Intel suffered but AMD surged in 2006, iSuppli says

According to iSuppli, 2006 was the year where leading chip supplier Intel suffered a revenue decline while rival AMD nearly doubled its sales. "For US microprocessor giant Intel, 2006 was the worst of times, as its global semiconductor revenue dropped by 11.1% from 2005. The revenue decline, which was due to Intel's bleak performance in its core PC microprocessor and flash-memory businesses, erased nearly all of the company's sales gains from its strong year in 2005. For Intel's smaller US rival, AMD, 2006 was the best of times as it achieved a whopping 91.6% increase in revenue for the year, partly due to a major acquisition, but also because of strong gains in microprocessor market share," said Dale Ford, vice president of market intelligence for iSuppli.

This robust increase in revenue caused AMD's ranking to rise to eighth place in 2006, up seven positions from the 15th rank in 2005. Intel's combined microprocessor and flash revenue in 2006, which together accounted for 83% of total company revenue last year, fell to its lowest level since 2003, resulting in Intel's market share falling to 12.1%, its lowest level since before 2000. Meanwhile, AMD in 2006 gained PC microprocessor market share at Intel's expense. AMD's PC microprocessor revenue rose by 35.5% in 2006 and its market share in that product segment increased to 16.1%, up from 11.1% in 2005. AMD's revenue was also boosted substantially by its acquisition of graphics chip seller ATI Technologies in 2006.

View: Top 25 World Semiconductor Suppliers by 2006 Revenues (US$m)
News source: DigiTimes

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Asus Offers up Its Second Generation UMPC

Next Story

Photocopiers: The newest ID theft threat

34 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.


Well amd has to do something drastic.

It has been revealed that intels future processors will have integrated memory controlelrs just like amd.

So picture a core 2 duo with an integrated memory controller.

AMD really needs to come out witha killer processor before intel releases this new chip.

the memory controller will be first in the extreme edition procesors. I think they are shooting for a late 2008 introduction.

Amd Really needs to step it up .

its called Barcelona and will be out way before intel launches a chip with a integrated memory controller.

When Barcelona comes out, the performance crown will change again and then its Intel's time to try and outdo it.

Its much like the graphics card industry except its a bit slower in the change of the owner of the performance crown.

Xavien said,
its called Barcelona and will be out way before intel launches a chip with a integrated memory controller.

When Barcelona comes out, the performance crown will change again and then its Intel's time to try and outdo it.

Its much like the graphics card industry except its a bit slower in the change of the owner of the performance crown.


Let's wait for someone to benchmark an in-the-wild Barcelona chip before we start assigning performance crowns, shall we?
Claims are one thing, chip-in-hand is quite another. For all we know, AMD might create a near-miss instead of a leap.

I actually do not like the Core 2 Duo (or the Core Duo) architecture. It is faster than an AMD64 x2, however, the difference is not much when considering no operating system actually uses a CPU to anywhere near its potential. You have to remember two other factors. The first is that the Core 2 Duo notebooks chips are pretty inferior to the desktop class chips with a lot of features turned off "virtualization anyone?" (I know same with AMD), and second, the server market is leaning more and more toward AMD. The Opteron is just a better design than the latest extreme or Xeon based processors. I use a 4way Opteron as a desktop system and it makes a really nice, fast computer solution (efficient, though not as low wattage, and better x64 support...still). It is not much of a consumer solution though.

bluarash said,
I actually do not like the Core 2 Duo (or the Core Duo) architecture. It is faster than an AMD64 x2, however, the difference is not much when considering no operating system actually uses a CPU to anywhere near its potential. You have to remember two other factors. The first is that the Core 2 Duo notebooks chips are pretty inferior to the desktop class chips with a lot of features turned off "virtualization anyone?" (I know same with AMD), and second, the server market is leaning more and more toward AMD. The Opteron is just a better design than the latest extreme or Xeon based processors. I use a 4way Opteron as a desktop system and it makes a really nice, fast computer solution (efficient, though not as low wattage, and better x64 support...still). It is not much of a consumer solution though.

1) Dude, you're complaining about a desktop chip and then claiming that the server market leans more toward Opterons in defence of your claim? whiskey tango foxtrot interogative

Anyways, the Core 2 Duo still out-benchmarks any comparable chip AMD has to offer. The numbers don't lie.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?mod...4&chart=186
2)The operating system doesn't use all of the CPU to it's full potential because if it did, just opening a web browser would take half an hour. Congratulations on your use of a spurious argument. Your mother must be very proud.
AMD's notebook chips are just as nerfed as Intel's notebook chips, and you admit it, so why did you even bring that up?

3)You use a 4-way opteron as a desktop??? Why? Do you enjoy wasting money? Were they all out of diamond-plated penis replacements at the mall that day?

Croquant said,

1) Dude, you're complaining about a desktop chip and then claiming that the server market leans more toward Opterons in defence of your claim? whiskey tango foxtrot interogative

Anyways, the Core 2 Duo still out-benchmarks any comparable chip AMD has to offer. The numbers don't lie.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?mod...4&chart=186
2)The operating system doesn't use all of the CPU to it's full potential because if it did, just opening a web browser would take half an hour. Congratulations on your use of a spurious argument. Your mother must be very proud.
AMD's notebook chips are just as nerfed as Intel's notebook chips, and you admit it, so why did you even bring that up?

3)You use a 4-way opteron as a desktop??? Why? Do you enjoy wasting money? Were they all out of diamond-plated penis replacements at the mall that day?

The point I was trying to make is the AMD is not washed up because it still has considerable weight in the server market. I don't see Cray or Sun offering Intel solutions. There is a reason for this. The Xeon is just poorly designed.

Second, I do not care if the Core 2 Duo is faster. I really don't need the extra speed (I am not a really big gamer). For most people it does not matter what CPU they use, as they are all fast enough. -notebook-

The 4way system I have is for software design. It gets the job done. It was worth the money. The software that is complied under it would just simply not be possible under a Xeon solution. -desktop- i.e. not my everyday system

bluarash said,

The point I was trying to make is the AMD is not washed up because it still has considerable weight in the server market. I don't see Cray or Sun offering Intel solutions. There is a reason for this. The Xeon is just poorly designed.

Second, I do not care if the Core 2 Duo is faster. I really don't need the extra speed (I am not a really big gamer). For most people it does not matter what CPU they use, as they are all fast enough. -notebook-

The 4way system I have is for software design. It gets the job done. It was worth the money. The software that is complied under it would just simply not be possible under a Xeon solution. -desktop- i.e. not my everyday system


Then call it a workstation next time so the rest of us know what you're talking about, OK?

A motherboard (that isn't being used a server) with more than one CPU socket is necessarily a workstation motherboard, but I guess you didn't know that. (This will change because AMD is planing on introducing a dual-CPU desktop motherboard... but even then your system will qualify as a workstation.)
I do agree that AMD64 is better that IA64 or EM64T; in your case it was apparently the deciding factor. I say that because you could have had 16 cores on a four-CPU Intel based system, so it seems that you need to code something hard-core for 64-bit.

From Jan-Dec 2006 Intel stock only went down 4 dollars for the year...AMD on the other hand went down 23 for the year and has continued on down this year....they had an operating loss of $166 million in 2006 and yet iSuppli says they surged in 2006

I was thinking the same thing. This article seems to be praising how well AMD did when in fact they did horribly. It also says that their revenue was boosted substantially by the ATI acquisistion...hello? I wouldn't call putting them billions in debt as much of a "boost". Who wrote this and how much were they paid?

Also, both CPU companies , Intel and AMD have their own advantage/disadvantages. You have to look at their true design. They handle in different tasks. Based on previous benchmarks, AMD has always been recognized as a power chip for memory intensive applications. Opterons were kicking Intel Xeon's butt for database processing. While it seems like general use Intel chipsets are better. Their design and target is different. I personally prefer AMD for gaming and opterons for memory intensive servers as from my testing ( and not being bias, actual testing for server hosting ) AMD did perform better in keeping cpu load lower overall. To be completely honest, if I were to buy a new gaming machine or desktop, currently I would go for the conroes due to the fact they can overclock well. But since I don't need a new machine right now, down the road when I need to buy a new machine I am sure AMD's new chipset will be on top of Intel. They are always fighting like this, this is just how technology is. Otherwise technology will never improve.

It really isn't fair to say that Intel is better than AMD or AMD is better than Intel, they have their strength/weakness, they are both competitive and is able to be king of the hill once in a while. They are both great competitors.

Umm.. I don't understand why so many people dislike AMD. AMD has proven itself that it can compete in the CPU industry. You guys have to understand that AMD started from the bottom and reached the top during the Athlon and early AthlonX2 series beating Intel. Intel's recent conroes are the ones that are causing AMD some trouble. But that is expected, if the conroes did not beat AMD cpus then Intel would be total toast. People just have to wait for AMD's new chip to come out which will obviously be on top of conroes. Acquiring ATI may not be a good move "money wise" but it is required in today's market. Cpu and Videocards go together nowadays, they depend on each other. You can have a killer videocard but having a crap CPU will suck. Or you can have a killer CPU but performance will suck with a crap videocard. It was a smart move for AMD to acqurie ATI. I think down the road unless if Intel acquires Nvidia or greatly improves their videocards, AMD will be holding control for the race.

AMD lost over $160 million in 2006. It's stock is currently down over 60% this year, and they are going broke. Buying ATI appears to have been a blunder also.

I don't think ATI is the problem at all. AMD could have waited until they were in a better position to do that, but AMD's problem is that they haven't released a new chip that can truly compete with Intel's Core Duo and Core 2 Duo lineup.

Yes but it takes money to compete, and they simply don't have it now.

"At the end of 2006, AMD was sitting on $1.5 billion in cash but had $3.8 billion in debt, including $2.2 billion associated with the ATI acquisition." Source

Actually you also need enough Fabs too, that other 1.4 billion was to do with the building of new fabs in order to help AMD to keep up with demand of its processors.

It takes money to grow as a company and that's exactly what they are using right now.

I have no idea how that happened. Hell, I checked it right before I left the computer too. Anyways, it should work now

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion to be honest. Now that Dell sells AMD chips, they are much cheaper in most cases than Intel. Shoot, go to Wal-Mart and most of the systems at my local Wal-Mart have AMD chips in them and from what I've heard and seen they sell like crazy because they are so cheap. So while AMD doesn't have any chips that can compete with Intel's Core Duo and Core 2 Duo chips, it doesn't really matter because the average Joe doesn't know that and doesn't care. The average Joe cares about what they can afford.

For years the place where I work has used entirely Intel chips, without a single AMD-based processor. This has always annoyed me, but now that Dell has started selling AMD-based computers, things have changed. So far, I have got our company over 30 AMD-based computers, most of them being laptops. For the work that we use them for, AMD's processors are plenty fast.

Personally, I would not consider using an Intel processor in my own computer until the processor market share is more in the 50/50 range. But even then, I still prefer AMD.