He also talked a lot about supplying chips to Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone, a no-brainer given that Intel has been a success displacing IBM (AAPL) as a supplier of chips to Apple’s Macintosh computers. Otellini also reiterated what’d he’d told investors when Intel recently reported a better-than-expected first quarter, that Intel hasn’t seen any ill effects of a weak U.S. economy, or if there have been any they don’t “move the needle.”

Here’s what’s interesting about all of that to me. Exactly three years ago I wrote an article in Fortune about Intel and Otellini, who was new on the job at the time. I noted then that Intel’s stock price had been stuck for a while at $23, about where it had been in 1998. Intel’s close Wednesday: $22.26.

Yes, Intel pays a 56-cent-per-year dividend, up from 32 cents in 2005, so its total return is better than nothing. But check out its chart compared to the Nasdaq’s in the same time frame. Not pretty. The reason is simple. Yes, headcount is down, but so are revenues and profits.

In 2005 Intel had revenues of $38.8 billion, profits of $8.7 billion and earnings per share of $1.40. Last year the corresponding figures were $38.3 billion, $7.0 billion and $1.18. (An Intel investor-relations site has all these figures and more for the curious.)

If anything, Intel trades for a higher valuation to its earnings today than it did three years ago, though that’s got to be of small solace to its investors. As for its goal of supplying the iPhone, that’s aspirational. What the Journal interview hinted at but didn’t make clear is that Intel doesn’t supply the guts of the iPhone. In short, it’s no closer to its goal of moving “beyond the PC” than it was three years ago.

As for the economy, Otellini identifies the migration from desktop computers to notebooks as the reason Intel’s business has held steady. Still, Otellini has to move the needle in an entirely different way: Like Jeff Immelt at General Electric (GE), he’s got to get that stock up.