AMD market shares grows amid Intel pricing crash
We saw those Pentium D 805 at $110 which George Ou at ZDnet touted as cheap SUVs and the zillions of $30 Celerons flooding the 3rd world markets. Did they help Intel gain unit share? Joe Osha thought Yes. The reality is No.
These are the newest Mercury Research stats: AMD overall unit share 22%, Intel 73%; AMD revenue share 18%, Intel 81%; AMD server unit share 35%, DP server grew 45% in one quarter. Intel did gain 0.4% unit share in the mobile space. Turion X2 should push AMD's mobile share up in Q3.
Going forward, with AMD's massive price cut and DELL alliance, expect its unit share to rocket.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 7/27/2006 10:17:00 PM
32 Comments:
It's kind of strange that even with such growth in the server space, AMD's rvenue share (18%) in the market doesn;t match its unit share (23%). If you factor in the significantly higher revenues in server space where AMD is gaining the most market share (35%), the main market for AMD in desktop and notebook (compared to Intel) must be at the low end price wiseor other wise the revenue share should match or exceed unit share.
The price cuts did not go into effect at the beginning of the quarter so how can you know what impact they had? Wasn't AMD gaining share at a high rate prior to Q2?
I think the notebook #'s point out one of the key motivations for AMD-ATI merger; Intel's platform strategy has clearly been successful in this space (whereas it has not been in desktop space).
Despite a new product offering in Turion x2, Intel was able to gain share with a "legacy" chip. It will be interesting to see what happens as Merom starts to ramp. Bulldozer better come soon, deliver on performance and be coupled with a solid ATI platform chipset.
Some of the launch delays and initial availability after launch probably did not help Turionx2 and AMD in the notebook space either.
AMD does seem entrenched in server now though - that is something that is going to be hard for Intel to reverse (even 1P and 2P) whether or not they have a competitive product now.
I think AMD market share will continue to grow. Intel continues to get its ass handed to it at the low end, and the high-end Conroes are priced too low to produce massive profits and have insufficient volume to matter for at least several months.
How about some Core 2 based desktop chips in the $75-$100 range? Oh wait I forgot, they're still trying to shove NetBurst crappola down our throats.
Paul Otellini apparently doesn't have the right information.
"Second quarter revenue was in the range we said in April, with microprocessor unit shipments meeting our expectations but with pricing more competitive. We believe we lost a bit of microprocessor market segment share on a billings basis, but we gained a bit of a share on a consumption basis adjusting for inventory reductions. "
Intel Q2/06 transcript:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/13895
Didn't he make the same mistake the last 2 quarters?
It is important to realize also that the market lags new technology, and shifts in momentum and MSS usually follow shifts in technological superiority by 6-8 months. I wouldn't expect to see any real change in the MSS distribution until Q1 or Q2 of 2007.
Also, the fact that these numbers reflect 2Q2006 make this post a mute point. How exactly were you trying to correlate sales in the Q2 timeframe to product introductions and price cuts that happened at the end of Q2?
Also, you may be interested to know that by 1Q2007, Intel plans to have 40% of its manufacturing converted to the Core uArch. This may seen small, but in terms of product ramps and production ramps, it is huge.
From what I've read online, AMD won't see much of an increase until Q4 of this year. I'm not sure where I found it but I know I did.
CyberSurge
Wow, unbelievable. Good for AMD, however Q3 will be critical with all the new Intel products released into the wild. More important, what will the effects of product dumping in Q3 have on market share? I remain hopefully optimistic with low expectation of things to come Q3 & Q4.
Did anyone else notice the change in Paul’s demeanor on MSNBC interview Thursday? He was measurably subdued when asked about market share and very measured when commenting on new products. Marketing types are usually hard to read.
Actually, considering AMD's long Q2, they lost market share, as AMD sold 11% less units week per week vs. Q1.
how long can Intel produce Celerons if they are selling them at $30? If they discontinue those models, do they automatically cede market share in mobile?
It's kind of strange that even with such growth in the server space, AMD's rvenue share (18%) in the market doesn;t match its unit share (23%).
I bet AMD has been selling X2 3800+ to HP and others for about $130 all the time.
Actually, considering AMD's long Q2, they lost market share
No. Mercury Research data is based on calendar. It doesn't matter when AMD's fiscal Q2 ended.
How exactly were you trying to correlate sales in the Q2 timeframe to product introductions and price cuts that happened at the end of Q2?
Intel's price crash happened in the beginning of Q2, sometime in April.
With Intel on the offensive, I think AMD's Q3 will result in net operating loss.
"With Intel on the offensive, I think AMD's Q3 will result in net operating loss."
And this is based on what?
Your magic 8-ball?
Please enlighten us with your brilliant thesis on how this will happen.
Even with Intel on the offensive they have yet to put a serious damper on AMD in the second quarter, this I attribute strongly with decent OEM sales and strong market earnings within the server area.(which I anticipate that will keep them just above red) The way things are looking at from when I read of Intel's 2Q Conference Call report and handily available data, they will be posting losses before AMD will, as Sharikou has already shown.
Sure... AMD is going to hurt. But Intel is going to bleed, quite profusely.(hemorraging perhaps?) Sitting on 4.3 billions worth of obsolete inventory is going to be quite a problem for Paul-O, let alone thier ASP bottoming out thanks to the P4 being sold so cheap now and thier new tech being sold redicilously low at debut.(that is in short supply already for that matter) Just because Core 2 best's AMD's K8 right now won't mean anything if they can't get enough of them in the channels. Having 30% of your next gen in the channel by year's end to combat your opponent's current 3 year old technology is not exactly what I call a plan of success when you have mountains of obsolete, previous generation chips to move.
So tell me, do Sharikou's claims of Intel posting losses in Q3 and onwards seem so far fetched now?
I think Intel should be fined for dumping crappy ass Netburst crap on dumb folks ....hyping Conroe. And making folks believe that they are getting a processor from the performance leader..When the truth is the folks will be actually be buying a P4 piece of shit with a blue logo..
Paul's Conroe release statements make him look so stupid. An example: “best release in 10 years” All the enormous hype surrounding seems more like a call by Wall Street to prevent Intel from going to a death bed...it is such a shame ..billion$$ and years later another crappy ass chip demoed on the most expensive hardware (way out of reach of ordinary buyers) to be 10-15 % faster in Mp3 encoding than the FX ....well fact is Intel’s marketing should stop the BS of fooling people, that would have worked in the 1990's ..not anymore ..
Another statement that Paul makes is : “Conroe is 40% advantage in performance and power” over Intel’s next best chips …Ha ha this is the funniest part ..he is merely saying .. “all you suckers out there I am really going to screw you hard by dumping those inferior P4 crap on you !!”
Like many have pointed this out..Intel is merely “reacting” while AMD is the Technology leader and Innovator …
"he is merely saying .. “all you suckers out there I am really going to screw you hard by dumping those inferior P4 crap on you !!”"
Going by what you have just stated, when AMD releases a chip that has a 30% improvement (which will be needed to overtake Conroe by 10%) over FX62 would you say the same thing about AMD?
Or will you just claim AMD is superior?
'Going by what you have just stated, when AMD releases a chip that has a 30% improvement (which will be needed to overtake Conroe by 10%) over FX62 would you say the same thing about AMD?"
Why only for AMD ..it would apply to any company ..that is trying to dump billions of $$ outdated products to clear inventory. And in Intels case it is doing this by fooling avg folks with their logo and BS marketing.. It is like you going to a Toyota dealer to buy a 'new' 1985 model corolla ...when the 2006 models are hyped to be the greatest car in the world..which sane man (or women) would do that ??
Unless their is some vintage value in it ..ha ha
Going by what you have just stated, when AMD releases a chip that has a 30% improvement
You have to look at the whole market. 96% of Intel's chips are legacy crap (Netburst and Pentium M-32). Right now, an X2 3800+ frags a Pentium XE 965. So AMD's products are all in the top 30%. Even if AMD introduces new products, the current AM2 chips are still in the mid range..
Old news...
No good news so post old news.
This is going to change. Core2 release and 3 factories humming on it will bury AMD.
The PentiumD represent an incredible bargain in the space they are being slotted now.
The entry level Core2 are overclocking starts that provide performance way above any AMD chip.
By 2007 AMD will be non-existent in the Ethusiast and high mid-range where the most profit is made.
Lets not forget that all of INTELs Netbust are made on older 90nm and some 65nm and dirt cheap. While AMDs current offering continues on their expensive and low yielding ramping process.
I will remind you all again in Q4 when INTEL turns a profit how wrong or PhD is here, and in 7 quarters when INTEL post billlion dollar profit quarters how wrong the PhD was about his bankruptcy delusion.
The Doctor
"Right now, an X2 3800+ frags a Pentium XE 965."
I have read this statement from you before, and it may win some benchmarks, but I would not call it a fragging.
"It is like you going to a Toyota dealer to buy a 'new' 1985 model corolla ...when the 2006 models are hyped to be the greatest car in the world..which sane man (or women) would do that??"
I understand the analogy, but the general public is not going to need Conroe, and there is comfort (due to marketing) in knowing that you have a chip that is from the worlds largest processor maker.
AMD needs some serious marketing, but thats another subject. Sharikou that should be your next post. :)
It still seems that you are saying a new chip being released with a 40% improvement means that there old chips are crap and outdated.
The general consumer like I said above does not need nor would they understand the difference, again due to marketing, they know dual core and multitasking, and thats about it.
I understand that P4 was not a great chip compared to AMD's K8, actually not even comparable, but I also expext improvement from generation to generation.
I have to ask my question again, will you make the same statement if AMD's next generation chips are 30% better than the current FX 62?
"Intel's price crash happened in the beginning of Q2, sometime in April."
Actually this is not true - I believe the 8XX P4 cuts started in May and they were not of the same magnitude of the recent cuts now at Core 2 launch (which I think fits your "price crash" characterization).
"How about some Core 2 based desktop chips in the $75-$100 range? Oh wait I forgot, they're still trying to shove NetBurst crappola down our throats."
I think these are actually coming in H1'07 (E4300 or something like that?). If you that eager to get a chip near that range it would seem the E6300@ ~$180 would fit that bill or you could wait a few quarters.
Intel hatas likely deliberely staggered these out so they have some chance of clearing some of the inventory - that seems like good business sense; probably not as great for consumer as I suspect a Core 2 celeron version will probably smoke a P4 celeron.
duploxxx said...
"____you forget that a 4x4 will be cheap and powerfull."
It will be powerful but not cheap, it will be based on FX processors, there has been speculation that there will be a new FX chips.
Even AMD said it would be at around $1000 for the two processors.
Lets not forget that this is targeted at enthusiaist and there will be a premium on the motherboard, probably around $250.
$1250 is not cheap, but compare that to the performance benefits and it doesn't look that bad.
Here is a link to the article.
Turion X2 should push AMD's mobile share up in Q3.
I highly doubt that. The Core Duo is already faster than the Turion X2. It's only disadvantage is that it doesn't support 64-bit which isn't a huge disadvantage on the mobile space. Turion X2 systems are only now beginning to ship in volume, and Intel just released Merom which is far superior to Turion X2.
"Even AMD said it would be at around $1000 for the two processors."
I don't know why people are puzzled about the fact that the 4x4 will be sold with FX processors and be cheap.
I just think its a matter of timimg!
By the time the 4x4 is well promoted, branded and marketed AMD will have introduced its 4-core and KL8/AM2 processors.
That means that they can push (rebrand) the dual-core FX as the low-end processors to make room for the new high-end.
Result? Cheap FX processors for the 4x4 platform. The 4-core parts on the 4x4 will probably premium though.
enumae said...
"It will be powerful but not cheap, it will be based on FX processors, there has been speculation that there will be a new FX chips.
Even AMD said it would be at around $1000 for the two processors."
A 4x4 FX system with 2 chips costing US$1000? Isn't that the price of the Conroe XE?
And will in likelihood outperform the XE? More memory b/w, quad cores etc
As for pricing, if the rumours of an entire line of FX based chips is true, it will be interesting, can just buy FX enabled X2 and a 4x4 motherboard to start with. Sure the FX-X2 will be more expensive than a regular X2 (based on recent price drops), but I suspect AMD will just price them right to have comparable/better price performance (kinda like how the current price cuts work)
"No. Mercury Research data is based on calendar. It doesn't matter when AMD's fiscal Q2 ended."
AMD said in their CC that they sold 4% less units vs. the regular-length Q1. The same -4% Mercury quotes according to the linked article.
Either AMD sold zero units in its extra week or Mercury is comparing different-length time frames for Intel and AMD.
AMD said in their CC that they sold 4% less units vs. the regular-length Q1. The same -4% Mercury quotes according to the linked article.
Intel fanboys always think the best for Intel. If Mercury Research was based on AMD's Q2 earnings number, then AMD's revenue share should be 18.6%, not 18%.
"By the time the 4x4 is well promoted, branded and marketed AMD will have introduced its 4-core and KL8/AM2 processors."
According to AMD K8L is due "mid-2007"; are you saying it will be another year before 4x4 is well branded? If so how is it going to smoke Core 2 between now and then?
Intel fanboys heard rumours mounths ago, which mislead them thinking that 4x4 will be only for fx line.
though since then there were numerous statements from amd that 4x4 will be for x2&fx.
and days ago amd confirmed, that 4x4 price will be as low as 1000$ for cpus.
but as we all know intel fanboys can't face reality. ;)
in their mindset it is only couple of thousands of conroe cpus killing all amd sales.
by the time conroe ramps up (q4), amd will have 65nm, which will be even more competetive to conroe price/performance/watt.And that is looking at it from pessimistic point of view.
muzigaz said...
"Intel fanboys heard rumours mounths ago, which mislead them thinking that 4x4 will be only for fx line.
though since then there were numerous statements from amd that 4x4 will be for x2&fx."
I have a problem with this post, I linked to an article stating FX only.
Can you link to an article newer than mine stating otherwise?
I would like to read what your reading to be on the same page.
As far as I can tell they should/could have stated something specifically about this, but all they said was it would be $1000 and did not say it would not be an FX only setup.
"If Mercury Research was based on AMD's Q2 earnings number, then AMD's revenue share should be 18.6%, not 18%."
Wrong - There's at least one other party besides Intel and AMD that manufactures x86 CPUs, namely VIA.
Post a Comment
<< Home