PC Processor Market and Intel Grow, AMD Slips

[btarunr]

The Intel juggernaut rolls on in Q1 2010, according the latest IDC report covering PC processor sales. Similar to the GPU market, processor sales grew by 39% compared to this time last year (Q1 2009), but declined by 5.6% compared to Q4 2009. Revenues went up 40.4% year-on-year and down just 2% sequentially. Intel's market share grew by 0.5%, slightly at the expense of AMD, which went down 0.6%.

Intel holds 81% of the processor market, while 'rival' AMD holds 18.8%. VIA holds a tiny 0.2% of the market. In the x86 server market, Intel holds 90.2%, with AMD and others at 9.8%. With the notebook and desktop segments it reached 87.8% and 71.7%, respectively. For 2010 IDC is predicting a CPU unit growth of 15.1%. Q1 2010 saw Intel propagating processors based on its new architecture to the crucial value and mainstream market segments, with the Core i3, Core i5, and Pentium dual-core processors in the LGA-1156 package.

Source: TechConnect Magazine

[TVman]

im waiting when AMD launches the bulldozer CPU then maybe we can have some competition on the market !!!

[btarunr]

Bulldozer is a mirage. If they wanted to release it, there's no better time to do it than now. "Bulldozer is coming" has been the word since 2007, yet it was skipped for over three product generations, and the K10 was tweaked around a little.

[RejZoR]

I was looking at new Phenom X6 processors + ASUS Crosshair IV is an excellent choice at the moment for high end systems for lower price.

[PVTCaboose1337]

I really thought the release of these 6 core CPU's was the big thing for AMD, aggressive price point, compatibility and all. Reminds me of the 4xxx series and how the Price per perf ratio was amazing, and AMD really was doing well.

[Delta6326]

hopefully AMD gains some ground with the new six core's

[kid41212003]

Originally Posted by PVTCaboose1337

I really thought the release of these 6 core CPU's was the big thing for AMD, aggressive price point, compatibility and all. Reminds me of the 4xxx series and how the Price per perf ratio was amazing, and AMD really was doing well.

I asked one of my friend, and he told me AMD cpus are for cheap/slow PC. He doesn't know much about PC, and that's what he thinks... So I guess, AMD needs to market their products more, a lot more....

[PVTCaboose1337]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

I asked one of my friend, and he told me AMD cpus are for cheap/slow PC. He doesn't know much about PC, and that's what he thinks... So I guess, AMD needs to market their products more, a lot more....

I think you are 100% correct. How many AMD commercials do you see nowadays? I used to see some in magazines, on TV sometimes but really, not many. Intel has massive amounts of commercials, but it sponsored by Intel or be it a Dell commercial saying, "Intel inside."

AMD might need to advertise more. As bad as this sounds, a campaign about how the price per perf ratio is better than Intel would do wonders I bet.

[Kitkat]

Originally Posted by PVTCaboose1337

I really thought the release of these 6 core CPU's was the big thing for AMD, aggressive price point, compatibility and all. Reminds me of the 4xxx series and how the Price per perf ratio was amazing, and AMD really was doing well.

was?? u talk like it was a year ago thats now too early to tell anything. As far as marketing goes they do need more of it.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Intel holds 81% of the processor market, while 'rival' AMD holds 18.8%. VIA holds a tiny 0.2% of the market. In the x86 server market, Intel holds 90.2%, with AMD and others at 9.8%. With the notebook and desktop segments it reached 87.8% and 71.7%, respectively. For 2010 IDC is predicting a CPU unit growth of 15.1%. Q1 2010 saw Intel propagating processors based on its new architecture to the crucial value and mainstream market segments, with the Core i3, Core i5, and Pentium dual-core processors in the LGA-1156 package.

Source: TechConnect Magazine

I find your use of quotes around "rival" somewhat offensive.

It's appropriate to say MacOSX is a "rival" to Windows, but AMD is definitely a rival to Intel.

[Yukikaze]

And there I was thinking AMD was gaining some ground in the CPU world. Oh well.

Better luck next quarter !

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by PVTCaboose1337

AMD might need to advertise more. As bad as this sounds, a campaign about how the price per perf ratio is better than Intel would do wonders I bet.

That is going to drive up the costs, and AMD is going to lose their edge in pricing.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

I find your use of quotes around "rival" somewhat offensive.

It's appropriate to say MacOSX is a "rival" to Windows, but AMD is definitely a rival to Intel.

Quantitatively, no. Qualitatively, yes. And there's nothing in it for you to take offense from.

[a_ump]

yea, to us enthusiasts, AMD is gaining ground forsure, but the general public will never change until, as has been said, AMD needs to advertise. I was talking to my teacher the other day for an essay and mentioned Intel, AMD, and Nvidia. New who intel was, heard of Nvidia, didn't know who or what AMD was. That's just sad but its AMD's fault, not my teacher's.

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm surprised AMD slipped. We're still in a recession and AMD offers the cheaper processors/platform. AMD should have gained some ground rather than lose it.

[a_ump]

problem from the P4 era remains today. Even if an Athlon II x2 outperforms a pentium-dual core and it's technically cheaper, people know or have def heard of intel so that's what they go for, and since intel is the known name, that's what companies buy. I've never been in a school or office area with AMD PC's.

[FreedomEclipse]

Originally Posted by a_ump

problem from the P4 era remains today. Even if an Athlon II x2 outperforms a pentium-dual core and it's technically cheaper, people know or have def heard of intel so that's what they go for, and since intel is the known name, that's what companies buy. I've never been in a school or office area with AMD PC's.

Problem is - Most OEM builders that supply machines to offices & some schools are usually bribed or threatend by intel to use their CPUs (look up the Anti-trust cases against intel) & its been going on for a long time until Intel got fined.

now that thats all over - a lot of manufacturers have been pretty keen about picking up AMD processors - especially since intel has temporarily stopped manufacturing ULV style processors for netbooks, theres a gap in the market for AMD to get into even if its just for a short period of time. Ive already seen some ACER, Samsung & Dell netbooks running AMD processors.

needless to say its still going to be a bit of a long rough ride for AMD. but at least on the GPU front they doing exceptionally well.

[KainXS]

I don't know, in my experience Intels lower end cpu's almost always overclock better than AMD's like for example my E2140@3.5Ghz died about 4 months ago and I replaced it with a E2180 that I am running at 3.9Ghz, I haven't had any AMD cpu overclock like that on air in a while

but yes intels cpu's do dominate the office sector and colleges and whatnot.

[cadaveca]

Enthusiasts that overlcock are a very small part of the market. AMD abandoned overclocking long ago, and have just recently picked it back up. I was teh first to say they were back...on my blog.

AMD doesn't even really have the capacity to meet a larger market. That's why they lost out in the first place...they couldn't get enough chips out the door. Then Core2 came, and everyone forgot about them, as they were slow, and couldn't meet demand anyway. AMD then said they'd try to meet that demand, but were dropping the enthusiast. Enter Phenom1.


Since then, AMD hasn't really increased thier capacity very much, so I expect very little from them. MAybe the third quarter this year will improve for them...I'll be watching the market closely to see what happens.

[Fourstaff]

I think AMD is doing relatively fine, but the Phenom II is getting old and Intel has just introduced the Core ix processors (we all know how gullible people are when it comes to "new" stuff cf Nvidia). Also, the fact that AMD's best processor is way behind Intel's best also dents their ability to sell (the AMD is for cheap computer mantra). Hope Bulldozer is good, if not they are going to lose more market share to Intel, something that nobody wants.

[mtosev]

market share isn't important for the end user. but it shows who has better products. if AMD wants a bigger market share they will have to make better products.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by mtosev

if AMD wants a bigger market share they will have to make better products.

Wut? I don't remember the Phenom II x6 is shyte, nor any AMD processors of late. AMD have a solid lineup that will match Intel's offerings in every class, and in quite a lot of cases, beat Intel's offerings except the ultra high end ones. Don't know why you think Intel is a lot better than AMD, which is only justifiable in few cases and none which explains Intel's massive lead compared to AMD.

[a_ump]

if you compare products at the same price points then yes, AMD is doing fine product wise.

[erocker]

Go up and ask any non-tech savvy person a CPU manufacturer. Most likely they won't say AMD. AMD is something foreign to the masses who buy their computers from Dell and big box stores.

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by mtosev

market share isn't important for the end user. but it shows who has better products. if AMD wants a bigger market share they will have to make better products.

Nah, it shows who has better marketing. With good marketing you can sell anyone anything.