-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Intel drops 2.5% marketshare to AMD
- Thread starter Viditor
- Start date
Candymancan21
Senior member
AMD'S stock has almost doubled where it was last year. They were on $2 a share, and now its $4.77, altho its nothing compared to 2006 when it was like $40
Candymancan21
Senior member
No idea, Intel's stock i didnt relise has dropped alot in the last year i remember it was like $24 now i just checked and its at $16
Sheninat0r
Senior member
Wow, AMD is really down to 12%? I remember back in the day when the Athlon 64 was all the rage. How much of this do you think is an effect of enthusiast purchases (like us!) and how much is an effect of OEM sales (maybe Intel's antitrust stuff can be thrown in here too)?
Enthusiasts make up a small percentage of computer users, but the enthusiast upgrade cycle is a lot shorter than the rest of the world. I gave my Sempron 3400 laptop (about 4 years old?) to my mom and she still thinks it's the greatest thing ever. My dad's computer is an E2200 (3-4 years old) and he hasn't called me about buying a new computer so I guess he's satisfied with that. I'm a bit more of an enthusiast than them, so I own 3 slow computers right now and all of them are doing something. Many people on this forum are more hard core than I am and they'll start threads about what processor to upgrade to even though their current processor is a Q8xxx or some other awesome processor that is more than good enough for most tasks.
Something about this doesn't seem right. At my past jobs, the servers were never the latest and greatest. They followed the same ridiculously long upgrade cycle as the desktops. Businesses I've seen tend to not upgrade things unless they need to simply because it means fewer problems. They'll use Windows XP in 2009, the computers are all Northwood Pentium 4s, the domain server is a dual P4 Xeon, etc. Are you talking about offices or are you talking about companies like Google and Yahoo?
Cogman
Lifer
Even with the slow update cycles, businesses make up a large portion of the revenue for companies like amd and intel. Think about it, maybe once every 2 years or 1 year even, they are updating their servers (plural) when they do that, they aren't going to go for the cheep $50 CPU, they get the $500+ CPU. And not just one. A small company will have several servers running under it.
Now think of a larger company who's entire operation is data serving. All the sudden, you are looking at very large sums of money going to hardware upgrades. Think of how much google is spending to upgrade their hardware! It many of the on demand type companies, a slow CPU = loss of profits.
Now look at the enthusiasts, We have 203373 users registered here on anandtech. I would say of that number, maybe 5% would qualify as an enthusiast (IE upgrades their hardware in 6 month time frames). Easily, I would say that that worldwide enthusiests are some number less then the 203373 that are registered here on anandtech.
at its best amd's market share by units was mabye 20%. and its alwayws lower by revenue since their chips are cheaper. they have actually done decently because opterons sell for a lot more than when they didnt have server cpus.
their market share is fairly lower now, seeing as they have 0 prescense in netbooks and are not that competitive in notebooks right now which is over 50% of pc sales and the main growth drive in 1st world countries.
their market share is fairly lower now, seeing as they have 0 prescense in netbooks and are not that competitive in notebooks right now which is over 50% of pc sales and the main growth drive in 1st world countries.
supertle55
Senior member
Enthusiasts may make a tiny portion but these are the same people heavily influencing corporate purchases of what to buy.
I understand this is popular lore, perhaps even a myth for mythbusters to examine, but has there ever been any data purported behind this manner of claim?
Is the claim based on some cited demographic study floating around out there, or is really just a menagerie of opinion over an inflated sense one's sphere of influence in life?
(not "yours" supertle55, I am speaking to the greater collective of posters who make this style of similar posts regarding "enthusiasts are 1% of the market but we in effect make 80% of the decisions on what the world buys because everybody loves to be told what to buy and we are their overlords!")
It's about losing less money buy selling more.
The reason this "stands to reason" is because of fixed overhead costs which exist nearly independently of the volume of product that ships.
AMD doesn't actually sell their chips below cost, they don't lose money on selling the chips themselves. Their gross margins are not negative.
Where the losses come in is that they don't make enough gross profit per chip to cover the fixed expenses of their business.
Taking a company's net loss and dividing it by the product they move (be it chips, cars, airplane seats, etc) to create an essentially false metric relating dollars lost per unit product sold is to blame for this false impression you have.
The problem is they all do it (create this metric) so it makes the business model seem silly, ridiculous and absurd to the layperson.
Naturally, as you would imagine, were the gross margins to actually dip below zero and the company were to truly begin to lose money in selling the product itself they would cease to manufacture the product unless it was an extenuating circumstance (inventory reduction efforts, etc) or if the cost associated with shutting down production (contractual obligations with penalties, etc) precluded doing so as a cost-reduction measure.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
OK, I will take a shot at an example, but somebody please correct my numbers with actual ones.
It cost say 1 billion to R&D a complete line of chips (C2x, Or Phemon), and maybe another one million per subset of chips (C2Q 12 meg cache variants). Then when you produce the actual chip it cost $10 for a duo and $20 for a quad, almost regardless of the variant, as they are binned. So after you make up the R&D total costs, ever chip you sell over 10/20 $ is pure profit for the amount over the raw fab cost. And keeping the fabs operating @ close to 100% capacity costs less per chip also.
Anybody have real number to plug in here ?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
