Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Intel Admits To Falling Behind AMD 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Admits To Falling Behind AMD

Comments Filter:
  • by foundme ( 897346 ) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:44PM (#15216222) Homepage
    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.
  • Chipsets??? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WebWeasel2006 ( 947837 ) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:47PM (#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?
  • What? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nnnneedles ( 216864 ) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:50PM (#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.
  • by Yold ( 473518 ) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:51PM (#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... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) * <> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:51PM (#15216279) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Okay.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:58PM (#15216338)

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

    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.
  • Re:Chipsets??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) < minus punct> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @06:54PM (#15216710) Homepage
    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.


  • by The One and Only ( 691315 ) <[ten.hclewlihp] [ta] [lihp]> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @07:06PM (#15216805) Homepage
    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" [], he's apparently also a computer science crank.
  • by this great guy ( 922511 ) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @07:07PM (#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 ?

  • by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @08:19PM (#15217376) Homepage Journal
    Or is it the classic "Avis: We Try Harder"?
    The "we try harder" thing wasn't just a slogan — they actually ran the company that way. A long time ago I read a book called Up the Organization, by Robert Townsend, the guy who ran the company then. It's full of stuff that makes you say, "I wish my boss were that smart," but none of what Townsend did then would fly in today's business world. For example, he once refused to let the Directors give him a modest raise, because he felt the performance of the company didn't justify it. Imagine any current CEO doing anything like that!
  • by AcidPenguin9873 ( 911493 ) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @10:11PM (#15218027)
    I agree, but to be fair:

    1. Yonah is a 32-bit only chip. Driving more wires/pins/etc in 64-bit mode internally and externally burns more power. I doubt that the K8 core shuts off the upper 32 bits of various logic/flip flop/RAM/CAM structures while in 32-bit mode...if anyone has real information on this, that would be appreciated, but that's probably not public knowledge.
    2. Yonah is built on a 65nm process. Transistor sizing from 90-->65nm gains you significant power reductions and performance increases.
    3. Yonah just came out. Since AMD started being competitive with Intel, the performance crown (and now the performance/watt crown) has flipped between these two companies every time they release a new chip.

    The real question is, does AMD have anything up its sleeve to match Yonah (and they better have it soon), or will Intel regain its dominance?

  • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @10:55PM (#15218218)
    Intel has three fabs ramping to 65 then 45 nm

    Intel has always had a process technology advantage over AMD. That never stopped AMD from shipping competitive products. Also, note that AMD's fab situation has gotten a lot better in the last year - with Fab 36 (and soon Chartered), AMD has the capacity to take on Intel in the market - something that they just couldn't do in the early Athlon days.

    AMD has always been conservative in launching new processes, and it has benifited them in the past. Intel's 90nm process turned out to be the nail in the Prescott coffin, but AMD's 90nm launch resulted in CPUs that clocked much higher, used less power, and cost less money.

    nothing on the horizion for 2 more years
    K8L, for one. Dual-core Turions. 65nm in 1Q 2007. Quad-core in 2007.

    two years worth of products that handily defeat anything from AMD

    Ah, another Intel Conroe fanboy. While I'd agree that Conroe is looking quite good, note that Athlon 64 is not sitting still. Even a simple die shrink may allow AMD to put out 3.4-3.6GHz parts, which would be quite competitive with what we're currently seeing from Conroe.

    I would certainly hope that Conroe has a performance advantage over AMD64, though. No desktop or server part that Intel has put out in the last two years has been competitive from a performance standpoint with Athlon 64. The dual-core Xeon parts are a joke (and everyone in the industry knows it), the Pentium D gobbles down power and can't match Athlon 64's performance at half the wattage, and even Intel's low-end Celeron D is killed by the cheaper Sempron.

    It's only rarely about performance anymore. Most PCs sold do absolutely nothing 95% of the time. It's about power usage, availability, the strength of the chipsets and the price of the chipset and CPU.

    AMD chipsets are cheaper than Intel chipsets. Semprons are cheaper than Celeron Ds. Unless that changes, AMD is going to continue to destroy Intel's marketshare in the low-end and mid-range PC business. Only Dell is keeping Intel alive in the low-end market now.

    Take a look in any retail store. You see more AMD than Intel. That has never been the case before - AMD has never had this kind of shelf space. They've never had this much fab capacity. They've never had this much acceptance in the corporate world.

    That alone should have Intel very, very worried.
  • by Brian Stretch ( 5304 ) * on Friday April 28, 2006 @12:25AM (#15218629)
    90% of Apple computers sold are either laptops or SFF desktops, and Intel simply has the better product in these markets with Core.

    Until the Turion X2 ships, which won't be much longer. Going with the current single core Turions instead of the Core Duo would have made more sense since then OSX could have been 64-bit from the get-go. Now Apple will have to support both 32-bit and 64-bit codebases. Were Intel's cut-rate chips and other support worth it? Time will tell, but given that things like codecs get a *nice* boost from AMD64 (it's not just about breaking the 4GB barrier) I think Jobs screwed up.

Air is water with holes in it.