AMD slips out of iSuppli's top 10 semiconductor suppliers
By Darren Murph 
posted Nov 29th 2007 9:07AM
posted Nov 29th 2007 9:07AM
iSuppli -- the market research firm that keeps us up to speed on exactly how much each iPod pads Steve's wallet (among other things) -- has recently published its list of top players in the 2007 semiconductor market, and lo and behold, AMD isn't even in the top ten. It's noted that while Intel's chip revenue is expected to rise 7.7-percent in 2007, AMD's sales are predicted to sink some 22.7-percent for the year. Of course, AMD had only risen into the upper echelon of this list for the first time last year, but now it has fallen back to 11th, trailing the likes of Samsung, Toshiba, STMicroelectronics, Infineon, Sony, NXP, Intel and Texas Instruments. If you're interested in seeing the details behind the numbers, be sure and hit the read link below. Oh, and please do keep the fanboy comments respectable, will ya?[Via PCWorld]
fanboy + respectable = oxymoron.
There's a reason why such people are called "fanboys", and it's not because of any semblance of level-headedness.
My take on this is simple: So what? Why is this an issue? I still like AMD, although I have nothing against Intel. Even if AMD is 50th on this list, I like their processors and will continue to purchase them as long as they suit my needs. Once they stop suiting my needs, I'll go to Intel. Their placement in a supplier list honestly doesn't mean jack to me.
Exactly. I tend to buy whichever processor is more powerful at the time I'm in the market to buy. Originally, it was Intel. Five years ago, it was AMD. Three years ago it was Intel again, but that was more because of the deal I got than the power. Now I wouldn't even look in AMD's direction until they do something to knock Intel off the top of the heap, as their Core 2 line is just too strong in both benchmarks and real-world performance.
But if AMD pulls ahead again, you can bet I'll be paying attention.
i just buy AMD because they are almost always better bang for the buck. when i got my AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2.0GHZ) it was $135. if i remember correctly, the equivalent Intel was like $50 more. i think the new ATI HD3800 series will put AMD back in the game. unless AMD really goes down the pooper i plan on getting a Phenom sometime next year. that Spider platform looks really interesting.
my amd stock went -50%
now i know why!!!
Are they not counting TSMC since they don't really design their chips? They would totally crush this otherwise.
I agree with the others... this machine is AMD, the last was Intel, AMD before that, and Intel before that... I've also built AMD and Intel machines to suit the needs/price requirements of some of my customers.
At the price I'm usually willing to spend, AMD has some good deals, but even the budget Intel's pull their weight. It just comes down to other features a lot these days. Like, I want SLi in my next rig, so I'm going Intel. But I may go CrossFire in the future. It's nice for us to see these companies competing and innovating.
Cheers to both companies.
What I'd like know is how they get these figures - and to a tenth of a percent of growth - more than a month before the year is over. I smell false accuracy.
Fiscal year?
Note that the label for the chart reads: "Table 1 attached presents iSuppli’s preliminary global ranking of the world’s Top-20 semiconductor suppliers in 2007." So they didn't say that these are truly official rankings.
Most of those top 10 are bulk suppliers for CES devices, including intel. Why would anyone be surprised that a company making only CPU's and video cards would not make the top 10 suppliers list?
Funny how there's rarely any fanboy warning on the PC/Mac crap, eh?
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750: $180
AMD 64 X2 6000+: Also $180
From a qick glance at Tom's CPU charts of Supreme Commander, probably the most CPU-intensive game out there:
E6750 46.60 FPS
6000+ 37.52 FPS
And for giggles, the new Phenom 9700: 47.47 FPS versus the QX9650 62.10 FPS
Now the Phenom will probably be a good deal cheaper than the C2Q, but with such a performance difference between the top chips, it really speaks for itself why AMD sales have dropped. Looking at Newegg, the 9500 Phenom is $259....and it performs worse (44.33 FPS) than the $189 E6750...
Yes, that is only one bench, and you can look at other benches based on what you would do with the chip...the differences may not be as drastic...but looking from a gaming perspective, Sup Comm IMHO is the best CPU tester by far. It takes advantage of all cores and will tax any CPU out there to the max if you let it.
When building mid and low-end systems, AMD chips can really come through. The 4200+ runs about $70...that's a really good processor really cheap. The problem is, most people who know that don't build very many low end systems like that. The people who would want systems like that buy a prebuilt Dell or HP which will probably have an Intel CPU more often than an AMD one.
Tom's article on Phenom, for reference:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/page27.html
@ Kamokazi
I think you hit it on the head where you said AMD makes better chips for low and mid-ranged computers. I've found that if you're looking to put together a middle of the road desktop (or really just a non-gaming machine), AMD has some very affordable offerings that pack some pretty good bang for your buck!
I still go with AMD simply because of this and I usually find better deals on AMD motherboards.
Can you tell me where you are getting your intel procs because the e6750 is more like $190. You're getting ripped off on AMD procs though because the 6000 can be had for $160. The 6000+ is more comparable to the E6550 (depends on test, but e6550 is probably a little better) which is $170.
I was looking at Newegg, and i just did a quick search on the 6000+ and it pulled up the OEM one, which is priced at $179, but I see the retail one now at $159. I remember seeing the e6750 in one of Newegg's e-mail blasts a week or so ago for $179.99 w/ free shipping. It appears to be $189 now everywhere.
I guess the bottom line is, would you pay $20-30 for a 24% performance increase? I would.
Yeah...while mildly interesting this news doesn't really say a whole lot about AMD, or even about AMDs profitability. The other players are much more diversified in their offerings. AMD primarily makes x86 type PUs so of course they're gonna sell less then they others...they have less to sell.
As for the ongoing AMD vs. Intel thing, it seems to flip flop every couple years. Of late it seems that back in the Itanium days Intel saw they were moving in the wrong direction (forced upgrade from x86 when transitioning to 64bit processing) but were too far in. So they wrote a generation off and AMD reigned supreme for a few years (as was their right...they had a great product; Athlon - Athlon64). Intel took second place for a while, but wisely spent the time leapfroging AMD with Core/Core2 and advancements in fabrication (they're at 45nm already, AMD is not). Now they're in the lead again (and again, they've earned it)...
The Phenom isn't as competative yet as I was hoping it would be, being slightly partial to AMD. But the first three models are clocked a little on the low side, so there's room to step them up. If AMD manages to get to 45nm before some other kind of paradigm shift occurs I think they can take the lead again, but that will probably take a couple years.
And the cycle goes on... :P
TI lost market share :(
Wow, I really miss the days when AMD was on the top of the pack. While I do think their business model is an interesting take (marketing processors on the basis of not having to upgrade compatibility/mobo sockets for years)and their earlier processors were top-notch, their digging their own grave right now and the people who are really going to lose out are the consumers. If AMD goes under Intel is not going to have any competition at all. Heck, they barely have any competition now and look how high their launch chips are running...
For the sake of the consumer, I hope AMD hangs in there and decides to really push technology out. Lower prices only matter if performance is still up there.
Game over AMD
Damn bad quality of traditional chinese engadget stuff,
the original topic about AMD become politics dispute in traditional chinese engadget.
Also hold a ridiculous vote....
(in fact, almost all of the voting is rediculous, it's onlt another example)
http://chinese.engadget.com/2007/11/30/taiwanese-semiconductor-companies-account-for-4-5-percent-of-world-revenue/
I think they underestimate the value of Taiwan....
Please enhance the quality of stuff in Traditional Chinese Endgadget!!
Read this first…..it’s original article
http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/29/amd-slips-out-of-isupplis-top-10-semiconductor-suppliers/
It is translated to this….
http://chinese.engadget.com/2007/11/30/taiwanese-semiconductor-companies-account-for-4-5-percent-of-world-revenue/
Please enhance the quality of stuff in Traditional Chinese Endgadget,
Or at least review the article before they release it.
I’m wondering why the article about AMD is turning into depreciating the value of Taiwan in Semiconductor.
I’m so surprised that the author of Traditional Chinese Endgadget is so innocent to use this data to depreciate the value of Taiwan.
Doesn’t he don’t know the data may be only consider about brand without OEM/ODM?
The original data is just to show the brand and compared about AMD and Intel.
The contribution of country is not stressed especially for Taiwan.
So I think it is not proper to use this data to deny the contribution of Taiwan.
Again, please enhance the quality of stuff in Traditional Chinese Endgadget!!
Oops!! I mean enhance "Staff", not "Stuff", sorry for it!!