San Diego (CA) – AMD has been on a rough ride lately, repeatedly testing investors' confidence in the company. But if we believe a new report of Current Analysis, the company has just wrapped up a rather sensational July that may leave some wondering what happened to Intel last month.

According to the market research firm, AMD-based desktop and notebook PCs achieved a unit share of 51.0% in July in U.S retail: Compared to June 2007, the company was able to steal 13.4 points from Intel; AMD's share was also up 4.3 points year over year from 46.7% in July of 2006.

This jump in market share comes somewhat unexpected, but was explained by Current Analysis West through the firm's aggressive processor pricing. "As evidenced by several of the back-to-school product refreshes this year, AMD has aligned with its OEM partners such as HP and Gateway to bring assertively priced design wins to market.  As a result, AMD systems now offer a much lower average selling price than its rival Intel," stated Toni Duboise, senior analyst for the market research firm.  

However, AMD retail PCs apparently are not much cheaper than their Intel-based counterparts: Current Analysis West said that AMD PCs barely missed to account for half of the retail PC revenue in July: The market research firm estimates that AMD PCs captured 48.4% of the retail PC revenue share, while Intel PCs accounted for 51.6% of total retail PC revenues in July.

These numbers do not allow a conclusion of whether AMD's processor sales are recovering or whether the company's profitability is increasing. However, there is a clear sign that, at least in July, AMD had a strong presence in U.S. retail and sales of AMD-based PCs into U.S. retail were up sharply during this month.

Historically, AMD has always been stronger in the desktop segment in U.S. retail and July 2007 was no exception. Current Analysis West estimates that 66.6% of all desktop PCs sold during the month carried an AMD processor (Intel: 33.4%). AMD desktop PC revenue share was only 62.0%, due to the lower average selling price (ASP) of AMD PCs: The average AMD PC sold for $536 in July, while Intel PCs went for an average of $657.  

Current Analysis West said that the best-selling AMD desktop PC in July was HP's Pavilion a6110n with an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ processor, a 320 GB hard drive and 2 GB of main memory for $545; Intel's best-seller was the Pavilion a6120n with a Core 2 Duo E4400 CPU, a 320 hard drive and 2 GB system memory for $610.

Surprisingly, AMD-based notebooks also showed an unusually strong presence during the month of July. 44.8% of all U.S. retail notebooks integrated an AMD processor – a record high for the company. Unit share was up 11.8 points from 33.0% in June and up 20.5 points from 24.3% in January of this year. Intel Centrino notebooks, on the other hand, were estimated at a retail unit share of 55.2% in July - down from 67.0% in June and more than 75% in January.

Equally interesting is the fact that AMD-based notebooks are not much cheaper than Intel-based systems. According to Current Analysis West , AMD notebooks sold for an average of $748, while Intel systems were priced at $764.

OEMS love AMD

Aug 28, 2007 04:28     

Even tho the DT's being sold, even the laptops, arent too much cheaper than the Intel variety, the OEMs are making more money on them. Good tactics,, proves you dont have to have the fastest, bestest, to survive and possibly do well in this market. More to the point, just be competitive
John report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Wow

Aug 28, 2007 04:44     

Well there's a nice little surprise, seems that average consumers care about bucks more than performance and AMD certainly delivers on the budget front.
whybother report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Less is more...?

Aug 28, 2007 06:42     

Intel 10 Billion in the bank AMD selling bonds Intel performance crown AMD mass selling lesser product Blue is rolling. Green is feeling it- "aggressive processor pricing"
Barney (I love u, u love me.) report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Paid Report

Aug 28, 2007 06:46     

They did not lose market share so fast.......So no chance they will gain it at that rate......with an ageing product line. This is a paid report. [Interesting conclusion. -ed]
Ashutosh report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Market share does not equal profit.

Aug 28, 2007 07:04     

A gain in market share does not necessarily equal sizable profits however. This gain is largely due in part to pricing and Dell beginning to sell through Wal-mart no doubt.
JohnDoe report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Guess that makes sense

Aug 28, 2007 07:11     

Guess it makes sense. A 1.5 ghz machine can do 90% of what computers are used for (web, streaming video, office tools), so what's the drive to get the newest most expensive processor. It's not like the old days when you could actually tell a difference. The boosts in speeds are maybe 5% when maxed out between one chip and its next step up, and hardly no one, except a handful of professionals, will ever notice that. Why not go for the cheapest one? It's not like the handful of games on the pc are using the processors a whole lot..

Colley report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Ummm...

Aug 28, 2007 07:14     

Just hope they are actually making some money of those sells. Freaking Barcelona needs to get out so I can stop recommending Core 2 Duos on 1000$ PCs. At least AMD gets you the best performance/$ on the value segment.
AMD Fan report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

A little savings is still a savings

Aug 28, 2007 07:28     

A little savings is still more than none. One gets more for less - IMO - with AMD.
TomLeeM/BigWarpGuy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I'm very glad to hear this

Aug 28, 2007 08:16     

Perhaps it's due to the back-to-school promotions but I'm very happy to hear some good news regarding AMD and I hope as the article seems to indicate that AMD products have reached the price level where they are able to compete with Intel products. And I sincerely hope that the upcoming AMD products are able to compete with Intel simply because I don't want Intel to be the only major CPU company.
Anosh report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

They're coming back!!!!

Aug 28, 2007 08:22     

No, not really. They're just selling their current processors for dirt cheap. You think Intel could bring a case against them for setting their ASP's at or below cost?
System48 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

We heard this crap before.

Aug 28, 2007 08:25     

Not even a month after second quarter earnings came out and AMD itself reported losing market share, this clown came out with an article saying they actually gained. Do these articles just get posted to keep the AMD fanboys stirring? [This clown? You did read that we are talking about U.S. PC retail share here, while companies such as AMD actually sell in markets outside the U.S. and other segments than retail as well. -ed]

BS_Monitor report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Cheaper Wholesale...

Aug 28, 2007 08:25     

If retailers can get AMD machines for wholesale prices that are below the cost of Intel machines and still sell them for about the same cost to consumers, they are going to push the AMD machines because that will mean more profits for them. I think this would explain the increase in AMD sales. The article correctly posits the real question for AMD: Are they actually making a profit on these processors?

NVDA report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Its all about the ads.

Aug 28, 2007 08:48     

Every Best Buy and CC ad has like 10 AMD computers and 1 Intel computer. Since there are so many people who know nothing about what they are buying it is ads like these that get the big sales. It is only logical AMD would do good with that advertising. Price is probably the reason they got in the ads in the first place, but I think if the general public was smarter about computers they would realize you can get a better PC for 50-100 bucks more. I feel bad for all of the vista users with 1 gb ram and a crappy old AMD. Vista sucks that junk up.

blcskate report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

ZzzzzzZzzzzz....

Aug 28, 2007 08:51     

Are they making any money?
Hiruu report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Surprised you didn't mention ...

Aug 28, 2007 09:40     

I am rather surprised this one-sided article did not make mention of the rather obvious losses in their already shrinking margins. I imagine this added market presence is hurting their already slim cashflows. They are really putting out their last lifeline out with this type of strategy. [This article was reporting on actual retail market share results. We can only speculate about AMD's margins. The next quarter report will shed more light on this. -ed]

bunnyblaster report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Just wait until...

Aug 28, 2007 09:49     

...we see integrated CPU/GPU on-die solutions from AMD, something Intel could only dream of. Once consumers are able to get gaming performance on par from discrete graphics from a CPU, AMD will have much more market share. From a builder/modder standpoint, it will be nice for me not to have to install an expensive, power-sucking, heat-producing video card anymore.
silverfrog report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

markets fluctuate amd still has no product

Aug 28, 2007 10:00     

Yes you want cheap affordable amd is the way to go but remember school is about to go back and students need affordable laptops. Gaming though is another thing amd still has no cpu's that can beat intel for high end apps and gaming. Matter of fact the amd cpu has problems with new and old games, while intel has none of these problems. Take everquest for example there is a bug called west bug only happens on amd cpu's ,i have had customers trade in there board and cpu's because of this. Also problems with bioshock and other dx10 games seems amd was not ready for this, gaming market is where real money is.

Ron report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I did notice an increase in AMD based laptops at th...

Aug 28, 2007 10:19     

I did notice an increase in AMD based laptops at the local Frys..didn't think much of it until I read this article.
Mike report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

RE: Just wait until...

Aug 28, 2007 11:04     

Get off the cool-aid. Do some research, the same R&D team that designed the C2D were working on a All-In-One design in the late 90's. AMD's design is not original and from some early reports their "Fusion" won't be fusion but rather the same gluing process that Intel is using now for their Quad's.
System48 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I seen this coming!

Aug 28, 2007 11:53     

Intel with all the ongoing and pending anti-trust lawsuits must have left retailer incentives flat. Looks like they dont want any evidence of their questionable practices left for Judges in these cases to see first hand in retail outlets (with Chipzilla's hands in the cookie jar)! Too funny...I might be wrong but speculation at this time is more than in order.
Mitch report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

"Take everquest for example there is a bug called w...

Aug 28, 2007 12:32     

"Take everquest for example there is a bug called west bug only happens on amd cpu's ,i have had customers trade in there board and cpu's because of this." Not true, i know several people who play everquest on intel computers that get the "west bug". Its a bug specific to the game, not the hardware. It does seem to be a lot more common on amd systems. However, a LOT more people play eq with amd systems then intel. Duno how you can say amd is buggier with games, its simply not true.

none report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

re: System48

Aug 28, 2007 13:05     

I never said that AMDs plan to implement CPU/GPU together was an original idea. I just know that AMD will have a working CPU/GPU product well before Intel does, and on store shelves. The same thing happened with on-die memory controllers back with the A64 design. AMD was not the inventor of the idea, but was the first to get it to the masses. And, that my friends, is what matters.
silverfrog report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

laff

Aug 28, 2007 14:35     

My Amd cpu seems to work well with games i play. I really don't understand why all these people dog AMD. AMD makes really good cpu's. Just because they are not the fastest right now. Doesn't mean they won't catch up with Intel. I wonder what will be said if AMD's new cpu's beat Intel's.
pile report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

To blcskate> Crappy AMD?

Aug 28, 2007 19:37     

My AMD 4400 S.939 runs vista 64 just fine as does my AMD 5200 at Work. Actually seems to run better than my C2D T7200 Notebook. So I am not sure what you are calling crappy.
bobiroc report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

CHEAP CPUS

Aug 28, 2007 20:38     

AMD can't compete with the performance value of intel so they try and give their processors away. if intel tried to do that it would completely annihilate amd. amd would get no sells. (aimed at intel marketers)
RaptorXT report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

....

Aug 29, 2007 00:51     

I don't see why people are jumping over the Intel processors AMD is priced nice and low you can make a gaming computer a home computer for considerable less. Not only that but if you have invested in the new AMD sockets instead of switching to Intel you should be able to go directly to an 8 cored computer by the end of the year. You wont even have to switch out heatsinks AMD quads come with the same thermal envelopes as the duel cores. Not to poke at this but they also have HT a IMC and its all on one die if you got an Intel processor like I did you owned yourself I’m now dropping cash now to get updates now……

Rob report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

"Cheap CPUS"

Aug 29, 2007 06:47     

Yeah, RaptorXT, that's true. But Intel is too greedy for that. And they don't want to lay off any more workers either, which is what would happen. Especially since it probably still costs more to make a core 2 than for AMD to make an Athlon, being that they have been using the same equipment to make the same CPU for 4 years, while Intel just retooled to make the Core 2, relatively recently.
Redraider report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

RE: silverfrog

Aug 29, 2007 08:47     

Even if AMD gets it to market first, it'll be only a small percentage of the little market share they have. Meanwhile it'll be costing them money to put it out there. I wish they would just focus on their core markets, CPU's, chipsets and discrete graphics. Instead they keep on branching out and over extending themselves, just look at their non-existant profits. Even if you take out what they paid for the ATI merger the last two quarters they're still in the red.

System48 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Duopoly is alive !

Aug 29, 2007 09:07     

It's great to hear that AMD has gone very well through all the roadblocks that are thrown at it by the other unfair competitor. Monopoly encourages ill-gotten profit, promotes poor products in the market, and gives consumers and industrial users limited choice. AMD's survival is good for all users of computers and servers. It gives us values for the products.
mrinvestor39 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

re: system48

Aug 29, 2007 11:59     

All I'll say is that it takes money to make money. They are taking risks with their architectural strategies, with regard to CPU core design and chipset implementation. I think the risk will pay off...bigtime. Right now, they are playing second fiddle to the behemoth of the processor world--Intel. This is mostly due to Intel's smaller die-size fabrication tech and lower thermal outputs which also happen to consume less power and are more efficient. This same power struggle happened back when the Pentium 3 was king, and AMD had a noteworthy processor, the K6-III, but it really didn't get interesting until Athlon was unveiled. In the end, I can see AMD coming back out of the red, investors will start to get happy again, and all will be well.

silverfrog report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

It's a cycle...

Aug 29, 2007 13:32     

This is competition at it's finest. Through the socket 7, A, 754 and 939 generations AMD has been in the lead, with Intel never far behind. Now Intel is in the lead, maybe for the next socket generation or two, with AMD not far behind. The difference being that AMD is the smaller of the two companies, has fewer reserves and more to lose. However, Intel doesn't WANT AMD to go under because then Intel would be a monopoly. And that is bad news both for the customer but also for Intel because they would then be under a lot of scrutiny, maybe even regulation. Trust me, Intel is happy to have a small competitor, even to lose a little market share to them now and then. And if AMD makes a comeback and gains the majority of market share, they wouldn't want Intel to go away either...for the same reasons.

Mad Dog Fargo report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Interesting, I hope the competition can last.

Aug 29, 2007 14:45     

I like how the blame comes on AMD for performance, the fact remains that my S. 939 did a better job at Vista AND gaming than my AMD x2, and the reason was the same lvl 2 Cache (1MB vs 2x512KB). If you wanted to see real intelligence, Intel would be releasing 6MB Single Core procs, instead of 512k Celeron Conroe-L. With only one core they would clock better, clock cheaper, and destroy the Dual Core C2D gaming benchmarks (Obviously not on fake multi-thread benchies, but that is not real-world), Intel is still out to make money on Dual-Core, lets hope that AMD fights that too and releases Duron/Sempron next gen single-core with enough lvl 2 cache to prove that high performance single-core is where gaming is, and where it will be for some time. Note that for parallel processing apps like multi-tasking and Video encoding and decoding dual or quad is definitely where it is at, but the majority of enthusiasts are GAMERS, and the Dual-Core is BS for them, high FPS sells CPU's to them, and a single core with a higher clock, and still a lower TDP, is the fastest clocking chip. Less heat and less power requirements equals higher clocks on lower-end systems. PS, Intel has more problems with Dual-Core Video-card drivers than AMD, is it possibly a bottleneck to the video card causing this? IE high latency? Or is it the complexity of writing multi-threaded drivers?

Miles report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

but is AMD making any money??

Aug 30, 2007 01:27     

OEMs love it when you sell them decent performing components at below manufacturing cost prices...they make good money that way. Unfortunately AMD doesnt make any. Isn't it called predatory pricing or dumping when you sell things for less money than it took to produce??? Every chip AMD sells is below cost as supported by the latest 600 million dollar quarterly loss.
Noprofit report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

AMD screwed because of debt and royalities.

Aug 30, 2007 15:30     

They already owned alot of money because of acquisition of ATI and debt due to building new fabs. For every processor they made, they have to pay Intel doing so. It used to be that their higher margin per processor keeps them afloat. But the recent reduction of prices screwed them over. That's why AMD is not making money.
pug_ster report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Intel Fanboys

Sep 01, 2007 13:48     

Seriously... If you love Intel, why hate on AMD? Intel is making technological strides and pushing their prices lower because of AMD and this should please the Intel lovers giving them better products for lower prices. AMD is similar, so why all the AMD hating? Everyone should love the competition and love both competitors because both of them being around means better products for less money.
Tom report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

"Also problems with bioshock and other dx10 games s...

Sep 02, 2007 04:08     

"Also problems with bioshock and other dx10 games seems amd was not ready for this, gaming market is where real money is. " My opteron 165 runs everything I Throw at it just fine including bioshock.
Damien report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Amd-Intel

Sep 02, 2007 13:09     

My oppinion is that current cpu's can all cope with mainstream applications. All computers out there are currently capable of an endless list of applications. I know many many people with pentium 3 or early pentium 4 and athlon xp and so on and so on... They too can still use many many many mainstream applications. "This is not a marketing trick to try to talk people out of buying a new computer". Its the cold hard reality. If AMD processors sell good, it's because the newest amd processors are still big bang for buck.. like the slower intels... Slower intel??? Man, you guys are so brainwashed by this commercial industry you can't think straight.

Chris report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

n00bs

Sep 03, 2007 10:47     

Apparently the vast majority of you started using computers this year. The Athlon 64 X2 was vastly superior to anything Intel had until a year ago. Everyone speaks as if the X2 came out after the Core2 as AMDs pathetic answer to something Intel came out with first(anyone remember when the Pentium D came out?). The fact of the matter is that it took Intel years to catch AMD, now AMD will have to try just as hard to catch Intel. If they draw even with Intel in 1 years time, it will be quite an accomplishment.

J-Ascii report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Are you kidding me?

Sep 04, 2007 16:21     

Wow, AMD outperformed Intel for a couple of years with the Athlon! They dont now and will not in the distant future. They cannot keep up with the technological advances Intel has in place. They cannot even release a quad core yet. Notice the release date is 9/10! Barcelona will be forgoten by 9/11. Dont get me started about the native quad VS the Intel solution. Even Hector (16 million in compensation for 2006) Ruiz admitted that AMD should have glued 2 dual core together to compete. Do you actually think AMD's prices would be competitive if they had the performance crown. Wake up fanboys!!

tex report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Good news !

Sep 07, 2007 14:54     

G G AMD ! I`m helping your sales here in Romania. Sorry i bought intel core2duo 4200. I regret it everyday, it works like shit. My MB is gigabyte 965p-s3, 1 gb corsair drr2 667 mhz, 7600GS 256 MB Video Board, 250 WD KS HDD, etc. It gave me many problems. I cannot change mb because it`s still working. But it runs like shit. Many bsod uri, now and then, when at least expected. All my friends got AMD and they have no problems.

Dax report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

THE DEVIL STRIKES BACK!!!

Sep 10, 2007 03:15     

Quote "Current Analysis West estimates that 66.6% of all desktop PCs sold during the month carried an AMD processor..." It seems to me that AMD has made a deal with the almighty Satan himself!! 66,6% market share?? C'mon, it couldn't be more obvious that that!! Repent sinners!!! Buy AMD and through that Intel junk away!! HELL WILL BRAKE LOOSE SOON!!!! BUY AMD OR DIE!!!!
Velzevul report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

die amd die!

Sep 10, 2007 17:02     

intel should put the last nail on the coffin on amd... copy amd on aggressive pricing and wait for a year until amd's debts really pile up. after that, vistually no competition. and intel can then recoup its 'sacrifice' by charging the 'actual' price for its cpus.
xboy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

This is all junk

Sep 11, 2007 04:23     

Many of the comments are a bunch of junk, just like the average person going out to buy a new computer, they are not very educated in what they need, and they have a 18 year old guy at Best Buy telling them what they need. Will AMD die? No not really, even if they go belly up, someone will buy them and keep going. Right now we are a group of people that want to see results now, the stocks of a company van vary if a company leader goes to the hospital for a checkup and then his competitor "leaks" that he is having serious health problems. Companies that are as large as this are in it for the market that is going to come out 5 to 10 years from now, the only thing that makes this hard is to foresee what we the fickle consumers will want. Are we going to be "green" conscious this year or are we going to want all out performance. Just so that you all do not call me an AMD fanboy I will admit that I have 3 Intel computers and 2 AMD computers. I built my last system with an AMD FX60 as I was running code that would take 7 hours to finish, and contrary to some that state that dual cores are not good for single application running, I would run the total cpu usage to about 65-75% on a single program and it would usually split 50/50 between the cores. Will AMD be in the black next year, I do not know, but heck if Rockford Fosgate gan be in the red for about 3 years, I think that AMD can weather this storm. Will they regain the performance crown again, I am sure that they will, and they will loose it again many times over the years. With AMD taking the step of actually developing a native quad core in place of fusing 2 dual cores together I think that they have overcome hurdles much greater than Intel did, and it will bear fruits on the next iteration. Time will tell.

Aeroengineer report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0