AMD: ''No Doubt, We Lost Market Share in Q2''

Status
Not open for further replies.

math1337

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2009
330
0
18,810
10
Another issue is that AMD processors are insanely slow, especially in poorly threaded tasks. The octo-core may be able to keep up with an intel quad core when running all cores, but it does not deliver great all-around performance.
 
G

Guest

Guest
AMD: ''No Doubt, We Lost Market Share in Q2
but you are still a very important competitor to intel to push technology further more.
 

aftcomet

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2010
394
0
18,790
2
No surprise there. If they didn't have ATI the blow would be even larger. They need to make some serious changes or they're destined for failure. APUs are probably the future so they might be ready for that but their entire market is pretty slim. What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.

They should focus on ultimate value and price cut as much as possible. They need to get their products moving and fast. I don't see how anyone considers AMD "value" when a 4100 costs $140 and is absolutely outclassed by a $120 i3.
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
because u have lost price/performance on ur CPU. Bulldozer are barely manage to keep up with slowest i5 quad core, yet they are selling close to i7 price. FAIL.
 

s3anister

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
679
0
19,060
37
It's a dark road ahead for AMD.

They keep pushing the old Llano and bulldozer parts into the retail space where almost nobody wants them. Release Trinity and Piledriver, already! Market share is not going to be gained, otherwise.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]aftcomet[/nom]No surprise there. If they didn't have ATI the blow would be even larger. They need to make some serious changes or they're destined for failure. APUs are probably the future so they might be ready for that but their entire market is pretty slim. What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.They should focus on ultimate value and price cut as much as possible. They need to get their products moving and fast. I don't see how anyone considers AMD "value" when a 4100 costs $140 and is absolutely outclassed by a $120 i3.[/citation]

because amds new value cpus are apus, and beat out intel at the same value...

[citation][nom]math1337[/nom]Another issue is that AMD processors are insanely slow, especially in poorly threaded tasks. The octo-core may be able to keep up with an intel quad core when running all cores, but it does not deliver great all-around performance.[/citation]

considering that all cpu tasks have been fast enough sense the eairly dual core chips, much less the current quad with threads we see, i say does it matter if amd is slower?

all the tasks that intel beats amd where you would see a performance difference great enough to warrant an intel over amd, are going to the gpu, and the gpu, even a bad one, out preforms the cpu by so much that you would never want o use it for said tasks again.

if anything, intel is in trouble. as they cant pull together a decent gpu after YEARS of trying, and now that we are moving to gpu co processors, intel has that much more ground to cover.

with that said, if amd came out with a chip 4 times better than the current top end intel, do you really think that they would gain market share? intel would eat the few billions in fines to try and stomp out amd till they get a processor on par.
 

vmem

Splendid
I'm a bit disappointed and surprised that Llano didn't help AMD more. We all know that Trinity's coming and seems to have greatly improved on bulldozer, but Llano really are some neat chips for low budget media PCs/laptops, and for HTPCs. I can see my parents being perfectly happy with a Llano laptop for light productivity and working on the train/plane etc. I mean, the general public doesn't need the i7 extreme, hell, most people don't even need an i5 2500k because they hardly game. I say AMD's marketing department needs to step up, and get it into people's heads that an APU's all they need for their general family computer to surf the web, blu-ray playback, store their photos from their vacations etc.
 

uglynerdman

Honorable
Mar 8, 2012
127
0
10,690
1
imo in the mobile world, amd just is no longer a value. im tired of defending AMD, hands on theyre slow. i could get a i7 laptop that plays every game in ultra with a discreet gpu. there are no offerings like that from amd. slower than an i3. SHURE in the desktop the Fx series is still a OK. but im tired of the big clunky box. its always some story about amd not being optimized etc. well get on the ball amd. u been sayin that for years. i was 13 when i had my first k6 was a great value and amd has always been for awhile. but after phenom II amd just fell off.. and with no strong mobile parts other than gpus.
 

JefferyD90

Honorable
Jun 1, 2012
842
0
11,160
57
Just so you guys know, Intel has a lot to do with AMDs downturn. When Intel partnered with Apple, AMD had them in a bind. It was a make or break situation. It was when they partnered with Apple that they started working on the i3, i5, and i7's that you see today. AMD on the other hand has not had help, as a matter of fact AMD has been pushed back down again by Intel. Dell, Gateway, and several other Computer manufactures only get deals on Intel products if they don’t offer, or offer very limited, AMD based machines. And as we all know 80% of the home computer market is around prebuilt systems like these, so that instantly puts AMD in the rears.
Another note, AMD was actually in the running to be with Apple, and allegedly the big people from AMD were on a flight to Apple ready to sign paperwork and Intel swooped down and took it away. Don’t know how true that is, but it’s just where Intel is trying to be a monopoly is all I’m trying to get at.
 

JefferyD90

Honorable
Jun 1, 2012
842
0
11,160
57
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]When you're only putting stuff like garbage APUs what did you think was going to happen? The fastest APU can't hold a candle to even an i3. No one cares that it has an integrated GPU when the CPU side is slow as sh*t. It's really astonishing how far and how fast AMD has fallen.[/citation]
Your ignorant, the only way ANY of the Ivy Bridges has a chance to beat a APU of any kind is to have a dedicated video card. Hell A6's will put up 30fps on just about any video game, but a i7 by itself cant even put up 15 on super low settings...
 

monkeymonk

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2009
348
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]aftcomet[/nom]No surprise there. If they didn't have ATI the blow would be even larger. They need to make some serious changes or they're destined for failure. APUs are probably the future so they might be ready for that but their entire market is pretty slim. What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.They should focus on ultimate value and price cut as much as possible. They need to get their products moving and fast. I don't see how anyone considers AMD "value" when a 4100 costs $140 and is absolutely outclassed by a $120 i3.[/citation]
There GPUs are pretty competitive, even more so now that they cut prices on some to make room for the GHZ editions.
 

Marco925

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2008
967
0
18,990
1
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]because u have lost price/performance on ur CPU. Bulldozer are barely manage to keep up with slowest i5 quad core, yet they are selling close to i7 price. FAIL.[/citation]
over $100 of difference when you're talking about a few $100 is hardly what i call selling close to an i7 Price,

Octacores sell for roughly $200, i7's sell for over $300
 

zanny

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2008
214
0
18,680
0
The trinity laptops are extremely good values, I find. Especially if you factor in the long term utilization of GPGPU by intensive applications that would otherwise cap out the quad cores. You can get a budget trinity for $400, whereas the cheapest Ivy Bridge laptops nowadays start at $700.
 

Stardude82

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2006
538
0
19,010
12
[citation][nom]Nikorr[/nom]Too bad, there is no third party on the market.[/citation] There's VIA! And if Windows RT takes off, all of the ARM licensees. After all, Intel is impressing nobody in the mobile market right now.
 

buzznut

Splendid
No kidding? Did they really think that releasing some ho hum APU's and trying to get rid of old stock was going to bring the cash rolling in?
Look, AMD cut your losses and get trinity to market. Stop trying to sell boring old technology to an apathetic market. And realize that no matter how much you don't want to compete with Intel, you're stuck with the giant so you better warm up your sling.

That means desktop processors that are competitive with core i3/i5. Forget about i7.

I'm kinda sick of Rory Read, he said they were gonna come out swinging like a heavyweight champ and now he just seems like the snot nosed kid nobody wants to pick for their team at the sandlot game. Now it looks as though he may start crying and run home.
 

buzznut

Splendid
[citation][nom]hasten[/nom]What? Where is a 4100 $140? Please at least type in newegg.com and check prices before you post. 4100s run for around $110 and can be had for less than that in many cases. For example at Microcenter they run $99 and you can do a motherboard bundle discount and get a basically free mATX board with it.[/citation]

He obviously means the 4200, which is certainly overpriced and outmatched.
 

silverblue

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2009
1,199
4
19,285
0
[citation][nom]aftcomet[/nom]What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.[/citation]

AMD has historically vied for fastest single and dual GPU cards with NVIDIA for years, and their GPUs have appeared in twice as many current consoles. In addition, NVIDIA aren't the only one to innovate - sure, they brought compute to current platforms in a big way, but think of other advancements - DX9 was ATi, DX10 was NV, DX10.1 was ATi, DX11 was ATi. NVIDIA definitely has the most potent workstation graphics solutions but AMD are closing the gap.

How AMD can't be a "leader" in the graphics industry is beyond me. You don't have to have the fastest card to be able to compete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY