Analysis on IT trends and competitive strategies, with emphasis on micro processors, computer systems and networks. Based on latest news, backed up with real data, this site intends to provide a true and realtime picture of the fast changing IT landscape. This journal strives to be accurate on facts and sharp on criticisms. You may email your opinion to sharikou@yahoo.com or post comments here, be cool and intelligent.
Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals. Any original content on this journal is Copyrighted, but it's free for non-commercial use. Any Trademarks used on this site belong to their respective owners. Some of the pictures are links. If there is any issue with the content of this site, please email sharikou@yahoo.com .
According to Mercury Research, AMD share grew to 23%. Intel also grew its share by 3%, displacing VIA. It seems that Intel used $15 Celerons to battle VIA's $30 C3s.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 10/24/2006 11:47:00 AM
25 Comments:
Looks like Intel grew 3% from 73% to 76%, while Amd grew only 1% from 22% to 23%. Intel also gained some market share away from Amd on the server side. Amd for their part took some laptop market share away from Intel. From the looks of it maybe you should push the BK a few more quarters or better yet indefinitly. Intel is somehow still able to sell P4s, hmmm go figure. With Core 2 ramping up it looks like Intel will have a good Q4 with revenue, earnings, market share all going up. Oh, and hows that exploding chip FUD working out for you? Never caught on huh? Oh well I'm sure the Intel BK will work out. NOT!!!
In relative terms, AMD grew faster than Intel
In absolute terms, Intel picked up 3 points of share to AMD's one. You could say they picked up 3X more points.
They picked up 2% share in servers, which is hardly the $15ASP space. Margins in this segment are quite rich, and any gain here is coming directly out of AMD- VIA doesn't compete in this rarefied air. 6% desktop pickup could be low end, could be full range, but is most likely an indicator of dumping low end inventory. Of course, this supports the CC claim that Intel is drawing down their legacy CPU inventory. None of this great news for AMD.
The wonderful news for AMD is that they managed to pick up 4% share of the mobile market. Margins there are still quite nice, and that should provide a nice little boost to their earnings.
Of course, none of this supports a 40% market share (run rate) at the end of this quarter. Care to tell us what the market share (run rate) was exiting Q3? Inquiring minds want to know...
i'm quite sure you predicted this turn around in market share and was in fact part of Intel's slow but inevitable decline.
Can't wait for Sharihou's logic as to why gaining market share leades to bankrupcy.
I'm sure it'll be as classic as "making products that are beyond any doubt better than your competition" leads to bankrupcy.
A.. PhD pretender math at is best. Is it no wonder he gets no respect from the real world!
Notice how he tries to twist the details by saying
"According to Mercury Research, AMD share grew to 23%. Intel also grew its share by 3%, "
The FACTS is that INTEL grew from 73% to 76% while AMD grew from 22% to 23%. SO INTEL
with a 3x larger marketshare also grew its precentage by 3x.
Lets for kicks use round numbers. This will keep it simple as the PhDer doesn't even have
grade school math capability.
Total CPU market share is 200million/year or ~ 50 million/quarter
INTEL 73% so give it 36.5 million
AMD 22% so give it 11 million
Others got 5% or 2.5 million
In Q3
INTEL 76% or 38 million increase of 1.5 million!
AMD 23% or 11.5 million an increase of 0.5 million
Othrs got 0.5 million a decrease of 2 million.
Funny heah, AMD dropped prices what 50%, ramped charter like crazy and 300mm and all they got
was 0.5 million increase. WOW what a disaster of a quarter. Looks like we know why
stock droped and why everyone is worried.
If anything it says that AMD can't take back MS against INTEL even with an agressive price drop.
They simpley don't have anythign left to compete on. Got no benchmarks, got capacity ramping
but still couldn't make progress. Its a very bad situation. INTEL has quad core releasing
and AMD got NOTHING. Look around remember the last time AMD had an ADD it was a lawsuite add.
These days you see INTEL everywhere EVEN in Dell adds.
Going into Q4 INTEL will have mindshare of all the consumers. They will think Core2
when as the best CPUs as it is. They already know of the Pentium and Centrino labels.
When Joe Best Buy sees a 299 PentiumD or a 599 CoreDuo he'll buy it. When he sees a Turion
the first thing that will come to mind is WTF is that? Its one green and ugly lable is that Michael
Dell getting sick and laying a Turd on Hector or what?
Sharikou and others where is the wager? INTEL BK in Q2'2008. 10:1 odds it won't happen.
Let me put some more constraints on your Q2'2008 I'll 10x it to 100:1. Put your money where
your Blog is. Any of you flies that hover around Sharikou's feces got an balls to back your
crapper? I know the answer. Sharikou feels very comfortable bloggin away and uttering nonsense.
Make him backup his statements with something tandible and funny how he never responds...
Its still fun to yank him and see you stupid flies hover around.. Keep up the entertainment.
hmm... Has anybody ever asked what that PHd is in and has anybody ever checked it to make sure that it's real?
.Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...
"Of course, none of this supports a 40% market share (run rate) at the end of this quarter. Care to tell us what the market share (run rate) was exiting Q3? Inquiring minds want to know..."
I'm not exactly sure how this 'run rate' stuff works. What's AMD's current 'run rate' anyway?
"Can't wait for Sharihou's logic as to why gaining market share leades to bankrupcy."
I assume you are familiar with the term "loss leader". Intel is kicking their inventory out the door at a loss in a futile attempt to maintain market share and prevent a stock crash. It's a desperate move, and will hurt Intel in the long run, but the alternative is immediate BK.
Intel has failed to innovate, failed to meet demand and failed to make sufficient revenue to survive.
Who needs a Phd to write a blog. Of course he doesn't have a Phd, but who cares. I actually think that this guy is an intel droid that makes Amd fanboys look stupid. GO! Sharikou!
So 50% increase in notebook units lead to 4% market share increase in that segment for AMD - those #'s don't seem to be consistent with each other (maybe overall mobile growth was more than expected? It had to be on the order of 20% overall growth to be consistent).
One other potential scenario? (please provide feedback everyone). MSS I think is based on end user sales. Suppose AMD sold a bunch of mobile chips up front to say, Dell or other OEM/channel folk but those haven't yet made it to end users - that might explain such a large AMD unit growth compared to the 4% MSS growth?
Also in terms of relative MSS growth:
3%/73% ~4.1% growth (INTEL)
1%/22% ~4.6% growth (AMD)
To put this delta into perspective:
1) if AMD's absolute MSS growth was 0.8% that would be:
0.8%/22% ~3.6% growth
2) Or if Intel's absolute growth was 3.4% it's growth rate would be:
3.4%/73% ~4.66%
As #'s are rounded to whole %, there is really no way for you to accurately state AMD market share growth rate was higher than Intel's over the last quarter.
I also can't even begin to imagine what the error bar is on these #'s...I suppose it might be more than 0.1% and as you can see by example above that would change your conclusion on relative MSS growth rate.
Also as MSS #'s are in can you tell the readers what AMD's Q3 MSS (runrate) was?
This year it is Woodcrest, next year it will be Tigerton. AMD won't have a place to hide--not even 4P.
Dr S. Thank You for the "Dark Side of the Looking Glass" it was great!
in a futile attempt to maintain market share and prevent a stock crash.
Last time I checked, they made profit of $1,300,000,000 in one quarter, and then they gained market share.
So what is AMD's market share (runrate) Sharikou?
I can only think you've been ducking this question so you don;t get pinned down about your 40% Q4 prediction?
How about a formula for this or better yet calculate it for AMD (and show how you got there) for Q3'08?
Some blind intel mouthbreather said...
"This year it is Woodcrest, next year it will be Tigerton. AMD won't have a place to hide--not even 4P."
Bahahaha! Two words for you Intel fanboy, "bottle and neck"! This is what the antiquated FSB of those platforms use will be doing,(or have been doing in Woodcrest's case) K8L NATIVE quad cores with HT 3.0 will destroy Woodcrest and flatten Kittenton,(it's all about the bandwidth and scalability baby, what Hypertransport was designed and is continually improved for!) AMD's marketshare in servers ain't going anywhere but UP.(the latest AMD Dell servers can spell that out for you simply enough) It's Intel that has nowhere to hide behind with it's pathetic P3 hacks and antique FSB at that point. If they actually had an intergrated memory controller and CSI working things might be different, but pathetically Intel won't pull thier collective heads out of thier asses on that issue. Thier loss.
hmm... Has anybody ever asked what that PHd is in and has anybody ever checked it to make sure that it's real?
Does it matter? Even if he IS a doctor, that doesn't mean he's right about anything. Doctors are human too.
We all must give Sharikou credit, he's very intelligent - he can pick a side and find a million arguments to support his decision.
However, choosing a side and blindly sticking to it is a sign of weakness. Strong people admit that they may be wrong occasionally, because they are not afraid of the fallout or know that they can handle looking foolish sometimes.
"Weak" people cling to an idea with so much passion that they are often called zealots or fanboys, and they are afraid to change their opinions or admit that they were wrong about something.
Given the obvious evidence surrounding some things, like say Intel gaining market share as something good for Intel, Sharikou ignores this and portrays it to be a sign of demise for Intel somehow.
Like I said, he deserves credit for being smart and coming up with some way for this to be an AMD win (it's neither, it's a 3rd party's loss), he is not quite intelligent enough to realize that in the long run it's just one more thing to make him look foolish. Sure, looking like a fool draws in the crowds (look at Jackass, the movie), but in the end it's degrading and pathetic.
I thought you said intel flat out on server and desktop. you are so wrong that these are the area that they grow very much.
And word of the day from sharikou: in relative terms, AMD grew faster than Intel.
when cannot win by the absolute value with 1% compared to 3%, this guy use the relative term.
Sharikou,
Please report the market share (run rate) numbers for both Intel and AMD exiting Q3. We now have the share numbers, but am curious as to the (run rate) designator...
Thanks!
If we assume market share (run rate)to be the extrapolated growth rateof market share from the current period to the next period, then the formula would be:
(1+(Q3MS-Q2MS)/Q2MS)*Q3MS=Q4MS(rr)
For Intel, Q2MS=73%, Q3MS=76%
which yields Q4MS(rr) of 79%
For AMD, Q2MS=22%, Q3MS=23%
which yields Q4MS(rr) of 24%
Problem being, we now have a total MS(rr)>100%. So, do we normalize?
If so, the respective numbers are 77% and 23%.
Neither case gets close to 40%. Explain to me where I went wrong please.
"Please report the market share (run rate)"
Run Rate is a projection method used for a one year calculation of future quarters when you don’t have a year of data.
But, my definition is the RATE that you RUN away from Intel server products. My RUN RATE is very fast.
Sharikou, I'm still wondering- are you ignoring the MS(rr) question because you are:
a) working on an answer/explanation
b) hoping that it or I will go away
c) still trying to define a formula that supports your claim
d) none of the above
You'll note all of my posts have been respectful, relatively unbiased, factual, and I detail my reasoning. I'm all in facor of both AMD and Intel doing well. Please be so kind as to return the favor (at least the factual and detailed reasoning).
You may recall that I quite clearly stated at one point that any number of factors out of AMD's hands could negatively influence their market share, but you reiterated your projection. I'm still eagerly awaiting a response.
Sharikou, I'm still wondering- are you ignoring the MS(rr) question because you are:
a) working on an answer/explanation
b) hoping that it or I will go away
c) still trying to define a formula that supports your claim
d) none of the above
e) I re-iterate my prvious projection.
e) I re-iterate my prvious projection.
Could you show us how things looked at the end of Q3? In terms of run-rate that is? Thanks!
Could you show us how things looked at the end of Q3?
Run rate at the end of Q3 was about 25%.
"Run rate at the end of Q3 was about 25%."
How SPECIFICALLY did you calculate this?
A more careful look at Intel's finances shows that they are actually doing worse than they were in 2004. In spite of the projection of more revenue than 2004 Intel will actually have about $2.5 Billion less to spend.
The supposed increase in volume share for Intel is easily refuted if we take VIA out of the picture. AMD has gained in volume and revenue share against Intel for the last three quarters.
I give a lot more detail in my blog article, "Intel's Bluff".
Post a Comment
<< Home