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....
They've been screwing over their customers for 15 years. With stuff like the spying serial number, tpa, etc, they've had an attitude of buy what we tell you or get lost. Not to mention price manipulation. They hold back each new iteration until prices slack off on the current product. AMD beat them to the 1 GHz punch because intel was holding back their own 1GHz chip to squeeze more profit. After AMD beat them, they released theirs 2 days later.
Now that it's coming back to bite them on the ass, I think it's wonderful.
My god, the spin is breathtaking:
80% market share != Falling Behind
50% market share == Falling Behind
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
"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?
AMD on the other hand is showing steady and strong growth. It has solidified its place in the market and has shown that it not only can compete, but will continue to innovate and compete with Intel.
In the end, something like this is only good for the consumers. Intel admitting losses to AMD will raise the bar of both companies so they can continue to compete, bring us better technology, faster.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Intel holds 80% of the market... they're not falling behind AMD. They're falling behind and AMD is, presumably, gaining the share that they are losing.
Did he really need to call AMD out like some kind of pissed off gangsta rapper?
Don't you ever f---ing forget who invented x86
Those other manufactures are underwater wearing shoes made of bricks
And if you ever release another processor you better lie low
AMD I'll come around and bust a cap in your skull
Step one: Admitting your problem.
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Nietzche
Thanks to Intel, Bumfuckgrad has expandability built in!
Given that Intel still, as the article says, has around 80% marketshare, they are hardly falling behind AMD in that respect. They seem to be "falling behind" where they have historically been in terms of marketshare, goodwill, etc., in large part due to AMD's advances in those areas. That doesn't mean they are falling behind AMD in those areas, though.
Here is an Intel internal memo from the CIO's office. Intel is going to be firing (aka "redeploying") nearly 1200 people.
April 26, 2006
IT's first steps in 'relentless pursuit of efficiency'
Understand IT's response to Otellini direction
As Paul Otellini outlined in his April 25 Exec Connect Webcast, Intel faces significant challenges in Q2 and beyond as we adjust to meet our new business climate. With 2006 revenue now projected to be approximately 3 percent below 2005 and spending reduced by approximately $1 billion, Paul has given clear direction that Intel must "re-structure, re-size, and re-purpose" in a "relentless pursuit of efficiency." As a result, all organizations, including Intel Information Technology (IT), have been given new spending and headcount targets and a corporate effort has been launched to determine how to streamline Intel to make our company more agile and more competitive long term.
IT's response
IT's response is clear. We must rapidly adjust our programs and headcount to meet our new Plan of Record (POR) spending and headcount targets. And we must streamline our organization to maximize the services and programs we can deliver to the company while executing on our commitments to keep Intel running and to deliver on new capabilities.
Our immediate first steps are to stop selected programs completely, scale back other programs, and remove unnecessary overhead across the organization. The identification of these programs will be completed in roughly 30 days.
To create a more efficient IT, we must develop a more compact, less hierarchical organizational structure, reduce process and operational overhead, and selectively reduce jobs in some skill areas. Identifying specific actions in this area will take 60 to 90 days to complete.
Redeployment will be necessary
Taking these steps will require the redeployment of some IT personnel. Redeployment, or the effort to move employees to areas of greater return when there is a change in business conditions, is a standard practice that allows Intel to remain competitive and increases opportunities for employees. We anticipate some redeployment will begin before the end of this quarter and all redeployment will be started by the end of Q3.
I know this is a difficult time and redeployments are not always easy. And I know these actions are absolutely necessary to improve our competitiveness and effectiveness as an organization. You will hear more at the coming business update meetings (BUMs). I urge everyone to attend.
If you were unable to watch Paul's live Webcast, replays are available at the Webcast Exec Connect Events Site.
Thank you,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
A few years ago, when the P4s were just moving to the socket 478(? I think it was 478, the one they went to after the horrible 423) and the 2Ghz P4s were coming out, I went to one of those road shows Intel put on. They were talking up their new P4 2Ghz chip and did this whole presentation comparing its performance. Here's the funny part, they didn't compare it to an AMD chip. They didn't even MENTION AMD. They showed comparisons of the P4 2Ghz to the, get this, P4 1.5Ghz.
Unsurprisingly, most categories, the 2Ghz performed 25% better. (There's a big shock) What was funny was that in gaming they said the 2Ghz performed 13% better than the 1.5Ghz.
At a time when AMD was delivering a thrashing with their Athlon XP chips that had a slower clock speed, slower FSB, and were STILL outperforming Intel, they still woundn't even mention AMD. It's no surprise to me that the CEO of Intel would talk about losing market share without mentioning AMD.
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.
90% of Apple computers sold are either laptops or SFF desktops, and Intel simply has the better product in these markets with Core.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
AMD beat Intel in that race any way you look at it.
They're just trying to say, an in oh-so-not-connected way, "look, we don't have the monopoly AMD sez we do, so errr.... plz don't sue us anymore"
:-p
It's simple really
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Wait, since I'm a fan of the underdog by default, does this mean I have to start cheering for intel? Because it still doesn't feel right. Wait, lemme check....
GO INTEL!
Nope, I feel dirty. Going to shower now.
... what did you expect, something profound?
That's why they broke up Knight-Ridder, an extremely successful newspaper chain with 20% annual profits. Huge profits or not, other newspaper chains were doing even better. Sorry folks we need to see 30% profits or you're not doing your jobs.
The results are just what I would have though - they lose their technical edge, but retain their strong position in the market.
My guess is that Intel's business model quickly changes from designing and building chips to buying other company's designs ---- just like the large drug companies mostly get drugs by investing in and eventually buying small drug research companies.
I think that was the plan when the put a MBA in charge, and I think this is the expected result.
AMD's response:
I love it when you "giants" be talking, saying my name,
Seems like your mouth is not connected to your brain,
X Sixty Four and HT, it ain't the same,
Better have a strap, Intel, simple and plain,
Put your FSB on the table, let's play the game,
Heard you so long, you be up to take the pain,
I don't wanna hear what you meant, do not explain,
As you lose your market share, say my name.
Jesus said to his disciples: "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" - Luke 22:36
I'm intensely curious - why would you automatically go for an underdog? It is a romantic thing?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Is it possible this is a PR stunt to aid Intel's image in light of the antitrust trial? If Intel admits that it has lost significant market share, it makes AMD look that much less helpless.
Yeah, I guess, I don't know, I just like to see the little guy rise up and deliver an asswhoopin once in a while. I guess that's romantic, I cried when I saw "Rudy". Whoa, look at me. Hopeless romantic here. Never noticed that before. What are you a psychologist or something. GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
And who modded me down as "overrated" when I wasn't even "rated" yet. Are you modding me down because amd is overrated?
... what did you expect, something profound?
* I have no idea what their pricing agreement with Intel is, so this may or may not be the case.
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
I think it's largely a visceral dislike of a single entity having so much power. I'd prefer to have dozens of chipmakers all competing bitterly. Maybe 5 big standard architectures.
Anyway, when one powerhouse controls 90%+ of the market I get nervous. Especially when there are allegations of abuse, innovation slows, prices are high, or the situation lasts for a long time.
It seems in many industries we are headed to 1-3 (whatever the situation and antitrust law allows) Megacorps that write their own ticket.
I am flexible about most things, but tend to prefer the underdog if price and performance are comparable.
Man, you really need that seminar!
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 ?
Switch to a signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem will disappear.
Yes, that's likely to happen. Two words: Chicken, egg.
AMD you little b----
Don't be making no threat
While Dell's kids copy your rhymes
You copy our instruction set
Our photomicrolithographic process is superior
So you better beware
Our chips are getting even smaller
Than your market share
Please, no more myths about Intel power hungry designs. Core Duo fixes this for good:
e _papers_and_tech_docs/30430.pdf
3 0922102.pdf
AMD Athlon64
Freq: 2.0 GHz
Tcase: 70 degC
TDP: 89 W
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/whit
Intel Core Duo Destkop (Yonah)
Freq: 2.16 GHz
Tcase: 100 degC
TDP: 31 W (scale to 70deC like AMD puts you at about 20W).
http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
AM2 is launching in May. However, the processors that will be launching along with it are nothing but K8 procs with a new pinout configuration. The fastest AM2 CPU will be the FX-62 which is nothing but the FX-60 with a higher clock speed (200 mhz faster to be specific).
AM2 itself offers no performance advantage unless you run DDR2-667 or DDR2-800 with tight timings. This requires expensive enthusiast RAM. If you run with value or standard DDR2-400, DDR2-533, or even DDR2-667, K8 on s939 will match or beat K8 on AM2 clock per clock.
Even with enthusiast RAM, AM2 procs will still be beaten by Conroe. Intel will own the performance crown from July forward. K8L may take it back for AMD, or it may not.
If you keep this up, you'll just get marked as a troll, and it'll be harder for you to get your message out.
How about writing a demo app instead?
You, Sir, are a crackpot. From your site
What the human brain is good at, however, is to use its crazy, complex and seamingly contradicting functions to get a "good enough" response in a crazy, complex and seamingly contradicting world. In other words : to operate in uncertain situations with uncomplete data. This includes that it (most of the time) doesnt crash when something unexpected happens. Sometimes, however, it does crash and people get things like post-traumatic stress disorders.
So, if something similar to the brain (your "silver bullet") is "good enough" in uncertain situations, why dont we use such an architecture? Well, we do, its called AI (artificial intelligence), you might have heard of it.
Your silver bullet is simply an agent-based system. And I'm currently doing my master in artificial intelligence on such a system, VERY close to your silver bullet. And I can tell you that this system is NOT the solution. It can handle uncertainity. It probably wont crash.
But the problem is that it is impossible to debug.
With an algorithmic system, I know what it supposed to happen. I can test on the way. In an agent-based system, while I can test every agent, this isnt the problem. The working of the system emerges from the interaction of these agents. And this is something very magical. Every agent doubles the complexity, so nobody understands any more how they work exactly. A developper has to make guesses, put the entire system together and then hit run. If it works : cool, but nobody knows how. If it doesnt work : crap, because nobody knows what to change.
Also, these systems have to same problem as people : they make errors, they never work 100%. And a computer is supposed to work free from critical errors. A human might tell you : Oh, I forgot to send this letter. If your computer tells you : Oh, I forgot to send your email, most people will be shocked (or not, as they accept bugs far too easily nowaday).
Bottom line : tradional computers aim to be predictable : if they crash, they crash hard, and they need complet data to be able to work, but most of the time, they do exactly as expected.
AI (including your "silver bullet") no longer aims to be predictable. It can work under uncertainity, it might crash less often, but it results are unpredictable and instead of being as expected, they are only close to the expectation, most of the time.
And I cant believe that I spend 30 minutes on an offtopic post, just to debunk your "silver bullet".
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
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.
I am a system administrator, and CTO.
I manage servers, with tens of thousands of users, all over California.
ALL of the servers I've deployed in the last 2 years have been AMD, with a heavy bias towards Opterons. For me, one of the key advantages AMD has over Intel is the "last resort" advantage.
If I deploy Xeon servers, and something goes terribly wrong, I can't go to a local retail outlet and buy any hardware that would work - Xeons are not binary compatible with X86. Local tech shops here in my hometown (Chico, CA) don't have Xeon anything. But they DO have Athlon/64s in droves!
So, if I deploy an Opteron server, I *know* that I can get an Athlon/64 that's binary compatible with my system images from the local l337 Gam3rz computer store with aliens and funky lights, but that's binary compatible with my rackmounted servers. No matter what, I have something I can count on in less than a single working day. I've had to fall back to this in the past, so I'm ready to in the future.
This gives me a worst-case recovery time of about 4 hours during business hours. (the only ones that really, really count)
Xeon is compatible with... Xeon. At best, in a worst-case scenario, I wait 48 hours to get some kind of support in small town, CA. Ouch!!!! No way this is acceptable.
4 hours vs 48 hours. Not a hard decision... So Opteron/Athlon/64 it is, then...
And I don't mind that it's both faster and thousands $$$$ cheaper!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
And for programmers, the Intel C/C++ compilers for Core look fantastic. The extra performance that will come out of compiling with those will be really amazing I think.
Yes, you can get a huge boost out of a specially designed compiler. That's why Itanium is doing so well - you can write slow, shitty code but once you've fed it through that incredible Intel compiler it just runs like shit off a shovel.
Seriously, when you say that the compiler will provide an amazing boost, I assume your definition of amazing is "maybe a couple of percent on average code with architecture specific optimisations"?