DailyTech - AMD Guns for 40% of the Server Market

Submit News

Hardware AMD Guns for 40% of the Server Market
Brandon Hill (Blog) - August 23, 2006 5:56 PM

32 comment(s) - last by zsdersw.. on Aug 24 at 1:37 PM

AMD eyes 33% by 2008, 40% by 2009

AMD sees the potential for huge growth in its server processor sales in the coming years. The company is aiming to capture at least 33% of the server market by 2008 and as much as 40% by 2009 according to CNET. "There's no reason why AMD can't achieve 40 percent," said AMD's Commercial Business VP, Marty Seyer. AMD had an overall market share of 18.2% in 2005 and had as much as 16.4% of the server market for Q4 2005.

The latest projections show the server market growing on average at 11% each year and could reach $62 billion USD (11.8 million units) at the beginning of the next decade.

AMD has been taking a leadership role in server processors with its x86-64 Opteron processors. The processors made a huge splash when they were introduced in April of 2003 and have brought AMD a lot of industry support and critical acclaim over the years. AMD's Opteron processors have been so impressive in fact, that long-time hold-out Dell even had to cave and give into using AMD Opterons for some of its servers. That relationship has since expanded to included the announcement of AMD-based desktops and will also included AMD-based notebooks by the end of the year.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

Core 2 Effect?

By Connoisseur on 8/23/2006 6:14:39 PM , Rating: 2

I wonder how Core 2 will affect these projections. AMD can't hope to be so optimistic with its projections in light of a new architecture from its rival.

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By smitty3268 on 8/23/2006 6:21:39 PM , Rating: 4

They can if K8L will be even more impressive.

I think the main argument to be made is that with Opteron AMD finally gained a great reputation and that will carry forward over the next few years, whereas before no one even considered anything but a Xeon.

The projections are almost certainly too optimistic though. Reality usually doesn't follow what companies say.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Regs on 8/23/2006 7:34:15 PM , Rating: 2

Intel has certainly put on some aggression as they admit to their stock holders they let too much of the market slip away. I can't imagine their stock holders without Core 2 when AMD just landed a contract agreement with the baggiest computer vendor in the world. On top of that many fortune 500 companies are switching to Opterons (including my company). Intel's aggression should be looked at just so, as aggression. It should no way affect the optimism of AMD for the next year.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Shining Arcanine on 8/23/2006 8:29:38 PM , Rating: 1

If Intel does another leap ahead with Core 3 in 2008 like it did this year with the Core 2 when compared to the Pentium 4, AMD's optimism might become misguided.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Tsuwamono on 8/23/2006 9:41:52 PM , Rating: 1

those kinds of leaps come once a decade bud. Not going to happen again for a while.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By michael2k on 8/23/2006 11:37:42 PM , Rating: 2

That was only true because for the last 10 years AMD didn't offer the kind of competition that they do now. In the past four years we saw three "huge" architectures, the Athlon/Opteron, the Core, and now the Core2Duo.

There is no reason not to expect Intel NOT to keep up, now that they take AMD seriously.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Laitainion on 8/24/2006 11:21:46 AM , Rating: 2

Core was just rebranded Pentium M, which was based on the Pentium 3. Compared to Pentium 4, it is much better clock for clock, but it wasn't much ahead of K8 in performance per clock.
Besides, now Intel has a 'killer-archicture', it's now going to be fine tuning and optimising it in future CPU editions (Core 3 will certainly just be that). They can get a lot out of that, look at K8, it's been going leading the P4 for how long?
But for such another huge leap, Intel would have to do another redesign of their architecture and I don't believe it would be economically viable to do that when they can get more out of Conroe.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Ytsejamer1 on 8/24/2006 9:09:25 AM , Rating: 2

My company too was an Intel-only house. Now we're bringing in our first opteron (at my pushing) after I signed up the other engineers and my supervisor to go to the tech tour. They were all floored with the AMD offerings and we have our first Opteron box coming in this week. It's a Sunfire 4200 unit with two dual core 285s, 8gb memory, etc, etc. Christmas in August! :)

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By ZeeStorm on 8/24/06, Rating: -1

By ZeeStorm on 8/24/2006 1:25:41 PM , Rating: -1

I wish the government wasn't so vendor-locked. I work for a local sheriff's office, and they're vendor-locked with a company that only uses Intel parts. I offered to even buy/build/anything to get an AMD computer in here and was shut off. We have a huge IS department here, and they won't even let us design our own computers (which we've been doing for years at home), and rather spend over 75% more than what we would've if they just let us build our own, but oh wait, that's the government for you. Saving money (the saying, the more you spend, the better you get is far from correct), buying better quality, and using their own employees for things instead of vendor's is wrong (or so it seems). They just bought a beast here with the new Intel EE 960D or something like that, and it just sucks. Not just hardware problems, and "speed" (just cause it's 3+ghz doesn't mean it's better than a 2GHZ AMD/Core 2), but incompatibility and RAID5 (why they want this, I don't know) crap. Within the first 2 days of booting, XP blue-screen'd 3 times on hardware incompatibility. My only hope is that Intel loses more and more, and we're finally *forced* to go to AMD. Oh, by then maybe we can buy some Corsair (or even Kingston, I don't care) RAM instead of buying 4GB of some no-named brand that is recognized as 3.2GB (and acts like 1GB)? Maybe this is why the government is always slower than commercial, they're too scared to lose their precious contracts with crappy companys, than to advance in the real world..

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By s12033722 on 8/23/2006 6:48:05 PM , Rating: 2

It will probably affect 2-way configurations, but AMD still holds the lead above that.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Shining Arcanine on 8/23/2006 8:26:54 PM , Rating: 2

Only for another year. Then 4+ processor motherboards will be avaliable that support Core 2 Duo chips. At 8 processor motherboards, AMD's processors do not scale well, as by then, every processor no longer has a direct path to every other processor (due to the number of 16bit HT links), creating huge latency penalties (not to mention all of the overhead involved in syncronizing the memory controllers is exponential), which Intel's north bridge based memory controller does not have. I read that AMD was going to fix that for 8 processor motherboards by allowing the usage of 8bit HT links, but the problem would still exist in 16+ processor motherboards.

That does not mean that Intel does not have a problem though, as with a single memory controller, Intel's processors will need larger and larger amounts of memory bandwidth to feed all of the processors sharing the memory controller. Although they seem to have rectified that for the foreseeable future due to their use of FB-DIMMs.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By whsyu on 8/23/2006 9:33:03 PM , Rating: 2

So you think that woodcrest will scale better then opteron in 8p systems, even thay do not very well in 2p(4 core) system now?

Another question, why "Core 2 Duo" need 4+ configuration?

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By MDme on 8/23/2006 10:05:27 PM , Rating: 2

Well, intel's solution is far inferior to AMD's with everything at 4-way and up configurations. With K8L, AMD's excellent scaling will extend to 8-way (16 core configurations - or even 32 core with quad core K8L).

intel has to settle for the FSB. even with FB-DIMMs' bandwidth from the memory to the northbridge, they will still be bottlenecked by the FSB to northbridge path itself. I think intel has a dual northdridge board coming up, but that only addresses 2 CPU (4 core configurations). But again when they switch to quad core cpus, each CPU will be bandwidth starved.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By zsdersw on 8/23/2006 10:32:08 PM , Rating: 2

4-way and up configurations alone aren't going to get AMD to their projected marketshare percentages. Most servers are 1 and 2-processor systems.

The dual northbridge boards are already here and Woodcrest-based systems with those boards are selling right now (and have been for a little while).

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Viditor on 8/24/2006 3:25:00 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
4-way and up configurations alone aren't going to get AMD to their projected marketshare percentages. Most servers are 1 and 2-processor systems

True...at least in terms of volume (not revenue share).

quote:
The dual northbridge boards are already here and Woodcrest-based systems with those boards are selling right now (and have been for a little while).

Well, they're for sale, but they aren't really selling (yet). I do expect them to do well early next year as they start to become qualified though...
That said, AMD has carved out a huge chunk of momentum, and with the ability to scale well past Woodcrest at the moment, the larger clients are sticking with AMD. While I imagine many small businesses are looking at Woodcrest, the medium to enterprise level are usually never swayed by a leap in processor speed alone.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By zsdersw on 8/24/2006 6:16:03 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
the medium to enterprise level are usually never swayed by a leap in processor speed alone.

The concept of "swaying" only applies to existing customers. AMD gaining marketshare is gonna require new customers. New customers are going to go with the better platform. Presently, in 1P and 2P, that's Woodcrest.. and small businesses aren't the only ones who use 1P and 2P systems.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Viditor on 8/24/2006 9:26:35 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
New customers are going to go with the better platform. Presently, in 1P and 2P, that's Woodcrest

That was my point...for smaller companies, I would accept that. But larger companies don't like to mix and match like that. They tend to get the same platform accross the board (which is why Xeon hung in there for so long!).

1. Core 2 Duo is limited to 1-2P, that limits your options if you are a medium to large company that wants only a single architecture.

2. AMD has already released assurances that the power envelope will not change when they go to quad core. That's VERY attractive for larger adopters.

3. K8L will also be a drop in replacement for Socket F (though without DDR3 support).

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By zsdersw on 8/24/2006 10:15:29 AM , Rating: 2

Not all large companies are using Opterons, so that cuts both ways. If they're using Xeons, they're gonna continue to use Xeons.. especially with 4P+ Xeons based on Woodcrest coming relatively soon.

You incorrectly refer to Woodcrests as Core 2 Duo's. They're not. They're Xeon 51xx.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Viditor on 8/24/2006 11:20:39 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
If they're using Xeons, they're gonna continue to use Xeons.. especially with 4P+ Xeons based on Woodcrest coming relatively soon

Not necessarily...it's a different architecture.
The 4P+ Xeons are going to be released in a year, but they won't finish being qualified till the end of 07.
I'm sure there certainly are several large companies that will remain all Intel, but that (at the moment) is less than 10% of the Fortune 500.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By zsdersw on 8/24/2006 1:37:17 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Not necessarily...it's a different architecture.

For a company that already has Xeons, switching to Opterons would be an architecture change too, so the point is moot.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Viditor on 8/24/2006 11:27:13 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
You incorrectly refer to Woodcrests as Core 2 Duo's. They're not. They're Xeon 51xx

Sorry, missed the comment. You are correct, though the core is the same (being lazy).

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Viditor on 8/24/2006 3:11:59 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
4+ processor motherboards will be avaliable that support Core 2 Duo chips

The problem with that is that with more than 2 C2D chips (especially if they're quad core), Intel is still stuck with a FSB instead of a Direct Architecture...CSI isn't due until 2009.

quote:
AMD's processors do not scale well

I guess you haven't seen any data on K8L...it will have extra cHT links and much increased bandwidth and throughput. K8L platforms are expected to be 16 sockets or more with direct links, and HT 3.0 will allow for 16bit on all cHT links @3k instead of 2k.

quote:
Intel's processors will need larger and larger amounts of memory bandwidth to feed all of the processors sharing the memory controller. Although they seem to have rectified that for the foreseeable future due to their use of FB-DIMMs

Except that even with multiple FSB connections, they still only have a single connection to system memory...

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By robber98 on 8/23/2006 7:26:48 PM , Rating: 2

Core 2 is fast, but scalability is the key in enterprise market. We will see...

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By BioRebel on 8/23/2006 7:37:00 PM , Rating: 2

Its the same way in the desktop market right now. Intel is in the lead because their development cycle is a year ahead of AMD's. Next year you'll see them drop prices and offer newer and faster CPU's. My guess is a price dropm will appear soon, around this fall when they release the K8L benchmarks.

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By Viditor on 8/24/2006 3:01:27 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
AMD can't hope to be so optimistic with its projections in light of a new architecture from its rival

They made the projections well after Core 2's release...so I guess they can. :)

Parent

RE: Core 2 Effect?

By zsdersw on 8/24/2006 6:16:43 AM , Rating: 2

And they have as much a right to be wrong as anyone else.

Parent

Not at these prices!

By RyanHirst on 8/23/06, Rating: 0

RE: Not at these prices!

By masher2

(blog) on 8/23/2006 7:55:52 PM , Rating: 1

Who would downrate a post with a Dr. Seuss quote in it? This shall not stand, sir!

Parent

RE: Not at these prices!

By rippleyaliens on 8/24/2006 12:19:14 AM , Rating: 1

That is correct, I like amd, and their product rocks. BUT they are VERY slow in bringing new product to the market. Intel, with netburst, however bad it is, releases new, and newer chips often, at times a very difficult rate to keep up with, but it offers choices. AMD hasnt really made me go WOW, in years. Core 2 duo, well, you have to admit, the chip rocks, you wont see it on corporate desktops for atleast a year, but the Woodcrest - now that is a different story. It is very fast.. AMD might have the 4way and up, but not for long i predict.

Reason- easy.. IT is very hard now to saturate a 4 or 8 way, dual core server now. VMware is someone mentions, well, they have went to the N+ model, as citrix is. MEANING, instead of 2 big servers, how about you buy 6 servers, same machine cost, yet, you have more redundancy..

And biggest complain, and many business people see this, is the fact that AMD has not lowered their prices in over 1 year. until intel came out with something.. MEANING that amd loves to gouge the customer. AND amd will have to do something that they just aquired the assets to do, and that is provide a unified platform. Now their 1st gen might be good, but intel is on like 8-9th gen?

Also, compairing 4 ways to 2 ways.. Even the biggest companies that i support, they may have 1-2 maybe 6 at the max of servers with >4 cpu's.. Versus the 200-500 servers, that are 1 and 2 ways.. do the math.

Parent

RE: Not at these prices!

By duploxxx on 8/24/2006 3:21:49 AM , Rating: 2

well then i have to ask? have you worked already with the woodcrest? i have them here next to each other and clock/clock 2p the woodcrest is only max 5% faster than the old opteron s940. so forget about your chitchat of a "rocking chip" they have the lead indeed with a 3.0 core that's for sure but that's all.

and for pricing...don't forget the whole package... the proc might be cheaper, the whole systems aren't

Parent

RE: Not at these prices!

By zsdersw on 8/24/2006 6:19:46 AM , Rating: 2

Your mileage may vary

Parent

RE: Not at these prices!

By fic2 on 8/24/2006 12:22:47 PM , Rating: 4

So your biggest complaint with AMD is that they haven't lowered their prices in a year? How long did Intel have $2-3k server processors before AMD came out with the Opteron at 1/2 the price and butt kicking performance? If it weren't for AMD businesses would still be buying overpriced underperforming server processors.

Parent

"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen