AMD: ''No Doubt, We Lost Market Share in Q2''

72

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Douglas Perry
Contributor

Douglas Perry was a freelance writer for Tom's Hardware covering semiconductors, storage technology, quantum computing, and processor power delivery. He has authored several books and is currently an editor for The Oregonian/OregonLive.

  • math1337
    Another issue is that AMD processors are insanely slow, especially in poorly threaded tasks. The octo-core may be able to keep up with an intel quad core when running all cores, but it does not deliver great all-around performance.
    Reply
  • fpoon
    AMD should stop focusing on value and put more processing power behind their CPUs.
    Reply
  • xtc28
    Word^ my 965 be still kicks most of the new AMD's asses. And that my friends is bad news.
    Reply
  • AMD: ''No Doubt, We Lost Market Share in Q2
    but you are still a very important competitor to intel to push technology further more.
    Reply
  • Smeg45
    Rubbish. They are slow, but not "insanely" slow. They still do the job.
    Reply
  • aftcomet
    No surprise there. If they didn't have ATI the blow would be even larger. They need to make some serious changes or they're destined for failure. APUs are probably the future so they might be ready for that but their entire market is pretty slim. What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.

    They should focus on ultimate value and price cut as much as possible. They need to get their products moving and fast. I don't see how anyone considers AMD "value" when a 4100 costs $140 and is absolutely outclassed by a $120 i3.
    Reply
  • tomfreak
    because u have lost price/performance on ur CPU. Bulldozer are barely manage to keep up with slowest i5 quad core, yet they are selling close to i7 price. FAIL.
    Reply
  • s3anister
    It's a dark road ahead for AMD.

    They keep pushing the old Llano and bulldozer parts into the retail space where almost nobody wants them. Release Trinity and Piledriver, already! Market share is not going to be gained, otherwise.
    Reply
  • alidan
    aftcometNo surprise there. If they didn't have ATI the blow would be even larger. They need to make some serious changes or they're destined for failure. APUs are probably the future so they might be ready for that but their entire market is pretty slim. What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.They should focus on ultimate value and price cut as much as possible. They need to get their products moving and fast. I don't see how anyone considers AMD "value" when a 4100 costs $140 and is absolutely outclassed by a $120 i3.
    because amds new value cpus are apus, and beat out intel at the same value...

    math1337Another issue is that AMD processors are insanely slow, especially in poorly threaded tasks. The octo-core may be able to keep up with an intel quad core when running all cores, but it does not deliver great all-around performance.
    considering that all cpu tasks have been fast enough sense the eairly dual core chips, much less the current quad with threads we see, i say does it matter if amd is slower?

    all the tasks that intel beats amd where you would see a performance difference great enough to warrant an intel over amd, are going to the gpu, and the gpu, even a bad one, out preforms the cpu by so much that you would never want o use it for said tasks again.

    if anything, intel is in trouble. as they cant pull together a decent gpu after YEARS of trying, and now that we are moving to gpu co processors, intel has that much more ground to cover.

    with that said, if amd came out with a chip 4 times better than the current top end intel, do you really think that they would gain market share? intel would eat the few billions in fines to try and stomp out amd till they get a processor on par.
    Reply
  • vmem
    I'm a bit disappointed and surprised that Llano didn't help AMD more. We all know that Trinity's coming and seems to have greatly improved on bulldozer, but Llano really are some neat chips for low budget media PCs/laptops, and for HTPCs. I can see my parents being perfectly happy with a Llano laptop for light productivity and working on the train/plane etc. I mean, the general public doesn't need the i7 extreme, hell, most people don't even need an i5 2500k because they hardly game. I say AMD's marketing department needs to step up, and get it into people's heads that an APU's all they need for their general family computer to surf the web, blu-ray playback, store their photos from their vacations etc.
    Reply