Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel AMD The Almighty Buck Hardware

Intel Loses Market Share to AMD 283

Posted by Zonk
from the changing-times dept.
diverge_s wrote to mention an article examining Intel's market share loss to AMD in the fourth quarter of 2005. From the article: "Sales of Intel-based desktop PCs fell 22.3 percent during the fourth quarter, according to Current Analysis. As a result, sales of AMD-based desktops took the lead during the pivotal fourth-quarter holiday shopping season. AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores during that period."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Loses Market Share to AMD

Comments Filter:
  • VIIV (Score:5, Funny)

    by F_Scentura (250214) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @11:51AM (#14509690)
    Their new push for quality engineering over marketing fluff will surely give them the lead again!
  • by gasmonso (929871) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @11:52AM (#14509708) Homepage

    AMD just proves that regardless of your advertising budget, it all comes down to good performance and good price. I don't think I have ever seen an AMD commercial, whereas Intel was all over the TV. Dell has finally taken notice and will start widespread use of AMD chips soon. Thanks for the giving Intel some competition AMD!

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
  • Beige boxes? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19, 2006 @11:53AM (#14509716)
    I wonder whether AMD's success is an indication that PC's are well into their commodities phase and so el-cheapo models at Best Buy are (more than) sufficient for people's use? Intel's in the pricier boxes, so they stand/fall with those vendors.
    • Re:Beige boxes? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HermanAB (661181) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:01PM (#14509803)
      Well, especially, when the pricier models are worse than the cheaper ones... "Style, is the ability to distinguish quality, without looking at the price tag."
    • El cheapo? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by C10H14N2 (640033) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:08PM (#14509889)
      Are you KIDDING? [cdw.com]

      AMD is successful because from day one they've been in the business of making better products, not cheaper products. That they happen to be cheaper in some cases is just a sign that they have a successfully diverse product line.
      • Re:El cheapo? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Twid (67847) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:22PM (#14510063) Homepage
        I'm calling you out on the "from day one" statement. The AMD K5 was not exactly the pinnacle of performance, features, or price competitiveness. AMD is doing well now, no argument there. I'd like to see an article that compares total chip chipments worldwide, though, rather than say limited statements like "52% of all retail desktop sales, in the USA, in the 4th quarter".

        In related news, my pants were the leading distribution method for iPod nanos, in the USA, in California, in my house, yesterday.

        • Re:El cheapo? (Score:4, Informative)

          by jandrese (485) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:35PM (#14510202) Homepage Journal
          Yeah, the original AMD chips were generally thought of as "not quite as good as Cyrix". Anybody who cared one whiff about quality back then went Intel. It wasn't until the K6 line that AMD started to really position themselves as a quality chipmaker, and it wasn't really until the Athlon line that they pulled themselves out of the pit of the Computer-Show Beige Box hawked by some greasy fat guy crowd.
        • AMD has been around since the 60's, whereas I've been using their chips for, oh, 25 years. At the time of the K5, they were just scraping up the pieces from a massive legal battle with Intel, which they won, btw. If you think that was "day one," pfft.
      • Re:El cheapo? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dougmc (70836) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:36PM (#14510206) Homepage
        from day one they've been in the business of making better products, not cheaper products.
        Eh? I don't know about `day 1', but it wasn't that long ago that AMD was lagging behind Intel in terms of performance, power consumption (though that wasn't such a concern back then) and such. For example, the K5 was intended to compete against the Pentium chips, but the Pentium Pro came out almost immediately after the K5 did and it blew the K5 away. The K6's came closer to beating the Intel offerings, but even then, the Intel chips had a small performance lead, and the fact that 3Dnow never took off further hurt the K6 chips. Back then, people bought AMD because it was cheaper, not because it was better.

        Going back even further, the AMD 8086, 80286, 80386 and Am486 chips generally were just clones of the Intel offerings -- with similar performance, but coming out some time later at a lower price.

        But things have changed. AMD has finally caught up to and passed Intel in many respects, and I suspect that the reason that Intel is still selling so many chips is more due to interia than anything else.

    • Not all people are gamers who really need the performance.
      For other people, el-cheapo models at Best Buy are (more than) sufficient. Except maybe on longevity, where things like lousy fans and faulty capacitors still are a problem.
    • Re:Beige boxes? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GmAz (916505) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:33PM (#14510179) Journal
      Not really. Bestbuy, CompUSA, Circuit City all have salemen working the floor. I was once a salesman for CompUSA and did rather good at it. 90% of people buy what the salesman tell them to buy. You get people uneducated in the field of computers and look to the salesmen as the "pros". I sold quite a few $4000 systems because I could read the customer. If that person had money, I could sell him on the high end machine no problem. The line "In computers, the old saying 'you get what you pay for' auctually applies". Talk about Hook Line and Sinker. But, you also made money there based on the service plans you sold and was based primarily on a percent of gross sold vs. gross service plan. People wanted to see big numbers on the front of the computer and a low price tag. AMD machines reigned. Espically since I set them up with the AMD machine right next to its Intel counterpart. Lower priced machines made me more money as it does every salesman. I think salesmen have figured this out and that is why AMD took that large market share. And guess what, when more AMD machines were pushed out, people started realizing that they were as good as the covited Intel machines. Word spread and customers started looking into AMD and not just saying that they only thing they wanted was Intel because its the only thing they know about computers. Gotta hand it to Intel for the A+ marketing strategy.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19, 2006 @11:54AM (#14509730)
    Of course, it's always been my understanding that Intel is dominant in corporate computing, where no small number of third party corporate applications are only "certified" to work on Intel processors and the use of AMD processors endangers your ability to take advantage of your pricy support contract.
    • by HangingChad (677530) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:31PM (#14510153) Homepage
      Of course, it's always been my understanding that Intel is dominant in corporate computing...

      If Intel is holding on to dominance in any market segment it's more likely to be the result of their business relationship with a company like Dell, which has been propping Intel up for the last two years while AMD ate away the rest of their market.

      AMD makes a great product at a competitive price. What happened to Intel will happen to every other company that starts thinking they have a right to exist. Intel sometimes acts like they're a government agency.

      • It's not just Intel. Until recently, +95% of the x86 server market did belong to Intel - that means that mobo/chipset/other products makers have their product offerings oriented to Intel. AMD made a great chip, but moving the whole x86 server market from one CPU vendor to another is not something that will happen from one day to another - Intel can't influde that, lots of companies are just not switching to another CPU vendor just because they've had good sales in 1 year. There're no good server-oriented ch
  • Marketing misstep? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PornMaster (749461) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @11:55AM (#14509748) Homepage
    Anyone looked into the possible marketing misstep by Intel stopping marketing their processors by clock speed?
    • by Sique (173459) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:09PM (#14509903) Homepage
      It was a 'misstep' they had to take with going away from the Netburst architecture anyway. The Pentium M and successors all have much lower clock rates with still retaining comparable performance. For low power devices the high clock rates were hell.
      • by Guysmiley777 (880063) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:47PM (#14510324)
        The "megahertz race" was a monster of their own creation. The Pentium 4 was a misstep, changing the design to allow higher clock rates with less processing per cycle.

        Would you rather have an engine that puts out redlines at 6,000 or 12,000 RPM? I forgot to mention, the 6,000 RPM motor is a 5 liter V8, the 12,000 RPM motor is a 60 CC weedwacker motor.
        • Would you rather have an engine that puts out redlines at 6,000 or 12,000 RPM? I forgot to mention, the 6,000 RPM motor is a 5 liter V8, the 12,000 RPM motor is a 60 CC weedwacker motor.

          I'd rather have the 12,000RPM motor in my weedwacker. I just imagine the 5 liter V8 would be a little cumbersome trying to get the areas around my fence.

        • the 12,000 RPM motor is a 60 CC weedwacker motor.

          You be wackin' some big weeds with that 60cc weedwacker motor.
    • I stopped paying close attention to the hardware market just after then P4 came out. The last motherboard I bought knowing what model it was an ABIT-KT7-RAID (the raid feature of which, I've never used). I have a 600mhz Duron in there to this day. I bought a 1200mhz duron, and burned it out over clocking the day I got it :P. I got another machine later, with just a generic mobo and an a '2400' chip. I know it wasn't 2400 but it was easy to think of it that way (it was supposed to compare to the P4's boos
      • You stopped paying attention to the hardware market and now you're annoyed because you don't know what's going on in the hardware market?

        If you don't care, don't get annoyed about it. If you want to know but just fell behind, Tom's Hardware, Ars Technica and Anandtech have good articles to get you up to speed. If you're annoyed because you want to know but don't want to do any reading, well, I can't help you there.
  • meh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DigDuality (918867) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @11:56AM (#14509759)
    I'm not really a fanboy on either side of this Chevy/Ford arguement. They both support Trusted Computing which makes me wish there was another option out there.
  • This stock was at $5 not so long ago... :D
  • by Jim in Buffalo (939861) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @11:58AM (#14509771)
    When the Intel-based Macs hit the market, Intel processors will be found in 52.6 percent of desktop PCs, so there!
  • by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Thursday January 19, 2006 @11:58AM (#14509776)
    I don't mean this in a negative way, but what percentage of the computer buying public even knows about AMD? I mean, it seems to me that the average person couldn't tell you what chip is in his computer. I mean, the answer I usually get to that question is "Dell" or "HP". So basically, what I'm saying is that it may not be AMD chips that are doing well, but the particular brands they're in?
    • This is actually a Good Thing. The less people care about the chip in their computer - as long as it works - the better for competition. The people who care are either -very informed, a small minority -sensitive to marketting (I wanna this pentium thing, it will speed my internet connection, they say it in this commercial)
    • ...the answer I usually get to that question is "Dell" or "HP."
      Even worse, most people I know say "Microsoft." Who else here gets the mom and pop calls that start with "I'm having a problem with my Microsoft. Can you help?"
      • Who else here gets the mom and pop calls that start with "I'm having a problem with my Microsoft. Can you help?"

        Another favorite is "Adobe won't load".
        "Adobe WHAT? Adobe is a company, not a product."

        "You know, Adobe. For reading PDFs."
        or (slightly less common but still strongly represented)
        "You know, Adobe. For doing stuff with pictures."

  • Is AMD profitable? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by keester (646050) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @11:59AM (#14509786)
    That's the biggest question in my mind. Market share is important, but will AMD be able to sustain whatever growth they have accomplished? So, within the last few years, they've opened up new fabrication plants, and probably they have more room for growth. Still, it will be interesting to see their earnings (revenue and profit).
    • by beavis88 (25983) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:08PM (#14509884)
      Barely, but yes -

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=amd [yahoo.com]
      • by Stalyn (662)
        "For the three months ended Dec. 25, AMD earned $95.6 million, or 21 cents per share, on sales of $1.84 billion. In the fourth quarter of 2004, it lost $30 million, or 8 cents per share, on sales of $1.26 billion."

        "For all of 2005, AMD earned $165.5 million, or 40 cents per share, on sales of $5.85 billion. That compares with a 2004 profit of $91.2 million, 25 cents per share, on sales of $5 billion."

        So AMD earned more money in the recent 4th quarter than all of 2004. And a 125.6 million increase for 4th qu
    • AMD reported earnings yesterday. They earned $0.45 per share, far above "analyst" estimates. They are very profitable and becoming moreso as they take big chunks out of Intel's hide.

      Intel slowed AMD's run to profitability last year when they shifted production from chipsets to flash memory (they use the same fabs). Dumping flash below cost hurt AMD more than it hurt Intel... at the time. Then Intel ran short of chipsets. Oops!

      Intel is rapidly undergoing death-by-management. Never let marketing weasles
  • Intel goes outside (Score:4, Insightful)

    by digitaldc (879047) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:04PM (#14509836)
    "The new slogan is supposed to signify Intel's shift away from focusing "inside" and starting to look at platforms and solutions for the end users."

    (From an earlier [slashdot.org] discussion and article. [anandtech.com])

    Now I am beginning to understand why Intel has made the decision to start focusing elsewhere.
  • by Fearan (600696) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:05PM (#14509847)
    With the decreasing market share of desktops in the consumer computer market, I'm interested in knowing how AMD is doing in the laptop sector and total overall processors sold in comparison with Intel. Most people I know wouldn't consider anything other than Centrino for some reason that I don't understand (marketing?) Furthermore, how will Apple's new MacBook and other Intel offerings affect AMD's apparent marketshare takeover?
    • Most people I know wouldn't consider anything other than Centrino for some reason

      I know exactly why this is because I worked at Best Buy for three months. When centrino was introduced there were commercials everywhere. These commercials, intentional or otherwise, made it seem like centrino was the only way to connect wirelessly saying things like "Centrino technology is a huge advancement in wireless networking for people on the go". This statement was true, as centrino allowed for longer battery lif
    • Laptop market is growing. And when I want to change my laptop, I shall definitely look for lighter/slimmer/longer-running/quieter piece of hardware, and performance/64bit will matter less.

      So, whether I buy new MacBook or Intel Somethino (tm), it is likely to be Intel.

      And I strongly suspect, that every laptop chip is today more profitable, than 5 desktops-for-sale.

    • For God's sake, stop calling it a "centrino"...it's a fscking Pentium M!!!

      Centrino is the chipset used in those notebooks.
      • Centrino is the chipset used in those notebooks.

        Close...

        From Intel:

        The technology represented by the Intel Centrino mobile technology brand combines the Intel® Pentium® M processor, the Intel® 855 Chipset Family and the Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 Network Connection. All components were optimized, validated and tested to work together with mobility in mind.

    • I don't really know if it's the marketing by Intel but the Pentium M is very good in a laptop. It runs cool and the battery life is quite good IMHO. When I look around the office every laptop I see is a Pentium M based one. At one time I had a laptop with a 3.06GhZ P4 and it ran so hot I went through 3 mobos in 2 years. I was real happy when I finally got a laptop with a Pentium M in it instead as my laptop is no longer cooking itself in its own juices.
  • 1) Most people that buy PCs have no idea what processor it has inside. They are generally motivated by price. If two PCs with the same performance and options are sitting next to each other at Best Buy, and one costs $150 less than the one next to it, which one will people buy? No brainer!

    2) The speed of most newer computers is so ridiculously fast compared to just a couple of years ago that the processor just doesn't matter to the average PC buyer. Most people want to read their email, surf the web a
  • intel rise (Score:3, Funny)

    by the_tsi (19767) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:18PM (#14510014)
    And they won it all back when every reader of slashdot bought a macbook pro and/or intel imac after being brainwashed with Apple stories for four consecutive days.
  • by Caspian (99221) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:19PM (#14510027)
    It may be that a part of the reason for this change is the shift in importance from hardware to software.

    It seems to me like more and more, people simply do not care what the hardware is so much as they care about what the software is. A few years ago, clueless consumers were demanding the "Pentium" brand (not even knowing what that word really meant); now, they simply ask "Does it have 'Microsoft XP'?" The answer, of course, is always "yes", so they ask no further.

    Now that Mac OS X runs on both PPC and x86 machines and Windows XP on both x86 and x86-64, I think we are moving towards an era where the software matters more than the hardware (at least, from the perspective of Joe User).
    • If that is the case then OS/X is in even more trouble as the hardware pricing is totally controlled by Apple and price is driving the PC market.

      Hardware is what Apple used to celebrate as being their important difference, now that they are on Intel platforms they have to rely on design. Trouble is the public wasn't keen on buying their design before and since the price didn't change neither will the buying public's opinion.
  • RETAIL sales.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by sadr (88903) <skg@sadr.com> on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:26PM (#14510104)
    Note that this only applies to retail sales.

    It does not include total sales, where AMDs market share is significantly lower. e.g. this report excludes Dell entirely. Overall, they're somewhere around 25% of total shipments.

    AMD is taking marketshare away from Intel, but they are still a much smaller player.
  • by DrSbaitso (93553) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:26PM (#14510105)
    AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores during that period."

    Of course, Dell doesn't sell many of its computers in retail stores, it is the largest manufacturer in the US, and it doesn't use AMD chips (yet). So the quoted statistic is misleading at best. Still, more competition is always a good thing.
  • I am not sure if this is of interest but in Europe I have noticed a shortage of Opteron dual core chips. So far the only place where I could find some was a couple of shops in Germany and they went out of stock quite fast.

    All shops in USA that I could find and that had them did not ship overseas.

    • Ebuyer (UK) currently have 18 of the 270's in stock. Generally they're good on price, although I don't buy server cpu's so I can't say if its true for these or not.
  • The power Macs but could never justify the price/performance ratio. Now I can ith the new Intel chips. A Unix based OS with a great GUI running on fast Intel hardware makes me a convert. I develop Java apps for a living so it really makes no difference to me as to what OS I use for development.
    • The power Macs but could never justify the price/performance ratio. Now I can ith the new Intel chips. A Unix based OS with a great GUI running on fast Intel hardware makes me a convert. I develop Java apps for a living so it really makes no difference to me as to what OS I use for development.

      I was already wanting to say you don't know much about fast. But,... then the sad truth pops out. You develop Java applications. Yes, Java is faster on Intel. It can't be optimized for PPC and runs against PPC rules.
      • Two issues related to Java on Macs (may change with the Intel version):

        You have to get your Java from Apple. I was stuck all through OSX 10.3.x with an old Java. Sun doesn't offer a build. Apple did bundle an update with OSX 10.4.

        Gosling mentioned in an interview that he builds the latest Java on his Linux box, and copies the JARs over to his PowerBook. Somehow I haven't found enough spare time to try to do that myself. However I think Gosling slowly tried this over a long period of tim
  • Once again... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by minginqunt (225413) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @12:54PM (#14510391) Homepage Journal
    *cough*excludingdell*cough*

    I love statistics.
  • Does anyone else think that this had something to do with intel finally killing off the "intel inside" campaign?
  • Intel losing market share to AMD is not the news I'm waiting for. What I want to see is:

    Dell losing desktop market share to AMD system vendors.

    Then something interesting might happen.

  • then, it happened to IBM.

    Now, Apple is shipping with processors from Intel. So, if the curse holds, AMD is going to be mopping the floor with Intel... at least until Apple decides to ship some machines with AMD processors as well...

    The other read could be that, well, this story is BS because it's not counting online sales ( Dell, duh ). Although, it's true that AMD has been gaining a little ground, due to having cheap laptop chips on one end and hot, killer 64-bit gaming-rig CPUs on the other end.

    Whatever.

  • AMD has been kicking Intel's butt for a long time, mostly because of their price for performance ratio. Intel's pricing has always been higher per performance unit (however you wish to measure it) than AMD. AMD has always been finding ways to boost performance and efficiency in order to stay ahead of Intel: Back when Athlon's first came out, their numbers were to signify that their processor were equivalent to an Intel of a certain speed (The Athlon 1800+ could keep up with an Intel 1.8GHz, but only ran at

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...