backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 87 comment(s) - last by intelcpu.. on Jul 6 at 11:03 AM
Intel processor revenue share drops less than 1% as AMD's share grows by more than 2%

AMD and Intel by far the two largest processor firms around and Intel is many times larger than AMD. Intel holds a huge percentage of the global processor market, while AMD is a distant second in both revenue and marketshare.

Research firm iSuppli released its global statistics for the processor market. According to iSuppli, Intel holds a massive 79.7% of the world’s processor revenues leaving AMD with 10.9% of the global processor revenue.

When the revenue numbers are compared to Q1 2007, Intel’s revenue share in the processor market has dropped by 0.7%. At the same time AMD has been able to grow its share of the processor market revenue by 2.2%. According to iSuppli, AMD’s gain is a sign that consumers are responding better to AMD products.

ISuppli estimates that about half of AMD’s growth in revenue market share came at the expense of Intel and that the remainder came at the expense of the smaller processor makers. ISuppli also says that average selling prices from both Intel and AMD didn’t decrease in the first quarter of 2008 signaling that price wars between Intel and AMD have stopped.

Between Intel and AMD the two firms hold 92.7% of the total microprocessor market worldwide estimated to be worth about $286.5 billion in 2008. Despite the weakened U.S. economy, computer sales are still going strong.

ISuppli reported recently that PC shipments in Q1 2008 increased by 12.1% globally.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Price/Performance
By sgtdisturbed47 on 7/2/2008 3:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's where it's at. Price/performance ratio. Intel CPU's, since the release of the Core 2 Duo, have been amazing performers at a great price. From the budget-end to the gaming-end, the Intel CPU's have been the first pick for many home users, gamers, and hard workers.

Having my E8400 running at 4.3 GHz at only 1.33v, and paying only $190 for it, it offers amazing performance for an affordable price. That's where the gold is.

AMD needs to kick things up quite a bit if they want to catch up. Lately it's been all about their 48xx ATI cards, but they need to start focusing on making some better CPU's. Long gone are the glory days of the AMD Athlon 64 days, and people have been keeping their eyes on Intel ever since the Core 2 Duo line came about.




RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 3:44:49 PM , Rating: 5
Cheapo Athlon X2 is enough to make about 30-60 FPS in about any modern game with proper GPU. Why pay extra $$$ for Intel if you can pay less for AMD and invest extra few bucks in a better GPU to get better graphics and framerate? This explains why AMD is gaining users back.

One simple example - I own a cheapo Intel C2D Allendale 2.0 GHz, and 9800GTX. This combo gives me waaay better FPS in Crysis compared to another guy's PC with uber duber Quad XXX Intel Extreme SooperCooled Edition blahblah for $1000 bucks plus some cheapo $100 GPU.

My next purchase will likely be Athlon X2 again, and the money I save on AMD CPUs I'll invest in a better nVidia GPU (they are still better pick for hi-end stuff like Crysis although AMD is slowly catching up there too)

Hehe, looks like it'll be time to say Intel buy-bye again, just like in good ol' Netburst days. It's all about GPU these days, who cares about CPU besides some benchmarkers and vapochillo worshipping freakos and such... $100 Athlon X2 plus any hi-end GPU like 9800GTX or AMD 4870 - and you're all set for grrreat hi-end gamaing, even Crysis will run fine (well, 95% of the game for now, to be honest, until dieshrunk/cheap 280GTX arrives)


RE: Price/Performance
By Warren21 on 7/2/2008 3:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
, and the money I save on AMD CPUs I'll invest in a better nVidia GPU (they are still better pick for hi-end stuff like Crysis although AMD is slowly catching up there too)


Depending on how long you wait, it doesn't look like nVIDIA is releasing anything terribly new or improved for a while still (the next 3 months or so). The 9800 GT is coming out soon, but that's really a 55nm 112SP G92 with 2 x 6-pin PEG connectors.

The die-shrunk GT200 won't be out until winter (Dec?) at best, possibly even Q1 09. Meanwhile the HD 4870 X2 will be out before the end of the summer and from preliminary info, it should beat the GTX 280 by double-digit %'s yet still come in cheaper (unless NV does a price cut to counter-act it).

Also, the HD 4850 (MSRP 199) is within 1.x FPS of the 9800 GTX (MSRP 199) (2.x of the GTX+ - MSRP 229) in Crysis, yet still new enough to have room for improved drivers (meaning more performance to come). Not only that, but in most other titles it wins outright. But hey, it's your money, not mine...


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 4:18:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
die-shrunk GT200 won't be out until winter
Right by the time Crysis Warhead arrives. Very handy coincidence I'd say.
quote:
HD 4870 X2 will be out before the end of the summer
I don't trust multi-GPU solutions, single chip GPU is always better. No SLI related scaling problems, no CF related problems, everything just works without any lags or something.


RE: Price/Performance
By Warren21 on 7/2/2008 4:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
Almost forgot about that game! I hope it doesn't stop at the same point as Nomad's side of the story did.

Many people are hoping the new CF Sideport on the RV770's new memory hub will somehow improve this issue. However, I agree it is impossible to deny that getting the same perf. from a single GPU is just plain more reliable than using two.


RE: Price/Performance
By TMV192 on 7/2/2008 6:39:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't trust multi-GPU solutions, single chip GPU is always better

While true lets not forgot what happened to the CPU industry as it went from increasing clocks to increasing cores. Even today, double cores translates far less than 200% performance but price makes it worth it. Same will happen from these GPU solutions. ATi has done well recently in keeping up with technology even when behind in performance, referring to moving to GDDR4 and then 5, shrinking to 55nm, DirectX 10.1, and working to lead CrossfireX ahead of SLI


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Price/Performance
By Warren21 on 7/2/2008 8:24:22 PM , Rating: 4
Anandtech's HD 38404870 Review:

Crysis, 1920 x 1200, no AA/AF

HD 4850 CF (199 x 2): 36.4
GTX 280 (649): 34.3

Aannnd, just for jokes:

Single HD 4870 (299): 29.7
Single GTX 260 (399): 28.6

Seems like someone enjoys spending more for less...


RE: Price/Performance
By Warren21 on 7/2/2008 8:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
Should read:

Anandtech's HD 4850/4870 Review:


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 8:43:35 PM , Rating: 1
OK, then it's time for me to wake up. But I followed Anand's recommendations to always avoid SLI/CF setups 'cause it's a waste of money. What should I do now? Wait for 4870 X2 then, I guess


RE: Price/Performance
By Dasickninja on 7/3/2008 6:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
Which is CF on a board.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/3/2008 2:57:23 PM , Rating: 1
Which again pushes me back to dieshrunk GTX280. I'll make final decision after I see benches of Crysis Warhead on 4870 X2 and GTX280.


RE: Price/Performance
By BSMonitor on 7/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 4:25:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Show me those benchmarks
Show me the benchmarks where you can't reach 30-60 FPS in SupCom at 1900x1440 on Atlon X2 2.8GHz that costs about $90 these days. Plus a proper GPU of course (cheap stuff like 9800GTX or AMD 4850 will do ;-)

Learn to post facts that support your point, my naive fearmongering friend :P


RE: Price/Performance
By Nyamekye on 7/2/2008 7:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to care more about pointless things and less about important things.

Remember, the point of playing the game is to play the game.

If you can turn on the eye candy, and play it on your screen at a reasonable resolution, with a playable frame rate - you should be happy. And then focus on playing the game.

The Athlon X2 may not allow you to turn up everything to the max, but it will low you to play the game, and get the satisfaction of winning.


RE: Price/Performance
By FaceMaster on 7/2/2008 4:15:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I own a cheapo Intel C2D Allendale 2.0 GHz


And that's just the problem. Intel DO have faster processors at high prices... but their budget ones can still beat the AMD ones at the same price.

*Facemaster died soon afterwards from rabid fans of AMD and... uh... IBM*


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 4:37:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Intel do have faster processors at high prices... but their budget ones can still beat the AMD ones at the same price
Really? So are you telling me that C2D E4600 for $120 actually BEATS Athlon X2 6000+ for $114? Are you sure it's NOT THE OTHER WAY? :)))

Heh, another naive DT reader. You too should learn to check the facts before posting here, Mr. "Budget CPU Expert" ;-)

Like I said this is reason why people prefer AMD these days - 'coz AMD trumps Intel in budget/mainstream segment if you look at price/performance and exclude OC 'coz most buyers don't OC. And very few people buy high end Intel chips, hence the AMD gains on the market.


RE: Price/Performance
By TomZ on 7/2/2008 4:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, it's a little hypocritical to criticize others and then to blurt out made-up facts like:
quote:
Like I said this is reason why people prefer AMD these days - 'coz AMD trumps Intel in budget/mainstream segment if you look at price/performance and exclude OC 'coz most buyers don't OC. And very few people buy high end Intel chips, hence the AMD gains on the market.

Clearly, just by looking at the data in this article, you can obvio