Just read through the "Intel Developer Forum Spring 2005:
From Multi-Cores To Domination" article on toms and had to laugh when I got to the final thoughts section, which stated:-

<i> Eventually, the new features Intel has shown us could mean that Intel powered solutions will dominate, whether or not competitors have faster chips.</i>

Eventually ...... BAHAHAHAHA as opposed to what is happening now?


<font color=blue>Stupid bug.......you go squish now!</font color=blue>

Still didn't say they would have faster chips either...

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>Have you read the FAQ? Searched for other posts on this topic?</font color=red>

i wonder how these chips will impact the gamers in a few years. o.O

<font color=red>One Lowe</font color=red>

Ask Id and the other big game makers... They're the only ones that can really make it happen. First big step will be to get them in 64 bit...

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>Have you read the FAQ? Searched for other posts on this topic?</font color=red>

He he. Yes, last time I checked (a couple days ago), AMD had faster chips and better perf/power consumption and perf/cost, but Intel is still maintaining a mid-80 % market share on desktop chips alone (server market is even higher, despite the greatness of opteron and the supposed flop of Itanium).

Hmm, but if Intel dominates more in the future, will it lead to very cheap AMD chips again (their previous business model)? And is AMD pursuing other parts of the computer hardware space like Intel is? It's hard to survive on cpu and flash alone...especially when your largest competitor can undercut either market with relatively minimal impact to their own earnings.

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D

Not that I doubt your verasity, but where did you get that from? It's been a while since I've seen any info, but I dont remember Amd's market share of desktops ever being below 17%. I do remember that a few months back, Amd's N American share of direct sales (end user purchased chips) crossed the 50% mark, for the first time. I believe it has stayed there.

>especially when your largest competitor can undercut either
>market with relatively minimal impact to their own earnings.

hu ? what makes you think intel can undercut AMD with 'minimal impact to their earnings' ? Simply not true. Opteron forced intel to seriously discount their Xeon offerings, and this had a very noticable impact on their earnings. Of course, they are still making money, and also, it did the job of keeping Opteron growth well under control. But intel can't just do free price cuts either !


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Because Intel sells more than CPU's and Flash.

-Jeremy Dach

You're saying two very different things but trying to present them as somewhat equivalent. N American share of direct sales is a very small percentage of the total market. This negates all OEM's (like say Dell) and all channel markets in foreign countries (N. America is currently the region with the slowest pc growth).

Taking a look at the 4th quarter reports, AMD had ~16% market share on desktop chips, only ~6% market share in the server space, and ~9% overall (Intel having ~88% overall).

The 50% indicator is somewhat misleading. It's a number really pointed at technogeeks (i.e. the readers of this forum). And I'm still surprised with AMD's obvious game superiority that N.America end users (most of which recognize the game superiority) are still split about 50-50 on Intel vs AMD. Why is this?

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D

It was 82.2 Intel 17.8 AMD at the end of Q4 2004. I think what folks need to realize is that Intel is literally untouchable; NEC and Samsung are the real threats to Intel not AMD.

But this is a processor forum of course it will be centralized AMD vs. Intel crap.

-Jeremy Dach

We were using dual core systems back in 1999 or perhaps just as the boards became available a little more early then that to play a game called Battlezone.

We had players from England France and Australia from the U.S and Canada all using dual cores back then.

The game was DOS based and played over the Activision network the same servers Mech Warrior was played on.

We swore by the DUAL cpu's back then for system performance. However now with XP it is a whole new ball game and games are now OpenGL by default not D3D and multy tasking is handled more by the new XP platform then by CPU speeds anymore.

<font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=orange>LOVES</font color=orange> <font color=red>CANADA</font color=red>

What I should have said was that the increase in direct sales aught to be worth a couple of % so Amd's market share on desktops should be in the high teens at least.
Since I haven't been able to find any recent figures on sales, I was hoping you could point me to a source.

The discussion is on Dual Cores, not dual processors.

You weren't running battlezone on Dual Core chips in 1999. they didn't exist, AFAIK (not desktop x86 ones anyway)

---
A64 3200+ Winchester @ 250x10= ~2.5Ghz, ~1.41 Vcore
1Gb @ 209Mhz, 2T, 3-5-5-10
Voltmodded Sapphire 9800Pro @ 450/350 w/ modded VGA silencer 3.