The intel classification of non-commercial as anything for which you receive a salary is specifically included in the terms of their contract.
[1] http://software.intel.com/en-us/non-comm...
[2] http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles...
[3] http://software.intel.com/en-us/sites/de...
(It is also in the terms of use for the intel website, so perhaps you shouldn't view it at work. The terms at link [1] are also not the same as those in the actual EULA [3]. These salary definition seems so strict that I'm not sure you could ever realistically comply with them.)

This is different to the terms in the BY-NC-SA license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-n... 4c (4b in the by-nc license):
"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."
(As has already been mentioned, N.B. the word 'primarily', which does not appear in the intel license either.)
Discussed in this video 40 minutes in (it is possible to skip to 40min, but you will need to allow buffering for a while):
[4] https://opensource.stanford.edu/2008/05/...
And the outcome of the creative commons survey summarised:
[5] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/...
[6] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining...
Figure 10 of [6] is useful. If this ever came to a court case, because of a breach of contract, contracts rest on what the parties would have understood the terms to mean. The CC licenses don't provide an exhaustive definition of what non-commercial means, but that work does set out what it's commonly understood to mean. For any given work the situation would be clearer if the creator set out separately what they would consider acceptable non-commercial use.

(disclaimer: IANAL)