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

RE: A Sad Day
By someguy123 on 5/23/2013 6:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
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.

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.

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.

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki