Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
I imagine the only reason they don't already publish figures for Windows hardware platforms is that they wouldn't gain anything from it...
You think they'd give it up if we emailed them politely? ;)
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
OTOH, every time I look at the SHS results it just looks off.
Absolutely.
I notice this month the Intel/AMD split has basically not changed, yet somehow the SSE4a support has dropped 0.71% which implies AMD users have been swapping their modern(ish) CPUs for ancient ones? That would tie in with the AMD users at 3.7GHz and above dropping by nearly as much.
Something just isn't right, as usual.
Edit: Hadn't seen Unity stats before: http://hwstats.unity3d.com/pc/
According to that Windows 7 is still doing well, Linux is doing even worse :)
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
ANOTHER question: Please DancewithUnix and other high profile tech geeks explain to me why over the ages AMD Gpus use more power than a nvidia comparable device? Vega for gamers is to be launched but the power consumption shocks me.
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
That would be passmarket share rather than market share.
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lumireleon
ANOTHER question: Please DancewithUnix and other high profile tech geeks explain to me why over the ages AMD Gpus use more power than a nvidia comparable device? Vega for gamers is to be launched but the power consumption shocks me.
Nvidia decided to start making mobile devices, the Tegra series, so they had to work out how to improve power consumption. They just learnt some tricks that help their desktop parts as well.
If you go back a bit, like the GTX480, Nvidia stuff was hot as heck. But Nvidia did the work, they get the rewards. At least that is true on the desktop, the Tegra sales don't seem that good (which is a shame, my K1 tablet is pretty good).
I should point out though that the Vega gaming part isn't released yet. I don't know what AMD are playing at with the part they have released, but the Fury cards like the Nano weren't that bad and I would expect gaming Vega to improve on that not get worse.
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
I'd be curious to see how many of these people are happy with their Ryzen purchase after finding out that it's just 'meh'. Certainly better than AMD's other offerings but nearly as expensive as Intel's superior offerings in the same class.
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaMoot
I'd be curious to see how many of these people are happy with their Ryzen purchase after finding out that it's just 'meh'. Certainly better than AMD's other offerings but nearly as expensive as Intel's superior offerings in the same class.
Even for games, 4C/4T is looking rather limited as shown by things like BF1 multiplayer where even i7 gives plenty of CPU spikes:
https://i.imgur.com/zJM7Dt8.png
While there is no such thing as future-proofing, buying an i5 for gaming in 2017 seems like a poor investment for games from 2017+.
As for nearly the same price, the 4C/4T i5-7600K with fan and cheapest Z270 motherboard costs £325+. The 6C/12T R5 1600 with overclockable motherboard (it comes with a good fan) costs £253. £70 is not nearly as expensive, and when building a gaming system that's almost the difference between one tier of GPU and another.
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaMoot
I'd be curious to see how many of these people are happy with their Ryzen purchase after finding out that it's just 'meh'. Certainly better than AMD's other offerings but nearly as expensive as Intel's superior offerings in the same class.
As a "casual" game player but a huge productivity user the AMD stuff is looking much better for me right now. The price difference alone makes it worthwhile to consider. Again in some circumstances the Intel stuff will be faster but looking forward after the gains already made I feel you might be thinking slightly differently in 12 months time
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DanceswithUnix
I notice this month the Intel/AMD split has basically not changed, yet somehow the SSE4a support has dropped 0.71% which implies AMD users have been swapping their modern(ish) CPUs for ancient ones? That would tie in with the AMD users at 3.7GHz and above dropping by nearly as much.
Something just isn't right, as usual
IIRC it's because of the way they collate their stats, supposedly steam asks or takes a snap shot of each users system once a year and then multiplies that 8.33% by 12.
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corky34
IIRC it's because of the way they collate their stats, supposedly steam asks or takes a snap shot of each users system once a year and then multiplies that 8.33% by 12.
I think they sample less than that.
There are on average about 11M Steam users online, so polling 1/12th of those users would get you nearly a million sample requests. Some people will refuse to submit results (introducing some selection bias) but you would still get a huge number of samples. In reality I'm just not convinced the sample is large or random enough.
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kompukare
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaMoot
I'd be curious to see how many of these people are happy with their Ryzen purchase after finding out that it's just 'meh'. Certainly better than AMD's other offerings but nearly as expensive as Intel's superior offerings in the same class.
Even for games, 4C/4T is looking rather limited as shown by things like BF1 multiplayer where even i7 gives plenty of CPU spikes:
[/IMG]
While there is no such thing as future-proofing, buying an i5 for gaming in 2017 seems like a poor investment for games from 2017+.
As for nearly the same price, the 4C/4T i5-7600K with fan and cheapest Z270 motherboard costs £325+. The 6C/12T R5 1600 with overclockable motherboard (it comes with a good fan) costs £253. £70 is not nearly as expensive, and when building a gaming system that's almost the difference between one tier of GPU and another.
Seems there is a bigger gap over there for you brits. Odd. When I built a bargain basement PC for a friend a little more than two months ago the Ryzen was notably more expensive than the comparable i3 or i5 I was looking to put in his system. Ended up settling on an "upper end" i3 over the i5 so I could get a better motherboard (Z270 vs a B-series if I opted for the i5) and a better ram package (4x2 vs 8x1) for the price and upgrading later, but the Ryzen was nowhere near the same price category. $50+ more expensive for markedly less performance. Yes, this was before AMD released all of the patches and updates for Ryzen over the past couple of weeks, but the deed was done beforehand.
Yes, I chose the i3 over the Ryzen for his system based on cost. That's supposed to be part of Ryzen's big thing is better performance for the price, but at least in this case it didn't pan out even close to that way.
And at least to me I'm not drinking the new flavor of koolaid AMD has out quite yet. They still need to prove themselves and IMO they haven't yet.
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaMoot
... Yes, I chose the i3 over the Ryzen for his system based on cost. ...
Odd. The i3 7350k (the only i3 worth getting a Z270 board for) is £180 on ebuyer. That'll get you a 4C/8T Ryzen 5 1500X. An extra £15 would get you a 6C/12T 1600, or you can save £20 and get the 4C/8T 1400. And since you can overclock on B350 motherboards I don't really see how the mobo can be cheaper. Pricing is obviously very different if an i3 + Z270 was genuinely a significantly cheaper option....
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
While there are still some very poor games in terms of multi-threading, I can't see any case where what is essentially a mobile i5 (2C/4T) would make sense.
Even those few benchmarks which show an overclocked i3-7350K (at say 5.0GHz) way ahead, are doing so with the usual caveat about low-core count systems: with no background tasks as is the usual in reviews.
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaMoot
Seems there is a bigger gap over there for you brits. Odd. When I built a bargain basement PC for a friend a little more than two months ago the Ryzen was notably more expensive than the comparable i3 or i5 I was looking to put in his system. Ended up settling on an "upper end" i3 over the i5 so I could get a better motherboard (Z270 vs a B-series if I opted for the i5) and a better ram package (4x2 vs 8x1) for the price and upgrading later, but the Ryzen was nowhere near the same price category. $50+ more expensive for markedly less performance. Yes, this was before AMD released all of the patches and updates for Ryzen over the past couple of weeks, but the deed was done beforehand.
Yes, I chose the i3 over the Ryzen for his system based on cost. That's supposed to be part of Ryzen's big thing is better performance for the price, but at least in this case it didn't pan out even close to that way.
And at least to me I'm not drinking the new flavor of koolaid AMD has out quite yet. They still need to prove themselves and IMO they haven't yet.
None of that makes sense. I have a Ryzen 5 1600 and a B350 board - even at stock speed it outstrips my 6700K - an i3 (k) + Z270 is a poor choice, from both value and performance perspectives.
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAT-THE-FIFTH
... Then if you look at the Ryzen 5 1400
...
The Core i3 7350K is only slightly cheaper ...
This is the really odd one IMO - the i3 7350k is more expensive than the R5 1400 at both Scan and Ebuyer. It looks like the US has had a price cut to it that hasn't filtered through to the UK yet ($155 on newegg, v £170 in the UK?)
EDIT: ah, the Intel processors are all on sale at newegg (note the sale ends in 4 days)
