Slashdot Mirror
Intel Loses Market Share to AMD
diverge_s wrote to mention an article examining Intel's market share loss to AMD in the fourth quarter of 2005. From the article: "Sales of Intel-based desktop PCs fell 22.3 percent during the fourth quarter, according to Current Analysis. As a result, sales of AMD-based desktops took the lead during the pivotal fourth-quarter holiday shopping season. AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores during that period."
AMD just proves that regardless of your advertising budget, it all comes down to good performance and good price. I don't think I have ever seen an AMD commercial, whereas Intel was all over the TV. Dell has finally taken notice and will start widespread use of AMD chips soon. Thanks for the giving Intel some competition AMD!
http://religiousfreaks.com/I wonder whether AMD's success is an indication that PC's are well into their commodities phase and so el-cheapo models at Best Buy are (more than) sufficient for people's use? Intel's in the pricier boxes, so they stand/fall with those vendors.
Anyone looked into the possible marketing misstep by Intel stopping marketing their processors by clock speed?
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I'm not really a fanboy on either side of this Chevy/Ford arguement. They both support Trusted Computing which makes me wish there was another option out there.
I don't mean this in a negative way, but what percentage of the computer buying public even knows about AMD? I mean, it seems to me that the average person couldn't tell you what chip is in his computer. I mean, the answer I usually get to that question is "Dell" or "HP". So basically, what I'm saying is that it may not be AMD chips that are doing well, but the particular brands they're in?
What are you talking about? AMD chips are very resonably priced - Certainly moreso than the alternative.
I miss the days when a processor name included the speed of the processor. It is possible that intel is losing market share because AMD (and Intel to a certain extent) don't show their speeds in the names and so it harder to compare systems. I know that AMD gives you more for less Ghz, but not everyone knows that and Intel has a preceived advantage in speed they can't fully exploit.
"The new slogan is supposed to signify Intel's shift away from focusing "inside" and starting to look at platforms and solutions for the end users."
(From an earlier discussion and article.)
Now I am beginning to understand why Intel has made the decision to start focusing elsewhere.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
With the decreasing market share of desktops in the consumer computer market, I'm interested in knowing how AMD is doing in the laptop sector and total overall processors sold in comparison with Intel. Most people I know wouldn't consider anything other than Centrino for some reason that I don't understand (marketing?) Furthermore, how will Apple's new MacBook and other Intel offerings affect AMD's apparent marketshare takeover?
Their new push for quality engineering over marketing fluff will surely give them the lead again!
I am still ticked at my PERL mobo w. P4 HT 2.4GHz that died just out of warrenty.
If Intel want's back, cheaper, faster, cooler and more reliable come to mind. AMD has this over Intel at the moment and I have a 1.2GHz AMD that keeps on ticking.... so naturally one of those dual core AMD 64 X2 systems is on my list.
Are you KIDDING?
AMD is successful because from day one they've been in the business of making better products, not cheaper products. That they happen to be cheaper in some cases is just a sign that they have a successfully diverse product line.
AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores during that period."
Of course, Dell doesn't sell many of its computers in retail stores, it is the largest manufacturer in the US, and it doesn't use AMD chips (yet). So the quoted statistic is misleading at best. Still, more competition is always a good thing.
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
If Intel is holding on to dominance in any market segment it's more likely to be the result of their business relationship with a company like Dell, which has been propping Intel up for the last two years while AMD ate away the rest of their market.
AMD makes a great product at a competitive price. What happened to Intel will happen to every other company that starts thinking they have a right to exist. Intel sometimes acts like they're a government agency.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
*cough*excludingdell*cough*
I love statistics.
The shift from hardware to software happened when the IBM PC clone market came to be. We already shifted from hardware to software. I think what is happening now is that we are starting a shift from software to ?? {services? back to hardware?}. Linux, is starting to make that happen. Just look at what Sun is trying to do? Are they a hardware company (AMD, Sparc hardware)? software (free Solaris)? What value do they bring to the table? What about Google? Software is becoming the new commodity -- at least the OS layer is. OS vendors are packing in as much features into their OS as they can to keep them afloat so that they can continue to have an advantage over their market.
Apple just happens to be in a really good position now as they already know this. The Mac OS is already free; it's call Darwin. What's not free is Apple's windows manager and their application API. Remember, Next STEP? Now the foundation of Mac OS X. Well, NeXT came out with a product called OPEN STEP which allowed your to compile your NEXT STEP applications on other OS like Solaris, Windows, etc. Well, Apple still has that option.
If Intel was the underdog this group would be singing thier praises. Just like at one time everyone loved Microsoft when they were the underdog. Soon we will have Google joining Microsoft and Intel. (probably rightfully so) I am sitting here surrounded by Intel boxes and none of them have their cases open due to heat nor have the poor performance and lack of linux support like the one sitting next to me.
Secondly, corporate desktops. The best that AMD can do is to try to underprice Intel, which will be difficult since Intel does have better process technology. Expect prices of the midline chips to fall as Intel lowers prices to maintain market share. With margins as thin as they are in this arena, AMD needs to work to maintain its performance edge on the high end chips where it can command better margins.
In laptop processors, the Pentium-M's excellent perfomance/power ratio means that AMD is not about to overtake Intel's number one position. AMD's Sempron may have better performance, but it also 25% (AFAIK) more power hungry. This is an important market segment, and while AMD puts up some competition, Intel is still the strongest. The price margins in the market aren't as large as those of the server market, but they're still better than the margins desktop market.
It's Intel's more advanced process technology that gives them the edge in producing the low power laptop chips, not the manufacturing volume. I wouldn't say that AMD is years behind Intel, just 10 months behind, which is far enough behind to be at a definite disadvantage. AMD should be concerned with improving its process technology while also trying to improve production capacity.