Intel lowers third quarter revenue outlook due to weak demand

By on September 7, 2012, 12:00 PM

It’s been a tough year for PC manufacturers as they continue to struggle with declining sales thanks to a number of issues, including but not limited to consumer interest in tablets and other mobile devices. Even the world’s largest semiconductor chip maker is feeling the effects as Intel was just forced to lower their third-quarter revenue outlook once again.

During their second quarter earnings call in July, Intel said their third quarter outlook declined just slightly to $14.3 billion which would still have tied their previous earnings record. Now Chipzilla expects revenue for the third quarter to be $13.2 billion, plus or minus $300 million. The company cites reduced inventory in the supply chain, softness in the enterprise PC market segment and a slow demand in emerging markets as specific reasons for the new forecast. Intel notes that their data center business is meeting expectations, however.

Third quarter gross margin has been pushed to 62 percent, down a single percentage point from the previous expectation. They point out that expectations for R&D and MG&A spending remain unchanged. Full-year capital spending is also expected to drop below the low-end of their previous outlook of $12.1 billion to $12.9 billion.

It’s worth pointing out that the third quarter outlook doesn’t include the effect of any acquisitions, divestitures or other transactions that may or may not take place following today’s announcement. Furthermore, Intel has withdrawn all other quarterly and full-year expectations and will update those accordingly when they report third quarter earnings on October 16.




User Comments: 5

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Thats because in many cases the chips were rebadged with just bumps in clock speed. I love the new 3D transistors for Ivy Bridge but Sandy Bridge for the most part, isn't any faster then the first gen Socket B 1366LGA CPU's.

Anyways, I'd love to see a test comparing my i7-930 @ 4.0Ghz 24/7 against a i7 3770k @ 4.0Ghz 24/7. And a 3960X? That things is beast...lets see it up against a 990X at the same clock speeds.

Littleczr Littleczr said:

Thats because in many cases the chips were rebadged with just bumps in clock speed. I love the new 3D transistors for Ivy Bridge but Sandy Bridge for the most part, isn't any faster then the first gen Socket B 1366LGA CPU's.

Anyways, I'd love to see a test comparing my i7-930 @ 4.0Ghz 24/7 against a i7 3770k @ 4.0Ghz 24/7. And a 3960X? That things is beast...lets see it up against a 990X at the same clock speeds.

agreed

captainawesome captainawesome said:

They should lower the prices of their i7's a little and people would start buying. The i7 Ivy's are the basically the same prices as the low level Sandy Extremes

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Thats because in many cases the chips were rebadged with just bumps in clock speed

Nope.It's largely due to the [link] (Q3 is historically a slow period in any case) and [link] -( So this affects all semiconductor vendors) you aren't going to convince people to upgrade/buy a system every 3-6 months, and Intel has posted record sales/revenue consistantly on the back of SB/IB revenue (ie : Q3 2011...Q4 2011...Q1 2012.). Your argument might stand up to closer scrutiny if Apple and AMD were forecasting gains in Intel's absence- not the case.

Anyways, I'd love to see a test comparing my i7-930 @ 4.0Ghz 24/7 against a i7 3770k @ 4.0Ghz 24/7. And a 3960X? That things is beast...lets see it up against a 990X at the same clock speeds.

Just look at the aggegated (overclocked) Passmark submissions for an overview. The problem with comparing clock-to-clock is that architectures use differing parameters. A 930 ( or my 950 for that matter) is pretty much at the ragged end of it's 24/7 OC ability at the same clock that a SB/IB starts. My 950 used to be stable at 4.2, with a normal daily OC of 3.8 or 4.0 depending on which profile I booted with. My 2600K happily runs at 4.8....at ~1.37v.

Having both X58 and Z77 systems- both running overclocked on near identical watercooling systems ( 360 rad+push/pull 108cfm fans+1/2" high flow/low restriction loop+ 2C coolant/ambient temp delta), I can tell you that the difference is considerable....but that's for all facets of use- which is what I assume your observation is based on considering both the 3960X and 990X ( both salvage parts that didn't pass Xeon QA testing) are primarily benchmark queens and/or multitasking orientated.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Well for gaming/multitasking the 3960X has a clear advantage over all other CPU's.

No debate there.

[link]

[link]

My friend has a 2600K @ 4.4 with a Vertex 3, doesn't feel any faster then my 930 @ 4.0Ghz with an Agility 2. This is coming from him and me, gaming, multitasking or multimedia all perform the same. My 930 pushes my 670 to P9419 3DMark11, which is quite good for a Socket B. http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/3870604

I am sure isolated benchmarks for other things may show otherwise but for 90% of what a user does, the difference is minuscule at best.

Also,from what I have seen after 4.0Ghz games you don't get more performance in games but I am sure that is changing.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.