AMD outsells Intel in US retail for the first time

Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
edited October 2005 in Science & Tech
AMD scored a major win against Intel during the back-to-school season. According to Current Analysis, AMD outsold Intel for the very first time in US retail over the period of a whole month. More than half of all computer systems US stores sold during September carried an AMD processor.

Submitted by: muddocktor

Source: TG Daily

Comments

  • KometeKomete Member
    edited October 2005
    So uhhh when will their processor show a nice drop due to a higher volume of sales?
  • CrimguyCrimguy Cave Creek, AZ
    edited October 2005
    Little caveat: That figure does not include direct PC sales, including Dell. That's a pretty large chunk of pc sales. Nonetheless, a great showing for AMD, who clearly has a highly competitive product these days (superior one might say, but I"m not about to start a war!).

  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited October 2005
    Id say superior :D
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited October 2005
    Komete wrote:
    So uhhh when will their processor show a nice drop due to a higher volume of sales?
    50% of AMD Sales are the Sempron 754/939 Class CPUs, which are already inexpensive. IMO $150 for a Venice core 3000+ is reasonable.
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited October 2005
    shoot 350 for a 3800+ X2 isnt even THAT bad
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited October 2005
    GnomeWizardd wrote:
    shoot 350 for a 3800+ X2 isnt even THAT bad

    Especially since you can OC it so easily past a 4800+ :D
  • KometeKomete Member
    edited October 2005
    I dunno I want a chip like my mobile. It was less than 100 and overclocked to hi-end and a little beyound. Ya know a 64 chip to get excited about.
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited October 2005
    Komete wrote:
    I dunno I want a chip like my mobile. It was less than 100 and overclocked to hi-end and a little beyound. Ya know a 64 chip to get excited about.
    You were buying a CPU from AMD when they had a product that was pretty much shut out of the marketplace. AMD had warehouses bursting from overproduction and had to sell them them for what ever price they could get.

    f that situation had continued AMD would be bankrupt and you'ld be buying a P4 3.4 for $500 or a Celeron 2.8 for $200 instead of a A64 939 $150.

    When Intel intro'd the Pentium MMX 233, 266 & 300 mhz they charged from $300 to $1000 for the chips. Prices are GREAT where they are now.

    IMO the X2 3800+ @ $350 is the bargain of the century at least until the (speculation) X2 3400+ (Dual Core 1.8ghz 512K) shows up at ~$200
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited October 2005
    I know I love my X2 3800+ i havent got the balls to Oc it just yet
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited October 2005
    It'll do 2.4-2.5ghz stock or with a slight boost in vcore.
  • GooDGooD Quebec (CAN) Member
    edited October 2005
    This was a question of time before we comes to this... AMD is keeping striking the market with good product and INTEL is losing some part of the market every 3 months... They don't seem to want to lower they price to 'compete' with AMD...

    In the other hand this is a great day for AMD, because they (my opinion) diserve to have this big part of the market... The only thing i hope i'll never see is an 'constant increase' of the price growing at the same rate as they keep their sales growing in numbers each year...

    They must not forget that what some of us love about AMD is the fact that they have the best performance/quality/PRICE ratio... If they forget about this they might regret it i think heh

    EDIT : imagine if one day AMD become the 'INTEL' of last years... with the highest price and thinking they'll be 'king of the hill' forever... and on the other side INTEL become the underdog with lowest price... i would be pretty sad to see something like this :shakehead
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited October 2005
    GooD wrote:
    ...imagine if one day AMD become the 'INTEL' of last years... with the highest price and thinking they'll be 'king of the hill' forever... and on the other side INTEL become the underdog with lowest price... i would be pretty sad to see something like this :shakehead
    It's the fact that we have a choice which keeps them both honest. If Intel withered up and blew away (and there was no third company to step in and fill the void), AMD would rapidly become everything we don't like about Intel today.
  • GooDGooD Quebec (CAN) Member
    edited October 2005
    True Prof, that's why i don't want INTEL to fall apart... I love AMD as the underdog ;D
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited October 2005
    There no danger of Intel taking a fall. Intel's annual net profit exceeds AMD's annual gross revenue.

    Also Intels upcoming Yonah and Conroe CPUs will be competitve with the Athlon 64.
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh Member
    edited October 2005
    Komete wrote:
    So uhhh when will their processor show a nice drop due to a higher volume of sales?

    That's not quite entirely how it works- DEMAND helps keep the price afloat and as long as the market will bear it- then that's what they'll charge.

    Once there is a reduction in demand and/or a better processor comes along, watch it plummet. Right now the X2s and San Diegos are kings of the heap for their market.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited October 2005
    They don't seem to want to lower they price to 'compete' with AMD
    Intel has lowered prices. The only desktop chips that still carry a traditional nutty Intel premium are the "EE" (no, not EE savings bonds) CPUs. But still, for $150 less or better you can exceed that performance with an AMD chip.

    Where AMD still has much ground to gain is the corporate market. My work place is packed with Dell Optiplex computers, all of course with P4 this or that. Dell would use Intel even if Intel were technologically two years behind AMD, instead of just six months. To top it off, the Optiplex machines have crippled the only P4 feature that has an advantage - hyperthreading, which is turned off. I would like to think that my business paid only $300 per unit with these crappy Optiplex machines, but I'm sure I'd be wrong. Ask our system administrators (good at networking, useless with component hardware) about CPUs, and they'll burp up stock answers from 1999 about the superiority of Intel.
  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited October 2005
    As a person who runs silicon from both Intel and AMD, I love the fact that AMD is getting more competitive with Intel in market share. This assures that both companies don't slack off in the r & d department and also keeps both of them price competitive too. I also remember the day when AMD was just a little blip on Intel's radar screen and that every time that Intel released a new fastest processor, it would be marked with a MSRP of $1000.00 and anything under that was still quite high too. The competition really has lowered the ASP of Intel procs. :D

    As far as being competitive in performance, Intel's next generation parts will most probably catch up to A64 in the next year or so. Playing with my Dothan rig has made me realize what a sweet, high performance processor it really is. The main reason that Intel hasn't really pushed design work based on it's architeicture before about a year or so ago was mainly inertia and belief that they could cure the incredible current leakage problems of netburst, which didn't materialize, IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.