Intel, AMD Fiercely Fighting For Market Share

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...

AMD needs to move fast, they have a solution, they just better market it properly

The enthusiasts market is only a small part of the total PC market. Its not surprising at all. But, I just hope AMD can pull some more in with their new line of APUs.

I dont think this data counts GPU's only CPU's

Not a shock when comparing CPU headcounts.

Does anyone ever mention that Fusion will be powering tablets by the end of the summer???!!! - if not sooner?

How about the fact that Fusion is totally crippling and eating away at Atom?
and...last but not least, that Bulldozer is about to bulldoze INTEL straight down???

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.

LOL @Pat1234

Fanboy 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.

toastninja17: The only reason that AMD is aimed towards the gamer with less dough to blow is that their processors are not at the top. Lest we forget the 1000$ Athlon FX-51 and it's successors before Intel pulled out the C2D. Both companies charge the most money they can for their products, at the moment AMD is behind, and has to charge less, especially to keep it's market share.

Pat1234: You have to remember that even in the days of P4, when AMD's processors were superior to Intel in everything but the Mobile market, Intel still had some 80% market share. AMD has issues just with the Intel logo, regardless of processor quality, and it doesn't help to not have the most powerful or efficient chips like now. Hopefully Bulldozer will be able to beat SB, but given the market share, number of enigneers, and company pocket books, unfortunately AMD is on the losing side of statistics. Intel has way more money and engineers to throw at a problem, and as we all know from Civilization games...

That's nothing but good news. Nvidia and AMD duking it out means that both of their respective highest end cards will be priced equally, instead of Nvidia setting exorbitant prices as was the norm. Now, BOTH companies have exorbitantly priced cards, so suck it!

Wile sandy bridge is currently giving AMD a nice big beatdown lol Its not like you cant game with a Phenom lol I have one its at 4.1ghz on the stock cooler that it came with and not even close to 60c so its nice and cool. And most games are much more GPU intensive. So I saved some cash on mu cpu/mobo combo got a nice GPU and I can play any game out right now with max or very close to max settings. All over 40 FPS and that very playable. So if I take the money saved by going AMD and get a second GPU for crossfire ( well apply the savings its not going to pay for it out right lol) Ill max outy any game at 60 FPS. So wile AMD is behind Intell there chips are still viable choices for the budget gamer.

I 100% agree but.......................Is this the right thred for this comment? lol

While the Audi R8 is a nice car, my Honda Civic can get up to 100 MPH on the freeway if I want it to, and it can seat more people. So I took the money I saved and put a big spoiler on it (because front-wheel drive cars need more rear downforce) and a cold air intake on it... Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Back in the days of P4, AMD was owning Intel in the processor wars; now Intel is owning AMD. Deal with it and start living in this reality.

Umm im confused. Based on what I wrote Its sonds like I was saying SB is better and I was dealing with it? lol

AMD's deal has always been to compete on price. They make processors that are typically below the beginning prices for Intel's new processors. I see laptops at the lower price ranges using AMD processors, more expensive laptops typically use Intel processors. The same thing probably applies to desktops, and certainly in the gaming world depending on budget.

If AMD wants more market share, they need faster processors to challenge Intel's new products. If Intel wants more market share, they need to bring out lower priced processors to challenge AMD's products.

I would rather see AMD gain a little market share, to put more competitive pressure on Intel. If AMD fades away then where will we be?

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.

@greliu:
Also if AMD is no more, the courts are gonna have to split up Intel, which they probably should have done already after the antitrust cases.

Ok everyone needs to stop thinking that CPU speeds mean anything to the market. It doesn't matter who was "the best" at any point in time, what matters is who has what kinds of agreements with tier 1 OEM's. The vast majority of the market is made up of tier 1 OEM's and they don't sit there debating on whats faster. Their going for maximum profit margin along with brand recondition. This is why Intel basically gave their CPU's away for free while forcing the OEM's to only use Intel inside components. AMD being the smaller company can no possibly get away with rebating most if not all of the full cost of the CPU. Now that the childishness has ended your actually seeing AMD winning a few OEM design's here and there, mostly in the budget range.

Give it time and you'll see the market share eek up slowly, it won't ever be the highest but they should be able to get to 25% within five or so years. Providing Intel doesn't come up with some sort of crazy illegal strategy to keep them down. And before the fanboi's start their nonsense, this fight and the illegal actions of Intel go back to the 80's when IBM forced Intel to license x86 to AMD so as to create an alternate supply partner for the IBM line of miniature computers.

I don't see very many "Enthusiasts" like ourselves going for a APU over a CPU. Most people looking towards BD are going to wait for Zambezi.

And while I like SB and QuickSync, I would probably prefer to wait for LGA2011 since that version of SB will have no GPU on die. Its just a CPU.

As for server, its a nice market to control. Even with only 10% of the market thats about $4 billion dollars a year.

Ah those were the days, where IBM was the 'pappa bear' of computing and could bend vendors to do its will.
Of course who can forget back in November '09 when Intel paid AMD $1.25 Billion to settle an Anti-trust suit that started in '05!

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.

First, I am a huge AMD fanboy and have been back to my first AMD, a classic 386DX-40. Been AMD ever since. All of may main rigs sport AMD CPUs and GPUs.

That being said, the dominance by Intel in the CPU market will always exist unless Intel simply vanishes. Their base is simply too large and neither Fusion nor Bulldozer will make a significant difference in the point spread.

Regardless, competition is good and AMD crushes Intel in the GPU market. In the end, the consumer wins by having choices and great technology regardless of the source.

Ugh, I know. I meant to put an "as well" in there somewhere so it would have made a little sense to talk about the GPU wars, but too late now.

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

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.




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.

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

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.

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