AMD Expected to Regain Market Share

[sonofliberty08]

[citation][nom]iubyont[/nom]Makes sense. For the general public, Intel's CPU itself is too overpowered and the GPU is too underpowered. AMD has found the better balance. I'd still suggest that anyone who spends significant time gaming, who desires top-tier gaming graphics/framerates, or who does CPU intensive tasks such as video encoding, the person should get an Intel CPU. For everyone else, get an AMD one.[/citation]
AMD CPU are good enough for gaming and video encoding as well , what u really need was a good GPU and a good GPGPU software to help u done the encoding job faster , is better to save those money on the CPU and get a good GPU

 

[billcat479]

Very long post but I always type too much.. Sorry in advance....

jubyont, you got it nailed right on the head, AMD's cpu's may not be quite as fast but they are also not all that much slower and the real differences isn't a issue for home computer users. Only the fanatics that go ape over a few extra FPS and spend upwards to 200.00 or so more for it are a bit on the screwy side of the farce.

Aww, just kidin.....LOL

But really, I can put 2 computers in 2 different rooms and neither one would be able to tell which cpu it's running.
The one are is huge video conversion tasks but that is not a real big deal for home users. Their cpu's do their job very well and are sure fast enough for me.

I bet if AMD got more software support in todays applications their speeds would increase.

 

[bmtphoenix]

I refuse to buy Intel. Always have. It goes back to their business practices in the 486 days and all the way up to having their Austin office as a client for a company I worked for a few years ago.

Both their products and their employees just ooze conceit, even though they've lived on their name for quite some time now.

I also worked for AMD's office in Austin. Their employees are freaking awesome, consisting mostly of happy people that just have a love for technology. Most of their office administration are the type of people that you'd want to hang out and have a beer (or something else) with. Even the fab is full of decent people, not over the top, better than everyone douchebags.

I won't deny that, at the moment, Intel processors outperform AMD, though I still say that AMD chips provide more bang for the buck. This is mainly because the buying public has given AMD no real reason to want to innovate, since every time they do, everyone continues buying the inferior Intel product.

So AMD does what every smart company does. They stop wasting so much money on R&D, when beating their competition to the punch doesn't net them profits, and start taking whatever market share they can get from those who don't buy a name.

Until similarly priced Intel chips just stomp AMD chips, I'm sticking with the hippy goofballs that still make an excellent product.

 

[geekapproved]

The desktop is dead, get over it people.

AMD has very little interest in devoting huge amounts of engineering resources to desktop cpu's, hence the delays in bulldozer.

Being number 1 in desktop cpu's is at the bottom of AMD's list, trust me, they are moving in other directions and it's starting to show by the great products (Llano) that they are coming out with to compete in phones, tablets, notebooks and game consoles.

 

[goatsetung]

I don't get why AMD doesn't ave a bigger market share. In the Desktop market at least (which is really the only one I'm familar with) AMD usually provides the best price / performance ratio.

 

[berwicke]

I'm proud of AMD they really do have processors that are just as good if not better for the price than Intel. I hope apple uses them in their macbook line it will bring the price down at least $50

 

[Guest]

@goatsetung

to really break the desktop market you need buy in from the OEMs like HP, intel has a bad habit of penalizing any OEMs thats got significant numbers of AMD in their line up

it's called a monopoly and Intel has been 'punished' for it, except the punishment was just pocket change for them

 

[r3z0nate]

Supporting AMD was a great thing 5 years ago, when their price per performance stayed on track from their early days up until they finally overpowered Intel processors with the early 64-Bit CPU's. Up until a year ago, I finally built a new i7 system which was my first intel desktop since my 75mhz Intel.

It was a given that they were going to take a huge setback when they purchased ATI, and they will eventually take back the shares they once had. Unfortunately, Intel didn't exactly make everything overpriced once they were ahead and that severally limited the pace at which AMD made progress.

 

[bmtphoenix]

[citation][nom]berwicke[/nom]I'm proud of AMD they really do have processors that are just as good if not better for the price than Intel. I hope apple uses them in their macbook line it will bring the price down at least $50[/citation]

Ahahahah...berwicke, did you just suggest that Apple wouldn't just charge you the same amount for the cheaper made product for the privilege of owning an Apple? Riiight...

 

[dotaloc]

I work for a school district and we just started purchasing AMD based systems this year for Towers and SFF Boxes (I helped to remove the processor brand designator from our bid requests).

I'm excited about Llano and all the upcoming Bulldozer offerings!

 

[r3z0nate]

[citation][nom]dotaloc[/nom]I work for a school district and we just started purchasing AMD based systems this year for Towers and SFF Boxes (I helped to remove the processor brand designator from our bid requests). I'm excited about Llano and all the upcoming Bulldozer offerings![/citation]

The closest you can get to running an AMD CPU is OSx86. You pretty much hit it on the nose, although AMD's CPUs dipped in price for performance a long time ago. They might be gaining that back at the desktop PC level, but I don't think it was what it used to be. I think I spent under $400 for one of the fastest AMD 64-bit CPUs and an ASUS A8N-SLI when it first came out.

AMD cannot produce enough chips cheaply enough for Apple, and the would have to do a lot to steal that business away from Intel. If anything, Intel is getting more business from Apple. Even if they did change to AMD, the only thing that would change is Apple's profit margins.

 

[dkraptor]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Intel isn't afraid of anyone..lol They own the CPU market. ARM should be the one that is afraid on Intel taking their market share. AMD has been and will be irrelevant in the CPU market.[/citation]
Dude, i think you're working for Intel show us your true face
and I think you're the one who's giveing everybody negative ratings.. People here are trying to give fair comments. By the way, remember the time when a Pentium based PC (without any true competitors for Intel) was costing over 5000$?? do you want to pay the same today?

 

[verbalizer]

The desktop is dead, get over it people.

AMD has very little interest in devoting huge amounts of engineering resources to desktop cpu's, hence the delays in bulldozer.

Being number 1 in desktop CPU's is at the bottom of AMD's list, trust me, they are moving in other directions and it's starting to show by the great products (Llano) that they are coming out with to compete in phones, tablets, notebooks and game consoles.

desktop will never die because there will always be enthusiast who desire more than a mobile solution.