Print 29 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Mar 29 at 9:48 AM

Intel continues to dominate CPU market  (Source: Intel)
Intel is still the clear leader in the market

The two major players in the CPU market globally are Intel and AMD. While they are first and second place, the gap between the two is enormous with Intel clearly in the lead on the global market.

The latest numbers from IHS iSuppli show that Intel was first for the full year of 2010 in global revenue with 81% of all sales. That is a slight growth of 0.4% from the full year 2009 results Intel posted. AMD ended 2010 with 11.4% of the global processor revenue. That was a decline of 0.8% compared to the 12.2% AMD finished with in 2009.

The numbers look worse for AMD when you look at Q4 only. AMD lost market share in Q4 2010 compared to the same quarter of 2009 with a 12.2% decline. Compared to Q3 2010, Q4 was down 11.4%. The overall revenue in the microprocessor market boomed in 2010 to $40 billion, a growth of 25% compared to 2009.

This year AMD has benefited from Intel's Sandy Bridge chipset woes so this quarter may look different for AMD.

ISuppli pointed out that the tablet market grew significantly in 2010 and that by 2015 it expects 240 million units to ship. The research firm predicts that unit shipments of media tablets grew to 17.4 million in 2010 compared to no shipments in 2009. Much of that number is attributed to the Apple iPad.

"The year 2010 was a period of major transitions in the microprocessor market, with suppliers facing a raft of changes, ranging from the new competitive threat posed by media tablets to the robust post-recession recovery, to the technology revolution spurred by the rise of graphics-enabled microprocessors (GEMs)," said Matthew Wilkins, principal analyst of computer platforms for IHS. "Despite these developments, the competitive state of affairs remained very much the same two-horse race it has been for more than 20 years, with Intel firmly in the lead and AMD a distant second."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No Proof
By BSMonitor on 3/25/2011 2:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
This year AMD has benefited from Intel's Sandy Bridge chipset woes so this quarter may look different for AMD.

Ummm, AMD doesn't even compete in most of the segments that Core i5 and Core i7 dwell. Especially in the mobile segment. It is 100% more likely that Lynnfield and Clarkdale processor sales spiked rather than outdated Phenom II's.

RE: No Proof
By Taft12 on 3/25/2011 5:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
What you say about i5/i7 is true but those segments are surprisingly small. Didn't we once see numbers that showed i7's less than 0.5% of shipped CPUs?

AMD mobile marketshare was dreary (as was performance!) but I think Brazos has changed that. As another poster pointed out, there are a TON of attractively priced E-350 laptops in the Best Buy flyers. I'd be willing to bet AMD has seen 2011 growth that changes these figures by a few %

Same Socket
By Mitch101 on 3/25/2011 10:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
AMD CPU sales grew for me by two CPU's in the past month.

My Server
Sharepoint 2010 requires a quad core CPU. So I upgraded my server from a dual core to a quad. I didnt need a memory upgrade or motherboard just a new CPU and I was ready for test Sharepoint 2010.

My main rig was a dual core Intel E8400 mild OC to 3.6ghz 8 gigs ram but I had a home theater machine that was a low power AMD dual core 4850e. Both with DDR2 memory. I opted to pull the low power AMD chip from my home theater box and upgrade that to a AMD Quad Black chip and overclock that to 4Ghz. $139.00 and swap the memory between the two.

Now I have an AMD 4850e I sold on e-bay for $40.00. $280 - $40 = $240.00 to upgrade both machines to Quads. I did nab a 120mm cooling fan for $11.00 after rebate but also got a $10.00 gift card in buying the AMD chip so $1.00 120mm cooling.

Had I upgraded on the Intel side I would have needed to purchase a CPU, Mobo, and DDR3 Ram, and paid $11.00 for the cooling fan. It would only be mildly faster than what I did unless I spent a lot more money.

I know my next upgrade will be costly but am Very happy I was able to squeeze one upgrade out of two machines.

Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By Beenthere on 3/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By quiksilvr on 3/25/2011 10:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
They broke the law and paid BILLIONS to both AMD and nVidia. It's done.

However, I agree that AMD needs to REALLY push APU and breathe new life into the market or this year is going to look equally grim.

RE: Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By dgingeri on 3/25/2011 10:38:11 AM , Rating: 5
regardless of how much they paid to AMD, the damage has been done. AMD lacked the money to get manpower for development for years specifically because of the way Intel had acted in the market. Because of that, AMD is at least a year behind Intel in processor development, (Their products are competitive with Intel's products from a year ago) and they won't be able to catch up for at least the next 5, if at all. This seals Intel's dominance in the marketplace. They'll make back at least 100 times the money they paid to AMD for that behavior.

On top of all that, AMD won't be able to make enough money to pay for product development to properly catch up with Intel. They only way AMD could actually catch up with Intel is if their management slacks off and doesn't drive development, as it was back in the Pentium 4 days. The management and development mess that was the Pentium 4 was the only reason AMD caught up back then, and Intel should have lost the market specifically because of that. However, their anti-competitive practices kept AMD back.

I don't want to go back to the days of the Pentium 4, where the processor market made a whole 25% progress (the actual performance progress between the Pentium 4 at 2.2Ghz and 3.2Ghz) in 3 years, while driving costs up. We'll probably be looking at exactly that in about 2 more years, if Bulldozer doesn't live up to matching Sandy Bridge.

By inighthawki on 3/25/2011 12:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's foolish to believe they will never catch up. New entrees to markets have often prevailed quite well. Just look at the graphics market. ATi was around years before nVidia, not to mention all the companies around before both of them that had dominance in the market that now don't even exist.

Furthering technology in a CPU is all about getting the right people to build it. If AMD hires smarter engineers and happens to build a better chip than Intel, then that's the end of it. Intel doesn't simply make better chips because they are a year ahead in design.

RE: Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By Boushh on 3/25/2011 12:39:15 PM , Rating: 5
You forget to mention that when AMD was finally in the lead (after they released there AMD64 CPU's and Intel released the never impressive Prescott), they also didn't do much more than 100 Mhz speed bumps now and then until Intel released the Conroe, while charging prices just as high as Intel did before them (including $999,- special editions).

When they finally did get some traction, Intel released the Core series of CPU's and AMD simply has yet to answer.

Although (when AMD got into the lead performance wise) it looked financial interesting to ask a premium for their products to recoup past development costs, they simple should have lowered the price of their offerings to really burn Intel into the ground. If AMD did back then what Intel did with Conroe, AMD would have really hurt Intel big time.

Instead, AMD was surprised that Intel was able to launch a new CPU architecture, twice as fast as there own for halve the price.

Sure, Intels fiddling with contracts and so did have an impact on the market, and indeed stalled AMD. But to say that Intel is to blame for everything bad that hit AMD, that is simply untrue.

By Lifted on 3/25/2011 2:45:04 PM , Rating: 3
lthough (when AMD got into the lead performance wise) it looked financial interesting to ask a premium for their products to recoup past development costs, they simple should have lowered the price of their offerings to really burn Intel into the ground.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking. AMD could never have crushed Intel via price alone as they didn't have capacity to supply any more than 20% or so of the market, and they are (or were at the time - might still be) contractually/legally limited to supplying no more than 20-25% of the market.

This is all besides the point that they are accountable to their shareholders, and "burning Intel" is not what shareholders care about, at all. All they are concerned about is making money on their investment, hence the $999 consumer CPU's when they were in a position to charge that much.

By Shadowmaster625 on 3/28/2011 9:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
An Athlon 64 3800 was half the price of a P4 670, and still performed better. See tinyurl 45prfgx

What would you expect a company with a better product to do? Charge less money? They did. Charge how much less? 50% less? Well, they did that too.

RE: Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By Mitch101 on 3/25/2011 10:40:02 AM , Rating: 1
Bulldozer talks say that its on par with Sandy bridge and other leaks say its much faster in some areas. I haven't heard of any negative performances and samples are rumored to be running smooth the last I heard a mobo glitch that would be easy to fix is all that stands between launch.

AMD might get a boost with GPU sales to Apple. Someone looked at drivers and found the latest ones include a lot more of AMD's lineup that weren't in there prior. Who knows maybe some CPU's in Apple if bulldozer looks good.

AMD has some interesting chips that might make good tablets and has some that will make for good Laptop chips. Low power good graphics performance.

I suspect next year we have console refreshes coming AMD is likely to score two of the three consoles. I would expect Nintendo next year and wouldn't be surprised if we see all 3 consoles next year. They always deny when so they dont mess up current sales and good to get a jump on the competition. We do know Microsoft has been picking up engineers to work on the next console.

Id like to see a surprise ARM/Fusion chip from AMD.

RE: Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By Da W on 3/25/2011 12:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
Go to best buy, i've never seen so many AMD laptop (or nettop, or netbook or whatever) in my life. Mostly all Brazos E series. Still, this is a good start for a 40nm atom-like piece.

Don't forget Llano. It will be the standard Phenom IIX4 snapped on a beefy GPU, plus 32nm shrink and a few other goodies like power gating and the like. It won't be the entousiast dream CPU, but from a marketplace perspective, they will have far improved battery life and killer graphic on 1 chip for mainstream laptop. OEMs are going to go crazy over theses pieces as they won't need to buy additional mobile GPU.

As for Bulldozer, it will be a multithread monster without GPU on chip this year and primary targeted at servers. I'm not sure about single thread though. So you'll have to wait a little longer for your gaming rig. But as far as financial health of AMD goes, i'm positive the worst is behind them.

And we forget the graphics, but just as NVIDIA catched up, AMD will launch their 28nm Southern Island GPU this summer, which i suspect same architecture as current 69xx GPU on a smaller die with less power and higher clocks.

By DanNeely on 3/25/2011 1:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
Is TSMC going to be able to deliver on 28nm? Last fall most people were predicting it would be a year before they'd have all the bugs worked out.

By Motoman on 3/25/2011 10:21:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's pretty clear that consumers don't really care. It was pretty obvious for, I don't know, at least 10 years before the court rulings that Intel was operating like the mafia - but consumers can't be bothered to consider such things.

They're going to buy what the TV tells them to buy. And that's all the more that they're going to think about it.

RE: Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By Flunk on 3/25/2011 10:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
AMD has to make a competitive product or no one will buy it. It's that simple.

RE: Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By The Raven on 3/25/2011 10:35:02 AM , Rating: 2
I like the cut of your jib, but it really isn't that simple.
Lack of freedom can be caused by giant governments and giant businesses. Check out anti-trust law history and you'll see why we should be opposed to Intel. Though I an against much gov't intervention. It should be the people voting with their dollars more than at the polls. Unfortunately most people don't even know what they are buying or how much freedom they maybe throwing away because Intel products can have the best performance on the market today.

RE: Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By imaheadcase on 3/25/2011 11:07:47 AM , Rating: 3
Consumers don't care about anti-trust lawsuits, etc. They care about products performance. The average consumer just looks at 2 things..price/performance. Right so to, who really cares if product is made under shady practices?

RE: Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By Motoman on 3/25/2011 1:02:01 PM , Rating: 3
They don't even know that. They buy what the TV says to buy, or what the retarded Best Buy salesboy tells them to buy.

Even in the eras when AMD chips were clearly superior to Intel, people didn't change their buying habits.

By TSS on 3/26/2011 5:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
Then again most people don't have much interest in PC's.

Go try asking girls what processor is in their home PC. The majority of the responses i got was "what's a processor?". Even asking if it is an Intel or AMD, Pentium or Athlon will probably net you the response "...". Even though there's a sticker on the front of the PC pointing out what's inside. Some will want a Macbook no matter what you say, or what they are able to afford.

RE: Go AMD and leave the criminals behind
By Taft12 on 3/25/2011 5:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
The average consumer just looks at 2 things..price/performance.

I'd say they don't really even care about performance.

Brand name counts though (consumers have at least heard of Intel, and look how far Apple's brand name has carried them)

By The Raven on 3/29/2011 9:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say they don't really even care about performance.

I think he means performance as in, "This thing never crashes!"
Not, "Why can't I run Crysis at 150 FPS on this?!"

By bug77 on 3/25/2011 10:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
If consumers are smart...

Logic 101: starting from a false premise, you can prove anything.

Intel >> AMD
By the goat on 3/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Intel >> AMD
By silverblue on 3/27/2011 6:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of some minor underhanded practices


RE: Intel >> AMD
By Shadowmaster625 on 3/28/2011 9:28:45 AM , Rating: 1
That really isnt true. That's like saying Corvette has always outperformed Mustang. I am not implying that I like the Ford better, but you have to admit, dollar for dollar, a Mustang gives you much more performance than a Corvette. In terms of performance per dollar, 90% of the time AMD is the better deal. That should be obvious if you take just a glance at Intel's margins. They are too high for them to truly be the leader from a consumer's point of view.

AMD overspent buying ATI
By NauticalStrong on 3/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: AMD overspent buying ATI
By Alexvrb on 3/25/2011 10:43:02 PM , Rating: 3
AMD's graphics division (ATI) is doing quite well, thank you. If they hadn't bought ATI, they would STILL be struggling, but they wouldn't have the Radeon 6000 series, and they wouldn't have Fusion.

So even in the short term their investment is paying off.

RE: AMD overspent buying ATI
By bryanW1995 on 3/26/2011 10:07:24 AM , Rating: 3
yeah, they could have designed their own gpu. Maybe they could have called it "larrabee".

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki