What would AMD's market share be if they could sell all the CPUs they
make right now, taking away Intel sales in the process? Anybody have
this kind of data?

Just curious about their short-term market share potential (that is,
without new fabs or fab conversions).


Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> What would AMD's market share be if they could sell all the CPUs they
> make right now, taking away Intel sales in the process? Anybody have
> this kind of data?
>
> Just curious about their short-term market share potential (that is,
> without new fabs or fab conversions).
>
>
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer

Good thing! Tell you're employer they've f'd up their business
big time! ;-)

--
Keith

On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:49:26 -0700, Neil Maxwell
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>What would AMD's market share be if they could sell all the CPUs they
>make right now, taking away Intel sales in the process? Anybody have
>this kind of data?

Uhh, if you're e-mail address is to be believed, then you work for a
company that probably knows much better than nearly anyone in this
newsgroup! I'm SURE that Intel has someone with their eyes on AMD who
has done all kinds of calculations on just how much of the market
share they could take.

>Just curious about their short-term market share potential (that is,
>without new fabs or fab conversions).

Rough guess, 20-30%. It depends on a lot of factors though, not the
least of which simply being how big the market is. The market this
year looks like it should be a good 10-15% larger than it was last
year, but AMD's fab capacity has not increased at all. What's more,
they're now making a much larger processor die (Opteron/Athlon64), so
they can produce fewer chips.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> year, but AMD's fab capacity has not increased at all. What's more,
> they're now making a much larger processor die (Opteron/Athlon64), so
> they can produce fewer chips.

Have the 512k cache Clawhammers actually come online as their own die (as
opposed to a 1M cache with half disabled or nonfunctional)? Shouldn't that
cut down the die size a bit?

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."

Nate Edel wrote:

> Have the 512k cache Clawhammers actually come online as their own die
> (as opposed to a 1M cache with half disabled or nonfunctional)?

As far as I understand,

Clawhammer = 1 MB L2 cache. Half is disabled in some Athlons to
improve yield.

I think you meant Newcastle (512 KB L2 cache @ 130 nm) and Winchester
(512 KB L2 cache @ 90 nm).

Time for back of the envelope guesstimates.

Clawhammer
1 MB L2 cache
105.9 million transistors
193 mm^2 @ 130 nm

512 KB cache =~ 25 million transistors

Newcastle
512 KB L2 cache
80 million transistors
150 mm^2 @ 130 nm

Winchester (just a die shrink ??)
512 KB L2 cache
80 million transistors
85 mm^2 @ 90 nm

Winchester should support SSE3.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:52:42 -0400, Tony Hill
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:49:26 -0700, Neil Maxwell
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>What would AMD's market share be if they could sell all the CPUs they
>>make right now, taking away Intel sales in the process? Anybody have
>>this kind of data?
>
>Uhh, if you're e-mail address is to be believed, then you work for a
>company that probably knows much better than nearly anyone in this
>newsgroup! I'm SURE that Intel has someone with their eyes on AMD who
>has done all kinds of calculations on just how much of the market
>share they could take.

Yes, you can believe it, and yes, I'm also sure there are people here
who know the answers to such things. If you know anyone in the
industry, you know that this type of market analysis data is not
routinely distributed to the rank-and-file in much of any company I've
worked at (AMD included). I'm a simple fab manufacturing engineer in
a deep and narrow niche (and flash to boot).

Hence, my question (an unbiased one, IMO) in a newsgroup full of
industry-watchers. I'll admit to a vested interest in the long-term
results, but I have no insider knowledge, and no desire for biased
spin on either side.

>>Just curious about their short-term market share potential (that is,
>>without new fabs or fab conversions).
>
>Rough guess, 20-30%. It depends on a lot of factors though, not the
>least of which simply being how big the market is. The market this
>year looks like it should be a good 10-15% larger than it was last
>year, but AMD's fab capacity has not increased at all. What's more,
>they're now making a much larger processor die (Opteron/Athlon64), so
>they can produce fewer chips.

The goal of the question is to look at supply and demand issues (and
related income/margin issues) in perspective, prompted by an earlier
post on short-term market share. In the past, AMD has hit 20%+ market
share, though they appear to be in the 15% range currently based on Q1
data. It appears they have dropped market share but gained
profitability by being less aggressive on pricing cuts (which is good
for both companies, IMO, and may be related to Sanders' lessening
control). Without profits, they have no long-term expansion
capability.

According to reports, AMD's ASP is rising, but it's not clear to me
whether that's because they're selling a larger percentage of high-end
CPUs or discounting the entire line less. I'm sure someone here knows
more detail.

The thought is that, regardless of Intel's perceived screwups and
AMD's performance benefits, AMD's upside and market share impact is
somewhat limited by their mid-term capacity, while Intel's large
manufacturing base and ongoing transition to increased 300mm capacity
allows them extra production flexibility and continuing margin
pressures. As I see it, it's physically impossible for AMD to pick up
more than 10-15% of Intel's CPU business, and if they picked this up
in the lower-end CPUs, it would hurt them more than it would hurt
Intel.

I'm aware that this is holy war material, and I don't care to go
there. I'm just looking for facts and educated guesses to base my own
long-term plans on.

Personally, I'm all for a healthy AMD; as I said, I think it's good
for both companies.


Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer

Grumble <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Nate Edel wrote:
> > Have the 512k cache Clawhammers actually come online as their own die
> > (as opposed to a 1M cache with half disabled or nonfunctional)?
>
> As far as I understand,
> Clawhammer = 1 MB L2 cache. Half is disabled in some Athlons to
> improve yield.
>
> I think you meant Newcastle (512 KB L2 cache @ 130 nm)

My misunderstanding; I guess I meant Newcastle -- what I meant was the "512k
cache Athlon 64 where it wasn't just disabling half of the 1mb cache on the
older die."

I thought that was ClawHammer and that that was the distinction in cores
between the 1mb and 512k cache ones. Because I thought that the 3200+/3400+
were the same core as the Opterons/A64FX -- just with a socket 754 carrier
and as such gimpage of the extra memory channel.

> Winchester (just a die shrink ??)
> 512 KB L2 cache
> 80 million transistors
> 85 mm^2 @ 90 nm
>
> Winchester should support SSE3.

Assuming everything goes well with the process shrink, that should help push
the A64 prices down, right? If I understand correctly, half the die size ==
more than 2X the yield, all other things being equal...

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."

On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:53:40 -0700, Neil Maxwell
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:52:42 -0400, Tony Hill
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Rough guess, 20-30%. It depends on a lot of factors though, not the
>>least of which simply being how big the market is. The market this
>>year looks like it should be a good 10-15% larger than it was last
>>year, but AMD's fab capacity has not increased at all. What's more,
>>they're now making a much larger processor die (Opteron/Athlon64), so
>>they can produce fewer chips.
>
>The goal of the question is to look at supply and demand issues (and
>related income/margin issues) in perspective, prompted by an earlier
>post on short-term market share. In the past, AMD has hit 20%+ market
>share, though they appear to be in the 15% range currently based on Q1
>data. It appears they have dropped market share but gained
>profitability by being less aggressive on pricing cuts (which is good
>for both companies, IMO, and may be related to Sanders' lessening
>control). Without profits, they have no long-term expansion
>capability.

AMD's market share figures have been reasonably stable for quite about
5 years now. They've varied a bit, but most been in the 15-20% range.

>According to reports, AMD's ASP is rising, but it's not clear to me
>whether that's because they're selling a larger percentage of high-end
>CPUs or discounting the entire line less. I'm sure someone here knows
>more detail.

From what I've seen it's mainly that they are selling a larger
percentage of high-end CPUs. They still sell a lot of dirt-cheap
AthlonXP and even Duron chips. Just have a look at the prices that
AMD themselves list for an AthlonXP 2500+, only $79, and you KNOW that
HPaq is getting them for a lot less. On the other hand, the AthlonXP
3000+ and 3200+ seem to still be selling reasonably well and the
Athlon64/Opteron line has been fairly successful, and those are all
high-margin parts.

Where AMD has been hurting a bit, from what I've seen, is in the
mobile space. The AthlonXP-M is actually a rather competitive
product. It's performance and power consumption are well within
striking distance of the Pentium-M, but the Centrino marketing
campaign at Intel has been VERY effective. As a result AMD has had to
compete with the Mobile Celeron chips instead. The AthlonXP-M is a
MUCH better mobile processor than the Mobile Celeron (and even better
than the new Celeron-M), but AMD has still had to compete on price to
get anywhere in this market.

>The thought is that, regardless of Intel's perceived screwups and
>AMD's performance benefits, AMD's upside and market share impact is
>somewhat limited by their mid-term capacity,

Somewhat limited maybe. But I don't think that is the primary
limiting factor. The biggest factor working against AMD right now
seems to be Intel's marketing department, who seem able to more than
make up for any faults in the products themselves.

> while Intel's large
>manufacturing base and ongoing transition to increased 300mm capacity
>allows them extra production flexibility and continuing margin
>pressures. As I see it, it's physically impossible for AMD to pick up
>more than 10-15% of Intel's CPU business,

That's probably fairly accurate. Note though that AMD does have a
fairly large new fab coming on-line in 2006, so if you're looking at
this for a somewhat more long-term deal than AMD could end up with a
much larger chunk of the market.

> and if they picked this up
>in the lower-end CPUs, it would hurt them more than it would hurt
>Intel.

I doubt it. The economics of computer processors tend to emphasize
volume over almost everything else. Even if they're only selling
AthlonXP chips for $35 or $40 than AMD is probably still making a
profit on a per-chip basis. The real costs are all in R&D, and those
are mostly sunk costs when it comes to the low-end chips.

The thing that might hurt AMD would be to take away the low-end of the
market from Intel but lose the high-end in the process. They might
end up with a larger chunk of market share in the process, but they
wouldn't be making the high margins on the new processors where R&D is
still an on-going expense.

>I'm aware that this is holy war material, and I don't care to go
>there. I'm just looking for facts and educated guesses to base my own
>long-term plans on.

If you're talking about long-term plans in terms of stocks and such, I
personally wouldn't want to get too much into either company. However
if you've got some kind of stock options for Intel, they aren't going
anywhere any time soon. Despite any advantages that AMD has shown,
Intel still has pretty much a strangle-hold on the business PC market.
Dell sells Intel chips exclusively and even HPaq sells only a very
small number of AMD-based business systems. Same goes for IBM and
Toshiba in the business laptop market.

>Personally, I'm all for a healthy AMD; as I said, I think it's good
>for both companies.

That much is certainly true.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Neil Maxwell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> What would AMD's market share be if they could sell all the CPUs they
> make right now, taking away Intel sales in the process? Anybody have
> this kind of data?
>
> Just curious about their short-term market share potential (that is,
> without new fabs or fab conversions).

Last I looked, and that was eras ago in this business, was in the 98-2000
frame during AMD's last successful push through Intel's territory (i.e. K7
Athlon days). At that time, they were just transitioning from 250nm Athlons
to 180nm Athlons and Durons; the Athlons with 256KB L2 were about 105
sq.mm., and the Durons with 64KB L2 were about a paltry 85 sq.mm. Based on
those dimensions it was estimated that AMD could supply about 30-40mln
processors to the market per year, depending on the mix of processors.
Assuming a 100mln x86 processor market, that would be 30-40%. They pushed up
past 20% and were approaching 25% before they were stopped by Intel. So they
still had some extra capacity to spare if they could've moved on without any
resistance.

Now they've been pushed back to 15% marketshare. At 130nm, their newer 512KB
Athlon XPs I think are about 120 sq.mm, but their 256KB Athlon XPs are about
95 sq.mm. Depending on the mix, I think these are only good for supplying
between 20-25mln processors. But now with the mix-in of the 64-bit 1MB L2
cores, that calculation may have gone down one more time. I'm not sure how
much the 64-bit cores size is, is it 160 sq.mm. or 190 sq.mm? Again, I'd say
depending on the mix, the upper limit is still 25 mln processors (assuming
only 256KB XPs are sold), but the lower limit might have gone down to 18 mln
from 20 mln (assuming only 64-bit cores are sold). AMD is also working on a
512KB L2 version of the 64-bit core which I assume will be only 140 sq.mm.
But then again they also have plans for a dual-core 64-bit core with 2MB L2
cache. This is making my head hurt.

I think once they transition to 90 nm, the acreage on each chip will be
halved.

Yousuf Khan

Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Where AMD has been hurting a bit, from what I've seen, is in the
> mobile space. The AthlonXP-M is actually a rather competitive
> product. It's performance and power consumption are well within
> striking distance of the Pentium-M, but the Centrino marketing
> campaign at Intel has been VERY effective. As a result AMD has had to
> compete with the Mobile Celeron chips instead. The AthlonXP-M is a
> MUCH better mobile processor than the Mobile Celeron (and even better
> than the new Celeron-M), but AMD has still had to compete on price to
> get anywhere in this market.

Yeah, that's for sure. I just bought a cheap little XP-M ultralight notebook
for a relative recently. I couldn't believe all of the features it had
built-in: 3-USB 2.0 ports, 1-100 Mbps Ethernet, 1-56K dialup, and 1-11 Mbps
WiFi-B. All for about Cdn$1500 which works out to US$1100. Which is Celeron
notebook territory. In fact there were Celerons right next to it with less
features and a heavier footprint.

Yousuf Khan