AMD Steals Market Share From Intel

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, let's just hope AMD gets Piledriver right, and does what it does best: Not try to blow everyone's doors off at the extreme high end, but make the best reasonably powerful CPU for the price.
 
[citation][nom]Soda-88[/nom]you mean computing job such as wasting time on facebook?workstations are called workstations for a reason and the guy you quoted was talking about gaming which will never be on par with desktop gaming in any other shape or form no matter how religiously some of the idiots preach just thatcasual 'gamers' don't even know what it means to be a gamer so they settle for less, if you want the job done you will do it on a proper device and neither productive work nor gaming will ever be done properly on anything less than a desktop pc (no, not even consoles; before i get attacked on this one, let's just mention games that require any sort of multitasking such as rts genre - it cannot be done on a 4 button controller)desktop pc is the king of gaming and will not be dethroned by the gimmicks we are getting fed with each yearedit: sorry for going completely off-topic[/citation]

How elitist is it to claim 'real' gaming can only be done on high performance desktop workstations; and that everyone else, possibly including notebook PC gamers, are doing something 'wrong' by "settling for less". Or that using a mobile system is just a "gimmick".

I'll admit the experience is different across platforms; I'll even go so far to agree with you regarding things like 'ultrabooks' and 'gaming on tablets'. But its insulting to claim that anything less than a full blown, high end desktop workstation is 'doing it wrong'.

The one of the great thing about the PC gaming community its hardware diversity. Even just with systems that are gaming capable, there are many different types of configurations; that fill different roles; often much more than purely playing games.

There is no 'one size fits all' on the PC. And to play PC games, even higher end ones, desktops are neither the only way or the 'best' way to do them. It depends on the needs of the user. For some, greater mobility, lower energy consumption, multiple displays or smaller physical space are higher priorities than bigger GPUs.

There is no best PC for every possible need. And most of us don't have blank checks to buy/build a PC.
So we choose the best combination of parts and form factor to suit our needs, AND still play games.
 
[citation][nom]jurassic512[/nom]AMD better hurry...http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26360-ivy-bridge-graphics-comparable-to-llano[/citation]Yeah, cause fudzilla is always the best source for reliable information on unreleased products. Consider this: they're counting on drivers to vastly boost performance. Graphics drivers. From Intel. Intel's graphics drivers have consistently been just barely good enough.

Also, the IVB chips that are going head-to-head with Llano/Trinity are going to be the low-to-mid range chips. That means most of the IVBs competing with Llano/Trinity are going to be equipped with HD2500, NOT HD4000. The ones with HD4000 will probably be priced high enough that they will have to compete with higher-powered Llano/Trinity configurations with much bigger graphics units.

So Intel will get clobbered in graphics in virtually every segment, and they'll probably clobber AMD in CPU performance in most segments. Hopefully Intel will pull its head out of its tailpipe and put HD4000 in all but the lowest-end ultra-low-power chips - in future models, of course. That would make them a hell of a lot more competitive in entry-level laptops.
 
Aw... That is sweet... INTEL is TOYING around with AMD.... Funny that Intel is giving AMD a fighting chance... Although Intel has the know how and resources to crush the competition... I wonder why they are not.....
 
[citation][nom]shinku_sai[/nom]Aw... That is sweet... INTEL is TOYING around with AMD.... Funny that Intel is giving AMD a fighting chance... Although Intel has the know how and resources to crush the competition... I wonder why they are not.....[/citation]

Because Intel loves competition. Without it, the x86 platform wouldn't be attractive and Intel would be the king of a bankrupt domain. It's sweet that you're talking like you know anything. Intel is toying around with your wallet and you're parading around like an inflated pigeon.
 
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]Take a a step outside and go to the local Starbucks, or any other popular businesses with Wi-Fi. What do you see? Lots of laptops and tablets.[/citation]
Did you honestly expect to see a full blown laptop at starbucks, honestly, I mean really look deep down into your soul and tell me you SOMEHOW expected a desktop at starbucks? OF COURSE all you see if laptops and tablets at starbucks, it's a coffee place not a home, it's not someplace you drag a desktop too.
 
I don't really doubt AMD is making grounds in the laptop market. The thing thats perplexing is people don't follow their own logic of buying the superior product. Right now in laptops AMD dominates the low and mid-range due to their integrated processors and pricing. It should have a higher growth if people followed that logic.
Bulldozer in the server / workstation segment should also be a good pick. Many applications built in this segment are custom made for their application. So modifying it to the more forward thinking, powerful, and cheaper architecture should be a good idea. However, if you are building it custom from the get go why limit yourself to x86?
 
[citation][nom]shinku_sai[/nom]Aw... That is sweet... INTEL is TOYING around with AMD.... Funny that Intel is giving AMD a fighting chance... Although Intel has the know how and resources to crush the competition... I wonder why they are not.....[/citation]

Because then they would be broken up for being a monopoly. Keeping AMD around means they can claim there's competition and still own over 80 percent of the market.

[citation][nom]Wave Fusion[/nom]How elitist is it to claim 'real' gaming can only be done on high performance desktop workstations; and that everyone else, possibly including notebook PC gamers, are doing something 'wrong' by "settling for less". Or that using a mobile system is just a "gimmick".I'll admit the experience is different across platforms; I'll even go so far to agree with you regarding things like 'ultrabooks' and 'gaming on tablets'. But its insulting to claim that anything less than a full blown, high end desktop workstation is 'doing it wrong'.The one of the great thing about the PC gaming community its hardware diversity. Even just with systems that are gaming capable, there are many different types of configurations; that fill different roles; often much more than purely playing games.There is no 'one size fits all' on the PC. And to play PC games, even higher end ones, desktops are neither the only way or the 'best' way to do them. It depends on the needs of the user. For some, greater mobility, lower energy consumption, multiple displays or smaller physical space are higher priorities than bigger GPUs.There is no best PC for every possible need. And most of us don't have blank checks to buy/build a PC.So we choose the best combination of parts and form factor to suit our needs, AND still play games.[/citation]

+1

Some PC gamers have the misconception that being a hardcore gamer has something to do with price tag on their machine or how high they can conceptually bench. You people are the cancer of the PC gaming industry. You're the reason the average consumer thinks they can't afford to game on PC and goes to console instead. Stop waving your wallets around or you won't have any games left to buy. Developers will develop for the platform that makes them money, that's business. If people think they can't afford to game on a PC, then developers will not develop for PC. Elite clubs usually aren't very much fun to be in, are they?

The AMD approach here is perfect for converting console gamers. Easy to build, and while it's not a good experience to you, it's still better than a console experience to them while being fairly affordable.
 
[citation][nom]buzznut[/nom]Another dumbass headline. AMD gains market share in mobile, but loses in workstation and desktop. Which means an overall net loss.[/citation]
It actually may mean a net gain especially if there is a better profit margin on mobile chips. In business profit margin is everything. In the end volume only makes you go broke faster if you don't have profit margin to go with it.
 
[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]I am doubtful about that since its not that huge of a departure from Bulldozer. I wish they'd scrap the architecture and work up a new CPU based around performance per core not packing as many cores as possible. Which with the increasing use of GPU power and their APU line would have made a lot more since for them to begin with.They need to do what Intel did after the Netburst failure, and come up with their own Core![/citation]

Bulldozer actually isn't a bad architecture. Most of it's problems aren't the CPU's architecture, but poor design methods and poor cache. Sure, the Bulldozer architecture needs a little work, but most of the work needs to be done on how the CPUs were designed. For example, one of the top engineers from Bulldozer said that the CPU's were completely computer designed. This is a problem because purely computer generated designes are known to be inferior to hand-made designs. Some performance critical parts of the CPU have always been hand-designed, but FX was not. Supposedly, this decreased performance by about 20% whilst increasing size and power usage by about 20%.

Fixing that and the cache alone (way to high latency) could result in a a large power usage reduction and an even larger performance increase, making it rival Nehalem in IPC, but being a little more power efficient. FX is also capable of remarkably high clock rates and with these improvements, it should be able to go pretty far up. It seems to scale power usage with increased clock rates a lot better than Sandy Bridge (but starts off with more power usage so the scaling isn't enough to catch SB in efficiency) so it could have very high clock rates, helping to counteract it's still slightly inferior IPC.

The best part of this is that it shouldn't be too hard to fix these problems in comparison with making a new architecture. AMD doesn't even need to do a die shrink yet, they just need to fix the major problems first. The question that remains to be asked is whether or not Piledriver has such enhancements, or if it is a more architectural improvement. Either way, it has a lot of potential, but what remains to be seen is if AMD manages to do it or not. I hope so, but I find it hard to have much faith given the current situation of the company. The last time they had a decent CPU architecture come out was the start of Phenom II, but since Sandy Bridge came out, there has been little to say for going with AMD. With Ivy right around the corner, AMD may need to really drop the ball on Intel with Piledriver to make a dent in the market.
 
Id say that AMD did not STEAL market share from Intel.
They created an amazing mobile platform, and now they receive their reward. They have EARNED it.

Besides, I think that this whole market share thing is mainly due to advertising. Honestly, Intel is everywhereeeeee TV, Internet, making their logo a symbol of technology. Sure, they are ahead of the competition, but if AMD starts to educate the masses about their products, they would capture a HUGE chunk of the market. Lets face it, most people dont do research before their purchase, and go Intel because its mainstream, never aware of the benefits price/perfomance-wise that AMD offers.
 
[citation][nom]hotsacoman[/nom]Ok, so I get what you guys are saying, but seriously...How do I win this????[/citation]
Everyone is a winner when you open your wallet and pay for it!
 
[citation][nom]chocostain[/nom]At the end of the day, it's the numbers that do the talking. AMD won.[/citation]

I'm rooting for AMD, but things aren't looking too bright for them. Any company, such as AMD, who doesn't make money won't be around for long. Financially, they are a sinking ship. I only hope that they make the necessary changes to become profitable. A computer world with Intel as the only major CPU manufacturer is a scary one.
 
AMD has been a sinking ship since I started building pcs back in 95 But its 2013 and there still here weather Intel or Amd we need both if we only had 1 we be back to the days when I paid 466 bucks for a pent 166mhz cpu or 2400 for a pent 75 mhz at best buy. The last Intel cpu I used to build a pc was a 3 ghz pent 4 prescott or should I say presshot! wouldnt run more then 5 or 6 hours before a reboot on its on it was a toaster. Sold to a friend wish I had never more problems cuz they left there pc on 24/7. I like the lanos and trinty Cpu both value budget and good gaming yes gaming no one has complained to me yet people want bottom dollar when it comes to money these chips do better then a lower end intel and vid card added or the higher up with the apu there from intel. I am not! knocking Intel I have owned both First intel chip was a 33 mhz cpu in a old packard bell yes they use to make pc,s here in the usa, First amd was a pr- rated 75 mhz chip and to this day I have a lappy which has a b-950 intel chip in it kinda sluggish if you ask me but its a lappy not a desktop. It will be yrs before the desktop is gone most people with tabs are either business want the internet on the go or braindead. Anyone can check there status on FB with a smart fone. They dont need a Tab but my bet my bottom dollar if we didnt have AMD TO KICK AROUND And poke fun at your ivy and sandy bridge chips would cost you sevral hundreds more. Dont flame me I own both but good to see Amd is doing a bit better.
 
Amd needs to make sure that its combination can play stuff at ultra high settings at the better price then intel. Intel can have 22nm or 10nm or whatever. As we see the CPU is less relevant when it comes to gaming.

Id like to see better use of the desktop case. Again it could be a great heat sink . less pesky fans. If we can have a robust motherboard and cpu that is fanless it will win market.

You need something to get us to go to you AMD. geez.
 
[citation][nom]Duckhunt[/nom]Amd needs to make sure that its combination can play stuff at ultra high settings at the better price then intel. Intel can have 22nm or 10nm or whatever. As we see the CPU is less relevant when it comes to gaming. Id like to see better use of the desktop case. Again it could be a great heat sink . less pesky fans. If we can have a robust motherboard and cpu that is fanless it will win market.You need something to get us to go to you AMD. geez.[/citation]

Third time you brought this up and third time I will reply, but I'll just copy/paste my previous reply to you on this from another thread.

"Like I said in another reply to you in another thread, making a case an extended heat sink would require heat sink designs and heat sink designs being made together. AMD doesn't control them and furthermore, for this addition to have a relation to the motherboard, the motherboard companies would have to work it out. AMD could suggest it or maybe even bring up some preliminary designs, but ultimately, it is out of their control.

Also, if you are referring to native hot swap as in with SATA, then that is also out of AMD's control because that relies on the PSU companies and/or case companies. The SATA ports already support it and it is up to the PSU companies to support it in their PSUs. Case companies can also/instead make hot-swap bays that handle this properly (some already have consumer cases with this functionality), but again, the most that AMD can do is suggest this and bring up some examples of how to do it if they want to. It is out of their control.

Fanless coolers are also reliant on the cooler designing companies. AMD doesn't make them default on most of their graphics cards because that would be more expensive for AMD. Using a fan instead of extending the heat sink is very much more cost-effective for a given level of cooling when it comes to cooling dozens to hundreds of watts of heat. Some companies make cards with fanless non-reference coolers anyway. They tend to get pretty hot unless a decent case fan keeps them cool and they take up much larger amounts of space than a good fan-based cooler needs for the same level of cooling. This usually makes them much more expensive than reference models and many non-reference models that have fans."
 
wow. so much. Thank for your effort. I am just putting up my two cents. I want AMD to be around because without it there is no competition.
 
[citation][nom]Duckhunt[/nom]wow. so much. Thank for your effort. I am just putting up my two cents. I want AMD to be around because without it there is no competition.[/citation]

Glad you found it helpful :)

Above all else for AMD's CPUs and APUs, I'd like to see them fix their crap cache and somewhat weak memory controllers. For example, Intel's L3 cache has something like less than half the latency of AMD's cache along with significantly more bandwidth than AMD's cache and AMD's memory controller is about 25% lower bandwidth and somewhat lower latency than Intel's controllers in the LGA 1155 CPUs when they use the same memory kit at the same specifications. The cache issue hurts both the CPUs and the APUs significantly while the memory controller issue generally hurts the APUs more than the CPUs because the APUs' GPUs are heavily bottle-necked by standard memory.

As for more outside of the box thinking along with what you were saying, I suppose that AMD could afford to make a say 10% more expensive than reference version of each card that doesn't dissipate far over around 100W of heat at the most with a *reference* fan-less cooler. A lot of people might be interested in paying a little extra for a fan-less cooled card with decent performance. Something like the Radeon 7850 would probably be the max for heat generation for it with a reasonably sized fan-less cooler.

IDK about the practicality of using the case as an extended heat sink. Like I said, that wouldn't be something that AMD would have much control over even at a price hike unless they decided to get into the business and even then, I'm not sure of its effectiveness. Maybe if a case was designed where a whole panel was part of a cooler integrated into the case, something practical could be done to get some huge surface area, but AMD doesn't seem likely to get involved in that sort of thing. It could be a very interesting concept for a case designer to consider looking into, especially since it'd be a good reason to get an expensive case if it meant that you wouldn't need to buy an after-market cooler to get silent yet high performance cooling. Companies such as Cooler Master that have both good air coolers and good cases are in an excellent position to consider this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom