Slashdot Mirror


AMD, Transmeta Edge Up In Market Share

prostoalex writes "The new Mercury Research report on the microprocessor market is out, and it looks like the little guys are gaining ground. AMD now owns 15.7% of the market, instead of 15.6% a year ago, while Transmeta and other manufacturers went from 1.7% to 1.8% in a single year. Intel owns 82.5% of the market instead of 82.8% a year ago. News.com.com also notices: 'The competition between the two companies will shift into high gear over the remainder of the year. On Sept. 23, AMD will release the Athlon64, a new desktop chip that can run 32-bit and 64-bit software.'"

9 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Spooky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you rearrange the letters in "amd transmeta athlon", you get "a short talent madman"... And here I though Bill Gates had nothing to do with this.

  2. In Other News by TrancePhreak · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Floating Point Error found in method to calculate market share." It could happen!

    --

    -]Phreak Out[-
  3. Re:Hrmm by Bloodmoon1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, Intel does have the 64 bit Itanium processor for "enterprise solutions". Though based on the last half of your post, you were wondering about desktop processors, in which case the answer probably goes something to the effect of, "Apple has had the G5 for about a month now, AMD will have the Athlon 64 in a month and a half, and we have nothing. Better up the P4 clock rate to 5 GHz in the next 6 months and pray Joe Idiot still thinks it's faster." Just my assumption at the next Intel marketing move.

    --

    Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
  4. different CPUs, different appliances by KixXaSs · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "the little guys are gaining ground" well my next processor will be one of those "little guys". I especially like the fact that -for example- the VIA C3 generates LESS much heat than amds or intels, which is a good thing for silent computing. For day-to-day work those CPUs should be enough. Maybe more ppl think like me and thats why the smaller chip producers gain ground. :) just my .2 cent
  5. "Microprocessor Market"? by arekusu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait, what market are we talking about?

    Oh, right: "Mercury's numbers include so-called x86 processors shipped for inclusion in desktops, notebooks, servers and Xboxes."

    So, these numbers don't tell us anything about the chips in Macs, Suns, SGIs, mainframes, Crays, Playstations, Palms, VCRs, cars, vaccuum cleaners, or toaster ovens. Just that Wintel stuff.

  6. Re:x86-64 - horror strikes again by Malor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (warning: I'm just tossing this out from memory without doing any double-checking on it first, so read with caution and pay attention to replies.)

    I believe that's basically what they're already doing.

    If I understood what I read correctly, the "X86" CPUs on the market aren't really X86 CPUs anymore. Instead, they are essentially a super-fast hardware emulator of an instruction set. The real instruction set of these chips doesn't resemble X86 *at all*; the chip decodes on the fly from the X86 macro-ops down to the chip's native micro-ops, which are smaller and simpler and easier to track when running in parallel across several execution units.

    That's part of why most software emulation is so slow -- you are in essence comparing generalized software solutions to incredibly well-engineered hardware solutions.

    If we had a different instruction set, would we really benefit? For the vast majority of us, even the Slashdot crowd, no. The compiler guys would probably like it a lot, but very few programmers work in anything lower than C. The actual "machine language" is mostly unimportant. And it's not even REALLY the machine language of the chip anymore!

    Even assembly coders, these days, are writing in a form of interpreted language. The "bare metal" guys aren't REALLY at the bare metal anymore; even they are working at a level of abstraction.

  7. Re:Hrmm by finallyHasANickname · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but don't such questions ultimately redound to philosophy? Who needs a widget? Before scoffing/flaming/shrugging, gimme just a coupla extra sentences' worth.

    I paid more than $100 for the extra 2 megabytes of RAM necessary to get Turbo C++ 3.0 for DOS working on my 10 MHz Cyrix-based AT clone (i.e., i80286, 80286, '286, 286, depending when you "label"). It was worth every penny.

    The thing that might most merit your attention here is something I learned very quickly after getting just the first few programs to work. The permutations of what I could program might as well be considered infinite. Get this: It is difficult to completely reign in (or even fully to comprehend) the vast and diffuse capabilities of a 10 MHz beige box limited to the 80286 instruction set and bend-over-backwards-in-the-Protected-Mode 16 MB of RAM physical ceiling. This weak piddly hardware has--I said has, not had--more capability than I could explore in ten lifetimes as a creator of software. When the companies continue to crank out traincar loads of what (for now in the "Pre Palladium Rollout Era") is still pretty general-purpose hardware, "limitations" are matters of philosophy of science, which is where I started, come to think of it. I guess my age is showing, but I think (that is, when I think well) it is all (literally) awesome, and it has been thus for about a half century and counting.

  8. Re:x86-64 - horror strikes again by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Intel actually is TRYING to break from x86 with the Itanium line, they invested Billions and billions of dollars to do so. They had a hardware x86 emultator tacked on that is so anemic that it is outperformed by a chip two generations older at the same clock speed (the P3 running at Itanium speeds trounces it for legacy 32bit code), throw in the fact that it is WAY behind the current 32bit chips in clock speed and you get a not-so-impressive product if the majority of your code is legacy. Then they decided their software tech was good enough that they could get better performance out of a software translator, they did, but only about 30% faster average then the hadware unit, still too slow. Compare this to AMD with the Athlon64/Opteron which runs 32bit code at least as fast clock for clock as the previous generation (ususally faster due to larger cache), and is running at about the same clock speeds. On the software emulation as part of a platform switch, it has been done twice, once with Apple and the 68k->PPC transition (quite sucessfull), and once by DEC and the Alpha team with FX!32 which was a software translation layer that would dynamically recompile x86 NT4 programs to native Alpha code, it didn't work all that well despite the Apha being vastly superior to anything Intel made at the time.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  9. Re:x86-64 - horror strikes again by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not only that but x86-64 gets rid of most of the really annoying parts of x86 anyways. There are more registers, they are more sanely layed out, and there are multiple sets of them available. All the people moaning about the cruft build up of x86 living on haven't looked at what AMD did with x86-64. If they are capable of understanding then they should go and look at the AMD whitepapers, if they aren't then they should stop whining because it doesn't effect them anyways =)

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.