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 zsdersw on 7/2/2008 9:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
You first wanted to see 45W Intel dual-core CPUs.. so I showed you proof of Intel dual-core CPUs drawing less than 45W. In later posts you added "TDP", which is entirely different from *actual* power consumption.

I can show you a truly remarkable CPU that draws 0W.. it's the CPU in my computer when the computer is unplugged. Irrelevant, you say? Of course, but that's not the point.

The point is that power consumption, as a measurement taken alone, is useless. What truly matters is how much performance you get out of each watt the CPU consumes. In that measurement, it's hard to beat the Wolfdale across *all* applications, not just games.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 10:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's hard to beat the Wolfdale
Now this is a statement that I expect to be supported by something more solid than just your words. I can say a lot of things too, but gimme hard numbers.

Where's the compariosn of performance per watt between Wolfdale and 45W X2? Where are these live numbers, huh? Can't see them!

If you can't provide numbers as a proof - then why post here? I know you like Wolfdale more than Athlon X2, so your posts add nothing concrete.

You like this more, I like that more, you have no numbers to prove your point, so what? End of discussion, right?


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 10:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now this is a statement that I expect to be supported by something more solid than just your words. I can say a lot of things too, but gimme hard numbers. Where's the compariosn of performance per watt between Wolfdale and 45W X2? Where are these live numbers, huh? Can't see them!


Such comparisons haven't been made yet, but let's consider the following:

- The X2 4850e is Brisbane.. so its performance (at any power draw) is going to be the same.

- Brisbane.. at 2.5GHz.. is no match performance-wise for the Conroe E6600 (2.4GHz), as documented here: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_athlon_64_...

- The power consumption for Wolfdale (E8500) is 33.4W at full load, as outlined in the xbitlabs link earlier.

- Let's say the 4850e, with it's 45W TDP, actually uses somewhere around 22W at full load.

- The E8500 performs considerably faster than the E6600, let's average it at about 15%. Add the advantage of the E6600 over Brisbane at 2.5GHz of, on average, 15%, and you have a total of 30% faster than the 4850e.

- Performance-per-watt of Wolfdale vs 4850e is roughly as follows: approximately 30% faster performance for approximately 30% more power, which is hardly the clearcut win you were hoping for.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Related Articles













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