Microprocessor makers are looking to gain market share in their own space at the same time they look to capture share in new markets with their core products.  And it’s been a head to head battle this year as AMD and Intel fought to edge each other out in technology advances in an effort to gain share.

AMD actually started putting Intel on the defensive in 2003 when it announced that it would offer 64-bit processors and released products for both the server and desktop that same year. While this is not akin to improving performance by cranking up the clock speed, it is an enhancement that can improve performance in video and computer aided design (CAD) applications as well as games by offering twice the space for bits to move to and from the processor.

Intel had offered 64-bit computing in its high-end Itanium server line of processors, targeted at applications such as financial instruments and other highly specialized enterprise operations. But it had not offered an x86 compatible 64-bit processor, saying the market wasn’t ready for one.

“They handcuffed themselves by saying Itanium was their answer to 64-bit,” said Kevin Krewell, editor in chief of the Microprocessor Report.

But the company succumbed to pressure from AMD in February when it announced plans for a 64-bit processor, saying its lower end Xeon processor would go 64-bit in Q2 of this year.  Intel has since said that 64-bit desktop platforms would be ready when Microsoft released its 64-bit Windows operating system, which is expected – at last -- in 2005. Meanwhile, AMD released a 64-bit mobile processor.

AMD also trumped Intel on dual core technologies this year.  The smaller company announced plans for dual core and offered product timetable before Intel did, although Intel says the technology has been in development for years.  And to further upstage Intel, AMD offered a demonstration of its dual core technology the week before Intel’s own demo at the fall Intel Developers Forum.

“It’s been a reversal of roles for Intel and AMD this year,” said Krewell. “It is usually AMD that is following behind Intel. This year it was Intel playing catch up.”

With both companies saying their first dual core server platforms will be available mid-2005 and desktop versions in the second half of next year, it is relatively certain that dual core technologies will be the focus of much of the news for microprocessor makers in 2005.  Intel will outpace AMD in volume of dual core processors shipped, said Krewell, but both companies are on about the same schedule. IBM has not talked about its dual core plans for PowerPC, probably because it is constrained by its relationship with Apple. But Krewell is certain the company is working on it. 

In spite of its leadership on the scaling side, Intel took a somewhat unwanted spotlight this year as it was seemingly plagued with delays, product cancellations and glitches that even spurred an angry memo from CEO Craig Barrett over the summer.  But the obstacles almost seemed part of the company’s growing pains as it looked to reinvent the way it approached its own technology. 

Back in March Intel said it was changing the way it named its processors.  Rather than include clock speed in the name itself, the new convention assigned a number to each processor and then the packaging would list the different technologies the processor included.  This change was part of the platform approach that Intel initiated with its mobile Centrino platform which included a lower power processor and a chipset designed for the platform.

Along with the role reversal theme, Krewell points out that Intel had previously mocked AMD’s processor naming scheme that focused on model numbers rather than clock speed. Now Intel is again following the AMD lead.

The new emphasis Intel is shooting for is on the feature set rather than the clock speed, as enhancing performance becomes more a function of new technologies than the continuous march for more megahertz and gigahertz that had started to cause power, heat and leakage problems.

But the internal challenges at Intel have more hurt the company’s pride and not its pocketbook, said Krewell.  Intel is still making plenty of money.

Yet AMD has gained share in the microprocessor market. Now the smaller company must focus on keeping up the momentum and making a little more money and then making a lot more money, Krewell said.

By: DocMemory
Copyright © 2023 CST, Inc. All Rights Reserved