AMD's new market share numbers are only half the story...

[SickBeast]

I'm wondering how their revenue/profit stacks up to their figures from the past.

The way I see it, they are charging an average of twice as much for their CPUs as they did in the Athlon XP days.

It's pretty impressive that they can charge twice as much and still improve market share IMO.

 

[Duvie]

Right on, brudda!!!

 

[Bull Dog]

Well they still cost less than does intel. Athlon XP`s didnt (the 2700+ and forward) pretty much didn`t preform as well as did the equivalent clocked Northwood P4`s

 

[theMan]

that certainly says something doesnt it. also, its interesting to see that intel is starting to fill in as the budget/low quality solution. we'll have to see how things end up at the end of 2006.

 

[Furen]

Of course, they're also SOI, which makes the chips themselves slightly more expensive. Gross Margins are probably better, but I'm sure AMD is also throwing much more money into R&D, investing in plant assets and having other non-selling expenses... probably.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Furen
Of course, they're also SOI, which makes the chips themselves slightly more expensive. Gross Margins are probably better, but I'm sure AMD is also throwing much more money into R&D, investing in plant assets and having other non-selling expenses... probably.

They've been using the A64 architecture for 2 years now and I'm sure the only money they've spent on R&D has been on the 0.09um process and some cash for the K9. Intel on the other hand has had to re-invent their entire architecture...all that money they put into the P4 was for not.

 

[Pabster]

I personally like the trend of higher-priced AMD chips. I don't mind spending the big bucks for a first-rate product. (And I'm talking performance )

As well, it makes the "slower" AMD chips a better bargain, so I can keep expanding my crunching farm. Win-Win here

 

[Furen]

And R&D to improve the memory controllers as many times as they did. And the cash they've spent on going 65nm (word is there's already some 65nm logic on the AMD side, just no chips yet). And the cash they spent building fab36. And, I'll bet, they also have 2-3 different CPU R&D teams working on other stuff (even if they're not fully independent, a la Intel).

As much as it pains me to pay higher prices for AMD cpus (and it does pain me), AMD's only way out of being considered the "budget, low-quality ripoff" of Intel they had to price their prices to make people perceive that the CPUs were equivalent. When people dont understand something (like most people dont understand CPUs), they tend to rely on things like "higher prices means better quality" and "it's what I saw on TV" to make their purchasing descisions.

 

[Viditor]

word is there's already some 65nm logic on the AMD side, just no chips yet

Actually, they have reputedly already started producing 65nm chips (and shown them to some reporters)
From this thread, check out this link.

 

[coldpower27]

It's interesting to note though that Intel is still more expensive then AMD is, and is still doing quite well financially. The difference now it's just that, it's no longer twice as much or something to that extent.

If your looking at competitng processors.

Pentium 4 630 to ~ Athlon 64 3300+ level
Pentium 4 640 to Athlon 64 3500+
Pentium 4 650 to Athlon 64 3800+
Pentium 4 660 to Athlon 64x2 4200+
Pentium 4 670 to Athlon 64x2 4600+

Pentium D 820 vs Athlon 64 3700+
Pentium D 830 vs Athlon 64x2 3800+
Pentium D 840 vs Athlon 64x2 4400+

Intel Dual Core line overlaps with their single core line completely, however Athlon 64 line doesn't meaning Athlon 64 not enthusianst line Athlon FX, while AMD's only marginally, with their Athlon 64x2 3800+.

Some of Pentium 4's experience and technologies are still useful and weren't for nought, Intel has made enough profit on it to recoup back the costs of development of Pentium 4. Some of Pentium 4 technology will transfer to Intel new architecture, namely the 64Bit Extensions, and FSB technology.

 

[Hacp]

Intel has way more marketshare/brand recognization so comparing R and D costs is almost for nought. AMD has to make use of as many resources as they can, and one mistep can mean a tremendous backlash in terms of profitability/marketshare. That in part is why I think AMD is investing in proven technology and purchasing IBM's knowledge of the 65nm process, to avoid a costly mistake.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Intel has way more marketshare/brand recognization so comparing R and D costs is almost for nought. AMD has to make use of as many resources as they can, and one mistep can mean a tremendous backlash in terms of profitability/marketshare. That in part is why I think AMD is investing in proven technology and purchasing IBM's knowledge of the 65nm process, to avoid a costly mistake.

Ummm...AMD and IBM developed that 65nm process together at East Fishkill. They are also developing their 45nm process together. IBM supplied the equipment, and AMD reimbursed them for half the cost.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Some of Pentium 4's experience and technologies are still useful and weren't for nought, Intel has made enough profit on it to recoup back the costs of development of Pentium 4. Some of Pentium 4 technology will transfer to Intel new architecture, namely the 64Bit Extensions, and FSB technology.

It's a shame they still use an "FSB"; they should add an on-die memory controller already! Not only that, but their 64-bit extensions are inferior to those of AMD, and will be increasingly important in a year, PLUS, that's not really P4 technology, AMD invented it.

I'm not quite sure what part of the P4 architecture was actually useful aside from hyperthreading.

 

[coldpower27]

64 Bit Extensions on Merom/Conroe, will likely be developed with at least their lifetime memory capacity requirements in mind, and we will have to see if it is inferior to AMD's.
On die memory controller, is not the be all end all of things, Intel still has reasons for leaving the memory controller off the processor as Intel likes to play with different memory types, as well as Intel has a chipset business.

I am not discussing whether or not Intel developed, 64Bit Extensions, but it is a technology used by the Pentium 4 nonetheless, and hence a technology of the Pentium 4. The experience of implementing 64Bit into Pentium 4 is useful. And if your trying to utilize how NetBurst technology benefits from 64Bit Extensions as a judge of how good Intel 64Bit Extensions are I don't feel the comparison is valid, as Pentium 4 was never designed with 64 Extension use in mind, and more as a tacked on thing in case it was needed to be used as a marketing tool, or it could be the way AMD design 64 Extensions isn't optimal for NetBurst.

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
On die memory controller, is not the be all end all of things, Intel still has reasons for leaving the memory controller off the processor as Intel likes to play with different memory types, as well as Intel has a chipset business.

So, I wonder how much nVidia took in MS over Intels dominant chipset market. Probably 4% at least.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Some of Pentium 4's experience and technologies are still useful and weren't for nought, Intel has made enough profit on it to recoup back the costs of development of Pentium 4. Some of Pentium 4 technology will transfer to Intel new architecture, namely the 64Bit Extensions, and FSB technology.

It's a shame they still use an "FSB"; they should add an on-die memory controller already! Not only that, but their 64-bit extensions are inferior to those of AMD, and will be increasingly important in a year, PLUS, that's not really P4 technology, AMD invented it.

I'm not quite sure what part of the P4 architecture was actually useful aside from hyperthreading.

And even that was only half-improvement/half-bugfix for a bad design.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
And even that was only half-improvement/half-bugfix for a bad design.

Pfft... yeah, the P4 design had one glaring problem (overcomplication?), but SMT had very little to do with the problem itself, or its ultimate solution. xbitlabs had an excellent article... the only one in public, afaik. Please read their P4 exploration before perpetuating that drawn out myth again.

Back on topic, this is good news because intel does best when it's on the ropes and usually gets the momentum going for some time... enough for me to cash out, LOL.

 

[Viditor]

As this was originally posted in October, it doesn't take into account the massive marketshare gain from Q4...
AMD jumped a whopping 3.7% to 21.4% total x86 marketshare!
ZDNet
They also increased their ASP at the same time...so their revenue share increased even more.

 

[TheRyuu]

Sure they charge more, but does Intel sell an "Opteron" type chip that OCs to FX-57 speeds?

 

[DrMrLordX]

I don't mind them charging more as long as they keep selling ~$80 Semprons that have easy 50% overclocks!