AMD steals CPU revenue market share from Intel in Q4 2009

By on April 1, 2010, 10:42 AM
AMD managed to snatch a fair bit of business from its larger rival in the fourth quarter of last year. According to the latest figures from iSuppli, the company's microprocessor revenue market share amounted to 12.1%, a gain of 1.6 percentage points year over year, while Intel's portion fell by 1 percentage point during the same period. The latter remained the market leader by far with an 80.6% share, though.

Q4 2008 Q3 2009 Q4 2009
Intel 81.6% 80.5% 80.6%
AMD 10.5% 11.9% 12.1%
Others 7.9% 7.7% 7.3%

For the full year the numbers were more balanced. In fact, the research firm estimates that both AMD and Intel saw revenue share increases at the expense of other suppliers. The former ended 2009 with a 12.1% revenue share, up 0.2% from 2008, while Intel ended the year with an 80.3% share, an increase of 0.3 of a percent from a year ago.

The gains might seem a bit surprising considering iSuppli notes that average selling prices for PCs dropped quite a bit last year. They are also especially notable for AMD which has been confined to the lower end of the CPU market for a while. Nevertheless, the numbers above suggest that neither AMD nor Intel were overly punished by the drop in prices.





User Comments: 11

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

Your own numbers show AMD did not steal share from Intel as Intel's market share increased for the quarter along with AMD's. Both companies took share from "others", which saw a decrease in market share.

compdata compdata, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Guest said:

Your own numbers show AMD did not steal share from Intel as Intel's market share increased for the quarter along with AMD's. Both companies took share from "others", which saw a decrease in market share.

The article is comparing year to year, not quarter to quarter. Take a look at the graph again :-)

matrix86 matrix86 said:

Sorry guest, but compdata is right. When doing comparisons between companies, you look at a full year. All the other stuff is just to see how they've done throughout the year...but it's at the end of the year that you really look at who did better.

Don't think i'm gloating over this because i'm not, i'm all for Intel...but you can't ignore what you see. Over the year, Intel fell and AMD rose. Now we just have to see what happens next year.

Guest said:

Ok, I'll accept your perspective. YoY AMD gained against Intel.

compdata compdata, TechSpot Paladin, said:

matrix86 said:

Sorry guest, but compdata is right. When doing comparisons between companies, you look at a full year. All the other stuff is just to see how they've done throughout the year...but it's at the end of the year that you really look at who did better.

Don't think i'm gloating over this because i'm not, i'm all for Intel...but you can't ignore what you see. Over the year, Intel fell and AMD rose. Now we just have to see what happens next year.

I am generally like Intel's lineup better at the moment myself as well (have gone back and forth over the last 13 years -wow has it really been that long since i have been building systems?). But i do very much like to see competition and would certainly buy an AMD chip if it met my requirements. AMD certainly makes far superior graphics through ATI then Intel - so if you are an ATI fan you are really supporting AMD as well :-)

tonylukac said:

I guess people aren't fooled by Intel's charade. The big hype over the double and even quadruple priced i cpus offer very little in clock speed and performance increases over the last generation's models. Give it a new name, and it's just a rehash of last year's crap, sort of like Nvidia. Most programs don't benefit from more cores anyway, and don't seem like they ever will. Give us what we really need; increased single core clock speed for the expense. Next time I'm going with AMD.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

tonylukac said:

I guess people aren't fooled by Intel's charade. The big hype over the double and even quadruple priced i cpus offer very little in clock speed and performance increases over the last generation's models. Give it a new name, and it's just a rehash of last year's crap, sort of like Nvidia. Most programs don't benefit from more cores anyway, and don't seem like they ever will. Give us what we really need; increased single core clock speed for the expense. Next time I'm going with AMD.

not so Tony, Intel Nehalem micro-architecture is the successor to the Intel core 2 and is a completely different architecture. as far as gaming goes AMD will keep up with Intel as far as frame-rates because most are GPU bound, but in every other aspect (audio/video editing/rendering modeling/applications/compression etc etc Intel kicks AMD's butt. as far as increased clock speed, about 7-8 years ago, CPU frequency hit the wall at about 3.6 Ghz, however they only had around 42m transistors. by contrast todays have over a billion, along with more sophisticated instruction sets, smaller feature size,less heat etc etc etc, so you are getting the effects of higher frequency and then some. check out the real numbers of the previous generations ( the Phenom VS the Athlon 64 and the Nehalem vs the Core 2) and you will find that the incoming generations of CPU's are vastly superior.

rskapadia2294 said:

i personally like intel! but now amd has also got my attention since it offers good specs at reasonable price! i think i will buy a quad core from it! :P

Guest said:

Amd is the better of the 2 chips run cooler, laptops start faster at ther moment isont think there is any comparison. amd newer generation of chip run more efficient.

Rob

10 years pc engineer.

pmshah said:

I have not built an Intel system in almost 10 years now. Here the market is extremely price conscious. Value for money is the first criterion.

For most of the run of the mill and some processor intensive work I can build an AMD system at half the price of an Intel system. Here the temperatures in summer go as high as 44 - 45 Celsius and very few businesses are air conditioned and even fewer homes. My Quad Phenom runs along 24/7 at any where between 50% and 90% cpu usage without overheating doing video conversion work. I would be scared to even try it on Intel.

BTW a friend of mine bought a Compaq Core2quad recently at a fairly good price. It came preinstalled with Windows 7 Home Basic. He can't run any of his cad/cam software, he can't get OS upgrade to Win 7 Ultimate from HP, the hardware does not support Win XP SP3 on which the cad software run very well. Win XP-SP3 + cad are very well supported on the current AMD platform.

What is his recourse? Buy a retail copy of Win 7 Ultimate for around US$ 300/=. Next time he has sworn to stick with AMD.

Guest said:

Amd is the better of the 2 chips run cooler, laptops start faster at ther moment isont think there is any comparison. amd newer generation of chip run more efficient.

Rob

10 years pc engineer

It does not matter which chip runs better, when investing you should be concerned with Intel's economies of scale, predatory pricing, and all out market dominance. AMD only exists because of state intervention economics, it is the far weaker of 2 companies in a market with extremely higher barriers to entry. So it all depends on what regulations Intel will be subject to, if states continue to subject them to anti-trust regulations and fines, the AMD will gain percentage points ever now and then.

Alex

spent a weekend reading a econ textbook

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.