AMD Increases Microprocessor Unit Market Share in Q2
Advanced Micro Devices reclaimed the lost market share in the second quarter following substantial collapse in Q1 2007, according to recently released figures by Mercury Research. The analyst firm believes that AMD had managed to overcome its inventory issues and come up with competitive product mix during seasonally weak second quarter, which was the primary driver of its success.
Apparently, AMD managed to boost its x86 microprocessor unit market share by 4 percent points in Q2 2007 to 22.9% from 18.7% in Q1 2007. Intel Corp.’s market share is still dominant and is times higher compared to AMD’s, 76.3%. Meanwhile Via Technologies and Transmeta Corp. still command 0.8% of x86 microprocessor market without any signs of rebound.
“The market demand in general was pretty strong and to be honest, no one understands why this particular second quarter was this strong. All the indications were for a low forecast and this quarter just blew those forecasts away,” said Dean McCarron, the head of Mercury Research.
The PC segment of the market was up 12.2% compared to the first quarter of the year and climbed 15.2% compared to the second quarter of 2006, according to the report cited by eWeek web site.
Dean McCarron, principal analyst at Mercury Research, said that AMD made and sold in too many chips in Q4 2006 in anticipation of a strong Q1, but due to the fact that its were unable to sell those products rapidly enough, its market share collapsed. But pr Burberry Factory oper inventory management, competitive product mix and relatively low prices helped AMD to rebound to the level of Q3 2006, which is a positive news for the chipmaker.
“Basically, AMD had an overstated share in the fourth quarter and an understated share of the market in the first quarter,” Mr. McCarron is reported to have said.
Apart from the long awaited quad core AMD Opteron roll out and the launch of Intel’s new multi processor Xeon platform, there will be no significant product introductions in the third quarter and it is hard to estimate whether AMD manages to stop Intel from gaining market share going forward. Back in the past new product introductions slowed down sales of AMD and caused mark Burberry Factory et share drops.
1. Memory Controller Thanks currently AMD’s ONLY real technology advantage over Intel.
Apart from a built in memory controller, which shows its advantage mainly in muti CPU situations, where Intel’s onboard mem controller does become a bottle neck and is much less scalable than the Opteron’s built in controller which is built into every core, and thus more scalable. BUT, keep in mind that Intel’s next gen CPUs (based on the 45nm process) are going to include a build in memory controller!
2. 45nm Process A clear technology advantage
XBitlabs has just posted that Intel is going to release its 45nm desktop CPUs in Q4 2007, while they also posted that AMD is probably the company that is going to be the one to order the 45nm CPU manufacturing from TSMC. They are clearly not able to follow this process race. Intel’s 65nm process is SO mature by now, while most of AMD’s CPUs are still based on the anci Burberry Factory ent 90nm process.
3. Power Consumption Since the release of the Core Duo family
Apart from specific low voltage CPUs, Intel is leaving AMD in the dust in this field.
Lets look at YOUR numbers. Someone that would buy a 120 platform from AMD is probably not flooded with money, and thus will probably stay with this solution for at least 2 3 years. Now the difference from this platform to Intel’s close one (according to you) is 90. How much do you think the difference in electricity bills would account for during these 3 years??????? Open your mind.
4. “outdated CPU designs” have you heard of the Core Duo family by Intel? When was the last time AMD has renovated its CPU design in such a way??? AMD’s design is the outdated one. Only with the release of Barcelona they will have a new design, but till then this comment of your’s is just completely wrong. The Performance leap compared to the older CPUs (the 8xx and 9xx families) totally prove that this is a new design (they practically threw away their Pentium 4 Net Burst architecture in favor of the clearly superior Pentium M).
5. AMD making a joke of itself with the 4×4 platform
Do you have a power plant in your back yard? Do you like to be laughed at by people with a single Quad Core CPU? What a pathetic try to offer a quad CPU desktop design.
6. Performance Intel in a CLEAR advantage (yeah yeah yeah, AMD rUleeeszzzZZzzzzZZZzzz so lame being a blind fanboy)
7. Overclockability making the comparison between a 120 AMD platform and a 210 or a 240 Intel platform a none valid one. The difference between these computers would be like there’re 2 3 years of advancement between them.
Please try to open your eyes and let my words sink in.
AMD uses the transistors space for IMC, Intel uses it for more cache.
2. Well if penryn is a native quad core design then the 45nm advantage is clear. Wait it isn’t, still gluing CPUs. Dang.
3. Not much if the AMD 90nm and 65nm CPUs still consume less.
Maybe you have to replace the comparing CPUs, try Conroe VS Netburst they are all from Intel.
4. Compared to Netburst was a quantum leap; the problem is that K8 was already a quantum leap VS Netburst. Remember Core 2 only now bring 64 bits and native dual core, AMD has this since 2003.
5. That is a special mobo/platform in case you didn’t notice. Show me one Intel 300 that can do all that.