“Intel warned on Friday that its revenue for the first quarter would come in at between $8.7 billion and $9.1 billion [EUR 7.2 and 7.6 billion], roughly $500 million [EUR 415 million] lower than estimates the company issued in January. The chipmaker cited a weak market and a ‘slight’ market share loss. Analysts generally agree about the market, but are putting more emphasis on the loss of share. Some have pointed to the momentum shown by AMD, which has been far more aggressive over the past 18 months. The rival chipmaker has been strengthening its ties to PC makers, most prominently with HP, and keeping prices low.”
Strike Three for Intel
About The Author
Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda
2006-03-05 4:05 pmsiraf72
Well done Jack, we can now all look forward to more posts about apple and how great / crap they are….. With the inevitable posting of equal spec PC equivelants somewhere around post no.35…. even though this article has nothing to do with apple.
Kind of ironic since i read another article here a few days ago talking about how slow AMD has been the past 18 months, and how its losing big time because of that.
Perhaps this is the reason that intel went to apple, Intel made Apple a sweet heart deal, probably selling chips at or barely above cost, and gave them an engineering team to get apple up to speed, so that they could hide the fact that AMD is taking them to the cleaners.
The only thing saving Intel from more damage done to their market share is that AMD probably can’t get enough chips made to make a bigger dent. As it is, you don’t see AMD ads in computer magazines, or in any national media. Because AMD just can’t produce enough chips. So they keep a low profile, and let the computer makers come to them. AMD won’t let this secret out, because it might scare the market.
2006-03-05 5:37 pmGet a Life
Or maybe Apple chose Intel because of its production capacity coupled with its previous success with moving to a more-efficient design (Pentium M) and the promise of future high-performance designs with the same focus on efficiency (Conroe, Merom are of the most obvious interest for Apple’s current market) and the full-platform support. Apple skipped out entirely on Intel’s products that are doing poorly against AMD’s offerings (Pentium 4, Pentium D, Xeon, …) and Intel has done nothing to succeed in hiding its performance/power problems in these markets, and certainly not with Apple’s iMac/MacBook Pro volume of Yonah sales.
While AMD’s production capacity is certainly one limiting factor in its ability to erode Intel’s market share, the only real long-term (since AMD is increasing production capacity already) thing preventing continual erosion of Intel’s market share is its somewhat belated move away from NetBurst. This time next year, Intel won’t be suffering under the cobbled Pentium D, and Apple, Dell, etc will be selling servers and desktops based on Conroe and Woodcrest.
AMD certainly doesn’t think that any of the larger OEMs aren’t aware of it because it doesn’t advertise aggressively in magazines. It’s reserved with its advertising budget probably to improve its financials, though it does limited forms of advertising.
2006-03-05 9:13 pmBrad
The move was all about capacity and having a path forward, something other options don’t have.
But still, even if apple has block buster sales. That won’t change things for intel much. Apple just isn’t that big of a client for them, big name and high profile… yes, but by volume not so much. They will easily sell more chips to dell in 2 months then apple in a year.
Intel may be giving them a sweet deal somehow though. If they can get apple to grow fast, then it could relate to a large client in the future. Then again, no one knows if apple signed an exclusive supplier deal with intel, I expect no, that way they can always play the AMD card if needed.
2006-03-05 9:02 pmTweek
AMD has been cleaing Intel’s clock for the last couple of years…
Sales volume is catching up to the vastly superior product quality that AMD has over intel
On top of that, I have to say: so f–king what? It’s not like Intel has gone bankrupt, or is about to. Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest will boost Intel’s relatively low performance (compared to AMD CPU’s) enough to make this “news” a minor inconvenience at worst.
1. Intel has more resources than AMD which is reason more systems are sold with Intel processors than AMD processors and reason why Apple chose Intel over AMD for dual core x86 processors.
2. Intel has 65nm processor design where as with AMD they are still working on completing that process.
3. Intel produced a 64-bit processor but this was strictly targeted to servers first and much later released a desktop/workstation processor with EMT/64. Where as AMD made it possible from the start to provide consumers with 64-bit available across their entire processor line.
4. AMD was first to release a dual core 64-bit mobile processor. Where as Intel has “Yonah” a dual core 32-bit processor. While Yonah does perform more efficiently than AMD 64 X2 processors it’s unfortunate that Intel didn’t just work to release “Merom” which is dual core and provides EMT/64. If they did then there would of been no need to release “Yonah” thus causing end users who want 64-bit to have to pay again to upgrade. Especially considering “Yonah” was released in January and “Merom” is set to be released in September of the same year. It appears like Intel rushed their product out the door.
5. I don’t know how it is in other countries but here in Canada AMD processors cost significantly more than Intel processors. AMD processors have also been known to generate more heat than Intel processors which is a factor to consider for those running systems for several hours or 24/7.
6. Both manufacturers are at fault for their continual change in socket design. This causes in most cases an unnecessary need to upgrade systems with not only the processor but also the motherboard. Consumers over all are becoming more “buyer aware” which means they are less likely to rush out and upgrade to the latest processor unless it provides a feature that’s absolutely necessary.
Edited 2006-03-05 17:45
2006-03-05 5:55 pmGet a Life
Intel produced a 64-bit processor but this was strictly targeted to servers. Where as AMD made 64-bit available across their entire processor line.
The only processors without EMT64 from Intel at this point that are reasonably-new products are its mobile processors.
it’s unfortunate that Intel didn’t just work to release “Merom” which is dual core and provides EMT/64.
Not for people that don’t need support for EMT64 and wanted a new laptop or an Intel Mac before the end of 2006. Intel isn’t sitting on its new product line for its own amusement. If they could have launched Core with EMT64 support across the board they would have.
no need to release “Yonah” thus causing end users who want 64-bit to have to pay again to upgrade.
No one’s making anyone buy Yonah-based computers. If you genuinely need EMT64 support for something you can wait for Merom, which should perform better than Yonah regardless of EMT64 support.
It appears like Intel rushed their product out the door.
Intel rushed assigning the Core brand to its products, probably for marketing reasons. Yonah was a Pentium M refresh to make it dual-core and improve its performance. Everyone was expecting it for some time.
I don’t know how it is in other countries but here in Canada AMD processors cost significantly more than Intel processors.
In the U.S. market AMD’s processor are usually better price/performance wise than Intel’s processors. Intel has been pricing its Pentium D and Celeron D lines (but not the EEs) aggressively to compensate for their power/performance characteristics.
AMD processors have also been known to generate more heat than Intel processors which is a factor to consider for those running systems for several hours or 24/7.
That hasn’t been the case for years now.
2006-03-05 9:42 pmAnonymous
You need to brush up on your computer economics/technical knowledge.
2. Who cares about the process being used if your chips are still hotter/slower than the competition’s?
5. AMD processors have always been cheaper here in Canada than Intel processors. Price was the entire reason that my friends have Athlon XPs while almost no one I know has Pentium 4s. AMD has always had the upper hand in price/performance, even when it comes to the very expensive Athlon 64 X2s.
6. AMD stayed with Socket A for many years while Intel went through 3 sockets. AMD’s Socket 754 was a temporary stop-gap until they could lower costs and move everything over to Socket 939. S939 has been a stable and well-established socket for a few years now, and only recently is AMD moving on again (this time to support DDR2).
2006-03-06 7:38 pmsuryad
I agree with a lot of your points. But…
2. AMD is still beating Intel in terms of heat and power consumption and performance in 90nm so Intel is screwed when AMD DOES in fact switch to 65 nm.
5. AMD generate more heat? Yet when nearly every review out there shows otherwise?!
6. I agree because I dont think the AM2 socket coming out soon is not a performance booster as far as I see it.
That Yonah,32 bit or not,is still more powerful than the Pentium M.For the time being,it will close the gap in preformance between Intel and AMD.
Nothing can grow forever. If it did, it would become a cancer. The downcycle is an essential aspect to any entity.
2006-03-05 11:17 pmleech
“Nothing can grow forever. If it did, it would become a cancer. The downcycle is an essential aspect to any entity.”
Kind of like Windows?
So a big boo hoo for Intel, they warned that they were making ONLY 8.7 – 9.1 BILLION dollars? That’s more money than the majority of countries have. Let’s face it, the only people who really need/want the later processors are the ones who are hard core gamers. Could that be one of the main reasons why Intel isn’t making as much? Especially since most hard core gamers buy AMDs.
2006-03-06 7:40 pmsuryad
Add to that the fact that Google is switching to AMD oh becasue of better performance and less power requirements and less heat being produced by the processors…that might hurt Intel a bit as well.
…and we all gain from it. Lower cost and better (performance and wattage) AMD CPUs now, competitively priced Intel CPUs later (I’ll wait to see what AMD has to offer when the new desktop chips come out before saying they’ll clearly beat AMD’s), and more support for 3rd-party chipset makers by Intel.
It’s taking time, but the result is computers for us that are better in every way than last year’s, and with an increasingly good selection.
In fact, the only thing that’s been bugging me about all of this in the last few years is that more motherboards have fans to save a few cents, rather than nice heatsinks. Oh, well–Zalman has the cure for that.
They call it “Apple Effect”