Slashdot Mirror
AMD Beats Intel in CPU Sales
glockenspieler writes "As reported by Ars Technica, for the week ending April 24th, AMD accounted for 52% of desktop CPU sales. Granted its just one week but perhaps this indicates that AMD is really building momentum in the desktop market. So, when will Dell begin carrying AMD?"
So, when will Dell begin carrying AMD?
According to AMD CEO Hector Ruiz, it's only a matter of time until Dell puts Opteron in their servers. Of course, that's news to Dell, who are currently an exclusive Intel shop and haven't announced any change in that policy.
If I were the CEO of a chip company looking to court one of the most successful PC makers to use my processors, I probably wouldn't do so with a comment like this:
"I've always thought that Dell does not like to be a leader in technology, that they were a strong follower...But I didn't realize they were going to be dead last"
And yet that's what Ruiz said at a recent press conference.
This proves more than ever that those who call the PC platform "Wintel" [windows + intel] are stuck in 1998.
Do you think a lot of this is due to a new name? Lets face it, Pentium 4 has been around for years now. If people associate performance with a name, Athlon 64 is brand new, and not heard of so it must be a new and better thing as opposed to the perceived old Pentium 4. As a former computer salesman, I wouldn't be surprised if this would be a driving factor behind AMDs push.
what Dell's next step would be. I heard they have an exclusive contract with Intel till 2006 (correct me if I'm wrong), but they can't ignore the fact that AMD is rocking the CPU market now.
Despite Intel haveing an exclusive with the worlds largest PC maker AMD still beat them. I wonder how things would have looked if Dell gave them a fair shake.
For the Money AMD is a good buy. Power+Performance at a low cost. However Intels chips are much better manufactured and designed IMHO. Had I had the Extra money I would have sprang for the Pentium but I was able to get better video card and more memory for the price diff with the AMD.
If it's true and if it's not some fluke.
Even more so if you could consider that native Windows for [i]AMD-64 won't be available until Q4 according to His Billness at WinHEC.
Some are seeking pure performance with Linux servers running AMD-64 natively, but even the broader market of Windows users for server and desktop seems to find AMD price/performance compelling even if they're restricted to running full time in 32 bit compatability mode.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
... what the past 13 or so weeks looks like. Is it a bonifide TREND (33%, 34%, 40%... 45%, 52%) or is it something like (25%, 25%, 25%, 25%, ... 26%, 52%). Since the site just got /.ed, I don't know... illuminate me whoever got on!
This is a big deal, at least as far as headlines go. But remember that CPU sales is only one part of many areas where Intel makes money.
Also, AMD doesn't begin to have the same quality balance sheet that INTC does. AMD is impressive for being able to compete in CPU performance and sales, but it has a very long way to go to really challenge Intel as a business.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
I am suspicious too. For Q4 2003 they had 80% of the overall CPU market, AMD had most of the remainder, and that was a slight (1%) growth on Intel's part from previous periods and previous years.
As much as I like AMD, I doubt they'd more than double market share in a single quarter because Athlon 64 barely made a dent in Q4 2003 (I thought it was released late Q3 2003), so its introduction wouldn't quite seem to account for this.
Also, it says "desktop" but there's still "mobile" and "server" markets.
Intel ruined my parade a bit as they undercut and lowered prices. AMD, however, is still taking it to Intel, and things look good in the 64-bit market.
Were I to sell that stock now, I would lose money. However, I'm hanging onto it because I'm confident in AMD as a company, both marketing wise and technology wise. You don't take on Intel in one year, just like nobody will take out Harley Davidson, Victoria's Secret, or Microsoft quickly. It took Wal-Mart a LONG time to take over, and now look at K-Mart.
My point is that I think AMD is doing things right. I see value in this company still. I'm still using my Athlon 550 as my main processor, about 4.5 years old and still doing everything I need. Go AMD! Can't complain about competition in a standards-based environment
Berto
I participate in Distributed.net and if you look at the CPU speeds you'll see that AMD currently has the fastest CPUs for that project. My next processor may be an AMD.
There's an Intel plant about a mile away from home (Costa Rica). It's nice plant, people get paid well, and everything. Not like a sweatshop. How's it in Germany?
please excuse my apathy
Oh please. You just proved the point! They beat Intel in retail sales. That means Joe Consumer who is putting together/upgrading his box is now choosing AMD over Intel. That means that the marketing AMD is using is WORKING. And we all know that whatever a person uses at home is what they talk about at work (or indeed, what they use at work. Its the geeks who build/upgrade their own systems, and its the geeks who purchase/lobby at work). SO, the Dell's of the world are going to have to reexamine their exclusivity contracts..
I've been using AMD processors (almost exclusively) for a long time now, and as much as I am impressed, I still have one serious complaint...
Power Management.
Yes, AMD's chips have a lower MAXIMUM than Intel, but AMD has a problem, when their CPUs are idle, they still use up just as much power, and put out just as much heat. This is because a HALT won't do anything on an AMD (not without the FSB hack).
There is a hack for this though... Programs like FVCool can idle a chip (the electricity and temp savings are tremendous) but it's a hack that should not be required... It also does not work on most AMD motherboards, and has serious side-effects on some (network being disabled, sound distortion, other PCI cards failing, etc.).
It would seem AMD solved the problem in their AMD64 line with MHz throttling, but I don't have first-hand experience, so I can't say if it too will require odd hacks. I certainly hope not.
In any case, the 32-bit AMD is seriously lacking in power management, and I continue to consider using Intel chips for that reason alone... A few dollars more is no big deal when it will average half the power usage...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If Dell took on AMD it would probably end up killing AMD.
Intel's strength has always been its ability to drop prices for large customers to levels below that of its competitors. For AMD to become a Dell supplier, it would have to lower its prices to the point where they were not only unprofitable but probably bleeding money from an opened artery.
Intel might not want anything more than AMD to make an offer to Dell that they can't match. Even if it didn't kill AMD, it would put AMD in the place where Intel believes it belongs.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I was going to post the exact same thing. I have a Pentium 3 now but with a via chipset motherboard and I have experienced incompatibilities because of the via chipset that I've had to work around. Some have been just an annoyance, others have been a pain in the butt. But because of my experience I've told myself that I won't be buying anything put a mb with an intel chipset in it. This means only intel CPUs.
I would love to buy an AMD processor, if only it would work with intel chipset based motherboards.
Read the original PCWeek article. It is retail only, and retail appears to be a relative small amount of the total market. At the bottom it says Intel had 83.6% of the x86 desktop, server and notebooks, and AMD shipped 14.9%. Assuming all of AMD's shipments were for retail desktops (they are not), that would mean retail desktops at maximum could be 28.8% of the market. Reality is probably down near 20%.
I think the point for AMD is that for the first time as far as we know they have actually surpassed Intel in sales in any significant portion of the x86 CPU market.
It may just be me, but I'm shy of AMD now because I've seen 2 out of 3 processors bought from their XP line die in my hands. Maybe I suck at building systems, but I've never had this problem with Intel. One was replaced under warranty (and still in use almost a year later), and one I never bothered with because I was given a P4 hand-me-down which I am now using in its place...
I was not overclocking or doing anything unusual, just plugged them in and used them. All three worked fine at first, but one died without warning after about 3 months, another consistently ran way too hot (I went through 3 fans/heatsinks trying to keep this thing under 60C) until it cooked.
Anyone have similar experiences or am I just a weirdo?
i have never witnessed this sentiment. I only notice pro, "whoever over clocks the best" or pro- "most bank for the buck" sentiment.
People go back and forth between intel and AMD just as quick as they will between ATi and NVIDIA.
intel has not been a bad guy since they pressured THG, and since THG eventually sold out to them, there is really no one left claiming intel is bad.
As a hardware engineer, I stopped specifying or using Intel when I realized they were gouging their customers. With much higher volume in X86 processors, Intel should have been able to sell each for less than the other companies could, yet the other sources were less costly than Intel. Intel's manufacturing costs should have been much less than other companies, yet, until just recently, they have sold their processors for a higher price. I only specify Intel when there is no other choice.
I think this is probably an accurate reflection of Intel's current strategy. The Desktop CPU market isn't showing much more growth (nothing like the boom years before the internet bubble burst) and Intel is looking for new markets.
Their new market, and I think they are right, is Mobile. Ever heard of Centrino? People are starting to want more than just clock speed. Portability, Battery Life, Hyperthreading and other new features will distingush processors (Intel will soon switch to processor numbers instead of clock speed). The majority of Slashdot readers might not fall into this category, but I think many users want a light, portable, and dynamic laptop instead of a desktop.
I would just be happy if all my computers could bootup or shutdown in under 5 seconds :)
I interact with lots of IT managers who are testing Opteron to replace many SUN products. The managers i've talked to still hesitate to go full-bore on opteron. Many are waiting for Intel's Nocona CPU (Xeon with 64-bit extensions). There seems to be this belief that Intel has better experience in the enterprise with CPUs and chipsets.
AMDs run with opteron (and athlon 64) may end when Intel releases their 64-bit chips (assuming they don't suck).
-ted
Hell, if there was no AMD, we may not even SEE a 3.06 GHz processor. After all, AMD was the first to break the GHz barrier.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
I recently built a PC (first ever, w00t!) and had my choice of CPUs. I decided on the Athlon XP 2500+ and I have not had any reason to regret it. It's FAST-much faster than my wife's 2.6ghz Celeron (the AMD runs at 1.83ghz). I know Celerons are crippled, but I didn't think there'd be this much disparity.
The next CPU I buy will be an Athon 64. It'll probably be a year before I do, but that's OK. I will never buy an Intel CPU, not because I hate Intel (which I don't, honest) but because I see AMD as being the real innovator and leader. Intel is copying AMD's 64 bit instruction set. Love 'em or hate 'em, MS certified their 64 bit version of Windows for AMD.
I fully expect Intel to come out with a 64 bit chip and try to pass it off as an Intel first innovation, but I'm hopeful that AMD's lead will keep that lie from taking hold.
True, the actual CPU is rarely defective. I'll attest to that. However, as you said, the motherboard's chipset is often the root cause of severe stability and performance problems. Intel has historically made the most reliable chipsets and motherboards, which of course only take Intel chips, which is why (whether people realize it or not) Intel has the reputation as the higher quality vendor.
For my last upgrade (in January this year), I saved nearly 300 bucks by going with AMD instead of Intel. That's when calculating the cost of the CPU, motherboard, and RAM for each option. It's working great for me too. :)
The last several CPUs I have bought have all been AMD. It just comes down to price/performance for me, and AMD beats Intel hands down in the market segment I am buying in (midrange). Not that I want Intel to go away completely of course, but I sure am happy that AMD is putting some serious hurt on them. Even if you plan to buy Intel CPUs, you should thank AMD for forcing Intel to be more competitive.
As for Dell, no I think they are too stubborn to start selling any AMD based machines. I do think that Dell may have played a role in Intel's decision to clone the AMD-64/Opteron architecture though. If Intel hadn't decided to release a 64 bit x86 chip then Dell might very well have been forced to turn to AMD.