Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

PC Processor Sales Expected to Grow Just Just 1.6% in 2013

By - Source: IDC | B 18 comments

Market researchers do not believe that the market conditions for microprocessor makers will improve anytime soon.

IDC's Shane Rau noted that processor revenue for mobile PCs, desktop PCs, and PC servers are forecast to grow 1.6 percent to $40.7 billion in 2013. Following 2.4 percent growth in 2012, the markets may further decline and the impacting "economic and technological inhibitors" will "continue through the first half of 2013".

The key problems are, according to Rau, the fact that "macroeconomic uncertainty has forced OEM and IT customers to reduce orders and focus on execution, and reduce expectations after the launch of Microsoft's Windows 8 operating system in late October", as well as delays in PC purchases caused by Windows 8. Rau also pointed to media tablets that negatively affect sales of low-end PCs.

"For vendors of microprocessors and other PC technologies, the future belongs to those who can best execute on a vision of what computing ultimately should be and how users assess the value to them," Rau said. "Vendors should strive for an increased perception of value so systems can be sold on their utility and not merely their price. Such a transformation requires time for assessment and education along the value chain. It also requires sustained investments in the PC ecosystem distinct from the investments going into the hot tablet ecosystem."

According to Rau, ARM will be able to take market share from Intel in its core markets, but its success will be very limited. IDC believes that ARM processors will capture a market share of 3.3 percent of mobile PC processors by 2016. In servers, ARM will hold 3.2 percent of the processor market by 2016, the market research firm projects.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 18 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 19 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , January 21, 2013 6:32 AM
    they should be happy its growing by 1.6% and not falling by 3.2% .
  • 11 Hide
    Kryan , January 21, 2013 6:06 AM
    just just -.-

    Reviewing your article ftw. Btw, what happened to that job posting (which I applied for) re the article reviewing and spell checking and stuff? Whoever got the job is doing great... [/sarcasm]
Other Comments
  • 11 Hide
    Kryan , January 21, 2013 6:06 AM
    just just -.-

    Reviewing your article ftw. Btw, what happened to that job posting (which I applied for) re the article reviewing and spell checking and stuff? Whoever got the job is doing great... [/sarcasm]
  • 9 Hide
    stoogie , January 21, 2013 6:09 AM
    Wolfgang Gruener must have have Echolalia.
  • 19 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , January 21, 2013 6:32 AM
    they should be happy its growing by 1.6% and not falling by 3.2% .
  • 5 Hide
    deadlockedworld , January 21, 2013 7:23 AM
    The clearly aren't counting tablets as PCs in this one. The tablet market will push the overall computing market up higher.
  • 3 Hide
    DjEaZy , January 21, 2013 7:41 AM
    ... just ramp up the production of AMD APU's for ultrathin laptops... and or... offer windows 7 with a new computer...
  • 6 Hide
    icemunk , January 21, 2013 7:58 AM
    Yes, because why would we upgrade for a measly 5-10% speed increase? We want the big gains back. Moore's law needs to make a comeback. I'm talking to you Intel
  • 4 Hide
    Anonymous , January 21, 2013 9:11 AM
    More eyes on Intel, coming from a happy although flabbergasted owner of Core i7 920 since 2008. It's been 4 years, and there STILL is nothing viable to upgrade my CPU to?! It's a mess of your own making, Intel.
  • 5 Hide
    Vestin , January 21, 2013 10:00 AM
    What a sick world we live in, where people buying ADDITIONAL stuff is not enough, people buying MORE stuff than previously is not enough, they are expected to buy SO MUCH that the amount bough now compared to last year will be (substantially) higher than the amount bought last year compared to the one before that.
  • 0 Hide
    blubbey , January 21, 2013 10:49 AM
    WhatAMessMore eyes on Intel, coming from a happy although flabbergasted owner of Core i7 920 since 2008. It's been 4 years, and there STILL is nothing viable to upgrade my CPU to?! It's a mess of your own making, Intel.

    They don't need to push that hard in terms of pure CPU performance. It's not like AMD is beating them or really that close in performance per GHz. Besides, Haswell will probably concentrate on graphics, power and from what I hear it'll be a good/great overclocker. Broadwell will be an even bigger jump on graphics and power and the year after Intel will probably be making awesome mobile CPU's.
  • 0 Hide
    fnh , January 21, 2013 11:50 AM
    WhatAMessMore eyes on Intel, coming from a happy although flabbergasted owner of Core i7 920 since 2008. It's been 4 years, and there STILL is nothing viable to upgrade my CPU to?! It's a mess of your own making, Intel.


    Heck, I'm a Core 2 Duo (Wolfdale) user. My upgrade plan is to wait for Broadwell. That's as viable as it can get.
  • 1 Hide
    Soda-88 , January 21, 2013 12:09 PM
    WhatAMessMore eyes on Intel, coming from a happy although flabbergasted owner of Core i7 920 since 2008. It's been 4 years, and there STILL is nothing viable to upgrade my CPU to?! It's a mess of your own making, Intel.

    Yeah, my overclocked i5 760 is still doing great at 4GHz.
  • 1 Hide
    rantoc , January 21, 2013 12:13 PM
    icemunkYes, because why would we upgrade for a measly 5-10% speed increase? We want the big gains back. Moore's law needs to make a comeback. I'm talking to you Intel


    Without competition Intel will do what they always have without competition... milk out as much money as possible for small upgrades. Question is if it will work this time when the cpu's are so darn powerful for everyday tasks even in entry level computers.

    The above coupled with less than stellar interest in win8 & global regression its hardly surprising sales is what it is. That it still increases vs those odds - Now THAT is amazing!
  • 0 Hide
    heero yuy , January 21, 2013 12:59 PM
    i have a feeling that intel are giving us small increases in performance just to stay ahead of AMD
    if AMD was suddenly to overtake intel by miles I bet that intel would instantly announce a new batch of processors that are better
  • 4 Hide
    deksman , January 21, 2013 2:00 PM
    Well, what exactly was expected?
    We are in the midst of one of the biggest recessions from which there will be no recovery (because its becoming that much easier and cheaper/cost effective to automate a job than to wait for a Human to train to do it - Humans are limited in terms of how long they can work, machines can work non-stop without rest, breaks, sick-days, health care and pension - and computers have surpassed Humans in specialized tasks over 10 years ago - ALL jobs Humans do today are basically highly specialized - and most jobs are completely unproductive/useless to society at large - they only exist for the purpose of moving money around, which became useless over 100 years ago in the face of our technologically produced abundance, and in the last 60 years, enormous automation that CAN replace Humans in every field - the technology in circulation/use today can be used to automate 75% of the global workforce tomorrow - I give Capitalism another decade or so before it crashes [yet again]).

  • 0 Hide
    obsama1 , January 21, 2013 3:23 PM
    WhatAMessMore eyes on Intel, coming from a happy although flabbergasted owner of Core i7 920 since 2008. It's been 4 years, and there STILL is nothing viable to upgrade my CPU to?! It's a mess of your own making, Intel.


    While it is true that innovation is stagnating, it's also good that our CPUs don't become obsolete every year.
  • 0 Hide
    fearless1333 , January 21, 2013 3:34 PM
    Intel should stop focusing on improving integrated graphics. Fine it's selfish and completely unwise, but I want the big improvements back to the actual processor :( .
  • 0 Hide
    vigorvermin , January 21, 2013 3:51 PM
    deksmanWell, what exactly was expected?We are in the midst of one of the biggest recessions from which there will be no recovery (because its becoming that much easier and cheaper/cost effective to automate a job than to wait for a Human to train to do it - Humans are limited in terms of how long they can work, machines can work non-stop without rest, breaks, sick-days, health care and pension - and computers have surpassed Humans in specialized tasks over 10 years ago - ALL jobs Humans do today are basically highly specialized - and most jobs are completely unproductive/useless to society at large - they only exist for the purpose of moving money around, which became useless over 100 years ago in the face of our technologically produced abundance, and in the last 60 years, enormous automation that CAN replace Humans in every field - the technology in circulation/use today can be used to automate 75% of the global workforce tomorrow - I give Capitalism another decade or so before it crashes [yet again]).


    Don't go quoting zeitgeist without doing your research into him. He's not a unbiased opinion, and this just simply isn't true.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , January 21, 2013 11:50 PM
    icemunkYes, because why would we upgrade for a measly 5-10% speed increase? We want the big gains back. Moore's law needs to make a comeback. I'm talking to you Intel

    5-10% gains... ok, thats bad if you upgrade on a yearly basis, but really how many people do that, or i should say do that sense the core do and athlon x2?

    lets look at a 4-6 year cycle.

    at 5% yearly increase the power difference is
    5%
    10.25%
    15.76%
    21.55%
    27.63%
    and
    34%

    or on a 10%
    10%
    21%
    33.1%
    46.41%
    61.05%
    77.15%

    at the same time, the chips are getting smaller, cheaper (should be) and more power efficient so you don't need that big eff off cooler any more.

    what i see more than anything else is that we should be moving away from conventional cpu types.
    programs should be built with threads in mind...

    tell me the program that CAN NOT function at all with threads and requires 1 cpu, and could not be re written to use more than one thread.

    and on that note, show me the program that needs cpu power exclusively and can not run off a gpu, yes i know there is code that cant run off a gpu, im not stupid, but how much of that software is consumer? how much of those applications aren't either server or academic (supper computer) based needs?

    the way i see it, more cores and theading is the future, not insane single core speeds, and right now, the hardware is here, but the software is seriously lagging.