Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD The Almighty Buck Hardware Technology

AMD Hits Milestone in Server Market 215

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the moving-on-up dept.
DontClickHere writes "According to data from Mercury Research, AMD has finally cracked the 10% mark in x86 instruction set server CPUs. AMD's Chairman had hoped that their server sales would hit 10% at the end of 2004, but they had only reached 5.7%. Some of this gain can be attributed to AMD's introduction of dual core chips in April this year. With Intel only due to ship dual core chips for low end servers later this year, AMD has been handed a golden opportunity to take a larger share in the server market."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Hits Milestone in Server Market

Comments Filter:
  • Main Reason (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dsginter (104154) on Friday July 29, 2005 @07:57AM (#13193586)
    The main reason is that they sell the only 64-bit consumer chip. Yes, I understand that it is mainly marketing but the Athlon 64s are hot sellers. They need to crack Dell now.
    • Re:Main Reason (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lonewolf666 (259450) on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:24AM (#13193711)
      Not anymore. Intel sells the Pentium D now, which is a dual core Pentium 4. The cheapest model (the Pentium D 820 with 2.8 GHz) is available at Alternate.de for 279 Euros.
      One might suspect Intel of dumping prices here, but it cannot be denied that this is an attractive offer.
      • ... and that's the main reason the OP said that amd needs to crack dell now. :P
      • by magarity (164372) on Friday July 29, 2005 @09:23AM (#13194088)
        Intel sells the Pentium D now, which is a dual core Pentium 4
         
        But Pentium D doesn't have "Xeon" in the name so it obviously isn't for servers. Intel should know better. AMD was wise enough to come up with a new name for their chip to indicate that it was appropriate for use in servers. That's why they're taking Intel market share.
        • Re:Main Reason (Score:4, Interesting)

          by oconnorcjo (242077) * on Friday July 29, 2005 @12:47PM (#13195975) Journal
          But Pentium D doesn't have "Xeon" in the name so it obviously isn't for servers. Intel should know better. AMD was wise enough to come up with a new name for their chip to indicate that it was appropriate for use in servers.

          The problem with InTel is that they are in a dilemna. They don't want x86-64 to take off because it was 1. AMD's idea and 2. Intel spent a fortune on the Itanic and were hoping to nudge out the competition (due to the fact that they patented the Itanium's instruction set). Intel knows that they have to sell x86-64 chips or let AMD run away uncontested but on the other hand they are not going to advertise that. Intel is in a terrible quandry. If they ever heavily endorse the x86-64 then that gives AMD a lot of credibilty and credit for being the leader and if x86-64 takes off big (as it seems it will) then Intel had better have a product to sell. This causes Intel to create these chips but intentionally obscuring the product line. They don't want to push this kind of chip. Intel would be estatic if x86-64 turned out to be a bust.

          • Which is why Nocona core Xeons are selling with EM64T technology and not AMD64/x86-64... Even though aside from a few very minor changes AMD make to x86-64 after initial publication the two are identical.
            Intel can and will see an x86-64 chip without so much as acknowledging the existance of AMD64, in fact they've been doing it for more than a year.

            Though I don't know what's more embarassing for Intel right now, that AMD with really no share in the server market 3 years ago got to dictate what instruction s
    • Re:Main Reason (Score:3, Informative)

      by Erwos (553607)
      "The main reason is that they sell the only 64-bit consumer chip."

      This is just plain wrong. Intel's 6XX series of Pentium4's has the EMT64 (aka, AMD64) instructions as well. Both AMD and Intel are selling 64-bit CPUs now.

      -Erwos
    • Re:Main Reason (Score:3, Interesting)

      by /ASCII (86998)
      I seriously doubt that the reason for AMDs sucess in the _server_ market is their 64-bit _consumer_ chips. As to whether the G5 and the 64-bit Pentium 4 are consumer chips or not, that distinction is pretty arbitrary, but since the 64-bit G5 can be found in the $1299 iMacs, I don't think you have a very strong case.
      • I think to be called a consumer chip, someone has to run out and buy it first. :P

        *SJ Zero looks at the ocean of macs before him
    • So I guess these [intel.com] don't exist then?

      ==>Lazn

    • ...chips for a while. There's a ton of them listed here [intel.com]. Look for the ones called EM64T.

      And Dell has been selling these 64-bit chips for long time too.
  • by germanStefan (766513) on Friday July 29, 2005 @07:59AM (#13193594) Homepage
    I haven't boughten an INtel chip for myself for quite a while. Originally I wanted to support the underdog, but now (without my youthful activism) I just think they create more innovative and better products. I just ordered the pieces to build a server for my company and got AMD64 chip, not an Intel.

    • Supporting the underdog is more than just a moral victory. It shows the current monopoly owner that they have to remain competitive with their products and prices, and so in the end it benefits the consumer.
  • by bigtallmofo (695287) on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:05AM (#13193619)
    Wow - AMD gets 10% market penetration for servers.

    With good news like this, I wouldn't be surprised if something like Firefox reaching 75 million downloads were to happen! I hope I see a Slashdot story on that soon.
    • by Dunbal (464142) on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:46AM (#13193811)
      With good news like this, I wouldn't be surprised if something like Firefox reaching 75 million downloads were to happen! I hope I see a Slashdot story on that soon.

            And you just know they are going to tie all of this in with google somehow...

      • And you just know they are going to tie all of this in with google somehow...


        Well, Google does buy a _lot_ of servers... :)

        (ok, for the pedantic, I know they are probably still all Xeons)
  • Laptops? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MarkByers (770551) on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:07AM (#13193633) Homepage Journal
    I applaud them for their server sales, but I hope that they will soon develop a power efficient chip for laptops. At the moment they have nothing that can compete with Intel's M chips. Do they have plans to compete with Intel for this market or are they happy to stay in the server market?
    • Re:Laptops? (Score:5, Informative)

      by RockModeNick (617483) on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:12AM (#13193650)
      Pentium M's are good because they are primarily based on P3 technology, not P4 - the P4 architechture delivers signifcantly less bang per mhz, and thus far the increased top clocks of the P4's are not keeping ahead in actual performance the way they were expected to.
      • Re:Laptops? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:24AM (#13193710)
        P4 is not the problem for AMD, the P-M is, and they need to be able to compete on mobile chips with Intel. Not only does AMDs offering need to be good, it needs to be much better than intel's and must be cheaper too or few laptop makers will switch.

        AMD is gaining ground on Desktop and Server CPUs because their products are much better AND cheaper.

        Intel doesn't need to be the best, they just need to be good enough to keep AMD out.
        • One of the reasons many laptop makers use intel is that intel not longer sells you a cpu - it sells you a "platform", ie: audio, graphic chip, wireless, usb, main chipset, etc etc etc in one pack, and for few money.

          for pcs the problem is not so big but laptops are a different world, laptop makers *love* the "platform" concept intel sells. AMD can't compete there. Actually, Intel is trying to take this approach to pcs - it's one of the reasons apple switched to apple too.
      • Re:Laptops? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by creeront (890604)
        "Pentium M's are good because they are primarily based on P3 technology, not P4..." Pentium M's are based off of Pentium Pro Technology, arguably the best chip Intel has ever produced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M [wikipedia.org]
        • The Pentium 3 is based on the Pentium Pro. It would be arguable that the Pentium M more closely resembles the changes made to the P6 core (which the P Pro, P2, 2nd gen celeron, and P3 were based on) from the latest generation rather than a decade old design
    • Re:Laptops? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by stinerman (812158)
      Agreed.

      I'm nearly an AMD fanboy, but I would have a hard time buying a notebook with their mobile processors in it. I think Via might have a good chance at cracking the notebook market with their new C7-M [via.com.tw]chip. Its max power output is 20W, while its idle output is only 100mW.
    • What's wrong with the Mobile Athlon XP-M [amd.com]? If you're looking for better performance, you need a desktop replacement chip [amd.com] anyway.
    • I think what you are looking for is the AMD Turion?

      My impression is that Turion os a comparable AMD alternative.
    • Re:Laptops? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Nuffsaid (855987)
      I see a big marketing debacle by AMD, if even part of a supposedly technical oriented public like the Slashdot crowd never heard about the Turion 64 processor! Its power consumption goes as low as 27W, with performance slightly better than Pentium M on a clock-by-clock basis. You can already buy some laptops, and the reviews are good so far.
    • Yeah, it's called the Turion. 35W and much lower. Check out the MSI S270 (not on sale in the US yet, but very soon). I believe HP is already using it in their line.
    • "I hope that they will soon develop a power efficient chip for laptops."

      http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/hardware/notebooks/0, 39001748,39242904-2,00.htm [cnet.com]

      BAPCo MobileMark2002 battery life (in minutes)
      P-M 2.0GHz: 203
      Turion64 2.0GHz: 197
  • by mev (36558) on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:12AM (#13193653) Homepage
    When calculating the percentage of processors, is AMD counting a dual core as one or two processors?
  • by 00_NOP (559413) on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:15AM (#13193666) Homepage
    A few years ago I thought the Wintel monopoly was cracking up ... now despite this (good) news that seems further away than for some time. The constant hostility to Linux from Windows users is just one example - people are frightened of making the change and they cannot understand why something I can give them perfectly legally on a CD/DVD can be as good as or better than something they pay loads for. So too with Intel - Apple's decision may even be good for Microsoft as it will help freeze out alternative combinations of OS with processors...
    • people are frightened of making the change

      Wrong, Linux works best on 'certain' hardware that had the most complete kernel modules/drivers etc for it. People aren't 'afraid of linux' it simply dosen't work right on their hardware. My motherboard is 3 years old, was a popular motherboard at the time, and linux still does a pretty bad job at utilizing the capabilities of my harware. Sure it runs, it'll perform OK as a basic websurfing/document editing station but the hard drives io is much much lower, and D
  • Dell is the decider (Score:4, Interesting)

    by soma_0806 (893202) on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:21AM (#13193696)

    Everyone knows that AMD's share would seriously change if Dell could be persuaded away from their holdout status.

    The two main reasons generally cited for Dell's allegiance to Intel is the millions in advertising and marketting (hard for AMD to compete when they're sitting on a little over a billion and Intel is sitting on something like 11 billion) and early notification of new developments.

    The second one I just don't get. I mean, Intel annouced the Itanium in 1994 which consumers didn't see until 2001, two years later than projected and seven after the announcement. Really, how much notice does Dell need? Wouldn't they rather a company that actually gets things out in reasonable time frames?

    • by snero3 (610114)

      I don't know how much of this is just dell hype but when i spoke to my dell account rep last about the possibility of a AMD x86_64 chip he stated two reasons why it wouldn't happen

      1. AMD couldn't provide the necessary volume. Dell unlike apple take great pride in providing any order(from san to switches) within 4 weeks
      2. Intel now have their own x86_64 cpu in the form of EM64 so why bother changing.
    • Wouldn't they rather a company that actually gets things out in reasonable time frames?

      The obvious answer is "Sure, but who would that be?" AMD was a couple years late with K8 as well.

      Schedule slips are the name of the game. Granted, Intel's slip with Merced (both on the time scale and on the promised performance) was pretty severe. But since Dell makes most of their bank on the IA32 line with all the Intel marketing dollars, they could easily be persuaded to just let the Itanium fiasco slide.

      Though I'd
  • motherboards (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jpc (33615) on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:21AM (#13193698) Homepage

    The main reason for buying Xeons was the range of motherboards available. This is finally beginning to change and there is a lot more AMD stuff, from 1 way to 8 way. And with things like SCSI and SATA RAID cards turning up in PCI express things are looking even better as workstation and server chipsets become interchangeable.
  • I lease an Intel based server right now because back when I first signed up for it, that's all that was offered. Now the datacenter offers AMD based machines and I would love to switch. However, the company will charge me the setup fee on the AMD server and I will have to move everything over myself. It's not a steap fee, but it is enough for me to just stick with what I have. Switching isn't necessary by any means, just something I'd like to do. At any rate, I'd bet there are a lot of other people out
  • by DamienMcKenna (181101) <damien@@@mc-kenna...com> on Friday July 29, 2005 @09:27AM (#13194122)
    This week I had to spec out a replacement server when one of ours disappeared thanks to a delivery company, and I really wanted to get a HP DL145, HP's entry level Opteron server. As it turned out CDW's site said there was a two+ week delay in shipping the servers, whereas I needed one pronto. Given that other OEM [monarchcomputer.com]s have no problem with supply, I can only guess this may be part of AMD's case against Intel putting undue influence on the OEMs [bbc.co.uk].

    Damien
  • I bought stock in AMD when they announced the K7 (only high school money, not a whole lot, but it's still fun), way back. Right now it's even (so you can say I've taken a loss after inflation), but an AMD investment is looking better and better.

    All Intel has right now is mud-slinging and politics as far as the chip war is going. AMD is slowly breaking it, but it's TOUGH to break the Intel-rules mentality. Years of work are slowly coming along.


  • Why is AMD so bad at communicating to consumers the most basic of messages: WE MAKE FASTER CPU'S!

    Guaranteed -- most consumers have no idea that AMD chips are faster.

    • Guaranteed -- most consumers have no idea that AMD chips are faster.

      Most consumers have never heard of AMD, in fact. Most consumers still think "CPU" is the computer case with "some stuff like memories" inside.
  • and I always push AMD processors first. Once I present the benefits of an AMD processor (be it the 64, Sempron, or Turion), the consumer usually goes with the AMD. Occasionally I get the brainwashed retard - "My cousin has a Dell with a Pentium 4, I want a Pentium 4" and can't convince them otherwise. Explaining the benefits of an AMD processor, and letting the customer know that I've been using AMD processors for quite some time usually sways them. AMD... FOR THE NEW REPUBLIC!
    • Occasionally I get the brainwashed retard - "My cousin has a Dell with a Pentium 4, I want a Pentium 4" and can't convince them otherwise.

      Presumably, he's seen his cousin's Dell and it works fine, and his cousin likes it, so perhaps he gives that data point more weight than the word of some pushy salesman trying to get him to go for a product he's never heard of. That doesn't necessarily make him a "brainwashed retard." Perhaps he's been burned before by some store clerk telling him "this one's actually

    • I don't know how to say this, but computer salesman are right up their with door-to-door vacuum salesman in the "consumer trust" category. I don't doubt that you as an individual are competent, honest, and helpful, but I can definitely say that most of your peers aren't.

      Remember, you're fighting against the reputation of people who try to sell gold-plated USB cables because they make the data go faster. Don't take it personally when people refuse to hear a word of what you're saying; computers have been

  • What were they thinking? There hasn't been a reason to buy Intel for higher-end machines for a long time now. Why the hell is AMD only at 10% of sales?!

    TWW

    • What were they thinking? There hasn't been a reason to buy Intel for higher-end machines for a long time now. Why the hell is AMD only at 10% of sales?!

      Boss: "why is the server so slow?"
      IT Flunky: "The servers are five years old"
      Boss: "So call up Dell, our corporate computer vendor, and order some new ones. This is driving me crazy."
      IT Flunky: "OK"

      Probably no more complicated an explaination than that, for the most part.

  • Long way to go. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheLink (130905) on Friday July 29, 2005 @01:05PM (#13196152) Journal
    I still can't seem to find opteron _tower_ servers from IBM, HP or Sun (not even talking about Dell). And I don't think it's AMD's fault...

    You can get 1U rack servers from those 3. And a 3U model from Sun. But if you want a "lowish end" cheap tower server you can't get it from any of the big names. Talking about something like one of Dell's PE 1800 servers.

    The "bang for buck" sort of stuff. Say what you like, but you do pay a fair bit more for rack stuff and you can't stick 4 normal-sized SCSI drives in a 1U, or stick a fair number of NICs or other stuff in them. Tower servers generally make better "swiss army knife" servers.

    Sure, one can get stuff from the "whitebox" manufacturers, but often there aren't enough PCI-X slots, or the frigging cooling/power isn't good enough[1], or you can't get 3 year next business day support with parts and labour (around the world would be good too)...

    Sure us geeks can build servers. But most of us aren't paid to build servers for our companies - we have better things to do than to build, test, repair, and retest servers. At most we order a bunch, test them when they arrive, and tell the vendor - "This one is broken. Not paying. Swap it for something that works, and do by tomorrow".

    [1] At my workplace we got three 1U servers from a noname manufacturer - and the CPUs _regularly_ throttle down due to heat (they use P4 class CPUs - nope I wasn't the one who ordered them).
  • I find the lack of AMD Opteron options with low-end servers very frustrating. I'd like the big-name support and options with Opteron performance, but it looks like I'll be building my own if I want something I can trust. When a good chunk of your services depend heavily on memory throughput, AMD is the obvious choice with multi-processor machines.

    Sometimes I wish AMD would spin off a sub-division that sells and supports low- and mid-end server hardware.
  • AMD's NUMA support. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Martin Marvinski (581860) on Friday July 29, 2005 @03:35PM (#13197601)
    Don't forget that AMD's x86-64 bit processors support NUMA (non-uniform memory architecture), where as the Intel EMT64 does not. So if you use an operating system, like Linux which has NUMA support built into the kernel, and Opteron chips and a quality motherboard that has seperate memory for each processor, each processor can have its own dedicated memory! If anyone has the link, there was a benchmark out there that really rocked, with NUMA enabled dual Proc Opteron Server kicking intel's offerings.
    • by larstr (695179)
      IBM has written a paper on this comparing two of their 1U 2 cpu servers, the e326 (AMD) and x336 (Xeon MP). The paper is named "Performance of Two-Way Opteron and Xeon Processor-Based Servers" from April 2005.

      A search on ibm.com does not give me a link to the document and neither does google. I did however find an IBM provided AMD vs XEON linpack-comparison benchmark ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/benchmarks/wp_L inpack_072905.pdf [ibm.com], but first benchmark (that I can't locate) was better.

      It clearly show

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...