OT: AMD ships more desktop CPUs than Intel
Coursedesign
wrote on 10/17/2005, 5:15 PM
Comments
riredale
wrote on 10/18/2005, 8:30 AM
WooHoo!
I've been an AMD booster for nearly 10 years, partly because I like rooting for the Underdog but also because it's only by promoting vigorous competition that the dominant player (in this case, Intel) is forced to lower its prices and work hard on making improvements.
I find it hard to believe that AMD out-shipped Intel, though. Doesn't Intel have an 80%-or-so market share?
I've been an AMD booster for nearly 10 years, partly because I like rooting for the Underdog but also because it's only by promoting vigorous competition that the dominant player (in this case, Intel) is forced to lower its prices and work hard on making improvements.
I find it hard to believe that AMD out-shipped Intel, though. Doesn't Intel have an 80%-or-so market share?
Jay Gladwell
wrote on 10/18/2005, 8:37 AM
The article stated: "AMD captured a 52 percent share of the U.S. retail desktop market in September, topping Intel's 46 percent share, according to market research firm Current Analysis."
Coursedesign
wrote on 10/18/2005, 8:39 AM
This is for desktop CPUs only.
Intel is legacy for a lot of servers, but now AMD's Opterons are kicking serious butt.
I was an AMD rejecter for 10 years, this after seeing how much trouble was created by crummy support chips, especially from VIA. Finally decided to test an AMD 64 when I needed a high performance laptop for portable video editing and sound work.
Today it is quite clear that AMD has a superior line, and that they work really well.
Intel is legacy for a lot of servers, but now AMD's Opterons are kicking serious butt.
I was an AMD rejecter for 10 years, this after seeing how much trouble was created by crummy support chips, especially from VIA. Finally decided to test an AMD 64 when I needed a high performance laptop for portable video editing and sound work.
Today it is quite clear that AMD has a superior line, and that they work really well.
TheHappyFriar
wrote on 10/18/2005, 8:43 AM
They actuatly got good in the AMD XP line. the origional athlon was good but there were a lot of crappy mb's out there for it.
Actuatly, in the 486/Pentium erra, AMD & Cyrix always outperformed Intel at the same/cheaper price. it wasn't until the Pentium 2's that intel actuatly started performing better, then with the AMD XP's it went back to AMD.
Actuatly, in the 486/Pentium erra, AMD & Cyrix always outperformed Intel at the same/cheaper price. it wasn't until the Pentium 2's that intel actuatly started performing better, then with the AMD XP's it went back to AMD.
Coursedesign
wrote on 10/18/2005, 8:49 AM
Performance is nice, but it has to work properly also.
MS Office users weren't harmed so much, but anybody using AMD CPUs with VIA peripheral chips for multimedia work could expect a mess with timing problems, driver incompatibilities and more.
MS Office users weren't harmed so much, but anybody using AMD CPUs with VIA peripheral chips for multimedia work could expect a mess with timing problems, driver incompatibilities and more.