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This discussion has been archived.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 Jason1729 (561790) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:48PM (#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.
  • by Sebastopol (189276) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:48PM (#15216253) Homepage
    My god, the spin is breathtaking:

    80% market share != Falling Behind

    50% market share == Falling Behind
  • by Sebastopol (189276) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:51PM (#15216278) Homepage
    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.

  • by moore.dustin (942289) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:53PM (#15216296) Homepage
    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.

  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:57PM (#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.
  • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:59PM (#15216339)
    90% of Apple computers sold are either laptops or SFF desktops, and Intel simply has the better product in these markets with Core.
  • by ScottLindner (954299) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:04PM (#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.
  • by Changa_MC (827317) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:10PM (#15216421) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • 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.

  • by Salandarin (895819) <`salandarin' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:18PM (#15216472) Journal
    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:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by heinousjay (683506) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:25PM (#15216522) Journal
    I'm intensely curious - why would you automatically go for an underdog? It is a romantic thing?
  • by Salandarin (895819) <`salandarin' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:26PM (#15216526) Journal
    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.
  • by The_K4 (627653) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:39PM (#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.
  • by nonlnear (893672) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:44PM (#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.

  • by LunaticTippy (872397) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:48PM (#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.

  • by repvik (96666) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @06:16PM (#15216881)
    Switch to a signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem will disappear.

    Yes, that's likely to happen. Two words: Chicken, egg.
  • by The Outbreak Monkey (581200) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @06:46PM (#15217096)
    Your analogy is flawed. The poster who said it was illegal was referring to Intel as a monopoly. That is, at the time, Intel was viewed by a majority of consumers to be the ONLY company to buy a CPU from. It appears that he was arguing that Intel was abusing its monopoly on the CPU market.

    I'm not even sure how your Matrix example applies, the only thing the Matrix franchise has a monopoly on is the Matrix series. There are plenty of movies out there, and nobody HAS to go see them. Try making your point using a monopoly controlled commodity and you'll make a better point. Some busisess/people HAD to buy PC's, and they HAD to pay Intel's inflated price. A price that was arguably illegal, and possible only through the existance of the monopoly.

    Then the free market came, and AMD knocked Intel on it's proverbial ass.

    I'll try a more fitting anaolgy. Take a monopoly-controlled commodity, lets say: natural gas and electricity. If you want to heat your food, or sleep warm at night, you'll have to pay what they are asking. Where else are you going to get natural gas or electricity? There is no other way to get it. So they jack up the price to 2x market value...is THAT illegal?

    Now Intel wasn't considered a monopoly as far as I know. But it sure seemed like they did, and they were asses about it.
  • by rmdir -r * (716956) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @07:39PM (#15217538)
    Dude, do you make _any_ posts not about your new software model? I just took a look at your posting history, and it all seems to be about that.

    If you keep this up, you'll just get marked as a troll, and it'll be harder for you to get your message out.


    How about writing a demo app instead? ;)

  • by TekGoNos (748138) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @08:03PM (#15217701) Journal
    ??? This post doesnt parse.

    You, Sir, are a crackpot. From your site :
    Due to its sheer astronomical complexity, the human brain is the most reliable behaving system in the world. Its reliability is many orders of magnitude greater than that of any complex program in existence.
    Unfortunatly for your crazy theories, the human brain is a pretty UNreliable system. It contiously distords (and invents) memory, it makes some completly irrational decisions, etc ... Here's a starting point for lecture : List of cognitive biases [wikipedia.org].

    What the human brain is good at, however, is to use its crazy, complex and seamingly contradicting functions to get a "good enough" response in a crazy, complex and seamingly contradicting world. In other words : to operate in uncertain situations with uncomplete data. This includes that it (most of the time) doesnt crash when something unexpected happens. Sometimes, however, it does crash and people get things like post-traumatic stress disorders.

    So, if something similar to the brain (your "silver bullet") is "good enough" in uncertain situations, why dont we use such an architecture? Well, we do, its called AI (artificial intelligence), you might have heard of it.

    Your silver bullet is simply an agent-based system [wikipedia.org]. And I'm currently doing my master in artificial intelligence on such a system, VERY close to your silver bullet. And I can tell you that this system is NOT the solution. It can handle uncertainity. It probably wont crash.

    But the problem is that it is impossible to debug.

    With an algorithmic system, I know what it supposed to happen. I can test on the way. In an agent-based system, while I can test every agent, this isnt the problem. The working of the system emerges from the interaction of these agents. And this is something very magical. Every agent doubles the complexity, so nobody understands any more how they work exactly. A developper has to make guesses, put the entire system together and then hit run. If it works : cool, but nobody knows how. If it doesnt work : crap, because nobody knows what to change.

    Also, these systems have to same problem as people : they make errors, they never work 100%. And a computer is supposed to work free from critical errors. A human might tell you : Oh, I forgot to send this letter. If your computer tells you : Oh, I forgot to send your email, most people will be shocked (or not, as they accept bugs far too easily nowaday).

    Bottom line : tradional computers aim to be predictable : if they crash, they crash hard, and they need complet data to be able to work, but most of the time, they do exactly as expected.
    AI (including your "silver bullet") no longer aims to be predictable. It can work under uncertainity, it might crash less often, but it results are unpredictable and instead of being as expected, they are only close to the expectation, most of the time.

    And I cant believe that I spend 30 minutes on an offtopic post, just to debunk your "silver bullet".
  • by LarsWestergren (9033) on Friday April 28, 2006 @03:25AM (#15219291) Homepage Journal
    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.

    This statement presumes that
    a) The Conroe will launch when promised.
    b) That it is a real launch with the product in stores, not just a paper launch.
    c) That the performance will be as great as promised.

    And all that remains to be seen, right?
  • by mcrbids (148650) on Friday April 28, 2006 @04:40AM (#15219462) Journal
    I am a system administrator, and CTO.

    I manage servers, with tens of thousands of users, all over California.

    ALL of the servers I've deployed in the last 2 years have been AMD, with a heavy bias towards Opterons. For me, one of the key advantages AMD has over Intel is the "last resort" advantage.

    If I deploy Xeon servers, and something goes terribly wrong, I can't go to a local retail outlet and buy any hardware that would work - Xeons are not binary compatible with X86. Local tech shops here in my hometown (Chico, CA) don't have Xeon anything. But they DO have Athlon/64s in droves!

    So, if I deploy an Opteron server, I *know* that I can get an Athlon/64 that's binary compatible with my system images from the local l337 Gam3rz computer store with aliens and funky lights, but that's binary compatible with my rackmounted servers. No matter what, I have something I can count on in less than a single working day. I've had to fall back to this in the past, so I'm ready to in the future.

    This gives me a worst-case recovery time of about 4 hours during business hours. (the only ones that really, really count)

    Xeon is compatible with... Xeon. At best, in a worst-case scenario, I wait 48 hours to get some kind of support in small town, CA. Ouch!!!! No way this is acceptable.

    4 hours vs 48 hours. Not a hard decision... So Opteron/Athlon/64 it is, then...

    And I don't mind that it's both faster and thousands $$$$ cheaper!
  • by Slashcrap (869349) on Friday April 28, 2006 @04:51AM (#15219482)
    And for programmers, the Intel C/C++ compilers for Core look fantastic. The extra performance that will come out of compiling with those will be really amazing I think.

    Yes, you can get a huge boost out of a specially designed compiler. That's why Itanium is doing so well - you can write slow, shitty code but once you've fed it through that incredible Intel compiler it just runs like shit off a shovel.

    Seriously, when you say that the compiler will provide an amazing boost, I assume your definition of amazing is "maybe a couple of percent on average code with architecture specific optimisations"?
  • by segedunum (883035) on Friday April 28, 2006 @08:07AM (#15220119)
    This is one of the major reason why AMD does not make much money, because they lag in process. AMD would very much like to have 65nm last year. Intels profit per wafer outstanding today compared to AMD because they can use 65nm now.

    Ahem. Intel need a 65nm process more than AMD does because their chip technology and design is quite frankly, shite. They're having real trouble keeping up with AMD at the moment so they need to go to something new. With some tweaking and sensible higher clocks speeds they could quite easily match Conroe. It's not as if anything Intel has now, or even in the pipeline, will blow AMD away. When AMD move to a 65nm process they're going to blow Intel away performance wise, and with their much cheaper prices and the budget Sempron they're going to continue to have their double whammy.

Chairman of the Bored.

Working...