Intel remained the leader in
microprocessor sales but its share slipped to 65.3 percent of the MPU
market compared to 67.3 percent in 2011 and 68.6 percent in 2010, based
on IC Insights’ analysis of suppliers. AMD’s share of microprocessor
sales fell to 6.4 percent in 2012, compared to 8.2 percent in 2011 and
9.6 percent in 2010, according to the new ranking. Slowing sales of
legacy PCs caused AMD to announce in late 2012 that it would be the
first MPU supplier sell microprocessors built with x86 and ARM
architectures—initially for server computers—starting in 2014.
$56.5 billion microprocessor market continued to be the largest single
semiconductor product category in 2012, accounting for 22 percent of
total IC sales, IC Insights said. But microprocessor sales growth
slowed to 2 percent in 2012 following a strong 19 percent increase in
2011, according to the firm. IC Insights forecasts that the market for
MPUs will increase by 10 percent in 2013 to reach $62 billion.
2012, strong increases in mobile application processors used in
cellphones and tablet PCs offset a 6 percent decline in MPU sales for
desktop and notebook PCs, servers, and embedded-processor applications,
IC Insights said. Between 2012 and 2017, total MPU sales are projected
to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 12 percent, reaching $97.7
billion in 2017.
How the categorization is done may drastically change the picture.
Do we look at 32 bit and 64 bits only? Or we are looking at the whole spectrum.
How do we define supplier? Does supplier require to be able to fabricate? Does supplier require to supply to another company other than itself?
Nonetheless, the trend may give us an insight that the age of x86 domination is fading.
That's a good question! When TSMC ramps up production of Apple processors we will need to look at what makes the most sense. Do you call Apple a "supplier" of MPUs (supplying to itself?) or do you put those sales under a pure-play foundry such as TSMC and list TSMC as an MPU supplier? One thing for certain, these Apple MPU sales will need to go to TSMC or Apple or they won't be counted at all, and that really isn't an option.
Hi Bill, Apple is designing their own MPU now for some time, how will you handle when they start using tsmc instead of samsung?
Similarly other folks like Nvidia who are starting to directly sell products (shield w/ tegra4), will these parts be calculated back to TSMC?
When TSMC and Samsung catch intel in terms of process technology, due in part to intel slowing, then it becomes a capacity and yield game (read: unit price).
Intel is building factories at amazing pace all of a sudden, and I can guess this is why. But I bet Samsung and TSMC can build bigger/ faster...and not upset their shareholders in the process.
and MPU market gets more interesting
My friend at Intel just passed on info that new
CEO did a major re-organization this week
Problem is 22nm Silver mount is very late and uncompetitive and has no meaningful Smartphone design wins.
14 technology is also very late and design will not ship on time and could be 1 year late
After toying with the idea of listing Apple separately, the bottom line is that Apple is not an MPU supplier, they are an end user. As you mention, all of the fabless suppliers re-sell their MPUs and are correctly included as suppliers.
The Samsung/Apple case is an example of why not all foundry sales should be excluded when attempting to create marketshare data. With most of Samsung's sales sold to Apple, since Apple does not re-sell these devices, counting these foundry sales as Samsung MPU sales does not introduce double counting.
It should be noted that of the $32 billion in 2012 pure-play foundry sales from TSMC, GF, UMC, etc., only $200 million was to system houses like Apple.
Althought I could argue for same reason, AMD should not be listed on this one, but also complicated since AMD doesn't manufacture (ie GF, TSMC), but also acts as reseller to customer other than themself.
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.