If desktop CPUs are already fast enough, why doesn't AMD CPUs sell?

[AustinInDallas]

If people only purchased what they needed to get by, the economy would be a lot worse than it is now

 

[riva2model64]

^ Yes, our market is based on people wanting bigger and better as soon as it becomes accessible. If this weren't true, we'd have a lot more money in our wallets

One thing I don't get about the whole Pentium 4 thing, is how could they release Pentium 4 knowing that its slower than Pentium III (Tualatin) ?

Another thing I don't get is when they released the Pentium 4-m, which was clearly superior to the desktop Pentium 4, why didn't they release a desktop Pentium 4-M with a higher TDP?

 

[Dstoop]

So much of this thread focuses on the core technologies behind each brand, I think there's a big chunk of the argument that is being overlooked here. Most people buying PCs aren't enthusiasts, they don't care about die size or transistors or brand loyalty, they care about price and the number of Gee Bees listed on the product tag in their local Best Buy/HHGregg/PCRichard/etc. The last time I walked into a Best Buy and looked at their selection of laptops, they had about 15 different models in stock. How many had some variety of Intel processor? 13 of them. How many AMDs? Two.

If they're not there to buy, people can't buy them. Whether that's marketing, or distribution deals, or whatever causing the lack of stock, you can guarantee if people were seeing those cheaper AMD-based prebuilt systems more often in the store they'd be selling considerably more of them.

 

[Olikan]

I just said that bad market conditions aren't an excuse for AMD poor performance. If you factor 1.2% or 3% it is still orders of magnitude smaller than the 75% decline AMD posted. You cannot get those numbers straight without factoring a *huge* decline in market share and ASP, which is what I said that is effectively killing AMD.

...yes yes, it's AMD to be blamed for not beeing competitive

but IMO the market seems worse than just 3-5%.... in q3, big OEMs lost TONs of proffits... aka cheaper prices, whitch destroys AMD only advantage

i bet the q4 is going to be a funny quarter, i will enjoy the spin machines of Dell and HP again... "because of the floods earlier this year, the flys are now atacking the HD makers :awe:"

 

[Torn Mind]

^ Yes, our market is based on people wanting bigger and better as soon as it becomes accessible. If this weren't true, we'd have a lot more money in our wallets

One thing I don't get about the whole Pentium 4 thing, is how could they release Pentium 4 knowing that its slower than Pentium III (Tualatin) ?

Another thing I don't get is when they released the Pentium 4-m, which was clearly superior to the desktop Pentium 4, why didn't they release a desktop Pentium 4-M with a higher TDP?

Well, speed(instructions per second) is actually dependent on both clockspeed and IPC. They willingly took a hit to IPC to increase clockspeed really quickly. They thought they had a really high ceiling with clockspeed increases. Little did they know they hit a couple walls.

For your other questions, I don't know.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Hi,

A lot of people claim that the current desktop CPUs are already "fast enough" for the average user. This is also said to be the reason that focus instead lately has been on e.g. improving the iGPU, integrating VRM and Memory Controller, and lowering power consumption instead.

But if that is true, then how come AMD desktop CPUs are not selling so well? After all they should be fast enough for the average user too, since they are not that much slower than the corresponding Intel CPUs, right? And since the AMD CPUs are cheaper too, it should be a better option for a lot of consumers. But for some reason most people still buy Intel CPUs. How come?

Who is it that is saying these things . Like its good enough. AMD types??? Go read the Haswell thread . Seems alot of people complaining about only a 10% IPC increase . Even tho graphics will improve by 2x+.

 

[Idontcare]

So much of this thread focuses on the core technologies behind each brand, I think there's a big chunk of the argument that is being overlooked here. Most people buying PCs aren't enthusiasts, they don't care about die size or transistors or brand loyalty, they care about price and the number of Gee Bees listed on the product tag in their local Best Buy/HHGregg/PCRichard/etc. The last time I walked into a Best Buy and looked at their selection of laptops, they had about 15 different models in stock. How many had some variety of Intel processor? 13 of them. How many AMDs? Two.

If they're not there to buy, people can't buy them. Whether that's marketing, or distribution deals, or whatever causing the lack of stock, you can guarantee if people were seeing those cheaper AMD-based prebuilt systems more often in the store they'd be selling considerably more of them.

Good point. DEC went bankrupt while fielding the world's fasted microprocessor money could buy. They had solid technology, the leader bar none, but they still managed to mismanage their finances to the point that they had to close shop.

It takes more than just good products to be a financial success.

 

[SickBeast]

OP, CPUs are only "good enough" for general apps like Office and productivity. For gaming you can never have enough CPU power. Same goes for things like rendering or video editing.