Uhm... no. I believe it's wrong to assume that AMD would get significantly more brand recognition as a desktop processor maker just because they could get some market share in the server CPU biz - Dell and the like certainly won't include FX-es in it's desktop product lineup just because of that. And even if - how would that make the average consumer, who knows next to nothing about servers in the first place, be suddenly compelled to choose AMD over Intel anyway?
a critique of amd by theInq (actually worth reading)
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
anaqer said:
why bring up fx chips . That is aimed at high end gamers .
Talk about socket 754 athlon 64s .
Of course it will help .
It will be a long time before dell includes athlons in its product line. But there are many others almost as big as dell if there is a demand for it .
How is amd going to expand its market share selling products to the same people already buying its products i.e the gamers ? They aren't and not only that but gamers know enough to move to the fastest and most overclockable chips as they come out. So amd can certianly loose market share by staying and selling only to gamers.
THe most important thing for everyone is for amd to continue to exist as a company and if they came out and launched a 3ghz chip tommorow that will not help them stay around as a company
Oh, but they are not expanding - they are shifting focus. BIG difference there.
They are having problems making enough chips in the first place and they want to sell more to server companies where they can get a better profit - what do you think this means for the desktop segment? That's right, even less chips at an increasing price.
Also, you might want to note that when one says "AMD shouldn't rely on server deals that much" it still has a much, much broader meaning than saying "AMD should just sell processors to gamers and enthusiasts"...
They are having problems making enough chips in the first place and they want to sell more to server companies where they can get a better profit - what do you think this means for the desktop segment? That's right, even less chips at an increasing price.
Also, you might want to note that when one says "AMD shouldn't rely on server deals that much" it still has a much, much broader meaning than saying "AMD should just sell processors to gamers and enthusiasts"...
I don't see it that way . For years intel has been able to use the same chip in both server / workstation space and the home desktop sector with just small changes .
How big do you think the demand for the athlon 64 fx chips is ? Do you think its so big that they need more than a thousand or two thousand of them in retail channels at anytime ?
So why not use other fx chips as opterons , why not sell them for even more instead of loosing money on them .
Amd has allways had problems of underselling thier invintory , they can't make more than they can sell other wise they will loose money , so they make what htey can and now how two markets to sell to so they don't go broke .
Thats not what your saying when you read the context of your posts. You seem very pissed that amd dare forsake u and use some of the chips to actually turn a profit .
Well, I guess you're allowed to percieve it that way, but actually I'm just worried that they are choosing a way of reaping profit that's actually going to hurt them more later. AMD may think that Prescotts don't really pose a serious threat to Athlons64s / FXes, but they should rather use this momentary advantage to gain ground in the desktop segment with aggressive pricing, and just as importantly, a cleared-up product range (lower number of sockets, etc.) Also not to forget some actual marketing - when was the last time you saw an AMD commercial, a sponsorship ad on MTV or the like? It's a regular consumer market after all, and server deals won't get you much mindshare from the average consumer.jvd said:
My point is, this whole server business is just a tempting but dangerous diversion AMD can not really afford to devote too much attention - unless they want to go Alpha.
I'd rather they don't.
as an amd shareholder 8) , ive been disappointed that they havent driven the stake through intels heart. It just seems very lazy of them that they are sitting on their laurels. They may have hit a technolodgy brickwall, but it looks more like they are just after the short term gain.
epic
epic
epicstruggle said:
I believe that is because that is the only gain they can get right now. There is absolutely nothing AMD can do to drive a stake through Intel's heart. Intel can buy and sell AMD on a quarterly basis (well, they could if it wouldn't be a waste of money), while AMD is lucky to make a dime.
I really don't think they stand much of a chance. It's a shame really, as the K8 design is in my opinion the best x86 implementation there is at the moment. It's just that x86, while huge(well, kind of, compared to some other niches), isn't going to be a growing market forever, and until the very end I'm sure Intel will own the vast majority of it.
It's not like AMD can supply more than a quarter of the market anyway.
Similar threads
