Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Intel Admits To Falling Behind AMD 244

Posted by Zonk
from the they've-still-got-a-good-run-going dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Admits To Falling Behind AMD

Comments Filter:
  • by reldruH (956292) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:49PM (#15216263) Journal
    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:In other news... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sebastopol (189276) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:53PM (#15216291) Homepage
    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.

  • Intel Internal Memo (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:58PM (#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
  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheJediGeek (903350) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:58PM (#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.

  • by XanC (644172) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:59PM (#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:Chipsets??? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sebastopol (189276) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:59PM (#15216346) Homepage
    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.
  • by DrMrLordX (559371) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:01PM (#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.
  • by fm6 (162816) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:16PM (#15216462) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by Sebastopol (189276) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @07:00PM (#15217220) Homepage
    Please, no more myths about Intel power hungry designs. Core Duo fixes this for good:

    AMD Athlon64
    Freq: 2.0 GHz
    Tcase: 70 degC
    TDP: 89 W

    http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white _papers_and_tech_docs/30430.pdf [amd.com]

    Intel Core Duo Destkop (Yonah)
    Freq: 2.16 GHz
    Tcase: 100 degC
    TDP: 31 W (scale to 70deC like AMD puts you at about 20W).

    http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/3 0922102.pdf [intel.com]

  • Re:I thought May (Score:4, Informative)

    by DrMrLordX (559371) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @07:02PM (#15217234)
    AM2 is launching in May. However, the processors that will be launching along with it are nothing but K8 procs with a new pinout configuration. The fastest AM2 CPU will be the FX-62 which is nothing but the FX-60 with a higher clock speed (200 mhz faster to be specific).

    AM2 itself offers no performance advantage unless you run DDR2-667 or DDR2-800 with tight timings. This requires expensive enthusiast RAM. If you run with value or standard DDR2-400, DDR2-533, or even DDR2-667, K8 on s939 will match or beat K8 on AM2 clock per clock.

    Even with enthusiast RAM, AM2 procs will still be beaten by Conroe. Intel will own the performance crown from July forward. K8L may take it back for AMD, or it may not.
  • by postmortem (906676) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @11:35PM (#15218675) Journal
    And.. AMD Turion on same PDF has Thermal Design Power of 24W @1800MHz... why are oyu comparing desktop CPUs with mobile ones?
  • by Zoxed (676559) on Friday April 28, 2006 @05:49AM (#15219595) Homepage
    But I understood that for TDP AMD quote worst case, but Intel quote "typical".
    http://www.silentpcreview.com/article169-page3.htm l [silentpcreview.com]

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...