Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 33

Thread: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

  1. #17
    Two Places At Once Ozaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Sometimes UK
    Posts
    638
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked
    34 times in 33 posts
    • Ozaron's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI X570 Unify
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Patriot Blackout @ 3800 CL16
      • Storage:
      • Toshiba X300 4TB (2), Samsung 850 Evo 500GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire 5700XT, Sapphire R9 Fury Nitro
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12-II 620w
      • Case:
      • Corsair Obsidian 500D
      • Operating System:
      • W10 Enterprise 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Gigabyte G27QC
      • Internet:
      • 2.5 MB/s ↓ 0.86 MB/s ↑ ~20ms

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    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?

  2. #18
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,476
    Thanks
    729
    Thanked
    1,447 times in 1,219 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 35 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    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
    Last edited by DanceswithUnix; 03-07-2017 at 03:39 PM.

  3. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    ATLANTIS
    Posts
    1,207
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    28 times in 26 posts

    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.

  4. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    262
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    26 times in 25 posts
    • devBunny's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P9X79 Pro
      • CPU:
      • i7-3930
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Kingston HyperX
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Samsung 830
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 2 x GTX 560Ti
      • PSU:
      • OCZ ZX1000W Gold
      • Case:
      • Xigmatek Elysium
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7 and Win XP in VMs
      • Monitor(s):
      • 3 x Dell 2410M 1920x1200 IPS

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    That would be passmarket share rather than market share.

  5. #21
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,476
    Thanks
    729
    Thanked
    1,447 times in 1,219 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 35 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by lumireleon View Post
    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.

  6. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    161
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    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.

  7. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,672
    Thanks
    178
    Thanked
    231 times in 212 posts
    • kompukare's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V LX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5-3570K
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 8GB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 850 EVo 500GB | Corsair MP510 960GB | 2 x WD 4TB spinners
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sappihre R7 260X 1GB (sic)
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650 Gold TruePower (Seasonic)
      • Case:
      • Aerocool DS 200 (silenced, 53.6 litres)l)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x ViewSonic 27" 1440p

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by DaMoot View Post
    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:


    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.

  8. Received thanks from:

    Xlucine (08-07-2017)

  9. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    3,919
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    183 times in 153 posts

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by DaMoot View Post
    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
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  10. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,526
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked
    468 times in 326 posts

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    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.

  11. #26
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,476
    Thanks
    729
    Thanked
    1,447 times in 1,219 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 35 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky34 View Post
    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.

  12. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    161
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by kompukare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DaMoot View Post
    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.

  13. #28
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by DaMoot View Post
    ... 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....

  14. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,672
    Thanks
    178
    Thanked
    231 times in 212 posts
    • kompukare's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V LX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5-3570K
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 8GB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 850 EVo 500GB | Corsair MP510 960GB | 2 x WD 4TB spinners
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sappihre R7 260X 1GB (sic)
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650 Gold TruePower (Seasonic)
      • Case:
      • Aerocool DS 200 (silenced, 53.6 litres)l)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x ViewSonic 27" 1440p

    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.

  15. #30
    Spreadie
    Guest

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by DaMoot View Post
    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.

  16. #31
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,783
    Thanks
    3,833
    Thanked
    5,103 times in 3,937 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    The Ryzen 5 1600 is the second best selling CPU on Amazon USA. No wonder when it is basically the same price as a Core i5 7500:
    https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor...s=RYZEN+5+1600
    https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...%2Ck%3AI5+7500

    All the Z270 motherboards on there are over $100 too:

    https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_p...rnid=386442011

    The B350 motherboards are cheaper and you can overclock on them too:

    https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_p...rnid=386442011

    A similar story on Newegg too:

    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-435-_-Product
    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-730-_-Product

    All the Z270 motherboards are above $100 it seems:

    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...=-1&isNodeId=1

    There are plenty of sub $100 B350 motherboards:

    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...=-1&isNodeId=1


    Edit!!

    Then if you look at the Ryzen 5 1400,its cheaper than a Core i5 6400:

    https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor...s=RZYEN+5+1400
    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-437-_-Product
    https://www.amazon.com/Intel-I5-6400...ywords=I5+6400
    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-564-_-Product

    The Core i3 7350K is only slightly cheaper,but you need a more expensive Z270 motherboard:

    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-772-_-Product
    https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Generat...words=i3+7350k

  17. #32
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: AMD CPUs took nearly 10 per cent share from Intel so far this year

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    ... 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)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •