AMD, VIA Steal CPU Marketshare From Intel
The underdogs gaining just a little on Intel. Not much, but every little bit counts.
Is the recession over? For computer chip makers – maybe. According to research firm IDC, worldwide PC microprocessor shipments in the fourth calendar quarter of 2009 (4Q09) rose 31.3 percent when compared to the same time in 2008. For the full year 2009, total PC processor unit shipments grew 2.5 percent, while revenue declined 7.1 percent to $28.6 billion.
"Compared to 3Q09, the modest rise in shipments in 4Q09 indicates that the market is returning to normal seasonal patterns," said Shane Rau, director of Semiconductors: Personal Computing research at IDC. "Compared to 4Q08, the huge rise in shipments indicates that the market has put the recession behind it. Both comparisons indicate that the PC industry anticipates improvement in PC end demand in 2010."
While Intel is still the clear leader in all segments, the underdog competitors of AMD and VIA managed to steal some market share away from the big dog.
As noted by the IDC:
In 4Q09, Intel earned 80.5% unit market share, a loss of 0.6%, while AMD earned 19.4%, a gain of 0.7%, and VIA Technologies earned 0.2%. In the full year 2009, Intel earned 79.7% unit market share, a loss of 0.7%, AMD earned 20.1%, a gain of 0.8%, and VIA Technologies earned 0.3%.
In 4Q09 by form factor, Intel earned 87.3% share in the mobile PC processor segment, a loss of 0.7%, AMD finished with 12.7%, a gain of 0.8%, and VIA earned 0.1%. In the PC server/workstation processor segment, Intel finished with 89.8% market share, a loss of 0.6% and AMD earned 10.2%, a gain of 0.6%. In the desktop PC processor segment, Intel earned 71.1%, a loss of 1.1%, and AMD earned 28.6%, a gain of 1.2%.
In 2009 by form factor, Intel earned 86.8% share in the mobile PC processor segment, a loss of 0.3%, AMD finished with 12.8%, a gain of 0.8%, and VIA earned 0.3%, a loss of -0.5%. In the PC server/workstation processor segment, Intel finished with 89.9% market share, a gain of 3.2% and AMD earned 10.1%, a loss of 3.2%. In the desktop PC processor segment, Intel earned 71.0%, a loss of 2.5%, AMD earned 28.8%, a gain of 2.3%, and VIA earned 0.3%, a gain of 0.1%.
- amd ,
- intel ,
- via ,
- cpu ,
- marketshare
- Overclocker Pushes Intel's Celeron D to 8.20 GHz
- Kingston Introduces New SSD With TRIM Support
- StarCraft II Beta Coming Soon
- Tuesday Deals: 13.4'' Dell Adamo Laptop at $899
- BioWare Releases Mass Effect 2 Launch Trailer
- Assassin's Creed II PC Dated, Specs Revealed
- Acer's Big Plans: App Store, Chrome OS Laptop
- Rival Eee Keyboard Spotted, Powered by XP
- Nvidia Found Guilty of Infringing Rambus Patents
- POTW: Bill Gates Gets His Freak On at Sundance
- Apple Launches Its Own CPU, the 1GHz A4
- LIVE: Steve Jobs Announces the Apple iPad
- Seagate, LSI Planning PCIe SSDs for Market
- VIDEO: The iPad 'for Women'
- The Truth Behind Apple's iPad
- Nvidia Outs Beta Driver to Fix Overclocking Bug
- SALE! Psychonauts is $2/€2/£1 on Steam
- Five Ways Apple Can Fix the iPad
i thought amd got more market than that...
I thought via got more market than that (in the Mobile Division) I guess they are not including ultra mobile, Smartphones etc.?
It looks like AMD gain more market share in the beginning of the year and gave some back in Q4. I am guessing PII helped AMD gain some mainstream PC market shares but i7 pushed AMD back.
I really wish there is a third company in the CPU & GPU field. Maybe Nvidia in CPU and Intel in GPU will really push the industry.
It just great to see competition. Keep it going and lower the prices.
well if AMD can get a 6 core out by the end of this year, and for less than $250, i will claim it as mine =]
I really wish there is a third company in the CPU & GPU field. Maybe Nvidia in CPU and Intel in GPU will really push the industry.
Don't count on it. As long as the world is stuck on Windows and limited to x86 there will be no more competitors than there is now. Anyone who has seen the Intel and AMD patent battles over the last two decades can attest to that.
Don't count on it. As long as the world is stuck on Windows and limited to x86 there will be no more competitors than there is now. Anyone who has seen the Intel and AMD patent battles over the last two decades can attest to that.
Amen. The world is held back not by poor engineers or crappy software developers, but by licencing from extremely closed dinosaur companies like MS, Google, Apple, Intel and AMD (and pretty much any large corporation). Fortunately Intel and AMD have cross-licencing in one area, otherwise we'd be lucky if we even had x64 extensions of any kind mainstream by now.
Sharing of information advances technology. Hoarding it hurts the consumer.
Love AMD, but I couldn't say no to the i5 750. So much bang, so little buck.
amd will continue to increase their gains now that they released 555 and the others without a price increase compared to their predecessors, unless intel lowers the prices of their cpus.
Great AMD! Great!
Pretty much good for my upcoming budget PC!
More the competition! more benefits to end-users
hmm.. intel is ravaging the mobile market, we need AMD to come up with some good performance/watt chips so i could get one.
meanwhile, ARM is comming!
I think Via is still about 5 years behind... make a damned good CPU already!
Being a wage slave without the need for a top of the line home PC I've long opted for AMD processors. We do all agree the competition is great for the consumer as well as the market.
And thinking back to my very first Pentium 133mhz home system that cost slightly under $3,000, I am not complaining with either manufacturer.
It seems I could sumerise the sentiments of everyone on the board by saying, we love AMD, but, man, when are they going to make a competitive high end CPU again?
Me thinks a dual core die-shrunk Nano will improve that even more.
Steal? I didn't know the entire market belonged rightfully to Intel. Well then, shame on AMD and VIA for their theiving ways!
The last Intel I bought was a Celeron 300A in 1998 and I was using it until 2008. Now it's on my shelf together with an Athlon 64
Amen. The world is held back not by poor engineers or crappy software developers, but by licencing from extremely closed dinosaur companies like MS, Google, Apple, Intel and AMD (and pretty much any large corporation). Fortunately Intel and AMD have cross-licencing in one area, otherwise we'd be lucky if we even had x64 extensions of any kind mainstream by now.Sharing of information advances technology. Hoarding it hurts the consumer.
Might I remind you that there were chips based on much better systems than x86, like RISC chips and the Intel chip Itanium. No one bought them because there's too many systems working on x86. Same reason why we're stuck still programming in Cobol.
Unless the current system colapse, we will not see a new processor instruction set. Also remember that Windows used to be developped for RISC computers (the servers) and MS stopped the development because of low adoption.
Yes, another thing that people aren't realizing though is that this (and those great numbers for Win7 sales) is because Win7 is a decent OS and people held off buying a crappy Vista loaded PC to wait for Win7. Hence a soar in sales of PCs and Win7.
Need a new market analyst? Shoot me an email
I hope Intel lose other 20% more market share. AMD has new cpu Athlon II x2 250u/260u 25watts for desktops.
They just have to compete and to compete means to innovate. As long as the big dog doesn't intentionally bite (being anti-competitive) the small one then that's a good competition.
Most people purchase mainstream computers instead of high-end. And, during the last 3 months of last year (prior to Intel's release of I3/lower end I5), builders knew that LGA 775 (Intel's competition versus AMD in the low-end and mainstream markets) was a dead cpu socket.
Many OEM's (HP, Dell, etc.) even began offering more AMD cpus since they could more easily by hardware on a mass scale for them. (Fake example: HP Presario d7000... buy one AM3 socket motherboard and offer several cpus for it. With Intel, they would have to have 3 different motherboards... 1 LGA 775, 1 LGA 1156, and 1 for the i7 920.)
Whether 1 company's products are better in the low-end and mainstream markets didn't matter for this. Intel's LGA 775 end-of-life and change to LGA 1156 caused this. Now, if this continues, well... we will see.
And this is why I always try to suggest goingt for AMD. Not because Intel is bad (quite the opposite) but because AMD really could use some help.
Being a wage slave without the need for a top of the line home PC I've long opted for AMD processors. We do all agree the competition is great for the consumer as well as the market.
And thinking back to my very first Pentium 133mhz home system that cost slightly under $3,000, I am not complaining with either manufacturer.
My first system was a Pentium 1 166mhz when the top of the line was a 200mhz (pre-MMX) for about $2.2k. I must wholeheartedly agree.
Its kinda unfair to compare those to Via. Via produces Mini-ITX / Nano-ITX processors that act more like System's On a Chip (SOC) then traditional CPU's. They tend to be ultra lower power and have on board AES encryption inside the CPU. Makes them the absolute fastest way of doing encryption, especially file and / or network encryption.