backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by AstroCreep.. on Dec 15 at 8:13 PM


AMD's growth numbers for 2006 - Click to Enlarge
AMD gives us a progress report on its processor business

AMD is a company on the move and its recent surge in marketshare are a testament to that. The Sunnyvale, CA-based company has seen its marketshare steadily increase since Q3 of 2004 in all aspects of its processor business.  During today's Financial Analyst day at AMD, the company announced its exact growth figures on the year.

As a whole, the company has seen its overall PC marketshare rise from 15.9% in Q3 2004 to 23.3% in Q3 2006. AMD has also seen steady, gradual increases in marketshare in its mobile and desktop business in the past two years.

This big news, however, comes from AMD's server business. This jump in marketshare on the server side was no doubt buoyed by the popularity of Opteron processors and will only grow with AMD's recent pact with PC giant Dell Computer. AMD saw its share of the server market double from 6% in Q3 2004 to 12.6% in 2005. Its share nearly doubled again to 24.4% in Q3 2006.

AMD reported record OEM sales in the third quarter of 2006 and noted that over 60% of the Forbes Top 500 use AMD64-based processors. And in addition to the previously mentioned AMD-Dell server arrangement, AMD has also scored notebook and desktop deals with Dell along with key design wins from Hewlett-Packard and Lenovo.



Comments     Threshold


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

asd
By SonicIce on 12/14/2006 5:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
people seem to gravitate to whatever is doing worse at the time. everyone buys P4 when A64 owned. now core 2 is owning and AMD gets attention?




RE: asd
By copiedright on 12/14/2006 5:13:02 PM , Rating: 5
You really should define "worse".
Performance is not everything, the cost to most people is the more important factor. Just because something is faster doesn't mean its more cost effective.

AFAIK: AMD are currently really going for a price advantage in the lower end, this seems to be effective.


RE: asd
By Acanthus on 12/14/2006 5:33:16 PM , Rating: 1
Cost isnt everything, marketshare didnt budge much when we had $40 athlon XPs.


RE: asd
By livinloud on 12/14/2006 5:43:30 PM , Rating: 5
This was because AMD was not known from the buyer, only by the people in the industry. They had to do their proof to be reliable and now it's done.


RE: asd
By copiedright on 12/14/2006 9:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say cost was everything.

For me personally, compatibility is the most important thing. I've just orded computers for several member of my family, and I ensured they all had LGA775, DDR2 and PCIe. I could have got a better and cheaper computer by going with AMD, but I like having spares. Also it allows me to hand my replaced components to them, as I upgrade.


RE: asd
By Calin on 12/15/2006 3:33:30 AM , Rating: 1
This isn't compatibility - it's more like "common standards", or computer commonality.
But yes, LGA775 offers processors from the lowest priced, lower performance ones to the highest performance possible ones, all in the same socket.


RE: asd
By copiedright on 12/15/2006 3:45:40 AM , Rating: 4
Mind you, in typical Intel fashion, a new chip set is required for every new generation. I got the 925 series when they first came out, thinking "I cant wait to dual core is out, a quick bios update and I will be fine." WOW I was wrong!

I'm actually really surprised some 945 boards work with CORE2.


RE: asd
By JackPack on 12/14/2006 6:49:40 PM , Rating: 3
So basically, now that Intel has the lead in performance, performance is no longer paramount. It's about cost.

Intel selling their Pentium D 945 for $163 is pretty competitive.


RE: asd
By Yawgm0th on 12/14/2006 11:49:57 PM , Rating: 3
Not really... An E6300 is about $15 more and much better. An X2 3800 is considerably less expensive and much better. The entire Pentium D line is pretty uncompetitive.

Now the 805, being a dual-core processor at under $100, is competitive. Otherwise though, I can't see how you could bring up anything Pentium as being competitive.


RE: asd
By AstroCreep on 12/15/2006 8:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AFAIK: AMD are currently really going for a price advantage in the lower end, this seems to be effective.


It's very effective.
I do the tech purchasing for my company, and when I started we were buying the Compaq business-line systems ('Evo'), and eventually when they became hp-branded they started making available AMD systems.

When we were paying a good $700 for a low-end Pentium 4 system they started selling Athlon64 systems for a mere $600...and with a standard 3-year warranty. Performance was even better than the systems we were buying for over $100 more, which definately caught the attention of my CIO.
Hard deal to pass, especially for a company that analyzes tech-costs more than most.


RE: asd
By MonkeyPaw on 12/14/2006 5:32:26 PM , Rating: 3
AMD's platform is quite appealing, IMO. The IMC provides fairly uniform performance across the board, regardless of the chipset. This allows OEMs to chose any K8-based chipset they want without major drawbacks (where K7 failed), resulting in more choice and competition, and consequently a lower platform cost. The TDP of most K8s is quite reasonable (Intel-like), requiring nothing but a simple cooler and power supply. Add to that the solid performance of both the ATI and nVidia IGP chipsets, and you have a very cheap, relatively fast and stable platform that can be sold for a decent margin. Most people purchasing a PC probably walk away with an IGP platform, and I think OEMs are okay with the profits they make on such AMD systems (no Intel chipset royalties). If you're a non-gamer/encoder, how much does a faster CPU really matter? AMD's performance loss to C2D has caused them to drastically lower prices. Add to that the introduction of cheaper 65nm CPUs, and it makes AMD even more appealing cost-wise. As long as the average consumer accepts AMD as a legitimate CPU provider (which seems to be the growing trend), AMD should continue to do relatively well in terms of marketshare.


RE: asd
By dwalton on 12/14/2006 6:16:46 PM , Rating: 5
Market perception doesn't turn on a dime. It takes time to earn the trust of consumers, OEMs and builders. AMD has changed its reputation of being a second class cpu manufacturer by offering better cpu performance. Intel has helped that change along by giving us Prescott and all its derivatives.

Intel has taken over the performance crown once again but that not going to change market perception overnight and put AMD back in the realm of irrelevance.


RE: asd
By kamel5547 on 12/14/2006 6:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
Thats because there are multiple factors at play: reputation, costs,performance, and availability. AMD has managed to favorably impact all four of these factors compared to the past. While they may have fallen behind Intel's performance the gains in availability and reputation make it much more likely they will sell systems to corporations and consumers. And as the P4 showed, it takes a long time for reputation to be overcome.


RE: asd
By MrDiSante on 12/14/2006 8:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
The world would be a far better place if it did. At any rate, we should see how much effect Core 2 architecture has had in a year or so, when it reaches the low end and has had time to boost Intel's reputation back up.


RE: asd
By geeg on 12/14/2006 10:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
The opteron does not have a rival from intel. Say the 8-way dual core CPUs you can make a cluster of 16 processors. There is no intel solution for that.


RE: asd
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/15/2006 9:19:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's called a 2 Socket Quad Core server. 16 Cores, same as the AMD 4 socket configuration.


RE: asd
By geeg on 12/15/2006 11:28:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's called a math error:
2 socket quad core xeon = 8 cores.
8-way (8 socket) dual core opteron = 16 cores.
There is no such product (afaik) with 4 socket (quad core supporting) xeon server



What happened to external links?
By Marlowe on 12/14/2006 5:47:46 PM , Rating: 1
Am I the only one who's noticing the lack of external links, "proof", in the articles here lately?

I've noticed how you have been very agressive in overtaking readers the past weeks and couple of months. Your own seemingly simple tech news sites' early testing and reporting of the GF8800 cards contributing heavily I presume.

I saw readers of The Inquirer comment to them on how they made good money by reading that sites' articles and investing stocks thereby.

And as seeing this article about a certain company and still without any.. "proof" .. It, forgive me for sayin so, came to trigger a thought about such nonsence as wether this sites controller possibly had something to gain.. from this.

In any case, I hope not labelling your articles as simple posts in some inaffiliated persons Blog are supposed to make the website irresponsible if such a case is surfaced.

Am I the only one thinking in these directions?




RE: What happened to external links?
By Phenick on 12/14/2006 6:00:10 PM , Rating: 5
yes, you are...


By Tupolev22m on 12/14/2006 9:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
You're certainly the only one willing to explain this very interesting theory in such a literate post.


RE: What happened to external links?
By Goty on 12/15/2006 12:10:33 AM , Rating: 1
Go watch the online re-broadcast of the Analyst Day proceedings and see for yourself. The only reason you don't see any "proof" of these statements is because you're not willing to do the legwork to find out the truth for yourself.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Related Articles
Dell Puts AMD Inside Servers
October 23, 2006, 4:59 PM
Dell Introduces Two AMD-Based Desktops
September 13, 2006, 1:00 PM
Dell Confirms AMD Notebooks
August 8, 2006, 4:09 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki