Samsung could very well beat Intel and become the biggest chip maker in the world soon

Samsung could very well beat Intel and become the biggest chip maker in the world soon
Intel might be in for a dethroning this quarter. The company that has given us most of the best PC processors has been the top chip maker since 1993, when it released its first Pentium CPU that jump-started the personal computer market. However, its 24-year reign as the top silicone supplier might be coming to an end.

If current trends in the industry continue for the next few months, Samsung will be taking the throne from Intel as the top chip maker in the world. The South Korean tech giant has to thank its memory department for this, as the continued rise of prices and demand for memory chips is driving Samsung's sales up.

It is mostly Chinese consumers' fault that memory prices skyrocketed. Users in China demand more and more high-end devices, creating more demand for the memory components that OEMs use to produce them. Samsung is making sure to capitalize on the growing demand through its DRAM and NAND flash memory chips, whose prices are expected to rise 39% and 25% respectively.

“If memory market prices continue to hold or increase through the second quarter and the balance of this year, Samsung could charge into the top spot and displace Intel, which has held the No. 1 ranking since 1993,” said Bill McClean, president of the US research company IC Insights.

McClean's firm predicted that Intel's chip sales for the current quarter will reach $14.4 billion, while Samsung's will rise to $14.6 billion for the same period. That would be a 4.1% increase year-over-year for Samsung.

“If achieved, this would mark a milestone achievement not only for Samsung, specifically, but for all other competing semiconductor producers who have tried for years to supplant Intel as the world's largest supplier,” McClean also added.

IC Insights also said that if memory prices don't drop in the second half of 2017, Samsung might also beat Intel in sales for the entire year. Currently, both companies are expected to make about $60 billion in semiconductor sales in 2017.

Another research firm, Nomura Securities, also commented on the current situation, predicting record-breaking revenue for Samsung in Q2 2017, thanks to the rising memory demand and the release of the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8+.

“The global demand for memory chips will continue for the time being. Samsung is predicted to post 13.5 trillion won [$12 billion] in operating profit and its chip unit is expected to record 7.4 trillion won [$6.5 billion] in operating revenue in the second quarter,” said Chung Chang-won, chief of Nomura Securities' research center.



1. ShadowSnypa786

Posts: 650; Member since: Jan 06, 2017

Well done Samsung I hope you get to 1st place. Just wished they used Exynos worldwide and not in certain markets.

3. VasiliS7

Posts: 203; Member since: Jan 10, 2017

Yes but with SD version you can pay games with emulators Exynos GPU not support it.

8. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

If the Exynos becomes a huge success to the point of other OEMs using it in their devices, then I am sure Samsung will publicly provide the source code and let modders fully hop on it. Besides, I can already emulate GameBoy Advance games on my Exynos Galaxy S4. It plays King Of Fighters very well and no lag.

10. UglyFrank

Posts: 2200; Member since: Jan 23, 2014

Qualcomm has blocked Exynos sales in certain markets though.

14. vincelongman

Posts: 5803; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

Stop spreading that BS Samsung can use the Exynos any where they want But they are cutting corners They are simply not willing to paying for CDMA licensing for the Exynos in the US, etc, ... e.g. They had the Exynos 7420 in the US S6 Huawei still use Kirins in their US Honor phones And of course Apple use their known SoCs in their iPhones

26. HomerS

Posts: 419; Member since: Sep 19, 2014

And everyone is complaing about Qualcomm taking to high licensing fees. Thats why Apple has stopped paying Qualcomm and Qualcomm is being sued in several countries.

29. vincelongman

Posts: 5803; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

That's a different issue Fact is Qualcomm isn't block Samsung/Apple/Huawei/Intel from using their own SoC/modems in the US

33. Shamoy

Posts: 112; Member since: Dec 28, 2013

Its also

34. Shamoy

Posts: 112; Member since: Dec 28, 2013

Its already been proven Snapdragon has already caught up to Exynos. In the video below, the S8 Exynos and SD835 version are running at nearly exactly the same speed: Exynos is no longer special or ahead, Qualcomm has caught up and they will probably outdo Exynos net year with the speed they're advancing at. Besides, the GPU in the 835 is 30% more powerful while CPU makes a 0% difference. Also, I'd rather get the better LTE modem technology in the 835, its a lot more power efficient and has reduced latency.

13. MrElectrifyer

Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

Really? Didn't know emulators on Android look at the specific CPU model...gonna look more into this.

19. NoToFanboys

Posts: 3231; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

except PPSSPP, runs crap on all SD phones.

25. HomerS

Posts: 419; Member since: Sep 19, 2014

S835 is faster than Exynos 8895 this year, atleast when it comes to opening games. There are already comparison videos which confirm this. It seems Samsung went for the better battery consumtion on the Exynos and Qualcom for the faster loading but worse battery life.

31. Shamoy

Posts: 112; Member since: Dec 28, 2013

They won the quantity game, not the quality game. Intel 14nm > Samsung 14nm and Intel 10nm > Samsung 10nm. Reasoning is: Intel - 14nm transistor + 14nm pitch Samsung - 14nm transistor + 28nm pitch Samsung 14nm is not pure 14nm. Also it makes sense for Samsung to surpass in revenue, they are selling smartphone chips while Intel is selling desktop and laptop chips.

2. NoToFanboys

Posts: 3231; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

Speaking of chips, anyone here switching from Intel core i to AMD Ryzen?

7. zunaidahmed

Posts: 1186; Member since: Dec 24, 2011

Not worth it unless you are upgrading. Considering you would have to upgrade both motherboard and the CPU together, I don't see a reason to upgrade unless your PC is waaaaay too old and you need to build a brand new one.

18. NoToFanboys

Posts: 3231; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

I think it's a good upgrade if you're from 3rd gen or older Intels. 4th gen people are fine, 4770 still a beast!

9. RebelwithoutaClue unregistered

Nope, I'll stick to the faster Intels

17. NoToFanboys

Posts: 3231; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

"faster Intels" Depends on what you're doing, also almost no AMD optimization "YET"

20. RebelwithoutaClue unregistered

If you're on a budget, AMD's are pretty good bang for the buck. Although an Intel 7700K is cheaper than an AMD 1700X and faster in most cases. But I have an Intel 6900K and it's a lot faster than the fastest Ryzen and a LOT more expensive too.

21. NoToFanboys

Posts: 3231; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

Good for you then. But for those building a new high end PC, I don't think people would like to spend double for an extra 5-10% increase in performance, also when things get optimized for Ryzen and a few updates, the 1800X will match if not outperform the 6900X, also check their TDP. Anyways, competition is good. AMD vs Intel on the high end days are back :)

22. RebelwithoutaClue unregistered

Absolutely true, keeps both manufacturers sharp. Same goes for AMD and NVidia :)

23. zunaidahmed

Posts: 1186; Member since: Dec 24, 2011

Yeah, it matches it on video rendering I guess, but looses on every single gaming test. I don't think I need to upgrade my 5960X for a while considering I don't have much options to upgrade to unless I go towards server grade, lol.

24. mikehunta727 unregistered

7700k is only faster in gaming by 10%, thats it, otherwise the 1700/x demolishes it in everything else, also the 6900k is barely faster than a 1700/1800x, yet it is almost double the price 7700k also doesn't have any future headroom now for games while Ryzen does, as more games shift to more cores/threads I would never recommend a 7700k to anyone unless it is purely strictly gaming and nothing else is ever open in the background, otherwise I am recommending Ryzen 10/10 over Intel, even than, Ryzen does quite well in gaming and is no difference at above 1080p resolution vs a 7700k In Vincelongman's case, there is no reason to upgrade atm

27. RebelwithoutaClue unregistered

Sorry but CPU benchmarks says otherwise. The 7700K is only slower when you need a lot of workstation power and mainly because of the cores. But the 7700K is cheaper than the 1700X. And only a certain type of game uses a lot of cores, most games depend heavily on the GPU and not the CPU at all. Not sure what you have open while gaming, but 4 cores is more than enough for 90% of the games (and still have some stuff open in the background).

28. mikehunta727 unregistered

Lol no they don't , the 7700k gets thrashed by 8 core Ryzen in every scenario besides games, and Ryzen has better minimum FPS's in most games too which is very arguably more important than 5-10 higher FPS but lower minimum FPS(Aka more dips and noticeable stutters, most revieweers have gone on record saying Ryzen just feels "smoother" than 7700k counterpart even with nothing running in background There really is no point at all in buying a 7700k anymore over a Ryzen 6/8 core system.

30. RebelwithoutaClue unregistered

Sure would like to see some sites that show these reviewers, because the numbers tend to disagree

12. Ordinary

Posts: 2454; Member since: Apr 23, 2015

I will in the summer. My i7 960 is quite old.

16. vincelongman

Posts: 5803; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

I have a i5-4570, its still holding up well Will probably wait another couple years for Intel's 10nm or AMD's Zen 2 I want to upgrade from my GTX 760 Waiting for Vega and Voltra

32. Shamoy

Posts: 112; Member since: Dec 28, 2013

Count me in

4. Dude2014

Posts: 448; Member since: Feb 12, 2014

If you want new cpu, just go for ryzen. However if you have i5 4+xxx cpu, there aren't much reasons to switch to Ryzen unless you do streaming and rendering stuff. In most games, Intel i5/i7 cpu is still slightly ahead in terms of FPS performance. It will take some time for developers to fully ultilize more than 8 cores in games.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless