AMD Steals Market Share From Intel

PC microprocessor sales climbed to $10.9 billion in the fourth quarter of last year, up 1.8 percent sequentially, and up 14.2 percent.

IDC reports that for the entire year, PC microprocessor sales jumped by 13.2 percent to more than $41 billion. Much of the increase was due to higher average selling prices, which added about 9 percent.

Both Intel and AMD were able to gain market share in individual market segments, but it was AMD that came out on top overall. Intel ended the year with 80.1 percent share, down 0.6 points from 2010, while AMD gained 0.7 points to 19.7 percent and Via dropped 0.1 points to 0.2 percent share.

According to IDC, Intel suffered a 2.6 point loss in the mobile segment (down to 83.8 percent), as AMD added 2.7 points bringing it to 16.0 percent. AMD lost in the server and workstation segment where it is now at 5.5 percent, which was down 1.5 points. Intel is overwhelmingly dominant with 94.5 percent (up 1.5 points). In desktop processors, Intel came in at 73.8 percent (+1.7 points), while AMD was down 1.6 points to 26.0 percent.

You need to be logged to post a comment

There are 7 Comments. B

Other Comments

-2

acer0169 , March 17, 2012 4:10 PM

Can't believe people are still buying Intel over AMD. A £100 AMD processor performs to about the same level as a £350+ Intel. Madness.
5

Dandalf , March 17, 2012 4:42 PM

Unfortunately acer0169, with Intel's new Sandy Bridge Pentiums, and AMD's removal of the Phenom II line up... we can't really say that these days!
1

acer0169 , March 17, 2012 5:17 PM

I'd still stand by AMD being much better performance for money.
3

altikal , March 17, 2012 5:19 PM

Its the same story as its been for the last 3 years, Intel excel in areas for work stations, and encoding but for everyday home computing AMD offer similar performance for a better price.
3

silver565 , March 18, 2012 3:55 AM

AMD are what you would get for your every day computer that does nothing major. The only AMD chip I'm looking into at the moment is their 6 core CPU as it may be interesting for ESXi.

Other than that, Intel are what I need as their performance is much higher
1

refraction , March 19, 2012 6:03 AM

Unfortunately the whole AMD does similar performance for less money or better bang for your buck just doesnt apply anymore, especially with the new bulldozers, you pretty much pay for the performance you get, a £100 AMD chip will be no slower/quicker than a £100 intel chip. Intel arent as expensive as die hard fans make out.

For example, in this linked review, Toms reconed this i3-2100 has a minimum framerate 18% higher than the AMD FX-4100
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-9.html
As we can see from the price of these 2 the AMD is £89
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-314-AM&groupid=701&catid=1967&subcat=1942
And the intel is £94
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-367-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1671

Worth the extra £5? I'd say so.
0

Freezeron , April 12, 2012 5:46 PM

refraction, this isn't only 5 (pounds or whatever) that is more pricy, this is also the platform and the memory that you sticking the processor. On, average use performance, Intel do win but the time sensitive axe on a graph (for task completition) isn't always worth the price.
AMD had' not changed it's socket for a long time (and some will say that's a faulty way), and upgrading is still (sometime) more efficient than buy a whole setup, as upgrading from a old 250 euro setup is good but putting aside some expensive parts (love my Asus Crosshair ROG) which is performing even with old components (CPU, memory) better than mid to high level category new components, this is what is called bang for your money.
I'm still trying to get an 6 core AMD cpu and a new gfx to make my rig ready to stand for a fight for at least 2 to 3 years.
For a purchase, charts and performance test aren't always as beneficial as they look like and the only thing that you have to do is research more than the average time the product that anyone wants.
For a new rig, Intel is often a good buy but that doesn't mean that you will not have to upgrade anytime sooner or (later) for the fact.
AMD had for a long time supported legacy and I sure as hell support them if they can give me less troubles for my wallet, if Intel could bring more stability on their market a switchover will always be plausible. And remember that a customer is the one that is choosing to power up a market share not a company.