Chip rankings: Intel had highest share in over 10 years (EETimes)

[Idontcare]

Chip rankings: Intel had highest share in over 10 years

Intel Corp. accounted for 15.6 percent of the overall semiconductor market in 2011, as brisk sales of its core chips and the acquisition of Infineon AG's wireless chip business unit helped the No. 1 chip vendor achieve its highest share of the overall chip market in more than 10 years, according to market research firm IHS iSuppli.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4369843/Chip-rankings--Intel-had-highest-share-in-over-10-years

Intel used to be at a 6:1 revenue advantage to AMD, that lead has now grown to nearly 8:1.

Even still, surprising that they only have <16% of the TAM, surprising in a good way.

Because if they were able to be as profitable as they have been while still sinking as much money into R&D as they have been so as to develop 22nm (and the existing pipeline for future nodes) with a mere 16% of the total revenue bucket in their coffers then that speaks to a long future of more Moore given how much more revenue is out there that can be brought to bear on node shrinks in an ever more coordinated manner as market-share consolidation continues.

 

[Edrick]

Am I the only one who is surprised that IBM is not even in the top 25?

 

[anikhtos]

so if we count were nvidia is
and that amd is also ati together
lol that makes things even worse.
amd is 2 times better than nvidia so is amd due to a slow death??
aparently too far back from intel in term of cash
and as it seems nvidia is damn close to her
how is going amd to battle this 2 fronts effectively?
with so low cash?

 

[iCyborg]

Not a good year for DRAM manufacturers...

 

[Imouto]

This isn't a bad year for AMD so far.

 

[-Slacker-]

Am I the only one who is surprised that IBM is not even in the top 25?

Has to be some mistake ...

 

[Arachnotronic]

Am I the only one who is surprised that IBM is not even in the top 25?

IBM just talks a lot about weird experimental stuff -- they don't have THAT large a commercial semiconductor presence.

 

[Edrick]

IBM just talks a lot about weird experimental stuff -- they don't have THAT large a commercial semiconductor presence.

Yea, but they pretty much own the Big Iron market with the Power7 and the z196 CPUs. One would think with the billions they make from there would at least put them on the top 25. They can beat out a company like "Nichia"?

Edit: I suppose that make a lot of their money with software and/or service contracts as well. But still, I am surprised.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Yea, but they pretty much own the Big Iron market with the Power7 and the z196 CPUs. One would think with the billions they make from there would at least put them on the top 25. They can beat out a company like "Nichia"?

They don't own the big iron market at all. Xeon chips dominate there, too.

 

[Phynaz]

They don't own the big iron market at all. Xeon chips dominate there, too.

Ummm...No.

Anyway, since IBM sells those chips to themselves, that may be why they don't show up on the rankings.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Ummm...No.

Proof? 'cause I've got this little chart handy: http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com...el-Talks-About-Itanium-and-Xeon-E5-CPUs-3.jpg

And I'm pretty sure the Nehalem EX/Westmere EX generation outsold the Itanium stuff.

 

[Broheim]

Ummm...No.

Anyway, since IBM sells those chips to themselves, that may be why they don't show up on the rankings.

this. IBM makes a killing in the mainframe business and essentially has a monopoly.

to quote an IBM employee whose mainframe seminar I attended:

"IBM doesn't do commodities, we sell solutions".

 

[Idontcare]

Am I the only one who is surprised that IBM is not even in the top 25?

Same reason Apple, Microsoft, and Google aren't on the list.

The part of IBM that you are thinking of, the revenue part, is not the hardware sales.

Last time I saw IBM's hardware revenue for semiconductors (the CPU's exiting their fabs, not the servers being pushed through the customer's doors) it was barely $2.3B/yr in 2009 and was in steady decline. To make it on the chart for 2011 you needed at least $2.7B in semiconductor-based revenue.

Their semiconductor volume is really really small, they don't even utilize the available capacity of the Fishkill fab, which is why they have the room and desire to host the prototype R&D lines in that fab for their fab ecosystem partners.

 

[Edrick]

Last time I saw IBM's hardware revenue for semiconductors (the CPU's exiting their fabs, not the servers being pushed through the customer's doors) it was barely $2.3B/yr in 2009 and was in steady decline. To make it on the chart for 2011 you needed at least $2.7B in semiconductor-based revenue.

That answers my question. Thank you. I would have guessed it to be much larger than $2.3B considering they have very little competition in that area.

 

[Edrick]

They don't own the big iron market at all. Xeon chips dominate there, too.

The Intel EX lines are like entry level Big Iron. They do not compete much with Power7 (Itanium does). And nothing Intel makes competes with z196 (mainframes).

 

[MrTeal]

I don't think this is the table you're looking for.

This is semiconductor revenue, so all semiconductors are included. Discrete transistors, LEDs, CPUs, GPUs, memory, FPGAs, etc. That's the reason why companies like Rohm, ON Semi, and Nichia are on there but IBM isn't.

 

[Ferzerp]

The Intel EX lines are like entry level Big Iron. They do not compete much with Power7 (Itanium does). And nothing Intel makes competes with z196 (mainframes).

At the same time, system z is such a niche product.... The P7xx models are just asking to be supplanted with x86 due to the cost. When you can buy 3 or 4 quad E7 boxes (with half a terabyte of ram each) for the price of a P770, the IBM product just can't compete in raw performance/price. We still run Oracle on them here though. There is a lack of confidence in Oracle on Linux. Perhaps it is warranted, perhaps it is misplaced.

 

[blckgrffn]

"Big Iron" just refuses to go away.

I think they'll have a harder time (IBM) when the current generation of systems admins moves through the system and more X86/Big Virtualization admins rise up through the ranks.

That'll be years in the making, though.

Also, there is a big push for application development on cheaper X86. At some point, people are going to need new software that doesn't come from just IBM and the third party application ecosystem will have withered away...

Again, years in the making.

My $.02.

All that said, Intel seems to be on a roll

Is it said that I started looking for AMD at the bottom of the list?

 

[MisterMac]

Idontcare.

What's the revenue of IBM's Big Iron divison?

Hardware
Services/Software
...misc?

Is it revenue wise comparable to Intel?

 

[tynopik]

This seems to be a ranking of the IP providers (Nvidia) and not the actual foundries (TSMC), so how do the foundries rank?

TSMC, Intel, GloFo, Micron, IBM, etc

 

[Edrick]

I think they'll have a harder time (IBM) when the current generation of systems admins moves through the system and more X86/Big Virtualization admins rise up through the ranks.

Virtualization has its place and can be quite useful. But I do not think it will replace Big Iron anytime soon.

 

[Phynaz]

Idontcare.

What's the revenue of IBM's Big Iron divison?

Hardware
Services/Software
...misc?

Is it revenue wise comparable to Intel?

Billions. IBM doesn't break out their revenue by platform, they break it out by business area. See page 26 of their annual report. http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2011/bin/assets/2011_ibm_annual.pdf

Intel has about half the annual revenue IBM does.

 

[smyrgl]

Same reason Apple, Microsoft, and Google aren't on the list.

Couple points:

1) Apple IS on that list. Who do you think manufactures their chips for them? Here's a hint: they are #2 on that list.

2) Why would Microsoft or Google be on that list? They don't ship any semiconductor products.

3) IBM would be on the list since they manufacture semiconductors (even if they only sell them to themselves). They must not be on their because they are simply too small, at least in semiconductor sales. Keep in mind, this might also involve how IBM books revenue for these divisions (IE, they may be selling them to themselves at very low internal cost for bookeeping purposes).

 

[Nemesis 1]

Couple points:

1) Apple IS on that list. Who do you think manufactures their chips for them? Here's a hint: they are #2 on that list.

2) Why would Microsoft or Google be on that list? They don't ship any semiconductor products.

3) IBM would be on the list since they manufacture semiconductors (even if they only sell them to themselves). They must not be on their because they are simply too small, at least in semiconductor sales. Keep in mind, this might also involve how IBM books revenue for these divisions (IE, they may be selling them to themselves at very low internal cost for bookeeping purposes).

Well by your logic MS is on the list also . Last I heard Xbox 360 uses IBM cpus and ATI gpus . With NO parts coming from GF. Seems to me alot of fabless companies are on the list. AMD NV ect. ect. ect.

 

[smyrgl]

Well by your logic MS is on the list also . Last I heard Xbox 360 uses IBM cpus and ATI gpus .

Obviously I was being tongue-in-cheek about Apple.

With NO parts coming from GF. Seems to me alot of fabless companies are on the list. AMD NV ect. ect. ect.

Fab or fabless don't matter, the question I suppose is: do they ship semiconductors for revenue?

In the case of AMD, nVidia, Qualcomm that's a clear yet, in the case of Microsoft, Apple, Huwaei, that's a clear no.