Intel Q3 market share

 > It seems Intel's market share went from 81.4% in Q2 to 82.6% in Q3.
 >
 > At this rate it will take another 3.625 years for Intel to achieve a
 > 100% market share. At that point we can stop arguing over whether Dell

How much would you want to bet on that?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

Felger Carbon wrote:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113298,00.asp</font" target="_blank">http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113298,00.asp</font</a>>
 >
 > It seems Intel's market share went from 81.4% in Q2 to 82.6% in Q3.
 >
 > At this rate it will take another 3.625 years for Intel to achieve a
 > 100% market share. At that point we can stop arguing over whether Dell
 > should be forced to sell AMD CPUs.
 >
 >

The numbers are reported in slightly more detail in
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20031105102012.html" target="_blank">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20031105102012.html</a>

Specifically, Intel went down from 85.9% in Q3 2002
to 82.6% in Q3 2003. AMD went up from to 12.4% to 15.8%
in the same period. Seems to me that AMD has reason for
optimism and Intel execs will continue to grind their teeth.

Transmeta and VIA combined for 1.6% in Q3 2003.

Note also that these numbers are for *only* x86 market share
and include both server and non-servers.




--
Reply to newsgroup only please. This e-mail account is real
but effectively abandoned because of excessive spamming.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

"wogston" <someone.RemoveThis@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:bodbrg$781$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
  > > It seems Intel's market share went from 81.4% in Q2 to 82.6% in Q3.
  > >
  > > At this rate it will take another 3.625 years for Intel to achieve a
  > > 100% market share. At that point we can stop arguing over whether
Dell
 >
 > How much would you want to bet on that?

Well, you clipped the last line of my posting, including the smiley
face. However, the key phrase in my posting is "at this rate". Simple
mathematics will prove that I am correct. Save yer money. And next
time please leave my smiley face intact.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

 > Well, you clipped the last line of my posting, including the smiley
 > face. However, the key phrase in my posting is "at this rate". Simple
 > mathematics will prove that I am correct. Save yer money. And next
 > time please leave my smiley face intact.

At that rate we only know the market share is *approaching* 100%, just like
1/n^m can approach zero, but it will take a fucking long time to reach it.
Mind no smiley face: I really wanted your money.

Now mind telling me what the 'simple mathematics' are supposed to be?
Intersection of two straight lines? I don't belive that applies, hence, I
was very eager to collect.

-w-<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

 > At that rate we only know the market share is *approaching* 100%, just
like
 > 1/n^m can approach zero, but it will take a fucking long time to reach it.

n > 0, m > 0, ofcourse. m == 1 is also a very good assumption, hence, I take
liberty of simplifying the above to: 1/n, n > 0, but I am comfortable also
with negative exponents, but in that case I must say that the value is not
approaching zero. 8^)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

"Rob Stow" <rob.stow DeleteThis @sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:vql93kbs9v5504@corp.supernews.com...
 >
 > The numbers are reported in slightly more detail in
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20031105102012.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20031105102012.html</font</a>>
 >
 > Specifically, Intel went down from 85.9% in Q3 2002
 > to 82.6% in Q3 2003. AMD went up from to 12.4% to 15.8%
 > in the same period. Seems to me that AMD has reason for
 > optimism and Intel execs will continue to grind their teeth.

But wait! AMD had 22.5% in Q3 2001. Of course, a year before they had
about 16%. But a year before that...

I don't think Intel is grinding their teeth all that much. 80%+ is, well,
quite a lot no matter how you count it.

OTOH, AMD lost less money last quarter, and *may* turn a profit again soon -
which will be a good thing. I just don't think anyone with smarts should
bet the farm on AMD until they show a more consistent performance.

Regards,
Dean<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

In article <bHxqb.5117$qi.1453@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
dkent DeleteThis @realworldtech.com says...

 > OTOH, AMD lost less money last quarter, and *may* turn a profit again soon -
 > which will be a good thing. I just don't think anyone with smarts should
 > bet the farm on AMD until they show a more consistent performance.

Farm? No, just the garden. By the time they show consistent
performance it'll be too late to make the real money. )

--
Keith<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

"wogston" <someone.RemoveThis@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:bodlt1$4nu$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
  > > Well, you clipped the last line of my posting, including the smiley
  > > face. However, the key phrase in my posting is "at this rate".
Simple
  > > mathematics will prove that I am correct. Save yer money. And next
  > > time please leave my smiley face intact.
 >
 > At that rate we only know the market share is *approaching* 100%, just
like
 > 1/n^m can approach zero, but it will take a fucking long time to reach
it.
 > Mind no smiley face: I really wanted your money.
 >
 > Now mind telling me what the 'simple mathematics' are supposed to be?
 > Intersection of two straight lines? I don't belive that applies,
hence, I
 > was very eager to collect.

OK, wogston, here's the simple mathematics. First, my original post in
its entirety:

"http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113298,00.asp

"It seems Intel's market share went from 81.4% in Q2 to 82.6% in Q3.

"At this rate it will take another 3.625 years for Intel to achieve a
100% market share. At that point we can stop arguing over whether Dell
should be forced to sell AMD CPUs. "

As we can see, Intel's market share is now 82.6%, meaning it needs 17.4%
more to reach 100%. The current _rate of increase_, as determined by
the only data in the posting (the Q2 and Q3 shares) is 1.2% per quarter.
It will take 14.5 quarters at 1.2% per quarter to get to 100%. 14.5
quarters is 3.625 years.

As I say, "at this rate". If the rate changes, the time to 100% (or 0%)
changes. <-- that's another smiley face, wogston.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

 > OK, wogston, here's the simple mathematics.

The simple mathematics of yours is wrong, simple as that.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:55:51 GMT, "Dean Kent"
<dkent.RemoveThis@realworldtech.com> wrote:

 >I don't think Intel is grinding their teeth all that much. 80%+ is, well,
 >quite a lot no matter how you count it.

Knowing that rules of thumb are not always a good idea, I'd propose
that a good rule of thumb is that Intel starts to get
excited/worried/energized when AMD approaches 20%. Dropping below 80%
market share is one of those magic boundaries that can get people
concerned.


Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

Neil Maxwell wrote:

 > On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:55:51 GMT, "Dean Kent"
 > <dkent.TakeThisOut@realworldtech.com> wrote:
 >
 >
  >>I don't think Intel is grinding their teeth all that much. 80%+ is, well,
  >>quite a lot no matter how you count it.
 >
 >
 > Knowing that rules of thumb are not always a good idea, I'd propose
 > that a good rule of thumb is that Intel starts to get
 > excited/worried/energized when AMD approaches 20%. Dropping below 80%
 > market share is one of those magic boundaries that can get people
 > concerned.
 >

I'm sure that the most worrisome aspect, from Intel's
point of view, is that losing market share to AMD indicates
a growing acceptance for AMD processors - and things like
that have a way of snowballing on you. People who once
blindly insisted on "Intel Inside" are now starting to
try the competition's chips. When you lose that kind of
brand loyalty it is hard to get it back. And all of
those millions of first-time computer buyers in Asia
never did have any brand loyalty in the first place.






--
Reply to newsgroup only please. This e-mail account is real
but effectively abandoned because of excessive spamming.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

"Rob Stow" <rob.stow.DeleteThis@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:vqo03jnbhcnndb@corp.supernews.com...
 >
 > I'm sure that the most worrisome aspect, from Intel's
 > point of view, is that losing market share to AMD indicates
 > a growing acceptance for AMD processors - and things like
 > that have a way of snowballing on you. People who once
 > blindly insisted on "Intel Inside" are now starting to
 > try the competition's chips. When you lose that kind of
 > brand loyalty it is hard to get it back. And all of
 > those millions of first-time computer buyers in Asia
 > never did have any brand loyalty in the first place.
 >

Rob,

The point, in case you missed it, is that market share has been getting
'traded' back and forth for quite some time now. Back in 1996, Cyrix was
the threat (with about 13% market share) and AMD had only single digit
market share. By 1997, AMD had switched places with Cyrix, and in early
1998 Intel was 'worried' because their market share fell below 80%. By
1999, Intel had grabbed a significant portion of that back, but by early
2000 AMD was again making inroads. By mid 2001, AMD had 22.5% market
share. Unfortunately (for AMD), it began dropping again and by the end of
that year it was down to 18.5%. It continued to drop until the recent
'turnaround' that you are seemingly touting as some kind of phenomenon.
The fact is that, as Neil mentioned, the 20% mark is the critical point -
and the one that the competition (including AMD) has the most difficulty
with maintaining. So, it is useless to start proclaiming how 'worrisome'
it is until the market share for AMD is above 20%. Then we can have a
useful discussion. Until then, it is just a lot of noise...

Regards,
Dean


 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > --
 > Reply to newsgroup only please. This e-mail account is real
 > but effectively abandoned because of excessive spamming.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share 

"Rob Stow" <rob.stow.TakeThisOut@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:vql93kbs9v5504@corp.supernews.com...
 > The numbers are reported in slightly more detail in
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20031105102012.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20031105102012.html</font</a>>
 >
 > Specifically, Intel went down from 85.9% in Q3 2002
 > to 82.6% in Q3 2003. AMD went up from to 12.4% to 15.8%
 > in the same period. Seems to me that AMD has reason for
 > optimism and Intel execs will continue to grind their teeth.
 >
 > Transmeta and VIA combined for 1.6% in Q3 2003.

The numbers have always been in flux. Yes, the average 80:20 marketshare
rule seems to be in effect at the moment, but about ten-fifteen years ago,
Intel usually had closer to 95% or more marketshare in x86 processors. When
AMD had 22% marketshare, it was the first time ever than any single
competitor of Intel's has achieved that kind of a marketshare by itself.
That was achieved with mostly desktop processors (Athlons), budget desktop
processors (Durons), mobile processors (-M's), and low-end dual-processor
server & workstation chips (-MP's), but no high-end server chips. They each
had varying levels of success in each of their market categories, and at
various times. The desktop and budget desktops have obviously been a big
success for them. The mobiles were moderately successful at various times
for them, though currently they are nowhere to be seen in this market with
the current Intel mobile product mix. The low-end server/workstation chips
were nothing more than a niche product for them, a toe in the water testing
the temperature.

Each new generation of AMD chip seems to push the "line in the sand"
boundary a little further forward. Each generation, they seem to push into
newer market areas. Now they are making their first push for mid-level
servers (4 to 8 processors). In the process they seem to have opened up a
highly visible niche market in supercomputers, which was not seriously
predicted before it actually started happening. This supercomputer
visibility might end up opening up the high-end (16-32P) and maybe even the
super high-end (32-128P) server market for them.

The super high-end is a more distant goal, because this market requires not
just raw processors, but the ability to partition the system up into
multiple independent subsystems to act like separate servers inside a single
box. For this they need somebody to develop a hardware crossbar architecture
that can partition it board-by-board, something like the Sun Sunfire
architecture. Whether somebody will actually develop such a device for them
is not clear, this is probably just another toe-in-the-water category for
them.

Another area of potential growth is server blades, which requires a
combiantion of mobile power-saving technology as well as server
capabilities. They have them both, and I don't see too much problem for them
to crack this market.

Anyways, with all of these new potential markets open to it, the push might
be on to set the new line in the sand at 70:30 this time around. We'll have
to see how each of the categories works out for them over time.

Yousuf Khan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Q3 market share