6 ms·
There's really no conspiracy. Hardware builders just have other requirements. If AMD"s laptop chips were really better so far (this is actually very debatable),
by DCKing 7y ago
There's really no conspiracy. Hardware builders just have other requirements. If AMD"s laptop chips were really better so far (this is actually very debatable), they were by a slim margin for some use cases. Not enough to offset existing business agreements with Intel, the more mature Intel laptop platform (it's more than a CPU, but also motherboards and wireless chipsets) and Intel's more mature - and already existing - supply chain and general mature manufacturer support.
AMD is now very popular amongst home PC builders because they make better chips for the money and there's not many other requirements to consider. But AMD still has a lot of inroads to make because with premade hardware builders - whether it's laptops, office PCs or even servers. For example, although AMD is making way in the server space, it's not going as fast as one might expect for them having the clearly superior server chip (for most use cases) for quite some time now.
For hardware builders it's simply a time and money investment to start using AMD hardware. And although AMD is convincing them to do it - having what appears to be clearly superior chips in the laptop space is definitely a big plus there - it's something that takes time.
- syshum 7y ago>> Not enough to offset existing business agreements with Intel Translation, Anti-Trust violating agreements that Intel has been guilty of in the past
- DCKing 7y agoThere are also legal business agreements like "buy 100,000 CPUs from me and you'll pay 10% less", which are really commonplace, don't violate antitrust at all, and AMD will also be negotiating these with major OEMs all the same.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoThe issue with those is when you look at the business the customer does to begin with. If they sell 103,000 laptops and you say "buy 100,000 CPUs from me and you'll pay 10% less" and a competitor sells 255,000 laptops and you say "buy 250,000 CPUs from me and you'll pay 15% less" and so on, always offering the deal where you choose between a discount for making >95% of your sales volume Intel or paying retail prices for CPUs, the fact that you're specifying that proportion of their sales as an absolute number rather than a percentage doesn't seem like it ought to change very much.
- hoseja 7y ago>for the money No, they now simply make better chips, period. In addition they are also cheaper.
- fortran77 7y agoUsers don't want to switch, either. I won't take a chance on an AMD machine to save a couple of dollars. Maybe I'm being rational, maybe I'm not, but I'm sure I'm not the only consumer who feels this way. I want to buy the "happy path" when I'm getting a product.
- basilgohar 7y agoWhat's the chance your taking? Intel has dropped the ball in many ways, both long and short term, from their handling of Spectre/Meltdown, to pricing, to technology rollouts, and more. AMD has been a reliable player in the CPU hardware space for decades. So, please explain what risks you are taking on by choosing a device that satisfies your needs but has an AMD CPU inside instead of something else.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoI think most consumers are not very knowledgeable of chip manufacturers. A business guy buys Dell/lenovo, couldn't care less what chip is inside. At most they might check if it has a graphics card, or number of cores
- disintegore 7y agoIT professionals usually buy the hardware, and they're typically somewhat familiar with the market. As far as CPUs go, their options are "does this person need an i5 or an i7". When buying server hardware they'll gloss over the selection of Xeon systems their budget can accommodate. You rarely get consequences for buying Intel/Cisco/etc, no matter how overpriced and otherwise maladapted their products may be.
- strbean 7y agoSo Intel ~= IBM? Things make so much sense after realizing this.
- 7y ago