Someone didn't recheck this. Hate for AMD to kick its own butt in sales. :p

Check your article you said AMD where you meant Intel...

AMD’s current X2 processor offering, which is priced in its entirety below $200 in terms of tray prices, suggests that AMD now has an advantage over AMD in the current market,

i knew the lastest price drops would get them serious advantages... X2 4400 at a hundred bucks (CDN) is sweet. it performs well and overclock to 3ghz from it's 200mhz stock fsb on almost every motherboard, even the cheapest...

As of now AMD has a huge step ahead of Intel in the low end market. With a X2 6000 priced around $165 which is just as fast as Intel’s mid range but for $50 less... I can see why AMD gained.

Most builders are using higher end X2 chips like the 5400 and 6000 as they can offer great speeds for a cheaper price. In most cases AMD systems are selling for $135 cheaper... and to a consumer that means a lot.

This is great news! If AMD can somehow stay alive it should keep CPU prices nice and low!!

They bounced back because they did like the old AMD and reduced prices.

They had kept the prices of their top processors very high despite being inferior thinking most are AMD fanboys.

They now realize people just want the best bang for their dollar. Always has been and always will be the contributing factor.

I hope AMD survives because without competition intel would charge insane prices. And guess what fanboys without intel AMD would do the same.

When they were king they acted like intel with pricing only recently dropping prices. So we need them both healthy and competing.

Market shares don't matter without profit. AMD needs profit. Unless AMD is able to turn a revenue from CPUs, it could be in deep trouble.

The fastest bestest doesnt always sell, yes it helps. But we arent talking turkey here. Any of these processors nowadays are adequate. Just like Barcelona, as long as they can compete, they dont have to be topdawg to do well

It sounds like mercury did not read AMD last finacial report where AMD announced it dumped 30 million dollars of chips that it could not sell (ie tossed them).

Good news, but we still need performance from Bar or Intel will continue to own AMD especially with a new price cut a month and a little away now for Intel.

Every where I go and everywhere I turn, every where I am, I hear people say 'I hope AMD survives.' Stop hoping and start buying AMD CPUs and ATI cards. You'll do a whole lot better than just hoping.

Sorry, but hoping just doesn't pay the bills anymore.

People recognize that a dual core chip is actualy pretty useful in every day working computer life. It does make a significant difference. There is only so much you can do with 1 core.

2 things. AMD is the only one offering their top line of chips at prices as little as 59 bux, and the promise of future AM2 upgradeability.

This along with the fact that it is so much easier to understand the specifications of AMD over that of intel in regards to motherboards, means that consumers are going with the AMD chips over the intel ones.

The price is right, justifyable and perhaps even nessacary. The performence is on par with the price people are paying.

That is why I have just built 4 computers for clients using AMD X2 processors. These were for people who either never had a computer before, or were upgrading from inferior oudated intel stock.

It's all about price.

I live and work in an emerging market: the Caribbean.
AMD has always been popular here and the Latin American market. Why ? They are inexpensive and the processor range is flexible.This suits the broad base of entry/ mid level systems well. Intel, while outperforming AMD recently, has always found difficulty in emerging markets
because of their pricing points. It doesn't help that Intel supporting motherboards tend to be a bit more expensive than their AMD counterparts.
I suspect that while these are now small markets, they may eventually become a major source of revenue for tech companies. Enough to prop sagging profits and sales in the developed countries.

On another note, AMD knows the lower end of the market well. They fought from there for years before the Athlon era. Intel will find it difficult to beat them there.

To Enlighten, I agree with you; we need both companies healthy and competing. It's the only way the consumer will benefit.

Lastly, sales volume ($$) might give us a better picture rather than market share. I hope to see some figures in future articles.

Never did, all they have to do is have a decent marketshare. Granted I'm sure they'd love to be larger, bigger, faster, better and they were, at least faster/better for a while. But the point is, for a while Intel was essentially the only processor choice and the relatively small AMD came out and grabbed an enormous piece of the pay.
They've lost marketshare, money and people since, but they've still accomplished a mighty feat in that they've grown overall against technology beast.
Part of the issue here is people are coming out more educated about how the technology behind their hardware works and are beginning to realise "what they need" and "what they don't" so instead they go for the less expensive alternatives that still perform at the level they need.
In many cases, and for obvious reasons, that's AMD.
If you don't need the fastest few Intel processors, once you get further down there's real competition there.

So what if they have market share. If AMD is loosing money on chips, the more they sell the more money they loose. If AMD doesn't beat Intel in performance, it's going to have lower margins than Intel and thus less profits. It's not about beating, it's about getting $$

Must I mention, AMD posted a loss last quarter. Not something AMD needs when it's low on cash...

It doesn't matter if AMD survives or not. Other companies make processors too, and if Intel prices their processor's so high (in the absence of AMD), someone else will step in to benefit from the artificially high prices. It is a difficult market to enter, but if the price is right, it will happen, eventually.

Buying their product to help them survive does nobody a favor, except perhaps the mislead management that put them in a bad position. In any case, the market will work itself out, with or without sympathetic buyers.

Ummm, I'm aloud to issue a hope I think.

I wont buy their product because the line of processors that I have I overclock. That leave AMD not competitive.

The rested on their lorals and didn't move to 60 nm fast enough. As stated before they pulled an intel and wouldn't budge on over inflated processor prices until they found out most aren't AMD fanboys. Most want a great product.

The smart buyers overclock and do not wait for AMD or intel to released their overclocked stamp of approval versions with the same internals.

The 6400 why buy?

"...and the promise of future AM2 upgradeability"

"This along with the fact that it is so much easier to understand the specifications of AMD over that of intel in regards to motherboards..."

While this is great in terms of spreading the AMD propaganda and marketing (though you get points off for leaving out performance/watt and platformance talking points), the VAST majority of people who buy these cheap desktops will never OPEN their computer, yet alone worry about upgrading the chip or understanding MOBO specs... while great for enthusiasts this represents a tiny % of the market.

Logical folks should just buy the best computer for their needs (whether it be AMD or Intel). To buy a computer to support a company is ridiculous (IMHO), it's not like AMD is a new startup or a mom and pop family owned store competing against a chain...AMD has had plenty of opportunities, if they can not take advantage of them and flourish (or simply survive) they don't 'deserve' to be given more after >15 years in the CPU business.

Please listen, most of the greatest tech advances in CPU market were made by AMD, from first 1GHz CPU, first CPU optimised for Win XP, first nVidia chipsets were for AMD only, firt Dual-core CPU, first REAL Quad-core CPU.
Just imagine how it would be if only INTEL is there, I think we would be having to buy a Pentium 4 2 GHz in 2007 for a high price.(because if it wasn't for AMD competing with INTEL, INTEL would not have to develop faster CPUs). We just would have to stick to INTEL's backward-overpriced CPUs forever. INTEL has big market, AMD has big tech.
In a nutshell, thank you AMD. INTEL go and manufacture something other than CPUs!

market share available
Ntel strangles big-game makers so AMD gets frozen out. This appears on -AMD Now- site but links to news are not working - and no mention here on Tom's.
Wow, what's happening? - but look at market share in terms of available market share after the manipulation. I have seen FutureShp/Besbuy offering 5 laptops at hi price and 1 lil AMD for cheap that outperforms them all. Big tuf boys can't play fair means they are gangstaboys.
The truth will set you free.
AMD rules. Call me fanboy - cos you pretend you don't know.
I say again - ntel lobbyists post forums to intimidate and brainwash - I love AMD cos they do better and play fair.
And people are not stupid, you lobbyists.
AMD survives in the Arctic and the Tropics - bravo!
And so much for the land of the free - hurts you - or open your eyes and smell the thermals burning. Energy consumption in the age of green. Hah!
But corporate money funnels - no way.

THG News from the web
SEE THIS!!!!
Update: Europe taking steps to charge Intel with antitrust law violations
Business and Law
By Wolfgang Gruener
Friday, July 27, 2007 13:53

AMD needs to put out a new processor--FAST. Even if it's a stopgap "X2 6400"--just to get some cash in the door. Their lowest-priced consumer (non laptop, non FX) chip is all of $105 more than their cheapest one! How much smaller can AMD's spread get? Who in the US would even consider their low-end products, when "for $100 more" you get something that's 2-3x more powerful???

GM's "employee pricing" from a few years ago had the same net effect--market share soared & while everything else within GM suffered...

Well, AMD has elaboraed and shown us the way..
BUT in the real world, the price of the CPU does very little in the design of a system.
A $300 CPU is the right price point. Considering that MB's hit in the 1-200 range (good ones that is)..
4GB of ram would hit for 120-150
HD's 60$ gets you a 250GB with $120 gets you 500..
The video cards cost the real money, as well as the OS..
i must be old school, because to me, if a compputer doesnt cost $4000, then it is just a decent computer.
back in 1993, a 486 sx33, 4MB of ram, and 120MB hard drive hit for 1500.. With monitor..
Next one i got was a 486 dx2 66, 8MB ram, 256k cache, 420mb hard drive, 14.4 modem, NO CD ROM, That was $4000.. And trust me it was welllll worth it..

Now we have people arguing over #200 cpu's...
Well those are the cheap people, or people who cant afford it..
ME on the other hand, i make my money off of my computer. SO hence, the Quad core, (which is what i got, last week), a Nvidia 7950 gx2 (trading it in for 2x 8800 gtx), my hard drives, 6x 500GB in raid array.. (i love my Disk IO), and the rest..
Sure it hit me for some cash.. But then again, it is still way cheaper today to buy performance, then it was , merely 4 years ago..

So yah, keep complaining,
AMD, i agree with MArkz,, Amd sat around, milking us for $$$, instead of comming out with good product.
WELL, i am a firm believer in you get what you pay for.. $300 for a top of line AMD cPU.. Well that is ok and all.. But i rather spend the $500 for something that can smoke a AMD, ANDDDDD
That $500 cpu, sits on a MB, taht can be upgraded next quarter..
Sorry AMD,,, you fumbled.. now the other team has the ball...
See you in 12-18months, when the tide turns again.
Again, my loyalty goes, with total performance.. not Price, (i dont buy $1000 cpu's,), but i still buy their second or third fastest..
and with AMD, those were just insane in price...
Intel is predictable, while AMD, well, they flip flop too much

lol your spending 4000 dollars on a computer, when you could spend 2 k less to do the same thing? there is practically know job where you would need two 8800s

must be nice to have a bunch of money to throw around, for me my AMD dual core works great and the whole computer (20 inch WS Lcd included) cost me 800 bucks. with 2 gig ram and so on

i understand being proud of yourself for your accomplishments in life but that's just arrogant.



And your customer base is the only one Intel will survive on in the next 5-10 years
Although Nvidia will last as top for a Loooong time

Well done, AMD. It pays to not keep all one's eggs in one basket..as was the case with Intel. That corporation had to cut staff, lower costs and go straight back to the drawing board to beat AMD on performance, and that cost R&D even for a large corporation such as this. Well done.

I strongly disagre with you.
For most of peaople and companies pure CPU performance is not all. I prefer hw whitch give me more choices and more value for my bucks. AMD is still stronger in multi CPU/server segment where intels outdated FSB is problem, AMD is stronger where huge quntities of CPUs are running 24/7.
Barcelona will introduce better powersaving in Q4 and as it can shutdown and downclock all cores, it can save huge anounts of money in 24/7 where peek performance is needed.