Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Expands CPU Market Share in Q3 to 84 Percent

Last response: in News comments
Share
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2011 12:08:47 PM

That's brutal score!
Score
9
a c 82 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
December 23, 2011 12:10:47 PM

amd's bulldozer (zambezi and others) tanking has to do something with intel's rise. this possibly means bulldozer didn't sell as much as amd is hyping, and eol'ing old cpus is also hurting.
as a result intel is getting lazier and lazier. cpu prices are stagnant. new products are getting delayed. :( 
Score
2
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 23, 2011 12:27:33 PM

Come on AMD, i want you to give intel some competition so we get some cutting edge processors!
Score
6
December 23, 2011 12:31:34 PM

Yes AMD needs to come out something that is better than Bulldozer. I think AMD can gain some needed traction if they release a RISC based APU processor for tablets.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 12:42:55 PM

Netbooks have always had an EOL in the consumer space. Their greatest use is in the corporate space, as a complement to the workstation. Powerful workstation with a synced netbook is the ideal workplace config.

The home user boom probably came from the hoards of Wal-Mart shoppers that just wanted a "cheap" computer. (Not really even knowing what they are buying.) They use it mostly for the internet and youtube and facebook.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 12:43:22 PM

This is exactly what I was afraid of. While I cannot blame people who want the best value for their money, I really hope AMD does something exciting in the CPU realm and soon. Otherwise, Intel will start raising prices - if they have not already.
Score
4
December 23, 2011 12:44:20 PM

de5_royamd's bulldozer (zambezi and others) tanking has to do something with intel's rise. this possibly means bulldozer didn't sell as much as amd is hyping, and eol'ing old cpus is also hurting.as a result intel is getting lazier and lazier. cpu prices are stagnant. new products are getting delayed.


Mostly due to Intel's execution. Not so much AMD's failure.
Score
1
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2011 12:44:45 PM

Hey, I know, lets resurrect Cyrix so that the AMD fanboys will stop complaining about lack of competition....
Score
1
December 23, 2011 12:58:16 PM

does that % not constitue a monopoly yet?
Score
-5
December 23, 2011 1:23:57 PM

then who owns the rest .
Score
0
December 23, 2011 1:30:30 PM

bulldozer is built at 60% of what was promised, and what was needed. Of course AMD flopped and slid.

billybobserdoes that % not constitue a monopoly yet?


No. Simple microeconomics states it is monopolistic competition. The lawsuits against them show their practices are against many AntiTrust acts.
Score
2
December 23, 2011 1:42:16 PM

Quote:
bulldozer is built at 60% of what was promised, and what was needed. Of course AMD flopped and slid.


It is not like anyone in the corporate space was sitting on pins and needles waiting for AMD's BD. Sorry, that's not it.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 1:43:44 PM

you have to give credit to intel, they make good products nowadays (and actually always). I don' think people have to fear intel raising prices more then normal, they won't make that mistake twice, and besided, people know prices too well these days. Look at the hard drive shortage, don't think people will put up with that bs pricewise. Nothing to worry about, and nice going intel! Besides, don't count amd out, the integrated graphics they have may end up in 50-60% of all new notebooks.
Score
6
December 23, 2011 2:06:22 PM

NightLightyou have to give credit to intel, they make good products nowadays (and actually always). I don' think people have to fear intel raising prices more then normal, they won't make that mistake twice, and besided, people know prices too well these days. Look at the hard drive shortage, don't think people will put up with that bs pricewise. Nothing to worry about, and nice going intel! Besides, don't count amd out, the integrated graphics they have may end up in 50-60% of all new notebooks.

They make great products now, and have to keep innovation up even just to compete with themselves... However, they didn't ALWAYS make great products... P4 was a disaster as far as I am concerned....
Score
3
December 23, 2011 2:26:44 PM

Before too many hecklers pile on, some simple math should be noted. The year-over-year gain for Intel was 2.8%, while AMDs drop was only 1.3%. Q3, which actually reflects Bulldozer's release, shows a 1.2% jump for Intel and an only 0.3% drop for AMD. In other words, this shouldn't be blamed entirely on any perceived failure of BD. Much of the hit to AMD was baked in before BD. Analyzing quarterly earning reports from Intel and AMD would be very helpful in seeing what loses and gains are invovled here in terms of specific products.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 2:49:38 PM

memadmaxHey, I know, lets resurrect Cyrix so that the AMD fanboys will stop complaining about lack of competition....


Cyrix is owned by VIA, so, in a way, you can get one if you buy a Nano.

Except it's not a Cyrix. Cyrix did a great job of releasing the worst microprocessors for a long time, and were summarily executed by VIA. The Nano is based on the Centaur team (formerly at IDT) they also bought. The Cyrix design, naturally, was found inferior, so they stuck with the Centaur team.

There is a third choice, and it's not a bad one. And it's kind of linked to Cyrix, but not horrible like Cyrix.
Score
4
December 23, 2011 3:03:22 PM

I'd definitely call that 'bad' news. I big corporation with a dominant market presence is only good for stock holders but never for the consumer.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 3:23:42 PM

Amd's 10.2% in current is due to its failure in bulldozer
Score
2
December 23, 2011 3:43:15 PM

I'm wondering if this includes APUs. I know, Sandy Bridge is technically an APU if you want to look at it that way, however considering the E- and A- series have been selling very well, I'm puzzled as to why their share went down.

And as for the talk about Bulldozer, come on guys... Bulldozer was released in Q4. The only real reason for Bulldozer to affect AMD's market share in Q3 would be due to its delays, thus pushing people to buy Intel.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 3:56:16 PM

Suck it AMD! What's that? The high end doesn't matter? It'll be a delicious slide to 0%, over the lamentations of ever more vision-less CEOs, and the qq of three quarters of the forum community on Toms hardware. Goodbye AMD, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. And take your GPUs with you.
Score
-5
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2011 5:11:40 PM

Not surprising since AMD gave up competing with Intel on most desktop procs. Even in the performance notebook arena an SB CPU with discrete graphics rules. AMD will luckily last a great while longer since they are very competitive (and in many segments superior) in the entry-level segments. But for enthusiasts the bell is tolling for AMD.
Score
3
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2011 5:20:01 PM

jacobdrjP4 was a disaster as far as I am concerned....


As I recall a number of games use the P4 2.4ghz as their minimum proc requirement these days. I personally know three people who still game on those procs (I know it's shocking). I realize there were a variety of P4s that underperformed compared to their AMD competitors, but the fact that they are still performing to spec after all these years (and still relevant today) is a tribute to the quality that Intel breeds. Now if I could just convince a couple of them to upgrade so they can play SW:TOR with me...
Score
-2
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2011 7:16:55 PM

If you think any one company having a monopoly over something is a good thing you are a fool. You want a good example, then move to Canada. AMD keep the competition going!!!
Score
1
December 23, 2011 7:38:46 PM

intel4evaSuck it AMD! What's that? The high end doesn't matter? It'll be a delicious slide to 0%, over the lamentations of ever more vision-less CEOs, and the qq of three quarters of the forum community on Toms hardware. Goodbye AMD, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. And take your GPUs with you.

You must have Intel stock or something. If you were a true proponent of Intel's products or CPU technology in general you would be unhappy with the demise of AMD because with it will hamper future Intel products.
Score
-1
December 23, 2011 7:49:13 PM

they owe it all to AMD for disappointing eager fans with their bulldozer proc release.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 8:47:00 PM

ta152hCyrix is owned by VIA, so, in a way, you can get one if you buy a Nano. Except it's not a Cyrix. Cyrix did a great job of releasing the worst microprocessors for a long time, and were summarily executed by VIA. The Nano is based on the Centaur team (formerly at IDT) they also bought. The Cyrix design, naturally, was found inferior, so they stuck with the Centaur team. There is a third choice, and it's not a bad one. And it's kind of linked to Cyrix, but not horrible like Cyrix.

the Nano are better than the crappy Atom, the are use in many POS system :) 
Score
1
December 23, 2011 9:02:30 PM

theuniquegamer said:
Amd's 10.2% in current is due to its failure in bulldozer


You don't say?

intel4eva said:
Suck it AMD! What's that? The high end doesn't matter? It'll be a delicious slide to 0%, over the lamentations of ever more vision-less CEOs, and the qq of three quarters of the forum community on Toms hardware. Goodbye AMD, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. And take your GPUs with you.


If you want AMD processor out in the market, I don't care. But not their GPU. Never.

Obvious fanboy is obvious. Trollers = monkeys.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 9:15:40 PM

Come on AMD, quit trying so hard for GREEN technology... Give me a processor that rocks and don't worry so much about having a Big Carbon Footprint and pump it up. It's winter! It will save on my Electric Bill by not running my heater so much! Summer time... well, I didn't think that far ahead but COME ON!
/runs of laughing
Score
0
a c 88 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 23, 2011 9:30:48 PM

if amd bring back a revised phenom II they may gain some ground in the mid range value market. But if they continue with this fx chip, they are going nowhere.
Score
2
December 23, 2011 9:58:45 PM

sonofliberty08the Nano are better than the crappy Atom, the are use in many POS system


I would buy a Nano based system if they would just get the CN1000 chipset out there. It's a nice processor, but they are so far behind on chipsets still. I don't know why the CN1000 is still not available, they released it for review over a year ago now :(  .

This article is not as clear as it should be. Keep in mind, we are not talking about processor market share the way most of us are used to. It's REVENUE market share. So, AMD's numbers seem quite low, but they are selling WAY more than 10.2% of the processors out there, but since they are selling for less than Intel's, the revenue market share is significantly lower. It could very well be that AMD's unit market share is up, since their best product is Bobcat, and it's a low cost product.

I would guess AMD is up for that reason, and Intel is losing Atom sales. Atom sales don't hurt revenue too much because they are cheap, but they do hurt market share in terms of units actually sold.

I wouldn't guess Intel will continue to gain even revenue market share, and will probably lose some revenue share and unit share, as AMD destroys them in the low-end with Bobcat. Atom simply is not competitive, and there's a real difference for most people between running an Atom and a Bobcat. The same can not be said for higher end processor, where most of them are more than powerful enough for the vast majority of people. As Bobcat continues to grow (and there's no reason it shouldn't, it's a perfect processor for so many people (low cost, low power, small footprint, adequate speed), it's going to keep getting design wins where Intel's magnificent Sandy Bridge processors are not necessary (and cost more), and where Intel's not so magnificent Atom just can't do the workload in a way people would want.

This looks like gloom and doom for AMD, but a lot of it reflects on the transition to the Bobcat, arguably their best processor design in their history.

Bulldozer isn't their significant technology. It sucks and will take them nowhere. But, Bobcat is a very significant technology that need to ride to their new position in the market.

We just have to hope Bulldozer's next iteration shows at least some promise. There's so little good to say about Bulldozer though, it's hard to even have that limited optimism. But, the design could have promise, even though the current implementation is miserable.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 11:44:45 PM

Nobody likes to praise the success of llano/fusion more than AMD themselves, this could be their failure imo.
As promising as llano/fusion are, Intel I3/I5 is still atleast as good on performance and price.
Also AMD needs to embrace the enthusiast/overclocking community, we are more loyal/powerful than we get credit for. __Partially__ unlocked K-series llanos is an example of this.

Here is to hoping trinity is better in every way.
Score
0
December 24, 2011 12:43:44 AM

de5_royamd's bulldozer (zambezi and others) tanking has to do something with intel's rise. this possibly means bulldozer didn't sell as much as amd is hyping, and eol'ing old cpus is also hurting.as a result intel is getting lazier and lazier. cpu prices are stagnant. new products are getting delayed.


I think there were probably a lot of people like me who wanted bulldozer to kick ass and when it sucked we jumped ship. On the i5-2500k train and liking it!
Score
1
December 24, 2011 12:47:56 AM

I will be adding to the intel climb/amd drop. I have been patient from before the 750 thunderbird days.
Ditto with ATI. I will never call them amd. One paid off, one failed miserably. This summer my ATI Crossfire Spider Edition case will be boasting dual ATI and an intel cpu. amd may pull something out, but then again JC is supposed to be around as well. Not betting on which will happen first.
Score
0
December 24, 2011 1:11:43 AM

Bulldozer will shine once they increase the core count. The problem is they looked too far to the future. However, Fusion and the ATI branch should be enough to help AMD survive until Bulldozer cores-up.
Score
-1
December 24, 2011 1:16:40 AM

kronos_corneliusBulldozer will shine once they increase the core count. The problem is they looked too far to the future. However, Fusion and the ATI branch should be enough to help AMD survive until Bulldozer cores-up.


Ah, but of course! Needs moar coars! How could they have missed that? 8 is not enough. Maybe with 16, or 32 cores they can match a 4 core i7. In cinebench. And maybe handbrake.
Score
1
December 24, 2011 1:20:33 AM

aceraceYou don't say?If you want AMD processor out in the market, I don't care. But not their GPU. Never.Obvious fanboy is obvious. Trollers = monkeys.


Actually I own a 6970 trifire, and before that I had 5870 trifire. But I've had it with their driver support, and condescending attitude towards their customers. CCC is full of problems that would be super easy and quick to fix and AMD knows about them but won't do anything. Like, just as a small example, not being able to change the GPU panel scaling options without first bringing down your desktop resolution to 1024x768. Don't believe me? Go check right now, I assume you're also running an AMD GPU.

Secondly, I don't want AMD out of the market, or the gubbimint will break intel up. That's axiomatic. But I deeply enjoy AMD getting financially kicked in the gut given their FU attitude to us enthusiasts. After the lies and deceit of bulldozer, what do they do, apologise and hit R&D with a passion? No, they claim the high end doesn't matter, and they fire a bunch of people, to "streamline". I guess that means even less people working on AMD GPU drivers. For me, that's it. I'm out.
Score
0
December 24, 2011 1:25:31 AM

metallifuxI think there were probably a lot of people like me who wanted bulldozer to kick ass and when it sucked we jumped ship. On the i5-2500k train and liking it!


If AMD didn't troll you, you could have been on the 2500K train for almost a full YEAR, and for the same money.
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
December 24, 2011 3:03:24 AM

metallifux said:
I think there were probably a lot of people like me who wanted bulldozer to kick ass and when it sucked we jumped ship. On the i5-2500k train and liking it!

i wanted zambezi to be at least competitive with pricing since amd's cpus always perform lower than intel's, but they offset that with price. believe it or not, amd's idea of multithreading seemed to be much better (than intel's) in theory. in synthetic, highly threaded benchmarks that shows sometimes, but not it real life. amd screwed up the implementation among other things. recent info on them bottlenecking gfx cards isn't helping them either. the price and power efficiency pretty much placed zambezi in the crap pile.
i agree with the silverblue, bd has little to do with amd's share shrinkage since it came out in q4. still, amd had llano apus.... glofo had problems with supplying enough of them. may be bobcat didn't sell enough as the netbook market is losing share to tablets.
Score
0
December 24, 2011 9:24:30 PM

Be very afraid.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 26, 2011 6:08:45 PM

In the meantime news reports indicate the Chinese are entering the cpu market!!!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2011 10:06:02 PM

A few people I've known held out for Bulldozer, only to decide to go with Intel after seeing the initial reviews. I'd figure this phenomenon wasn't confined to my circle of friends, and this also helps to explain the rise.
Score
0
!