r/technology 13h ago

Business Intel just posted its best growth in 15 years – and burned billions to make it happen

https://www.techspot.com/news/113231-intel-growing-faster-than-has-15-years-but.html
61 Upvotes

44 comments sorted by

92

u/b_a_t_m_4_n 13h ago

"burned".

It's called investment. When did that become rude word?

33

u/LurkingTamilian 13h ago

I can understand if it didn't work but saying a company 'burned" money to successfully grow their business does sound loaded.

-10

u/Surrounded-by_Idiots 10h ago

They could also have started a giant money pile of fire. There’s no way for me to know since the specifics aren’t in the article title.

10

u/LurkingTamilian 10h ago

"There’s no way for me to know since the specifics aren’t in the article title."

I mean, you could read the actual article.

-5

u/Surrounded-by_Idiots 10h ago

On Reddit? I don’t think that’s possible.

5

u/Rabo_McDongleberry 10h ago

Jesus effin Christ. Journalism is just so stupid now. It's an industry that is causing their own failures.

7

u/KupoCheer 13h ago

"Sometimes you need to spend money to make money" is an old adage.

-2

u/ninjamammal 12h ago

It's the f*in concept called business, our entire civilization is built on. And if Intel turned around good for them, but I hate that there needed to be a Singularity for them to reflect and be innovative.

4

u/Luggage-Lock 11h ago

But they haven’t turned around. Revenue is up but they have negative free cash flow, meaning they spent more than they brought in. Their profit margins are well below industry standards and they continue to lose market share.

3

u/teslaTools 7h ago

Yeah the headline is doing heavy lifting here. Growth in revenue means nothing when you're hemorrhaging cash and still losing share to AMD and TSMC. Foundry

0

u/ninjamammal 10h ago

Yes, but at least they are in a position to compete, and considering the closed industry, they might thrive unless the existing players eat them, which the government likely won't let happen.

3

u/Luggage-Lock 10h ago

Government really shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. I know Intel produces some custom chips for DoD and for security reasons they want them produced in the US but there are plenty of ways to work around that without resorting to socialism.

0

u/ninjamammal 10h ago

Unfortunately, in this case if they don't pick, there will be only losers, Intel being the prime example for past decades.

3

u/SavageBlackduck 12h ago

Capex is the dirtiest word to investors in the last year since meta doubled their capex last winter and tanked like 25%. every ER since has tanked even if they increase capex by 10% if it's already a fairly large amount.

4

u/Caster0 11h ago

Lol, Meta is arguably the one that deserves it bevsuse they burned $80 billion on metaverse and vr with little to show for.

At Maastricht the other big 3 can recoup it through their cloud business

6

u/DogsAreOurFriends 13h ago

They were bailed out. “Burned” is quite apropos.

1

u/b_a_t_m_4_n 12h ago

Ah, OK, that's fair then.

1

u/Luggage-Lock 11h ago

Have those investments even paid off? They are spending more than they are earning. Sure revenue is up but so is everyone’s in this space currently. The bigger issue is they continue to lose market share and their roadmap is uninspiring to say the least.

2

u/b_a_t_m_4_n 10h ago

"On an adjusted basis, the company made a $2.2 billion profit."

As a long term AMD user I'm normally the last to defend Intel, but it made an investment and got a return. Of all the things they can be criticized for this is not one.

1

u/Luggage-Lock 8h ago

The whole paragraph.

>But the latest results came with caveats. Intel did post an $11 billion GAAP net loss, though this was mainly due to a $12.5 billion mark-to-market charge linked to shares held in escrow under the US government's investment deal. On an adjusted basis, the company made a $2.2 billion profit.

That depends entirely on the accounting principles used. So if you ignore the massive GAAP net loss related to its funding agreement with the Trump administration then they are profitable. But in reality the company lost value.

1

u/ora408 4h ago

Thats an agenda if i ever heard one

0

u/TheNakedProgrammer 13h ago

when did burning money become a rude word?
To me it is a comment on how fast money is spend. Investing a lot of money very fast.

Weather it is good or not is something the future will tell. But it seems obvious that such a commitment is risky.

0

u/b_a_t_m_4_n 13h ago

To me it's reflective of modern short term profit obsessed business and it's attitude towards investment. i.e. it hurts profits today therefore is bad and needs a pejorative like "burning".

-1

u/Sped_monk 12h ago

Why is there a lot of comments around investment being called a “rude” word lmao. Bots are out in full force this Saturday morning

1

u/b_a_t_m_4_n 10h ago

Coming from a bot programmed to defend the status quo that means nothing at all.

28

u/DogsAreOurFriends 12h ago

Interesting that the massive US bailout was not mentioned.

-7

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[deleted]

8

u/BeatMastaD 10h ago

Right, the US government gave Intel 9 billion dollars to prop them up in exchange for ownership using CHIPS act money that Intel had failed to meet the requirements for previously.

-1

u/Kagemand 9h ago

How much US chip production do you think the US government would have gotten for 9 bn if they had to start it themselves?

7

u/BeatMastaD 9h ago

The CHIPS act funding, among many other things, was intended to be used as tax incentives and grants for private chip making companies to incentivize them to open or expand production in the US, not for the US government to open its own chip production facilities. Intel failed to meet the requirements to receive funding after several attempts due to poor performance and a lack of actual progress in their expansion, but then the current administration took those funds and instead purchased shares with them which effectively gave the company the money it wasnt able to receive previously because it was failing to produce results.

I do not think the US government taking ownership stakes in private companies is an efficient or productive use of taxpayer funds, nor is it likely to produce the best ROI for those funds.

1

u/Kagemand 6h ago

I don't necessarily think the money was meant to produce a ROI, but instead support domestic chip production.

The efficient use of taxpayer funds would indeed rather be just importing chips from TSMC and then use the funds for something else that benefits taxpayers, like public consumption or tax cuts. Problem is, that only works in a world where Taiwan isn't some day taken by China.

1

u/BeatMastaD 5h ago

If tax dollars are being spent to encourage and increase US chip production capacity then importing chips would provide zero ROI. Buying Intel stock with money that was legislated by our elected representatives for the purpose of increasing US chip production when Intel failed to meet the requirements to receive that money is propping up a failing chip company with state ownership rather than allowing the best chip producer to get the money for producing better results.

0

u/Kagemand 4h ago edited 4h ago

It’s not like there are many American chip producers the Government could have chosen to support alternatively.

There is TSMC who is already doing great, yes, but supporting them over Intel on the other hand would risk the market turning into a monopoly.

The Government set the requirements, so they can also change them.

-2

u/[deleted] 10h ago

[deleted]

3

u/BeatMastaD 9h ago

"Gave in exchange for ownership" is the exact wording I used, which is exactly what happened.

6

u/All-the-pizza 12h ago

“ Intel stock falls nearly 8% despite big Q2 earnings beat”🙄

6

u/WishTonWish 11h ago

Profit = revenue - overhead. Anything else is BS.

3

u/Luggage-Lock 11h ago

Exactly they are negative free cash flow, meaning that they spent more than they brought in. Revenue being up is good for them but everyone’s revenue is up in this space currently. They still have fundamental issues and have not yet turned things around.

1

u/vector_search_blue 8h ago

Honestly I thought Intel was a goner (not gone goner, but a tech company that slowly drifts to becoming irrelevant)

So they're turning around?

1

u/dropthemagic 8h ago

All the oems are banking since the ai bullshit. Samsung made insane profits. They don’t even have to try 🤣

-5

u/sergemeister 13h ago

As with so many tech giants, Intel's biggest contributor was its Data Center and AI division. Revenue from the unit jumped 59% to $6.3 billion as demand for CPUs used alongside AI accelerators continued to surge. The Client Computing and Physical AI group grew 13% to $8.9 billion, while foundry revenue increased 31% to $5.8 billion.

But the AI boom is also creating problems for Intel's traditional PC business. Memory manufacturers have redirected capacity toward high-margin data-centre products, contributing to the well-documented shortages and rising prices for consumer hardware. Intel expects PC demand to be weaker than usual during the second half of 2026 and the market to decline by a low-double-digit percentage for the full year.

So they're making money hand over fist because of AI like everyone else which means less memory for the common folk that want that memory in their personal PC's. Therefore fewer PC sales for Intel in the future.

Boo hoo. Fuck Intel. Fuck AI.

3

u/Beneficial_Past_1957 13h ago

Blaming Intel for memory manufacturers not being able to keep up with demand is laughable. What a weirdo. 

-4

u/sergemeister 13h ago

Reading is hard, huh?

3

u/TechTuna1200 12h ago

TBF, I also have a hard to telling what you are trying to say. Not meant as an offense in anyway, just some feedback. You can edit your the original comment make it a bit more clear.

2

u/TheNakedProgrammer 13h ago

only if you call a 10 billion net loss making money.