Intel Wipes Out AMD's 2006 Marketshare Gains in One Quarter

According to the latest numbers from Mercury Research, Intel managed to capture 80.5% of the PC processor market for Q1 2007, from the 74.4% the company held during Q4 2006. The increases per segment come in at 8% for the desktop market, 4% for the notebook market and 7% for the server market. For Q4 2006, Advanced Micro Devices had a share of 25.3% but Intel suffocated it down back under the 20% threshold. AMD has responded to the best of its ability to Intel's strong Core 2-based product family and the company's steady stream of price cuts but unfortunately the company has only seen its average selling prices (ASPs) fall along with unit sales.

The company also made a critical error by oversupplying OEMs with processors when they couldn't deliver on sales forecasts while at the same time leaving channel partners out to dry with processor supply. The increased pricing pressure along with disappointing sales from OEM coupled with the strong performance of dual-core and quad-core processors from Intel has taken its toll on AMD. The company posted a $611 million USD net loss in Q1 2007 and announced that it would restructure its business to cut costs.

News source: DailyTech

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Project aims to bring DX10 gaming to XP, Linux, OS X

Next Story

Game makers excited about Windows Vista

32 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Why on Earth do people persist in thinking it's a good thing for Intel to gain market share? The only reason Intel got off their monopolisitic arses and built C2D is that AMD were panning them for a good three years with the '64. In an ideal world (for us, the consumer) the market would be neatly split 50/50 so that each company was under pressure to innovate and cut prices. Having AMD or Intel tattooed on your forehead just makes you a look like a moron

dangel said,
Why on Earth do people persist in thinking it's a good thing for Intel to gain market share? The only reason Intel got off their monopolisitic arses and built C2D is that AMD were panning them for a good three years with the '64. In an ideal world (for us, the consumer) the market would be neatly split 50/50 so that each company was under pressure to innovate and cut prices. Having AMD or Intel tattooed on your forehead just makes you a look like a moron :)

The entire reason Intel has so much marketshare is because their products are so good. When their products ceased to be good (i.e. the P4), they began to lose marketshare as people realized that and demanded better products. Then they improved and their previous customers came back. The market would not be much better if AMD and Intel had identical marketshare, as their marketshare demonstrates the superiority of their products in the categories that the market demands (e.g. performance in general processors and price in graphics processors).

Shining Arcanine said,
The entire reason Intel has so much marketshare is because their products are so good. When their products ceased to be good (i.e. the P4), they began to lose marketshare as people realized that and demanded better products. Then they improved and their previous customers came back.

No, they improved because AMD built something better, and people started buying that (both in the server and workstation market) instead. That's a result of competition - something that Intel doesn't really have a lot of (considering it's market share). "People" wouldn't of realized jack if they're hadn't been a better alternative Just like people aren't keen on A64's now because C2D is simply better.

Shining Arcanine said,
The market would not be much better if AMD and Intel had identical marketshare, as their marketshare demonstrates the superiority of their products in the categories that the market demands (e.g. performance in general processors and price in graphics processors).

How on earth is 'demonstrating' their superiority through marketshare beneficial to the consumer? If AMD and Intel were neck and neck then the need to innovate to differentiate your product from your competitor is much (much) stronger. Not only that, but you're going to price said products much more aggressively. It ain't rocket science..

Hector Ruiz (AMD ceo) is a damn loser! AMD always suffered from cash problems so as soon as they had some cash he goes out and buys ATi.... what a stupid move! everyone guesses its going to backfire and it did.
AMD were supposed to deepen their grip in the desktop/workstation/server/notebook market before making any huge leaps.

At the rate they're losing cash (now they also taken a 2.2B USD loan) they will have little chance on benefiting from ATI's acquisition ..... Hector Ruiz must GO!

Wow, I am shocked at the negative comments.

Amd brought a huge company last year. That buy out did take its toll on amd, one could argue it pushed AMD to its limits.

Everyone here is forgetting AMD has beaten INTEL on the same nm process for god knows how long.

Also your forgetting the k10 is going to be out buy august which will blow the c2d and the quad package chips that intell out. Shanghi will continue to do the same again the penryn chip from intel.

The shame for amd is - the merger with ati cost them 6 months competitiveness and its hurting them.

You seem to forget that intel dominance is in part due to it's complete solution package. Intel produce mother board, graphic chip and cpu.

You can have a complete intel pc easely. For buisness that's interesting. Amd is only trying to emulate this and find a home in the entreprise market. buying Ati is a bold move and might just payoff. Unfortunatly ati inboard graphic are a bit untested. They never did go toe to toe with nvidia, intel, sis and via for long.

Intel, well it became quite clear that it had a winner with the Core 2 duo and AMD just ran out of steam and time.
I think the lost market share will take AMD a long time to recover.

Aww that's a shame for AMD. /sarcasm

Never buying one of their CPU's again, had so many issues with them over the years and not one problem with any Intel. They may have been faster at the time, but I prefered stability. Now AMD don't even offer a speed benefit.

what sort of issues? (I'm not doubting you but I'm curious)

I've had none, not with my amd and coincidently not with my Intel ones.

One thing is certain if You had issues with AMD based system it certanly wasn't the CPU. Probably nForce(2,3,4,5...) notorious issues with I/O, USB, IDE/PATA/SATA.

The only issue i had with amd cpu are being able to cook egg on early socket A ones...

Both amd and intel cpu are really rock solid. The mother boards on the other hands.

IMHO AMD is now playing the unsuccessful games that Intel was playing for the 3 years before the Core 2 Duo which was basically just ramping clock speeds in order to improve performance. The reason AMD got to where it was was it releasing the highly efficient Athlon processor that went completly against the whole clock speed game that Intel had played all through the 90's. They followed that up with x64 support which despite its relative uselessness at the time when XP didnt even take advantage of it, still sold them many cpu's. However now instead of getting out a new architecture it's AMD who is stuck to just releasing higher clocked cpu's at a lower cost.

Their last overhaul to add DDR2 support was in all honesty not that big a deal of a release. What they need is something major. I see no reason why they cant compete. I mean they have been in much worse market positions before. They just need to knuckle down and get something new out there.

I really felt that AMD fell asleep 2 years ago and got comfortable. AM2 took too long and wasnt a big update anyway and they've allowed Intel to completely leap frog them.

too bad for amd/ati i mean since core 2 duo amd its comiting too much mistakes, buying ati was one, then now ati screw vista notebook users with lack of drivers, AM2, crossfire. The only good thing they did was convince Dell to use AMD processor.

It will take long time to them to take back what they lost.

This is kinda sad, I hope AMD doesn't slip any further. I think the competition between them has done wonders for us the consumers.
Still, even though I'm running and X2 when the time comes to upgrade my machine I'm going with whoever has the best processor out there. Brand loyalty is useless in this area.

rIaHc3 said,
I rather get a newer processor although a bit more expensive that performs better than that.

And you = everyone, right?

If you haven't noticed, majority of the people that use computers today don't use but a fraction of the power due to the fact that they don't need it.

daPhoenix said,

And you = everyone, right?

If you haven't noticed, majority of the people that use computers today don't use but a fraction of the power due to the fact that they don't need it.


OMG, that has to be the remark of the century. Bill Gates used to say 256K is more than enough. Why don't people stick with 256K? Technology strive to go farther and you say there's no point to it. That's what basically what you just said.

Krome said,

OMG, that has to be the remark of the century. Bill Gates used to say 256K is more than enough. Why don't people stick with 256K? Technology strive to go farther and you say there's no point to it. That's what basically what you just said.

The original quote was 640k....

Still the parent is right, most computer users do not need the power boost of the c2d. In fact most people do not need more than the power granted by a 486 dx. Remember and say after me buisness update theyre computer so that theyre park stays in warrenty. Buisness update theyre software because current hardware does not support older software.

There is only a minority of computer users that need the power of current pc, manly gamers, infographist and musician.

Thanks AMD for the once competitive market that lead us to the new Intel architecture. You will be remembered. Now fight Nvidia!

sundayx said,
Thanks AMD for the once competitive market that lead us to the new Intel architecture. You will be remembered. Now fight Nvidia!

Well AMD has to stick around. Intel will definitely slow down it's progress without competition. AMD going would be very bad for everyone.

What I don't understand is how long AMD have gone without updating it's architecture. I know they have new stuff fairly soon but how long have they flogged the current tech?? It must be years.

i50000 said,
i'm afraid intel will become another microsoft one day...

high price, no competition etc etc...

oh please, people berate intel when their pentium and pentium D products sucked and AMD was doing great. Now intel comes up with top-notch and affordable processors .. so intel becomes the bad guy? AMD can and should compete, but they need an overhaul, 600mil in losses and nothing to challenge the conroe's isnt looking too good for them

PC OwNz said,

oh please, people berate intel when their pentium and pentium D products sucked and AMD was doing great. Now intel comes up with top-notch and affordable processors .. so intel becomes the bad guy? AMD can and should compete, but they need an overhaul, 600mil in losses and nothing to challenge the conroe's isnt looking too good for them

well said.

PC OwNz said,

oh please, people berate intel when their pentium and pentium D products sucked and AMD was doing great. Now intel comes up with top-notch and affordable processors .. so intel becomes the bad guy? AMD can and should compete, but they need an overhaul, 600mil in losses and nothing to challenge the conroe's isnt looking too good for them


But that is the thing, the Core 2 is just too good (the 45nm Core 3 is due later this year), AMD can't compete with it. Last I heard AMD has given up on competing with Intel for the best processor, they are now concentrating on producing good budget processors (I believe). I'm not really surprised, the Core 2 is destroying everything that gets in it's path, AMD is wise to concede defeat, cause it would only destroy them [AMD] trying to beat it [Core 2]. I get the feeling AMD might try taking Intel on the integrated GPU front, Intel have been very busy with the Core 2 and with the added experience of ATI, AMD might be able to give Intel a run for their money there. I'm an AMD owner and I'm quite happy with my A64 by the way.

EDIT: Intel are not the bad guys, they are just bigger then AMD, have a much larger cash pile and have alot more resources at their disposal. The only reason AMD beat Intel to begin with, was cause they [Intel] screwed up. Now that Intel learned their lesson AMD will always be #2.

Xerxes said,
But that is the thing, the Core 2 is just too good (the 45nm Core 3 is due later this year), AMD can't compete with it. Last I heard AMD has given up on competing with Intel for the best processor, they are now concentrating on producing good budget processors (I believe). I'm not really surprised, the Core 2 is destroying everything that gets in it's path, AMD is wise to concede defeat, cause it would only destroy them [AMD] trying to beat it [Core 2]. I get the feeling AMD might try taking Intel on the integrated GPU front, Intel have been very busy with the Core 2 and with the added experience of ATI, AMD might be able to give Intel a run for their money there. I'm an AMD owner and I'm quite happy with my A64 by the way.

EDIT: Intel are not the bad guys, they are just bigger then AMD, have a much larger cash pile and have alot more resources at their disposal. The only reason AMD beat Intel to begin with, was cause they [Intel] screwed up. Now that Intel learned their lesson AMD will always be #2.

FYI, Intel is working very hard with their own graphics team to make integrated graphics a reality within the next two years. Beleive it or not, the Intel graphics team have always designed very good graphics engines but never had the opportunity to shine since they were the first parts that get cut when it comes to silicon real estate on the MCH die. Intel is now giving them that chance! Hopefully this will work out well...

gahhh screw amd.
my $300 x2 3800+ was definitely worth it, especially after amd cut the price in half when C2D owned them. thanks amd!

Oh come on. You know this game, at least.. you should. So it's AMD's fault you bought a CPU before they lowered the prices? I was running a P4 HT 3.0Ghz before I moved to the C2D. I read about what was coming out.. and waited. MB and CPU for 160 bucks! Next time, you might want to research a little before buying anything computer related.