AMD Steals Market Share From Intel

[clownbaby]

so this has to be a giant marketing FAIL by Intel, because AMD only beats them price/performance wise in a few VERY specific circumstances.

I too hope that AMD's piledriver makes the market more interesting....but I doubt it. It's based on the same lousy architecture that bulldozer is.

Intel would be smart to start a campaign highlighting the power usage of their processors. Their efficiency destroys AMD and nobody but enthusiasts know about it. I believe energy efficiency would be a HUGE selling point in the normal retail market. Especially, since worst case, intel processors perform equally to AMD at the same price point, but use less energy.

At least AMD has a good marketing department. Putting lipstick on pigs must really make a difference.

 

[Guest]

Ok, so I get what you guys are saying, but seriously...How do I win this????

 

[leon2006]

hardly a news

 

[whimseh]

Proud first time owner of an Intel processor

 

[wiyosaya]

[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]You, and the gamer community, are a minority in the total computer marketshare. For every gamer, there are possibly dozens or hundreds of non-gamers or casual ones, and why should they use desktop computers if laptops or tablets can easily fill in the computing job.[/citation]
Let us know when you are running Finite Element Analysis on your laptop or tablet with performance anywhere near that of a desktop with a good GPU.

 

[wiyosaya]

Interesting news, and good news for AMD I am sure. At least they are gaining ground in an area where they currently have the better performing technology.

Maybe we will get a better product from them, soon; I would hope that the loss of market share in the desktop and server markets will spur them to new heights.

 

[SteelCity1981]

This is why AMD is shifting it's focus to segments it can heavily compete in and that's the mobile segment and when people were saying that was a bad move shifting its focus away from comepteting head on with intels desktop segment for the cpu crown it instead turned out to be a good move and now you are seeing that. It's just like politics trying to win a primary or a national election. You're not going to focus on the states that you have a long shot at winning , your going to focus on those states that you have a good shot at winning and AMD has taken that approach and it's paying off for them.

 

[moonzy]

[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]This is why AMD is shifting it's focus to segments it can heavily compete in and that's the mobile segment and when people were saying that was a bad move shifting its focus away from comepteting head on with intels desktop segment for the cpu crown it instead turned out to be a good move and now you are seeing that. It's just like politics trying to win a primary or a national election. You're not going to focus on the states that you have a long shot at winning , your going to focus on those states that you have a good shot at winning and AMD has taken that approach and it's paying off for them.[/citation]
Well said.
AMD's got nice APUs in the laptop segment.

 

[wardoc22]

Joysticks... ewww..

 

[Middleman]

So AMD gained a few points in the market segment with the lowest profit margin, yet lost a few in the other market segment with the highest profit margin, and you consider that "coming out on top?"

Um. Sure.

 

[DjEaZy]

... APU for the win...

 

[moonzy]

[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... APU for the win...[/citation]
Awesome, yes they are. There's even dual graphics in some of the laptops
with AMD vision.
Yes, AMD is working well for graphics and Llano.

 

[moonzy]

The deal with Bulldozer is, you need to tweak it.
But, now a lot of the tweakers seem to have been brainwashed into thinking
everything has to be "green powered" and use as much/less power as intel cpus.
It's as if no one sleeps their PC anymore when it's not being used. Maybe the PSU will pop if it sleeps too much(?)

 

[machvelocy]

the uninformed are the majority, heck one my friend brags about how his fx8120 is better than my 2500k coz it has moar coars

 

[nebun]

AMD has a long way to go....they are really falling behind

 

[monsta]

Look out intel , amd is catching up!

 

[buzznut]

Oh, sorry guys I totally misread that one part of the article. My apologies.

 

[sonofliberty08]

[citation][nom]azncracker[/nom]For laptops and budget builds, I think AMD is the way to go with their APU's[/citation]
AMD Fusion APU best for laptop, entry-level office/home small form factor desktop and HTPC

 

[sonofliberty08]

[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]
their bobcat core are working pretty good for me, low power and fair performance, i can run PS and AI both at the same time on the E450, and the price are pleased, i hope they will focus on improving the bobcat architecture.

 

[acerace]

Lol, there's so many AMD fanboys in Tom's website. Wake up people, fanboyism is stupid and you'll never get benefit from it.

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]Let us know when you are running Finite Element Analysis on your laptop or tablet with performance anywhere near that of a desktop with a good GPU.[/citation]

Let us know when you are only internet browsing, movie, word processing or playing Angry Birds on a workstation with quad-Xeon and four OCed Radeon 7970s.

 

[bak0n]

Just imagine what AMD could do if they had the same die shrink as Intel.

 

[MaddPuppy]

[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]

I agree.....

Here's one for you guys to think over:

Intel had the Pentium M for the laptop and the P IV for the desktop.
AMD had the Athlon 64 FX (940 pin) that went toe-to-toe with the P IV, and they then had the popular Athlon X2 that beat Intel.
Maximum PC (paper Mag) did a short article on a Asus desktop P IV MB that would also let you run a Pent M CPU (for green computing).
They installed the Pent M and did some overclocking. They were surprised when the lowly Pent M (the chip was based off the P III architecture) beat the new Athlon FX 55 and the P IV.
I think INTEL must have heard, because after the beat down with the Athlon X2 they released the CORE architecture.
The CORE architecture was a Heavily Modified P III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_III

Now if AMD has something like this up their sleeve

 

[tipoo]

Pretty expected. AMD's APU chips are pretty good for casual mobile gaming, better than Intels integrated graphics still and usually at a lower price. For casual gaming a better GPU makes more of a difference than Intels processor performance lead does. They're trying to capitalize on their strengths instead of continuing getting slaughtered by Intel where AMD are weak, which is good.

I actually just saw my first VIA system in the wild a few days ago at my university, it was a client PC I think.

 

[tmk221]

I wonder if bulldozer will make any difference in server segment. After all it was designed toward that market, wasn't it?