Intel, AMD Fiercely Fighting For Market Share

Page 2 - 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.
The figures get distorted by the enterprise sector. Virtually all computers used in enterprise sport Intel chips, if you were to only look at private users, ie. Enthusiasts, gamers and 'mom an dad users' then the spread will start to even out.

On top of that, with Apple now using Intel exclusively as well, this would further skew the stats
 
[citation][nom]PudgyChicken[/nom]LOL @Pat1234Fanboy much. Taking Intel's market share with one new product line just isn't gonna happen. I don't like to pick sides, but the last few rounds have all gone to Intel. Lets face it: Core iX (1st gen) vs Phenom IIs is no competition. Core iX (2nd gen) vs Phenom IIs... If possible, even less competition. While I would be thrilled if AMD brought some real muscle to the table, realistically I don't see it happening.[/citation]

compare price points, intel gives you 2 cores, than 2 cores and 2 logical, than 4 cores, than 4 cores and 4 logical

amd gives me 2 cores, 3 cores, and 4 cores for the same price as the 2 core and 2 logical section. price to price, i pick amd over intel, and thats only starting to change with sandy bridge... but even than, just barely, as intel still charges more for the 4 real cores than amd.

if i want a powerhouse computer, than i go high end intel, but mid range or lower, amd, and even than intel is JUST BARELY able to get my attention at mid range, till i do price performance, and see that most operations are only a few more seconds on an amd than intel, an un noticeable amount longer basically.

[citation][nom]greliu[/nom]To be honest, I don't think AMD is going anywhere... EVER. This is simply because Intel doesn't want to battle it out in court when they're the ONLY processor manufacturer. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if AMD began to hit single digits in market share that Intel wouldn't hand over some engineers and/or cash to "help" AMD out. Think about it.[/citation]

if amd dies, they wont be the only ones, just the only realistic choice, at least until arm enabled windows hits, and you can fit 4 cpus on one motherboard with no cooling features, and have a 16 core desktop going at 2.5ghz and taking next to no power.
 
[citation][nom]toastninja17[/nom]Not saying that Intel chips aren't good for gaming, they're outstanding...[/citation]
Yeah, but I want my processor to stand inside my cabinet.
 
even if intel handed over 50% of the market to AMD, AMD would not have the capacity to supply that many chips and with that knowledge Intel exploited their position prior to 05, it was not so much that intel was rebating their chips heavily to the OEM but rather intel penalized those found to sport AMD chips by reducing inventories of chips they made available to such vendors

it ensured AMD could not do business OEMs and grow their market share and invest in facilities which further compounded intel's position
 
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]The large gap is somewhat disturbing but not unexpected. When I bought my Phenom laptop the salesman tried to persuade me to upgrade to a Core-i5 machine. Apparently it runs "faster, cooler" and it won't overheat.The general public buys this story too, which is sad.[/citation]
When the store ran out of the AMD laptop my sister was getting (she had it on order) she was told she would be "upgraded" to a core i5 which was a "$300" upgrade for free! I told her to ask for a free bag for her trouble.
 
even if intel handed over 50% of the market to AMD, AMD would not have the capacity to supply that many chips and with that knowledge Intel exploited their position prior to 05, it was not so much that intel was rebating their chips heavily to the OEM but rather intel penalized those found to sport AMD chips by reducing inventories of chips they made available to such vendors

it ensured AMD could not do business OEMs and grow their market share and invest in facilities which further compounded intel's position
Click to expand...

Yep that was Intel's dirtiest trick. Telling each OEM that they would withhold inventory and send the supply to their competitors along with cutting their rebate deals and sending the extra money to their competitors. Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP and Toshiba were in such a heavy war with each other none of them could afford to piss Intel off too much. Thankfully that was ended in 2009 when Intel had to pay out its nose, still didn't make for the damage it inflicted but its a start. The big point is Intel knows they have the microscope on them in the Desktop PC market, their not going to be able to pull anymore BS like that off. You see this in that OEM's have started selling AMD equipped systems on their websites and at their outlets, something you used to ~never~ see, even when AMD held the crown for performance.
 
Ha ha !! I always have funn reading you all ppl., it is very interesting to know what you think and sometimes how you fight each other with arguments or without them just as fanatics. LOL :). My opinion is; Intel has the Fastest Cpu truth; but expensive. Amd has the cheapest ones truth, but not faster than those from Intel. LOL is that simple. LOL
 
Any1 thought of those light gamer with budjet gaming PC with its IGP ? Intel IGP just sucks @.@ AMD IGP were hell lot better , mayb AMD can exploit through these kinds of market @.@ .
 
[citation][nom]NapoleonDK[/nom]I didn't realize their market share was that far apart. Seems odd when so many of the gamers I know are thrilled to death with their Phenom 965's and HD6950's...[/citation]
In addition to what the guy replied above, the bottom line is most PC's are pre-built OEM assemblies (a la Dell, HP, etc.) and that "Intel Inside" sticker on the front has become synonymous with "Quality". Sorry, but AMD spent a lot of years making lesser quality and although they've, with a doubt, come a LONG way... but, for many average users, if it doesn't say "Intel Inside", they aren't going to spend their greenbacks on that. AMD will potentially swing some business their way with the Sandy Bridge mishap. The problem is, coming close but short isn't enough for AMD, if they ever want the crown, they're going to have to come out with some products that REALLY crush Intel's comparable offerings.
 
This is why I do not understand enthusiast PC builders who do NOT buy the $1000 CPUs from Intel. Why don't you all support AMD and buy their CPUs? Sure they have nothing to compete vs Intel at the highend (and as a result you can see the highend prices) but at the upper midrange and below they are just as good. Some benchmarks Intel does better, sometimes AMD does. All in all it's pretty much NO difference for you.

Yet for the competition as a whole if you choose AMD and support the underdog it makes a difference! So why not buy AMD? They certainly could use your help.
 
@RobinPanties

lesser quality? then what? your talking about AMD TLB problems, if i recall that was not any worst then the Pentium Pro Maths error and i can tell you Joe public has no idea of either, are we talking about CPU defect rates? cause im pretty sure if you choose AMD or Intel aint going make an ounce of difference.

Now if your talking performance, and we talking about the same old Joe public, im pretty sure you could plonk a bloody Celeron in there and they be none the wiser, the issue is that retail store have always tried to up-sell a product, they gain more from selling a i5 system as opposed to a Phenom II, now i would not put it past then to elude to the poorer qualities of a AMD chip but lets not pretend there's any truth in that, on top of that AMD is still hurting from the days of Intel's shady dealings, how many AMD systems to Intel systems do you see OEMs like HP and Toshiba offering

short of Intel losing 80% of their fab facilities, it would be close to impossible for AMD to gain a significant advantage in market shares, like it or not Intel controls the desktop, workstation and server market, if they say jump the rest of the industry jumps

now the mobile market, thats a whole different kettle of fish, ARM controls that baby and they dont even have a Fab plant to their name lol
 
GO GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Well Im sure it would run faster and maybe even cooler based on benchmarks. The question is if your not using that laptop for gaming do you really need to spen the extra chas, I would say no.
 
@jkflipflop98

just like intel had nVidia and AMD's number, larabee was just so amazing......

there are just some things the x86 will never do well at
 
[citation][nom]toastninja17[/nom]Yeah too bad this is happening, AMD chips and architecture are designed more for gamers and less expensive, while Intel definitely focuses more on enterprise and business use. Not saying that Intel chips aren't good for gaming, they're outstanding...just, I think AMD is a little more aimed towards the gamer with less dough to blow.[/citation]

Hmmm.
I hope so, my curent pc is intel, got it in december 2009 and january 2010, grafics 5870.
My previous pc was a amd, ati.
No competitin no fair prices for us. I avoid apple for that reason, so one has to not get iphone etc.
But with pc if im spending 2grand, i want to get best possible performance for what i can afford. And amd does not even come close for years now.
I might be upgrading or doing water cooling soon, so if amd can finnaly performe like its grafics did for a few months with the 5800 series ill gladly change.
But so far the difference is just to big
 
oh forgot to say.
My pc is intel, but when i had to help my bro buy a pc and a laptop i had no choice but to go amd because of the budget i had.
good machines never the less so i guess i depends of your knowleage when u go to a store, because if not carefull u will be sold a older generation cpu i not even realise. Naming can be confusing at times. And it depends on how much u wanna spend...
For the average person and even for more "informed" they wont even notice performence difference...
 
@mayankleoboy1

they making so much loss that they just paid off a significant amount of debt (incurred through facility upgrades)
 
Comparing an iX cpu to a phenom is stupid. Phenom II was made to compete with core2, so obviously the iX cpu will be better. Compare a bulldozer cpu to an ix on release, then talk.
 
[citation][nom]NapoleonDK[/nom]I didn't realize their market share was that far apart. Seems odd when so many of the gamers I know are thrilled to death with their Phenom 965's and HD6950's...[/citation]

I've got a Phenom 9950 and double Radeon HD 4870 crossfire setup and still love it. AMD has treated me well
 
Lol @ All of the Intel Fanboys.

Don't you guys realize that if Intel swallows AMD then they will be able to price their products at whatever price they desire. AMD is needed not only to produce great products but to keep Intel honest and keep their prices from getting more ridiculous than they already are.
 
Intel owns the laptop and netbook market with better cpus and way better battery life than Amds. But Amd has better prices on there desktop cpus and very good performance price ratio with better integrated video from Ati on there desktops than intels horrible dektop and laptop integrated graphics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom