Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD vs. Intel Marketshare

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2011 5:06:58 PM

From http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Midmarket/Intel-AMD-Hold-Le...:

Quote:
In a year of major changes for the global microprocessor industry, one thing remained the same: leading suppliers Intel and Advanced Micro Devices in 2010 maintained their customary ranks in the market, research from IT analytics firm IHS iSuppli indicated. Intel finished the year with 81.0 percent share of global microprocessor revenue, up a scant 0.4 percentage points from 80.6 percent in 2009, allowing it to maintain leadership. Meanwhile, AMD ended the year with 11.4 percent share, down 0.8 points from 12.2 percent in 2009, keeping it in second place.


So AMD lost about 7% global marketshare in 2010, compared to 2009.

Quote:
Fourth-quarter market data revealed no significant changes in worldwide microprocessor market shares as well. Intel accounted for 81.5 percent of global microprocessor revenue during the period, gaining 0.5 percent of share compared to a year ago in the fourth quarter of 2009. On a sequential basis, Intel gained 0.7 percent of share from the 80.8 percent it held in the third quarter of 2010.

For both sequential and year-over comparisons, AMD lost market share, with the greatest loss occurring relative to the fourth quarter of 2009. In the fourth quarter of 2010, AMD accounted for 10.9 percent of the worldwide microprocessor market by revenue, down from 11.4 percent in the third quarter of 2010, and down from 12.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009.


That's a 12% drop in YOY marketshare for AMD.

I imagine that fusion and Intel's SB chipset problems will show an improvement for AMD this quarter however.

AMD really needed to bring Bulldozer and Llano in on schedule this quarter, not 1-2 quarters later as is now the case..

More about : amd intel marketshare

a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 29, 2011 8:34:59 PM

Your ":" at the end of your link caused every tab in my chrome browser to crash lol.

Better they bring it later instead of having another phenom xx00 bug. They did recently release their mobile fusion for netbooks and that seemed to go over pretty well.

I found this a long while ago. I can't vouch for it's accuracy though:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html
Score
0
March 29, 2011 8:52:31 PM

I have hope that Bulldozer will still be very successful.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2011 9:37:11 PM

Amd need some sort of market share lol. Is there a poll like this for the video card market? because if that is included in what you are saying that cant be right.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2011 10:03:46 PM

enzo matrix said:
Your ":" at the end of your link caused every tab in my chrome browser to crash lol.

Better they bring it later instead of having another phenom xx00 bug. They did recently release their mobile fusion for netbooks and that seemed to go over pretty well.

I found this a long while ago. I can't vouch for it's accuracy though:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html


LOL - sorry about that. Just cut & paste the URL in a new tab and it should work.

I've seen that CPU Benchmark graph several times already - it only represents the percentage of those with Intel systems vs. AMD systems who actually bother to post their benchmarks on the web site. Not sales or anything. So it is about as reliable as a web poll :p ..

Yeah I agree that the fusion should make inroads on the ultra-mobile space starting this quarter, but my main point was that AMD originally was coming out with all 3 (Zacate, Llano and Bulldozer) by the end of 2010, or at least that is what I was hearing about a year ago. So now BD and Llano are delayed by at least half a year, giving Intel that much more time selling Sandy Bridge.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2011 10:12:22 PM

cia24 said:
Amd need some sort of market share lol. Is there a poll like this for the video card market? because if that is included in what you are saying that cant be right.


IIRC there is an IDC report on GPU marketshare that comes out about once a quarter. Haven't seen the most recent one however. But surprisingly enough, the last one I did see shows that Intel sells about half the total # of GPUs, because the report doesn't discriminate between IGPs (which Intel sells) and discrete GPUs like what you find in your graphics cards. Sandy Bridge's onboard 12-EU GPU is probably the most powerful one Intel sells, and it is sufficient for HD video and lightweight gaming (no AA or other eyecandy) or about the same as a $50 discrete card :p ..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2011 12:46:54 AM

Quote:
Intel let Amd survive by not challenging at the low end of the market


well how kind of them.

/sarcasm. (actually refraining from an insult here.)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2011 12:54:36 AM

Quote:
Intel let Amd survive by not challenging at the low end of the market


Well since Conroe came out in what - Q3 of 2006? - Intel really hasn't had to worry about AMD, so they set their pricing based on what people are willing to pay rather than competition. BD could be a game-changer, but I sort of doubt it - seems optimized for server rather than desktop, with all those cores. But we'll see around June 20th I guess.

At any rate, having no new product for 6 months after Sandy Bridge is worse than having a new product that merely catches up to Intel. IMO, AMD needs to be proactive and take the fight to Intel a bit better, instead of Intel just waiting to see what AMD does and then release stuff they already have in development, like Ivy Bridge. What the heck did
AMD spend that $1.25BN settlement money from Intel on?? Oh that's right - paying off part of the ATI purchase debt...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2011 2:36:46 AM

Well, well, well...another Intel vs AMD thread.

Hope this one can keep the fanboys at bay.

/sarcasm.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2011 1:55:42 PM

^ Well to be fair, AMD did make a profit last quarter (although IIRC it included a one-time GF writeoff item, so the actual profit from selling product was much lower). Primary due to higher ASPs according to their quarterly report. However Intel had its most profitable quarter ever last quarter, so Intel took better advantage of that big increase in worldwide sales than AMD did.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2011 1:58:16 PM

Intel always seems to have a better quarter than the last. Whats up with that?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2011 2:18:03 PM

^ LOL - marketing for one thing. When's the last time you ever heard the AMD jingle on a TV advertisement??
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
March 30, 2011 5:27:30 PM

Intel has a higher margin than AMD. Makes the Intel Higher cost vs performance, but on the other hand it also makes the owners of intel stock happier. If Intel dropped their margin, it would be bad news for amd and for Intel stock holders as the stock would see a nose dive. This is also the reason Intels SSds are more expensive than competion. The intel SSDs are more reliable, but also loose out on performance (Intel use to have the crown on SSD performance, but no longer).
Score
0
March 30, 2011 6:37:02 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
From http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Midmarket/Intel-AMD-Hold-Le...:

Quote:
In a year of major changes for the global microprocessor industry, one thing remained the same: leading suppliers Intel and Advanced Micro Devices in 2010 maintained their customary ranks in the market, research from IT analytics firm IHS iSuppli indicated. Intel finished the year with 81.0 percent share of global microprocessor revenue, up a scant 0.4 percentage points from 80.6 percent in 2009, allowing it to maintain leadership. Meanwhile, AMD ended the year with 11.4 percent share, down 0.8 points from 12.2 percent in 2009, keeping it in second place.


So AMD lost about 7% global marketshare in 2010, compared to 2009.

Quote:
Fourth-quarter market data revealed no significant changes in worldwide microprocessor market shares as well. Intel accounted for 81.5 percent of global microprocessor revenue during the period, gaining 0.5 percent of share compared to a year ago in the fourth quarter of 2009. On a sequential basis, Intel gained 0.7 percent of share from the 80.8 percent it held in the third quarter of 2010.

For both sequential and year-over comparisons, AMD lost market share, with the greatest loss occurring relative to the fourth quarter of 2009. In the fourth quarter of 2010, AMD accounted for 10.9 percent of the worldwide microprocessor market by revenue, down from 11.4 percent in the third quarter of 2010, and down from 12.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009.


That's a 12% drop in YOY marketshare for AMD.

I imagine that fusion and Intel's SB chipset problems will show an improvement for AMD this quarter however.

AMD really needed to bring Bulldozer and Llano in on schedule this quarter, not 1-2 quarters later as is now the case..


Back in the Days with Jerry Sanders and Hector Ruiz they were hitting 25% aiming towards 30% I as I recall, best Architectures I remeber where the AMD K6-3/Athlon Thunder Bird Slot Era & Athlon XP Palmino/AMD Duron/Athlon 64 FX! AMD was on fire with those proccessor line-up! I'm waiting to see withthe Orochi Bulldozer proccessor whats going on with AMD! They had some good opening to take over the Retail Gamer Market, but Intel has always had more Fabrications and The Corporate Market which is hard for AMD to Win over Intel's Loyal Companies! Fusion Techology sounds interesting and very complex, like ATI Fudo 520 Fusion, Amd Bought Good IP in ATI 4890/5830 was on top of the game for ATI Good Back 2 Back releases!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2011 9:55:44 PM

I have an idea:

Let us bring Jerry Sanders as the 'new' CEO of AMD and have ol' Hector at his side!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2011 10:30:06 PM

dogman_1234 said:
I have an idea:

Let us bring Jerry Sanders as the 'new' CEO of AMD and have ol' Hector at his side!


You mean thats not not happend already ...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2011 10:40:02 PM

..IDK...I am just helping out AMD here...

or, they could hire me. :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2011 12:40:28 AM

dogman_1234 said:
I have an idea:

Let us bring Jerry Sanders as the 'new' CEO of AMD and have ol' Hector at his side!


Well either Jerry Sanders or Colonel Sanders :D ...

But not Hector - he drove the company into the ground IMO, plus he had to skip town due to his insider trading status :p .
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2011 12:46:00 AM

GunBladeType-T said:
Back in the Days with Jerry Sanders and Hector Ruiz they were hitting 25% aiming towards 30% I as I recall, best Architectures I remeber where the AMD K6-3/Athlon Thunder Bird Slot Era & Athlon XP Palmino/AMD Duron/Athlon 64 FX! AMD was on fire with those proccessor line-up! I'm waiting to see withthe Orochi Bulldozer proccessor whats going on with AMD! They had some good opening to take over the Retail Gamer Market, but Intel has always had more Fabrications and The Corporate Market which is hard for AMD to Win over Intel's Loyal Companies! Fusion Techology sounds interesting and very complex, like ATI Fudo 520 Fusion, Amd Bought Good IP in ATI 4890/5830 was on top of the game for ATI Good Back 2 Back releases!


IIRC the highest marketshare AMD ever got to was around 30%, about 6-7 years ago. And I remember AMD stating somewhere (maybe in their antitrust suit against Intel) that they needed 30% minimum to survive.

Probably the worse loss however is in the server segment, where they currently are around 6% marketshare. Just a year ago they were about double that IIRC. And server CPUs is where the highest profits are, by far.. So Bulldozer may turn that around for them, although I dunno when the server version is coming out. Haven't seen JF-AMD post here in a few weeks now - he could probably answer that.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2011 2:44:31 AM

Looks to be a worthy successor to the X58 (on paper that is).

X68 will be nice but X79 just looks epic.

I really like Intel's addition of an Intel NIC MAC. I have been using Intel NIC card (PCIe x1) instead of the onboard crap from Realtek and Marvell. Looks like I won't need an addon card anymore.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2011 3:46:24 AM

Quote:
him not posting here for a while is that a good or bad sign?


He is on vacation right now.

ElMoIsEviL said:
Looks to be a worthy successor to the X58 (on paper that is).

X68 will be nice but X79 just looks epic.

I really like Intel's addition of an Intel NIC MAC. I have been using Intel NIC card (PCIe x1) instead of the onboard crap from Realtek and Marvell. Looks like I won't need an addon card anymore.


Can you give some spec please. I would like to be informed.
Score
0
March 31, 2011 4:11:02 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
IIRC the highest marketshare AMD ever got to was around 30%, about 6-7 years ago. And I remember AMD stating somewhere (maybe in their antitrust suit against Intel) that they needed 30% minimum to survive.

Probably the worse loss however is in the server segment, where they currently are around 6% marketshare. Just a year ago they were about double that IIRC. And server CPUs is where the highest profits are, by far.. So Bulldozer may turn that around for them, although I dunno when the server version is coming out. Haven't seen JF-AMD post here in a few weeks now - he could probably answer that.


With the Acquisition of ATI they Have the possibility of putting pressure on Intel with GPU's to win more Market Share
only 6% GPU's is a way to go in the future they have added on to their R&D with Ati Tek! Intel has stated that they can pack the Xeons like Cartridges on if needed!

So brings about the Next Q can AMD hit Intel in the Higher Sever Area Cloud Computing and win more market share and get chips out! They have some Cool Newer Names that People can Relate to Orochi and Video games, Japanesse Myth, and Bulldowzer Core to construction workers, and other people! Waiting to see with Gpu add-on(Fusion) if they can do some damage!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2011 5:13:44 PM

GunBladeType-T said:
With the Acquisition of ATI they Have the possibility of putting pressure on Intel with GPU's to win more Market Share
only 6% GPU's is a way to go in the future they have added on to their R&D with Ati Tek! Intel has stated that they can pack the Xeons like Cartridges on if needed!

Waiting to see with Gpu add-on(Fusion) if they can do some damage!


Server Bulldozer won't have the fusion tech for some time, if that is what you meant. Neither will the first iteration of desktop Bulldozer - maybe you're thinking of Llano instead?

The jury is still out on the ATI acquisition - AMD spent a whopping $5.4BN on it, then got hammered by Conroe and started bleeding profits & cash (IIRC something like $7BN total in 4+ years), and only recently has returned to the black side of the ledger. IIRC through Q3 of last year ATI was still a net loss in graphics profits since the buyout. So AMD has had to sell off major chunks of itself to survive these past 4 years, the biggest being the fab sale to GloFlo.

So far all I see with fusion is mostly an on-die GPU sharing L3 cache with the CPU and speeding up a limited number of non-graphics apps that can make use of the GPU, like folding@home, some transcoders, etc. Maybe that'll change in the future, but a GPU is pretty specialized in what it does (large array of simple, speed-optimized vector processors) and my bet is that there are more applications that won't be able to take much advantage of that architecture than there are those that can. So GPGPU so far seems like somebody having just a hammer and thinking everything looks like a nail. Great for building a shed but not so good for writing that doctoral thesis :p .. But I agree it will be interesting to see how fusion evolves over the next few years - hopefully it'll turn out as good as AMD says it will..
Score
0
March 31, 2011 11:44:21 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Server Bulldozer won't have the fusion tech for some time, if that is what you meant. Neither will the first iteration of desktop Bulldozer - maybe you're thinking of Llano instead?

The jury is still out on the ATI acquisition - AMD spent a whopping $5.4BN on it, then got hammered by Conroe and started bleeding profits & cash (IIRC something like $7BN total in 4+ years), and only recently has returned to the black side of the ledger. IIRC through Q3 of last year ATI was still a net loss in graphics profits since the buyout. So AMD has had to sell off major chunks of itself to survive these past 4 years, the biggest being the fab sale to GloFlo.

So far all I see with fusion is mostly an on-die GPU sharing L3 cache with the CPU and speeding up a limited number of non-graphics apps that can make use of the GPU, like folding@home, some transcoders, etc. Maybe that'll change in the future, but a GPU is pretty specialized in what it does (large array of simple, speed-optimized vector processors) and my bet is that there are more applications that won't be able to take much advantage of that architecture than there are those that can. So GPGPU so far seems like somebody having just a hammer and thinking everything looks like a nail. Great for building a shed but not so good for writing that doctoral thesis :p .. But I agree it will be interesting to see how fusion evolves over the next few years - hopefully it'll turn out as good as AMD says it will..


Well No Trance Allstars Tunes Ready to Flow with GlowFox, but with ATi acquistion you have some cash coming in with XBOX Fusion Fudo R520 and also ATI R580 was a major seller for ATI and the DirectX11 5830 tech edge for one year was pretty impressive!

AMD Has a big consumer base with DX11 25million units sold by ATI vs I think 2million for Nvidia and lowered the costs with the 6000 series, I'm waiting to see what the AMD 7000 brings maybe 11.1/12.0 support is a good move! With Xbox 360 and Fusion it would make sense to go with AMD , since they are already used to working with ATI's architecture, and Fusion!

Get all those ATI users to boost Science Projects and Proccessing Like Intel Offered or MS to use some of your proccessing cycles for Usage! Would be a smart move considering how complex those Chips are!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2011 2:40:12 AM

*in a sassy attitude and voice*...because...

:D 
Score
0

Best solution

a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 1, 2011 2:24:35 PM

^Wow.

Last time I checked, Intel just posted another record quarter. And I am sure they will do so again.

Intel does a lot more than just CPUs. Hell the majority of SSDs that will use 25nm NAND come from the Intel/Micron joint venture.

If you have a PC, no matter what you do you have a Intel product in it.

In fact, you want 10GB NIC card? Intel just finished getting that ready for mobos. USB? Intel sets that up too. PCIe? Well guess what. Intel helped crete that standard too.
Share
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 1, 2011 2:38:00 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Server Bulldozer won't have the fusion tech for some time, if that is what you meant. Neither will the first iteration of desktop Bulldozer - maybe you're thinking of Llano instead?

The jury is still out on the ATI acquisition - AMD spent a whopping $5.4BN on it, then got hammered by Conroe and started bleeding profits & cash (IIRC something like $7BN total in 4+ years), and only recently has returned to the black side of the ledger. IIRC through Q3 of last year ATI was still a net loss in graphics profits since the buyout. So AMD has had to sell off major chunks of itself to survive these past 4 years, the biggest being the fab sale to GloFlo.

So far all I see with fusion is mostly an on-die GPU sharing L3 cache with the CPU and speeding up a limited number of non-graphics apps that can make use of the GPU, like folding@home, some transcoders, etc. Maybe that'll change in the future, but a GPU is pretty specialized in what it does (large array of simple, speed-optimized vector processors) and my bet is that there are more applications that won't be able to take much advantage of that architecture than there are those that can. So GPGPU so far seems like somebody having just a hammer and thinking everything looks like a nail. Great for building a shed but not so good for writing that doctoral thesis :p .. But I agree it will be interesting to see how fusion evolves over the next few years - hopefully it'll turn out as good as AMD says it will..



My understanding is the GPU has an independent buffer connected to the L3 with a crossbar -----> subsequently connected to the memory controller.

SB CPU/GPU shares the L3.
Score
0
April 1, 2011 3:20:49 PM

jimmysmitty said:
^Wow.

Last time I checked, Intel just posted another record quarter. And I am sure they will do so again.



What after picking up a $1bn tab for chipset repairs and a downturn in the market?

You wanna bet on that?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2011 3:43:49 PM

bobdozer said:
http://www.crn.com.au/News/253078,analyst-intel-sandy-b...

intel losing money and market share after the cripple bridge fiasco.


Hmm, to quote from that same article:

Quote:
FBR Capital Markets analyst Craig Berger on Thursday said end users haven’t been as eager as expected to get their hands on Intel’s second-generation Sandy Bridge Core processors, which feature integrated graphics processing capability, and that rival AMD isn’t likely to benefit from Intel’s demand shortfall in the long-term.
.
.
.
In addition, Shah agreed both that AMD benefited from Intel’s bungled Sandy Bridge launch, but not enough to prevent a less-than-stellar first fiscal quarter. “Furthermore, we believe Advanced Micro Devices, which is arguably the biggest beneficiary of Intel’s design flaw, is tracking to the low-end of Q1 guidance.”


Doesn't sound like much if any gain in marketshare for AMD, although I would expect some benefit after the SB chipset blip. And I use the term blip as compared to, say, the Barcelona "launch - oops! - we gotta redesign the CPU, so wait 6 months!" disaster :p ..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2011 3:46:42 PM

Wisecracker said:
My understanding is the GPU has an independent buffer connected to the L3 with a crossbar -----> subsequently connected to the memory controller.

SB CPU/GPU shares the L3.


OK, thanks for the clarification. I imagine both methods are faster than going through an external PCIe bus like with discrete GPUs.
Score
0
April 1, 2011 4:05:45 PM

Wisecracker said:
My understanding is the GPU has an independent buffer connected to the L3 with a crossbar -----> subsequently connected to the memory controller.

SB CPU/GPU shares the L3.


I keep Thinking of SB as Sound Bar, remind me of a Sandra Disco-Chik! Anyways what i'm waiting for is IVY League Chipset and Orochi-Bulldozer.

1)IVY might have a new Turbo Boost Mode-Dynamic Mode Tweak which is cool who knows? Also has some other interesting tek such as DX11 and Open CL1.0 Support and targeting a 30% Increase over Sandy Bridge DX10.1 Core and more Engine Units! PCI Express 3.0, and Released Early to Counter Orochi-Bulldozer! All at 022.nm MonoLithic Die rather than .32nm Germanium SOI

2)Orochi-Bulldozer Proccesser with L-2 Modules supposedly equavalent to a single Intel Core with Hyperthreading a module, suppossed to have 4-8 Modules! Cluster Multi-threading (CMT) Technology!Two dedicated integer cores each consist of 2 ALU and 2 Address Generations Units! ON wikipedia links AGU + Digital Signal Proccessor ,wondering if it somehow links to a SPU! Something like Enviromental 3D Occulsion Calculations!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2011 4:06:50 PM

The IGP and the L3 cache share the mem controller?
Score
0
April 1, 2011 4:20:34 PM

Yes It has Access to it! I was reading up on Sandy Bridge and IVY Bridge something newer over the Westermere Architecture I believe! Don't have notes with me but article on Tomshardware explaind differences between older icore and amd's chips, kinda of a brief analysis of different tweaks and optimizing!
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
April 1, 2011 4:43:50 PM

Keep this on topic guys, it's already took a short side route, if it turns into another Bulldozer paper release argument, it will be closed. Ryan
Score
0
April 1, 2011 4:47:10 PM

Intel Dropping the paper launch too it seems maybe beating orochi to the market, seams like a dual paper issue war! Mentioned March 23 things heating up between Intel and AMD!
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
April 1, 2011 4:57:31 PM

^ Paper vs paper launch, OK, keep it on topic, and insult free, and I for one won't have a problem with it, unfortunately this forum cannot seem to argue without insults.

But miracles can happen!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2011 5:25:01 PM

^ Sure thing 4ryan6.

Anyways. Can't see why you would want to connect the L3 and the IGP. It is for latency and memory?
Score
0
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 1, 2011 5:37:32 PM

dogman_1234 said:
^ Sure thing 4ryan6.

Anyways. Can't see why you would want to connect the L3 and the IGP. It is for latency and memory?


I don't want to step out-of-bounds (smack me around, Ryan :lol:  ) but if you try to play 'connect the dots' with AMD's silence, even going back 4-5 years, you can find a little sanity in what they are trying to do.

In some slides they have referred to the 'APU' GPU as a "SIMD Engine Array" and suggested the GPU/buffer has theoretical bandwidth of 25+ GB/s along the crossbar to the L3 (or independently, directly to the IMC).
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2011 6:37:14 PM

I am pretty sure there are no "connect the dots' here.

I am also pretty sure Ryan won't smack you around...he might have other ideas. :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2011 7:04:24 PM

Wisecracker said:
I don't want to step out-of-bounds (smack me around, Ryan :lol:  ) but if you try to play 'connect the dots' with AMD's silence, even going back 4-5 years, you can find a little sanity in what they are trying to do.

In some slides they have referred to the 'APU' GPU as a "SIMD Engine Array" and suggested the GPU/buffer has theoretical bandwidth of 25+ GB/s along the crossbar to the L3 (or independently, directly to the IMC).


I think eventually the floating-point chores will be handled completely by the onboard GPU. Or maybe there will still be a vestigial FPU unit in the CPU. Whether this is an ideal fit of the hardware to the apps remains to be seen.

Back on topic, AMD releases their Q1 report on the 21st IIRC, so we shall see what effects the SB chipset problem had on them. I suspect not much since AMD didn't have their BD or Llano CPUs ready to go..
Score
0
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 1, 2011 8:47:48 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
I think eventually the floating-point chores will be handled completely by the onboard GPU. Or maybe there will still be a vestigial FPU unit in the CPU. Whether this is an ideal fit of the hardware to the apps remains to be seen.

Back on topic, AMD releases their Q1 report on the 21st IIRC, so we shall see what effects the SB chipset problem had on them. I suspect not much since AMD didn't have their BD or Llano CPUs ready to go..


I don't really know but I think Q1 is essentially a 'downer' for AMD (and the industry), anyway.

And I suspect the APU 'dots' will be better connected in 2012 when BD cores replace Stars cores on the APU, and we begin to see what all this fancy FPU/module stuff with AVX/SSE5 is all about.
Score
0
April 2, 2011 12:50:21 AM

jimmysmitty said:
^Wow.

Last time I checked, Intel just posted another record quarter. And I am sure they will do so again.

Intel does a lot more than just CPUs. Hell the majority of SSDs that will use 25nm NAND come from the Intel/Micron joint venture.

If you have a PC, no matter what you do you have a Intel product in it.

In fact, you want 10GB NIC card? Intel just finished getting that ready for mobos. USB? Intel sets that up too. PCIe? Well guess what. Intel helped crete that standard too.



How about Toshiba and Samsung I thought they sell the most flash memory to SSD's? Micron Crucial is a good brand also with its Trace Line-up and Ballistix Product line of RAM, also remember theywere one of the 1st to almost knock out that Mushkin Callisto Serial ATA-2 3Gbps at 285MB/285MB!
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 2, 2011 4:15:17 AM

bobdozer said:
What after picking up a $1bn tab for chipset repairs and a downturn in the market?

You wanna bet on that?


I would but I don't have any money to bet.

But did you not read my other points? Intel has a hand in almost EVERYTHING. Every x86 chip produced nest Intel money. Intel has been at the edge of technology for a long.... LONG time.

And considering that Intel grabbed more server marketshare, where its most profitable, I will still bet that they will post record profits.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2011 1:11:49 AM

Best answer selected by fazers_on_stun.
Score
0
April 13, 2011 1:54:18 AM

Honestly, i've always used Intel cores, besides my first one, which was an old (probably scavanged/junk) processor i got from a buddy back when i didn't know about computers.

I'm thinking I never gave AMD a fair shake, I don't really wanna build a whole PC just to see what they're all about lol.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 25, 2012 8:56:10 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!