The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    AMD catching up on Intel

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Pitabred, Mar 26, 2007.

  1. Pitabred

    Pitabred Linux geek con rat flail!

    Reputations:
    3,300
    Messages:
    7,115
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    206
    Maybe not for the people who care about performance (but we have to see what AMD's move to 65nm will bring with it), but they're gathering market share from people who just want a machine at a good price. And Intel's been having some flash troubles, while AMD now owns ATI:

    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38491
     
    Pitabred, Mar 26, 2007
    #1
  2. sandt38

    sandt38 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    35
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    The Dodge Neon and Ford Taurus were also hot selling vehicles, but they were not Lamborghinis. :D
     
    sandt38, Mar 26, 2007
    #2
  3. Blake

    Blake NBR Reviewer NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    940
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Haha, good point. Sadly though, market share is much more important in the Developer game than pure performance is. Granted, the hardcore nuts like us at NBR will flock to the better performer, but the Average Joe will want the one that is cheaper, and the one the salesman hypes up more.
     
    Blake, Mar 26, 2007
    #3
  4. Gator

    Gator Go Gators!

    Reputations:
    890
    Messages:
    1,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Interesting, but something doesn't add up. Is this article saying that AMD sold more Turion X2's than Intel sold Core Duo's this past year? Does this include the Sempron vs. Pentium M sales figures? And if not, is it implying that Intel's chip manufacturing is costing more than that of AMD's? Or maybe AMD simply marketed their product better?

    I find that the Inquirer often puts a big spin in its articles, and in this case I am highly suspicious of the wording:

    Um yeah, because AMD bought ATI, therefore making ATI's graphic chipset sales part of its revenue. And ATI makes a lot of chips.

    Anyway, just clarifying the issue for people reading the article.
     
    Gator, Mar 26, 2007
    #4