Thursday, April 29th 2010

PC Processor Market and Intel Grow, AMD Slips

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
Add your own comment

77 Comments on PC Processor Market and Intel Grow, AMD Slips

#1
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Wile E said:
For the cost of the 1090T and Crosshair 4, I could just buy X58 and a 920, get the same performance, but have more gfx options. X6 is a letdown. I'm really bummed out about it. I thought for sure it would be faster than i7 quads w/HT.
Ya, it wasn't as effective/core as I thought it would be.. :(
Posted on Reply
#2
saikamaldoss
The triple channel gives edge to i7. some people say that doesn't matter. but i feel it matters a lot.

when data needs to be read and wrote to memory, 3 channel helps and that's why memory read write if faster on i7 and i7 can do jobs faster. :shadedshu AMD is not an angel. they have quad channel server processors and why the hell cant they release a 3ch x6 with more cache. :banghead:

Posted on Reply
#3
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Because that would mean getting off their beloved AM3 socket (940 pins is not enough for tri-channel memory) which won't happen until Bulldozer.

Quad channel on consumer parts is crazy but that's the direction Intel is moving so AMD best prepare to do the same.
Posted on Reply
#4
amschip
Bread - Best selling product ever - Zero Advertising :]
Posted on Reply
#5
RejZoR
Triple channel only gives edge in synthetic tests. In real life, dual channel is just fine.
Besides, i don't see X6 as letdown. Core i7 920 costs around 255 EUR here in Slovenia. Phenom X6 costs a bit over 200 EUR. ASUS Crosshair IV Formula is also considered to be highest end mobo for AMD from RoG range. Rampage II Gene was around 260 EUR and this is the more compact version. Rampage III Extreme is much more expensive. Crosshair is only 198 EUR.
Even if X6 is less effective per core, it has 6 physical cores where i7 920 only has 4. HT or not, physical is still better than bunch of virtual ones.
Posted on Reply
#6
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Hyperthreading is integral to the design of the Nehalem architecture. To not use it is to leave a lot of the CPU power untapped. Virtual cores on a fewer physical cores is more efficient than adding more cores in terms of die space.

Why not compare apples to apples? Core i7 980X is Phenom II 1090T's competition. Both are hexacores, no? Yet, they are in completely different leagues. AMD is just behind the times and has been since mid-2006.
Posted on Reply
#7
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
FordGT90Concept said:
Hyperthreading is integral to the design of the Nehalem architecture. To not use it is to leave a lot of the CPU power untapped. Virtual cores on a fewer physical cores is more efficient than adding more cores in terms of die space.

Why not compare apples to apples? Core i7 980X is Phenom II 1090T's competition. Both are hexacores, no? Yet, they are in completely different leagues. AMD is just behind the times and has been since mid-2006.
At least the prices are great. :(
Posted on Reply
#8
Yukikaze
RejZoR said:
HT or not, physical is still better than bunch of virtual ones.
Actually, it doesn't matter how a certain mark of performance is achieved, as long as it is achieved.

If CPU A has one real core, but six 16 virtual ones and beats a CPU B with 10 real cores (Really extreme and not likely example, but proves the point quite well), then "physical" is not better than a "bunch of virtual ones".
Posted on Reply
#10
Wile E
Power User
RejZoR said:
Triple channel only gives edge in synthetic tests. In real life, dual channel is just fine.
Besides, i don't see X6 as letdown. Core i7 920 costs around 255 EUR here in Slovenia. Phenom X6 costs a bit over 200 EUR. ASUS Crosshair IV Formula is also considered to be highest end mobo for AMD from RoG range. Rampage II Gene was around 260 EUR and this is the more compact version. Rampage III Extreme is much more expensive. Crosshair is only 198 EUR.
Even if X6 is less effective per core, it has 6 physical cores where i7 920 only has 4. HT or not, physical is still better than bunch of virtual ones.
How is it better, when it isn't faster? They both perform close to the same, clock for clock. I don't see the X6 as better. Equal to i7 quad with HT clock for clock, but not better. All that matters is the end result, not how they got there.

And here, a 1090T is the same price as the i7 930, but the 1366 platform allows more graphics choices, and allows the upgrade to 980X if you ever want to go top end.

Now, the 1055T seems to be a pretty darn good deal for around $200, so I can't fault that, but 1090T simply isn't worth it at all.
Posted on Reply
#11
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
FordGT90Concept said:
Hyperthreading is integral to the design of the Nehalem architecture. To not use it is to leave a lot of the CPU power untapped.
Core i5 750 and the way it stacks up against Core i7 920 kind of disproves that. With HyperThreading, and 50% higher memory bandwidth, the 920 is about 12% faster than i5 750.
Posted on Reply
#12
Wile E
Power User
btarunr said:
Core i5 750 and the way it stacks up against Core i7 920 kind of disproves that. With HyperThreading, and 50% higher memory bandwidth, the 920 is about 12% faster than i5 750.
Not really. Only 12% left on the table, is still untapped power.
Posted on Reply
#13
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
12% is an expected amount of gain with HTT. It's been the around the same with Pentium 4 HTT. It's not "a lot" of untapped power. Besides we're still leaving the 50% higher memory bandwidth (triple-channel vs. dual-channel) out of this equation.
Posted on Reply
#14
a_ump
Wile E said:
Not really. Only 12% left on the table, is still untapped power.
lol i'm pretty sure he meant actual performance numbers, at least i'd hope he didn't go by synthetics, then you'd be right XD

btarunr said:
12% is an expected amount of gain with HTT. It's been the around the same with Pentium 4 HTT. It's not "a lot" of untapped power. Besides we're still leaving the 50% higher memory bandwidth (triple-channel vs. dual-channel) out of this equation.
why would you do that? and why is it even significant? you stated its ~12% slower performance wise...wherever you read that it's ~12% slower, the person had that data from numbers...which would already include HTT as it'd be used to get the percentage difference
Posted on Reply
#15
Wile E
Power User
btarunr said:
12% is an expected amount of gain with HTT. It's been the around the same with Pentium 4 HTT. It's not "a lot" of untapped power. Besides we're still leaving the 50% higher memory bandwidth (triple-channel vs. dual-channel) out of this equation.
Memory bandwidth plays very little into it. Pop a stick out of a 920 system for dual channel, and the performance is about the same in all but the most memory intensive tasks.

Besides, I'm just saying that even tho it only gives an average gain of 12% (sometimes as high as 20%), leaving that off is still leaving power untapped. Unused power is unused power, regardless of how small it may be.
Posted on Reply
#16
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
I don't disagree that there is untapped processing power. I disagree that there's "a lot" of it, as Ford put it.
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
btarunr said:
I don't disagree that there is untapped processing power. I disagree that there's "a lot" of it, as Ford put it.
Ahhh, I see. I think I may have just misunderstood your overall intent. Work was too long today. lol.
Posted on Reply
#18
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
btarunr said:
12% is an expected amount of gain with HTT. It's been the around the same with Pentium 4 HTT. It's not "a lot" of untapped power. Besides we're still leaving the 50% higher memory bandwidth (triple-channel vs. dual-channel) out of this equation.
It completely depends on the workload.

In my benchmarking which forced 8 heavy threads (all equal) on to 4 cores, HTT scored worse than 4 heavy threads on 4 cores with HTT enabled. HTT disabled resulted in resulted in about 50% those scores regardless of the number of threads deployed. HTT is very important to the Nehalem architecture even if only 4 threads are being used (no idea why but the results speak for themselves). 50% is "a lot" to leave untapped by disabling HTT; therefore, it is not fair to the architecture to do any benchmarking with HTT disabled and models that have no HTT are a cripple by comparison to those that do.

To sum it up, the most performance from Core i7 920 presents itself with HTT enabled (8-thread capable) and only 4 threads of work.

Those tests were everything equal except number of threads and HTT enabled or disabled--RAM/clockspeeds stayed the same.
Posted on Reply
#19
tkpenalty
the release of these figures wont help AMD's cause as we'll see more shareholders and investors pull out of them. Then we'll see diminishing resources, which leads to a spiral downards....

that seems to be happening now, unless AMD's bulldozer really bulldozes intel completely, their significance in the CPU market will be as much as VIA soon.
Posted on Reply
#20
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
AMD isn't really spirally downwards like they did after the Core 2 release and ATI buyout. They're relatively stable but a lot is riding on Bulldozer and company (the mobile version).
Posted on Reply
#21
AsRock
TPU addict
a_ump said:
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.
Our kids schools only have over priced mac but we know what in those these day right :P..

Does make me made schools saying they need more money and they spend it on macs lol. Anyways thats another story
Posted on Reply
#22
RejZoR
Um looooool, you can't compare Phenom X6 and 6 core Intel. It's apples vs apples. With a massive price difference... We're talking about what you get for the same or lower price. And getting a true 6 core for the price of a quad with HT is just great. I have the i7 920 and i like it, but Phenom X6 is just an excellent option to have right now. Especially if you already have a AM2+ or AM3 mobo.
Posted on Reply
#23
TheGuruStud
DanTheBanjoman said:
Nah, it shows who has better marketing. With good marketing you can sell anyone anything.
Bingo. Intel hasn't had a competitive server product for about 10 years now. Gulftown/nehalem (w/e those are in server haha) is the 1st to change that. You can argue 1P systems, but intel could never scale before.

How the hell do you have the best server CPUs for a decade and not even have 10% of that market.... Let me see, I bet it has nothing to do with that anti-trust shit and marketing like there's no tomorrow (this includes the vast array of shill sites).
They had the best desktop CPUs bar NONE for at least 5 years and actually LOST market share after a quick but brief increase at the beginning. Marketing combined with criminal business ruined it.

If consumers had half a brain (yes, this includes IT professionals), AMD would've been incredibly successful. Brilliant instructors wouldn't even concede AMD was better in the athlon 64 days until I knocked them down a few notches in front of the entire class. Intel has a very good brainwashing system.
Posted on Reply
#24
Wile E
Power User
RejZoR said:
Um looooool, you can't compare Phenom X6 and 6 core Intel. It's apples vs apples. With a massive price difference... We're talking about what you get for the same or lower price. And getting a true 6 core for the price of a quad with HT is just great. I have the i7 920 and i like it, but Phenom X6 is just an excellent option to have right now. Especially if you already have a AM2+ or AM3 mobo.
Not if the quad with HT is the same speed, clock for clock, which it is. The number of cores doesn't matter at all, only the amount of work it can do matters, and it can't do any more work than i7.
Posted on Reply
#25
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
Just to put my 2 cents in Wile the 1090T is faster than the I7 920.... Till the Bulldozer come's out later this year, 6 cores... 4 threads per core... 24 threads? remember that?

I think you told me I 7 have that many..... hmmm I do read alot and If Im not mistaking the I7's only have 2 threads per core....

thats all :toast:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment