Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Loses Market Share to AMD

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the changing-times dept.

Intel 283

diverge_s wrote to mention an article examining Intel's market share loss to AMD in the fourth quarter of 2005. From the article: "Sales of Intel-based desktop PCs fell 22.3 percent during the fourth quarter, according to Current Analysis. As a result, sales of AMD-based desktops took the lead during the pivotal fourth-quarter holiday shopping season. AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores during that period."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


So (-1, Troll)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509686)

Does this mean that I'll be able to afford an AMD chip now?

Re:So (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14509713)

Probably not. The AMD chips will probably swap places with Intel and become over-priced and under-performing.

Re:So (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14509968)

Considering theyre already cheaper than intel, what you using now, a dorito?

VIIV (4, Funny)

F_Scentura (250214) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509690)

Their new push for quality engineering over marketing fluff will surely give them the lead again!

Re:VIIV (4, Insightful)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509883)

Their new push for quality engineering over marketing fluff will surely give them the lead again!

I am still ticked at my PERL mobo w. P4 HT 2.4GHz that died just out of warrenty.

If Intel want's back, cheaper, faster, cooler and more reliable come to mind. AMD has this over Intel at the moment and I have a 1.2GHz AMD that keeps on ticking.... so naturally one of those dual core AMD 64 X2 systems is on my list.

Re:VIIV (1)

GmAz (916505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509989)

I personally still have an AMD 1Ghz Thunderbird still ticking. I don't use it much because I have my AMD64 system, but it runs like the day I got it.

Re:VIIV (1)

JackAtCepstral (870238) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510079)

I have a 1.2GHz TBird, as well. I too, have an AMD64 system that's the workhorse now, but that TBird never gave me a single problem.

Godd quality and low prices work :) (4, Insightful)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509708)

AMD just proves that regardless of your advertising budget, it all comes down to good performance and good price. I don't think I have ever seen an AMD commercial, whereas Intel was all over the TV. Dell has finally taken notice and will start widespread use of AMD chips soon. Thanks for the giving Intel some competition AMD!

http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Point of interest (-1)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509749)

TFA says intel lost marketshare...They still have 53%
That's still more than AMD has.

Oh, and AMD chips still seem to cost more. Yeah, yeah, higher quality and all, but I can get an intel chip for around $50 of tigerdirect, but AMD chips are closer to $100.

Re:Point of interest (4, Informative)

jhutch2000 (801707) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509805)

You aren't looking at comparable chips, then. At similar performance marks, the AMD chips are cheaper than their Intel counterparts.

Re:Point of interest (4, Interesting)

Albanach (527650) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509819)

You don't tell us what you're comparing - it's like saying I can buy a Ford for 15k or a Merc for 30k therefore Merc are uncompetitive.

pricewatch.com [pricewatch.com] Says the slowest Sempron being produced is the 2200+ and you can have it delivered for $57. For $60 you can get a 2.2Ghz Celeron which is no match for AMD's processor. The 2.2Ghz P4 costs $79 delivered, $22 more than the AMD offering.

The reason all those AMD chips appeared before Christmas was because they are so competitive at the lower end. When you match that with their server options AMD are wiping the floor with Intel at almost every level.

Cache... (4, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510062)

Yeah but a Sempron 2200+ will stomp all over a 2.2 Celeron. It has way more cache ( 128k/256k in the Sempron vs 8k/128K L2 in the Celeron) and also a generally better pipeline. You can't judge a CPU on MHZ alone.

Re:Cache... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14510318)

That's exactly what your parent said...

Re:Point of interest (1)

Jesapoo (929240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510365)

It's a shame they can't compete with Centrino. I'm not really an intel fan, I don't like they way they do business. Indeed, I use AMD in my desktop - but my laptop came with an intel processor, and I love it to bits. They really have nailed down the laptop market.

Re:Point of interest (1)

Daath (225404) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509871)

But TFA also says that AMD has >52% of the desktop CPU market.
I don't know where you shop, but where I shop, AMD is waaay cheaper than Intel, and always have been. You get a lot more bang for your buck with AMD, especially if you are a gamer!

Re:Point of interest (5, Informative)

GmAz (916505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510088)

I used to work at CompUSA and was in charge of the desktop department so I saw every new machine come in and personally set up the demos and the price tags. I saw numerous HP, Gateway, Compaq and Emachine models come out with AMD64 processors around 3000+ to 3700+. The basically identical Intel model always cost at least $250 more. And since we, the salesman, had pretty much free reign as long as we sold computers put whatever we wanted on the computers. I loved doing benchmarks and the AMD always came out ahead. Only a couple times did intel beat out AMD and it was usually the new Prescott cores, though not new anymore, until AMD came out with their new cores. I don't consider myself a fanboy of one particular manufacturer, I am a fanboy of cost vs. performance. For the past four years, AMD has won me over.

Re:Point of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14510331)

But TFA also says that AMD has >52% of the desktop CPU market.

No, TFA says that AMD had 52% of the retail desktop PC market sold in B&M stores. Online sales are not included in that figure. Overall Intel had 53% of the desktop market that month.

Re:Godd quality and low prices work :) (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510262)

That's not true in most situations. Almost all products come down primarily to effective marketing. In fact I'm honestly surprised it's true here, but it's also true that if there's one thing people are sick of, it's a slow computer.

Re:Godd quality and low prices work :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14510325)

And what does this have to do religiousfreaks.com? If you want to use a sig, put in the proper field on your preferences page.

Re:Godd quality and low prices work :) (1, Insightful)

PlanetX 00 (623339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510354)

I agree that AMD ships a great product, but let us not forget the following:
1. Intel still has a commanding lead on overall desktop processor sales
2. Intel is a silicon fabrication machine (great yields, great process, large volume). What they lack in cutting edge CPU features they make up in fabrication
3. Intel = server CPU. This is a very high margin area that AMD continues to fail to penetrate
4. Intel has more money than the know what to do with. This allows them to keep on redesigning their chips to keep up with AMD (see Pentium M)

This cat and mouse game will continue as follows:
AMD innovates, Intel falls behind spends a boatload of money to catch up. Intel's great fabrication team steps up to the plate shrinks the process size, increases yield, increases margin, and they make another boat load of money.

Until AMD can match Intel on fabrication and chip set development they will remain the little fish in the pond :-( As for me I'll still try to cut through the marketing fluff and buy my CPUs based on the best price/performance.

Beige boxes? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14509716)

I wonder whether AMD's success is an indication that PC's are well into their commodities phase and so el-cheapo models at Best Buy are (more than) sufficient for people's use? Intel's in the pricier boxes, so they stand/fall with those vendors.

Re:Beige boxes? (4, Insightful)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509803)

Well, especially, when the pricier models are worse than the cheaper ones... "Style, is the ability to distinguish quality, without looking at the price tag."

El cheapo? (3, Insightful)

C10H14N2 (640033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509889)

Are you KIDDING? [cdw.com]

AMD is successful because from day one they've been in the business of making better products, not cheaper products. That they happen to be cheaper in some cases is just a sign that they have a successfully diverse product line.

Re:El cheapo? (5, Insightful)

Twid (67847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510063)

I'm calling you out on the "from day one" statement. The AMD K5 was not exactly the pinnacle of performance, features, or price competitiveness. AMD is doing well now, no argument there. I'd like to see an article that compares total chip chipments worldwide, though, rather than say limited statements like "52% of all retail desktop sales, in the USA, in the 4th quarter".

In related news, my pants were the leading distribution method for iPod nanos, in the USA, in California, in my house, yesterday.

Re:El cheapo? (3, Informative)

jandrese (485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510202)

Yeah, the original AMD chips were generally thought of as "not quite as good as Cyrix". Anybody who cared one whiff about quality back then went Intel. It wasn't until the K6 line that AMD started to really position themselves as a quality chipmaker, and it wasn't really until the Athlon line that they pulled themselves out of the pit of the Computer-Show Beige Box hawked by some greasy fat guy crowd.

Re:El cheapo? (4, Insightful)

dougmc (70836) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510206)

from day one they've been in the business of making better products, not cheaper products.
Eh? I don't know about `day 1', but it wasn't that long ago that AMD was lagging behind Intel in terms of performance, power consumption (though that wasn't such a concern back then) and such. For example, the K5 was intended to compete against the Pentium chips, but the Pentium Pro came out almost immediately after the K5 did and it blew the K5 away. The K6's came closer to beating the Intel offerings, but even then, the Intel chips had a small performance lead, and the fact that 3Dnow never took off further hurt the K6 chips. Back then, people bought AMD because it was cheaper, not because it was better.

Going back even further, the AMD 8086, 80286, 80386 and Am486 chips generally were just clones of the Intel offerings -- with similar performance, but coming out some time later at a lower price.

But things have changed. AMD has finally caught up to and passed Intel in many respects, and I suspect that the reason that Intel is still selling so many chips is more due to interia than anything else.

Re:Beige boxes? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509918)

Not all people are gamers who really need the performance.
For other people, el-cheapo models at Best Buy are (more than) sufficient. Except maybe on longevity, where things like lousy fans and faulty capacitors still are a problem.

Re:Beige boxes? (5, Interesting)

GmAz (916505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510179)

Not really. Bestbuy, CompUSA, Circuit City all have salemen working the floor. I was once a salesman for CompUSA and did rather good at it. 90% of people buy what the salesman tell them to buy. You get people uneducated in the field of computers and look to the salesmen as the "pros". I sold quite a few $4000 systems because I could read the customer. If that person had money, I could sell him on the high end machine no problem. The line "In computers, the old saying 'you get what you pay for' auctually applies". Talk about Hook Line and Sinker. But, you also made money there based on the service plans you sold and was based primarily on a percent of gross sold vs. gross service plan. People wanted to see big numbers on the front of the computer and a low price tag. AMD machines reigned. Espically since I set them up with the AMD machine right next to its Intel counterpart. Lower priced machines made me more money as it does every salesman. I think salesmen have figured this out and that is why AMD took that large market share. And guess what, when more AMD machines were pushed out, people started realizing that they were as good as the covited Intel machines. Word spread and customers started looking into AMD and not just saying that they only thing they wanted was Intel because its the only thing they know about computers. Gotta hand it to Intel for the A+ marketing strategy.

Wow, I submitted this article a week ago (0, Troll)

PlayfullyC1ever (944117) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509727)

Good game Slashdot being behind the times, I think it is time for a major change at slashdot. Anyone can go to other sites and get much more up-to-date technology news. It is not really news when it is a week later than other sites report. Well, hopefully CmdrTaco will rally the slashtroops and fix this problem before slashdot eventually kills itself. There is only so much that slashtrolls can put up with before leaving for other sites, like CNet News [playfullyclever.com]

Consumer vs Corporate? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14509730)

Of course, it's always been my understanding that Intel is dominant in corporate computing, where no small number of third party corporate applications are only "certified" to work on Intel processors and the use of AMD processors endangers your ability to take advantage of your pricy support contract.

Re:Consumer vs Corporate? (4, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510153)

Of course, it's always been my understanding that Intel is dominant in corporate computing...

If Intel is holding on to dominance in any market segment it's more likely to be the result of their business relationship with a company like Dell, which has been propping Intel up for the last two years while AMD ate away the rest of their market.

AMD makes a great product at a competitive price. What happened to Intel will happen to every other company that starts thinking they have a right to exist. Intel sometimes acts like they're a government agency.

This news is old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14509738)

As soon as they started selling their 64bit stuff I'd get rid of my noisy power and nerves sucking Intel heater and my geek life was definately worth living again.

There are many Intel-fanboys left because of power and buzzwords. But even the dude of the ASUS hotline told me to go for AMD since Intel CPU's crash because else they would burn my house down.

There. Job done. Nothing for you to see.

Marketing misstep? (4, Insightful)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509748)

Anyone looked into the possible marketing misstep by Intel stopping marketing their processors by clock speed?

Re:Marketing misstep? (4, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509903)

It was a 'misstep' they had to take with going away from the Netburst architecture anyway. The Pentium M and successors all have much lower clock rates with still retaining comparable performance. For low power devices the high clock rates were hell.

Re:Marketing misstep? (3, Insightful)

Guysmiley777 (880063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510324)

The "megahertz race" was a monster of their own creation. The Pentium 4 was a misstep, changing the design to allow higher clock rates with less processing per cycle.

Would you rather have an engine that puts out redlines at 6,000 or 12,000 RPM? I forgot to mention, the 6,000 RPM motor is a 5 liter V8, the 12,000 RPM motor is a 60 CC weedwacker motor.

Re:Marketing misstep? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14510107)

I think it is important to point out Intel's move away from processors as the main source of their business. A lot of resources have been moved to processors and chipsets for non-PC computers. One might expect some loss in market share while trying to refocus. It doesn't mean Intel doesn't care about PC processors, obviously it is a lot of revenue, but the market is not as profitable as before.

Re:Marketing misstep? (1)

ls -la (937805) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510284)

the market is not as profitable as before

Perhaps because they have competition now?

meh... (5, Insightful)

DigDuality (918867) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509759)

I'm not really a fanboy on either side of this Chevy/Ford arguement. They both support Trusted Computing which makes me wish there was another option out there.

Re:meh... (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510074)

I'm not really a fanboy on either side of this Chevy/Ford arguement. They both support Trusted Computing which makes me wish there was another option out there.

Microsoft basicly went out and said you'd need TCPA to run Vista. Given the OS market, The only one who could have refused that without being cast into obscurity would be Intel. And Intel/AMD both want the "Media Center" concept which sells their CPUs, I don't blame them. Your third-party candidate would have about as much power as in US elections. If we assumed that people actually cared (they don't), then he'd probably be outcompeted by the last generation of DRM-free machines sold on eBay, and file for chapter 11 soon after.

And to think... (1)

Concern (819622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509770)

This stock was at $5 not so long ago... :D

Re:And to think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14510373)

When? 1992? I'd say that was so long ago.

I bought at $13 and it split a few times and I recently sold it all.

Just wait 'til the Intel-based Macs come out (4, Funny)

Jim in Buffalo (939861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509771)

When the Intel-based Macs hit the market, Intel processors will be found in 52.6 percent of desktop PCs, so there!

Re:Just wait 'til the Intel-based Macs come out (1)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509828)

I don't understand this logic. Why would more people buy a Macintosh just because it has a different CPU in it? I understand that there exists the possibility to dual-boot Windows once someone figures out how, but what does this mean to the average consumer?

Whether it has an intel in it or not, it's still a Macintosh running MacOS, so why would the average user want it more?

Re:Just wait 'til the Intel-based Macs come out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14509879)

In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, it's a joke son.

Re:Just wait 'til the Intel-based Macs come out (1)

Browncoat (928784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509939)

I think a lot of average consumers will be more willing to buy a mac with an Intel chip because it's about brand recognition. The more unfamiliar technology there is, the less people are going to want to learn it. If they recognize something, they might be more inclined to take a second look.

Re:Just wait 'til the Intel-based Macs come out (1)

ls -la (937805) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510321)

I agree. When I was looking at laptops for college, it took a good two months of research to convince my mom that an AMD64 would run anything an Intel could.

Re:Just wait 'til the Intel-based Macs come out (1)

Jim in Buffalo (939861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510097)

It wasn't logic, per se, it was a joke. I expressed that the number would notch up by a tenth of a percent in Intel's favor because of Apple's transition, making a gag out of Apple's notoriously low market share. If anything, the Intel-based Macs should impact Intel's market share far more than that. I know that I'm planning to buy an Intel-based Mac this year as soon as I can, so I'll have an Intel-based computer on my desk for the first time ever, for whatever that's worth (ain't much, I know).

Re:Just wait 'til the Intel-based Macs come out (2, Funny)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509900)

And once the transition is complete, expect to see Apple move to AMD. They are playing Intel like a fiddle.

Re:Just wait 'til the Intel-based Macs come out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14509992)

hahahaha.. i doubt 5.26% of desktops sold are apple.. your an idiot..

Re:Just wait 'til the Intel-based Macs come out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14510299)

Didn't this same article get posted last quarter? This is retail sales. AMD has been making gains but these sales are not helping their bottom line much at all. Honestly, how much can AMD make when somebody buys a $400 PC at best buy? What percentage of PC's are purchased at retail stores? If I buy a Mac, it will be online and therefore will not count in the stats anyway.

Does anyone even know what chip they have? (5, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509776)

I don't mean this in a negative way, but what percentage of the computer buying public even knows about AMD? I mean, it seems to me that the average person couldn't tell you what chip is in his computer. I mean, the answer I usually get to that question is "Dell" or "HP". So basically, what I'm saying is that it may not be AMD chips that are doing well, but the particular brands they're in?

Re:Does anyone even know what chip they have? (1)

jhutch2000 (801707) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509862)

There is some truth to that, but also, in my experience, those same people didn't pick the computer on their own. The asked their local computer geek, who DID know the difference, what they should buy and then did so. I know I'm personally responsible for computer purchasing advice for around 20 computers in the last couple years. And *I* know the difference, even if most of the people getting computer did not.

Re:Does anyone even know what chip they have? (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509893)

This is actually a Good Thing. The less people care about the chip in their computer - as long as it works - the better for competition. The people who care are either -very informed, a small minority -sensitive to marketting (I wanna this pentium thing, it will speed my internet connection, they say it in this commercial)

Is AMD profitable? (4, Interesting)

keester (646050) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509786)

That's the biggest question in my mind. Market share is important, but will AMD be able to sustain whatever growth they have accomplished? So, within the last few years, they've opened up new fabrication plants, and probably they have more room for growth. Still, it will be interesting to see their earnings (revenue and profit).

Re:Is AMD profitable? (4, Informative)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509884)

Barely, but yes -

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=amd [yahoo.com]

Re:Is AMD profitable? (2, Informative)

Stalyn (662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510138)

"For the three months ended Dec. 25, AMD earned $95.6 million, or 21 cents per share, on sales of $1.84 billion. In the fourth quarter of 2004, it lost $30 million, or 8 cents per share, on sales of $1.26 billion."

"For all of 2005, AMD earned $165.5 million, or 40 cents per share, on sales of $5.85 billion. That compares with a 2004 profit of $91.2 million, 25 cents per share, on sales of $5 billion."

So AMD earned more money in the recent 4th quarter than all of 2004. And a 125.6 million increase for 4th quarter earnings from last year. No wonder AMD stocks are up so much today.

Re:Is AMD profitable? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14509932)

AMD are a publically traded company; financial information should be easy to come by.

Re:Is AMD profitable? (1)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509943)

AMD reported earnings yesterday. They earned $0.45 per share, far above "analyst" estimates. They are very profitable and becoming moreso as they take big chunks out of Intel's hide.

Intel slowed AMD's run to profitability last year when they shifted production from chipsets to flash memory (they use the same fabs). Dumping flash below cost hurt AMD more than it hurt Intel... at the time. Then Intel ran short of chipsets. Oops!

Intel is rapidly undergoing death-by-management. Never let marketing weasles run a tech company. I haven't bought an Intel CPU since the Pentium 3, the last good desktop CPU Intel made.

Naming (1, Insightful)

gamerluke (815727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509812)

I miss the days when a processor name included the speed of the processor. It is possible that intel is losing market share because AMD (and Intel to a certain extent) don't show their speeds in the names and so it harder to compare systems. I know that AMD gives you more for less Ghz, but not everyone knows that and Intel has a preceived advantage in speed they can't fully exploit.

Re:Naming (1)

RailGunner (554645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509998)

Intel has a preceived advantage in speed they can't fully exploit.

The only scenario where Intel wins is if the operation fits entirely in the CPU cache. Otherwise, Intel processors spend an awful lot of time waiting for data.

AMD, on the other hand, is far more efficient in data access and transport, and that's why, despite running at a lower clock rate, AMD wipes the floor with Intel in benchmarks these days.

Given the benchmarks that show AMD consistently outperforming Intel, how does Intel have a "perceived advantage in speed"?

Even the Athlon XP CPU's were faster than the P4 counterparts. Compare an Athlon XP 1900+ (runs at 1.667 GHz) to a similarly clocked P4, and the Athlon wipes the floor with the Intel CPU.

AMD's architecture and chip design are, quite simply, better than anything Intel is offering.

Speed? (1)

Nazmun (590998) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510051)

Err... you mean mhz? Going away from the netburst architecture intel would shoot themselves on the foot. A 2.0 ghz pentium-m can outperform a 3.2ghz p4 in many cases or come very close in others.

Consumers would think a 2.2 ghz p-m type core to be inferior to a 3.0ghz p4. Thats not a correct indication of "speed" either. Hell you can't simply just say the word speed anymore. Theres so many things to consider.

Re:Naming (2, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510124)

I do to. But only because in those days the speed told you something useful. That hasn't been true for several years now. 2 GHz out of one model is the same as 3GHz out of another which implies that 2.5GHz out of the 2nd model is slower than 2GHz out of the first.

At this stage it would be like asking car makers to put horsepower ratings in the name of each model. Consider a Lotus Elise 190 vs a Honda Prelude 190 vs a Ford Mustang 300 vs a Dodge Ram 235 vs a Porsche 911S 355 -- did the engine rating really add anything useful?

I mean the Elise is like half the the 911S, and the lowest rated, yet its easily the 2nd, possibly even the fastest off the mark - meanwhile the 911 at 355 is just not built to haul your yacht home but the much weaker RAM will do it handily.

I mean yeah the number has meaning, and 'more is better'...but without the context of the whole package it doesn't tell you anything useful. There's no overridingly practical use that should make it part of the name of the product. It should be an available spec sure... but not the product name.

Eh.. (1, Interesting)

Kranfer (620510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509820)

Reading this brings up bad memories of working at Best Buy During college. However, while I am happy to see a smaller company like AMD make a dent in the PC market, I have to say, I would still never buy an AMD based system. I have had AMD based systems in the past... Issues that I have had included overheating and missing bench marks, so I switched to Intel and have never had an issue with my P4 processor. And now that Intel is being put into the new Macs, I think we will see Intel take the lead again this year with the AMD users grumbling that they are in the minority of new PCs again. Either way I personally don't care, But I would prefer an Intel processor over AMD just because of sheer quality.

Someone PLEASE mod this troll down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14509971)

before a ton of noobs flame him...

Intel goes outside (3, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509836)

"The new slogan is supposed to signify Intel's shift away from focusing "inside" and starting to look at platforms and solutions for the end users."

(From an earlier [slashdot.org] discussion and article. [anandtech.com])

Now I am beginning to understand why Intel has made the decision to start focusing elsewhere.

Way To Jobs! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14509837)

What a great time for a computer OEM to be forced to turn to Intel exclusively for their chips!

WTG Steve!

Your incompetence in dealing with IBM burned that bridge and they have no intention of saving your ass no matter how much you beg them to take you back.

Apple computer hardware is going to ride the Intel chip trainwreck all the way to the bottom.

Better pray those iPods stay hip...

AMD to the rescue ;-) (2, Interesting)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510038)

Now that Apple goes x86, the step from Intel to AMD might be easier than from IBMs Power chips to something else.
So if Intel gets too aggressive on Apple, we might see Apple computers with AMD CPUs :-)

Re:Way To Jobs! (2, Interesting)

Sique (173459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510214)

No. This is the perfect time for Apple to go with Intel. Intel needs to do something to save its ass in the desktop market (even with sliding market share, it's still the big revenue and profit), so they will try to keep Apple happy as long as possible. And if it doesn't work out for Apple with Intel, they can switch to the binary compatible AMD chips at any point.

Apple Inc. sells Apple computers with Apple Mac OS X. Apple doesn't sell Intel Inside computers.

How's the laptop market doing? (5, Insightful)

Fearan (600696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509847)

With the decreasing market share of desktops in the consumer computer market, I'm interested in knowing how AMD is doing in the laptop sector and total overall processors sold in comparison with Intel. Most people I know wouldn't consider anything other than Centrino for some reason that I don't understand (marketing?) Furthermore, how will Apple's new MacBook and other Intel offerings affect AMD's apparent marketshare takeover?

Re:How's the laptop market doing? (2, Interesting)

VisiX (765225) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510035)

Most people I know wouldn't consider anything other than Centrino for some reason

I know exactly why this is because I worked at Best Buy for three months. When centrino was introduced there were commercials everywhere. These commercials, intentional or otherwise, made it seem like centrino was the only way to connect wirelessly saying things like "Centrino technology is a huge advancement in wireless networking for people on the go". This statement was true, as centrino allowed for longer battery life and generally laptops using centrino were lower weight, allowing for longer use and easier transport. This was not conveyed by the advertisements though, as the vast majority of people coming in to buy a laptop thought that centrino and wireless were the same thing.

Re:How's the laptop market doing? (1)

helmespc (807573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510108)

I have an AMD laptop.... it runs much to hot to do anything more than surfing the net and such.... sometime writing code... thats my biggest problem with AMDs in general... they run HOT..... so much so that I have actually considered heading to the dark side....

Re:How's the laptop market doing? (1)

Kamots (321174) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510366)

Your heat comments would make sense a few years ago, but Intel and AMD have kinda swapped places in the heat arena. Intel is the one that's putting a space heater in your machine now.

Although, what's going to happen as the switch to multi cores continues... who knows.

Re:How's the laptop market doing? (2, Interesting)

jetxee (940811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510166)

Laptop market is growing. And when I want to change my laptop, I shall definitely look for lighter/slimmer/longer-running/quieter piece of hardware, and performance/64bit will matter less.

So, whether I buy new MacBook or Intel Somethino (tm), it is likely to be Intel.

And I strongly suspect, that every laptop chip is today more profitable, than 5 desktops-for-sale.

Re:How's the laptop market doing? (2, Insightful)

MarkVVV (740454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510188)

For God's sake, stop calling it a "centrino"...it's a fscking Pentium M!!!

Centrino is the chipset used in those notebooks.

Re:How's the laptop market doing? (1)

aschlemm (17571) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510231)

I don't really know if it's the marketing by Intel but the Pentium M is very good in a laptop. It runs cool and the battery life is quite good IMHO. When I look around the office every laptop I see is a Pentium M based one. At one time I had a laptop with a 3.06GhZ P4 and it ran so hot I went through 3 mobos in 2 years. I was real happy when I finally got a laptop with a Pentium M in it instead as my laptop is no longer cooking itself in its own juices.

Affordable 64-bit (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509877)

When I recently checked OEM prices for CPUs, it was interesting that a 64-bit Sempron costs only slightly more than a Celeron with roughly the same perfomance.
And Intel doesn't have any reasonably priced 64-bit chips...
It's also interesting what x86 imacs would be like if Apple chose 64-bit CPUs, because, well, they had 64-bit G5 before.

Re:Affordable 64-bit (1)

Plocmstart (718110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509945)

I think it's Intels refusal to bring 64-bit CPUs into the consumer market. Intel has previously stated that a home user doesn't need 64-bit while AMD's marketing scheme is riding on the whole idea that the larger the number the better it must be (and in some cases it is). When it comes to most non-computer savvy purchasers that is what works. Even though Intel isn't going to disappear, they are going to continue to have good competition until they realize this.

Re:Affordable 64-bit (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510216)

AMD probably just thinks that it will cost less to have dual production lines. If they don't have to worry about engineering or supplying any ia32's that's more resources that could be devoted to other things.

Re:Affordable 64-bit (1)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510252)

Just as a matter of interest, which Celeron do you believe has roughly the same performance as which 64-bit Sempron, and for what general type of computing?

Re:Affordable 64-bit (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510274)

I put a "64" bit semptron in a machine I built for another person (who was on a very limited budget) and it was my understanding that the chip was based on a 64 bit chip design, but was intentionally neutered down to 32 bits in hardware. I mean it would be great if she actually has a 64 bit machine, but I doubt she'd get much use out of the extra address space anyway. Frankly, people buying Semptrons probably aren't going to be doing lots of things that would benefit from a 64 bit chip anyway. I'm sure in 2-3 years there will be lots of things that run considerably better on a 64 bit architecture, but currently you have to be running huge databases or doing scientific computing to see much benefit.

Two factors that are important! (2, Interesting)

ami-in-hamburg (917802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509973)

1) Most people that buy PCs have no idea what processor it has inside. They are generally motivated by price. If two PCs with the same performance and options are sitting next to each other at Best Buy, and one costs $150 less than the one next to it, which one will people buy? No brainer!

2) The speed of most newer computers is so ridiculously fast compared to just a couple of years ago that the processor just doesn't matter to the average PC buyer. Most people want to read their email, surf the web and store their digital photos. They are not running CAD or compiling code or editing full feature films. Even the lower end PCs available in stores these days can perform the average tasks just as well as the high end system. Therefore, again, the purchase experience will be motivated by price!

But still DRM (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 8 years ago | (#14509993)

Last I heard, AMD was still working on DRM just like Intel. So what if they have 50+% of market. I don't see a substantial difference.

intel rise (2, Funny)

the_tsi (19767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510014)

And they won it all back when every reader of slashdot bought a macbook pro and/or intel imac after being brainwashed with Apple stories for four consecutive days.

Shift in importance from hardware to software (2, Interesting)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510027)

It may be that a part of the reason for this change is the shift in importance from hardware to software.

It seems to me like more and more, people simply do not care what the hardware is so much as they care about what the software is. A few years ago, clueless consumers were demanding the "Pentium" brand (not even knowing what that word really meant); now, they simply ask "Does it have 'Microsoft XP'?" The answer, of course, is always "yes", so they ask no further.

Now that Mac OS X runs on both PPC and x86 machines and Windows XP on both x86 and x86-64, I think we are moving towards an era where the software matters more than the hardware (at least, from the perspective of Joe User).

Intel plays it smart. (1)

oilisgood (161130) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510058)

I like how Intel casts AMD as "competition." Intel has a market cap of $153,860.10(Mil) AMD's market cap is $13,277.70(Mil). Last years gross profit for Intel was $23,049.0(Mil).

So... Intel's gross profit for about 7 months would be ALL of AMD's complete market capitalization. How can you call that competition? What a great way to dominate a market, while keeping the feds off your back!

RETAIL sales.. (3, Informative)

sadr (88903) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510104)

Note that this only applies to retail sales.

It does not include total sales, where AMDs market share is significantly lower. e.g. this report excludes Dell entirely. Overall, they're somewhere around 25% of total shipments.

AMD is taking marketshare away from Intel, but they are still a much smaller player.

Re:RETAIL sales.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14510323)

Exactly what I thought, this is hardly a minor point.

"(Sales by online retailers were excluded from the market share analysis as well)."

May change soon with Dell threatening to sell AMD processor based solutions... but I'll believe it when I see it.

Elephant in the room is Dell (5, Insightful)

DrSbaitso (93553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510105)

AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores during that period."

Of course, Dell doesn't sell many of its computers in retail stores, it is the largest manufacturer in the US, and it doesn't use AMD chips (yet). So the quoted statistic is misleading at best. Still, more competition is always a good thing.

Re:Elephant in the room is Dell (1)

Dashcolon (946284) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510375)

"Current Analysis' market share numbers measure U.S. retail sales only, and therefore exclude figures from Dell, which uses its Web site to sell directly to consumers. Dell, the top PC vendor in the U.S., exclusively uses Intel's processors in its PCs. (Sales by online retailers were excluded from the market share analysis as well)." That was mentioned in the article

Retail Stores? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14510113)

Does that include Dell?

RETAIL stores (1)

dostert (761476) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510128)

Notice that this statistic is only for RETAIL stores. No mention as to any online sales. I'm not sure... but I'm thinking this article shows AMD in a much better light. I think if you factor in online sales (say ... all of Dells PCs sold) that AMD is still lacking by quite a bit. I'm a big AMD fan. All of my computers have AMD chips, but as a stockholder, I'm getting a bit worried. AMDs big benefit, at least to me, has been the "cool and quiet" benefit. I get a faster processor, using less power, that runs cooler. Now I've been reading that Intel has finally caught on and is basing all of their new processors off the Pentium M ... which I'm pretty sure outdoes the Athlons in terms of power/heat to computing power ratio. I'm excited to see what AMD comes out in terms of power/performance ration after they debut the new socket M2 processors. Should be an interesting couple of years in the chip area.

AMD Shortage (1)

obender (546976) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510189)

I am not sure if this is of interest but in Europe I have noticed a shortage of Opteron dual core chips. So far the only place where I could find some was a couple of shops in Germany and they went out of stock quite fast.

All shops in USA that I could find and that had them did not ship overseas.

I have always drooled over (1)

thammoud (193905) | more than 8 years ago | (#14510263)

The power Macs but could never justify the price/performance ratio. Now I can ith the new Intel chips. A Unix based OS with a great GUI running on fast Intel hardware makes me a convert. I develop Java apps for a living so it really makes no difference to me as to what OS I use for development.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account