backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 73 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Nov 4 at 9:24 PM
Intel holds the vast majority of the CPU market

CPU sales are strongly tied to the computer industry, so when the computer industry is up CPU sales go up as well. CPU sales are still going strong and the latest market share results for the industry are now available.

ISuppli figures for Q3 2008 are now available according to InformationWeek. Intel is the big winner in the CPU market now holding a massive 80.4% share of the global revenue in the CPU industry. Intel's market share is up 1.7% from the same quarter in 2007. AMD isn’t faring as well as Intel in the market and iSuppli reports that AMD's market share declined by 1.8% for the quarter to 12.1%.

In Q3 2007, AMD held 13.9% of the market. Despite the year-over-year drop in AMD's market share, AMD did grow its share for Q3 2008 compared to Q2 2008 by a mere 0.1%. Intel's short-term gain was nearly as scant with a mere 0.3% gain. According to iSuppli, the smaller CPU vendors are feeling the brunt of the global economy crunch and are finding it very hard to compete in the CPU market.

Matthew Wilkins, an analyst form iSuppli, said in a statement, "Intel's growth is largely due to the strength of its product portfolio in the notebook segment. In the third quarter, Intel achieved a double-positive, producing share growth on both a sequential and year-over basis, while main rival AMD grew in the short term only."

More Notebooks shipped in Q3 than desktop systems for the first time ever. This significant milestone was a definite help to Intel who dominates the notebook market in both CPUs and GPUs. NVIDIA is challenging Intel in the GPU market though with its latest 9400M GPU. ISuppli forecasts that the overall PC market will grow by 12.5% in 2008 compared to 2007.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
In other news
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/30/2008 10:21:05 AM , Rating: 3
The sun is still in the sky :)

...On a serious note, though, Via and/or IBM should form an alliance with AMD to combat Intel. Intel, if unchecked will bull over all those companies, so they should really consider combining their expertise to give themselves a shot. With IBM's die-shrink technology, AMD CPUs might finally be able to compete with Intel's. And with Via's netbook offerings, AMD could move into a new market, while it could probably give Via the benefit of extra promotion.

Either that or Via/IBM should just buy AMD.




RE: In other news
By othercents on 10/30/2008 10:35:56 AM , Rating: 3
Why? AMD just needs to produce a product that can compete. VIA/IBM doesn't have a product that is going to help AMD. Plus on the video card side AMD is doing just fine. The overall portfolio for AMD is good as long as they find a good processor solution.

It would have been best if they had a netbook solution already.

Other


RE: In other news
By ICE1966 on 10/30/2008 9:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
I wish you would tell me what the hell is wrong with an AMD cpu? Oh, ok, it does not over clock as well,but that does not mean that AMD is building a bad cpu. I have a dual core AMD 3.2 ghz system that will run anything your sorry ass intel system will. So who in the hell cares if you finish 20 seconds faster than I do. Who cares if you score a 1,000 more 3dmarks on 3dmark 06 than I do. I sure as hell don't, so now explain to me why AMD cpus are not competitive, or why they are not worth having. in real world performance the differnce is not much at all, if any. Its all going to come down to overclocking ability, and if so, thats sad.

please explain, I'm waiting


RE: In other news
By mindless1 on 10/30/2008 10:50:21 PM , Rating: 3
It's not that there's something wrong with an AMD CPU, it's that there is more right with the Intel name for other reasons.

Public perception - AMD is seen as the budget CPU since it's more often found in lower-end systems, creating the perception that it's somehow not as good as an Intel CPU to the average buyer.

Marketing - It's always been AMD's weakness

Fab Capability - For AMD to enter into larger volume contracts, they'd have to assure OEMs that they can meet their needs with more reserve manufacturing capacity.

Geekdom - A geek will see the high end Intel CPUs outperforming the high-end AMD and become an Intel fanboy, assuming that prospective purchasers would buy that expensive high end chip and recommend Intel while ignoring that at the price-point the customer is looking to buy into there may be little difference in performance.

However, there may be a performance difference and even if the Intel CPU only beat the AMD counterpart by 2% for example, why would an unbiased customer want the (merely) 2% slower AMD part if all else were equal in a system? When Intel's low end was comprised of P4 derivatives AMD had the lower-end market foothold but now with Core2 derivatives under $100 that foothold has eroded.

Overclocking has little to do with it. Most(?) people don't have any idea what their system would score on 3DMark, don't even have the knowledge to overclock nor do they need to since most are still running the same old stuff, office/email/Acrobat/browser (HTML, flash, scripts, utube video, etc), which simply doesn't need today's performance levels. HD video demands may come closest for the average person, but the average person uses their TV/DVD player for movies, not the computer.


RE: In other news
By ICE1966 on 10/31/2008 6:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with AMD's lack of marketing. that is one thing that hurts them to this day.


RE: In other news
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/31/2008 11:20:02 AM , Rating: 3
I see NO C2 cpus under 100, Newegg minimum starts at 120...


RE: In other news
By mindless1 on 11/4/2008 9:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
False, same chips with less cache sell under the Pentium name. They are C2D CPUs regardless of what the marketing dept. wants to call them.


RE: In other news
By othercents on 10/31/2008 11:17:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how this became a diatribe of AMD vs Intel. I wasn't bashing AMD and if you actually read what I wrote you would have seen:
quote:
AMD just needs to produce a product that can compete.

My statement wasn't AMD is junk and Intel is golden especially since I know AMD could turn things around tomorrow (and I hope they do since competition is good for the market). This could be marketing, but I really feel as though that some of the diehard AMD fans are running Intel processors these days because of performance. I know I am and I was pushing AMD for the longest time.

The facts are the facts. AMD is loosing market share and Intel is gaining market share. Price/performance ratio is better with Intel for most CPU types (server, desktop, laptop, etc). When I recommend computers to people I currently recommend C2D over any other processor. Netbooks are selling like crazy and that market is dominated by the Intel Atom processor.

Good or bad AMD needs to produce a netbook processor that outperforms the Atom, runs cooler, and uses less power. AMD needs to come out with a breakthrough processor for server, desktop, and laptop markets. AMD needs a marketing plan to get the information out to the consumer that AMD is better. Sounds easier than it actually is.

Understand that anything for AMD is going to be an uphill battle. Intel has the market locked and in some consumers eyes if it doesn't have the Intel inside logo then it is junk. I don't expect AMD to win market share with its current lineup of processors and I expect it to be difficult to win market share even if significantly better processors than Intel.

You can get upset at me or whatever, but you can't change the facts. Please, prove me wrong by making AMD gain and maintain a significant market share over 2 quarters.

Other


RE: In other news
By Quiescent on 11/1/2008 5:41:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to point out what nobody else did and ask why would get oh so offended by someone stating that perhaps AMD is doing better in a different department than they were a couple of years ago.

I was an AMD fan, but I don't stick with brands that I think will not benefit me. If I were building a server, then I might consider AMD for performance on a server, but not for a system in which I will be doing music production and medium gaming on.

I don't get why people stick with brands when they go sour. Here I am, having an AMD socket 939, and I'm planning on using intel for my next BIG upgrade. Why? Because the performance and overclocking on the intels, especially the Q6600 is amazing and surprised me. Because I don't stick with brands just because they used to be good. Again, I'm the buyer who looks for what product will benefit me, and not what product I've been buying for years or what product has been bought by my friends for years.

It's just like me going for a DSP card. People don't trust the E-MU brand name, because they never heard of it before, but it's cheap, and if it's a good work DSP card for cheaper than all the others, then who cares about the brand name.

I do all my shopping like this. Granted I won't ever touch an Apple product, but I still have, yet again, good reason not too. Why would I get an iPod when there are plenty more MP3 players out there not attached to a proprietary oriented company that have better features, and less to pay for.

I do it for my food too. Sure that nice fancy Lays chips brand, but you know what, this other brand I never heard of, it sure does look good, I think I'll TRY it.

And with Vista, I still won't use it, but I'm not going to continue this long, drawn out battle trying to prove to people why my reasoning of why I don't like it is good reasoning.

So why did I post this? Because I figured this long, drawn out argument would have been done, and instead of having immature attacks on people who just made a statement that tred light on the subject, I would have thought we would leave that behind. So I commented with my opinion on what I thought about AMD now and how I'm not, heaven forbid!, ditching AMD, oh my goodness!, but I do like Intel for their processors now, and also to comment on how I thought it was pretty bad on your part to attack someone who just said they didn't think AMD is doing as good as they did in the processor department. It was completely unnecessary.


RE: In other news
By SlyNine on 11/2/2008 5:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
Keep AMD in the market, If AMD had the C2D and Intel had the Phenom AMD's market share would be growing instead of shrinking.

From a consumer point of view your points are valid. But the chips just are not getting it done it the market. They need to be more competitive because while you don't care, a lot of people do.


RE: In other news
By amanojaku on 10/30/2008 10:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
IBM has no reason to compete directly with Intel as IBM doesn't do x86. VIA isn't large enough to buy AMD without running into the problem AMD had when it bought ATI. An alliance is the best solution, but IBM has no reason to get involved. If anything, AMD and/or VIA would license IBM tech to manufacture better CPUs in the same way AMD licensed DEC technology to create the Opteron.


RE: In other news
By borismkv on 10/30/2008 7:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
VIA isn't big enough to *buy* AMD. The aren't even on the American stock exchange. Via's total value is 680 million dollars. Basically, AMD loses more in a quarter than Via is worth.


RE: In other news
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/30/2008 10:49:18 AM , Rating: 2
They already have an alliance on many new technologies. The problem lies with IBM developing the tech, and none of the three ever figuring out how to mass market it. Intel is always the first to the mass market with new tech and process. IBM can shrink chips alright, but they seem to fail hard when it comes to shrinking entire product lines enmasse. Only Intel seems to have mastered bringing something out of the R&D labs into the main market in a short amount of time with minimal cost. You also need to consider that Intel is the #1 Semiconductor company in the world, by a significant margin no less.


RE: In other news
By quiksilvr on 10/30/2008 11:07:34 AM , Rating: 1
On top of that, AMD is forced to play catch up with Intel CONSTANTLY in the CPU market. Intel releases 65 nm chips, AMD still on 90 nm. Intel releases 45 nm chips, AMD transitions to 65. AMD getting ready to release 45 nm chips, OH NOS Intel releases 32 nm chips. In other words, they should just say f*ck it, focus ALL their research to come out with a 22 nm chip ASAP and be on par with the competition.


RE: In other news
By CloudFire on 10/30/2008 3:15:27 PM , Rating: 4
i do agree the mechanics when you're getting smaller in the nm is the fabrication process and materials needed such as high-k gates to prevent current leakage from the chips. double patterning would also be required for 32nm/22nm nodes.

on a similar note, amd tried to get ahead of the race against intel with the introduction of their true monolithic quad cores which ended up getting slaughtered by intel's core2 sandwhiched quads. i think if amd had went with their original plan to produce duals and then quads, they would have been better off, but they jumped the gun, failed, and here we are. The TLB bug didn't help either, although it was only reproduced in a lab and not in any real world situation.


RE: In other news
By Pavelyoung on 10/30/2008 5:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
That wasn't always the case. AMD had the lead for awhile with their athlon series, but they sat on their butts thinking that it would take Intel ages to develop a CPU that outperformed theirs. During that time all they did was work on their existing product line, at the same time Intel got busy and developed their core 2 line. The core 2 line, came out of nowhere on AMD. So now AMD is desperate to try and regain their lead.

When they purchased ATI, they made a step in the right direction. Now they just need to suck it up and one up Intel by going to the next smaller die size before Intel. Unfortunately AMD isn't thinking that way, they are still trying to play catch up.


RE: In other news
By semo on 11/1/2008 8:12:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You also need to consider that Intel is the #1 Semiconductor company in the world
not samsung?

was it amd's ceo who said that you can move the memory controller to the cpu only once? after all this effort (the 64-bit push too), intel will be the one reaping all the benefits in the server market. some people missed the era in which amd was king in multi-cpu configuration and now system admins (when nehalem comes out) will say: "see, intel servers are better than amd" (totally ignoring benchmark results from 1-2 years ago).


RE: In other news
By Hydrofirex on 10/30/2008 11:31:04 AM , Rating: 4
Mick-

I have been proposing an AMD/IBM merger for at least 2 years on this forum. Every time I do so I am roundly shot down with the logic that IBM does not want to get into the hardware business and that they are a services company.

I still don't particularly buy that line of thought, and I believe that AMD's move to split its fab operations was in preparation to be purchased. Many of the financial services companies which recently got snatched up from the abyss took similar moves to facilitate their 'mergers'.

Hopefully AMD already has someone in mind, and they ditched the fab operations to specifically make themselves a match for that firm. I would still assert that between IBM and Via, IBM is the only one who really has the intellectual property to be a series competitor in the long term.

I strongly believe someone is absolutely going to have to buy AMD for them to compete.

HfX


AMD
By Maxshah912 on 10/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: AMD
By HotdogIT on 10/30/2008 11:32:30 AM , Rating: 5
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.


RE: AMD
By bobsmith1492 on 10/30/2008 12:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
Madden:

"What they really need to do to win this game is score some points. They really need to score some points to win this game."


RE: AMD
By theapparition on 10/30/2008 4:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
"I think the team that scores the most points has the best shot to win this game tonight."

Shame, he's basically a blathering idiot and an embarasment on TV. Should have givin it up 10 years ago.


RE: AMD
By icanhascpu on 10/30/2008 4:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Holy shit! Why didnt they think of that???


RE: AMD
By japlha on 11/3/2008 4:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
What AMD needs to do.
1. Collect silicon, copper, aluminum
2. ?
3. Gain market share over Intel.


Give Me an "A". an "M" a "D"..GO GO AMD..
By snownpaint on 10/30/2008 4:02:48 PM , Rating: 1
I like AMD. I like them better then Intel.. I like their business model, I like their "slow and steady, wins the race" direction.. I like their new chip making company direction.. If they open a Chip manufacturing plant in the US, I would like them more.

I don't know why.. Maybe the same reason I like VW, I had a old rabbit, and since then can never give up my affinity for the company.




RE: Give Me an "A". an "M" a "D"..GO GO AMD..
By icanhascpu on 10/30/2008 4:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
Its called being a fanboi. I like whatever company gives me a better product, reguardless of what their PR shoves out. Get real.


By Pavelyoung on 10/30/2008 5:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
Thats exactly the way I look at it. Before my core 2 system I had an AMD machine. If AMD comes out with a better product than Intel I will go with them again. For me its all about which CPU does better on the performance side. I really don't care about who's company name is on it.

I purchased two HD 4870 X 2 video cards for my new system. Now I am just waiting for the new MB and CPU's to come out. Why the ATI cards instead of the Nvidia? The ATI cards are cheaper for almost identical performance.


By mindless1 on 10/30/2008 11:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
I like whichever company gives me a cheaper product. Whether the world gets enough performance to play Crysis 3 in 2013 or in 2015 is somewhat arbitrary and trivial, the primary bottleneck on PCs today is the software and user not the CPU.


I like TGDaily's title better
By iFX on 10/30/2008 11:51:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Intel, AMD increase processor market share in Q3


http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39965/117/

This seems to be a more accurate since both companies have gained market share since last quarter.

I must have forgot that DailyTech loves to bash Microsoft, AMD and Oil companies any chance they get. Silly me.




RE: I like TGDaily's title better
By tallcool1 on 10/30/2008 12:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
Seems as if the article title is misleading if both had gains as indicated.

On another note, what is the status of the law suit AMD has with Intel?


RE: I like TGDaily's title better
By johnsonx on 10/30/2008 1:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's quite normal to compare such measures in the same quarter for consecutive years, due to the cyclical and seasonal nature of business.

AMD is down 1.7% for Q3, while Intel is up 1.8% for Q3, compared to the same quarter last year. The headline is quite accurate.


Article forgot one thing...
By Dreifort on 10/31/2008 10:41:30 AM , Rating: 1
if you have an identical laptop (or desktop) except for the processor is the only difference. The AMD will be vastly cheaper.

In recent months, a laptop with 320 gig HD, 4 gb ram, 15.4 screen, DVD burner, etc... all identical. Put in AMD zm80 processor - price is around $1000. Put in Intel 7450 (or was it 7350?) and price is $1300.

And actually, the AMD had better processor speed, but the advantage that Intel had was the higher cache...2MB.

Prior to summer 2008, Intel had the advantage with cache by having 1MB on their processors..while sporting an 800MHz FSB speed. AMD on the otherhand had only 512K cache, but had 1600MHz FSB. On lab testing, it did seem the Intel CPUS ran a bit cooler.

But now, both manufactures have chips in retail that have 1-3MB cache and up to 3000MHz FSB.




RE: Article forgot one thing...
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/31/2008 2:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
The early AMD 64's had 1mb of cache, not sure where you are getting your info.


RE: Article forgot one thing...
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/31/2008 2:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
Per core that was...


Support
By inighthawki on 10/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Support
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/30/2008 10:41:52 AM , Rating: 3
Welcome to Natural Selection. The strong survive, the weak perish. End of lesson.


RE: Support
By inighthawki on 10/30/2008 10:53:47 AM , Rating: 1
Where that may be the case of the living, that's not always the way it works in business. The death of one means the highly inflated prices of the other. If it weren't for AMDs low prices, Intel would never have lowered the price of the Q6600 to where it is now, for example


RE: Support
By Venatici on 10/30/2008 11:17:32 AM , Rating: 2
I think your efforts would be better spent sending letters to AMD executives. Go tell them to build a better CPU and we will buy it.

People are not going to support a company with non-competitive products simply because they want to keep competition around. Competition is having a product that actually competes.


RE: Support
By inighthawki on 10/30/2008 11:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
I see your point, but it's also stupid to not buy them at all because their rival company managed to pull out some magic and make something better. I don't think sending letters would do a thing anyways :P lol


RE: Support
By TheFace on 10/30/2008 11:44:32 AM , Rating: 5
You know what tells the executives to come out with better products? Not buying their products and buying the competition's product. This mode of communication is a generally accepted way of telling a company that they need to get on the ball.


RE: Support
By mindless1 on 10/30/2008 11:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense. That just puts companies out of business which we don't want. AMD isn't just choosing not to develop better processors because they're selling too well as-is, the bottom line is both they and Intel are doing quite well at developing great products - intel just came out slightly better this time around since they had more resources to do so as always.

What works better? Buying AMD processors so they have more money to put into development and manufacturing, just as it was with Intel.


RE: Support
By vignyan on 10/31/2008 5:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
Its a moot point. If you support communism, you support for the weak and hence AMD. If you are a capitalist, then you support where you get most returns (not second most!).


RE: Support
By mindless1 on 11/4/2008 9:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
If you support capitalism, you necessarily support the capitalist market working as it should which means you want competition in that as it should result in better products at lower prices, which means when you have an alternative, a way to try to keep the market capitalistic, then if you are doing anything more than spewing BS, your desire for capitalism will result in your doing what helps that cause.

You are just spewing BS, you are only supporting greed not capitalism. That's ok, you are entitled to spend your $ any way you like, as that is allowed (not demonstrating support of capitalism though, the same is true of any non-capitalistic society) but let's be clear about it instead of making excuses.


RE: Support
By jtesoro on 10/31/2008 10:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
By that logic you'll always be buying second-rate products. "Rewarding" companies for making inferior products and punishing yourself by buying them isn't a good idea to me.


RE: Support
By inighthawki on 11/1/2008 1:06:02 AM , Rating: 2
Understanding logic also means u understand when thats not ALWAYS the case. Supporting them is one thing, but ONLY buying their products is stupid. You buy whats best for you, but try to make sure you do what best for everyone too. As my other example pointed out, if u want to buy Intel's top of the line, go ahead, but when considering two cpus of equal performance and equal price, try to support the little guy so next time around u can get something better for less. Otherwise, Intel's higher end cpus wont be nearly as affordable to everyone else


RE: Support
By mindless1 on 11/4/2008 9:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Even if you don't care what's best for everyone else, there is such a thing as thinking long term. Making the immediate impulse decision of what is best at that moment often translates into a worse outcome over the long term. That is true of health, love, finance, career, housing, etc, etc, etc, and CPU capitalistic BS spewn in web news comments too.


RE: Support
By Ratinator on 10/30/2008 1:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Would you hire an employee who has proven to be less competent than the next guy? Oh just wait we already have that.....it is called equal oppurtunity employment.


RE: Support
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/30/2008 2:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think its called Affirmative Action and Diversity Programs.


RE: Support
By ComatoseDelirium on 11/2/2008 5:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
Zing!


RE: Support
By omnicronx on 10/30/2008 1:08:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If it weren't for AMDs low prices, Intel would never have lowered the price of the Q6600 to where it is now

If it were not for AMD, we would still be using Pentium 3's...


RE: Support
By mindless1 on 10/30/2008 11:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite, Intel still had to make faster products in order to get people to upgrade. We'd have P4 or Core(something) at least, but it'd cost more.


RE: Support
By VaultDweller on 10/30/2008 11:14:49 AM , Rating: 4
The weak perish, and what happens when only the strongest is left? Strike AMD down, and Intel will become more stagnant than you can possibly imagine.

Also, more expensive than you can possibly imagine.


RE: Support
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/30/2008 12:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
I know that line of thinking is a fan favorite in the AMD community. Realistically your product needs to compete. If it's "not as good" it competes in the lower price brackets "See: Vizio Plasma TV's". If it's really good, it competes on merits "See: Samsung LCD TV's". If your a household name it competes on Brand "See: Sony". If you can't compete on any of those currently, your in a real world of hurt. "See: AMD".

AMD needs to compete on merits "New Chip/Architecture that outperforms equivalent Intel chip" or compete on price "We're not Intel, but we don't cost that much either."

AMD is getting reamed in every price bracket, even the sub-100 market leans to Intel because those low end Core 2 chips beat them senseless.

It's not wise for a consumer to buy a competitor because the best brand is outselling everyone else. That's guilt tripping and short selling yourself.


RE: Support
By KernD on 10/30/2008 12:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
That analogy is worthless because of two things:

First: There are many times more companies that make TVs, and there isn't one of them that stands way above all of the competition, Sony isn't the only big brand name.

Second: TVs aren't that hard to copy, many different brand use the same LCD panels for example, which gives them the pretty much the same spec, so they compete on price.

How do you compete on price in the TV market? use cheaper component, pay less for your cheap labor.

How do you compete on price in the CPU market? you use more advanced transistors(die-shrink), that's a much bigger investment than making what is actually a crapyer TV.

AMD has tried other things, they used a design that was less dependent on cache size(smaller die = lower cost), and it worked, but that can only get you so far.


RE: Support
By Natfly on 10/31/2008 11:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD is getting reamed in every price bracket, even the sub-100 market leans to Intel because those low end Core 2 chips beat them senseless.


I think the sub $100 market is the only place where AMD is still competitive. You can get an X2 5000 for $60 while the E1400 is $63. The 5000 is about on par with an E2200 in most cases. That's far from "getting reamed."


RE: Support
By Denigrate on 10/30/2008 12:23:07 PM , Rating: 1
AMD rested on thier dominance over the P4 while Intel actually did research and came out with a new dominant processor. What's AMD done since? Nothing worth discussing. If you are building a budget rig, AMD is still a good option. However, if you are going for performance, you buy Intel because you get more for your $'s.

If AMD wants my money, they need strike back and come out with a revolutionary new CPU.


RE: Support
By michael2k on 10/30/2008 12:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
So that means people should be buying Mac in order to force Microsoft to compete, right?


RE: Support
By RamarC on 10/30/2008 12:53:50 PM , Rating: 3
i'm all for supporting the 'little guy' but you guys are sounding like we're somehow obligated to shore up amd to combat an evil intel. do we have to same obligation to support via?

amd was kicking intel's ass a few years ago and now that the sleeping giant has awakened it's good for everyone. amd now needs to get off their technological butts and put out a competitive product. otherwise they'll be stuck as a value alternative in the desktop segment. but even as #2 amd can still be profitable since their server products are still pretty competitive.

but they're missing a product in the atom/tegra/nano class. if they can jump into that category, their overall market share should rebound. so they've got work to do but they don't need our "pity purchases" to succeed.


RE: Support
By inighthawki on 10/30/2008 3:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
well im not saying that you should assume

"i have $1000 to spend, but I'm obligated to buy from AMD to keep them going so i only get to spend $200 on AMD's best"

Go ahead and buy an Intel cpu if your willing to pay $1000, but if its between AMD and Intel at the same price bracket but the performance difference isn't noticeable, why not help contribute money to making better products by supporting AMD? There are reasons you might want one over the other, but in many cases people simply choose Intel because they think Intel has better in every aspect because they're doing better now.


RE: Support
By Elementalism on 10/31/2008 11:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
That can make sense. The problem is at the same price bracket the performance difference is noticeable.


RE: Support
By inighthawki on 11/1/2008 1:07:09 AM , Rating: 1
Not true, the 99500 and Q6600 are withint the same price bracket, yet the 9950 does better in many cases, yet the popularity of the q6600 drives many people to buy it instead.


RE: Support
By michael2k on 10/30/2008 12:05:48 PM , Rating: 1
The weak gets handouts, bailouts, and extra financing, usually.


RE: Support
By Justin Case on 10/30/2008 7:35:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Welcome to Natural Selection. The strong survive, the weak perish. End of lesson.


Dinosaurs were pretty strong compared to cockroaches. Maybe you're the one who needs a lesson on the fundamental points of natural selection.


RE: Support
By Elementalism on 10/31/2008 11:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently they werent strong enough when the climate changed. Just like AMD isnt strong enough when the market changed thanks to Core 2 Duo.


RE: Support
By TomZ on 10/30/2008 11:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If AMD doesn't make any money, they can't put forth any research to new and better products, so how will they catch back up unless we buy their stuff?

Pity for the losers undermines the pursuit of excellence in general. The best thing to do is to let them either come up with a plan and investment to achieve greatness, and if they don't, then let them fail.


RE: Support
By snownpaint on 10/30/2008 4:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
That would be true if it wasn't for bailout money..

Reap what you sow, unless you are too big to fail. Then you need subsidy and bailout money..

Remember, those losers are the same people that pushed the winners to excellence. With out the competition you have a very flat market growth.


RE: Support
By michael2k on 10/30/2008 12:39:35 PM , Rating: 1
So do you endorse this belief in all markets where a single force reigns supreme? Do you buy Mac to ensure Microsoft doesn't stagnate? Do you buy Zune to ensure Apple doesn't stagnate? Do you buy iPhone to ensure Nokia doesn't stagnate? Do you buy XBox to force Sony to innovate? Did you buy Wii to force Sony to innovate?


RE: Support
By noirsoft on 10/30/2008 4:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think Sony innovated (i.e. made it hard to program) a bit too much on the PS3, don't you?


RE: Support
By mindless1 on 10/30/2008 11:34:15 PM , Rating: 3
There's a big difference in that the average person's usability of a computer is not changed based on which CPU is in it, it would be closer to the equivalent of whether your flashlight uses Energizer or Duracell batteries.


RE: Support
By Regs on 10/30/2008 3:24:21 PM , Rating: 1
Apparently calling AMD slow is like calling a mental midget around here retarded. It's just not right.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki