why Intel looses market share against AMD?
436475
This is an interesting question. The microprocessor market is actually composed of two different purchasing processes. and Intel has focused on one and "forgotten" the other.\n\nThe first is the "Integrator" market, composed of PC Brnad  manufacturers (lead by Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc.) \n\nTo reach this segment Intel has negociated exclusivity deals, with the idea that if they secure their leadership by locking up the brands, the consumers will eventually purchase Intel systems indifferent to what ever the competition offers. They first used this strategy to drive cyrix (developer of the 586 and 686 chips) out of business in the late 1990s. \n\nThe second segment is the consumer, Intel has focused on branding rather than performance by using names such as Pentium, and Centrino, In short by focusing on large deals with the manufacturer and a good brandname, they have left behind superior technological design.\n\nStrangely, Intel has not lost as much market share as it seems, Their technology placement agreements for 2007 and 2008 still leave them as number 1 with manufacturers. For every AMD system offered on the open marhet there will be 1.7 Intel systems offered. \n\nSince consumers purchase after the manufacturers´ agreements, it takes a time delay before manufacturers can actually see a shift in purchase preferences.\n\nThat is why the gap in market share is more visible in  Servers and specialty built systems and less visible in mainstream equipment such as laptops.\n\nThe sad thing is that it looks like intel will continue to follow this strategy, leaving the consumer in second place for as long as they can ride the "preference gap" by sweetening the deals to Manufacturers (see the case of Apple dual cores)
99434
The one by Intel seemed nice. I presume its discontinued, so it should be a bargin these days.
912027
I like intel better... why? Im used to it and i know it works  really well.
993933
integrated graphics is always integrated graphics,  it can't compared with mid-range graphics card. and Nvidia and ATI will also punished their new generation integrated graphics, i think they would be better than Intel.
317648
I'm simply appalled at the number of people recommending Intel.  I'll just assume that they have been living under the perverbeal rock.  It's not here-say, there's hard proof that AMD just crushed Intel.  AMD occupies the top of every single benchmark comparing their processors to Intel.  Intel processors are slow, inefficient and run hotter than AMD counterparts.  Performance wise you CANNOT BEAT an AMD processor.  The fastest for gaming are the Athlon 64 FX series.  The dual core Athlon FX-60 is currently the fastest consumer processor but you'll pay upwards of $900 just for that processor.  If you need proof Tomshardware has the incontrovertible evidence that Intel just sucks, period, http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html I'd never buy an Intel processor, EVER.
1070268
Like what df747 says, the Windows Vista is coming out, XP will be second grade soon, not only that, but Intel are planning to come out with Intel Centrino Quadruple also. So the main reason for the newer low prices are because of major changes to the most popular operating system and processor. Demand will be switched for these new systems.
1056230
none-nada......AMD's stock does not yield a dividend.....if you mean to say "the return on investment".......about $383.00....in Dec. '96, AMD was around $12.75 a share.....do the math\nhttp://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=amd&sid=0&o_symb=amd&freq=2&time=13
672533
Basically Intel and AMD are rival processors. They both are same in capability. AMD is new in market, so no one is aware about its capacity. But Intel is quite old one which has gained much publicity and trust in people. I heard AMD is more  powerful than Intel processors. \n\nIf you want to use computers for high end job like graphics design, 3d, animations then i recommend Intel Pentium. If it is for normal use like Office, emails n nets then Celeron would do for you.
358245
Intel is first then Followed by AMD.
107240
AMD, Intel, Mac, and Other.
587115
AMD and Intel are two different architectures.  You will see a significant performance boost in basically all aspects of your PC usage.  However - every system is different and there is no exact percentage that can be given.  It's all system specific.  Even benchmarks will not accurately tell you.
56477
Turion is actually from AMD. Turion is a better choice because it's 64 bit technology. The market agrees with me because now AMD is growing in revenue and INTEL is decreasing.
1006668
it's amd ,... bacause of it's low price and high preformance.
1083126
top notch equipment there...\n\none thing, now is a really bad time to be building systems. intel's conroes are coming out next month and they beat amd's processors by a rather large margin. also, amd released socket am2, however, it yields very little performance boost which will hopefully be changed in their next modifications.\n\nbut if u must have a new system now...i don't see what's wrong with that layout.
1122939
You hit it right on the nose.....\n\ni have been building / repairs PCs for 12 years. In that time I have preferred AMD over INTEL unless a customer came to me with a specific need. I personally (4 PCs in house) use AMD for gaming, work and general apps. AMD is cheaper because you are not paying for the name. They have proven many times (I am not just being bias) that the chips outperform the Intel counterparts. They run cooler, and do not need as much power (except the new mobile core duo, they are nice). In my own personal opinion, take it how you want it, AMD's perform much better in a "Desktop" PC while Intel has a good lock on the laptop market.
410382
The past 16 months or so have seen an unprecedented number of genuine breakthroughs in the field of processor design, especially from AMD. Not only did that company introduce a truly compatible 64-bit processor design which has since dominated the high-end desktop PC market, but it also pioneered the on-die memory controller which has given the Athlon 64 and Opteron chips a leg-up in performance over Intel's offerings. Intel has since adopted 64-bit compatibility also, and now both companies are releasing processors with another brand new feature, dual-cores.\n\nDual-core processors work pretty much as you'd expect them to. At their most basic, both Intel and AMD have taken two mostly (or in the case of Intel, fully) functional processor cores and joined them together in a single processor die. Each core functions and processes data independently, and the two are co-coordinated by the operating system software. \n\nIn this article, PCSTATS is going to focus on both company's versions of this technology, how it works, and the kind of performance boost you can expect from it. Currently only certain of AMD's Opteron server-class processors are available with dual cores, but very shortly AMD will release the Athlon 64 X2 line of dual-core desktop processors. Intel has taken the opposite approach, already releasing the 'Pentium Extreme Edition 840' desktop dual-core chip, while its 'Pentium D' and dual-Xeons lines are not far behind.   \n\n\nSince dual-core processors are essentially a multi-processor system in a convenient package, let's start by looking at some of the multi-processor technologies which have contributed to AMD and Intel's newest products.\n\nSMP (Symmetric Multi-Processing) \n\nSMP is the most common approach to creating a multi-processor system, in which two or more separate processors work together on the same motherboard. The processors co-ordinate and share information through the system bus, and the processors arbitrate the workload amongst themselves with the help of the motherboard chipset and the operating system. \n\nThe OS treats both processors more or less equally, assigning work as needed. Both AMD and Intel's new dual-core chips can be considered SMP capable (internally). AMD's dual-core Opteron server processors can be linked to other dual-core chips externally also, but this capability is not present in either company's desktop dual-core lines. \n\nThe major limitations of SMP have to do with software and operating system support. Many operating systems (such as Windows XP Home) are not SMP capable and will not make use of the second physical processor. Also, most modern programs are single-threaded, meaning that there is only ever one current set of linked instructions and data for them. This means that only one processor can effectively work on them at a time. Multi-threaded programs do exist, and can take better advantage of the potential power of dual- or multi-CPU configurations, but are not as common as we might like. \n\nNo other current mainstream desktop processors are SMP capable, as Intel and AMD tend to restrict cutting edge technologies to the higher-end server processors such as the Opteron and Xeon. In the past though, mainstream processors have been SMP capable, most notably the later Intel Pentium 3 processors.
976636
if you mean cpus then intel is making a quadcore cpu but is also developing the core 2 duo processor at a higher frequency. AMD is slashing the prices to be lower and is also developing a quadcore cpu\n\nintel's core 2 duo processor is the best and the fastest