Intel Expands CPU Market Share in Q3 to 84 Percent

[Guest]

Intel was able to increase its lead microprocessor sales over AMD in the third quarter of 2011

Intel Expands CPU Market Share in Q3 to 84 Percent : Read more

 

[nikorr]

That's brutal score!

 

[de5_Roy]

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.

 

[Goldengoose]

Come on AMD, i want you to give intel some competition so we get some cutting edge processors!

 

[GreaseMonkey_62]

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.

 

[BSMonitor]

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.

 

[wiyosaya]

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.

 

[BSMonitor]

[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]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.[/citation]

Mostly due to Intel's execution. Not so much AMD's failure.

 

[memadmax]

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

 

[billybobser]

does that % not constitue a monopoly yet?

 

[9_breaker]

then who owns the rest .

 

[MasterMace]

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

[citation][nom]billybobser[/nom]does that % not constitue a monopoly yet?[/citation]

No. Simple microeconomics states it is monopolistic competition. The lawsuits against them show their practices are against many AntiTrust acts.

 

[BSMonitor]

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.

 

[NightLight]

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.

 

[jacobdrj]

[citation][nom]NightLight[/nom]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.[/citation]
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....

 

[DRosencraft]

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.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]Hey, I know, lets resurrect Cyrix so that the AMD fanboys will stop complaining about lack of competition....[/citation]

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.

 

[freggo]

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.

 

[theuniquegamer]

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

 

[silverblue]

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.

 

[intel4eva]

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.

 

[larkspur]

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.

 

[larkspur]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]P4 was a disaster as far as I am concerned....[/citation]

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...

 

[Guest]

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!!!

 

[v1ze]

[citation][nom]intel4eva[/nom]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.[/citation]
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.