AMD Hits Milestone in Server Market 215
DontClickHere writes "According to data from Mercury Research, AMD has finally cracked the 10% mark in x86 instruction set server CPUs. AMD's Chairman had hoped that their server sales would hit 10% at the end of 2004, but they had only reached 5.7%. Some of this gain can be attributed to AMD's introduction of dual core chips in April this year. With Intel only due to ship dual core chips for low end servers later this year, AMD has been handed a golden opportunity to take a larger share in the server market."
Amd more innovative (Score:4, Insightful)
Breaking the monopoly ... or not (Score:3, Insightful)
motherboards (Score:3, Insightful)
The main reason for buying Xeons was the range of motherboards available. This is finally beginning to change and there is a lot more AMD stuff, from 1 way to 8 way. And with things like SCSI and SATA RAID cards turning up in PCI express things are looking even better as workstation and server chipsets become interchangeable.
Re:Laptops? (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD is gaining ground on Desktop and Server CPUs because their products are much better AND cheaper.
Intel doesn't need to be the best, they just need to be good enough to keep AMD out.
Re:Laptops? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is that Apple will replace the G4s with the lower power Pentium Ms and the G5s with Pentium 4s.
The bright side for AMD is that once the switch to x86 has been made, Apple could potentially consider AMD chips in the future with much less risk than the current switch to Intel. In fact it would probably be best for AMD to let Apple and Intel go through this transition period together before courting Apple.
My hyundai has been the best investment ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Tiberon has been the best car i've ever had. Out of Jeep Wranglers, Jeep grand cherokees, mazda 626's, suburus and others.
THe problem is you look at brand as stature and you use that to ignore the good qualities about everything else out there. You have probably never owned a Hyundai so you assume they're cheaply made. (granted they have had some bummers but so has intel..)
You have probably never owned an AMD for the same reason, you believe the hype. You also probably still pay full price for Nike shoes, still wear Girbaud jeans and are afraid to shop at target.
Can't find value in something that doesn't sound cool?
pretty retarded if you ask me
idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
1. faster
2. 64-bit
3. use less power & generate less heat
Intel is now catching up and immitating. Intel kept blathering about how 64-bit is useless on the desktop, then did an aboutface and grudgingly implemented AMD64 instruction set. Intel is also switching back to an updated pentium 3 core (which has now been rebranded as pentium M) proving once again that AMD was right all along: increasing the "megahurtz" while lowering IPC count was a boneheaded idea. And with the new CPU model numbers they are trying to downplay the importance of clock speed -- after years of brainwashing the consumers that this "megahurtz" thing is all that matters.
In short, you are either an Intel shill or you've been living under a rock for the past 5 years.
Re:a thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
It would seem you're operating with outdated information. For the record, current maximum current draw for all Opteron, Athlon64, and Athlon64 X2 chips is 95W. Note that that is the maximum for all chips at all speeds, current and planned, for the Socket 939/940 designs. Independent testing has shown that even the top-end dual-core Opterons consume roughly 89W.
Contrast this to Intel's flagship Pentium 4 EE or the fastest Prescott-based Pentium 4. Independent testing shows a power consumption of at least 119W, in some cases as much as 130W under maximum load. AnandTech and Tom's Hardware have confirmed this.
So, to revise your erroneous statements, AMD chips are like a turbocharged Acura NSX, zippy and frugal with the "gas," but as affordable and reliable as your average Honda. Intel chips are like fuel-guzzling V8's but without the horsepower and torque you'd expect from such gluttony behavior. And they cost more. That's why the P4 has been, for all intents and purposes, completely killed off in favor of Pentium-M derivations, all of which are essentially based on the old Pentium Pro design from the early 90's.
Re:Dell is the decider (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how much of this is just dell hype but when i spoke to my dell account rep last about the possibility of a AMD x86_64 chip he stated two reasons why it wouldn't happen
Bimodal Gaussian Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it just me, or do you get the impression that, on the bell curve of computer knowledge, AMD is slurping up customers from both the low end (where only price matters) and from the high end (where price/performance ratio matters).
Meanwhile, the huge middle part of the market segment continues to buy Intel from Dell, where comfortable historical precedent matters.
Re:Dell is the decider (Score:3, Insightful)
The obvious answer is "Sure, but who would that be?" AMD was a couple years late with K8 as well.
Schedule slips are the name of the game. Granted, Intel's slip with Merced (both on the time scale and on the promised performance) was pretty severe. But since Dell makes most of their bank on the IA32 line with all the Intel marketing dollars, they could easily be persuaded to just let the Itanium fiasco slide.
Though I'd bet you a pint that Dell is the reason why Intel officially launched their iAMD64 parts. "You want us to remain exclusive? Give us a way to counter Opteron, now." is roughly how I think it went. Good thing Intel had Yamhill in their back pocket for a couple years.
Re:So 90% of buyer are idiots? (Score:3, Insightful)
Boss: "why is the server so slow?"
IT Flunky: "The servers are five years old"
Boss: "So call up Dell, our corporate computer vendor, and order some new ones. This is driving me crazy."
IT Flunky: "OK"
Probably no more complicated an explaination than that, for the most part.