Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"AMD helps Intel get back its market share"

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 6, 2006 11:55:10 AM

I'm preparing or the arrival of the horde. This isn't going to go well with them...
As regards the orginal topic:
You make a deal with the devil, it'll come back to haunt you. I guess this is the Devils due for AMD
Related resources
October 6, 2006 11:56:17 AM

I wouldnt say help, but speeding up seeing how unable to provide competition AMD is.
October 6, 2006 11:59:17 AM

Shut the f^ck up fanboy troll.
With that out of the way, after that ridiculous and quite pedantic post, I assume I have enough authority to say you don't have enough credibility to question others motives for posting.
Read the signature below
October 6, 2006 12:04:51 PM

Quote:
Look toe fryer, go eat pony **** because thats your lot in life.

How DARE you speak to me like that? Im gonna crash your CPU.

Reported
October 6, 2006 12:05:49 PM

AHAHAHAHA

This POOWADD is amusing. In a "retarded" way.

Can't write, can't punctuate, doesn't understand grammar. Very amusing.
October 6, 2006 12:06:14 PM

Quote:
Interesting editorial at HEXUS.net.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6890


Interesting but off base. How can latching on to the largest corporate seller hurt you? They have also signed a deal with the largest Chinese OEM. That will sell more PCs than MESH computers. It's better to get the new volume business than to go with lower volume at the same price point.

By getting in Dell, now more IT people will know who they are. This will translate to more home sales for Dell AMD PCs.

Besides, you can't please everyone.
October 6, 2006 12:14:44 PM

Sup haven't seen you in a while.
In response to your post though, when most of your market is made up of enthusiasts, especially enthusiasts that see Dell as the Devil incarnate, it isn't a good idea to go pissing them off by getting into bed with Dell.
That being said, I agree, you have to lose one market in order to start gaining in another, all though Intel has the advantage of name recognition, now in both markets.
October 6, 2006 12:17:10 PM

Ahahahahaha. Oh, you make me laugh. Still can't spell, still can't punctuate, still doesn't get the concept of grammar.

Incidentally, barratry is illegal (not that I expect you to know what barratry is...)
October 6, 2006 12:20:16 PM

Oh my. Not able to read as well as write. How ever do you cope?
October 6, 2006 12:25:00 PM

Just ignore him and press the report button. He or she will go away soon enough (when the mods ban him). All it's doing right now is just boosting your post count, not furthering the discussion.
He's trolling and you're feeding the troll.
October 6, 2006 12:28:01 PM

Yeah, I suppose. I am bored at work and wanted someone to insult - and really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I'll stop now :) 
October 6, 2006 12:32:06 PM

As much as I'd like to flame this fool, its an insult to the original poster to hijack this thread before a meaningful discussion has been started. I've already reported his behavior to the moderators. He seem to share the same characteristics with someone who was banned not to long ago. He probably just changed screen names.
They might have to do a IP ban now.

Back to the original topic:
What do you think of it?
October 6, 2006 12:39:44 PM

Yeah, It seemed like a good idea at the time... but now I realise I was being a tool...

I think the arguments make a persuasive case - although we need to ask "who would AMD prefer to be with - the big boys like Dell, or lots of little systems integrators" - and I suspect that they'd prefer to be with Dell - generally predictable income stream, etc...

I think that AMD isn't going to be too worried about losing the enthusiast's market.

When AMD saw that Conroe was coming up and they didn't have an answer, I suspect they *really* heavily began to market themselves to Dell in order to get something together that can keep them going till they can fight Conroe effectively.
October 6, 2006 12:42:03 PM

This sounds like sour grapes from some small fry OEMs. They're complaining because the 100 chips a week they order aren't as important to AMD as the 20,000 chips a week a large OEM orders. Cry me a river.

The home PC market is approximately 10% of the US PC market. Corporate and enterprise is 90%. Why would any supplier want to ignore 90% of the market? The enthusiast sector is what, 5% of the home market? So AMD should ignore 9 out of 10 computer sales and instead target the finickiest half a percent of the market?

Like the Baron says, more demand will lead to greater production and more money to invest in future tech.
October 6, 2006 12:43:36 PM

But even with that in mind, have you ever seen a AMD commercial? Everyone here remembers the Blue Man commercials, and knows the Intel jingle. AMD doesn't have that kind of name recognition. When Joe Somebody goes to Best Buy or to Welcome, they'll look for
1. What the can afford
2. What he can recognize.

Go on the street and ask a person what AMD is. Do the same for Intel.
October 6, 2006 12:47:36 PM

The thing is, the big money is in the consumer market, and if AMD loses some of the smaller system builders, their grasping for the chance to get the huge consumer market out there. Especially due to the growth rate of PC's these days. The more people are exposed to AMD products through the large system builders, the more they would consider buying them.

It's a good idea, but I don't know how well it will work. Most consumers who buy PC's are unknowledgable at best, so they don't know what is actually better. Sales reps are marginally smarter... say, simian level, but they usually don't care either because they're not buying the computers themselves. Thus, the consumer buys the cheaper one, but not knowing exactly which one is better. Thus AMD steps in and tries to convince people theirs is better without any proof, because they have none. Marketing at its finest.

Eh, AMD will either gain market share, or be crushed. I especially liked how they said Intel opened a can of whoopass that was Conroe.

-Peace
October 6, 2006 12:54:11 PM

I do believe that this is partially true. The only Dell I have ever owned was a laptop and that was for obvious reasons. I build my own desktop systems and I was 100% sure of using AMD on my next build until Core 2 was released. After I saw the benchmarks of even the E6300 my mind was made up. AMD had nothing to offer for $200 that came close to the performance of an E6300. The news about Dell did leave a bad taste in my mouth. Factory or OEM systems are a bunch of crap and overpriced. Dell does have low cost budget systems, but I wouldn't trust them with a word document. I've known many people to tell me that their Dell system crashed and usually have hardware failure.

I can see it going 2 ways really, it can help AMD or cut off their enthusiast base. Right now it's too early to tell.
October 6, 2006 12:55:47 PM

Quote:
Hmmm.....where were you before conroe when Intel couldnt provide competition for the last 3 years? :roll:


They couldn't provide competition, but what processor did people still buy mind you? AMD didn't fully exploit the opening they got when they had the chance. Sun Tzu would have been disappointed in this strategic failure.
You forget we are a small part of the market. The high end enthusiast market accounts for maybe 5% of total sales. With AMD probably more around 25 - 40%.
Quote:
Eh, AMD will either gain market share, or be crushed. I especially how they said Intel opened a can of whoopass that was Conroe.

Word.
October 6, 2006 1:04:27 PM

Quote:
By getting in Dell, now more IT people will know who they are. This will translate to more home sales for Dell AMD PCs.

Besides, you can't please everyone.

I honestly doubt that "IT people" don't know about AMD. Besides, "IT people" are more likely to be enthusiasts, the very people who AMD is now screwing.
October 6, 2006 1:06:01 PM

Point for you.
October 6, 2006 1:24:56 PM

AMD is just trying to keep up with Intel. If it can't beat it performance wise, maybe by getting acquainted with large OEMs, it can get a more stable income in order to shove the money back into its research sector. AMD, business-wise, is a little more stable than Intel at the moment, however, AMD really has to think about getting their range of products updated as quickly as possible in order to gain some ground against C2D. K8, despite it being a great architecture, is showing its age now, and AMD cannot keep flogging a dying donkey. Overall, its make or break for AMD, and they have a LOT to lose if they mess up.
October 6, 2006 1:29:32 PM

I agree with you 100%.
October 6, 2006 1:50:57 PM

I think AMD is doing all they can with the products they have right now. The Conroe caught them with their pants down, so they can't do much other than cut prices and hang on until they can get new products to the market. In the meantime, increasing share in the huge consumer segment should help preserve the bottom line.

The next product cycle will define the future for AMD. It will be interesting to watch the battle play itself out.
October 6, 2006 2:18:03 PM

Good summary on the situation.

I feel AMD can pull through, since they managed to do so a long time ago with K6. To be honest, C2D is a great product, and Intel are pushing so hard in order to get their quad-core processors out, unfortunately this has left them in a rather unstable position (aggressive prices, staff lay-offs, not for stock prices). AMD must capitalise on the situation and sit tight with the large OEMs, until they can roll out K8L and whatever comes after that. Besides, I'd hate to see AMD go, because I do not want to pay sky-high prices for Intel processors.
October 6, 2006 2:24:58 PM

Very interesting article, and very logical thinking too.

While I am not going to stick up for either side, but with any company. We are on the outside looking in, this is important to remember. I wouldn't think AMD would want to give up the gaming market so easily, so I think they (or should) have something up their sleeve to at least be competetive to conroe. At the same time, we all know AMD is a smaller company, and it is important for them to get into the cooporate market and get their name out. After all, that is alot of income.

I know when I started my job where am now, they hadn't even really considered AMD, all the guy knew was intel, so it was what he bought. We have around 40 Xeon based servers, and about 5000 intel based workstations and laptops. That could've been profit for AMD as the AMD counterparts to these systems would've easily performed better and most likey for less. (all P4 and celery based pc's) So why didn't he go AMD, like I said... when I mentioned AMD, he was like, who?
October 6, 2006 2:48:15 PM

Quote:
I wouldn't think AMD would want to give up the gaming market so easily, so I think they (or should) have something up their sleeve to at least be competetive to conroe.


They do for the short term. 4x4. Will that succeed? I'm not sure. It's going into the top end Dell XPS systems. Would any of us pay that amount of money ? I wouldn't. Long term they have K8L. When that comes out I'm a potential customer. But they have to at least equal the performance of whatever Intel is offering at that time and at the same or lower price. For the time being I'm sticking to Conroe. Vista runs beautifully on it. Besides, I'm an ATi user, so AMD already has at least part of my business. I would also consider buying a Conroe motherboard with an ATi chipset. The ATi buyout was risky for AMD but I'll do my part to make sure it succeeds. I don't think anyone wants an Intel monopoly.
October 6, 2006 7:11:01 PM

Quote:
Sup haven't seen you in a while.
In response to your post though, when most of your market is made up of enthusiasts, especially enthusiasts that see Dell as the Devil incarnate, it isn't a good idea to go pissing them off by getting into bed with Dell.
That being said, I agree, you have to lose one market in order to start gaining in another, all though Intel has the advantage of name recognition, now in both markets.


people here have often said that enthusiasts are a very small part of the market and if AMD sells 3 PCs for every enthusiast DIY, then even if all the enthusiasts change over they will still sell TWO EXTRA PCs.

Enthusiasts should also realize that AMD is in this to make money not friends, though they are not purposely saying screw you, they have to get more volume to offset the lower prices.
October 6, 2006 7:21:40 PM

Quote:
AMD is just trying to keep up with Intel. If it can't beat it performance wise, maybe by getting acquainted with large OEMs, it can get a more stable income in order to shove the money back into its research sector. AMD, business-wise, is a little more stable than Intel at the moment, however, AMD really has to think about getting their range of products updated as quickly as possible in order to gain some ground against C2D. K8, despite it being a great architecture, is showing its age now, and AMD cannot keep flogging a dying donkey. Overall, its make or break for AMD, and they have a LOT to lose if they mess up.



Like I always say AMD is the darling of the tech sector right now because of Opteron and they should have 3 years of underperforming before they are "written off." Intel has been and is still producing the worst crap (NetBust) ever and no one said they should be punished for being behind.

AMD has the same deal. if they don't you are biased towards Intel. Especially since X2 is not crap. It may only provide 70fps @ 1600 while Core 2 provides 80fps, but who can see more than 60fps?

Core 2 is more of a problem for Intel than AMD because they now have MILLIONS of WORTHLESS NETBUST chips.
October 6, 2006 7:24:28 PM

Quote:
Like I always say AMD is the darling of the tech sector right now because of Opteron and they should have 3 years of underperforming before they are "written off." Intel has been and is still producing the worst crap (NetBust) ever and no one said they should be punished for being behind.

AMD has the same deal.
if they don't you are biased towards Intel. Especially since X2 is not crap. It may only provide 70fps @ 1600 while Core 2 provides 80fps, but who can see more than 60fps?

Core 2 is more of a problem for Intel than AMD because they now have MILLIONS of WORTHLESS NETBUST chips.


"Written off"? AMD having the same deal as Intel? Never heard of an agreement between the two companies...
As far as Non-Fanbois are concerned, AMD has as much time as they like to release a competitive product. But, absorbing the same amount of fiscal punishment that YourMortalEnemyCompany sustained, they have less time than YMEC simply because:
1. They bought ATI
2. They don't have market momentum
3. They don't have deep pockets of money

Lay off the public display of affection, dammit!
October 6, 2006 7:27:41 PM

Millions of cheap Netburst chips which they can flood the market with. Especially to AMD's new bed fellow, Dell. Anyway you look at it, Intel just has the pockets to absorb being behind in the enthusiast market because we're such a small part of sales.
Joe Somebody doesn't care about FPS, floating points or 3Dmark scores. I doubt he'd even know who AMD is. Since most people can hum the Intel jingle, that's the one they'd look at when going to Best Buy and Dell.
October 6, 2006 8:14:24 PM

Quote:
I feel AMD can pull through, since they managed to do so a long time ago with K6

People who compare AMD's current situation to their K6 time are dead wrong. Back then, Intel didn't give a squad about the existence of K6. Intel didn't offer their CPUs at ridiculous low prices. K6s were appealed to the low cost CPUs group. K6s were not performing as bad compare to K8 vs C2D clock to clock.
Now, AMD has gotten Intel's attentions and Intel is out at full force to get back what they have lost. Never before in history, a high performance design CPU from Intel was as affordable as it is right now. AMD can't just keep cutting their prices. AMD is in more troubles than its fans think.
October 6, 2006 8:15:58 PM

hey ninja who in the hell is the poodoo dude?
and what is his problem. i never even heard of him

hopefully we wont see him around pretty soon :lol: 
October 6, 2006 8:17:01 PM

Interesting article, but again, can't blame AMD. They don't get $ until a system/processor actually sells, so its down to who can move the most processors the fastest? Because the longer you wait, the more prices go down (usually).

AMD's coming out as strapped for cash (ATI acquisition, price cuts), so I see as it boils down to: is average joe somebody going to buy a dell or from a small OEM supplier?

We have to admit, Dell's brand recognition is practically up there with Intel's. Most people buy computers through dell or through a local electronics store, not the hole-in-the-wall ones.

Its a company.. its loyal to its income, not its customers.
October 6, 2006 8:22:55 PM

Ugh, you are not allowed to bring up the poodoo guy...

Back to the topic at hand, this is a very delicate time for AMD. They are taking huge risks, because I assure you that their profit margins are very low when selling to Dell (especially if it makes them get out of bed with Intel). And they say they landed the 2nd biggest computer making company in China. Which means they must have offered a heck of a deal, which all means less profit for AMD. AMD doesn't even have close the operating capital that Intel has, and they're still here buying out ATI and opening new fabs and research plants.

We can turn this into a starcraft analogy. They are like the protoss with every minimal photon cannons defense on their main base, but instead of consolidating, are creating 2 or 3 other bases, while Intel i.e. Zerg already have 3/4 of the map and masses of units. If Intel was allowed to zerg rush AMD, then it would all be over... but where would the fun in that be.
October 6, 2006 8:27:33 PM

He's just some troll. He probably got banned already. He seem like a guy called xxbeanerxx that was trolling the threads probably 2 to 3 weeks ago.
@Nobly
Astute summary of the situation. Its all about money and shareholders.
@Doughboy
Kudos for bringing Starcraft into the equation. I'm down with the UED anyways
October 6, 2006 8:31:29 PM

Quote:
But even with that in mind, have you ever seen a AMD commercial? Everyone here remembers the Blue Man commercials, and knows the Intel jingle. AMD doesn't have that kind of name recognition. When Joe Somebody goes to Best Buy or to Welcome, they'll look for
1. What the can afford
2. What he can recognize.

Go on the street and ask a person what AMD is. Do the same for Intel.


Also ask a person how they can tell which chip is in a Compaq or Dell or HP.
October 6, 2006 8:33:05 PM

yeah he is kinda like assman.

but its always fun to have a goofy comedian everyonce in awhile

loved your thread on worste pc srewups :lol: 
October 6, 2006 8:33:53 PM

Pray tell, how can they? Humor me on this if you will.
October 6, 2006 8:35:46 PM

Gracias mi hermano. :D 
I aim to please. Sometimes.
Assmans kinda cool though. Anyone who like Ali G has serious points in my book.
Boyashaka playa
October 6, 2006 8:37:09 PM

ok im done im not going to tie up this thread anymore.

going back to work and talk to you guys later
October 6, 2006 9:08:35 PM

There's two things in that article that bother me. Firstly, and the shorter point is, the core 2 is cheaper. I'm just not convinced of this because a)it's built on the 65nm process, a new process which surely has to have the kinks worked out of and b) the core 2 is a new architecture, and intel will need to recoup the development costs of this new architecture, as well as the development costs of the 65nm process. There is no doubt that the core 2 is retailing for less, but that does not mean the core 2 is cheaper. For the months preceding the release of the core 2 intels stock was tumbling because of repeated reports of loss of market share. It is fully possibly that intel is selling the core 2 at an artifically low price to try to recoup market share and try to stop the tumbling of it's stock.

Second, I think this article unfairly says AMD is "screwing" the consumers when it's well known intel has been doing this for ages and is still doing it. Case and point. I am currently building myself a new notebook. I've decided to build it on a T7x00 processor, this should not be a problem as intel officially launched these processors at the end of augest, it is now getting near mid october. As we all know, these processors are not commercially available, but as I know a lot of distributors, if a product is available at all, even if not commercially, I've still been able to get them. When I asked about these processors, basically the distributors said "well, the T7600 seems to be getting shipped, but if you're not dell, forget it, we have no idea when people who aren't dell will be getting them. The T7400, not even dell has, but we're hoping to get some in early november. Don't ask about the T7200 as intel hasn't told us anything about them." The one that kind of pisses me off is the T7600 and that all shipments of these seem to be going to dell, which is exactly what that article is bitching about that AMD is doing.

Sorry, but I just feel that this forum in general treats AMD very unfairly over all, and call anybody who defends AMD a fanboi when most of this forum seems to me to be made up of intel fanbois.
October 6, 2006 9:18:14 PM

Quote:
Like I always say AMD is the darling of the tech sector right now because of Opteron and they should have 3 years of underperforming before they are "written off." Intel has been and is still producing the worst crap (NetBust) ever and no one said they should be punished for being behind.

AMD has the same deal. if they don't you are biased towards Intel. Especially since X2 is not crap. It may only provide 70fps @ 1600 while Core 2 provides 80fps, but who can see more than 60fps?

Core 2 is more of a problem for Intel than AMD because they now have MILLIONS of WORTHLESS NETBUST chips.


If you saw my sig, I have an X2 system. Its great paired up with an X1900XT, and 2 gigs of RAM. I love it since it is a beast. However, its already outdated. But that doesn't bother me much since it can kick ass at running Oblivion and Company of Heroes. I can concur that the X2 is definitely not crap, but compared to C2D, its already old-tech. Intel has plenty of old-tech to dispose of, such as P4. In all the ads i've seen of Dell PCs and other OEMs, I haven't even seen a C2D pc yet... its all P4. AMD is nowhere to be seen. I do like AMD, if I were to invest my money on a company, I would put it on AMD, dunno why, but I feel they are the more stable of the two companies. Intel has momentum whereas AMD doesn't. Intel can afford to wait a couple of years to bring a kick-ass product, whereas AMD can't. But AMD have lasted a very long time, so I am sure they'll keep on Intel's heels. AMD is trying to expand at an opportune time, so it can buy itself enough time to finalise its newer products. Even now, they seem fairly solid whereas Intel has had a rocky time.

I'm not an Intel fanboy, nor a AMD fanboy. I admit, I like the underdog, but who doesn't? I'm all for performance, and more importantly, also for great prices. Without AMD or Intel, we'll have one company raping our wallets since nobody else can compete in order to keep prices low. Dominance is always temporary.
October 6, 2006 9:24:17 PM

Then I guess you weren't here for this:
Mother of all Intel FUD
Read this and then tell me that, "THGFz has an Intel bias" crap.
Whine away.
October 6, 2006 9:40:22 PM

Sorry, but that thread doesn't help your case much. It changes my statement from this forum is made up of intel fanbois, to this forum is made up of a bunch of short sighted individuals who jump behind in full force of the hear and the now with a complete unwillingness of looking at the big picture. I apologize for "full of individuals" when in fact it's only a few individuals, but they do seem to be the most vocal.

Need I point out that intel recently laid off 10,000 employees? Need I point out that AMD will probably be quick to pick them up? Need I point out that these people intel got rid of are part of what made the amazing core 2 and now AMD will have an oppertunity to have them? And lastly, need I point out that each processor has it's own thing it's good at?

I need to make a cheap computer for a friend. My original thought was core 2. When I priced out the system, I absolutly could not do it with a core 2, or intel at all for that matter. I had to go with an X2 3800, yes, I know the E6300 is faster, but when you count in all the other components, I absolutly could not make a remotely recent intel build.

And lastly, "Whine away", was that necissary? Honestly? What did it achieve other then to make you come across as an immature child? My fanboi comment was a general observation that any fresh eyes to this forum would immediatly jump too, your whine comment was an attack.
October 6, 2006 9:48:28 PM

Quote:

Firstly, and the shorter point is, the core 2 is cheaper. I'm just not convinced of this because a)it's built on the 65nm process, a new process which surely has to have the kinks worked out of and b) the core 2 is a new architecture, and intel will need to recoup the development costs of this new architecture, as well as the development costs of the 65nm process. There is no doubt that the core 2 is retailing for less, but that does not mean the core 2 is cheaper. For the months preceding the release of the core 2 intels stock was tumbling because of repeated reports of loss of market share. It is fully possibly that intel is selling the core 2 at an artifically low price to try to recoup market share and try to stop the tumbling of it's stock.

I'd like to see some data that shows that Intel is selling the C2D at an 'artificially low price'. Until you do, all you have is speculation.

Quote:

Sorry, but I just feel that this forum in general treats AMD very unfairly over all, and call anybody who defends AMD a fanboi when most of this forum seems to me to be made up of intel fanbois.


That's because we've had to put up with alot of recent crap from pro-<insert company here> posters. Pretty much they offended everyone and could not even see or admit that the C2D chip destroyed all performance leads the A64 had over the P4.
Even when presented with numerous data sources, we've had to put up with profanity, spam, vulgar phrases, and tons of name calling. It all started a few months before C2D launched and has just recently died down.

Of course both sides participated, but after some bans were initiated, I have to say its died down a lot. (and that's good).
There are some noteable and great pro-AMD and pro-Intel posters still around who can argue a point and back it up.

This forum comes off to me as more performance fanboyish, which was reflective of pre-C2D, where athlons ruled, and post-C2D, where C2D rules now. Just because you find many people recommending C2D doesn't mean we're fanboys of intel... It just means that its a better chip - and there's data to back it up.

Quote:

Need I point out that intel recently laid off 10,000 employees? Need I point out that AMD will probably be quick to pick them up? Need I point out that these people intel got rid of are part of what made the amazing core 2 and now AMD will have an oppertunity to have them? And lastly, need I point out that each processor has it's own thing it's good at?

You do know that Intel makes alot more than CPUs, right? Just because they laid off people doesn't mean that they were all in the CPU division. Heh, not sure if AMD will want them if they came from the P4 lineup! :p 
Please give us a source that says the laid-off people are part of the C2D team?
October 6, 2006 9:49:20 PM

Cy,

Please think through what you just posted... Maybe read it through once or twice..

So you think that Intel laid off its Core 2 Duo team?

MMMMMMhhhhhhhhmmmmm :roll: :roll: :roll:

Good thinking.... Go back and read the layoff announcements and find out which divisions are being handed a pink slip...

Also, Cy with your BMesque logic please stay away from the stock market.. This is for your own good... Just trying to help...
October 6, 2006 9:49:27 PM

Need I point out that most of these people were management and not technical development? Need I point out that we're not AMD or Intel biased, were performance biased?
If you come on the forums and ask for what we'd recommend, we'll recommend the best. If you give us a price range to work in we'll do that. But don't come here preaching the "the components are too expensive" jive.
When you start attacking peoples integrity with that you're a bunch of fanbois comment, expect someone to be on your ass very swiftly.
In this case it was me.
If I come away as excessive harsh, well so be it. I've had to wade through alot of crap since I've been here. I'm not too keen on wading thru much more silently.
While your at it, drop the "immature" stuff too. It comes across as terribly condescending.
October 6, 2006 9:54:33 PM

Hey Cy,

Just a question or maybe two?

Where were the layoffs to take place which country mostly?

Also, remind me again where the Devs for the Core 2 Duo are located?
!