http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100114-715052.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

Intel reported profit gross margins of 65%!!!!!!!!

Sony gets about 1% profit margins

Microsoft and Nintendo get 25-30%

65% is HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE!!!!!!

Yikes.

AMD comeback please? Those margins are retarded.

Thats what you get when you sell a CPU for the price of the entire console when the CPU itself is cheaper to produce that the consoles CPU.

Great news for them. Anyone do well in these times is great news.

Doesn't surprise me, their Q6600 still costs $200, that's like the same price it was 2 years ago. I really hope AMD makes a comeback.

AMD has:

Fusion
Bulldozer
Menlow??? (forgot the low power codename)

So I think they are fine so long as they can execute the first two on time.

It's quite possibly all those netbooks with those cheap, single core "Atom" processors in them. I can't believe they are still making single core processors. Good for them, I guess. Cheap to make, sell them higher in the extreme price of netbooks for what you get, and they reap the rewards.

It can't be because that line of processors is actually bring their average margins DOWN and not up. I would suggest its the higher margins CULV, Quad Cores and Core 2s which are doing it.

My guess is whats doing it is slow CPU tech advancement. Most of the cost of a CPU, is R&D.

Let's say it takes me $100 million to design something, and it cost $20 to make. let's asume I am expecting to sell that thing at 50,000 a year for 5 year, and then replace it with the next thing that cost me $100 million to design.

I project then, that I will sell 250,000 of these things. The cost then, is $100 million across each ($400) + $20. It cost me $420 to make each one.

But, if in 5 years I can sell that thing for another year, the cost drops to 20 bucks each, and I still get to sell it for something close to what I used to sell it for.

This is the kind of thing that's happening. CPU's are no longer the slow part of computer system. People need a lot more ram or faster storage long before they run out of CPU.

I am writing this on a 4 year old Mac Book Pro, and if the CPU in this thing was 10x faster, I would not notice it. 

Actually the fabrication capital costs are incredible. Its more likely that the reason is that they are producing a lot of chips on their heavily depreciated 45nm lines and the economic recovery means more chips sold for more computers. The cost of their 32nm process and fabs is probably greater than the R+D costs on the chips they fabricate with it.

For example: http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/10/29/tsmc-to-invest-six-billion-usd-in-two-gigafabs.aspx

TSMC is spending $5 Billion on one single fab alone.

Also http://www.semiconductor.net/article/209191-A_Simulation_Study_of_the_Cost_and_Economics_of_450_mm_Wafers.php

4. This figure illustrates the historical and projected cost for wafer fabs out to a 450 mm fab in 2012.

So its a very expensive business to be in. This is why AMD divested itself of the fabs to spread the risk/cost over a wider base. They are transitioning to 450mm wafers in 2012, and that will be a killer. Expect potentially $5-10B fabs at that point in time.