Slashdot Mirror
Intel Admits To Falling Behind AMD
Vicegrip writes "CNN is carrying a Fortune story covering an analyst meeting held on Thursday. There, CEO Otellini admitted Intel has fallen behind AMD with lost market share, technological leadership, and recently profitability. Intel also announced cuts to 1 Billion in spending." From the article: "Intel's market share recently slipped below 80%, and Otellini strongly emphasized the need for market share gains in all his remarks. On the other hand, he also suggested that Intel's recent market share losses (to AMD, whose name was not mentioned) were in line with historical variations which tracked to Intel's product generations."
It's not common for a CEO to make such admission, which can only mean one thing -- they already have plans to regain those market shares. Or is it the classic "Avis: We Try Harder"?
It's like poorer people tend to avoid being seen as poor, while wealthy people almost always say they are poor.
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
From TFA Otellini did offer one excuse for its poor performance in market share in the past year - a shortage of "chipsets." Having only bought AMD for over 5 years now I have never even tried to buy an Intel based motherboard, is this staement true has anyone had purchasing problems with Intel based M/boards?
Sometimes I get lost inside my head....
"Intel's market share recently slipped below 80%"
Around eighty % is still incredible, not least when you have a competitor like AMD. But I guess companies like Intel do what they can to instill fear in their employees to get them to work harder.
Will code a sig generator for food
With intel increasingly becoming dominant in mobile markets, particularly capturing the next-gen Apple market share, I think that cost-cutting is eminent. AMD holds a firm grasp on the fastest chips, and some of their 64-bit chips are available in notebooks geared toward power-users wanting desktop replacements. There is a big difference nowadays between the size, heat output, power consumption, and power, so chip makers need to emphasize on certain markets. Intel couldn't hope to maintain dominance forever, and AMD and Intel have become the x86 processor oligopoly, both of them basing their business decisions on each other. AMD has done some fantastic R&D and built itself from the ground up, and there has really been nowhere for intel to go but down. Both these companies will be around for the foreseeable future, at least until some Chinese/Korean/Japanese company whoops us =)
Intel's marketshare is deceiving because it is propped up on a number of "exclusive" contracts. Once those go away, and they will as AMD pulls away technologically and pricewise, Intel is going to see the market flipped in a very short amount of time.
Intel Outside, not just a good idea anymore.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Your lips keep moving, but I can't hear what you say.
Intel has such a long way to go at the highest end. They need to move away from their silly, old fashioned CPU <-> Northbridge <-> RAM architecture. I think it's telling that Otellini blamed "chipset" shortages for some of their market share loss, whatever the hell that really means. Intel is going to eventually have to sacrifice its chipset business to stay competitive. Nothing will change that. The memory controller has to be moved on-die. HyperTransport is here to stay and it will wipe the floor at the high end.
It's not just getting rid of NetBurst-- high IPC is great --but the more you have cores and sockets contending for memory access, the worse it will get for a shared FSB. Get your head out your butt Intel and fix the design.
Before you mod this guy up, read his contribution history and the links in his sig and under his name. This guy (Louis Savain) is a crank. As well as being a physics crank who seems to think that Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Kurt Gödel, and Albert Einstein are "crackpots", he's apparently also a computer science crank.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Wow, just wow ! Did you guys see that in the article:
<<According to some industry experts, Google is now assembling so many of its own servers that it may be the third or fourth-largest server maker in the world.
>>
I think that a lot of companies could reduce their expenses by doing the same thing than Google: instead of buying expensive hardware, warranties and support from IBM/HP/Dell/Sun, they could hire people to design, build and maintain their own IT infrastructure. I think it makes sense for any shop with 1000+ machines. Think about it again:
To any non-believer: Google does exactly this, and it works very well for them. So why not starting to do it at your company ?
The real question is, does AMD have anything up its sleeve to match Yonah (and they better have it soon), or will Intel regain its dominance?
90% of Apple computers sold are either laptops or SFF desktops, and Intel simply has the better product in these markets with Core.
Until the Turion X2 ships, which won't be much longer. Going with the current single core Turions instead of the Core Duo would have made more sense since then OSX could have been 64-bit from the get-go. Now Apple will have to support both 32-bit and 64-bit codebases. Were Intel's cut-rate chips and other support worth it? Time will tell, but given that things like codecs get a *nice* boost from AMD64 (it's not just about breaking the 4GB barrier) I think Jobs screwed up.