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$m)
News source: DigiTimes
This robust increase in revenue caused AMD's ranking to rise to eighth place in 2006, up seven positions from the 15th rank in 2005. Intel's combined microprocessor and flash revenue in 2006, which together accounted for 83% of total company revenue last year, fell to its lowest level since 2003, resulting in Intel's market share falling to 12.1%, its lowest level since before 2000. Meanwhile, AMD in 2006 gained PC microprocessor market share at Intel's expense. AMD's PC microprocessor revenue rose by 35.5% in 2006 and its market share in that product segment increased to 16.1%, up from 11.1% in 2005. AMD's revenue was also boosted substantially by its acquisition of graphics chip seller ATI Technologies in 2006.
View: Top 25 World Semiconductor Suppliers by 2006 Revenues (US$m) News source: DigiTimes
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.
Last edited by Skyfrog on 16 Mar 2007 - 18:47
"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
It takes money to grow as a company and that's exactly what they are using right now.
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.
Competition is your friend, people: It keeps the marketplace healthy. So, it's a good thing AMD made a profit last year. While I like Intel, I don't want them to be the only player in the CPU market.
Except they didn't, they lost $166 million. I like AMD, and I completely agree we need competition. However this article seems like a load of PR spin.
Except they didn't, they lost $166 million. I like AMD, and I completely agree we need competition. However this article seems like a load of PR spin.
Well, sure; They lost $166 million if you factor in the acquisition costs of buying ATI. I'm not disputing that. The fact remains that they had more money coming in than Intel did: It's just that they also had some very large expenditures. Yes, that means that they lost money, but it also means that they're potentially more profitable than Intel is. It all depends on if you believe Intel's offerings will outsell AMD's offerings or not.
Currently, it seems like AMD is outselling Intel becasue more people buy low-end PCs, and that market is outweighing everything else. Of course, the market could always shift the other way and then the whole ball-game would change. Both companies are in this for the long-run, so you have to take the long perspective and not just look at the bottom line.
Last edited by TRC on 16 Mar 2007 - 21:05
Looks like I was looking at a different chart than you were.
Don't you hate it when companies miss-report their earnings?
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?
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
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
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.
Last edited by Croquant on 17 Mar 2007 - 11:00
Let me help you out then: http://news.com.com/Intel+reclaims+spot+in..._3-6152082.html
AMD Financial Statements
that shows a drop in sales
Where are you from, 2005? AMD is desperate to catch up to the Core series proccessors. Their stock is in the shitter and they are trying to sell band-aid solutions for quad cores...
What? Could someone translate ishtar's post into english?
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 .
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.
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.
AMD's revenue also increased to the point of putting it 7 positions higher in the Industry then it was in 2005.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.