AMD's EPYC CPUs have already snatched server market share away from Intel
Intel has enjoyed a virtual monopoly in the server CPU arena for some time. However, AMD's EPYC series of processors, based on the latest iteration of Zen architecture, may change that. The first generation of these chipsets, Naples, managed to reduce Intel's market share to 99% shortly after its launch. This may sound less than impressive, but in a billion-dollar industry, it was possibly quite valuable to AMD.
The latest report on the server market by DRAMeXchange indicates that Intel's share is down to 98% by now. This represents a 100% improvement for AMD. Furthermore, the analysts estimate that the release of EPYC Rome-based silicon will result in further gains. They will ultimately result in a total market share of 5% for these CPUs by the end of 2019.
Intel is keeping AMD under 15%. For now:
Now it's easy to tell that Intel will still remain the dominant player in the market, retaining a 90-95% market share lead over AMD but Intel's Ex-CEO, Brian Krzanich, stated that his company wouldn't want AMD capturing 15-20% server market share. In fact, at the pace at which AMD is gaining their server market share, 15% doesn't really feel like a far cry from now.
[...] Looking at the market penetration rate, Intel's Purley platform has been adopted by 60% users in the server space and is expected to reach 65% in the coming year. On the other hand, AMD's EPYC Naples platform has been adopted by 70% and considering that AMD is keeping socket longevity intact with Rome, we can see the adoption rate further expanding after 7nm chips launch.
Previously: AMD Misses Q1 Earnings Target; Withdraws from High-Density Server Market
AMD Ratcheting Up the Pressure on Intel
More on AMD's Licensing of Epyc Server Chips to Chinese Companies
AMD's server marketshare hits 1% for the first time in 4 years
Related: TSMC Will Make AMD's "7nm" Epyc Server CPUs
Intel Announces 48-core Xeons Using Multiple Dies, Ahead of AMD Announcement
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03 2018, @06:15PM (1 child)
The "official reason" was having an inappropriate (but consensual) relationship with an employee, it wasn't harassment. Either way that was just an excuse the board was keeping in their back pocket.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @05:12PM
Krzanich divested stock in an anomalous way right after meltdown or spectrev1 was exposed to Intel via Google. The result of this was.... nothing.
For all the talk about Trump or Clinton being investigated for their questionable financial habits, here we have THE largest tech company in the world, with a bug that affects *ALMOST EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WITH AN X86 COMPUTER* and *OBVIOUS SIGNS OF INSIDER TRADING* and what investigation has taken place or what charges have been filed?
Instead he got to keep all that profit on his stock options that might have been lost after the announcement, eked by as CEO just long enough to be the fall guy, then retired with a golden parachute the likes of a dozen or a hundred families could live comfortably off of for a year.... or ten.