AMD's CPU share grew last quarter

[great_big_abyss]

Mercury Research: AMD's CPU share grew last quarter - The Tech Report

Mercury Research numbers quoted by PC World say AMD's slice of x86 processor shipments grew to 19.1% last quarter, up from 18.2% in the first quarter of 2012. Intel's share declined from 81% to 80.2% over the same time period.

More encouraging for the underdog, the data shows AMD's share of desktop x86 CPU shipments held steady at a cool 43%. PC World doesn't quote Mercury Research's mobile data, but it says customers "also opted for lower-priced laptops, many of which had AMD's chips."

Chalk that up mainly to AMD's APUs and Llano, I suppose. Either way, I'm glad to see that AMD isn't lying down and taking a beating without throwing a few punches of their own.

[b1lk1]

The higher cost of Intel CPU's is just not worth it for most consumers. I don't argue that Intel's offerings are more powerful, I mostly state that most of us just don't need that power in any way. If you require it for work and such then fine, but games hardly care.

[great_big_abyss]

That's the thing right? Enthusiasts are willing to plop down $300 for a high end Intel CPU (ePeen, mostly), and professionals are willing to spend $2000+ on a powerful laptop with an i7 processor, and for such people, Intel processors are the bees knees.

But for 95% of the computing population, AMD has a very competitive product that does just fine.

[stoanee]

Originally Posted by great_big_abyss

Enthusiasts are willing to plop down $300 for a high end Intel CPU (ePeen, mostly)

guilty!

[JJThomp]

I agree, amd has done a very good job on the low-mid end of the market which is where a lot of peoples needs are, they have also done a decent job in the server market which is probably the most important thing for them to stay afloat. With XBOX 72 and PS4 coming out there should really be no worries about AMD going under. They would have made money this quarter if not for ditching global foundries and purchasing seamicro

[Adzsask]

I disagree with the above post, as my 3 year + i7 rig still spanks AMD's latest offerings around.

[great_big_abyss]

Originally Posted by Adzsask

I disagree with the above post, as my 3 year + i7 rig still spanks AMD's latest offerings around.

That wasn't the point of the post... But thank you for making clear one more time that Intel is top dog. I'm sure there were some people on here who didnt know that.

EDIT: Sorry, sometimes I let sarcasm get the better of me. In the interest of civilized discussion:

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that AMD's top end CPUs hold nothing against Intel. Yes, Intel spanks AMD's highest performers (the old Phenoms, and especially the bulldozers). I'm not sure you could find anyone in the enthusiast community who would currently argue otherwise.

The article's point however is that AMD's current strategy is starting to pay off. They don't necessarily want to compete in the high end anymore (even though they may still be developing high end chips). The want to compete in the low cost, mid-performance markets: HTPCs, ultrabooks, cheaper laptops, etc. This is why they have invested heavily in Llano and the APU side of things. They're starting to steal back marketshare from Intel based on this strategy.

[AkG]

Originally Posted by Adzsask

I disagree with the above post, as my 3 year + i7 rig still spanks AMD's latest offerings around.

Thats the problem though....people dont think long term. They see a savings of X dollars NOW and the future....can take care of itself. Just another sign of a crappy economy. :(

[great_big_abyss]

Originally Posted by AkG

Thats the problem though....people dont think long term. They see a savings of X dollars NOW and the future....can take care of itself. Just another sign of a crappy economy. :(

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say...

[AkG]

The AMD offerings are getting spanked by Intel....but joe 6 pack doesnt care. He sees PC A w/ an Intel processor for say 750 and he sees PC B w/ AMD for say 650....the "B" PC wins...as while 1 bill over a couple years is nothing it IS an extra 1 bill up front. IE Consumers dont get it that the ROI is higher with the Intel because the AMD is CHEAPER up front. (Converstly both systems could also cost the same BUT the AMD rig comes with "more" stuff to make it more appealing).

TBH, I am glad that this is the case as AMD cpu's right now are less than optimal....and if peeps COULD see the big picture when buying a computer...AMD would be sunk.