Discussion [JPR] Client CPU shipments up 17% from last quarter; Intel market share increased by 23%, AMD's decreased by 5.3% QoQ.

[tamz_msc]

Not the full report, but I'm sure someone in the comments will link to the relevant graphs from SM posts.

Client CPU shipments up 17% from last quarter

Breaks a two-year downward trend

www.jonpeddie.com

 

[Abwx]

If Intel has 70% marketshare and increase it by 23% then they get 86% marketshare, the opponent will dive from 30% to 14%, wich is a 53% marketshare loss, so how could AMD marketshare only tank by 5.3%.?.

The maths simply do not add up, and the fact that shipements increased change nothing since it s about marketshare.

This is possible if Intel marketshare increased by 2.3%, in wich case AMD marketshare would tank by about 5% if the respective AMD/Intel marketshares were about 25-30% and 70-75% at the start.

 

[Hitman928]

If Intel has 70% marketshare and increase it by 23% then they get 86% marketshare, the opponent will dive from 30% to 14%, wich is a 53% marketshare loss, so how could AMD marketshare only tank by 5.3%.?.

The maths simply do not add up, and the fact that shipements increased change nothing since it s about marketshare.

This is possible if Intel marketshare increased by 2.3%, in wich case AMD marketshare would tank by about 5% if the respective AMD/Intel marketshares were about 25-30% and 70-75% at the start.

Yeah, I think it’s just a typo, should be 2.3%.

 

[Abwx]

Yeah, I think it’s just a typo, should be 2.3%.

Indeed, a rapid calculation allow to get the numbers at the start, that s 30%/70% marketshares before the change and 28%/72% currently, maths level for 10 years old.

Anyway so much for JPR s 6000$ annual subscription, you can be sure that they didnt make a typo on this one...

 

[gdansk]

Client CPU market share is all about notebooks and if I could point to the non-existant 7000U laptops I would.

 

[Abwx]

Client CPU market share is all about notebooks and if I could point to the non-existant 7840U laptops I would.

I could point you AMD s results for Q1 and Q2 that point 35% higher revenue for client CPUs quarter to quarter while this market volume increased by only 17%, surprising how some people can lack the most elementary insight and logic.

Btw the OP is still hoping for the funky 23% Intel marketshare gain to be right since he didnt correct the thing, guess that trolling is a raison d'etre for some people.

https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_1c5716123238c600ef4e700df3da2d96/amd/db/778/6929/file/AMD+Q2%2723+Earnings+Slides.pdf

 

[tamz_msc]

Enlightened people here fail at recognising basic market practices, among which includes the fact that market share is based on revenue.

Based on this, Intel CCG revenue was 6.8 billion up from 5.8 billion. That is 17%. So given that it includes Arc, it is not implausible that market share gain for Intel in the CPU segment was 20% or more.

I admit that the AMD market share numbers as provided make little sense.

But one thing is certain though, people who are quick to assume that anything that goes against their world-view is trolling are stupidly mistaken - the real Intel:AMD market share is closer to 88:12 than 70:30 as they like to believe.

 

[coercitiv]

the real Intel:AMD market share is closer to 88:12 than 70:30 as they like to believe.

This does not help the discussion at all: the bigger the Intel market share then the bigger the AMD loss needs to be in order to accommodate a gain for Intel.

people who are quick to assume that anything that goes against their world-view is trolling are stupidly mistaken

And what of people who are quick to assume that anything fitting their world-view is correct, what shall we make of them?

 

[AtenRa]

Where did you see Intel and AMD market share in the OP link ??

All I see is 28% for Desktop and 72% for Mobile

Edit: Just to point out, When they say AMD total market Share decreased by 5.3% Quarter To Quarter it doesnt mean they shipped less volume vs last quarter , it just that Intel shipped way more volume vs last quarter and thus AMD volume in relationship to Intel made the Total Market Share for AMD to decrease compared to last Quarter. Without knowing the volumes of both AMD and Intel in Q1 and Q2 it is impossible for us to determine if the above market share numbers are correct or not.

 

[AtenRa]

nv

 

[Abwx]

Enlightened people here fail at recognising basic market practices, among which includes the fact that market share is based on revenue.

And yet JPD state that his numbers are :

Jon Peddie Research reports the growth of the global PC client-based CPU units market

So it s volume, not shippement.

Based on this, Intel CCG revenue was 6.8 billion up from 5.8 billion. That is 17%. So given that it includes Arc, it is not implausible that market share gain for Intel in the CPU segment was 20% or more.

See above, it s about CPUs, not graphic cards, you re including your bad faith, nothing more.

I admit that the AMD market share numbers as provided make little sense.

But one thing is certain though, people who are quick to assume that anything that goes against their world-view is trolling are stupidly mistaken - the real Intel:AMD market share is closer to 88:12 than 70:30 as they like to believe.

Lol, if Intel had a marketshare of 80% then it means that 23% more get them to close to 97%, had you some maths at school.?.

Look to me that you re someone who only learned, barely, addition and substraction, multiplication and division being too high level for you, but anyway, very good at trolling.

Enlightened people here fail

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[gdansk]

I could point you AMD s results for Q1 and Q2 that point 35% higher revenue for client CPUs quarter to quarter while this market volume increased by only 17%, surprising how some people can lack the most elementary insight and logic.

Btw the OP is still hoping for the funky 23% Intel marketshare gain to be right since he didnt correct the thing, guess that trolling is a raison d'etre for some people.

https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_1c5716123238c600ef4e700df3da2d96/amd/db/778/6929/file/AMD+Q2%2723+Earnings+Slides.pdf

Got it. Not shipping AMD's high margin laptop SKUs in the quarter leading to BTS is megamind-tier financial wizardry the average person cannot understand.

I'm sure they'd be better off if they shipped some of their vaporware on time.

 

[Abwx]

Got it. Not shipping AMD's high margin laptop SKUs in the quarter leading to BTS is megamind-tier financial wizardry the average person cannot understand.

I'm sure they'd be better off if they shipped some of their vaporware on time.

Neverless i wouldnt pay the slightest attention to JPR numbers, they just proved that they are blatantly incompetent.

For Intel to gain 23% marketshare and AMD to lose only 5.3% it would require that Intel had 18% of the market and AMD 82% before said evolution, that s mathematical and the only solution for their +23%/-5.3% numbers to be right, one can get at Wolfram if he cant do the maths by himself, they have a free tool for those calculations.

Beside not only AMD s sales increased by 35% in value during the same period but Intel client numbers cant be taken at face value, contrary to AMD whose revenue in client computing is made only of CPUs and chipsets Intel has also the Wifi, IoT, ethernet chips and any other client dedicated production included in the client revenue.

 

[jpiniero]

Beside not only AMD s sales increased by 35% in value during the same period but Intel client numbers cant be taken at face value, contrary to AMD whose revenue in client computing is made only of CPUs and chipsets Intel has also the Wifi, IoT, ethernet chips and any other client dedicated production included in the client revenue.

Intel breaks it out if you look at the financial statements. 2.37B for desktop, 3.89B for notebook and 514M for "Other" (which is the Wifi and stuff)

AMD's problem is that Rembrandt and especially Phoenix are too expensive to make plus DDR5 costs.

 

[A///]

AMD's problem is that Rembrandt and especially Phoenix are too expensive to make plus DDR5 costs.

you got better chances of finding an actual golden nuggets from picking your nose than finding an affordable performant laptop for a good price in stores using that hardware.

 

[A///]

JPR

Not long ago jpr was praised for their accuracy. how quick the direction of wind changes.

 

[Abwx]

Not long ago jpr was praised for their accuracy. how quick the direction of wind changes.

This time it s about a gross arithmetic mistake, but well, mistakes can happen...

How Intel caught up to AMD's graphics card sales: Bad maths

Yeah, they didn't. Analyst group, Jon Peddie Research, wrongly counted 60,000+ expensive data centre GPUs when making its calculations.

www.pcgamer.com

 

[A///]

This time it s about a gross arithmetic mistake, but well, mistakes can happen...

How Intel caught up to AMD's graphics card sales: Bad maths

Yeah, they didn't. Analyst group, Jon Peddie Research, wrongly counted 60,000+ expensive data centre GPUs when making its calculations.

www.pcgamer.com

I saw the research "paper" before the press did and shrugged at the math. I'm familiar with JPR. I began questioning some things when the guy behind it sat down with mlomo to have a discussion on intel and amd a while back.

I know some people on here love jpr. I have respect for those people but this was such a mess for jpr they're going to be remembered for this for years to come. No man or company is infallible. btw was not picking on your post at all. I thought it would be hard to keep my lips sealed before the tech sites ran the original articles but found it's easier to consume wine and forget what I read. it wasn't until I caught a post online a few days ago where someone did the math before they finished reading the oriiginal report and figured it was wrong.

such a move feels influenced because an honest mistake would have been picked up soon before publishing.