Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Hits Milestone in Server Market

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the moving-on-up dept.

DontClickHere writes "According to data from Mercury Research, AMD has finally cracked the 10% mark in x86 instruction set server CPUs. AMD's Chairman had hoped that their server sales would hit 10% at the end of 2004, but they had only reached 5.7%. Some of this gain can be attributed to AMD's introduction of dual core chips in April this year. With Intel only due to ship dual core chips for low end servers later this year, AMD has been handed a golden opportunity to take a larger share in the server market."

8 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Main Reason by dsginter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The main reason is that they sell the only 64-bit consumer chip. Yes, I understand that it is mainly marketing but the Athlon 64s are hot sellers. They need to crack Dell now.

    --
    More
    1. Re:Main Reason by oconnorcjo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      But Pentium D doesn't have "Xeon" in the name so it obviously isn't for servers. Intel should know better. AMD was wise enough to come up with a new name for their chip to indicate that it was appropriate for use in servers.

      The problem with InTel is that they are in a dilemna. They don't want x86-64 to take off because it was 1. AMD's idea and 2. Intel spent a fortune on the Itanic and were hoping to nudge out the competition (due to the fact that they patented the Itanium's instruction set). Intel knows that they have to sell x86-64 chips or let AMD run away uncontested but on the other hand they are not going to advertise that. Intel is in a terrible quandry. If they ever heavily endorse the x86-64 then that gives AMD a lot of credibilty and credit for being the leader and if x86-64 takes off big (as it seems it will) then Intel had better have a product to sell. This causes Intel to create these chips but intentionally obscuring the product line. They don't want to push this kind of chip. Intel would be estatic if x86-64 turned out to be a bust.

      --
      I miss the Karma Whores.
  2. Laptops? by MarkByers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I applaud them for their server sales, but I hope that they will soon develop a power efficient chip for laptops. At the moment they have nothing that can compete with Intel's M chips. Do they have plans to compete with Intel for this market or are they happy to stay in the server market?

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
  3. How are dual cores counted? by mev · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When calculating the percentage of processors, is AMD counting a dual core as one or two processors?

  4. Dell is the decider by soma_0806 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone knows that AMD's share would seriously change if Dell could be persuaded away from their holdout status.

    The two main reasons generally cited for Dell's allegiance to Intel is the millions in advertising and marketting (hard for AMD to compete when they're sitting on a little over a billion and Intel is sitting on something like 11 billion) and early notification of new developments.

    The second one I just don't get. I mean, Intel annouced the Itanium in 1994 which consumers didn't see until 2001, two years later than projected and seven after the announcement. Really, how much notice does Dell need? Wouldn't they rather a company that actually gets things out in reasonable time frames?

  5. Re:a thought... by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What?

    The K8 processors are way more power efficient then the K7s were. Keep in mind the K7 design came out as a competitor for the P3 processor not the P4.

    The K8 is basically one-generation ahead of the P4. I'm sure Intel will catch up though as their Pentium-M is a good design in terms of efficiency.

    A dual-core 64-bit Pentium-M would definitely give the AMD a run for some money I'd think...

    But anything in the P4 camp and you're basically not making a rational comparison.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  6. Re:Apple? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has the situation reversed?

    Yes, at least on the 90m parts. I just built a dual core Athlon 64 system BECAUSE the power consumption is lower than anything Intel can offer in the same class. The Athlon 64 X2 was more expensive than the Pentium CPUs too, but i figure I will make the price difference back on power savings.

  7. Re:Turion by bluGill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't forget that the AMD chips have the memory controller built in, while the Intel chips require a separate chip sucking power (normally part of the North Bridge) to do this task.

    Sadly I know of nobody who has measured who much the separate memory controller costs in power. Could range from insignificant to nearly as much as the CPU.