AMD Gains X86 Processor Market Share on Intel in Q1

[gmaster456]

Link
http://www.pcworld.com/article/254503/amd_gains_x86_processor_market_share_on_intel_in_q1.html



Thoughts?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Fish.

 

[Maximilian]

Chips.

 

[Lonyo]

No one bought Intel because they were all waiting.
And waiting.
And waiting.
AND STILL WAITING.


(Minimal new product launches with Intel processors, focus on the low end where AMD is competitive due to the general market and cost concerns due to hard drives etc).

 

[Skurge]

1% isn't all that much.

I'm surprised they hold over 40% of desktop.

 

[Martimus]

That is funny. AMD has the best mobile platform with Llano, while Intel has the best desktop platform with Ivybridge and Sandybridge, yet the market reflects the opposite.

 

[LoneNinja]

It's either the result of Llano improving their mobile offerings, or clueless consumers believe FX is faster due to higher clocks and more cores.

 

[Olikan]

i think is bobcat doing better...the c-60 are selling way to good here in Brazil

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

That is funny. AMD has the best mobile platform with Llano, while Intel has the best desktop platform with Ivybridge and Sandybridge, yet the market reflects the opposite.

Not really. Not many people game on their PCs, as some here may have you believe.

That's really all Llano is good for, cheap gaming. That alone doesn't make it the superior platform, IMO.

 

[Hatisherrif]

Not really. Not many people game on their PCs, as some here may have you believe.

That's really all Llano is good for, cheap gaming. That alone doesn't make it the superior platform, IMO.

InTeL r0x0r agen! AMD gud for notting, even wen it gud!

 

[IntelUser2000]

Breakdown here: http://www.investorvillage.com/mbth...mValue=235910&dValue=1&tid=11666535&showall=1

overall 18.9M units 19.1% share +0.3% over Q4
server 286K units 6.8% share +1.1% over Q4
dekstop 9.7M units 22.7% share +0.4% over Q4
portable 8.9M units 17.1% share +0.1% over Q4


Hmm, my guess goes like this:

Server - Opteron 6200 "Interlagos" is pretty competitive with Xeon 5600. It also has a niche with memory bound applications needing 4P. Xeon E5 is much better than Opteron 6200 but came late in the quarter. Some customers waiting for E5 could have held back sales too.

Desktop - Customers waiting for Ivy Bridge. Sales sagging in the quarter of a new product launch is well demonstrated by Apple. Intel might have a bit of impact here too.

Portable - More Brazos sales? 0.1% doesn't seem significant enough to warrant an explanation

Relative revenue suggests that more Intel purchases were moved towards the higher end than AMD. AMD probably got more high end chips replaced by low end than Intel.

Overall revenue suggests that the market as a whole gravitated towards more lower end purchases.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

InTeL r0x0r agen! AMD gud for notting, even wen it gud!

I already said it's good for cheap laptop gaming. But how many people actually want that? Exactly, there's your answer.

 

[Olikan]

I already said it's good for cheap gaming. But how many people actually want that? Exactly, there's your answer.

alot of people

overall 18.9M units 19.1% share +0.3% over Q4
server 286K units 6.8% share +1.1% over Q4
dekstop 9.7M units 22.7% share +0.4% over Q4
portable 8.9M units 17.1% share +0.1% over Q4

mmm... actually, it seems that amd got market share because intel q1 wasn't so good

 

[pelov]

Not really. Not many people game on their PCs, as some here may have you believe.

That's really all Llano is good for, cheap gaming. That alone doesn't make it the superior platform, IMO.

No, but as a more well-rounded package it's better. I don't understand the need for super cores on a laptop and would happily give up some CPU power if it meant better GPU performance. If anything a better GPU means more for most people than does a CPU but both fall behind battery life and cost which are by far the 2 leading factors here. You're under the mistaken assumption that most people are CPU whores like we are here and give two shits about synthetic benchmarks or video encoding or 7-zip or VMs or X application. They care about facebook, some light gaming, listening to their music and maybe an odd application thrown in. Cost and battery life are by far the most important factors for an overwhelming majority of consumers. CPU performance has been good enough on the desktop for a while now and for laptops it's overkill while GPU still has some catching up to do so I'd rank GPU above CPU so long as the CPU performance is sufficient (which on the laptop it has been for a while. For people looking for desktop replacements that's a different story but they're few and far in between). There's a very easy way to prove this...

iPad Sales: 3 Million New Tablets Sold During First Weekend, Says Apple

Clearly people seem to be content with ARM dual-core at 1ghz, do you really think more CPU power is necessary? 3 million sold the first weekend! Intel/AMD would be ecstatic to see those numbers in an entire quarter.

The issues Llano has is
1 - that IVB is looking very good for mobile. The HD4000 seems like it's definitely a step in the right direction for Intel. The only question here would have to be drivers as Intel has by far the worst drivers in the history of man.

2 - Battery life. Llano's efficiency isn't that great. This can be tinkered with if you grab K10stat but most people dont know how nor what the hell it is.

3 - The OEMs didn't seem to care all that much about it. The hardware around the chip just paled in comparison to Intel's offerings and coupled with the yield issues the sales suffered drastically. There was a bigger selection with Brazos netbooks/laptops than Llano.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

alot of people



mmm... actually, it seems that amd got market share because intel q1 wasn't so good

You don't seem to know the average consumer much.

I work in retail and come into contact with dozens to hundreds of people a day. I can tell you right now that less than 1% of them looking for a cheap laptop have gaming in mind.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Try look back in Q1-2-3-4 in 2011, 2010 etc. See a pattern?

Its basicly the most useless news. Its the same -/+ 2% swings. And people bake up new amazing therories each time.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

No, but as a more well-rounded package it's better. I don't understand the need for super cores on a laptop and would happily give up some CPU power if it meant better GPU performance. If anything a better GPU means more for most people than does a CPU but both fall behind battery life and cost which are by far the 2 leading factors here. You're under the mistaken assumption that most people are CPU whores like we are here and give two shits about synthetic benchmarks or video encoding or 7-zip or VMs or X application. They care about facebook, some light gaming, listening to their music and maybe an odd application thrown in. Cost and battery life are by far the most important factors for an overwhelming majority of consumers. CPU performance has been good enough on the desktop for a while now and for laptops it's overkill while GPU still has some catching up to do so I'd rank GPU above CPU so long as the CPU performance is sufficient (which on the laptop it has been for a while. For people looking for desktop replacements that's a different story but they're few and far in between). There's a very easy way to prove this...


Clearly people seem to be content with ARM dual-core at 1ghz, do you really think more CPU power is necessary? 3 million sold the first weekend! Intel/AMD would be ecstatic to see those numbers in an entire quarter.

The issues Llano has is
1 - that IVB is looking very good for mobile. The HD4000 seems like it's definitely a step in the right direction for Intel. The only question here would have to be drivers as Intel has by far the worst drivers in the history of man.

2 - Battery life. Llano's efficiency isn't that great. This can be tinkered with if you grab K10stat but most people dont know how nor what the hell it is.

3 - The OEMs didn't seem to care all that much about it. The hardware around the chip just paled in comparison to Intel's offerings and coupled with the yield issues the sales suffered drastically. There was a bigger selection with Brazos netbooks/laptops than Llano.

Some problems:

You're comparing tablets to laptops. They're made for different things. One is for consuming content only; the other is for consuming and creating content. Also, you can't just say "oh, look at the iPad and its uber powerful (for a tablet) IGP. That must mean everyone wants to be gaming on laptops." Believe me, out of the hundreds of laptops I've sold, less than 1% of the consumers even had gaming in their minds when they told me what they wanted/needed. Almost no one cares about gaming on a laptop, even enthusiasts. The few ASUS ROG laptops I sold was because of the i7-2670QM CPU and 1920x1080 res. display, not the GTX 560M.

 

[pelov]

Where the hell do you work? Less than 1%? Has any single male going to college ever entered your store? I can guarantee you that nearly all of them game on their college laptops.

You're talking out of your hoo-ha.

Tablets have skyrocketed in sales and laptops haven't experienced the same joy. People are buying them purely because they can overlap in their typical usage. Laptops are generally for content creation and work, which is absolutely true, but the fact that a majority of people feel that tablets are adequate flies in the face of your assumption that CPU performance matters anymore... it doesn't. The laptop has 2 key advantages, Windows and a keyboard. Past that it doesn't really matter.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Where the hell do you work? Less than 1%? Has any single male going to college ever entered your store? I can guarantee you that nearly all of them game on their college laptops.

You're talking out of your hoo-ha.

Tablets have skyrocketed in sales and laptops haven't experienced the same joy. People are buying them purely because they can overlap in their typical usage. Laptops are generally for content creation and work, which is absolutely true, but the fact that a majority of people feel that tablets are adequate flies in the face of your assumption that CPU performance matters anymore... it doesn't. The laptop has 2 key advantages, Windows and a keyboard. Past that it doesn't really matter.

Perhaps you haven't been out very much or you're making assumptions about consumers?

And FYI, I work for TigerDirect/CompUSA. The vast, vast majority of people that want PC gaming of any kind go straight for a desktop. 99% of the time.

And yes, I deal with college males daily. Most want a laptop that's lightweight, has a reasonable size, looks good, is reasonably durable, has good battery life, and is decently fast. Like I told you before, the vast majority of them don't give two cents about gaming because they have an XBOX 360/PS3 for that, and a few have desktop PCs. Since they're not looking for cheap gaming, I just steer them away from Llano laptops since that's all it's good for.

Also, it's true that tablets sales are very high, but that's a relatively new market. Laptops keep selling as good as they did two to three years ago, if not better.

And it's pretty funny you mention the keyboard and a desktop OS as if it was JUST a difference, because both of those things are exactly the ones that steer many college students from buying a tablet. The keyboard, in particular. No one wants to be buying stupid dongles to be able to type in a tablet, especially when the screen is much smaller and the desktop Office is much, much better than anything you can get on an Android tablet or an iPad.

I'm sorry, but you don't really have a good clue of what the avg. consumer wants.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Where the hell do you work? Less than 1%? Has any single male going to college ever entered your store? I can guarantee you that nearly all of them game on their college laptops.

Yes, but the ones who do get a laptop with a discrete Radeon or GTX card not a llano.

 

[pelov]

So you're claiming you're right because you work at X company and we take your word for it? Not because you've been downplaying anything AMD-related in every post I see of yours, and much like AtenRa who's on the opposite end, then claiming innocence

The steam hardware survey speaks for itself. Add up the mobile GPUs along with the Intel HDs and you've got what accounts for well over 10% of all Steam hardware. That's just Steam, btw. But apparently you've never sold anything to those people ever. Mind you, there are also people who game on their lappies who don't use Steam.

And it's pretty funny you mention the keyboard and a desktop OS as being an insignificant difference

I'm stating it IS a significant difference.

The laptop has 2 key advantages, Windows and a keyboard. Past that it doesn't really matter.

It's the main difference!

Our research found that the most frequent tablet activities are checking email, playing games and social networking.

http://googlemobileads.blogspot.com/2011/11/consumers-on-tablet-devices-having-fun.html

and that's on a tablet with a crappy CPU and GPU. Of the most often activities an increase in GPU performance would net bigger gains than CPU.

Here's some more tablet/laptop overlap with the laptops losing out.

The survey asked people which devices consumers would not buy after purchasing a tablet like an iPad. In 2011 the survey said that a whopping 53 percent of people would not purchase an e-reader after buying a tablet, which is up from 49 percent in 2010. 42 percent of survey participants said they would give up buying a laptop or netbook after buying a tablet which is well above the 32 percent of people who answered that question in 2010.

http://www.neowin.net/news/report-tablets-replacing-laptops-and-netbooks-among-consumers

The reason Intel designed the Ultrabook is for laptops to be sexy again and combat the encroachment of tablets into their space. Though you seem to disagree that the tablet expansion is an issue it seems the hardware makers and chip makers disagree with you.

 

[sandorski]

1% isn't all that much.

I'm surprised they hold over 40% of desktop.

Me too. I think that might reflect the decline of the Desktop platform as a whole.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

So you're claiming you're right because you work at X company and we take your word for it? Not because you've been downplaying anything AMD-related in every post I see of yours, and much like AtenRa who's on the opposite end, then claiming innocence

The steam hardware survey speaks for itself. Add up the mobile GPUs along with the Intel HDs and you've got what accounts for well over 10% of all Steam hardware. That's just Steam, btw. But apparently you've never sold anything to those people ever. Mind you, there are also people who game on their lappies who don't use Steam.



I'm stating it IS a significant difference.



It's the main difference!



http://googlemobileads.blogspot.com/2011/11/consumers-on-tablet-devices-having-fun.html

and that's on a tablet with a crappy CPU and GPU. Of the most often activities an increase in GPU performance would net bigger gains than CPU.

Whatever you say, man. Almost no college students give a crap about Steam, and people that are into Steam is because they're into gaming anyway. And those looking for PC gaming are gonna be looking for a desktop, not a laptop; therefore, your argument about Steam is moot.

And, once again, you're taking a survey for tablets and applying it to laptops. We've already established that they have different uses in many cases, and for every student you see on college campus with a tablet you see two or three with a laptop. Most college students are dumb, but not dumb enough to not see that they need a decent keyboard for typing in class or doing homework or a project they were assigned.

The fact is, you're simply using your opinions and applying them as if they were facts about the average consumer.

 

[pelov]

Yet you've not proved anything at all

Your post history speaks for itself, though. Whilst I'm willing to dish it out to whoever deserves it you seem to be very very one-sided.

And those looking for PC gaming are gonna be looking for a desktop, not a laptop; therefore, your argument about Steam is moot.

The Steam hardware survey disagrees with you. The mere fact that they comprise a noticeable percentage of Steam users should tell you that you're wrong yet you keep beating a dead horse and throwing around a 1% number as if it's worth anything at all without anything whatsoever to back it up.

I'm using facts and statistics about the makeup of consumers and you're just getting angry that they don't agree with your world view

 

[sandorski]

"... chips are based on the latest 22-nanometer process, which gives it a performance advantage.."

Lines in articles like that annoy me so much. This is why so many Consumers are clueless.