Slashdot Mirror
Intel Loses Market Share to AMD
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."
That's the biggest question in my mind. Market share is important, but will AMD be able to sustain whatever growth they have accomplished? So, within the last few years, they've opened up new fabrication plants, and probably they have more room for growth. Still, it will be interesting to see their earnings (revenue and profit).
Take it easy? I'll take it anyway I can get it . . .
pricewatch.com Says the slowest Sempron being produced is the 2200+ and you can have it delivered for $57. For $60 you can get a 2.2Ghz Celeron which is no match for AMD's processor. The 2.2Ghz P4 costs $79 delivered, $22 more than the AMD offering.
The reason all those AMD chips appeared before Christmas was because they are so competitive at the lower end. When you match that with their server options AMD are wiping the floor with Intel at almost every level.
Reading this brings up bad memories of working at Best Buy During college. However, while I am happy to see a smaller company like AMD make a dent in the PC market, I have to say, I would still never buy an AMD based system. I have had AMD based systems in the past... Issues that I have had included overheating and missing bench marks, so I switched to Intel and have never had an issue with my P4 processor. And now that Intel is being put into the new Macs, I think we will see Intel take the lead again this year with the AMD users grumbling that they are in the minority of new PCs again. Either way I personally don't care, But I would prefer an Intel processor over AMD just because of sheer quality.
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
1) Most people that buy PCs have no idea what processor it has inside. They are generally motivated by price. If two PCs with the same performance and options are sitting next to each other at Best Buy, and one costs $150 less than the one next to it, which one will people buy? No brainer!
2) The speed of most newer computers is so ridiculously fast compared to just a couple of years ago that the processor just doesn't matter to the average PC buyer. Most people want to read their email, surf the web and store their digital photos. They are not running CAD or compiling code or editing full feature films. Even the lower end PCs available in stores these days can perform the average tasks just as well as the high end system. Therefore, again, the purchase experience will be motivated by price!
It may be that a part of the reason for this change is the shift in importance from hardware to software.
It seems to me like more and more, people simply do not care what the hardware is so much as they care about what the software is. A few years ago, clueless consumers were demanding the "Pentium" brand (not even knowing what that word really meant); now, they simply ask "Does it have 'Microsoft XP'?" The answer, of course, is always "yes", so they ask no further.
Now that Mac OS X runs on both PPC and x86 machines and Windows XP on both x86 and x86-64, I think we are moving towards an era where the software matters more than the hardware (at least, from the perspective of Joe User).
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Most people I know wouldn't consider anything other than Centrino for some reason
I know exactly why this is because I worked at Best Buy for three months. When centrino was introduced there were commercials everywhere. These commercials, intentional or otherwise, made it seem like centrino was the only way to connect wirelessly saying things like "Centrino technology is a huge advancement in wireless networking for people on the go". This statement was true, as centrino allowed for longer battery life and generally laptops using centrino were lower weight, allowing for longer use and easier transport. This was not conveyed by the advertisements though, as the vast majority of people coming in to buy a laptop thought that centrino and wireless were the same thing.
Now that Apple goes x86, the step from Intel to AMD might be easier than from IBMs Power chips to something else. :-)
So if Intel gets too aggressive on Apple, we might see Apple computers with AMD CPUs
C - the footgun of programming languages
So, whether I buy new MacBook or Intel Somethino (tm), it is likely to be Intel.
And I strongly suspect, that every laptop chip is today more profitable, than 5 desktops-for-sale.
Not really. Bestbuy, CompUSA, Circuit City all have salemen working the floor. I was once a salesman for CompUSA and did rather good at it. 90% of people buy what the salesman tell them to buy. You get people uneducated in the field of computers and look to the salesmen as the "pros". I sold quite a few $4000 systems because I could read the customer. If that person had money, I could sell him on the high end machine no problem. The line "In computers, the old saying 'you get what you pay for' auctually applies". Talk about Hook Line and Sinker. But, you also made money there based on the service plans you sold and was based primarily on a percent of gross sold vs. gross service plan. People wanted to see big numbers on the front of the computer and a low price tag. AMD machines reigned. Espically since I set them up with the AMD machine right next to its Intel counterpart. Lower priced machines made me more money as it does every salesman. I think salesmen have figured this out and that is why AMD took that large market share. And guess what, when more AMD machines were pushed out, people started realizing that they were as good as the covited Intel machines. Word spread and customers started looking into AMD and not just saying that they only thing they wanted was Intel because its the only thing they know about computers. Gotta hand it to Intel for the A+ marketing strategy.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
No. This is the perfect time for Apple to go with Intel. Intel needs to do something to save its ass in the desktop market (even with sliding market share, it's still the big revenue and profit), so they will try to keep Apple happy as long as possible. And if it doesn't work out for Apple with Intel, they can switch to the binary compatible AMD chips at any point.
Apple Inc. sells Apple computers with Apple Mac OS X. Apple doesn't sell Intel Inside computers.
Two issues related to Java on Macs (may change with the Intel version):
You have to get your Java from Apple. I was stuck all through OSX 10.3.x with an old Java. Sun doesn't offer a build. Apple did bundle an update with OSX 10.4.
Gosling mentioned in an interview that he builds the latest Java on his Linux box, and copies the JARs over to his PowerBook. Somehow I haven't found enough spare time to try to do that myself. However I think Gosling slowly tried this over a long period of time that he spent using X tunneling to use his native Linux build of Java on the Linux box, and experimenting with the individual JARs one at a time. Theoretically I would think using a slightly older JVM with a newer environment would not be a problem, except for the Cocoa hooks. Maybe you can use X for the gui stuff? As I said, don't know, haven't tried. Lots of people have failed to make this work, though I don't know how much effort they put into it. Netbeans works fine on OSX BTW, there is a release on their site.
I have always thought that Intel has a high yield, quality process. However, their prices have always been higher than AMD, Cyrix, and any of the other competitors over the years. If their yield was good, then there was no reason for them to be higher priced. I always felt that they were gouging the customers, so I quit designing them into my systems. Since they are still higher priced than AMD for competing parts, I wonder if their yield has always been not so good.