backtop


Print 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

RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 5:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
There must be a reason why Intel market share is shrinking and AMD market share is growing. I just identified it. Call it hypocrytical or whatever, I don't care. Market share facts speak for themselves. You can call market analysts hypocrites for all you want, Tom. Be my guest :-P


RE: Price/Performance
By Nfarce on 7/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 5:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Price/Performance
By TomZ on 7/2/2008 6:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
You must be a die-hard AMD fanboy. You cherry-pick the one bechmark out of dozens that favor Phenom and ignore literally every other benchmark which shows Phenom getting tromped by various Intel processors? Way to miss the big picture.

That article also questions the "problem with the missing performance" of Phenom, discusses lots of stability issues, and questions whether Phenom is the next NetBurst.

I'll leave you with this final quote from that article:

The Phenom X4 9950 BE and 9850 BE are reasonably competitive with the Q9300 and Q6600, although we would still opt for the Intel solutions thanks to lower power consumption and significantly better overclocking potential. Gaming performance continues to be a strength of Intel's as well.

In the end, overclocking and CnQ issues aside, AMD's latest price cuts do ensure that the Phenom is a viable second choice alternative to Intel's Core 2 Duo and Quad lines. Unfortunately unlike AMD's successes on the graphics side, it's not enough to dethrone the king. ... It's good, but not good enough.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 6:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you ask big boy above about his cherry-picking of the benchmark that favors Intel? He started cherry-picking, hence ask him first, not me.

Better overclocking potential? Most people don't OC, so it's a moot point for a majority of buyers. Otherwise AMD would be losing on Intel, not gaining like now.

Gaming performance? I told you already that it's all about GPU, not about CPU these days. Any cheapo Athlon X2 with decent GPU like 9800GTX will trump any Intel QuadExtremeDuperOCXXXOMG "wonder" paired up with a lousy Intel GPU or some other low-end $100 GPU in any decent game, even in Crysis.

Why would anyone invest their money in CPU instead of GPU if he/she is not an Intel fanboy and just wants to get a decent gaming rig?

See, just one simple question and puff, there goes the "Intel ownz the gaming" legend :P

Anyway, most people are not interested in quads yet (give it another year or two), and in dualcores AMD trumps Intel anywhere mainstream buyer would look (meaning non-OC rig with some mainstream $100 dualcore CPU inside), hence we got what we got - all this hypocritical stuff about AMD gaining on Intel and such ;-)


RE: Price/Performance
By Nfarce on 7/2/2008 6:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, as another adult stated, AMD's offering just isn't there to really compete with Intel neck and neck. I didn't feel like posting all of Intel's wins against the very few of AMD's, one of which you pointed out.

Bottom line, it's your money homie. I know what I like.


RE: Price/Performance
By gumbi18 on 7/2/2008 7:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gaming performance? I told you already that it's all about GPU, not about CPU these days. Any cheapo Athlon X2 with decent GPU like 9800GTX will trump any Intel QuadExtremeDuperOCXXXOMG "wonder" paired up with a lousy Intel GPU or some other low-end $100 GPU in any decent game, even in Crysis. Why would anyone invest their money in CPU instead of GPU if he/she is not an Intel fanboy and just wants to get a decent gaming rig?


Why would anyone who spends $1000 on a CPU spend only $100 on some low end GPU or use an IGP. It just doesn't make sense. Anyone who has that kind of cash to spend usually has more cash to spend on a decent GPU.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 7:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
The more interesting question is why would anyone spend $$$ on an expensive Intel CPU while he/she can invest in expensive nVidia GPU instead and get much more bang for a back gaming wise. Even Supreme Commander works pretty well on an inexpensive $114 Athlon X2, and this is the most CPU dependent game ever.


RE: Price/Performance
By gescom on 7/3/2008 12:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
intel Q9300 = 190+ EUR http://geizhals.at/eu/a299998.html
AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition = 180+ EUR http://geizhals.at/eu/a346956.html

according to anandtech, they are performance comparable
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

It means AMD has better price/performance chip? How is that possible?


RE: Price/Performance
By Nfarce on 7/2/2008 6:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
Otay, and this fanboi?

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdphenomx3_042...

Nehalem is waiting for the next AMD beatdown. Painless is waiting. :p

Disclaimer: I'm glad AMD is making CPUs against Intel. Period.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 8:01:44 PM , Rating: 1
Or maybe Nehalem is waiting for a few nasty surprises from 45nm Phenoms? You just wait, big boy.


RE: Price/Performance
By MamiyaOtaru on 7/3/2008 2:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
What the heck is your investment in AMD?


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/3/2008 2:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
What the heck is your investment in Intel?


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/3/2008 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What the heck is your investment in Intel?


You didn't answer his question.


RE: Price/Performance
By TomZ on 7/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 6:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you flame Shane McGlaun for making up "facts" about

"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%"

huh?

See, I only repeat his words, so flame him instead of me please. Thanks for understanding.

quote:
Higher quality products are more valuable to customers, and can therefore command higher ASPs and margins
Careful, Tom, you're just one step away from admitting Macs being high quality products that are more valuable to customers, hence commanding higher ASPs and margins over Windows PCs. That's a dangerous road to -1 rating here, Tom, so WATCH IT! :)))


RE: Price/Performance
By BSMonitor on 7/2/2008 7:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
Haha noob. Must be from the bible belt. You are the one who posted that an X2 can get 30-60 fps.... Where is the proof?

http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/04/23/supreme....

42.93 fps for the fastest Athlon X2. And that's only 1024x768 resolution.

Barely 31 fps for the $90 X2's you are whining about.

OWNED!


RE: Price/Performance
By BSMonitor on 7/2/2008 7:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 7:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ath...
Why stupid? Because Athlon X2 6000+ posts 37 FPS in SupCom no matter what Intel fearmongers babble? Yeah, THG is stupid to debunk ya Intel lovers, sure :) I told ya SupCom will post somewhere between 30 and 60 FPS on a fast Athlon X2 so I was right, see?


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 8:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Barely 31 fps for the $90 X2. OWNED!
Yeah, THG just owned you, fanboy. I said above that SupCom will post above 30 FPS on that $90 AMD chip, and THG just proved my words. Eat this, Intel lover. Go cry a river about THG posting wrong graphs or something :o)


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Related Articles













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