Blue vs. Green.
According to iSuppli, Intel finished 2010 with 81.0% revenue share, which was up 0.4 points from 80.6% in 2009, while AMD was down 0.8 points to 11.4%. Sandy Bridge appeared to help Intel boost market share as the Q4 revenue share was up to 81.5%, while AMD was down to 10.9% and is in danger of dropping into the single digits.
The apparently uneventful market development could suggest that both companies are somewhat happy with what they have, even if I can still remember AMD targeting about 30% of the market just five years ago. However, it could be exactly the opposite as well: iSuppli noted that the two manufacturers are fighting for every dollar in the market: The total processor market (including RISC and other general purpose processors) was about $40 billion in 2010 - about 25% more than in 2009.
Both AMD and Intel are trying to catch up in the smartphone and tablet race. AMD fired its CEO Dirk Meyer and COO Bob Rivet in an effort to realign the company, while Intel just kicked Anand Chandrasekher, who was in charge of the firm's Ultra Mobility business, to the curb. iSuppli said that about 17.4 million tablets may have been shipped in 2010 - up from virtually nothing in 2009. It's a market Intel and AMD are not competing in yet and if the general predictions of 240 million shipped tablets by 2014 (iSuppli) are true, then it is a big opportunity for the two - an opportunity that could shift market shares again.
The enthusiasts market is only a small part of the total PC market. Its not surprising at all. But, I just hope AMD can pull some more in with their new line of APUs.
How about the fact that Fusion is totally crippling and eating away at Atom?
and...last but not least, that Bulldozer is about to bulldoze INTEL straight down???
Fanboy much. Taking Intel's market share with one new product line just isn't gonna happen. I don't like to pick sides, but the last few rounds have all gone to Intel. Lets face it: Core iX (1st gen) vs Phenom IIs is no competition. Core iX (2nd gen) vs Phenom IIs... If possible, even less competition. While I would be thrilled if AMD brought some real muscle to the table, realistically I don't see it happening.
Fanboy much. Taking Intel's market share with one new product line just isn't gonna happen. I don't like to pick sides, but the last few rounds have all gone to Intel. Lets face it: Core iX (1st gen) vs Phenom IIs is no competition. Core iX (2nd gen) vs Phenom IIs... If possible, even less competition. While I would be thrilled if AMD brought some real muscle to the table, realistically I don't see it happening.
Wile sandy bridge is currently giving AMD a nice big beatdown lol Its not like you cant game with a Phenom lol I have one its at 4.1ghz on the stock cooler that it came with and not even close to 60c so its nice and cool. And most games are much more GPU intensive. So I saved some cash on mu cpu/mobo combo got a nice GPU and I can play any game out right now with max or very close to max settings. All over 40 FPS and that very playable. So if I take the money saved by going AMD and get a second GPU for crossfire ( well apply the savings its not going to pay for it out right lol) Ill max outy any game at 60 FPS. So wile AMD is behind Intell there chips are still viable choices for the budget gamer.
I 100% agree but.......................Is this the right thred for this comment? lol
While the Audi R8 is a nice car, my Honda Civic can get up to 100 MPH on the freeway if I want it to, and it can seat more people. So I took the money I saved and put a big spoiler on it (because front-wheel drive cars need more rear downforce) and a cold air intake on it... Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Back in the days of P4, AMD was owning Intel in the processor wars; now Intel is owning AMD. Deal with it and start living in this reality.
Umm im confused. Based on what I wrote Its sonds like I was saying SB is better and I was dealing with it? lol
If AMD wants more market share, they need faster processors to challenge Intel's new products. If Intel wants more market share, they need to bring out lower priced processors to challenge AMD's products.
I would rather see AMD gain a little market share, to put more competitive pressure on Intel. If AMD fades away then where will we be?
Also if AMD is no more, the courts are gonna have to split up Intel, which they probably should have done already after the antitrust cases.
Give it time and you'll see the market share eek up slowly, it won't ever be the highest but they should be able to get to 25% within five or so years. Providing Intel doesn't come up with some sort of crazy illegal strategy to keep them down. And before the fanboi's start their nonsense, this fight and the illegal actions of Intel go back to the 80's when IBM forced Intel to license x86 to AMD so as to create an alternate supply partner for the IBM line of miniature computers.
I don't see very many "Enthusiasts" like ourselves going for a APU over a CPU. Most people looking towards BD are going to wait for Zambezi.
And while I like SB and QuickSync, I would probably prefer to wait for LGA2011 since that version of SB will have no GPU on die. Its just a CPU.
As for server, its a nice market to control. Even with only 10% of the market thats about $4 billion dollars a year.