It's not that easy..
You can't fine a company out of existence, but you can fine them something that cannot be paid out of petty cash or bypassed with badly advertised voucher scams (like the US DoJ vs MS case).
Two things happen: shareholders wake up (i.e. can no longer claim ignorance), and the company now has a conviction on record.
It does not mean that Intel can progress as before - the intention of a fine is to change behavior, and if that does not happen Intel will face ANOTHER case. With the previous fine set at this level, the assumption will then be that the fine was insufficient, which can make the next conviction extremely dangerous as the commission has wide ranging powers (for instance, it can control access to markets AFAIK)..
So, yes, the fine is a percentage of gain, but no, it's not so small not to make a difference. It's the first fine after a series of warnings. MS has already discovered it cannot BS its way out, and it has already found just how uncomfortably good EU monitoring works vs what it is used to in the US - and no way to buy themselves out (as far as I recall they tried that too).
Intel is learning that first lesson now as well - if they comply, fine. If not, more will come their way, and rightly so. The EU has nothing against success, but everything against abuse of a monopoly position, and even more so since teh US appeared to be incapable of developing a spine in that context (which only emboldens the abusers).