Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Loses Market Share to AMD

Posted by Zonk on from the changing-times dept.

diverge_s wrote to mention an article examining Intel's market share loss to AMD in the fourth quarter of 2005. From the article: "Sales of Intel-based desktop PCs fell 22.3 percent during the fourth quarter, according to Current Analysis. As a result, sales of AMD-based desktops took the lead during the pivotal fourth-quarter holiday shopping season. AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores during that period."

6 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Point of interest by jhutch2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You aren't looking at comparable chips, then. At similar performance marks, the AMD chips are cheaper than their Intel counterparts.

  2. Re:Is AMD profitable? by beavis88 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Barely, but yes -

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=amd

  3. Re:Marketing misstep? by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was a 'misstep' they had to take with going away from the Netburst architecture anyway. The Pentium M and successors all have much lower clock rates with still retaining comparable performance. For low power devices the high clock rates were hell.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  4. Cache... by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah but a Sempron 2200+ will stomp all over a 2.2 Celeron. It has way more cache ( 128k/256k in the Sempron vs 8k/128K L2 in the Celeron) and also a generally better pipeline. You can't judge a CPU on MHZ alone.

    1. Re:Cache... by freidog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actualy the socket A Semrpon's are nothing special. They're stripped down versions of the old AthlonXPs with a new system that rates them against Celerons (So AMD can put bigger numbers on slower chips).
      Now, the first Netburst based Celerons, the 400mhz FSB / 128KiB L2 parts, are some of the worst chips intel produced since the cacheless Celeron 300s...

      A more appropriate comparison of budget chips today would be the S754 Sempron 2500+ - 3100+ against the Celeron D 2.53 - 3.06. They stack up fairly comperabely in overall performance (Sempron wins for games, Celeron wins for multimedia), and prices are almost identical 63-80 for AMD, 66-80 for Intel.

      AMD still has the price advantage against many P4s, but in the budget world it's a much closer race.

  5. Re:Point of interest by GmAz · · Score: 5, Informative

    I used to work at CompUSA and was in charge of the desktop department so I saw every new machine come in and personally set up the demos and the price tags. I saw numerous HP, Gateway, Compaq and Emachine models come out with AMD64 processors around 3000+ to 3700+. The basically identical Intel model always cost at least $250 more. And since we, the salesman, had pretty much free reign as long as we sold computers put whatever we wanted on the computers. I loved doing benchmarks and the AMD always came out ahead. Only a couple times did intel beat out AMD and it was usually the new Prescott cores, though not new anymore, until AMD came out with their new cores. I don't consider myself a fanboy of one particular manufacturer, I am a fanboy of cost vs. performance. For the past four years, AMD has won me over.

    --
    Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!