AMD Desktop processor Market Share rises to 13%

Published by

Click here to post a comment for AMD Desktop processor Market Share rises to 13% on our message forum
#5604103
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/216/216349.jpg
Zenoth:

What I genuinely don't get is why is it that Intel still insists on those crazy prices. Their chips are good, very good (quality-wise). But just way too expensive on their own, and even more so when compared to AMD 'equivalents'. Wouldn't they plain and simple send AMD back where they came from (manner of speech) if they just... oh, you know... reduced they prices? No? Just an observation. If Intel decided tomorrow to have at least identical prices, or heck, better prices; then I think any amount of progress made by AMD since 2016's Ryzen would be extremely short-lived. For some reason Intel act like it's really no big deal. Well ok, maybe it IS not a "big deal" for them? Is it? I just don't know really. But I'm just very surprised as a consumer seeing a company respond SO LITTLE against direct competition like that.
Intel doesn´t like to lower their margins because of shareholders but right now they can´t actually lower the prices. Their fabs are at full capacity due to increased demand so now they are going to prioritize selling their most expensive and highest margin parts. This means they have little interest in selling desktop CPUs but they need to have some products on sale for hardcore fans and to provide some competition to AMD but only at silly prices... This is Intel saying indirectly they have little interest in selling desktop parts right now.
#5604108
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/123/123760.jpg
Koniakki:

These are the lowest prices from EU shops that I can order from(taken from Geizhals): AMD 2700X = ~€313 Intel 8700k = ~€450 Intel 9700K = ~€550 Intel 9900K = ~€799(€669 locally. 1st time a high end cpu is cheaper locally o_O) I can't think of any reason as to why anyone who get any of the 3 Intel chips above over the 2700X, besides a very few specific cases.
Gaming. Fingers crossed AMD improves IPC or clockspeeds in the future. Thing is, while gaming might be a small portion of the market, it's probably a substantial part of the non business oriented market for more high-end CPU's. Then again they're making that also a lot more affordable for the average joe. Anyone building a gaming rig while being strapped for cash should go AMD, anyone who has the budget to spend more still has reasons to go Intel. 9900K is going for € 649 over here.
#5604114
data/avatar/default/avatar08.webp
Keep up the ryze. 🙂
Corrupt^:

Gaming. .
Gaming in terms of what? Even if you buy a 1070 or 1080 (Vega 56/64 from AMD), today's mid-top and high-entry range cards, you won't get a measurable difference in most titles in FHD, not to speak of higher resolution. If you buy 1080Ti (or 2080, 2080 Ti), you won't be playing on FHD, so you get the same differences in 1440P or 4K as with 1070-1080 in FHD - close to nothing in 1440P and 0 in 4K. Even if you have a 1080Ti (2080) or 2080Ti card, the average difference between a 2600X-9600K and 2700X-9700K/9900K is around 10% with the 1080Ti and 2080, and 15% with the current top tier card in FHD. But think of that how many of these cards' owners play on 1920X1080. Maybe 1% of them.
#5604158
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/122/122801.jpg
Even in a AMD post people are talking Intel lolz!
#5604179
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/270/270233.jpg
Corrupt^:

Gaming. Fingers crossed AMD improves IPC or clockspeeds in the future. Thing is, while gaming might be a small portion of the market, it's probably a substantial part of the non business oriented market for more high-end CPU's. Then again they're making that also a lot more affordable for the average joe. Anyone building a gaming rig while being strapped for cash should go AMD, anyone who has the budget to spend more still has reasons to go Intel. 9900K is going for € 649 over here.
No, not even gaming. For the difference in price between a 9900K and 2700X you could get a much faster GPU, a bigger/faster SSD, or a bigger/better monitor (or even all three) - all of which would provide a far superior gaming experience than the CPU. Even for someone with a bigger budget (like myself), the 2700X makes infinitely more sense than a 9900K (the 9700K and 8700K are slightly better deals but still fall way short at their current hyper-inflated prices). FYI, Amazon (US) currently lists the 9900K for $989.95. Newegg (US) has it for $929 and out of stock and I can't even find it on Newegg.ca. Frankly, no amount of FPS can justify such prices.
#5604188
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/271/271700.jpg
You better watch out. AMD is not done yet! Intel can't match this speed. They are trying tho! I always trust my gut and my gut says AMD will beat intel in every way come 2020. Not hate speech. I like intel. I can see it happening tho.
#5604189
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/271/271700.jpg
Zenoth:

What I genuinely don't get is why is it that Intel still insists on those crazy prices. Their chips are good, very good (quality-wise). But just way too expensive on their own, and even more so when compared to AMD 'equivalents'. Wouldn't they plain and simple send AMD back where they came from (manner of speech) if they just... oh, you know... reduced they prices? No? Just an observation. If Intel decided tomorrow to have at least identical prices, or heck, better prices; then I think any amount of progress made by AMD since 2016's Ryzen would be extremely short-lived. For some reason Intel act like it's really no big deal. Well ok, maybe it IS not a "big deal" for them? Is it? I just don't know really. But I'm just very surprised as a consumer seeing a company respond SO LITTLE against direct competition like that.
They are scared sh#$less. That is all I can come up with.
#5604196
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/243/243189.jpg
This is clearly anecdotal, but reading around online, there are lots of people waiting for AMD's Zen2/7nm chips to surface, with a hope of seeing a distinct performance increase with the new design, so if AMD manage to deliver a product on par with reasonable expectations of new CPU, maintain at least same core count and competitive price, I reckon zen 2 may be a big seller for them. Personally, seeing Epyc 2, I might actually wait to see what their new threadripper has in store...!
#5604217
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/165/165326.jpg
Healthy competition on the cpu market is good for everyone , good vibes !
#5604228
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/260/260048.jpg
I only hope that the trend will continue. AMD finally delivers innovative products. 7nm should be a key step.
#5604229
data/avatar/default/avatar18.webp
cryohellinc:

I only hope that the trend will continue. AMD finally delivers innovative products. 7nm should be a key step.
If memory serves, then AMD are at some point going to move to GloFlo/IBM 7nm EUV, I believe this was the "plan" on release of Zen, though of course things may have changed since then. But either way, the story is the same. Intel have lost their fab advantage, they've lost the power efficiency, they've lost the threads advantage, all they have left now is IPC. Which AMD are close to hitting even at significantly lower clock speeds. Hopefully the wider FP should see that reduce even further.
#5604232
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/260/260048.jpg
Craigpd:

If memory serves, then AMD are at some point going to move to GloFlo/IBM 7nm EUV, I believe this was the "plan" on release of Zen, though of course things may have changed since then. But either way, the story is the same. Intel have lost their fab advantage, they've lost the power efficiency, they've lost the threads advantage, all they have left now is IPC. Which AMD are close to hitting even at significantly lower clock speeds. Hopefully the wider FP should see that reduce even further.
Great points! Recently watched a video from GN regarding that matter [spoiler][youtube=IBrumDWpl-c][/spoiler] Latest Intel CPU's can't even work properly under tech specced TDP, they work far Over the officially specced ones. And if they are forced to work in the TDP boundaries, they become significantly slower in terms of clocks. While Intel twists and lies at every step, AMD is really starting to win the battle. This is a very GOOD news for the whole tech industry. My assumption is Zen 2 will be 4.4-4.5ghz stable on all cores.
#5604234
data/avatar/default/avatar03.webp
cryohellinc:

Great points! My assumption is Zen 2 will be 4.4-4.5ghz stable on all cores.
With a generous overclock, maybe. I wouldn't want to count the chickens before they hatch. I expect we'll see a more easily achievable 4.1Ghz out of the box for a lot of people, and hopefully without needing large voltage increases to do so. Wouldn't want to assume anything more than that.
#5604262
data/avatar/default/avatar38.webp
I think that part of the slow progress are review sites, like guru3d included. They just can't stop recommending Intel CPUs for "gaming", even though AMD offers 90-95% of the performance in gaming, while having much more performance in compute tasks. Case in point, when 7700K was sold priced close to 1700-1800X, most sites said that the 7700K is the best buy, even though it offered much lower performance in compute tasks and marginally better (read 130 instead of 110FPS) performance in games. So yeah, AMD needs to make sure that they have the best gaming performance with Zen2 so that review sites stop recommending the more expensive/slower part just because it gets you a few more FPS in games.
#5604264
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/258/258664.jpg
yeeeeman:

I think that part of the slow progress are review sites, like guru3d included. They just can't stop recommending Intel CPUs for "gaming", even though AMD offers 90-95% of the performance in gaming, while having much more performance in compute tasks. Case in point, when 7700K was sold priced close to 1700-1800X, most sites said that the 7700K is the best buy, even though it offered much lower performance in compute tasks and marginally better (read 130 instead of 110FPS) performance in games. So yeah, AMD needs to make sure that they have the best gaming performance with Zen2 so that review sites stop recommending the more expensive/slower part just because it gets you a few more FPS in games.
I'm not sure it's an issue of sites to recommend Intel CPUs for gaming only. But people simply don't care to read into stuff themselves... one has to know what you use your CPU for. Nobody can tell people what they will need their rig for, that's something they will have to know themselves. That said, before anybody gets the idea to flame here, I'm waiting for Zen2, and hope they wipe the floor with Intel in every aspect.
#5604267
data/avatar/default/avatar32.webp
It is actually an issue, because sites have a big power of influencing people and not many people know specific hardware details. They just scroll through until the conclusion and 95% of media sites have the following conclusion: "if you want the best gaming experience, just buy Intel". Price doesn't matter. General performance doesn't matter. The fact that you trade a lot of other benefits for 10 more FPS is not a wise choice. This is not 100% true because you will get a great experience with AMD included.
#5604268
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/258/258664.jpg
I just want to add, not everybody needs those "lot(s) of other benefits", some people only need those 10 more FPS. Most people using a PC wouldn't make use of more than 4 cores, even today, and that's a sad fact.
#5604270
data/avatar/default/avatar04.webp
fantaskarsef:

I just want to add, not everybody needs those "lot(s) of other benefits", some people only need those 10 more FPS. Most people using a PC wouldn't make use of more than 4 cores, even today, and that's a sad fact.
I agree with you to some extent. Most folk do not need the extra cores etc.. But those same folk do not need the extra 10 fps either. We seem to forget the vast majority of computer user (common folk) do not game, or do so lightly. But hey, we have choices now, which is great!
#5604276
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/258/258664.jpg
Embra:

But hey, we have choices now, which is great!
This! +1! 🙂
#5604277
data/avatar/default/avatar23.webp
yeeeeman:

I think that part of the slow progress are review sites, like guru3d included. They just can't stop recommending Intel CPUs for "gaming", even though AMD offers 90-95% of the performance in gaming, while having much more performance in compute tasks. Case in point, when 7700K was sold priced close to 1700-1800X, most sites said that the 7700K is the best buy, even though it offered much lower performance in compute tasks and marginally better (read 130 instead of 110FPS) performance in games. So yeah, AMD needs to make sure that they have the best gaming performance with Zen2 so that review sites stop recommending the more expensive/slower part just because it gets you a few more FPS in games.
This idea starts off wrong then ends in the right place. The review sites can't be blamed for recommending great products with higher performance even if they are sold at a premium. If the other product wants a recommendation it needs =/>100% of the performance at equal or lesser price. Less performance at less price is expected, not unique or exceptional. The cost of the processor is a one time cost. That 5-10% lower performance is something experienced every day. Even if that performance is synthetic or minimal, the user knows what they have is 2nd tier and experiences that daily. Intel knows this. I think Zen1 is great and glad to read the market share is slowly increasing. I hope Zen2 builds on that.

Previous Page

Next Page