David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on November 9, 2014 12:08 am wrote:
> Brett (ggtgp.delete@this.yahoo.com) on November 8, 2014 4:10 pm wrote:
> > David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on November 1, 2014 3:26 pm wrote:
> > > Brett (ggtgp.delete@this.yahoo.com) on November 1, 2014 12:25 pm wrote:
> > > > David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on October 31, 2014 10:26 pm wrote:
> > > > > > The bulldozer core was over optimized for server use, the server market is where Intel
> > > > > > makes it's money. Money that is used to punish competitors in the other markets.
> > > > >
> > > > > Intel makes profits in servers, but their stronghold is really in high volume (e.g.,
> > > > > NB+DT). Without those, the server market would be much more difficult for Intel.
> > > >
> > > > Today, Intel was more than happy to make little money in the volume desktop market
> > > > when AMD had competitive products, Intel made up the difference in mobile and
> > > > server. AMD only has the design dollars to attack one market at a time.
> > > >
> > > > > >AMD has
> > > > > > fewer problems making chips for mid range mobile and mid range desktop.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is that AMD has been confined to a value play.
> > > >
> > > > Even when AMD had faster chips than Intel, Intel's market power
> > > > confined AMD to the value plays, the consumer market.
> > >
> > > AMD used to have around 50% of the 4S server market. They used to have ~25% of the
> > > 2S server market. That's not a value play, and their server ASPs were quite high.
> >
> > AMD was competing against Intel's antique shared front side bus systems. Four sockets with
> > four on chip memory controllers against four chips with one off chip memory controller.
> > And still AMD was mostly only able to get the University/academic big computing clusters. You tell
> > me, what part of business server sales did AMD get, 10%? Yes, AMD got a few google type sales, but
> > at the fortune 1000 AMD was largely absent, and locked out by threats from Intel against Dell and
> > HP. Until SuperMicro(?) started making serious inroads, but by then the tide was turning.
>
> Brett, AMD had >50% of the MP server market. HPC is and was predominantly DP. Their ASPs were quite
> high. For 2006, AMD's ASPs were about 30% higher than Intel for servers (~$400 vs. ~$300).

Fine, AMD got to >50% of the MP server market. I was obsessing over how hard it was to create a channel that would even sell AMD servers. It took years before SuperMicro stole enough share that Dell and HP had no choice but to sell AMD servers.

Years that Intel could continue being lazy and unresponsive to the demands of the customers.
A company that tried to force the mobile market to the P4 fireball. Plus Itanic.

A company that puts all it's efforts into just one design, (plus token Atom) when it has ten times the engineers of AMD and could easily afford say three different designs for different markets. Instead of just cache size slicing the one and only design.

> Please get your facts straight and stop spouting incorrect data.

"At its peak during the second quarter of 2006, AMD held a 26.2 percent [all server types] market share."
The multi socket market also peaked at around that percent.
Lets shift over to the single socket server market, what was AMD's peak single socket server market share?