Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Nov 2012 22:24 UTC
Permalink for comment 542532
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2012-03-14
1) Because when AMD sold the K6 and K6-2 a PC that would work at all was relatively more expensive than it is now and saving a £100+ was a big deal. Saving £20-30 at the low-end isn't now.
2) The margins are so tight that the small companies making mainstream PCs have left. The big guys tend to favor Intel for everything. Only when the Athlon 64 was leagues ahead did AMD become a must have.
3) AMD keeps investing and hoping they will have an architecture to at least draw level with this years Intel release. By failing to do so their CPUs that would be premium products and earn them profits/pay bills have to be sold at knockdown prices to keep their hand in the game and survive another year.
The same in true in video cards market, if you don't have the full range or halo products no one notices you at all. Nvidia and AMD are very close and competitive. Everybody else S3, Matrox, etc have died a death.
It's only because AMD is willing to make no money to prolong death that they are still in the game at all.
It is a shame as I would love to give them a crack.
Edited 2012-11-14 16:24 UTC