AMD outsells Intel

Wohoo!

Advanced Micro Devices managed to continue to boost its market share in the U.S. retail market of computers, both desktops and laptops, in October. The result was that in terms of units the company succeeded in surpassing much larger rival Intel Corp., supplied the majority of desktop processors and managed to raise the number of its mobile computers sold. Nevertheless, in terms of sales Intel Corp. still dominated.

Based on data derived from the Current Analysis’ Retail Panel, a panel comprised of the nation’s leading consumer electronics retailers, in October 2005, 49.8% of the personal computers (desktops and notebooks combined) sold in the U.S. retail market utilized AMD processors, thus allowing AMD to narrowly surpass Intel, which accounted for 48.5% of the market.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20051108103221.html

AMD is successful every year while Intel is always making bad businesses. That was how Intel made one of the largest PC companies in the world while AMD is far from being one even yet.

Kickass! :iagree:

Yeehaw!

My choices are valid!

Who makes up the small remaining chip percentage, do Macs count?

I’m sure the latest Apple Mac’s could possibly be some use as a basic calculator. They’re a bit big to fit in your pocket though … so I guess they really aren’t that useful after all :stuck_out_tongue:

VIA
IBM
SUN
OTHER COMPANIES WITH THREE LETTER ACRONYMS (no MAC though, they run on IBM)

I have a Via C3 processor PC sitting beside me right now :slight_smile:
Damn thing is a tad smaller than the LG4163 with it’s external FW/USB2 case :stuck_out_tongue:

Yes that is good news. More and more companies are accepting AMD and selling their materials. That’s good. Not just for AMD, good for the customers as well. Fair competition is always good.

even Dell is now selling AMD CPUs…probably a precursor to AMD equipped machines…

That would great. Dell is still world’s greatest OEM builder (although their sales are going down, maybe because of the demand they couldn’t supply?).

Maybe because people like me have managed to convince their bosses that a 24hr pickup on a machine, compared to a 5minute drop off to a local PC shop isn’t easy… and the fact they can’t be upgraded easily. Dell machines are practically useless, once they leave the office, and if they break down out of warranty, you can’t even easily remove the freaking cd/dvdwriters to put in another machine!

Just to clarify, they sell AMD CPU’s, but they dont sell AMD-systems. I didnt know that Dell sold individual parts but apparently they do.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5940448.html

Dell has sold a lot of DVD writers, LCD monitors, and other products, but selling CPUs is quite new to me.

Meanwhile, AMD’s overall share still remains under 20%. Just like it was 5 years ago, 10 years, ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago, and so on.

Nonetheless, the lead in retail space will help advance AMD toward its long-term goal of 30 percent market share worldwide. AMD currently has approximately 17 percent market share.

Source

AMD seems to make great successes every year because it’s fashionable for the media to report bad news for Intel and praise AMD. In fact, hardly anything has changed. Marketshare sometimes gained, sometimes lost. Perhaps AMD’s most successful product was 386. It’s Intel that grew rapidly almost never without slowdown in the last 30 years or so.

However, Dell not selling any PC based on AMD CPU is unnatural since motherboards and CPUs for AMD systems are noticeably cheaper than those for Intel systems and Dell’s success from the beginning had so much to do with low price.

@Airhead: Dell does sell AMD based systems, just not to the public. Big companies (Dell clients) can buy Dell Operton server systems.

@Kenshin: your story isn’t complete. It’s indeed a fact that AMDs market share has gone just slightly up when it comes to (home) desktop systems. But: AMD is also penetrating the server market. For now, the Opteron is an excellent replacement for the Xeon (and the Itanium in some cases) and they’re really winning there. I think that the acceptation of AMD based systems in the server market will lead to acceptation on the corporate desktop market as well. The K7 series where mainly used by home users, but the K8 also entered the corporate market.

Marketshare data is not a “story” but published to everyone. South Korean jaebol companies usually hide or even “massage” their data to fool everyone but the founder or owner’s family to steal billions of dollars regularly but US companies like AMD and Intel seem to be so honest. It’s true that AMD has advanced in the server market. So has Intel and Intel has made much bigger progresses there. By marketshare, I meant each company’s total revenue. Most of Intel’s revenues come from sales of processors. AMD’s share of desktop systems seem to have risen up recently because it was such low a few years ago with the delay of K8 introduction. It was also very low just before the introduction of K7. But then, did Intel’s share diminish due to AMD’s so-called success? How many server CPUs was Intel selling, say, in 1985? How many in 1995? And now?

If AMD wants to show the world how successful they have been in the recent few years, why can’t they just reveal hard data that looks like this?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20051109214430.html

Quite easy to see who’s doing how well.

For now, the Opteron is an excellent replacement for the Xeon (and the Itanium in some cases) and they’re really winning there.

So you are saying AMD has grown because AMD’s products are “excellent” but I still would bet my money on Intel if I had something like ten million dollars to invest to CPU companies.

isn’t part of the reason Intel’s revenue market share is higher than AMD’s is because they’re more expensive??? wouldn’t market share in terms of units sold be a better gauge of each company’s current situation (succes/failure)?

Whether one method is better than the other is subjective to individual opinions, but most market analysts and investors will agree that ranking by the number of sold units is less important than ranking by the revenues and profits. It’s easier to sell cheaper products. And those “AMD outsells Intel” sort of articles don’t even explicitly say whether it’s based on number of units or whether it is 50% or 5% increase from one year ago and 10 years ago. Both AMD and Intel sell in virtually all countries where serious amount of money flow so why count numbers only from US? Why mention only retail side? Only to make it look good for AMD, as always. Intel vs. AMD in processor semiconductor market is just like Samsung vs. Nanya in memory semiconductor market. AMD is too small to compete effectively. This article says Intel’s die cost is $40 despite recent increase of cache memory (to 2MB on some desktop and notebook products.)

Euh what do you want point out by placing data on DRAM manufacturers?

AMD honest? No. Intel honest? No. Press honest? Not even close. They all lie. And anything can be proven with statistics, I know.

Why the Opteron is an excellent replacement for the XEON CPU? The obvious answer would be the performance (which is in most cases, quite a lot better; although the newer XEON CPUs -Dempsley- are getting close to AMD’s performance once again), but what I think that really matters to many server builders and of course the consumers, is the power consumption and related heat dissapation.

I don’t know what the future will be bringing, but I think that AMD will stand a fair chance on a good position. AMD has quite a few good engineers and they got the attention from big companies like Big blue.

Yes its quite so, Intels margins are so much larger that even though they sold less, they made more on what they did sell (2 months ago) than AMD did.