AMD taking microprocessor market share from Intel

[JMH]

Strong demand for Fusion chips helped Advanced Micro Devices take global microprocessor market share from Intel in the second quarter this year, Mercury Research said in a study released on Thursday.

AMD's x86 microprocessor market share grew to 19.4 percent during the second quarter, up from 17.8 percent during last year's second quarter. Intel's market share fell to 79.9 percent from 81.3 percent in the year-ago quarter.

AMD taking microprocessor market share from Intel - Techworld.com

 

[pparks1]

And they attribute this increase on the fact that hard economic times are forcing consumers into cheaper products...not necessarily that AMD is making a better or more powerful product.

 

[carwiz]

Intel must be shaking in their boots.

Intel Reports Fifth Consecutive Quarter of Record Revenue

 

[win7clutz]

Intel must be shaking in their boots.

Intel Reports Fifth Consecutive Quarter of Record Revenue

I doubt it...

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
For building cheaper GOOD fast systems processors like the AMD phenom II X4 make excellent sense for cash strapped consumers.

A bit of competition is not bad for EVERYONE.

The fact that Apple has MORE money to spend at the moment than the U.S Govt doesn't mean MS is doomed (or the USA either |!!).

Honda sell more cars than FERRARI -- but so what --different products for different markets.

It may be that in future both INTEL and AMD can't survive in their present form -- but lets enjoy the competition at the moment and benefit from the lower costs.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[linnemeyerhere]

I see a Phenom X3 720 black edition being sold for $75.00 that can unlock to 3.2 mhz and higher if lucky. That's amazing performance for the money.

 

[Beta]

Intel has had some shady business practice in the past involving AMD.

AMD Wins Another Round Against Intel

Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion in antitrust settlement | Business Tech - CNET News

In November 2009, Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25bn and renew a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement as part of a deal to settle all outstanding legal disputes between them. In short Intel was lying about amd server processors to clients. Saying that they would not meet the demand of Intels clients who where looking to go to AMD.

 

[TBoyd]

Even though I use an Intel CPU in my main machine, I still have a decent Opteron 175 machine that I built just prior to Intel's release of the Core 2 Duo. Up until that time, AMD had been kicking Intel's butt in regards to CPU performance. Remember the Socket A - XP processors? I had several.

I'll always have great respect for AMD & want to see them do well. I would venture to question that - if it weren't for AMD's competition - would today's Intel's CPUs be as great if there had been NO competition present? I doubt it. They would still be spending more on marketing than R&D.

 

[dogbert2]

AMD Processors offer excellent value for the money spent. I got a MB and Athlon II X4 630 processor for $125 on sale in Nov 2009. The MB supported the Phenom II X4, so I changed over to that earlier this year. I know it's not the i7 class of Intel, but it's plenty fast for what I do, including ripping DVD's using DVDShrink, DVDFab, or HandBrake.

 

[Beta]

I agree that the Intel chips are faster but will you ever to be able to use that say 7% gian you get from an Intel chip in the real world? I do not not think that the cost is worth the little proformace gain.

 

[JerometheGiraff]

The whole chip industry is not making any major progress. Most of the CPU on the market are QuadCore with the exception of some Hex Cores and that is basically how it will stay for quite a while. There is a newer Socket on the Intel horizon over the next year, that only offers more of the same Quad Core and Hex Core which you can already buy with Socket 1366 just for larger price but there probably won't be any difference in price with Intels newer socket, which makes the sockets out presently and what's to come basically on the same level, which do you upgrade to ? Whatever you want because if you buy a new Socket today odds are in three years it still will be as good. What about Ram, What about it ? Intels newer socket will be continuing with DDR3 in other words, DDR3 is not dying anytime soon, it will be sticking around for a few years.

AMD offers a cheaper alternative, I've see the prices of AMD chips and they are mostly all below $200 (US) add a new mobo and some ram and you haven't rung up the bill that high. What will hit you the hardest regardless if you choose Intel or AMD is the video card. The industry has taking the thunder away from the CPU and moved it to the GPU, the GPU is taking on more tasks. AMD even offers a CPU with both the GPU and CPU on one die for less then $200 for many in a time when the US economy is on par with the great depression this is very attractive. This is why Intel is not putting the spot light on it's newer desktop CPU but rather it's mobile ATOM chip which can be found in, low cost NetBooks and Smart Phones which sell more bulk quality, especially Smart Phones which tends to sell for $500+ which Intel probably gets a pretty good deal out of each phone.

Overall the CPU industry is not dying, it's just not in the spot light, probably for good. And with cloud computing both AMD and Intel are realizing why does a PC need so much power when the cloud is doing most of the number crunching ? You may or may not like Cloud computing but if you are on a social network or something that runs off the cloud, I'm afraid to tell you, you are on the cloud. There is a computer in mostly every home in most of the world, now the industry wants to tell us how to use it !

Thanx.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

I may on occasion have my head in the Cloud but at some time I want to be able to pull my head out and drift back to Earth but then I still spin vinyl so maybe I'm not the most forward thinker but from what I can see, hear, taste and feel progress isn't always for the better ! I see the Cloud as a convenience when working on mobile devices and weak systems.

 

[SlasherIT]

AMD and Intel rely on each other for business. Intel licenses the x86 architecture to AMD (as Intel developed it), and AMD licenses the amd64 (64 bit) technology to Intel (as the current 64 bit implementation on all CPU's, the tech is made by AMD). Therefore, if they stopped licensing their tech to each other, Intel would not be able to make 64 bit processors anymore, and would be stuck to 32 bit only, and AMD would not even be able to develop processors using the x86 architecture anymore, as it was created by Intel.

 

[ddix1026]

personally, i have used AMD since I started building my own PC's (for the past 10+ years).. every PC i have built for myself has had an AMD chip in it. Lets face it, the difference between them is not night and day speed.. Intel might have slightly faster speed in benchmarking, but as someone else mentioned, in the real world, that 0.8 second speed difference isn't breaking anyone's ability to do work (and by anyone, i mean the masses, not the performance people).

AMD is easily 30% cheaper than comparable Intel processors, but are they 30% worse in terms of performance? no

I wouldn't turn down an Intel chip if I was given one to use, but if I'm spending my own money, I would rather spend $120 on processor than $175 or $180 that gives me "virtually" the same basic performance.

 

[SlasherIT]

Well its not always true... The top end AMD CPU, the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition, is 6 cores, and is certainly very good but... for 25 bucks more... You get the i5 2500k blows it away in benchmarks and real world use, it has even more bang for buck than the top end AMD. Although for the most part, you are right, AMD processors (med-low end) have way better bang for buck than Intel.

Slasher

 

[ddix1026]

of course its not "always" true.. but, as you pointed out, i was talking more about the "masses", not the high end stuff.. (the masses dont typically have the highest end stuff)..

 

[pparks1]

I agree that the Intel chips are faster but will you ever to be able to use that say 7% gian you get from an Intel chip in the real world? I do not not think that the cost is worth the little proformace gain.

In the very low end market, AMD has chips that have no real rivals when it comes to Intel. However, if you consider the $200 chip area to be medium ground, the Intel is usually within 10% of the cost and offers more performance.

Today, NewEgg has the AMD 1100T for $194.99. The Intel Core i5-2500 is $209, but has a $15 off promo code...making both chips $194.99. If it were my choice, I'd buy the Intel here every time over the 1100T.

AMD is easily 30% cheaper than comparable Intel processors, but are they 30% worse in terms of performance? no

Disagree on the 30% cheaper front. As shown above, an AMD1100T and a core i5-2500 at NewEgg are same price. Without that $15 promo code on the Intel, it means the Intel is $209 and the AMD is $195. That's less than a 10% difference. And the Intel is a faster chip.

On the really bargain front, AMD offers CPU's that Intel doesn't market to. In this case you can save some money...but I don't think most enthusiasts on this site, are rocking CPU's in this low end eschelon.

 

[SlasherIT]

@pparks1 - If you get the i5-2500 instead of the i5-2500k, the multipliers are NOT unlocked, and so can't overclock easily, whereas the 1100T can overclock.

Slasher

 

[pparks1]

@pparks1 - If you get the i5-2500 instead of the i5-2500k, the multipliers are NOT unlocked, and so can't overclock easily, whereas the 1100T can overclock.

Slasher

Correct, but at standard clock speeds, if you aren't overclocked, the 2500 is generally faster across the board. The 2500K is $219...so, $25 more than the 1100T. So, with the unlocked variety, it's price is nearly the same, but offers more performance. We are talking about ~12% price difference.

 

[SlasherIT]

I know by default it is faster... And yes it does cost a bit more, but I think it would be worth it...

Slasher