News
 

Bookmark and Share

(20) 

Intel Corp. has grabbed the leading position of supplier of microprocessors for computers sold in the U.S. retail market, according to a report from Current Analysis. The reason behind the leader switch from Advanced Micro Devices to Intel is Toshiba’s aggressive penetration in the market of low-cost notebooks.

In June 51.2% of retail computers contained Intel processors, up from 42.2% in May, while AMD’s share declined to 48.5% from 57.4% in the previous month. Intel also continued to dominate the market of retail notebooks in June with 66.2%, up 8.9% compared to the previous month, while AMD’s share declined 8.9% to 33.4% in June.

“The shift came because of an emphasis on inexpensive notebooks containing Celeron M chips,” said Sam Bhavnani, director of research at Current Analysis. According to him, a lot of affordable notebooks were $599 models from Toshiba, which were based on the Intel Celeron M processor.

AMD still holds the lion’s share of the desktop market with 73% of all retail desktops in the U.S., while Intel accounted for only 26.8%, reports CNET News, citing the market research firm. However, the primary strength of AMD in the U.S. retail market of desktops are machines that cost up to $500 (84.5% market share in May) and personal computers which retail for $500 - $750 (88.9% market share in May). When it comes to more expensive solutions, such as desktops for $750 - $999, Intel managed to leave AMD a little bit behind with 52.1% of the market. When it comes to expensive machines, which cost from $1250, Intel is inside 91.7% of such systems.

According to Current Analysis, computers carrying Intel Viiv platform logotype accounted for about 10% of U.S. retail desktop market, which proves that such systems are pretty popular and the concept of media center PC is being adopted gladly by consumers.

U.S. retail market of PCs accounts for about 10% of the world’s total PC market.

Discussion

Comments currently: 20
Discussion started: 07/12/06 08:12:25 AM
Latest comment: 08/25/06 01:59:02 PM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-1]

1. 
Good, Eat it AMD. Learn the pain as you go back to old Athlon days because you were too idiotic to innovate and keep moving on to secure your lead rather then sit on your hands and make as much money possible without having to spend hardly any (since you wern't developing any).
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/12/06 08:12:25 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Are you crazy?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/12/06 08:26:56 AM]
Reply
 
Don't feed the fanboys.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/12/06 10:14:36 AM]
Reply
 
I'm not being a fanboy, if you are too stupid to realize that AMD hasn't innovated one thing for the past couple years, then you simply don't know much about processosrs. The only thing that AMD has coming out is the K8L and it better be one hell of a performer because if you have seen the new Woodcrest benches, then you know what I speak of.


Look at it like this, AMD had the opportunity, and the funds, but it just sat there.

Intel sat around, made a bit of cash, and developed a competing product to the AMD lines (while AMD did nothing)

The end result is, is that Intel will have a hardcore chip out for a bit, and AMD will lag behind a year or so, and hopefully prices will shrink on both sides.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/13/06 01:04:02 AM]
Reply
 
"AMD hasn't innovated one thing for the past couple years"

And Intel does?
Give me one example. I will argue with you.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/13/06 04:35:00 AM]
Reply
 
See "Core" architecture. While it is only modifications to an exsisting core, I find it significant enough to consider it an "innovation". By Innovation, I mean their new macrofusion ops.

Perhaps Innovated wasn't the best word to choose.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/13/06 03:02:56 PM]
Reply
 
Which one of the Core?

Core 1 or 2?

Core 2 is based on 1.

And Core 1 is based on PentiumM, which is based on P3 Tualatin, ..., ...

But my point is Intel had transistors to spend, so what to put on the core?
More cache, more processing units, improved units (SSE, …), SSE4, …

Impressive performance that’s very good. But the rest?
Same socket, same RAM, but requires new motherboards.
Low power, .65nm + mobile based core, nothing impressive here.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/14/06 07:24:35 AM]
Reply
 
True, but it is still more "impressive" then anything AMD has done, other then develope some minor improvements to their memory controller, change it to support DDR2 (after several iterations that had even poorer performance then current day S939 chips), and soon to be a fab shrink.


While Intel has done some of the same, I still think that this "developed" new core as something new (atleast semi-new) compared to AMDs A64. The same thing happened back when AMD started making regular Athlons, they were doing good good good, and then the Netburst chips came out.

But then AMD responded with the A64s.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/15/06 04:54:12 AM]
Reply

[1-1]

Add your Comment




Related news

Latest News

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

8:52 pm | Lisa Su Appointed as New CEO of Advanced Micro Devices. Rory Read Steps Down, Lisa Su Becomes New CEO of AMD

Thursday, August 28, 2014

12:22 pm | AMD Has No Plans to Reconsider Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Cards. AMD Will Not Lower Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Solutions

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

9:09 pm | Samsung Begins to Produce 2.13GHz 64GB DDR4 Memory Modules. Samsung Uses TSV DRAMs for 64GB DDR4 RDIMMs

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

6:41 pm | AMD Quietly Reveals Third Iteration of GCN Architecture with Tonga GPU. AMD Unleashes Radeon R9 285 Graphics Cards, Tonga GPU, GCN 1.2 Architecture

Monday, August 25, 2014

6:05 pm | Chinese Inspur to Sell Mission-Critical Servers with AMD Software, Power 8 Processors. IBM to Enter Chinese Big Data Market with the Help from Inspur