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."
Their new push for quality engineering over marketing fluff will surely give them the lead again!
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.
Of course, it's always been my understanding that Intel is dominant in corporate computing, where no small number of third party corporate applications are only "certified" to work on Intel processors and the use of AMD processors endangers your ability to take advantage of your pricy support contract.
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.
When the Intel-based Macs hit the market, Intel processors will be found in 52.6 percent of desktop PCs, so there!
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
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?
That's the biggest question in my mind. Market share is important, but will AMD be able to sustain whatever growth they have accomplished? So, within the last few years, they've opened up new fabrication plants, and probably they have more room for growth. Still, it will be interesting to see their earnings (revenue and profit).
Take it easy? I'll take it anyway I can get it . . .
You aren't looking at comparable chips, then. At similar performance marks, the AMD chips are cheaper than their Intel counterparts.
pricewatch.com Says the slowest Sempron being produced is the 2200+ and you can have it delivered for $57. For $60 you can get a 2.2Ghz Celeron which is no match for AMD's processor. The 2.2Ghz P4 costs $79 delivered, $22 more than the AMD offering.
The reason all those AMD chips appeared before Christmas was because they are so competitive at the lower end. When you match that with their server options AMD are wiping the floor with Intel at almost every level.
"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?
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.
Yeah but a Sempron 2200+ will stomp all over a 2.2 Celeron. It has way more cache ( 128k/256k in the Sempron vs 8k/128K L2 in the Celeron) and also a generally better pipeline. You can't judge a CPU on MHZ alone.
I used to work at CompUSA and was in charge of the desktop department so I saw every new machine come in and personally set up the demos and the price tags. I saw numerous HP, Gateway, Compaq and Emachine models come out with AMD64 processors around 3000+ to 3700+. The basically identical Intel model always cost at least $250 more. And since we, the salesman, had pretty much free reign as long as we sold computers put whatever we wanted on the computers. I loved doing benchmarks and the AMD always came out ahead. Only a couple times did intel beat out AMD and it was usually the new Prescott cores, though not new anymore, until AMD came out with their new cores. I don't consider myself a fanboy of one particular manufacturer, I am a fanboy of cost vs. performance. For the past four years, AMD has won me over.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
Note that this only applies to retail sales.
It does not include total sales, where AMDs market share is significantly lower. e.g. this report excludes Dell entirely. Overall, they're somewhere around 25% of total shipments.
AMD is taking marketshare away from Intel, but they are still a much smaller player.
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!
*cough*excludingdell*cough*
I love statistics.
When you match that with their server options AMD are wiping the floor with Intel at almost every level.
Retail Desktop - Intel
Server - Intel
Corporate Desktop - Intel
Mobile - Intel
AMD is making headway in retail and server (intel has squat on their roadmap).
However, AMD is making much less on the segments they are competing in. Server is high ASP, but very low volume. Retail desktop is high volume, and razor thin ASP.
AMD needs to focus on being competitive in price to dominate corporate desktop (Intel's fab capacity means they can easily underprice AMD in this arena). Everyone keeps quoting the CPU price for a boxed part, but that is the HIGHEST POSSIBLE PRICE Intel will charge for a CPU. It can be 50-60-70% cheaper per CPU for high volume corporate sales. AMD is fukked in this area because in 30 years, they have still failed to even come close to Intel's volume. AMD hasn't had enough R&D dollars to compete here, but that can change.
And AMD also needs a competitive part in mobile, where the volume is growing every year and ASPs are sky high. This is where Intel is focusing. AMD is years behind Intel in mobile power-miserly processors.
So it is shaping up to be an interesting battle. Lets see if AMD can hang on to their lead this time.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
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.