backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 73 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Nov 4 at 9:24 PM
Intel holds the vast majority of the CPU market

CPU sales are strongly tied to the computer industry, so when the computer industry is up CPU sales go up as well. CPU sales are still going strong and the latest market share results for the industry are now available.

ISuppli figures for Q3 2008 are now available according to InformationWeek. Intel is the big winner in the CPU market now holding a massive 80.4% share of the global revenue in the CPU industry. Intel's market share is up 1.7% from the same quarter in 2007. AMD isn’t faring as well as Intel in the market and iSuppli reports that AMD's market share declined by 1.8% for the quarter to 12.1%.

In Q3 2007, AMD held 13.9% of the market. Despite the year-over-year drop in AMD's market share, AMD did grow its share for Q3 2008 compared to Q2 2008 by a mere 0.1%. Intel's short-term gain was nearly as scant with a mere 0.3% gain. According to iSuppli, the smaller CPU vendors are feeling the brunt of the global economy crunch and are finding it very hard to compete in the CPU market.

Matthew Wilkins, an analyst form iSuppli, said in a statement, "Intel's growth is largely due to the strength of its product portfolio in the notebook segment. In the third quarter, Intel achieved a double-positive, producing share growth on both a sequential and year-over basis, while main rival AMD grew in the short term only."

More Notebooks shipped in Q3 than desktop systems for the first time ever. This significant milestone was a definite help to Intel who dominates the notebook market in both CPUs and GPUs. NVIDIA is challenging Intel in the GPU market though with its latest 9400M GPU. ISuppli forecasts that the overall PC market will grow by 12.5% in 2008 compared to 2007.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
In other news
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/30/2008 10:21:05 AM , Rating: 3
The sun is still in the sky :)

...On a serious note, though, Via and/or IBM should form an alliance with AMD to combat Intel. Intel, if unchecked will bull over all those companies, so they should really consider combining their expertise to give themselves a shot. With IBM's die-shrink technology, AMD CPUs might finally be able to compete with Intel's. And with Via's netbook offerings, AMD could move into a new market, while it could probably give Via the benefit of extra promotion.

Either that or Via/IBM should just buy AMD.




RE: In other news
By othercents on 10/30/2008 10:35:56 AM , Rating: 3
Why? AMD just needs to produce a product that can compete. VIA/IBM doesn't have a product that is going to help AMD. Plus on the video card side AMD is doing just fine. The overall portfolio for AMD is good as long as they find a good processor solution.

It would have been best if they had a netbook solution already.

Other


RE: In other news
By ICE1966 on 10/30/2008 9:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
I wish you would tell me what the hell is wrong with an AMD cpu? Oh, ok, it does not over clock as well,but that does not mean that AMD is building a bad cpu. I have a dual core AMD 3.2 ghz system that will run anything your sorry ass intel system will. So who in the hell cares if you finish 20 seconds faster than I do. Who cares if you score a 1,000 more 3dmarks on 3dmark 06 than I do. I sure as hell don't, so now explain to me why AMD cpus are not competitive, or why they are not worth having. in real world performance the differnce is not much at all, if any. Its all going to come down to overclocking ability, and if so, thats sad.

please explain, I'm waiting


RE: In other news
By mindless1 on 10/30/2008 10:50:21 PM , Rating: 3
It's not that there's something wrong with an AMD CPU, it's that there is more right with the Intel name for other reasons.

Public perception - AMD is seen as the budget CPU since it's more often found in lower-end systems, creating the perception that it's somehow not as good as an Intel CPU to the average buyer.

Marketing - It's always been AMD's weakness

Fab Capability - For AMD to enter into larger volume contracts, they'd have to assure OEMs that they can meet their needs with more reserve manufacturing capacity.

Geekdom - A geek will see the high end Intel CPUs outperforming the high-end AMD and become an Intel fanboy, assuming that prospective purchasers would buy that expensive high end chip and recommend Intel while ignoring that at the price-point the customer is looking to buy into there may be little difference in performance.

However, there may be a performance difference and even if the Intel CPU only beat the AMD counterpart by 2% for example, why would an unbiased customer want the (merely) 2% slower AMD part if all else were equal in a system? When Intel's low end was comprised of P4 derivatives AMD had the lower-end market foothold but now with Core2 derivatives under $100 that foothold has eroded.

Overclocking has little to do with it. Most(?) people don't have any idea what their system would score on 3DMark, don't even have the knowledge to overclock nor do they need to since most are still running the same old stuff, office/email/Acrobat/browser (HTML, flash, scripts, utube video, etc), which simply doesn't need today's performance levels. HD video demands may come closest for the average person, but the average person uses their TV/DVD player for movies, not the computer.


RE: In other news
By ICE1966 on 10/31/2008 6:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with AMD's lack of marketing. that is one thing that hurts them to this day.


RE: In other news
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/31/2008 11:20:02 AM , Rating: 3
I see NO C2 cpus under 100, Newegg minimum starts at 120...


RE: In other news
By mindless1 on 11/4/2008 9:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
False, same chips with less cache sell under the Pentium name. They are C2D CPUs regardless of what the marketing dept. wants to call them.


RE: In other news
By othercents on 10/31/2008 11:17:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how this became a diatribe of AMD vs Intel. I wasn't bashing AMD and if you actually read what I wrote you would have seen:
quote:
AMD just needs to produce a product that can compete.

My statement wasn't AMD is junk and Intel is golden especially since I know AMD could turn things around tomorrow (and I hope they do since competition is good for the market). This could be marketing, but I really feel as though that some of the diehard AMD fans are running Intel processors these days because of performance. I know I am and I was pushing AMD for the longest time.

The facts are the facts. AMD is loosing market share and Intel is gaining market share. Price/performance ratio is better with Intel for most CPU types (server, desktop, laptop, etc). When I recommend computers to people I currently recommend C2D over any other processor. Netbooks are selling like crazy and that market is dominated by the Intel Atom processor.

Good or bad AMD needs to produce a netbook processor that outperforms the Atom, runs cooler, and uses less power. AMD needs to come out with a breakthrough processor for server, desktop, and laptop markets. AMD needs a marketing plan to get the information out to the consumer that AMD is better. Sounds easier than it actually is.

Understand that anything for AMD is going to be an uphill battle. Intel has the market locked and in some consumers eyes if it doesn't have the Intel inside logo then it is junk. I don't expect AMD to win market share with its current lineup of processors and I expect it to be difficult to win market share even if significantly better processors than Intel.

You can get upset at me or whatever, but you can't change the facts. Please, prove me wrong by making AMD gain and maintain a significant market share over 2 quarters.

Other


RE: In other news
By Quiescent on 11/1/2008 5:41:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to point out what nobody else did and ask why would get oh so offended by someone stating that perhaps AMD is doing better in a different department than they were a couple of years ago.

I was an AMD fan, but I don't stick with brands that I think will not benefit me. If I were building a server, then I might consider AMD for performance on a server, but not for a system in which I will be doing music production and medium gaming on.

I don't get why people stick with brands when they go sour. Here I am, having an AMD socket 939, and I'm planning on using intel for my next BIG upgrade. Why? Because the performance and overclocking on the intels, especially the Q6600 is amazing and surprised me. Because I don't stick with brands just because they used to be good. Again, I'm the buyer who looks for what product will benefit me, and not what product I've been buying for years or what product has been bought by my friends for years.

It's just like me going for a DSP card. People don't trust the E-MU brand name, because they never heard of it before, but it's cheap, and if it's a good work DSP card for cheaper than all the others, then who cares about the brand name.

I do all my shopping like this. Granted I won't ever touch an Apple product, but I still have, yet again, good reason not too. Why would I get an iPod when there are plenty more MP3 players out there not attached to a proprietary oriented company that have better features, and less to pay for.

I do it for my food too. Sure that nice fancy Lays chips brand, but you know what, this other brand I never heard of, it sure does look good, I think I'll TRY it.

And with Vista, I still won't use it, but I'm not going to continue this long, drawn out battle trying to prove to people why my reasoning of why I don't like it is good reasoning.

So why did I post this? Because I figured this long, drawn out argument would have been done, and instead of having immature attacks on people who just made a statement that tred light on the subject, I would have thought we would leave that behind. So I commented with my opinion on what I thought about AMD now and how I'm not, heaven forbid!, ditching AMD, oh my goodness!, but I do like Intel for their processors now, and also to comment on how I thought it was pretty bad on your part to attack someone who just said they didn't think AMD is doing as good as they did in the processor department. It was completely unnecessary.


RE: In other news
By SlyNine on 11/2/2008 5:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
Keep AMD in the market, If AMD had the C2D and Intel had the Phenom AMD's market share would be growing instead of shrinking.

From a consumer point of view your points are valid. But the chips just are not getting it done it the market. They need to be more competitive because while you don't care, a lot of people do.


RE: In other news
By amanojaku on 10/30/2008 10:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
IBM has no reason to compete directly with Intel as IBM doesn't do x86. VIA isn't large enough to buy AMD without running into the problem AMD had when it bought ATI. An alliance is the best solution, but IBM has no reason to get involved. If anything, AMD and/or VIA would license IBM tech to manufacture better CPUs in the same way AMD licensed DEC technology to create the Opteron.


RE: In other news
By borismkv on 10/30/2008 7:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
VIA isn't big enough to *buy* AMD. The aren't even on the American stock exchange. Via's total value is 680 million dollars. Basically, AMD loses more in a quarter than Via is worth.


RE: In other news
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/30/2008 10:49:18 AM , Rating: 2
They already have an alliance on many new technologies. The problem lies with IBM developing the tech, and none of the three ever figuring out how to mass market it. Intel is always the first to the mass market with new tech and process. IBM can shrink chips alright, but they seem to fail hard when it comes to shrinking entire product lines enmasse. Only Intel seems to have mastered bringing something out of the R&D labs into the main market in a short amount of time with minimal cost. You also need to consider that Intel is the #1 Semiconductor company in the world, by a significant margin no less.


RE: In other news
By quiksilvr on 10/30/2008 11:07:34 AM , Rating: 1
On top of that, AMD is forced to play catch up with Intel CONSTANTLY in the CPU market. Intel releases 65 nm chips, AMD still on 90 nm. Intel releases 45 nm chips, AMD transitions to 65. AMD getting ready to release 45 nm chips, OH NOS Intel releases 32 nm chips. In other words, they should just say f*ck it, focus ALL their research to come out with a 22 nm chip ASAP and be on par with the competition.


RE: In other news
By CloudFire on 10/30/2008 3:15:27 PM , Rating: 4
i do agree the mechanics when you're getting smaller in the nm is the fabrication process and materials needed such as high-k gates to prevent current leakage from the chips. double patterning would also be required for 32nm/22nm nodes.

on a similar note, amd tried to get ahead of the race against intel with the introduction of their true monolithic quad cores which ended up getting slaughtered by intel's core2 sandwhiched quads. i think if amd had went with their original plan to produce duals and then quads, they would have been better off, but they jumped the gun, failed, and here we are. The TLB bug didn't help either, although it was only reproduced in a lab and not in any real world situation.


RE: In other news
By Pavelyoung on 10/30/2008 5:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
That wasn't always the case. AMD had the lead for awhile with their athlon series, but they sat on their butts thinking that it would take Intel ages to develop a CPU that outperformed theirs. During that time all they did was work on their existing product line, at the same time Intel got busy and developed their core 2 line. The core 2 line, came out of nowhere on AMD. So now AMD is desperate to try and regain their lead.

When they purchased ATI, they made a step in the right direction. Now they just need to suck it up and one up Intel by going to the next smaller die size before Intel. Unfortunately AMD isn't thinking that way, they are still trying to play catch up.


RE: In other news
By semo on 11/1/2008 8:12:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You also need to consider that Intel is the #1 Semiconductor company in the world
not samsung?

was it amd's ceo who said that you can move the memory controller to the cpu only once? after all this effort (the 64-bit push too), intel will be the one reaping all the benefits in the server market. some people missed the era in which amd was king in multi-cpu configuration and now system admins (when nehalem comes out) will say: "see, intel servers are better than amd" (totally ignoring benchmark results from 1-2 years ago).


RE: In other news
By Hydrofirex on 10/30/2008 11:31:04 AM , Rating: 4
Mick-

I have been proposing an AMD/IBM merger for at least 2 years on this forum. Every time I do so I am roundly shot down with the logic that IBM does not want to get into the hardware business and that they are a services company.

I still don't particularly buy that line of thought, and I believe that AMD's move to split its fab operations was in preparation to be purchased. Many of the financial services companies which recently got snatched up from the abyss took similar moves to facilitate their 'mergers'.

Hopefully AMD already has someone in mind, and they ditched the fab operations to specifically make themselves a match for that firm. I would still assert that between IBM and Via, IBM is the only one who really has the intellectual property to be a series competitor in the long term.

I strongly believe someone is absolutely going to have to buy AMD for them to compete.

HfX


AMD
By Maxshah912 on 10/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: AMD
By HotdogIT on 10/30