Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Admits To Falling Behind AMD

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the they've-still-got-a-good-run-going dept.

244

Vicegrip writes "CNN is carrying a Fortune story covering an analyst meeting held on Thursday. There, CEO Otellini admitted Intel has fallen behind AMD with lost market share, technological leadership, and recently profitability. Intel also announced cuts to 1 Billion in spending." From the article: "Intel's market share recently slipped below 80%, and Otellini strongly emphasized the need for market share gains in all his remarks. On the other hand, he also suggested that Intel's recent market share losses (to AMD, whose name was not mentioned) were in line with historical variations which tracked to Intel's product generations."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Huh? (1)

Mkoms (910273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216204)

So the CEO admitted to falling behind AMD in market share without mentioning AMD's name? Makes perfect sense... ...

Re:Huh? (4, Funny)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216298)

Intel holds 80% of the market... they're not falling behind AMD. They're falling behind and AMD is, presumably, gaining the share that they are losing.
Did he really need to call AMD out like some kind of pissed off gangsta rapper?

Don't you ever f---ing forget who invented x86
Those other manufactures are underwater wearing shoes made of bricks
And if you ever release another processor you better lie low
AMD I'll come around and bust a cap in your skull

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

Chr0nik (928538) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216375)

Wait, since I'm a fan of the underdog by default, does this mean I have to start cheering for intel? Because it still doesn't feel right. Wait, lemme check....

GO INTEL!

Nope, I feel dirty. Going to shower now.

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216522)

I'm intensely curious - why would you automatically go for an underdog? It is a romantic thing?

Re:Huh? (2, Funny)

Chr0nik (928538) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216584)

Yeah, I guess, I don't know, I just like to see the little guy rise up and deliver an asswhoopin once in a while. I guess that's romantic, I cried when I saw "Rudy". Whoa, look at me. Hopeless romantic here. Never noticed that before. What are you a psychologist or something. GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

And who modded me down as "overrated" when I wasn't even "rated" yet. Are you modding me down because amd is overrated?

Re:Huh? (1)

heffeque (942634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216672)

It's called fomenting competition. If you always root for the one that's not going as well and more and more people do the same it'll make the bigger company try harder. In this case it's worked: Intel will be releasing a pretty powerful processor (Conroe) that'll make AMD have to work VERY hard to be able to surpass it.

Auto Underdog Syndrome (2, Insightful)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216673)

I suffer from this disorder sometimes, thankfully it is mild.

I think it's largely a visceral dislike of a single entity having so much power. I'd prefer to have dozens of chipmakers all competing bitterly. Maybe 5 big standard architectures.

Anyway, when one powerhouse controls 90%+ of the market I get nervous. Especially when there are allegations of abuse, innovation slows, prices are high, or the situation lasts for a long time.

It seems in many industries we are headed to 1-3 (whatever the situation and antitrust law allows) Megacorps that write their own ticket.

I am flexible about most things, but tend to prefer the underdog if price and performance are comparable.

Are they falling behind thanks to Otellini (4, Insightful)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216471)

He's the first Intel CEO with a non-tech background. What did you expect would happen.

The results are just what I would have though - they lose their technical edge, but retain their strong position in the market.

My guess is that Intel's business model quickly changes from designing and building chips to buying other company's designs ---- just like the large drug companies mostly get drugs by investing in and eventually buying small drug research companies.

I think that was the plan when the put a MBA in charge, and I think this is the expected result.

Re:Are they falling behind thanks to Otellini (3, Insightful)

The_K4 (627653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216614)

"He's the first Intel CEO with a non-tech background. What did you expect would happen."

Considering that he has been the CEO for just about a year, I would guess that Otellini is far from the only reason for Intel's current position.

Re:Are they falling behind thanks to Otellini (2, Funny)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216844)

For instance, the fact they think the name V//V (or Viiv, or whatever) is a good one (regardless of the merits—or lack thereof—of the platform) should hint at some sort of pervasive mental illness...

--Joe

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

Nesetril (969734) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216507)

AMD's response:

I love it when you "giants" be talking, saying my name,
Seems like your mouth is not connected to your brain,
X Sixty Four and HT, it ain't the same,
Better have a strap, Intel, simple and plain,
Put your FSB on the table, let's play the game,
Heard you so long, you be up to take the pain,
I don't wanna hear what you meant, do not explain,
As you lose your market share, say my name.

Re:Huh? (1)

Traiklin (901982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216604)

*Stealrs...I mean "Samples" the music and cuts a record for Dell*

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216329)

Given that Intel still, as the article says, has around 80% marketshare, they are hardly falling behind AMD in that respect. They seem to be "falling behind" where they have historically been in terms of marketshare, goodwill, etc., in large part due to AMD's advances in those areas. That doesn't mean they are falling behind AMD in those areas, though.

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

TheJediGeek (903350) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216335)

I'm not surprised. Intel has very rarely ever admitted that AMD even exists.
A few years ago, when the P4s were just moving to the socket 478(? I think it was 478, the one they went to after the horrible 423) and the 2Ghz P4s were coming out, I went to one of those road shows Intel put on. They were talking up their new P4 2Ghz chip and did this whole presentation comparing its performance. Here's the funny part, they didn't compare it to an AMD chip. They didn't even MENTION AMD. They showed comparisons of the P4 2Ghz to the, get this, P4 1.5Ghz.
Unsurprisingly, most categories, the 2Ghz performed 25% better. (There's a big shock) What was funny was that in gaming they said the 2Ghz performed 13% better than the 1.5Ghz.

At a time when AMD was delivering a thrashing with their Athlon XP chips that had a slower clock speed, slower FSB, and were STILL outperforming Intel, they still woundn't even mention AMD. It's no surprise to me that the CEO of Intel would talk about losing market share without mentioning AMD.

Re:Huh? (2, Funny)

x2A (858210) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216374)

They're just trying to say, an in oh-so-not-connected way, "look, we don't have the monopoly AMD sez we do, so errr.... plz don't sue us anymore"

It's simple really :-p

Re:Huh? (1)

PastAustin (941464) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216492)

Cue AMD fanboys!

I'm an Intel guy myself but if AMD gets and holds the market share I would be more than happy to try one of their processors. I hope I don't get modded down for saying I'm an Intel guy.

I haven't RTFA but I'm guessing it is assumed that they are losing the share to AMD (which they are) though this article should be retitled to, "Intel losing market share to competitors" but this title probably gets more attention.

fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216207)

woo!

Anonymous Coward admits to falling behind Mkoms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216591)

Vicegrip writes "CNN is carrying a Fortune story covering a News for Nerds meeting held on Thursday. There, Anonymous Coward admitted AC has fallen behind Mkoms with lost out making sensible posts, and recently missed first-post. AC also announced cuts to 1 Billion in karma." From the article: "AC's post recently slipped below second place, and is expected to get a -1, Offtopic. AC strongly emphasized the need for market share gains in all his frist psots, and suggested the lack of frist psotability (to Mkoms, whose name was not mentioned) was in line with historical variations in who gets first post."

Turning Point for Intel? (4, Interesting)

foundme (897346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216222)

It's not common for a CEO to make such admission, which can only mean one thing -- they already have plans to regain those market shares. Or is it the classic "Avis: We Try Harder"?

It's like poorer people tend to avoid being seen as poor, while wealthy people almost always say they are poor.

Re:Turning Point for Intel? (1)

shadow-9 (755814) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216245)

> It's not common for a CEO to make such admission, which can only mean one
> thing -- they already have plans to regain those market shares.

Or, that Intel is looking to buy and consume AMD.

Re:Turning Point for Intel? (2, Informative)

reldruH (956292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216263)

I think you're right. With Merom and Conroe just a few months away (supposedly, but I don't think they're going to pull a Microsoft) I think Intel will regain a large part of the market share they've lost. I've heard lots of good things about Merom and Conroe and nothing about any AMD plans for future products. This just points to that fact even more.

Re:Turning Point for Intel? (5, Informative)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216355)

AMD's response will be a chip known currently as K8L. Whether it will launch on AM2 or AM3 is anybody's guess, but it will supposedly come out sometime in 2007. Intel will have at least 5-6 months with the performance crown since AMD can't beat Conroe with their current K8 processors on s939 or AM2.

The question is: can Intel retain the performance crown once they gain it? The last time Intel was the top dog performance-wise was back when the Pentium IV 3.2C was their flagship desktop part. That lasted until K8 hit the streets.

Chipsets??? (2, Interesting)

WebWeasel2006 (947837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216242)

From TFA Otellini did offer one excuse for its poor performance in market share in the past year - a shortage of "chipsets." Having only bought AMD for over 5 years now I have never even tried to buy an Intel based motherboard, is this staement true has anyone had purchasing problems with Intel based M/boards?

Re:Chipsets??? (3, Informative)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216346)

Intel generally sells a chipset with every CPU. A holding in chipset shipping halts the majority of CPU billing. If anyone has been following this market, Intel hit a shipment problem at the end of the fourth quarter of 2005 and was not able to meet it's CPU/chipset shipments. Nothing about the quality, just poor planning at the chipset fab.

Re:Chipsets??? (2, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216710)

Yes and no.

Every new chip has a chance of requiring a new chipset but usually the chipsets are backwards compatible amongst a line of processors. For instance, a 945 chipset will run a 775-pin Prescott originally destined for a 915 chipset. If you got a 945, 955 or 975 you can essentially run every 775-pin processor Intel makes. If you bought a 915 you're SOL. [e.g. myself]

If they had a standard FSB (*cough* *cough* Hypertransport *cough*) they wouldn't have to tweak the damn thing with every new CPU.

Nothing is saying Intel has to copy AMD in that respect, it would be nice... if for example, you could plomp EITHER an AMD or Intel processor in a 940-pin [or the next series] of sockets. That would be REAL COMPETITION. As I understand it [I am likely wrong] the coherent bit of the HT link is mostly a logical concept. So Intel could use HT and invent their own damn coherent link.

To sum up: Diversity good, competition better, segregation bad.

Tom

Intel had it coming (5, Insightful)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216249)

They've been screwing over their customers for 15 years. With stuff like the spying serial number, tpa, etc, they've had an attitude of buy what we tell you or get lost. Not to mention price manipulation. They hold back each new iteration until prices slack off on the current product. AMD beat them to the 1 GHz punch because intel was holding back their own 1GHz chip to squeeze more profit. After AMD beat them, they released theirs 2 days later.

Now that it's coming back to bite them on the ass, I think it's wonderful.

Re:Intel had it coming (4, Insightful)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216278)

Pfff...

With stuff like the spying serial number, tpa, etc,

Which is why AMD implemented the exact same thing, right up to virtualization "secure" computing.

intel was holding back their own 1GHz chip to squeeze more profit.

Shame on a corporation for making a profit. AMD is so pure and virginal white, they'd never do something this dastardly.

Re:Intel had it coming (4, Insightful)

ScottLindner (954299) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216381)

Shame on a corporation for making a profit. AMD is so pure and virginal white, they'd never do something this dastardly.

The OP didn't say there was anything wrong in making profit. The OP said it's wrong to use methods that are deemed illegal in our laws, and are typicaly not wise in a competitive market. Obviously Intel thought they still owned us all like M$ does... but AMD caught them with their pants down. That's the point of the OP. Intel had it coming to them for their arrogance. And they got exactly what they asked for.

No where in those facts... is the OP indicating that making a profit is a bad thing.

Re:Intel had it coming (2)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216581)

The OP said it's wrong to use methods that are deemed illegal in our laws, and are typicaly not wise in a competitive market.

The OP said no such thing. It was a rant about things Intel has done (considered evil) that AMD has mirrored (considered... I don't know. Acceptable?). Apparently you fall in the 99% of /.ers who see and hear exactly what they want, real world be damned.

Re:Intel had it coming (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216632)

The OP implied intel deliberately held off the 1GHz to "squeeze" more profit.

First, that is incorrect. Intel lost the race to 1GHz fair and square.

Second, both AMD and Intel hold off releasing products and play all kinds of pricing games to squeeze their customers without killing them (because without a customer, you make zero dollars). Holding products in the wings to meet billing goals is not uncommon. To imply it is illegal, especially in this context, is wrong on both charges.

However, given the intense competition, it is unlikely either company would deliberately sit on a product unless it could possibly cannibalize their own line, e.g. Intel holding off on x86_64 because it would hurt ia64. Again, still legal.

Re:Intel had it coming (5, Insightful)

Changa_MC (827317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216421)

Shame on a corporation for making a profit. AMD is so pure and virginal white, they'd never do something this dastardly.

Any corporation causes damage to the market when they try to leverage their monopoly to maintain the monopoly. If AMD ever crushes all their competition (no that I'm worried) they will also slow innovation. Far better to have multiple competing companies, where you can buy whatever you want. Perhaps we could call it a "free market," since you can shop around.

Re:Intel had it coming (1)

Snarfangel (203258) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216546)

I'd mod you +1 insightful ... if CmdrTaco would ever trust me with his precious mod points.

Not the way I remember it (4, Informative)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216342)

AMD's GHz chips were available. Intel "released" them two days later, but good luck actually finding one!

AMD beat Intel in that race any way you look at it.

Re:Intel had it coming (5, Insightful)

Salandarin (895819) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216472)

Oh PLEASE, give me a break!

I hate reading this kind of generic accusation on Slashdot. For whatever reason, most /.'ers seem to be under the impression that somehow, Intel is inexorably related to an evil scheme by Microsoft/SomeCorporation, Inc. to consistently screw over the consumer. Honestly, I've never experienced any direct "screwing over" from Intel. If the chip performs up to the specification that it says it will, then there's nothing wrong here. Just because you don't like their market tactics doesn't justify this kind of arrogance. Considering they still have 80% of the market, it seems that whatever they're doing is working, contrary to your opinions.

While I like AMD's desktop chips more, one must be fully aware of the fact that AMD is no less of a corporation than Intel is, and want your money just as badly as everyone else. As others have mentioned and will mention, AMD's hardware tactics are no less questionable than Intel's, and thus, it becomes a moot point.

Re:Intel had it coming (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216694)

For whatever reason, most /.'ers seem to be under the impression that somehow, Intel is inexorably related to an evil scheme by Microsoft/SomeCorporation, Inc. to consistently screw over the consumer.

And artifically doubling the prices of their CPUs isn't?

Re:Intel had it coming (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216545)

That's some creative history. There was a race to 1 GHz, the Intel release was a paper one. They then rushed out the 1.13 GHz, which they retired after Tom's hardware and some other sources claimed it to be unstable. It didn't return until the Tualatin die shrink. In short, Intel was hard pressed regarding the performance crown even back then. They had been all since the original Athlon at something like 600 MHz was released. They countered with the original Coppermine (the first PIII that made sense, L2 at chip clock and all other niceties).

Re:Intel had it coming (1)

Gnavpot (708731) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216558)

They hold back each new iteration until prices slack off on the current product. AMD beat them to the 1 GHz punch because intel was holding back their own 1GHz chip to squeeze more profit. After AMD beat them, they released theirs 2 days later.

Yes, that would seem rather cynical and deliberate, wouldn't it? That is, unless you also remember that Intel released their processor but was unable to deliver in volume for several months.

And unless you remember that Intel's next processor, the 1.13 GHz had severe stability issues which made Intel retract that processor.

Both of those two incidents pretty much shows that Intel was certainly not so much ahead of AMD at the time, that they were sitting with processors ready for the market and just waiting for the market to get ready for the processors.

I have found some old stories at tomshardware.com, describing this if you should have forgotten about it. Let us remember that Tom is known to be very pro Intel biased, so any negative mentioning of Intel on that page should be taken seriously:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2000/08/28/intel_admit s_problems_with_pentium_iii_1/ [tomshardware.com]
http://www.tomshardware.com/2000/08/28/amd/index.h tml [tomshardware.com]

Re:Intel had it coming (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216810)

AMD beat them to the 1 GHz punch because intel was holding back their own 1GHz chip to squeeze more profit.

Yeah, I remember those oh-so-stable 1Ghz Intel chips.

Does anyone actually care anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216251)

If you're a gamer then all you really care about is the GPU as even medicre CPUs are excellent performers on AI. I can understand if your constantly ripping DVDs but there aren't that many pirates out there doing that.

I Care (1, Funny)

TexVex (669445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216340)

No, not really. Given identical graphics cards, I'll take the one in the machine with the AMD CPU in it over one in an Intel box any day.

Re:I Care (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216361)

I assume your reasoning is based on performance.

If so, I suspect you'll be buying a Conroe from Intel later this year.

Right?

You aren't just blindly loyal to a brand, are you? Gosh, I hope you're smarter than that.

Re:I Care (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216439)

Or perhaps it's that AMD has superior products all-around--there has never been an AMD analogue to the f00f [linuxmafia.com] bug, and they also don't overheat as much, leading to a more reliable product. Plus they're cheaper.

Re:I Care (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216841)

and they also don't overheat as much, leading to a more reliable product

Really? Your P4 overheated?

What's that, you never owned a P4? Just read about how bad Intel was on /.?

Q: Why was AMD forced to install a thermal throttle?
A: Because Athlon overheated and FROZE, where intel worked just fine.

Tom's Hardware did a great demo where he took the heatsink off of a P4 and an Opteron while running Doom 3: the opteron froze and the P4 kept running fine, just a little slower.

No doubt intel has released some of the hottest processors ever in the past. Where did you hear about reliability problems? It's AMD who started spec'ing a higher case Tambient to make their power numbers look better.

Re:I Care (1)

plantman-the-womb-st (776722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216645)

From everything I've read (I may be misinformed) the Conroe stuff will still be 32bit. If so, then I'll stick to AMD. If not, then I'll price out dual-socket Conroe boards, if none are on the market I'll stick with AMD. If they are on the market, I'd probably wait a year or so till the price comes down. If in that year or so AMD releases something better...

...who knows?

Re:I Care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216812)

As an electrical engineer I would not buy a Conroe from Intel, nice design but still old technology.

As an software engineer it would be ok, since you have to do a lot of software optimization just to be able to catch up to AMD hardware performance. But price/performance bad move, for software learning still overpriced, still ok learning curve.

Re:I Care (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216429)

Why? Is the box with the AMD processor easier to pull a graphics card out of? Why are you picking choosing a graphics card already installed in someone else's computer?

Poor interpretation (4, Insightful)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216253)

My god, the spin is breathtaking:

80% market share != Falling Behind

50% market share == Falling Behind

Re:Poor interpretation (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216359)

If you have a 80% market share and make a billion dollars in net profits for your investors, and the other company has a 20% market share and make 1.2 billion dollars in net profits for your investors, you are falling behind.

GM sold 9 million plus cars in 2005, and still managed to have a net loss of 9 billion dollars. Toyota sold 8.2 million cars in the same period, and posted 5.6 billion dollars in net profits.

You see, market share means nothing to investors. They like profits.

Re:Poor interpretation (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216402)

I don't know what point you are trying to make, because Intel is a lot more profitable than AMD, anyw ay you slice it.

Another craptastic headline (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216457)

Agreed. Intel's GROWTH is falling behind AMD's growth. Intel still has a firm grip on the market. Intel still sold more chips then AMD. Intel is only falling behind their previous performance. Which as mentioned in TFA, is still within their historical variance.

-Rick

It's the *standard* interpretation, alas (3, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216462)

On the contrary, in today's crazy financial markets, 80% market share is falling behind, when your market share used to be 95%. Of course, the real reason they're talking about market share is they don't want to talk about profits. Which were $12 billion last year, and are $9 billion this year. That's still a lot of money, but not acceptable to Wall Street, which expects certain kinds of investments to grow consistently, no exceptions.

That's why they broke up Knight-Ridder, an extremely successful newspaper chain with 20% annual profits. Huge profits or not, other newspaper chains were doing even better. Sorry folks we need to see 30% profits or you're not doing your jobs.

Re:Poor interpretation (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216671)

The loss in market share shows that their technology has fallen behind, i.e. their price/performance are not as good as AMD. (Either that or Intel's marketing has fallen behind that of AMD, which I don't believe for a moment).

Good and Bad... (1)

ZSpade (812879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216265)

It's good to see Intel fall behind what used to be an underdog, however don't get too excited all. While I know AMD is usually the geeks choice, there will only be negagive consequencs if Intel's market share falls too much lower. We need competition to drive innovation, else we will halt to a technological standstill.

What? (3, Interesting)

nnnneedles (216864) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216268)

"Intel's market share recently slipped below 80%"

Around eighty % is still incredible, not least when you have a competitor like AMD. But I guess companies like Intel do what they can to instill fear in their employees to get them to work harder.

Re:What? (1)

keester (646050) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216463)

Around eighty % is still incredible, not least when you have a competitor like AMD. But I guess companies like Intel do what they can to instill fear in their employees to get them to work harder.

These two statements don't make sense together. Or am I missing something?

Re:What? (1)

pnatural (59329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216508)

Around eighty % is still incredible, not least when you have a competitor like AMD.

It's not the number that's most significant, it's the trend. Intel once had nearly 100% of this market, but now they are (or seem to be) on a slide down without a strategy to stop it.

Does anyone have a chart/graph/pretty picture showing the marketshare decreasing for Intel and increasing for AMD?

Re:What? (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216559)

Isn't marketshare one of those semi-subjective terms? It requires someone to 1) clearly define what the specific market is (server chips? desktop? mobile? is there a bright red line you can draw between them?), 2) to accurately estimate the total size of the market, and finally, 3) get the company to accurately report their sales figures in that market.

Re:What? (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216601)

1) yes
2) yes
3) yes

But let's not let facts interfere with the debate!

Re:What? (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216767)

Boy, you sure did win that debate.

Since I was looking for knowledge and not a debate, does anyone have any substantive information? Are marketshare figures often something of an inconsistent guess that wouldn't be very useful if graphed (particularly because they tend to be skewed by self-interested parties)? Or are they consistent enough (like the market price of a barrel of oil) that it would be informative if graphed?

Re:What? (1)

dr.banes (823348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216688)

I was thinking the same thing. What's it now 78-79%? This is just PR hoofla to save face so they won't seem so anti competitive.People just recognize the Intel name. I noticed that most IT people don't have a clue either. I know this first hand experience, I asked the tech who set my system up at work if I can use Firefox instead of IE she said that she didn't know what it was...sad. I also asked if they had any AMD boxes, she said not we only use Intel and didn't know that especially in office apps the XP smokes Intel's ridiculous pipeline...they don't know shit.

Slashdot: Up to the second! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216269)

I'm a smug geek who thinks he knows everything! I saw this a looooong time ago!!!!

i don't know anything about processors evern though I say things like "pipelines" ad "cache" and I get angryy

Very
easily!!!

over benchmark scores

Re:Slashdot: Up to the second! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216486)

Are you the same guy who said that you keep your wife

VERY

pleased, sexually?

Apple Curse (0, Offtopic)

javaxman (705658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216275)

It had to be said. Now I'm off to buy myself a new 17" MacBook Pro.

Further diversification of markets (2, Interesting)

Yold (473518) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216277)

With intel increasingly becoming dominant in mobile markets, particularly capturing the next-gen Apple market share, I think that cost-cutting is eminent. AMD holds a firm grasp on the fastest chips, and some of their 64-bit chips are available in notebooks geared toward power-users wanting desktop replacements. There is a big difference nowadays between the size, heat output, power consumption, and power, so chip makers need to emphasize on certain markets. Intel couldn't hope to maintain dominance forever, and AMD and Intel have become the x86 processor oligopoly, both of them basing their business decisions on each other. AMD has done some fantastic R&D and built itself from the ground up, and there has really been nowhere for intel to go but down. Both these companies will be around for the foreseeable future, at least until some Chinese/Korean/Japanese company whoops us =)

In other news... (2, Interesting)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216279)

Intel admits that water is wet and ponies are cute.

Intel's marketshare is deceiving because it is propped up on a number of "exclusive" contracts. Once those go away, and they will as AMD pulls away technologically and pricewise, Intel is going to see the market flipped in a very short amount of time.

Intel Outside, not just a good idea anymore.

Re:In other news... (3, Informative)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216291)

and they will as AMD pulls away technologically and pricewise

Not likely. AMD slipped ONE YEAR on AM2, and has nothing on the horizion for 2 more years.

Intel has three fabs ramping to 65 then 45 nm, and two years worth of products that handily defeat anything from AMD.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216478)

OMG! Ponies!!!!!!

Why did Steve Jobs pick AMD? (1)

tornsaq (961735) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216284)

Besides the fact that AMD may not have been able to keep up with the demand. AMD has always been one step ahead of Intel (benchmark wise). I'm sure they could've overcome the obstacle of turning out processors at a faster rate. I mean, come on Otellini, how much more marketshare do you want? Intel is turning into Microsoft.

Re:Why did Steve Jobs pick AMD? (2, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216339)

90% of Apple computers sold are either laptops or SFF desktops, and Intel simply has the better product in these markets with Core.

Re:Why did Steve Jobs pick AMD? (1)

changocool (971385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216840)

I've setup osx on amd athlon64 3000, asus k8v, 1gb ram and radeon 9600. Runs great, but the sound doesn't work (yet). And I think celeron is the worst chip on the market, so congratulations intel.

Re:Why did Steve Jobs pick AMD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216735)

Apple didn't really move from Powerpc to Intel. They moved from Powerpc to x86. They can switch to AMD easily if there's a good reason.

spin spin spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216289)

80% market share?
Intel could bleed AMD dry if it wanted.
They NEED AMD as the small guy.
Intel has more fab space in Oregon alone that AMD has WW.

Intel has the power... (3, Insightful)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216296)

Intel may be losing market share right now, but as the article mentions, Intel plans on changing that and I think they have the power to do so. Intel still has the best name recognition on top of a steady advertising campaign over the last several years. They certainly have the power to take back what was lost and continue advancing in other markets.

AMD on the other hand is showing steady and strong growth. It has solidified its place in the market and has shown that it not only can compete, but will continue to innovate and compete with Intel.

In the end, something like this is only good for the consumers. Intel admitting losses to AMD will raise the bar of both companies so they can continue to compete, bring us better technology, faster.

12 step program following? (3, Funny)

staryc (852301) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216321)

Step one: Admitting your problem.

Yeah, but... (2, Funny)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216328)

Thanks to Intel, Bumfuckgrad has expandability built in!

New Blood (1)

Racher (34432) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216333)

I think Intel may not have much to worry about, with the recent headway that their Israeli Labs have been making with the development of the Pentium M, Centrino, and now the Core Duo/Solo chips.

It's no wonder why there was some market loss when all the could produce out of the US Labs were overclocked P3/P4 chips that produced too much heat to be useful in mobile applications.

Re:New Blood (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216571)

Hey, Banias/Dothan ARE overclocked P6 chips. The changes have been gradual, but I think there is no doubt about that. They've kept the number of execution units and many other characteristics. The cache and branch predictor have indeed changed, but it did so many times before in P6 (even within the same moniker [Pentium !!!], like Katmai to Coppermine).

Intel Internal Memo (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216334)

Here is an Intel internal memo from the CIO's office. Intel is going to be firing (aka "redeploying") nearly 1200 people.

April 26, 2006

IT's first steps in 'relentless pursuit of efficiency'
Understand IT's response to Otellini direction

As Paul Otellini outlined in his April 25 Exec Connect Webcast, Intel faces significant challenges in Q2 and beyond as we adjust to meet our new business climate. With 2006 revenue now projected to be approximately 3 percent below 2005 and spending reduced by approximately $1 billion, Paul has given clear direction that Intel must "re-structure, re-size, and re-purpose" in a "relentless pursuit of efficiency." As a result, all organizations, including Intel Information Technology (IT), have been given new spending and headcount targets and a corporate effort has been launched to determine how to streamline Intel to make our company more agile and more competitive long term.

IT's response

IT's response is clear. We must rapidly adjust our programs and headcount to meet our new Plan of Record (POR) spending and headcount targets. And we must streamline our organization to maximize the services and programs we can deliver to the company while executing on our commitments to keep Intel running and to deliver on new capabilities.

  Our immediate first steps are to stop selected programs completely, scale back other programs, and remove unnecessary overhead across the organization. The identification of these programs will be completed in roughly 30 days.

To create a more efficient IT, we must develop a more compact, less hierarchical organizational structure, reduce process and operational overhead, and selectively reduce jobs in some skill areas. Identifying specific actions in this area will take 60 to 90 days to complete.

Redeployment will be necessary

Taking these steps will require the redeployment of some IT personnel. Redeployment, or the effort to move employees to areas of greater return when there is a change in business conditions, is a standard practice that allows Intel to remain competitive and increases opportunities for employees. We anticipate some redeployment will begin before the end of this quarter and all redeployment will be started by the end of Q3.

I know this is a difficult time and redeployments are not always easy. And I know these actions are absolutely necessary to improve our competitiveness and effectiveness as an organization. You will hear more at the coming business update meetings (BUMs). I urge everyone to attend.

If you were unable to watch Paul's live Webcast, replays are available at the Webcast Exec Connect Events Site.

Thank you,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Okay.. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216338)


Your lips keep moving, but I can't hear what you say. [anandtech.com]

Intel has such a long way to go at the highest end. They need to move away from their silly, old fashioned CPU <-> Northbridge <-> RAM architecture. I think it's telling that Otellini blamed "chipset" shortages for some of their market share loss, whatever the hell that really means. Intel is going to eventually have to sacrifice its chipset business to stay competitive. Nothing will change that. The memory controller has to be moved on-die. HyperTransport is here to stay and it will wipe the floor at the high end.

It's not just getting rid of NetBurst-- high IPC is great --but the more you have cores and sockets contending for memory access, the worse it will get for a shared FSB. Get your head out your butt Intel and fix the design.

This admittance can only be a good thing (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216347)

Do you see what a little competition can do for a market? Everybody expected AMD to die years ago until they got to 1Ghz before Intel and now they are around the 20% mark for marketshare. Intel has responded by bringing out a load of new technologies and have IMO been dropping prices on products far more regularly.

Wow (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216370)

Intel admits that it's loosing to AMD?

What's going to happen next? Politicians admitting they lied to the people?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216535)

I think you meant "Intel admits that it's losing to AMD".

:rant:

loose != lose. I'll write a tome on this at some point, but for now, some examples:

Your friends tell me your mom is loose. They all plan to lose their virginity.
If you have a screw loose you may lose your marbles.

Re:Wow (1)

Snarfangel (203258) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216603)

What's going to happen next? Politicians admitting they lied to the people?

Wouldn't this be like Epimenides saying "All Cretans are liars"? Perhaps we can have a few politicians vanish in a puff of logic.

Re:Wow (1)

f8l_0e (775982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216639)

What happens next? Hopefully it has something to do with people learning the difference between the words lose and loose.

Re:Wow (1)

Snarfangel (203258) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216729)

The one-o loser
Has no brains
The two-o looser
Is unrestrained
And I will bet
A stumbling boozer
There isn't any
Three-o loooser.

In other news, CEO Steve Jobs was rescued... (0, Troll)

expro (597113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216519)

In other news, CEO Steve Jobs was just rescued from his leaky rowboat by the USS Itanic. Everyone on board congratulated him on his suave sense of style in holding out to be rescued by such an acknowledged, unsinkable leader...

Antitrust Strategy? (2, Insightful)

Salandarin (895819) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216526)

Is it possible this is a PR stunt to aid Intel's image in light of the antitrust trial? If Intel admits that it has lost significant market share, it makes AMD look that much less helpless.

Playing wounded for the judge... (1)

phorest (877315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216578)

Yes, now that the legal discovery process has begun, now is the time to get the public relations machinery in gear.
Poor-mouthing and playing up their enemy's stature so the judge will look sympathetically at Intel and say:
"Oh poor Intel, even though your enemy makes a good case, the competition has leveled out satisfactorily in this case... case dismissed!"

I believe this could very-well be the strategy at this point in time. IANAL but playing wounded to the judge will/should score them points.

Insightful (1)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216689)

You are exactly right. I hadn't even considered the timing.

"What, us a monopoly? No way, Your Honor! We're slipping behind even as we speak! Massive layoffs! Unemployement! Economy crippled! Wolves at the door!"

Speaking of Apple (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216595)

CEO Otellini admitted Intel has fallen behind AMD with lost market share, technological leadership, and recently profitability.

And how does this admission make Apple feel? They've hung their star on Intel being the best out there. Just a wild guess, but Steve Jobs is probably not commenting on this revelation right now.

Re:Speaking of Apple (3, Insightful)

nonlnear (893672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216649)

But what's the problem? Now that apple has transitioned to x86, they could introduce an AMD lineup any time they want to without any technical problems at all. Apple might lose a discounted rate on Intel chips*, but their customers historically are willing to pay a premium for their product anyways.

* I have no idea what their pricing agreement with Intel is, so this may or may not be the case.

Falling behind?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216618)

Doesn't falling behind entail dropping to below 50% market share, at best? ~80% is nothing to laugh at. I would call it a near monolopy, still.

VLAD FARTED (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216623)

christ lockwood

Both Intel and AMD May Fall (1, Troll)

MOBE2001 (263700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216643)

There is a good possibility that some other player may come out of nowhere and pass up both Intel and AMD. The reason is that current processors are based on a computing model that has not changed drastically since the days of Charles Babbage and Lady Lovelace. They are all optiminsed for the algorithm. Problem is that basing software on the alogorithm is the primary reason for the current software reliability crisis. Switch to a signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem will disappear. Will either Intel or AMD heed the warning? I doubt it. Those two are cookies cut from the same cookie cutter. They are way too busy looking for advantages within the current paradigm to notice the world passing them by before it's too late. Fortunately, there are other players in the game and somebody is bound to see the writing on the wall.

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:

Re:Both Intel and AMD May Fall (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216755)

That's a damned good point.

However, there are several key obstacles to making this happen.

a) fab capacity and validation infrastructure
b) component suppliers
c) chipset support
d) software support

If you make it x86 compatible and it can slap into an AMD or Intel socket, you can drop c and d. If you don't do anything to extreme with die size or requirements, you can drop b.

The hard part is the billions of dollars in fab capacity required to be profitable. ASPs are very thin, and cost to build a fab is very big. Even fabbing out to TSMC or IBM still means very limited capacity. AMD's Germany fab puts it at a solid #2 in the world for CPU fab capacity, way above TSMC, but way below Intel.

Someone would need to invent a super fast x86 core on an older process to leverage backend infrastructure.

Or they would have to displace Linux/Windows and create an entire software/compiler support model to climb the ladder microsoft and Linux are fighting on.

Cyrix is the closest threat from your angle: they are dominating China, but only because China has insane import laws to protect their own businesses.

We'll see. The only hope for a competitor to the AmTel stranglehold (hey, if MacTel and Wintel work... ;) is a PC paradigm shift to a TiVo or PDA gadget that makes PCs obsolete. Even then, AmTel are both avidly trying to predict this shift. Which has its own obstacles...

Very strange times we are in: limitless freedom to push technology and cripplying obstacles to pushign technology. It's a paradox.

Re:Both Intel and AMD May Fall (2, Interesting)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216805)

Before you mod this guy up, read his contribution history and the links in his sig and under his name. This guy (Louis Savain) is a crank. As well as being a physics crank who seems to think that Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Kurt Gödel, and Albert Einstein are "crackpots" [rebelscience.org] , he's apparently also a computer science crank.

This has to be so embarrassing... (0, Offtopic)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216745)

To be out done by a knockoff! Oh well, Intel never impressed me much. Didn't they start out by making Zenith knockoffs and build on that? And isn't that really what they are still selling? There some good chips out there, but IP law keeps then under lockdown. What a shame. Why do the worse ones get the biggest marketshare?

Doh! The Itanic sank! (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216756)

This is no surprise. Intel dedicated its' best people to the IA64 (Itamium) Project, and so lost about 6 years of x86 CPU microarchitecture development. Had that effort succeeded, Intel would be well in the lead. But neither the complier nor the clock made it.

So it didn't, and this was actually somewhat predictable. Intel has tried these flyers about every 10 years: first, IAPX432. next i860/960. Now IA64. This was the most costly by far. I'm a little surprised they admit it, but possibly that's because the "A" team is back on x86, and they've got a comeback cooking. It wouldn't surprise me.

When is Slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15216775)

... going to fix that stupid 8-ball Flash ad that causes IE6 to render all of the text on the page horizontally-centered?

Yeah, I know, upgrade to Firefox, yadda, yadda, yadda. Tell Compaq that.

Google is the 3rd or 4th largest server maker (2, Interesting)

this great guy (922511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216813)

Wow, just wow ! Did you guys see that in the article:

<<
According to some industry experts, Google is now assembling so many of its own servers that it may be the third or fourth-largest server maker in the world.
>>

I think that a lot of companies could reduce their expenses by doing the same thing than Google: instead of buying expensive hardware, warranties and support from IBM/HP/Dell/Sun, they could hire people to design, build and maintain their own IT infrastructure. I think it makes sense for any shop with 1000+ machines. Think about it again:

  • A 24x7 support contract from BigITCompany is good, but a team of your own technicians already working for you on-site is even better.
  • BigITCompany doesn't sell AMD server ? Your own team of technicians can build any server customized to your own needs and won't try to sell you unnecessary parts/services, since it is in their interest to save you money (since they work for the same company than you :P).
  • Tired of waiting for hours on the phone with a BigITCompany support guy to replace a stupid broken fan on a desktop machine ? Your own team of support technicians will never make you wait.
  • ...

To any non-believer: Google does exactly this, and it works very well for them. So why not starting to do it at your company ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?