I've just realize why AMD has been losing market share in the last few years.

[Andy Nguyen]

The reason is simple. they're cheap and LOOK cheap.

I went with my uncle to a computer store yesterday to build a gaming PC for my cousin as a birthday gift. He's a mechanic and litterally knows NOTHING about computers. So I decided to kept my mouth shut and watched.

He intended to to spend about 1200$ for it, at this pricemark you can build either Intel or AMD PC with similar performance. After the guy at the store explained to him about components choices he just went for nVidia and Intel products without thinking althought it costs and bit more and the tech guy insist they have similar performances (i7 8700 and gtx1070ti).

When I asked him why he just said "these things look nicer and pricier"

So, I think being cheap is not always the case for people when they're looking to buy decent stuffs. Especially for people who knows very little about those things.

I think that's where AMD messed up. They're not meant to be cheaper than Intel and nVidia.

<moderator edit for language>

 

[Gam3r01]

Language please.

Just to mention, AMD and Intel/Nvidia products dont "look" any different. A CPU looks like a CPU and GPUs are only as "fancy" as their board partners make them, and they typically use the same style boards on both brands. Looks arent what made AMD lose market share. They were not able to produce competitive levels of performance for several years, and gained a bad name because of it. AMDs market share has been on the rise since the release of Ryzen anyway.

They didnt look bad, the salesman did his job and talked you guys into more expensive parts it sounds like.

 

[dstln]

The chips literally look the same and the AMD coolers look 10x better, so what is this about again?

 

[Andy Nguyen]

By "look" I refer everything visual-related, I mean the logo, the box designs....
About the salesman, I believe he tried to sell the AMD products not the Intel. Since in reatail bussiness, the more popular a product is, the less profit margin and percentage it has.
I used to sell smartphones. A 200$ OPPO phone gave me 80$ profit (officially given by OPPO) while an 800$ iPhone gave me 20$ profit.

 

[Gam3r01]

If the biggest argument comes down to box design for why AMD suffered for years, and not their performance history, that sounds like a personal choice.
Especially since I like AMDs branding and boxes better now: http://www.game-debate.com/images/blog/top/top__id1488287071_343178.jpg
Sleek, modern, and not full of useless graphics.

 

[Solandri]

While I disagree that this is "where AMD messed up," I do agree with OP that looks are a factor with many people's purchasing decisions. I help a lot of people (friends, relatives, clients) buy laptops and desktops. On numerous occasions I've broken down the choices in terms of price and performance, presented it to the buyer, and they ignore everything I've said and make their selection because "this one looks cuter."

Those of us who are technically knowledgeable tend to ignore appearance and concentrate solely on the specs. But it is true that for the average lay person, looks can be a substantial factor in their purchase decision. This is one of the reasons I don't ridicule people who like to pimp their PC cases. It may be non-functional, but it makes them happy and it's not my place to judge what a person wants to do with their computer that they bought with their money. For home use, we buy computers to help us relieve stress, not cause more stress. So at the end of the day, a person who is happy about their computer is better off than a person who has a slightly better-performing computer but is unhappy with it. I only try to steer them away from the "cute" computer if it is substantially worse or overpriced.