Slashdot Mirror
AMD Tops Intel in U.S. Retail Sales
jimmydins writes "According to digitimes.com, AMD Surpassed Intel in US Retail Sales for the month of September." From the article: "After facing what seemed an insurmountable decline in desktop PC sales during the first six months of 2005, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) captured a 52% share of the US retail desktop PC market in September, according to Current Analysis. AMD's performance during the back-to-school shopping season topped chip giant Intel's 46% share by six points, said the market research firm. Despite its past successes in surpassing Intel desktop sales in select retail sales weeks, September 2005 marked the first time AMD was able to outperform Intel for an entire month, the research firm stated." In order to keep this in perspective, C|Net points out that this doesn't include direct PC sales, so no Dell sales are included in these numbers. Good showing for AMD just the same, though.
Fun to play with numerical, isn't it?
What a ridiculous article. Retail sales are meaningless without integrating direct sales (Dell, etc). I run two retail stores (not in IT) and if you based anything on my sales and ignored our e-commerce competition, you'd be predictably wrong.
First, retailers will generally maximize margins buy promoting less expensive costing products. E-commerce generally runs tight margins on everything.
Example: Intel Retail PC retails for $799, cost is $619. AMD Retail PC retails for $749, cost is $549. The retailer sees a $10 better margin on the AMD but reduces gross sales. Which one will the consumer pick, generally? Whatever is cheap.
Don't believe any sales figures any more. They're ignorant of the true market, which is retail, e-commerce, eBay, and buying in pieces from your local OEM "wholesaler."
Just basing figures like these on whatever market gives you the best results is more to keep shareholders happy.
The other end of the computer-buying public are gamers, who already know that they better go with a top-notch AMD64. Those people don't ask me anything anyway, but AMD is simply "the gamers choice".
Intels customer base only are OEM manufacturers that target the business market. They still get credit for being more stable, which I don't understand because all my AMD machines - from a K6-II 333Mhz, over 2xAMD MP 2400+ to a couple of AMD64 (2400+ to 3400+) just run perfectly fine.
The other consumers are those that don't ask their Geek friends and only know Intel from the commercials, so it "must be good". (They also think that "Centrino" is a processor, because of the sticker on their machine). That said: I never saw an AMD commercial in my whole life. Do they exist?
AMD just kicks in the performance/€ factor, and CPU performance has become less important in the last few years. So if you want to save some money, just buy a slower CPU. It's just that simple. ;-)
Oh, I just see that it doesn't include OEM machines (sorry, didn't read the story entirely). Most definately AMD will kick in the self-buidling crowd. AMD is popular with them... (performance/€ + easy overclocking possibilities. Who builds a PC himself with an Intel CPU anyway?
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I think the fact that they beat out Intel in the retail market is a good indicator of the validity of their lawsuit against Intel. With a (reasonably) level playing field, AMD wins - Intel may have some explaining to do about the direct sales arena.
There's no doubt that this is only a portion of the battle between the two manufacturers, but the point is that 5 years ago, AMD was getting slaughtered by every measure. They weren't even a factor.
Now, they've caught up to Intel by atleast a couple metrics. That's not insignificant, especially considering that retail sales have a strong correlation to "mindshare" amongst consumers, as pointed out by a sibling poster.
"They do not produce their own motherboards, and while some third-party manufacturers produce some great silicon, most are abobinable pieces of flaky crap."
"most" huh?
I have made dozens of A-64/A-XP PC's in my day, and I've used motherboards made by Tyan, MSI, Asus, AsRock, Abit, Biostar, Foxconn, Gigabyte, and ECS. Using Chipsets by AMD, Uli, Nvidia, and Via. And out of the 100+ boards I've been shipped I've only had problems with 2 that weren't my responsibility. With one and only one exception and that's if I installed Nvidia's Software IDE Driver, that being said I've experienced similar issues with Intel's Software IDE drive, called "Intel Application Accelerator" or something like that. So I call that a wash, and don't install either.
How do you define most... for argument's sake lets say that I'm lucky, and assume normal return rates with electronic goods, when I was in the distribution biz, we expected 20% of all of our electronics to come back whether it was defective or otherwise. So let's put it at 20% how on Earth does 20% constitute "most"? You literally don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Let's continue shall we?
"when you consider than the vast majority of PCs sold in America and troughout the world are trought direct sales (say Dell) as the Ed implied, and through wholesale (Businesses), AMD is marginalized.
Why? Because they can't promise the same level of production as Intel does. They do not produce their own motherboards, "
Do you think Dell buys Intel manufactured motherboards? Wrong! One of Dell's largest suppliers for cases/Mobos ect. is Foxconn/Hon Hi, In fact one of the major suppliers for every PC manufacture sprawling from Dell, to Intel, to even that sacred cow Apple is Foxconn/Hon Hai. Please post "facts" on just the topics you understand.
mod -1 FUD
-manno