Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
AMD Intel

AMD Desktops Outsell Intel 468

prostoalex writes "For the week ending August 21st AMD managed to capture 54% market share among new desktops sold. Intel's share during the week was 45%. While Intel leads the U.S. CPU market with 82.7% market share, folks from AMD are proud to announce this is the second week this year - they also outsold Intel on the desktop market one time in April 2004."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Desktops Outsell Intel

Comments Filter:
  • by Alowishus ( 34824 )
    I'm not sure I buy this. Maybe for enthusiast and home gaming PCs, but if you include business desktops I'd venture to say that Intel still carries somewhere around 75%. Go look at the business-oriented desktop lines from HP, IBM and Dell and you'll see very few AMDs in there.
    • by Hawkxor ( 693408 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:51PM (#10241006)
      Its for desktops selling within the retail channel. And Intel does have around 80 market share overall - its just that this past week AMD machines outsold Intel for some reason.
    • you don't even have to RTwholeFA, just load the page and there's a big graph saying "retail dektop sales".
    • by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:53PM (#10241034) Homepage
      The lead-in paragraph mentioned that Intel has like 82% of the market in the U.S.. I would guess that the rest of the world does not just automatically call Dell/HP when they need new computers.

      The more work a person is willing to do to buy a computer, the greater chance they will purchase AMD. Someone who is just picking up a box with 'everything in it' might be more likely to see the 'Intel Inside' sticker on that new computer stacked 10 high at Best Buy.

      Then again, my purchasing department doesn't seem to understand that there are computer makers other than Dell.

      But what if I was in Italy- and buying from Dell was a pain in the ass? The chance of purchasing AMD just went up about 200 times.
      • by mercuryresearch ( 680293 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:40PM (#10241492) Journal
        Actually, the lead paragraph mistakenly says the 82% figure is US -- it's not, it's ~82% worldwide.

        The AMD > 50% figures are specific to US Retail sales, so they are totally uncomparable numbers.
      • Then again, my purchasing department doesn't seem to understand that there are computer makers other than Dell.

        It's quite likely that your company has some kind of contract with Dell where they purchase exclusively from Dell in exchange for a better deal on those purchases

        I believe it's relatively common for companies to do such a thing

        • It's quite likely that your company has some kind of contract with Dell where they purchase exclusively from Dell in exchange for a better deal on those purchases

          I believe it's relatively common for companies to do such a thing

          I haven't actually seen an exclusive contract -- perhaps that's how it happens at larger companies, where I have less experience (and certainly less management experience). The way I've seen it work at smaller companies is your Dell rep calls you (or your IT Manager/Director/

      • "But what if I was in Italy- and buying from Dell was a pain in the ass?"

        It's not. That's why Dell is so successful. No matter who you are or what you need, you call them up, and they ship it to your doorstop.

        Dell is very good at what they do: taking Intel parts, slapping them in a box, and shipping them out the door. Dell was the first company that realized that succeeding in the PC business had nothing to do with having the best PCs. Succeeding in the PC business means undercutting everyone else in over
    • Wasn't it Intel who decided that they were too good for nVidia's nForce mobo? And didn't people say that nVidia would go down for choosing AMD over Intel in this market? (correct me if I'm wrong, as I probably am)
      • by obeythefist ( 719316 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @09:47PM (#10242472) Journal
        Part right. nVidia didn't bother getting a license to do intel. We know the technology worked - just look at XBox. I don't think they revealed any particular reason for not pushing intel harder for a license, although it may have been some strange crosslicensing issues with Xbox and Microsoft. Also, it's possible that nVidia wanted to test the water with AMD's CPUs first, and found that market successful enough. Anyone with AMD would know that nVidia dominate the chipset market for AMD - and for good reason, the performance and stability are unmatched.
    • by ricotest ( 807136 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:53PM (#10241043)

      Maybe for enthusiast and home gaming PCs, but if you include business desktops I'd venture to say that Intel still carries somewhere around 75%.

      The blurb itself says that despite AMD's share of new CPUs, Intel have 82.7% of the US market. Which is close enough to 72%.

      The article itself admits that AMD's market is 'constrained' such that these results are very impressive. Intel indeed makes AMD a clear underdog for businesses and (at least up until very recently) notebooks.

    • by rcamans ( 252182 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:13PM (#10241253)
      AMD numbers are based on (mostly?) retail sales.
      All of Dell sales are direct.
      Most of HP sales are direct.
      Most of IBM sales are direct.
      Most of Intel sales are direct.
      I am referring to desktops in the gov, and corp market, as well as direct to customer sales.
      So yes, AMD sells more retail.
      Retail sales overall are a decreasing percentage of the desktop sales figures.
      Makes for a great headline, but it is not true at all, not even close.
      AMD does not have anywhere near the production capacity Intel has, and both are cranking out full steam ahead.
      So do the math yourself.
      if AMD has 20% of the capacity of Intel, and both are maxed out, who sells more?
      • by servoled ( 174239 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:54PM (#10242152)
        Makes for a great headline, but it is not true at all, not even close.

        No, it is true. However, it is also highly misleading, but that doens't make it false.
      • First of all RTFA. No where does it say that Dell, IBM, or HP aren't a retail channel. Furthermore, I'd bet that HP and IBM sell a tonne of corporate desktops through VARs, and a tonne more through retail channels like Best Buy. Personally, I think you're full of shit.

        Tell me how you figure most of Intel sales are direct? Last I checked, I can't go and buy a chip from Intel. Show me an invoice from Intel for one processor, I'd love to see it. Again, your full of shit.
  • Notebook sales (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:50PM (#10241002)
    It seems that AMD's success on these occasions are due to notebook sales:

    Duboise continues: "promotions continue to be the driving force behind retail PC sales and AMD's successes. In fact, $699 notebook promotions have been the driving force behind three incidents this year when notebook sales were able to overcome desktop sales. As long as Intel continues to place more emphasis on the more lucrative and successful notebook market, it leaves the door open for AMD's desktop wins."

    I wonder if they believe that they can eventually drive notebook sales upward to the point that they outsell Intel more often than a handful of times a year?

    Cheers,

    Erick

    • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zaxios ( 776027 ) <zaxios@gmail.com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:27PM (#10241378) Journal
      I wonder if they believe that they can eventually drive notebook sales upward to the point that they outsell Intel more often than a handful of times a year?

      The article says that AMD's desktop successes are partially a result of Intel's tendency to emphasize notebooks. If "they" (Intel, I hope you mean) drive notebook sales upward, and assuming that damages desktop sales, Intel's sales would increase because of their notebook dominance and AMD's would decrease because of their desktop interests. Overall the desktop market would shrink (or grow less), while AMD's share of it might grow marginally as a result of the notebook market distracting Intel from pushing its desktop CPUs as aggressively. We might then have more "AMD Desktops Outsell Intel" stories, but it would definitely not be good news for AMD.
  • Good to hear! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheKubrix ( 585297 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:51PM (#10241004) Homepage
    First ATI outsold Nvidia on desktops, and now this! Good to see theres not a monopoly on core hardware components! now if only software were the same way, :\
    • Re:Good to hear! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gilesx ( 525831 ) * <sjw@NOSpaM.diepls.com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:59PM (#10241098)

      ATI mainly outsold Nvidia because of Nvidia's shoddy manufacturing of early Geforce 5 series cards - poor drivers, drivers that lied [geocities.com], and late to market hardware that looked distinctly weak by the time it was public. This was a direct mirror of the emergence of Nvidia over 3DFX as a major graphics card force a few years ealier, with the exception that this time around, Nvidia had a lot greater cash reserve than 3DFX ever did, so could actually afford to make the mistake.

      As it is, I'd be very surprised to find out that the ATI share was more than 55/45 in their favor (remember - a LOT of people outside of hardcord gamer circles are still using early Geforce / TNT cards - I have even seen Geforce 2 *MX* cards still being sold as low cost no frills acceleration) and with the new 6600 cards coming out, this is going to be a firm kick to the nether regions of ATI. There just isn't a card on the market that can hold a candle to it, and when you combine this with Nvidia's far superior Doom 3 performance, I'd certainly not bet against Nvidia becoming a dominant 3D acceleration force over the next few years.

      • This was a direct mirror of the emergence of Nvidia over 3DFX as a major graphics card force a few years ealier, with the exception that this time around, Nvidia had a lot greater cash reserve than 3DFX ever did, so could actually afford to make the mistake.

        not just that, but nVidia also has more than that going for them.

        They diversified in the industry. They're not just manufacturing video cards, they're also making mainboard chipsets as well as other multimedia pursuits. Not exactly a wide, sweeping
    • by shfted! ( 600189 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:00PM (#10241123) Journal
      It's not as if RedHat is the only OS you can install. Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, and SuSe are also quite popular. Then there are NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD. What is this monopoly you are talking about?
  • by dragon_imp ( 685750 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:58PM (#10241088) Homepage
    We've come a long way from the "AMD is Dead" and "Intel Rules" days.

    Intel let its marketing people get caught napping. Intel pushed the Itanium and said it will never make a 64-bit chip that is x86 compatible.

    AMD came out with the 64 bit chip that was compatible with the x86, and it got rave reviews. And, it gets sales!

    Now, AMD outsells Intel again. Did you see that -- the article said "again."

    Not bad for a company that was being written off a couple years ago.
    • by melted ( 227442 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:30PM (#10241403) Homepage
      >> Intel let its marketing people get caught napping.

      To the contrary. Intel let its marketing people tell the engineers what to do. So they basically said, "we want a 3GHz chip, because consumers are stupid and they only look at GHz figures". P4 is a result of this. It's only real feature is that it can be clocked insanely high. Clock for clock it's not only dumber than AMD chips, it's also dumber than some of Intel's own processors (Pentium M for example).
  • Figures (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chaffed ( 672859 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:58PM (#10241093) Homepage
    I was an ardent fan of intel until the Athlon 64 came out. My brothers new PC has an Athlon 64 along with other goodies (1gig ram, dual layer dvd writer...) for a very reasonable $1,000 USD.

    There is no way I could have done that with an intel chip and motherboard and still get the same performance.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:59PM (#10241102)
    If you can't beat 'em, change games.
  • Hey, Dell !!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:01PM (#10241134)
    Hey, Dell,

    Are you listening?

    • Are you listening?

      Loud and clear I would assume - Lets see AMD has a 50% share of the retail (Desktop) market and a 16% share of the overall market. Guess where Intel is selling ?

  • Why I love AMD (Score:2, Interesting)

    Their processors aren't as fast as Intel's but for the price, they're so much better. If a $500 AMD processor is almost as fast as a $800 Intel processor, that $300 buys an iPod. Most of the people I know share that view. So what if a 3.8Ghz Xeon performs better than a Athlon64 3800, the Athlon is $300 cheaper!
    • Bad comparison... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Chordonblue ( 585047 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:22PM (#10241335) Journal
      I wouldn't say that Intel has everything wrapped up. comparing a Xeon to a 3800+ is hardly fair as you are comparing a server processor to a desktop one. Now if you compared it to say, an Opteron (a much more fair comparison), well then you'd see AMD still wins or pulls up even.

      What's more, the more processors, the better. Hypertransport gives each processor it's own bus.

      That said, comparing an FX-53 to a 3.8 GHz Intel would also be a more fair comparison. And while it's true that the Intel wins it's share of benchmarks, keep in mind: You are comparing a 3.8 GHz Intel chip to a lousy 2.6 GHz processor (the FX-53). Theoretically, the Intel should totally kick it's ass - but it doesn't. That's some good chip design there my friend!

      I just got a 3800+ last week. All I can say is: WOW!

    • Except that the person buying the 3.8Ghz Xeon is buying it for a $5000+ server with a couple gigs of ram and a RAID5 subsystem. They don't care about saving 12% of the system price on a pair of CPU's, if it runs the risk of causing them downtime. Hell I pay a lot more than 12% of the purchase price to upgrade the basic waranty to 24x7 4 hour support to avoid downtime! Now if Dell or HP offered a fully backed AMD system for significantly less than an equivilantly configured Intel one then I would care (HP on
    • Re:Why I love AMD (Score:3, Informative)

      by crabpeople ( 720852 )
      what are you talking about? I havent seen a intel system beat a comperable AMD system in the last year. Not to mention that the intel on average runs 1ghz faster.

      where are all those intel favourable benchmarks?*

      lots of amd [anandtech.com] favourable [tomshardware.com] ones [tomshardware.com]

      in my personal experience, Intel's always have a small lag that is quite noticeable. Although this is comming from the same person who can tell a 85hz refresh rate from a 75 so its probably not something most people have to worry about.

      and THEN there is the huge price
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:12PM (#10241243)
    This is a 100% bonafide GOOD THING. Have you seen what these guys have done to each others margins? Have you seen how fast processor speeds have become these last 4 years? This is competition at its absolute finest.

    Cheers to AMD for not giving up and dying. And cheers to that chairman of theirs who looks like he oughta be out selling chicken.
    • by Entropius ( 188861 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @10:17PM (#10242671)
      Indeed. Especial applause to AMD for always finding new things to do. They realized that there was a market for 64-bit, so they made the Athlon 64. Then they realized that their target market for the A64's was enthusiasts who live in the same room as their computers, so they introduced Cool and Quiet.

      And, of course, they noticed the rising market share of laptops and realized that the same technology they use to make A64 machines not sound like leafblowers can also provide decent battery life on a laptop.

      The Athlon 64 laptops don't have battery life like a Centrino, but they're much better than Intel's P4-based laptop line, and they blow the Pentium-M's out of the water in performance for hundreds less.

      The Athlon 64 may have started out as a niche product, but now it's the preferred performance-processor for many enthusiasts and a decent processor for both performance and low-price laptops (you can get an Athlon 64 laptop for $1150).

      Then they realize that Intel has been neglecting the low-end foreign markets: *poof*, Sempron.

      The Athlon XP-M chips are still wonderful in laptops--they're Fast Enough for almost anyone, don't drain that much power, and are cheap.

      AMD gets credit for doing marketing the old-fashioned way: find an area that Intel's not up to par in, and design something that beats Intel's current offering in that area. This is the sort of marketing I benefit from, the sort of marketing that gives me cheap, fast hardware. I like that.
  • Makes Sense To Me (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Honestly, I just built a desktop and didn't even consider Intel processors. It seemed that all the boards I wanted were AMD.

    Coincidence?
    • by celeritas_2 ( 750289 ) <ranmyaku@gmail.com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:24PM (#10241354)
      I'm very impressed with AMD and how it has evolved from a basic clone to an innovative competetor, and in my opinion, the better of Intel. My next system will be AMD, but really what are the benefits of Intel? Before it was the cool 'brand name' but now it just seems to be the bloated expensive version.
      • by MonkeyCookie ( 657433 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:08PM (#10241757)
        I'm also impressed with how far AMD has come. Part of me wants to see AMD clobber Intel, which had a monopoly for a long time, but it's probably best for each to have about 50% market share. It will keep both companies from getting fat and lazy, meaning more research and lower prices. Competition without a particular company dominating the market is generally a good thing for the consumer.
  • No wonder (Score:2, Interesting)

    by melted ( 227442 )
    It's embarrassing when a company makes a mobile chip, that at 1.6GHz outperforms their "desktop" 2.8GHz chip, especially if 1.6GHz chip uses their previous generation core with bits and pieces of P4 core thrown in for compatibility. I just hope they pull their heads out of their butts and release a replacement for "fast but dumb" P4. And for the love of god, someone tell them to make this replacement 64 bit. There's no point in denying that 4GB of address space is no longer "enough for everybody".
  • by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) * on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:33PM (#10241428)
    I'd like them to make a dual core Pentium M, add the latest SSE stuff (SSE3?), an on-die, dual channel memory controller, a HyperTransport bus, and sell it for the desktop crowd.

    Is that too much to ask? *sigh*
  • Then it's no wonder Intel Predicts Death of WWW [slashdot.org], as seen earlier today on Slashdot.
  • Hot On Their Heels (Score:5, Informative)

    by bgumm ( 661507 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:52PM (#10241622) Homepage
    I just read this InfoWorld article [infoworld.com], which had a pretty good account of how AMD is starting to make progress against Intel.

    (hint: they're actually innovating)

  • by mercuryresearch ( 680293 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:01PM (#10241697) Journal
    I posted in a reply that doesn't appear to be getting modded up, so:

    The figures for Intel's total share are worldwide, not US. (I should know, my company is the source cited in the link.) Meanwhile the AMD weekly share data (from another company) is for US Retail system sales. So the two data points really aren't comparable on any basis.

    I know the figures I cite are exclusive to x86 CPUs. Someone mentioned PowerPC in this thread, and Apple provides sales figures as part of their financials -- based on Q2 data, PowerPCs in Apples comprise about 1.8% of the market if you included them in the calculations.

  • Those weekly figures don't mean squat. I think AMD has good processors and actually I'm using VIA miniITX machines lately, simply because they are so nice and small, but the main market still belongs to Intel.
  • by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:09PM (#10241760)
    in the last 5 min?
  • by tasinet ( 747465 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:39PM (#10242025)
    On another page, global warming is still rising at an alarming pace.

    Coincidence? Naah...
    • Re:global warming (Score:5, Informative)

      by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Tuesday September 14, 2004 @12:34AM (#10243379)
      At work we had this Dell XPS running a 3.4 ghz p4. That thing ran hot as hell. We had problems with the machine when it was rendering for 3dsmax and when we opened the case the heatsink was very hot. Actually, it was a pretty crappy heatsink considering the cost and thermal needs of th 3.4 ghz p4. Anyway, I'm assuming your joke was to point out how hot AMD's can get, well Intel chips can get very hot themselves.
    • Re:global warming (Score:3, Informative)

      by evilviper ( 135110 )
      Intel chips, since at least the intro of the Pentium 4, have HIGHER max thermal output than AMD chips.

      It's gotten so bad that the P4's performance is getting hurt... Some of the newer processors they introduced don't perform any better than the older/cheaper ones, because when they are at full-speed, they output too much heat, and the CPU has to slow down to keep from burning up.

      Now, AMD has some power management issues [slashdot.org], but even with that, they aren't any worse than Intel.
  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @09:27PM (#10242361) Journal
    Uh oh.....time to start hating AMD.
  • by MemoryDragon ( 544441 ) on Tuesday September 14, 2004 @05:13AM (#10244204)
    For plain GHz monsters, AMD simply is the better price/performance deal. Now lets look at the situation from a different angle. Intel has a kick ass processor in their line. Yes the Pentium-M faster than most except the high end P4s only sold in servers and laptop computers. Outside of the US there is a huge market for machines which save energy (well in the US nobody thinks about energy, except for a god given right to be consumed probably) But the market currently is dominated by the rather measly VIA CPUs which have a huge following over here in Europe (and probably Asia) Well AMD currently reacts to the trend with their own line of new fast energy savers (which we will see probably in desktop boards soon, but definitely not from via :-) ) Via currently sells boatloads of their C3 stuff, and Transmeta probably would also if their stuff was available. So where is Intel in that game. Basically nowhere, Intel itself says this is a notebook processor only. Some third companies already produce industrial boards because the advantages of the PM over other intel designs are huge, blazingly fast, with a rather low power consumption. But those boards cost a fortune. But the end user market is left to VIA. What happens here is basically the same thing Intel did in the 64 bit market, which basically was handed over to AMD. And if AMD can get their act together and have several companies producing boards in the ATX format using their new low powere cores, they basically will win the slowly but rapidly emerging home server market, which currently is a hobbyists market, but in a few years will become the mass market.

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde

Working...