Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel, AMD Fiercely Fighting For Market Share

By - Source: iSuppli | B 46 comments

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.       

Display 46 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 4 Hide
    NapoleonDK , March 24, 2011 9:55 PM
    I didn't realize their market share was that far apart. Seems odd when so many of the gamers I know are thrilled to death with their Phenom 965's and HD6950's...
  • 3 Hide
    Parsian , March 24, 2011 9:59 PM
    AMD needs to move fast, they have a solution, they just better market it properly
  • 5 Hide
    jskilnyk , March 24, 2011 10:03 PM
    NapoleonDKI didn't realize their market share was that far apart. Seems odd when so many of the gamers I know are thrilled to death with their Phenom 965's and HD6950's...


    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.
  • 0 Hide
    cburke82 , March 24, 2011 10:05 PM
    I dont think this data counts GPU's only CPU's
  • 2 Hide
    COLGeek , March 24, 2011 10:11 PM
    Not a shock when comparing CPU headcounts.
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , March 24, 2011 10:15 PM
    Does anyone ever mention that Fusion will be powering tablets by the end of the summer???!!! - if not sooner?

    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???
  • 2 Hide
    toastninja17 , March 24, 2011 10:41 PM
    Yeah too bad this is happening, AMD chips and architecture are designed more for gamers and less expensive, while Intel definitely focuses more on enterprise and business use. Not saying that Intel chips aren't good for gaming, they're outstanding...just, I think AMD is a little more aimed towards the gamer with less dough to blow.
  • -1 Hide
    PudgyChicken , March 24, 2011 10:41 PM
    LOL @Pat1234

    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.
  • 2 Hide
    rmse17 , March 24, 2011 10:53 PM
    toastninja17: The only reason that AMD is aimed towards the gamer with less dough to blow is that their processors are not at the top. Lest we forget the 1000$ Athlon FX-51 and it's successors before Intel pulled out the C2D. Both companies charge the most money they can for their products, at the moment AMD is behind, and has to charge less, especially to keep it's market share.
  • 2 Hide
    rmse17 , March 24, 2011 10:57 PM
    Pat1234: You have to remember that even in the days of P4, when AMD's processors were superior to Intel in everything but the Mobile market, Intel still had some 80% market share. AMD has issues just with the Intel logo, regardless of processor quality, and it doesn't help to not have the most powerful or efficient chips like now. Hopefully Bulldozer will be able to beat SB, but given the market share, number of enigneers, and company pocket books, unfortunately AMD is on the losing side of statistics. Intel has way more money and engineers to throw at a problem, and as we all know from Civilization games... :) 
  • -1 Hide
    Assmar , March 24, 2011 10:59 PM
    That's nothing but good news. Nvidia and AMD duking it out means that both of their respective highest end cards will be priced equally, instead of Nvidia setting exorbitant prices as was the norm. Now, BOTH companies have exorbitantly priced cards, so suck it!
  • -1 Hide
    cburke82 , March 24, 2011 11:01 PM
    Quote:
    LOL @Pat1234

    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.
  • 2 Hide
    cburke82 , March 24, 2011 11:03 PM
    Quote:
    That's nothing but good news. Nvidia and AMD duking it out means that both of their respective highest end cards will be priced equally, instead of Nvidia setting exorbitant prices as was the norm. Now, BOTH companies have exorbitantly priced cards, so suck it!

    I 100% agree but.......................Is this the right thred for this comment? lol
  • 0 Hide
    x4dm , March 24, 2011 11:32 PM
    cburke82Wile 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.

    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.
  • 1 Hide
    cburke82 , March 24, 2011 11:39 PM
    Quote:
    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
  • 0 Hide
    cadder , March 25, 2011 12:16 AM
    AMD's deal has always been to compete on price. They make processors that are typically below the beginning prices for Intel's new processors. I see laptops at the lower price ranges using AMD processors, more expensive laptops typically use Intel processors. The same thing probably applies to desktops, and certainly in the gaming world depending on budget.

    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?
  • -2 Hide
    greliu , March 25, 2011 12:27 AM
    To be honest, I don't think AMD is going anywhere... EVER. This is simply because Intel doesn't want to battle it out in court when they're the ONLY processor manufacturer. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if AMD began to hit single digits in market share that Intel wouldn't hand over some engineers and/or cash to "help" AMD out. Think about it.
  • 0 Hide
    slabbo , March 25, 2011 12:44 AM
    @greliu:
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    palladin9479 , March 25, 2011 12:47 AM
    Ok everyone needs to stop thinking that CPU speeds mean anything to the market. It doesn't matter who was "the best" at any point in time, what matters is who has what kinds of agreements with tier 1 OEM's. The vast majority of the market is made up of tier 1 OEM's and they don't sit there debating on whats faster. Their going for maximum profit margin along with brand recondition. This is why Intel basically gave their CPU's away for free while forcing the OEM's to only use Intel inside components. AMD being the smaller company can no possibly get away with rebating most if not all of the full cost of the CPU. Now that the childishness has ended your actually seeing AMD winning a few OEM design's here and there, mostly in the budget range.

    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.
  • 1 Hide
    jimmysmitty , March 25, 2011 12:53 AM
    jskilnykThe 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.


    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.
Display more comments