Intel already has 80% x86 laptop marketshare. It'd be one thing if they were going from 50-60% but squeezing that last 20% is extremely difficult for Intel, even when AMD wasn't competitive.
It's really not. There was a time where you had to really, REALLY search to find an AMD based laptop.
If a sales person is going to fabricate reasons for a customer to make a purchase, that's going to happen regardless of whether Intel has higher core counts or not. "Oh this model is an i9" or "this model number is higher" or "this model has more RAM". There are dozens of other higher numbers or sales tricks a sales person can use. Your entire argument hinges on this idea that it's going to push retail sales and it might for a very small amount but it doesn't make any sense for Intel to be adding cores to it's CPUs for that very rare scenario when it and sales persons already are well capable of misleading customers to make a purchase (as are AMD given their model naming). As I pointed out previously, Bulldozer is a good example that bigger core numbers do not always translate to more sales.
The main argument is always the CPU, with RAM close second, screen and storage (SSD vs HDD) coming after. OEMs did used those other reasons for years, trying to remain friendly to Intel, by using second grade hardware on AMD laptops and best hardware on Intel laptops. When specs help the sales person to push a certain product, they can easier do it and not worry that an angry consumer will come back to protest. That bozo saying "twice the bits, twice the heat" would had an easier job today with a "12 cores vs 8 cores".
As for my argument, it is based on how AMD managed to get market share thanks to having, slower but at the same time more cores, how Intel is now getting back market share for having more cores, even with most of them be E cores. We have two REAL examples there it's not just a personal opinion.
Bulldozer is a totally different case, but at the same time another proof of my point, not yours. You just look it the wrong way. Let me explain.
It was a different case because OEMs where glued on Intel's chariot back then. Bulldozer was also crap compared to Intel offerings, both in performance and efficiency. Atom was king in laptops, because netbooks where still a thing, Intel was king in laptops having a more efficient architecture, a more performing architecture, on a better node. Everything was favoring Intel back then. Finding an AMD laptop was difficult.
You also look it the wrong way because, Bulldozed WAS selling on desktops, but even there while AMD was advertising more cores, Intel had HyperThreading, so in a thread vs thread comparison AMD had no advantage. AMD was selling the "more cores" marketing against i3's and i5s, that's why Bulldozer was cheap, with AMD's prices being mostly under $150, with only the top models going close to $200(I am ignoring the 220W parts). It was going against i3's and i5s. So, you see, even in the Bulldozer era the more cores approach was used. But because of Bulldozer's bad architecture, that "more cores" marketing was mostly helped AMD to keep some market share instead of losing it all. Of course AMD kept some market share also thanks to FM2/+ and AM1 platforms. AM1 was offering a low power option, FM2/+ was the first APU platform. People where buying FM2/+ CPUs for their integrated graphics, not for the Bulldozer architecture. But even there on FM2/+ AMD could still offer "quad core" APUs for cheap against Celeron and Pentium CPUs that where coming with 1 or 2 cores and 1 or 2 threads maximum.
So, Bulldozer is a third example of the "more cores" marketing helping with market share. The difference is that the "more cores" argument helped AMD not win market share, just not lose it all.
Branding and design wins are vastly vastly more important. Higher core counts don't beget more design wins either, that's a vast oversimplification. If that were true Ryzen 1000 series would have exploded out of the gate. I'd also question just how important the role of a sales person is in today's digital world, for sure much less as more and more people tend to buy online. How that impacts the way people buy laptops or other goods remains to be seen. If one thing is for sure, it certainly isn't worse then the drivel that was spouted by poorly trained sales people.
They do. It's not oversimplification, it's reality, because the consumer goes in a shop and expects oversimplification and quick answers from the sales person or the little spec sheet next to the model, answers that somehow can understand, without needing to have extensive knowledge on specs.
Ryzen didn't exploded because AMD's name was in ruins because of Bulldozer and OEMs where still promoting Intel options. Don't you know/remember all those years with AMD laptops using only one memory channel or having second grade screens or storage next to Intel based options?
This link is about Carrizo,
Who Controls the User Experience? AMD’s Carrizo Thoroughly Tested
so not Ryzen. But for years after that article things didn't changed much, with the buyer of the AMD based laptop model for example, having to do with a 60Hz FullHD screen option, when the buyer of the Intel based laptop had more options, with more Hz, more nits, higher resolution or even an OLED screen. You know these, don't you?
Sales person aren't as much influential as it was, because people buy online, but they still are. Also people asking friends and relatives not always means they get the best replies because that cousin that knows stuff, probably knows very little. Also see on forums and message boards. Intel fans are extremely happy with their "more cores" hybrid CPUs, so it is much easier for them today to advice others to go the Intel way. Today they have a very strong argument compared to the past. "It offers more cores, it's more future proof". AMD's argument 2 years ago, is Intel's argument today(that and the platform cost).
Agreed, and to Intel's credit, they and their OEMs don't just simply advertise the total number of cores. I've just checked Dell, HP and Lenovo notebook product pages (United States), they all say X cores, Y threads. Lenovo also lists maximum clocks for P and E cores separately. Asus is the bad guy here, they just tell the total core count.
Do they explain what is the difference between a P core and an E core?
Do they state how those cores distribute? X P cores, Y E cores.
Inspiron 16-inch Laptop with 13th Gen Intel® Core™ Processor | Dell USA $1100
"18MB cache, 12 cores, 16 threads, up to 5.00GHz"
So, I am not technical, I don't understand threads and cache, I do somehow understand 12 cores what it means because I know that an 8 core smartphone is faster than a 4 core. And 5.00 GHz Turbo. I guess all cores can go up there right? 12 cores at 5.00 GHz. WOW!, right? That probably looks powerful, right?
Maybe I should buy the AMD model instead?
Inspiron 16-inch Laptop with AMD Ryzen™ 7000 series Processor | Dell USA $1000
It doesn't say anything about cache and Turbo. Strange isn't it? But it does say "8 cores, 16 threads". Hmmm.... same number of threads. What is threads? Don't know. Only 8 cores. I do know cores, I think. As I said, smartphones. It's also $100 cheaper. I save $100. That's nice. But only 8 cores, against 12 cores. Probably that's why Intel is more expensive. 50% more cores. And what is the speed of the AMD? It doesn't say. I guess it's lower for the AMD model. If it was as high as Intel, they should be saying it. Right?
.........................I better pay those $100 and go with the Intel model. It also has higher score (4.4 vs 4.1) and more opinions (664 vs 28). Everyone is buying the Intel option, so that's what I will also do.
I feel so great now. I did the right choice.
