister, post: 3834572, member: 101373"
Jim and Raja with a healthy R&D budget?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Ok we all get the point about Jim but Raja ? Im sory but Raja architectural decisions lead RTG where it is today !
Posted on Reply
#8
timta2
"and used $1.9 billion to repurchase 41 million shares of stock."

Exactly what they were saying all of these wealthy companies would do with their Republican corporate tax cuts.
Posted on Reply
#9
dwade
RH92, post: 3834574, member: 174545"
Ok we all get the point about Jim but Raja ? Im sory but Raja architectural decisions lead RTG where it is today !
No. AMD's limited resources drove Radeon to the ground. They had to choose between CPU or GPU, and AMD chose to allocate more of their resources on CPU development. Ryzen team consists of mostly in-house American engineers. RTG gets... outsourced somewhere in China with the leftover funds.
Posted on Reply
#10
RH92
dwade, post: 3834596, member: 106554"
No. AMD's limited resources drove Radeon to the ground. They had to choose between CPU or GPU, and AMD chose to allocate more of their resources on CPU development. Ryzen team consists of mostly in-house American engineers. RTG gets... outsourced somewhere in China with the leftover funds.
AMD chosing to allocate more of their resources on CPU development is the consequence not the cause !

AMD had a tremendous sucess in the GPU department with their 200 series , what came after that much less and this is purely because of Raja's wrong decisions . AMD is where it is today in the CPU department because clever architectural decisions have been made ( infinity fabric etc ) , had Raja been able to make some clever decisions on the GPU side , RTG would had been in a much better position limited resources or not !
Posted on Reply
#11
ssdpro
timta2, post: 3834595, member: 47844"
"and used $1.9 billion to repurchase 41 million shares of stock."

Exactly what they were saying all of these wealthy companies would do with their Republican corporate tax cuts.
Yup, didn't even comment on that in my post. I got 50 bucks more in each paycheck but will just see a lower return in the spring. And my 50 bucks just goes to $1/gal higher fuel now anyway - they started jacking that up right when the withholding changed in Feb. Scam-o-rama.
Posted on Reply
#12
BiggieShady
RH92, post: 3834763, member: 174545"
AMD chosing to allocate more of their resources on CPU development is the consequence not the cause !

AMD had a tremendous sucess in the GPU department with their 200 series , what came after that much less and this is purely because of Raja's wrong decisions . AMD is where it is today in the CPU department because clever architectural decisions have been made ( infinity fabric etc ) , had Raja been able to make some clever decisions on the GPU side , RTG would had been in a much better position limited resources or not !
Could have, would have, should have ... it sucks when right decisions aren't even in the budget ... by the time of radeon 200 series release it was obvious that competition was on the fast track of increasing efficiency ... so if the right decision was so obvious and not taken, the reason why is also obvious - budget limitations. It's kinda expensive to rework the whole arch.
Posted on Reply
#13
Fx
R-T-B, post: 3834424, member: 41983"
The fact that AMD can compete at all with 1/13th of the margins is WHY they are relevant.
I know right. That is basic statistical analysis.
Posted on Reply
#14
RH92
BiggieShady, post: 3835116, member: 102776"
Could have, would have, should have ... it sucks when right decisions aren't even in the budget ... by the time of radeon 200 series release it was obvious that competition was on the fast track of increasing efficiency ... so if the right decision was so obvious and not taken, the reason why is also obvious - budget limitations. It's kinda expensive to rework the whole arch.
Don't make things up , i never said the right decision was obvious , nothing is obvious at this level . What i did said was that Raja had the time and arguably the budget ( at least when he joined ) to pull something clever and he simply didn't ( unlike what Jim did on the CPU side ) . You talk about budget limitations but RTG marketing budget alone has exploded between 200 series era and now , so yeah it's a bit hard to defend this idea .
Posted on Reply
#15
BiggieShady
RH92, post: 3835662, member: 174545"
Don't make things up , i never said the right decision was obvious , nothing is obvious at this level . What i did said was that Raja had the time and arguably the budget ( at least when he joined ) to pull something clever and he simply didn't ( unlike what Jim did on the CPU side ) . You talk about budget limitations but RTG marketing budget alone has exploded between 200 series era and now , so yeah it's a bit hard to defend this idea .
I said right decision was obvious, not you so I'm not making anything up and you're rambling. The right decision was to optimize GCN towards energy efficiency and that was not in the budget because it's an expensive change making gpu architecture hierarchical + modular + with cache on every level ... and with tiled rasterizer which can't be done without fore-mentioned stuff
IMHO they should have taken that exploded marketing budget and use it to raise finances for proper evolution of GCN.
Posted on Reply
#16
RH92
BiggieShady, post: 3835699, member: 102776"
I said right decision was obvious, not you so I'm not making anything up and you're rambling. The right decision was to optimize GCN towards energy efficiency and that was not in the budget because it's an expensive change making gpu architecture hierarchical + modular + with cache on every level ... and with tiled rasterizer which can't be done without fore-mentioned stuff
IMHO they should have taken that exploded marketing budget and use it to raise finances for proper evolution of GCN.
I agree with you that one possible right decision was to make GCN more energy efficient but i disagree when you keep saying it wasn't in the budget . Between 2013 ( when 200's came out ) and now there are 5 years so in 5 years there is definitely enough time and budget to make that happen , the thing is instead of taking this path Raja focused his time on integrating HBM among other things wich proved to be a bad idea especially for gaming cards .

I mentioned marketing budget to make a point. My point was do you realy believe that AMD/RTG is going to put that much money in their marketing if they have no money to make evolve their architecture ? It doesn't make sense at all , and if that is realy the case then i let you guess who's to be blamed for that !
Posted on Reply
#17
BiggieShady
RH92, post: 3835775, member: 174545"
... do you realy believe that AMD/RTG is going to put that much money in their marketing if they have no money to make evolve their architecture ? It doesn't make sense at all
I understand how it seems so, but let's not underestimate the real cost of gpu arch rework and how it multiplies the cost on each level of design and manufacturing process and in each company division.
How could we measure accompanying risk though? How about using unit called 'everything' ... and when you can't throw more money at it to reduce risk ... also budget issue
RH92, post: 3835775, member: 174545"
instead of taking this path Raja focused his time on integrating HBM
... you could call this budget allocation issue :laugh: you see where I'm going ... there is always an angle: more could have been done with different budget/allocation. I can't really argue how much of a deciding factor it was.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment