Is AMD a sinking ship? Far from it.

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: HopJokey

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: StopSign
Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

And here's a perfect example of a computer forum elitist.

If someone buying a computer for home/office use can get an X2 rig for hundreds less than a C2D rig, the cost savings is worth the extra second or two it will take to load up Excel or Acrobat.

Why stop there though? For a basic home/office use isn't the X2 overkill still? Couldn't one simply get away with using any budget offering from Intel or AMD (Cele or Semp)?

Exactly; that 5% jump in market share in the laptop market has to do with low-cost single core offerings from AMD like the Turion and Sempron Mobile (in addition to Turion X2s).

 

[Regs]

Actually it's been boring for desk top users for the past 5 years. Though the dual core introduction has been a blessing for media encoding.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: StopSign
Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

And here's a perfect example of a computer forum elitist.

If someone buying a computer for home/office use can get an X2 rig for hundreds less than a C2D rig, the cost savings is worth the extra second or two it will take to load up Excel or Acrobat.

Sometime there is a basis for elitism.

You are not going to get an X2 rig for "hundreds less" less than a Conroe rig.. this ancient AMD-fanboy argument that AMD is somehow cheaper is and has always been nonsense.

3GHz is fairly easy to get from any Conroe based chip and I've seen them go for as little as $149.99 for an E4300 with a free motherboard. Subtract "hundreds" from $149.99 and show me where I can purchase this chip, seriously.

Then, for fun, show me how to make this super cheap X2 run as fast as a 3GHz C2D.

Your blind devotion to AMD has been duly noted. Keep following bandwagons... down with America, up with Sheehan and Chavez!!! :laugh:

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: StopSign
Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

And here's a perfect example of a computer forum elitist.

If someone buying a computer for home/office use can get an X2 rig for hundreds less than a C2D rig, the cost savings is worth the extra second or two it will take to load up Excel or Acrobat.

Sometime there is a basis for elitism.

You are not going to get an X2 rig for "hundreds less" less than a Conroe rig.. this ancient AMD-fanboy argument that AMD is somehow cheaper is and has always been nonsense.

3GHz is fairly easy to get from any Conroe based chip and I've seen them go for as little as $149.99 for an E4300 with a free motherboard. Subtract "hundreds" from $149.99 and show me where I can purchase this chip, seriously.

Then, for fun, show me how to make this super cheap X2 run as fast as a 3GHz C2D.

Your blind devotion to AMD has been duly noted. Keep following bandwagons... down with America, up with Sheehan and Chavez!!! :laugh:

Intel sells 3GHz C2D's now? News to me.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Intel sells 3GHz C2D's now? News to me.

Welcome to 2006.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: StopSign
Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

And here's a perfect example of a computer forum elitist.

If someone buying a computer for home/office use can get an X2 rig for hundreds less than a C2D rig, the cost savings is worth the extra second or two it will take to load up Excel or Acrobat.

Sometime there is a basis for elitism.

You are not going to get an X2 rig for "hundreds less" less than a Conroe rig.. this ancient AMD-fanboy argument that AMD is somehow cheaper is and has always been nonsense.

3GHz is fairly easy to get from any Conroe based chip and I've seen them go for as little as $149.99 for an E4300 with a free motherboard. Subtract "hundreds" from $149.99 and show me where I can purchase this chip, seriously.

Then, for fun, show me how to make this super cheap X2 run as fast as a 3GHz C2D.

Your blind devotion to AMD has been duly noted. Keep following bandwagons... down with America, up with Sheehan and Chavez!!! :laugh:

C2D is certainly an overclockers chip!
What many overclockers don't seem to understand is that only 1-2% of computer users overclock...
The best example of why AMD is still gaining marketshare but losing money is in configuring identical OEM systems...
Try it with an HP a1750e (with an X2 4200) and an HP a1750y (with a C2D E4300). The 2 models are almost identical, and (if you don't OC) the 2 chips are almost the same in performance.
The AMD system is ~$200 less...

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: StopSign
Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

C2D is certainly an overclockers chip!
What many overclockers don't seem to understand is that only 1-2% of computer users overclock...

I do understand that a minuscule percentage of the population overclocks. Coincidentally, it is also that minuscule percentage that knows about Conroe. Those who don't know about Conroe are running stock Athlon X2's.

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Intel sells 3GHz C2D's now? News to me.

They have been for a while now. It's branded the X6800 and although it costs a fortune, it is just a few megahertz shy of 3000 which is quite a shame.

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: StopSign
Okay, taking out the "noobs" it makes perfect sense right?

No it doesn't because price is not included in your equation at all.

What kind of prices are you looking for? Are you looking for prices of CPUs by themselves? If so, the difference between X2 and C2D isn't a couple hundred bucks. Are you looking for prices of OEM systems? If so, the price difference between a low-end X2 and a low-end C2D is still not a few hundred bucks. Seeing how the price differences are negligible, I didn't feel a need to include them in the equation.

 

[ZOXXO]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: StopSign
Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

And here's a perfect example of a computer forum elitist.

If someone buying a computer for home/office use can get an X2 rig for hundreds less than a C2D rig, the cost savings is worth the extra second or two it will take to load up Excel or Acrobat.

Sometime there is a basis for elitism.

You are not going to get an X2 rig for "hundreds less" less than a Conroe rig.. this ancient AMD-fanboy argument that AMD is somehow cheaper is and has always been nonsense.

3GHz is fairly easy to get from any Conroe based chip and I've seen them go for as little as $149.99 for an E4300 with a free motherboard. Subtract "hundreds" from $149.99 and show me where I can purchase this chip, seriously.

Then, for fun, show me how to make this super cheap X2 run as fast as a 3GHz C2D.

Your blind devotion to AMD has been duly noted. Keep following bandwagons... down with America, up with Sheehan and Chavez!!! :laugh:

C2D is certainly an overclockers chip!
What many overclockers don't seem to understand is that only 1-2% of computer users overclock...
The best example of why AMD is still gaining marketshare but losing money is in configuring identical OEM systems...
Try it with an HP a1750e (with an X2 4200) and an HP a1750y (with a C2D E4300). The 2 models are almost identical, and (if you don't OC) the 2 chips are almost the same in performance.
The AMD system is ~$200 less...

Where did you come up with this?

At the Hp Home and Home Office site the monetary difference was only nine dollars when running with the HP recommended option to configure the systems.

With minor differences in graphics cards and hard drives.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: ZOXXO

Where did you come up with this?

At the Hp Home and Home Office site the monetary difference was only nine dollars when running with the HP recommended option to configure the systems.

With minor differences in graphics cards and hard drives.

Oops..we're both wrong.
With the same HDD and graphics card, the C2D E4300 is $699, and the X2 4200 is $669.
Basically $30 less for the same system...

 

[Zebo]

We should all be AMD fans because I guarantee you with the huge barriers to entry in the microprocessor market, especially today with 4 billion dollar fabs and huge IP avantage intel has, if AMD dies you will pay $600-$1000+ for every CPU again as no one will dare enter the market.

As always buy what you need not what you see.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Zebo
We should all be AMD fans because I guarantee you with the huge barriers to entry in the microprocessor market, especially today with 4 billion dollar fabs and huge IP avantage intel has, if AMD dies you will pay $600-$1000+ for every CPU again as no one will dare enter the market.

As always buy what you need not what you see.

Well, Nvidia has hinted they might like to try their hand at CPU's and I think all of us would like to see that David take on Goliath.

I agree that AMD is needed to keep Intel in check but AMD proved to us last summer with X2-3800's at $200-250 that they were not our friends. I almost pulled the trigger on an X2-3800 purchase last July but I caught wind of this whole Conroe thing... I would've been so pissed if I had bought that X2 for the old price.

 

[Antikristuseke]

Originally posted by: StopSign
These stats make perfect sense.

Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

Server share is down because 1% of the people in the world are knowledgeable computer users (a.k.a. IT) who have heard of Conroe and hopped off the Opteron bandwagon.

So what you are saying is that as soon as the next best thing comes out everyone should hop on its bandwaggon and if they dont get the latest and greates, they are noobs?
While offerings from AMD for the AM2 platform and cheapest C2D models are very close in price and performance where after overclocking the c2d win in performance, neither still have nothing on a s939 opteron when it comes to bang for buck.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Antikristuseke

Originally posted by: StopSign
These stats make perfect sense.

Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

Server share is down because 1% of the people in the world are knowledgeable computer users (a.k.a. IT) who have heard of Conroe and hopped off the Opteron bandwagon.

So what you are saying is that as soon as the next best thing comes out everyone should hop on its bandwaggon and if they dont get the latest and greates, they are noobs?
While offerings from AMD for the AM2 platform and cheapest C2D models are very close in price and performance where after overclocking the c2d win in performance, neither still have nothing on a s939 opteron when it comes to bang for buck.

This former Opteron 165 owner begs to differ. Text

You holdouts are cute.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Beachboy


I agree that AMD is needed to keep Intel in check but AMD proved to us last summer with X2-3800's at $200-250 that they were not our friends. I almost pulled the trigger on an X2-3800 purchase last July but I caught wind of this whole Conroe thing... I would've been so pissed if I had bought that X2 for the old price.

Eh, sorry, but I don't see $250 or even $300 X2-3800+s as being signs of unfriendliness. For what they did at the time, the money was well-spent unless you consistently failed to utilize both cores.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Beachboy


I agree that AMD is needed to keep Intel in check but AMD proved to us last summer with X2-3800's at $200-250 that they were not our friends. I almost pulled the trigger on an X2-3800 purchase last July but I caught wind of this whole Conroe thing... I would've been so pissed if I had bought that X2 for the old price.

Eh, sorry, but I don't see $250 or even $300 X2-3800+s as being signs of unfriendliness. For what they did at the time, the money was well-spent unless you consistently failed to utilize both cores.

Heck, all I know is I was about to get an X2-3800 that was on sale at Fry's last July for $189.99 and I am so glad I didn't.

AMD didn't lower the price on their chips until they were literally forced to. If that's not unfriendly I don't know what is... but in AMD's defense, this is all business and if they managed to sucker me in on old tech at a new tech price then more power to them... that is how corporations are supposed to operate. It's a brutal world.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: StopSign
Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

And here's a perfect example of a computer forum elitist.

If someone buying a computer for home/office use can get an X2 rig for hundreds less than a C2D rig, the cost savings is worth the extra second or two it will take to load up Excel or Acrobat.

Sometime there is a basis for elitism.

You are not going to get an X2 rig for "hundreds less" less than a Conroe rig.. this ancient AMD-fanboy argument that AMD is somehow cheaper is and has always been nonsense.

3GHz is fairly easy to get from any Conroe based chip and I've seen them go for as little as $149.99 for an E4300 with a free motherboard. Subtract "hundreds" from $149.99 and show me where I can purchase this chip, seriously.

Then, for fun, show me how to make this super cheap X2 run as fast as a 3GHz C2D.

Your blind devotion to AMD has been duly noted. Keep following bandwagons... down with America, up with Sheehan and Chavez!!! :laugh:

Again, more elitism. Apparently you think the 2% of computer enthusiasts who custom-build or overclock control the marketplace.

Lets get one thing straight. AMD and Intel do not cater to enthusiasts. They cater to the overwhelming majority of the market that buys OEM computers/servers from big names like HP/Dell/IBM/etc.

OEM computers don't overclock. There are no 3GHz C2D on the market (well, maybe the $1000 2.93GHz C2 Extreme).

Are you delirious enough to think a $149.99 motherboard and CPU constitute an entire computer? I have two of those combos sitting right here next to me, and they won't do anywhere near 3GHz without a new motherboard and better cooling.

A quick scan on the websites for the two biggest computer companies, Dell and HP, show that the difference between the lowest cost X2 desktop and C2D desktop is roughly $100-$150, or about 10%-20% of the price. That is a real cost savings for end-users, business, K12, etc.

I think the problem we're encountering in this thread is that I'm discussing the business aspects of AMD vs. Intel, while fanboys like you keep chanting about your overclocked CPUs and benchmarks.

 

[Antikristuseke]

Originally posted by: Beachboy

This former Opteron 165 owner begs to differ. Text

You holdouts are cute.

[/quote]

I never said anything about an opty being better at encoding videos or something like that, i said its better bang for buck as in you get more performance for your money than with a c2d. At least that is the case with the prices arround here.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: StopSign
Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

And here's a perfect example of a computer forum elitist.

If someone buying a computer for home/office use can get an X2 rig for hundreds less than a C2D rig, the cost savings is worth the extra second or two it will take to load up Excel or Acrobat.

I wonder if you felt the same way when Intel was taking the beating from AMD's A64/X2's. By your logic, we would all be perfectly happy with Celerons and Durons running at 1GHz. Who cares about the extra time it takes you to get things done, they're dirt cheap, right?

But you're kinda right. Look how well the Pentium D 805 sold. People went nuts over it. I got one for my sister. Why? because she ran a few apps at a time and her single core 1.6 northy wasn't cutting it, and the 805 was a cheap solution and it satisfied her needs for what she does. It was much cheaper than any X2 (300.00 for the X2 3800 at the time), and a lot slower as well, but people ate it up. O/C'd pretty well too, but thats not really the point. So yes, money is weighed against performance, almost always. It is for me as well.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm only a fanboy of competition bringing about innovation.

I'll drink to that :beer::thumbsup:

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: StopSign
Desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world are average computer users (a.k.a. noobs) who have never heard of Conroe and are still on the Athlon X2 bandwagon.

And here's a perfect example of a computer forum elitist.

If someone buying a computer for home/office use can get an X2 rig for hundreds less than a C2D rig, the cost savings is worth the extra second or two it will take to load up Excel or Acrobat.

Sometime there is a basis for elitism.

You are not going to get an X2 rig for "hundreds less" less than a Conroe rig.. this ancient AMD-fanboy argument that AMD is somehow cheaper is and has always been nonsense.

3GHz is fairly easy to get from any Conroe based chip and I've seen them go for as little as $149.99 for an E4300 with a free motherboard. Subtract "hundreds" from $149.99 and show me where I can purchase this chip, seriously.

Then, for fun, show me how to make this super cheap X2 run as fast as a 3GHz C2D.

Your blind devotion to AMD has been duly noted. Keep following bandwagons... down with America, up with Sheehan and Chavez!!! :laugh:

Again, more elitism. Apparently you think the 2% of computer enthusiasts who custom-build or overclock control the marketplace.
.
.
.
.
I think the problem we're encountering in this thread is that I'm discussing the business aspects of AMD vs. Intel, while fanboys like you keep chanting about your overclocked CPUs and benchmarks.

No I think you need to calm down and reread what we're writing. What you said perfectly supports my so-called "elitist" argument. Don't get your panties in a knot because I used the term "noobs." I'm sorry. I apologize for using that word and take it back as it has blinded you with rage.

Here is a rephrased version of my original post: AMD desktop share is up because 99% of the people in the world don't overclock, and therefore go with the cheaper OEM systems.

You agree or disagree? If you agree, does that make you a "forum elitist"?

 

[HomeyFoos]

jpeyton has been clear as a bell. What I think that gets lost in these forums is that most who frequent have above-average computer skills and some of these guys are damned-scary with what they know (as evidenced by their ability to simply reach this forum, create an account, log in successfully, post/reply to a post and most importantly, have a computer problem that they are willing to fix themselves). The point is, less than half of America is even on the internet much less having the knowledge to understanding the benefits of 2 cores on one chip. Right now, AMD is cheap. They are expanding their business to reach the common man (non-oc'ing, non-game playing, basic email and browsing). I cannot tell you how many times someone will ask me for advice on their broken system and when I ask 'what kind of computer is it' they say 'dell' or 'hp' or 'compaq'. Prodding further, I ask them more invasive questions and their answers are usually something like '120gigawatts?' I assume they mean they have a 120gig hard-drive but you can never be sure. These are the people that AMD is expanding with. The people who are buying computers for their 10yr old grand-daughter. People being forced, kicking and screaming, into the future with the automation of systems that were pen-and-paper for much of their lives. I'm sure many of these consumers have bought lesser-known brands of cars, clothing, food, etc. And for $350 (not a huge investment - certainly not like in the days of CRT monitors and desktop systems that cellphones now out-perform), the AMD does EVERYTHING that the intel will do for $500 and it's $150 cheaper. They have no idea how fast their hard-drive spins. They would rather have a 4200RPM 160gig drive than a 74gig raptor (and they will never use 20 gigs on their drive because the only thing they put on it are word-docs and digital pics - if they can use a digital camera). MORE SPACE=BETTER COMPUTER. A 3.0ghz P4 sounds better to them than a 1.8ghz Opteron. MORE GHZ=BETTER COMPUTER. Efficiency has no place in their decision.

C2D makes no sense to these folks. And they are the VAST majority of PC users in this country (and I would imagine, the world). Hell, as someone already said, C2D makes no sense to me and I'm a fairly advanced user/gamer (if these people are baseline users)

So what is being said by jpeyton makes perfect sense to me. A 'desktop user' is what he is talking about. Most of the people here are 'enthusiasts' and represent a very small percentage of overall owners.

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: HomeyFoos
So what is being said by jpeyton makes perfect sense to me. A 'desktop user' is what he is talking about. Most of the people here are 'enthusiasts' and represent a very small percentage of overall owners.

So what exactly is he arguing against?

 

[HomeyFoos]

I don't think he is arguing anything. He is making sense out of the numbers in the initial post. People try to make this a partisan issue and it's not. AMD's financial numbers show that they maintained market-share at the cost of profitability. Essentially, they didn't give up any ground and it cost them a bunch of money. But their sales in 'desktop' and notebook chips are up (if I recall the OP properly). More importantly, Budget desktop and laptop chips. Some would argue (you) that this is because noobs don't understand technology. And while that may be true, the 'noobs' are the major consumer of budget chips so it doesn't really matter what they understand or what they don't understand. It's cheap. That's all they care about. And in the process, the sales numbers of AMD budget chips are up.

As I said, they are not experiencing unreasonable access times with AMD compared to Intel. It's essentially the same computer to them. If it takes 1 second longer to boot Word, that is 1 second that they will not notice. Enthusiasts would, but not basic users. What ticks basic users off is 2+ minutes it takes for their compaq to cold-boot (all these people turn them off). Or the 20 seconds it takes to load IE (need more ram but they don't know what that means). That is the type of thing that will prompt them to upgrade the entire system (because they aren't going to tear the machine apart).

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I wonder if you felt the same way when Intel was taking the beating from AMD's A64/X2's. By your logic, we would all be perfectly happy with Celerons and Durons running at 1GHz. Who cares about the extra time it takes you to get things done, they're dirt cheap, right?

Indeed.

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: HomeyFoos
Some would argue (you) that this is because noobs don't understand technology. And while that may be true, the 'noobs' are the major consumer of budget chips so it doesn't really matter what they understand or what they don't understand. It's cheap. That's all they care about. And in the process, the sales numbers of AMD budget chips are up.

And this is what jpeyton has been saying as well. And I agree. I never argued against this. I said 99% of the people in the world haven't heard of Conroe. If that's true, then they are likely to be using some AMD offering. Doesn't this support the numbers? Apparently it doesn't, according to jpeyton.