AMD with 81.5% of marketshare

K

KimB

Legend
While reading Anandtech's review that I posted about here, I noticed this little news item glaring from the first page of the review:
http://news.com.com/Strike three for Intel/2100-1014_3-6045843.html
...and thought it might be worthy of a separate topic.

The specific market in which AMD has captured 81.5% is the US retail desktop market, for the first seven weeks of this year.

Edit: God, didn't realize how old this was. Probably was posted before....oh, well.
 
I'm pretty sure it is. We've heard rumblings since last August that this was happening. I'm very excited because it seems to mean that AMD has finally broken through the brand name barrier that Intel has held up for so long.
 
CosmoKramer said:
Old news, and nothing to get too excited about. It's just retail, business PCs etc are excluded.
Click to expand...
Well, sure, it is old news (sorry about that), but I do think that it does say something about how far AMD has come since the days of old, when people were told to avoid anything non-Intel like the plague.

I mean, granted, the article does list a possible explaination with the average cost of PC's sold (lower for AMD), but I still don't think they could have such a commanding lead in that specific market if the perception in the market still was that AMD is inferior.

Now we just need those in business to wise up and actually look at price/performance.
 
Chalnoth said:
Now we just need those in business to wise up and actually look at price/performance.
Click to expand...
Dell is a big chunck of those business pc's. If amd can beat intel in their trial, we could see dell (and others) offering amd PCs. Note that amd still needs to ramp up production by a lot to keep dell even moderatly happy. Something that will only likely happen if they bring up another fab. (2 cents).

epic
 
With the strongarm tactics that Intel has apprently been making use of, Dell may have other reasons for not going AMD.
 
Well, there have been times where Intel pulled a bit ahead at the high end with their P4, but AMD's almost always been on top in price/performance since the introduction of the Athlon.
 
Intel has always had the upper hand until AMD released the Athlon 64 and the Prescott turned into a flop. But AMD always used to be cheaper as well.
 
Intel dominance in the business section will likely continue as long as dell continues to hold the marketshare it does. When it is no longer logical or profitable for intel to give them the same level of discounts on CPUs, then AMD will appear in dell boxes.

Or so I foretell anyway... If it'll actually happen, well, who can say! :p
 
Dunno the statistics, but I don't know a single person in the last few years who bought an Intel CPU in retail. Not one.
 
yep i agree, even when you look at the forum members its very rare to find someone using an intel CPU (except im still using one lol - only a p4 c 2.8).
 
I'd like to see more businesses complain to Dell that they're paying for Intel, but could be getting faster for the same price or cheaper.





oh, who am I kidding?

Most businesses' purchasing depts don't care anyway.

<-- At work, right now, on a Dell, a very, very expensive Dell, whose performance sucks compared to my Opty box at home
 
Most businesses' purchasing depts don't care anyway.
Click to expand...

That too, but it's mostly that they (the BOfH's and such) have a nice multi-year contract with some expensive supplier who's paying their trips to Hawai or somesuch.
 
I think the high retail desktop market share is because the retail market is dominated by:
1. White box builders. These gets higher profit from AMD platforms because BOM is lower
2. Machines for gaming enthusiasts. These go specific for AMD machines

Everybody else gets a Dell (which isn't online and is Intel only)

Businesses gets HP/Fujitsu Siemens/IBM or Dells

Same with laptop.

Cheers
 
Chalnoth said:
Well, there have been times where Intel pulled a bit ahead at the high end with their P4, but AMD's almost always been on top in price/performance since the introduction of the Athlon.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is true even now. Intel has some very cheap dual cores for example. I think AMD just has the better performace/price in seperate layers.
 
Sxotty said:
I don't think that is true even now. Intel has some very cheap dual cores for example. I think AMD just has the better performace/price in seperate layers.
Click to expand...
You may find the odd Intel processor with better performance/price, but at pretty much every level where the CPU's are directly comparable in performance, the AMD solution is cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
16K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
A
Holy Wall of Text: My impressions post Playstation 4 (PS4) unveil
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
20K
(((interference)))
I
B
Why Barts is really VLIW4, not VLIW5 (and more on HD 5830/6790 being mainly 128-bit)
5 6 7
Replies
132
Views
36K
Alexko
A
W
44 Reasons I Don't Have Any Friends - A List of Games I Completed in 2010
Replies
8
Views
3K
kagemaru
K
G
AMD gets tarred with the viral marketing brush
Replies
18
Views
4K
Sobek
S
Back
Top