backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by Piiman.. on May 26 at 6:03 PM

AMD plummets in microprocessor market ranking

When it comes to processors for smartphones and tablet computers, companies like Qualcomm and Samsung have come a long way over the last several years. Processors from both manufacturers have turned up in a wide range of devices, with Samsung powering its own smartphones and those from Apple.

Two of the biggest companies in the microprocessor world are Intel and AMD. While Intel has continued to have success in the mobile processor market, even though its processors aren't as power efficient as offerings from other companies in the smartphone and tablet world, AMD has seen its market share continue to decline.
 
A new report his week from IC Insights takes a look at the overall microprocessor market for 2012. A significant downturn in the notebook and desktop computer market combined with a significant increase in sales for tablet and smartphone devices saw AMD plummet from second place to fourth place in 2012.
 
Intel still held the top spot with 65.3% of the overall microprocessor market.

Qualcomm now occupies the second place spot with 9.4% of the market courtesy of its ARM mobile processors for smartphones and tablets. Samsung came in the third spot with 8.2% market share thanks to a huge number of processors in production for Apple devices. AMD was in fourth place with only 6.4% market. Freescale was far behind with 1.9% of the market followed by NVIDIA with 1.4% market.

The overall microprocessor market for 2012 was worth $56.5 billion. The downturn in the personal computer market did see sales growth slow to 2% for the year after growing by 19% in 2011. The forecast is predicting microprocessor sells will increase by 10% for 2013 to $62 billion.

Source: Icinsights



Comments     Threshold


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

A Sad Day
By hood6558 on 5/21/2013 9:36:17 AM , Rating: 5
That's bad news, even though I prefer Intel chips. AMD is necessary to keep competition alive in the desktop market as well as the GPU business. It's also sad because it underscores the trend towards mobile computing at the expense of the desktop. Most of an entire generation of users will never experience the joy of using a fast, powerful desktop built with their own hands, or even a prebuilt gaming PC, because they all want Ultrabooks, tablets, and smartphones. Mobile devices are great, but to my way of thinking could never replace my desktop.




RE: A Sad Day
By karimtemple on 5/21/13, Rating: -1
RE: A Sad Day
By KFZ on 5/21/2013 10:33:37 AM , Rating: 2
In other word, outside of work that puts a real load on a system, we'll still need something better than an iPad. We're already there, and that isn't changing anytime soon.

I really wish people would stop claiming it's my destiny to lug a tablet around. Even in the mid-range and budget market, DIY offers way better configurations, customization and scalability.


RE: A Sad Day
By karimtemple on 5/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: A Sad Day
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 1:39:30 PM , Rating: 1
I was going to stick with my old phenom II. The only reason I ever upgraded to Ivy Bridge i5 3570k was to play video games lol.

Seriously, everything runs fine and at an acceptable speed with a Phenom II X3. For everyday tasks, a cheap dual or quad with an entry level gpu will do. You will see more of a performance jump with an SSD. That has been a bigger bottleneck than anything else.

Also, I sincerely believe that the only reason we need to upgrade hardware so much is because of unoptimized codes. There are also other factors like patents. For example, S3TC is a marvelous texture compression method for graphics but you have to pay a fee to use it. I don't think neither NVIDIA, AMD, or Intel uses S3TC and there is no alternative equivalent to it.


RE: A Sad Day
By Mitch101 on 5/21/2013 10:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Lets look at this from another angle.

Wii U
•Custom 40nm AMD GPU

Xbox One
8-core AMD processor CPU/GPU

Playstation 4
Single-chip custom x86 AMD "Jaguar" processor, 8 cores
1.84 TFlops, AMD Radeon Graphics Core

Qualcomm has AMD to thank for ARM but AMD has an Answer.
AMD reveals G-Series X embedded chips, drops a little ARM-powered bombshell http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/23/amd-reveals-g-s...
"Ultimately, we're going to have x86 and ARM in our product portfolio."


RE: A Sad Day
By theapparition on 5/21/2013 12:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Outside of video gaming and content/application creation, there will be precious few reasons to go for more than today's level of i5 performance

That same argument has been made many times before.

Once the computing power is there, then you'll start seeing more advances in the applications that can take advantage of that power. Even if it's still just media consumption.

I think it would be a great disservice to stagnate at the current computing power levels.


RE: A Sad Day
By karimtemple on 5/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: A Sad Day
By AMDftw on 5/21/2013 10:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
I prefer AMD for my desktop usage. Sad thing is, I just wish they had better offerings when it comes to mobility. I love my ASUS G73 and G75 Laptops. Intel has my place in the mobility world.

It does look like I will replace my AMD 1090T with Intel 4770K :(. I've used nothing but AMD since Thunderbird. Just the last couple of years have I been buying Intel.


RE: A Sad Day
By Argon18 on 5/21/2013 10:42:24 AM , Rating: 3
AMD price/performance is unbeatable. Yes, intel is faster at the very top, but 99% of people don't buy the very top. They buy based on price points. And no matter what point you choose, $50, $100, $150, etc. AMD delivers more performance per dollar.

AMD would do well to press this point in their advertising. I see loads of newbie forum posts asking "intel or AMD" and everyone says "intel, it's faster" and then the newbie goes out and buys a $100 intel chip. He could have bought a lot more performance for that same $100 with AMD.


RE: A Sad Day
By karimtemple on 5/21/2013 10:51:43 AM , Rating: 1
This has not been my experience at those price points. The Pentium line tends to hold up.


RE: A Sad Day
By WeaselITB on 5/21/2013 11:48:16 AM , Rating: 4
I dunno about "a lot more performance" at the same price points ...

For example, here is a comparison between an i3 2100 and an FX-4300, both currently retailing for $120 at Newegg:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=700
Seems pretty much a wash.

Let's go down to the $75 mark, comparing a Pentium G620 at $70 vs an A6-3650 at $75:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/406?vs=403
They trade blows back and forth, but there are definitely more Intel wins than AMD wins, especially in gaming.

Let's jump up to an i5 3470 vs an FX-8350, both retailing for $199 at Newegg (the highest priced AMD processor):
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/702?vs=697
Depending upon what benchmark you look at, Intel and AMD trade blows ... again, pretty much a wash except for gaming.

Is AMD competitive? Sure, on the low-to-mid-range. Is AMD price competitive? Certainly, but depending upon your overall platform budget and power usage, it could be pretty close. Is AMD overall performance competitive? Not on the high end.

-Weasel


RE: A Sad Day
By karimtemple on 5/21/2013 11:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
This. Plus if you're doing SFF or even MicroATX stuff, you'll usually want to consider heat and possibly power too, which tend to get won by Intel. Sometimes AMD motherboards can cost less, though.

I like that AMD is around, and I love a lot of their past work and even what they're doing with HSA right now, but they just don't have the resources that Intel has, and Intel does not squander those resources. This fight would be a lot more fun if Intel was more incompetent.


RE: A Sad Day
By Kjella on 5/21/2013 12:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
On the high end AMD has been trying to float on their "value" brand even when it wasn't, in particular with the FX-8150. And why they want to get on the ARM wagon in a me-too fashion, I have no idea. Their R&D is spread way too thin as it is, the more they spend on non-x86 chips the worse their x86 chips are going to be.


RE: A Sad Day
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 2:13:26 PM , Rating: 4
Those comparisons give a general idea but it's not really accurate. The intel systems usually cost more and comes with better boards and RAM.

The overall platform cost is much cheaper with AMD. The A8 and A10 comes with a very decent GPU but just an average performing CPU. The balance is better and hence gaming is usually much better than intel with out a discrete card. AMD's latest offerings also drastically reduced energy consumptions.

Intel cost more but uses less energy. Their CPU is much better but their GPU is still lackluster to this day. The performance is mostly there but drivers are still a pain. Their platform cost is generally 20% or higher given the same overall performance and features.

AMD hit the major objectives of a budget solution. Value, integration and balance.

An HTPC or SFF should work fine. Intel produce slightly less heat and power so the system will be slightly quieter. But seriously, your machine will idle most of the time. When it is pushed, the heat still isn't a problem unless you don't know how to build a proper PC.

Major OEM have more incentives to go intel. If you ever noticed, they only put premium features like backlit keyboards and HD screens on intel machines. Their AMD machines always look bad in comparison. AMD machines always seem to get slow HDDs, RAM, and no discrete GPU. It's pretty obvious from any POV that there's a bias to make AMD products look inferior. I'm sure they're getting some type of payment or discount like they did in the past.

Conclusion: AMD is not dominating the budget market because of marketing(lack of) and intel's tactics. If you want performance then buy Intel and get a discrete GPU like I did.


RE: A Sad Day
By someguy123 on 5/21/2013 5:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a malicious bias, it's a deliberate design as AMD is marketing directly at the low-cost/mobile market. They began their APU push with netbook chips after all. Having cheap parts improves their performance per $ image.

The only reason you see "premium" additions to intel-based systems is because the people who tend to pay more for overpriced prebuilt products are the ones who want things like LEDs everywhere and fans on their RAM with marginally tighter timings. OEMs are just trying to improve margins by baiting idiots.

AMD platform costs are definitely cheaper upfront, but I'd say the cost savings only apply to their APU line/users with very low usage. The power draw of their bulldozer chips just ends up eating away at the savings over a few months of regular use.


RE: A Sad Day
By BRB29 on 5/22/2013 8:14:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not a malicious bias, it's a deliberate design as AMD is marketing directly at the low-cost/mobile market. They began their APU push with netbook chips after all. Having cheap parts improves their performance per $ image.


I'm not talking about just prebuilt. The options for AMD systems are not even there. It's pretty obvious.

quote:
The only reason you see "premium" additions to intel-based systems is because the people who tend to pay more for overpriced prebuilt products are the ones who want things like LEDs everywhere and fans on their RAM with marginally tighter timings. OEMs are just trying to improve margins by baiting idiots.


What LEDs and marginably tighter timing RAM are you talking about? that's only for gaming desktops/laptops. I already said AMD have no high performance cpu/apu parts except their discrete CPU.

quote:
AMD platform costs are definitely cheaper upfront, but I'd say the cost savings only apply to their APU line/users with very low usage. The power draw of their bulldozer chips just ends up eating away at the savings over a few months of regular use


First you say APU and then mention bulldozer desktop power consumption. Trinity is actually one of the most power efficient laptop solution in their performance range right now. Yes it beats comparable i3 and i5 in their price range. When I was trying to buy one, I did not find a single one with a decent screen, battery, or backlit keyboard. The only brand I found that made an almost comparable laptop for both intel and AMD is Asus. But they don't even list their AMD version of the N56 on their official page.

It's clear to me that you have a bias for intel and it's convenient for you to switch back and forth between laptops/desktop. People on DT are probably more knowledgeable about this than me. You can't fool people here that easy.


RE: A Sad Day
By someguy123 on 5/23/2013 6:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not talking about just prebuilt. The options for AMD systems are not even there. It's pretty obvious.


Right...and it's because they deliberately marketed it as low cost, low entry. They've done the same thing with their bulldozer chips after the price plummet. If your goal is price per dollar do you honestly believe it would be in AMD or an OEM's interest to attach to more expensive hardware? Their goal is brand image in the form of cost efficiency.

quote:
What LEDs and marginably tighter timing RAM are you talking about? that's only for gaming desktops/laptops. I already said AMD have no high performance cpu/apu parts except their discrete CPU.


What do you think lights those backlit keyboards? incandescent bulbs? The RAM was just another example. This just goes back to their strategy of marketing as low cost. Intel deliberately did the same thing with its "ultrabook" line where they required specific specs.

quote:
First you say APU and then mention bulldozer desktop power consumption.


What...I literally post "AMD platform costs are definitely cheaper upfront, but I'd say the cost savings only apply to their APU line /users with very low usage." and somehow this just glides right by you. Like I said, their APU line does well in cost effectiveness, but their bulldozer line eats away at its platform savings over time thanks to its TDP and especially turbo power draw, which breaks its TDP envelope.


RE: A Sad Day
By Piiman on 5/26/2013 6:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
"The intel systems usually cost more and comes with better boards and RAM."

Oh bull the boards are made by the same companies and you can use the same RAM for both. And your remarks about OEM systems not having back lit keybaords is rediculious and not looking as good is pure bolony. OEM's want to sell their PC's and they will dress up an AMD just as much as an Intel.

Perhaps you can actually backup your OEM claim with some links to your source. But my guess is its all in your head.


RE: A Sad Day
By michael2k on 5/21/2013 12:11:13 PM , Rating: 1
That's not a true statement, and the truth reflects why AMD is now in 4th behind Qualcomm and Samsung.

Price/performance goes to ARM.

You picked pricepoints 5x higher than ARM; so if you pick a $10 price, you claim AMD is unbeatable? AMD's cheapest CPU is 10x more expensive than the average ARM CPU, 5x more expensive than a powerful ARM CPU, and 3x more expensive than the most powerful ARM CPUs out there.

And so because ARM has an 'unbeatable' price/perf, it displaces AMD... and threatens to do the same to Intel if Intel cannot get down to the $20 pricepoint in the near future.


RE: A Sad Day
By BRB29 on 5/22/2013 8:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
Price/performance in what. In x86, there is no ARM. ARM cannot replace X86 any time soon. I'm saying that because x86 and ARM are not substitute goods to each other.


RE: A Sad Day
By michael2k on 5/22/2013 9:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
In cellphones, tablets, set top boxes, media players, etc.

You assume that only PCs count when they make up only 40% of the market (of devices that browse the web, watch videos, play games, etc). 86m PCs, 215m smartphones, and 47m tablets were shipped last quarter.

In fact you are right, in many of those situations it is x86 that cannot replace ARM; only the most powerful phones and tablets can consider Atom at this point, making Intel's potential market about 80m smartphones and 20m tablets.


RE: A Sad Day
By Azethoth on 5/21/2013 8:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, the reason future people will not build their own desktop from scratch has nothing to do with mobile. It has everything to do with the move to a single SOC. Once that SOC has all the memory, GPU , CPU, communications, sound, and other stuff you used to hand assemble there will be zero need for hand crafting.

Intel will not just ship a CPU + cooler combo. They will ship the entire computer. You can then buy the case and insert it.

Even now, what exactly are you hand building? For me it is board + CPU + cooler + GPU + SSD. That's 5 objects. I have seen more complicated Lego setups.


RE: A Sad Day
By Strunf on 5/22/2013 7:56:29 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt it will ever be like you say for power users, think about it you'll always need better GPUs, RAM, a board and a hard drive, I see the possibility that GPUs and CPU merge to a single chip, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon, not when nVIDIA, AMD and Intel remain 3 different companies, as long as Intel makes the best CPUs, nVIDIA/AMD make the best GPU they will not merge, AMD could in theory merge its best CPU with its best GPU, but the cooler would be monstrous, it's probably not in ours or theirs best interest to merge power consuming components together.

For the vast majority the SOC will work but then again the vast majority doesn't even open their PCs, so if it's SOC or not it doesn't really matter for them.

Another point is cost, it's cheaper to produce 5 simpler devices than 1 complex one, also companies that produce RAM have better expertise and can produce cheaper RAM than Intel, would it be even worth for Intel to include 16GB of RAM on their chips when RAM is based on a different process?


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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