Slashdot Mirror
AMD Desktops Outsell Intel
prostoalex writes "For the week ending August 21st AMD managed to capture 54% market share among new desktops sold. Intel's share during the week was 45%. While Intel leads the U.S. CPU market with 82.7% market share, folks from AMD are proud to announce this is the second week this year - they also outsold Intel on the desktop market one time in April 2004."
Duboise continues: "promotions continue to be the driving force behind retail PC sales and AMD's successes. In fact, $699 notebook promotions have been the driving force behind three incidents this year when notebook sales were able to overcome desktop sales. As long as Intel continues to place more emphasis on the more lucrative and successful notebook market, it leaves the door open for AMD's desktop wins."
I wonder if they believe that they can eventually drive notebook sales upward to the point that they outsell Intel more often than a handful of times a year?
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
First ATI outsold Nvidia on desktops, and now this! Good to see theres not a monopoly on core hardware components! now if only software were the same way, :\
I was an ardent fan of intel until the Athlon 64 came out. My brothers new PC has an Athlon 64 along with other goodies (1gig ram, dual layer dvd writer...) for a very reasonable $1,000 USD.
There is no way I could have done that with an intel chip and motherboard and still get the same performance.
What could possibly go wrong?
If you can't beat 'em, change games.
Are you listening?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I have an N2U400A from ECS. It is a cheap ass mobo, but when I get it installed and running I was surprised at how sweet the NForce 2 Ultra chipset is. Fast, and I do mean FAST and stable. I put some stress on my system. I'll run the distributed.net client in the background, while I have a VPN connection open to the database server, I'll be importing records into that database, A VNC session running, and all while while playing Counter Strike in the foreground. System stays smooth and responsive.
Via needs to change something, because the NForce chipset is kicking ass all over their offerings for only a few dollars more.
I was kind of wary when I heard that NVidia was releasing a mobo chipset, I thought that since they were a "video card" company that they wouldn't be able to make a good chipset. I am so glad I was wrong. Now, I'd like to see what ATI can do.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The problem with this comparison is that car engines are not like CPUs.
The advantage of higher-revving engines is that you can generate the same power (not torque) with a smaller sized engine. Notice that Formula 1 cars have extremely high-revving engines--usually over 10,000 rpm. In race cars like that, engine size and weight is extremely important. In F1, in fact, the engine size is actually critical in determining the shape of the body, and severely affects aerodynamics.
Higher-revving engines, properly engineered, also allow better fuel economy because of their smaller frictional loss. This is important if you only use the peak power output capability of your engine very rarely, and spend most of your time cruising at a normal speed in high gear. With variable valve timing and variable cam phasing technologies, you can build a smaller engine that gets excellent fuel economy at low rpms, and very high power output at high rpms; the best of both
worlds.
The only big disadvantage to higher rpms is, of course, durability, but modern mechanical engineering, metallurgical, and manufacturing practices easily make up for this.
With CPU speeds, however, the raw clockspeed is only one variable in how well the chip performs, but is also directly proportional to how much power the chip consumes. So if you engineer a crappy CPU which has a high clockspeed, but doesn't use those cycles effectively, you'll only succeed in wasting more electricity than the lower-MHz competitor which has a more efficient architecture.
Part right. nVidia didn't bother getting a license to do intel. We know the technology worked - just look at XBox. I don't think they revealed any particular reason for not pushing intel harder for a license, although it may have been some strange crosslicensing issues with Xbox and Microsoft. Also, it's possible that nVidia wanted to test the water with AMD's CPUs first, and found that market successful enough. Anyone with AMD would know that nVidia dominate the chipset market for AMD - and for good reason, the performance and stability are unmatched.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.