Originally Posted by LordOfTots
1. Your stance on the graphics doesn't prove anything...
2. I won't say they always win price to performance, but 90% of the time, they kinda do. If you seriously think otherwise you're deluded.
3. You talk like AMD made it's current FX chips to be better than intels best offerings. They didn't design the 8350 to be better that a 3770k, a 6300 a 3570k, etc, so they dont price them that way. AMD isn't in the high high end market, that doesn't make them terrible, they perform amazing for the price.
Intel is good for their high end and mobile chips, AMD for low-middle end, especially apu's, and the mid/high end market with FX cpu's. I like them both. Why does every thread need to be derailed time after time?
1. Without buying ATI, where would AMD be graphics wise?
2. AMD charges less, because they are forced to, not because they WANT to. They HAVE to play the Price / Performance game in order to make their products more attractive. Point is, if AMD could charge more, they most certainly would. Evidence is everywhere. ( Original FX series, 7970 at launch, of course, who can forget the AMAZING price / performance of the FX-9590?
3. You mean that AMD went into the drawing board, and their goal was to make inferior and cheaper products? That's a new one I haven't heard before.
AMD's original goal for Bulldozer was:
Since that goal wasn't met, they are stuck playing the price/performance game.
I don't understand why some people around here believe that AMD sells products cheaper, because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to. If we could all be on the same page about that, a lot of the arguments around here would stop.
AMD isn't in the high high end market because they lack the products to compete in those markets. See FX-9590 price at $900 as proof of AMD's attempt to be in the high high end market.
Originally Posted by SniperTeamTango
Server market: Everywhere but data centers AMD has better market share. Also cost to setup and maintain VS performance matters a HELL of a lot more in server world then desktop.
I'm gonna have to ask for proof for this claim, last I checked, Intel has about 95% of server market share, so I'd like to know how AMD is "winning" in this area.
I'll even help you with your research:
Edited by 2010rig - 9/12/13 at 8:42pm
AMD’s server market share declined from 15% in 2007 to 4.4% in 2012. With new improved servers, its graphics processing capabilities and its strategy to embrace both the x86 and ARM architectures, AMD can strengthen its foothold in the server processor market.
With a 95.6% Intel has a substantial lead over AMD in the x86 server market and almost all the market share lost by AMD over the years has been grabbed by Intel.
x86 servers account for over 80% of total server shipments and their revenue contribution increased from 53.6% in 2007 to 68.2% in 2012.
AMD will start shipping ARM-technology based chips in 2014 and believes that ARM CPUs have the potential to account for 20% of the server market by 2016 or 2017.
By offering manufacturers and data-center operators cheaper and more power-efficient processors,we believe that AMD will manage to re-gain some of its market share from Intel.