Shortcuts

AMD Snags x86 Market Share from Intel Ahead of Ivy Bridge Launch

rated by 0 users
This post has 14 Replies | 0 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,490
Points 1,196,480
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Fri, Apr 27 2012 11:21 AM
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) managed to lessen the gap between it and Intel in the x86 space, even if just by a smidgen. According to Mercury Research's latest data, AMD's x86 market share jumped nearly a full percentage point from 18.2 percent to 19.1 percent in the first quarter of 2012, compared to Intel, which dropped from 81 percent to 80.2 percent, nearly the same margin as AMD's gain.

These figures represent x86 market share prior to Intel's Ivy Bridge launch, which became official earlier this week. Ivy Bridge is Intel's newest processor line built on a 22nm manufacturing process using 3D transistors, a combination that adds up to higher performing parts with a lower power consumption than that of previous generation Core processors (Sandy Bridge).


"One of the things that is clear is that the market is adopting new technology faster than it used to. I would expect Ivy Bridge to ramp aggressively," said Dean McCarron, principal analyst at Mercury Research, according to NetworkWorld.

That's bad news for AMD, though the Sunnyvale chip maker is attempting to counter Intel's Ivy Bridge launch with a series of price cuts to its A-Series APU and FX Series processors. Also helping AMD is the fact that buyers are trending towards lower cost notebooks, many of which have AMD inside, McCarron said.
  • | Post Points: 155
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 104
Points 940
Joined: Apr 2012
ZTimpson replied on Fri, Apr 27 2012 11:43 AM

"....attempting to counter Intel's Ivy Bridge launch with a series of price cuts to its A-Series APU and FX Series processors."

People will always lean to the more inexpensive item, but they will also go after the biggest and meanest machines they can get their hands on. So smart move on AMD for price cuts but in all honosty they need to get their act together and come out with a processor to compete with Intels processor!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,839
Points 45,835
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Fri, Apr 27 2012 11:47 AM

I agree but really just short of 1% ummmmm that's 1%!

ASUS Z87C
i7-4770K
Xonar DGX
Intel Gigabit CT
Geforce GTX 770 4GB
G.Skill X1600/1754 2x8GB 7/8/8/24
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,839
Points 45,835
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Fri, Apr 27 2012 11:49 AM

or just under 1% ah I don't see how you get excited about 1% but less than 1% is something I guess and in a short amount of time.

ASUS Z87C
i7-4770K
Xonar DGX
Intel Gigabit CT
Geforce GTX 770 4GB
G.Skill X1600/1754 2x8GB 7/8/8/24
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 104
Points 940
Joined: Apr 2012
ZTimpson replied on Fri, Apr 27 2012 11:55 AM

HAHAHAHA ya @rapid1, good point, AMD is being dominated.

"AMD's x86 market share jumped nearly a full percentage point from 18.2 percent to 19.1 percent in the first quarter of 2012, compared to Intel, which dropped from 81 percent to 80.2 percent, nearly the same margin as AMD's gain."

lol

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 85
Points 725
Joined: Oct 2011
JvanHummel replied on Fri, Apr 27 2012 12:08 PM

Indeed. AMD should be getting more customers because of the quality of their parts - not simply because of their price cuts. Lame way to win market share as it doesn't at all mean that AMD is doing well. It just means they're selling out.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,796
Points 40,655
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: New York
Inspector replied on Fri, Apr 27 2012 1:45 PM

"One of the things that is clear is that the market is adopting new technology faster than it used to. I would expect Ivy Bridge to ramp aggressively,"

This might just be too fast though :P, Need lots of money to keep up with all them technology :)

Like rapid said, lets see more change them 1%+- ... lol

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 104
Points 940
Joined: Apr 2012
ZTimpson replied on Fri, Apr 27 2012 2:00 PM

ya i agree! they need to figure something out!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 501
Points 4,625
Joined: Dec 2011
Location: centennial park az
AKnudson replied on Fri, Apr 27 2012 7:16 PM

any change at all in AMD direction really helps them, thy cannot keep up with the quality or speed of their products like intel can. For intel you pray a high Premium for AMD you pay a less and get comparable performance atleast for the time being. If your o a budget and have no pride go AMD and in 15 years if they have managed to win a larger market share they might be as good or even better than intel.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 5,054
Points 60,735
Joined: May 2008
Location: U.S.
Moderator
3vi1 replied on Fri, Apr 27 2012 8:39 PM

Good for AMD. I think it's obvious Intel has the technical lead by far at this point, but we know how bad things can be when there's no competition.

What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

++++++++++++[>++++>+++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>+++.>++++++++++.-------------.+++.>---.>--.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 30
Joined: Apr 2012
snakefist replied on Sat, Apr 28 2012 7:11 AM

i'm sorry to inform you guys, but all of you are noobs :) - except 3vi1

taking no care in actual mathematics, that is...

18 to 19% is actually ~5% CPUs amd sells MORE than it did before

81 to 80% is some 1.something% less intel CPUs LESS than before

knowing this, it's not so insignificant - imagine you get 1% pay raise on expense of, say your CEO's 1% decrease in salary - not a big deal, right? only problem is that guy earns like 1,000 times more than you do, so his 1% is ten times your initial salary

true, this won't shift the world's CPU balance of power, but it does mean *something* to AMD and much less for Intel

and yes, before someone notices, i support strongly AMD, not because it's red or i'm holding for a straw that it will beat Intel in high-performance market again, but for a well-known fact what Intel does when there is no adequate (or any) competition. just look (unproven) story of bad overclocking of ivy bridge cause of savings on thermal compound. and translate that to a next 10-year of "Intel does what it pleases cause it has no competition". granted, AMD may have been acted the same if positions were shifted, but now it's not the case. or will ever be, if healthy competition continue to exist. and yet all of you laugh at AMD and its 1%, but i would like to see if you would still be laughing if it ceased to exist and Intel took sole x86 crown once again

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 123
Points 910
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Canada

Sure I would like to see real competition in the CPU market as it's good for consumers (Economics...).

BUT especially these days, people want the best for their hard-earned money. Yes, Intel (used to be) pricey (the price difference these days is not as large as you think), but you know what you'll get with an Intel. And, what you'll get with a "bulldozer"...sigh.

I'm not for rewarding failures for the sake of "competition". If AMD wants the sales and market share so badly, then they should EXECUTE their plans properly, which they have sucked at since their inception.

The only market in which AMD is a viable alternative is in the notebook and other low-end laptops (I have a brazos laptop and it's nice for what I need). For the past year, I have been unable to bring myself to recommend AMD to anyone I know for their desktop PCs, even the budget users. If "piledriver"/"vishera" doesn't come good, it'll be very bad for AMD, as Intel has (sort of) fixed their prices a little.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 104
Points 940
Joined: Apr 2012
ZTimpson replied on Sat, Apr 28 2012 8:41 PM

you have a point

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 30
Joined: Apr 2012
snakefist replied on Sun, Apr 29 2012 2:02 PM

sad but true...

luckily for me, i don't have current need to build a new desktop and consequently won't have to fill Intel pockets with my money. AMD made a series of bad designs (add a drop of bad luck also) and lost much of its competitiveness... and even when AMD was "sweeping the floor" with Intel's more costly solutions, Intel still held a substantially larger share of market.

i too don't put much hope that piledriver will be actually competitive in anything except maybe in budged segment

only bright thing in AMD foreseeable future is possible "large increase in opencl/directcompute supporting software (and OS)" which would utilize its superior on-die GPU, and perhaps lead to a processor which is superior in some uses and inferior in other. luckily for AMD, Intel entered this (possibly lost from beginning) opencl race, so scenario isn't that impossible as it looked few years ago

if AMD (hopefully) survives, we might be spared of "revolutionary" Intel suggestions as "to pay money for unlocking full CPU power" (this actually made me so mad that i renewed my vow not to buy anything Intel as long as i live, and truthfully i didn't follow this information further, so i don't actually know whether it is true or not - if it was a marketing trick i admit it got me, but clear remembrance of what Intel did with pentium2/3 and matching celerons is good enough for me to consider this as very likely scenario for the future)

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 5
Joined: Aug 2012

my friend suggested to buy amd k6, it is very efficient and moin expensive than the intel. Intel this time, based on their the publicity that AMD microchip. The problem arises which is better price / performance (AMD or Intel). How 3D chip cost,

GPGPU Radeon HD ... technology is best> 1000Gflops.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (15 items) | RSS