AMD Rising: CPU And GPU Market Share Growing Rapidly

[salgado18]

Everyone saying the jump from an i5 to a Ryzen 7 was great, I went from an FX-8120 to an i3-6100, and while single-thread performance is very good on the Intel (compiling code in Unity, FPS in some games), the systems hangs and gags all the time. Even slower, the FX was butter smooth for overall use (Chrome loved it).

Intel locked us on low core CPUs for way too long. It's architecture may even not be that good, but we never had a really competitive CPU to benchmark against. We do now. And, at least me, will go Ryzen on my next purchase.

 

[Giroro]

"...although the Vega graphics architecture isn't the performance leader in the desktop space, it has helped AMD improve key metrics such as average selling price (ASP)"

Something about the messaging around this GPU shortage is rubbing me the wrong way - And not just the thought that AMD might believe the reason GPU prices have doubled is because Vega is, just, so good you guys. The Crypto rush should fall off soon since profitability is steadily dropping. AMD is going to get a cold reality check that there isn't much market for under-performing (at least for the retail cost) and relatively inefficient GPUs. Clearly AMD doesn't want that, which leads me to my real point:

"AMD's growth came during a 4.6% sequential decline in the graphics card market, which JPR attributed to the "sharp rise in prices driven by cryptocurrency miner’s demand.”

This is a disturbing statement. If we assume that the market has declined despite the fact that essentially every GPU produced is being sold, then if follows that nvidia/AMD have actually CUT production as demand increased. Are AMD and nvidia doing this to fix prices? Or is the current DRAM shortage/price fixing problem really that bad? Which it might be ... some of the companies currently making DRAM have been found guilty of price fixing multiple times. The whole PC industry has been filthy with price-fixing for a very long time so it wouldn't surprise me.
Either way, I think it warrants an investigation.

 

[rwinches]

AMD is also selling the Vega GPU setup from the Intel G series separately, so there is market potential there also. She is holding that assembly in the lead pic,

 

[Math Geek]

folks also tend t forget that amd has maintained over the last couple years that they are not targeting the top end of the market. the vast majority of the market is well below the $1000 priced card.

lacking something that beats the 1080ti was never on their agenda. they hit their target very well and once again hit the nail on the head for mid range and lower gpu's. never seen a breakdown but how many 1080ti user are there compared to 580 users? i'm willing to bet that amd did their homework very well and sells a large quantity more 580's than nvidia sells 1080ti cards. the cheaper cards are priced better than nvidia's equivalent as well. or at least were before the prices went stupid for all cards.

amd did exactly what they said they were gonna do exactly how they said they would. folks do love to forget this little piece of info when regards to the top end of the market.

 

[bobba84]

Errr. Threadripper was released 2017, not 2018

 

[DerekA_C]

anyone who says that no one is using a 1080ti on 1080p is wrong look at shroud and summit1g they are both using that card on 1080p at 240hz lol oh and summit1g is doing sli waterhawks 1080ti on 1080p so ya know

 

[jpe1701]

anyone who says that no one is using a 1080ti on 1080p is wrong look at shroud and summit1g they are both using that card on 1080p at 240hz lol oh and summit1g is doing sli waterhawks 1080ti on 1080p so ya know

I don't think anyone was saying that no one uses one, just embellishing that the vast majority of 1080p gamers have gtx 1060 rx 580 level cards. I personally use a 1070 for 1080p but that's just because I was excited about Pascal and didn't want to wait.

 

[zodiacfml]

As an AMD fanboy, I'm not impressed. The first gen Ryzen's are poor value as it doesn't include integrated graphics which can be useful and Intel has graphics in competing CPUs. Raven Ridge fixed this. We must not forget that Intel is delayed in years for their 10nm products and the semicon industry are close to match chipzilla. In my opinion, Intel intentionally delayed the technology as there is little benefit for them while allowing AMD to become a bit healthy.

AMD is lucky with again with memory on their GPU products. I still recall AMD pioneered the memory controller feature in their CPUs which easily improved CPU performance because they're behind Intel. The same thing happened with GPUs. AMD's better memory hardware in the RX 470/570/480/580 but inferior GPU has turned ito into a price efficient GPU miner for memory intensive algorithm such as ethash/ethereum.
The cheapest Nvidia GPU with memory that can be found in RX 470/570 is the GTX 1070 and we know it is an awesome gaming card with a price to match making the AMD cards cheaper for mining ethereum

 

[redgarl]

That said, single thread performance is still a key user experience metric (unfortunately many apps still aren't multithreaded) and AMD hasn't really been able to match Intel there.

Unless you need to play games at ultra-high frame rates (more than 60 fps), Ryzen gets the job done. I have a 60 Hz monitor, and switched from an Intel 3770K to a Ryzen 1700x, and I'm really glad I did. I enjoy solid 60 fps gaming, and work tasks have doubled in performance, as expected. Multi-threaded performance is king for most PC tasks. Single-threaded performance is far more important for phones, which need to boost to finish specific tasks quickly, and then go back to power-saving mode in order to improve battery life.

AMD does gaming great. The only scenario where it doesn't fare well is in games at 1080p... with a 1080 TI. I am telling you right now, nobody is doing that. A 1080 TI is made for 2160p 60Hz or 1440p 144Hz. This stupid benchmark should have been never used, however it is spread like the good word of Jesus Christ.

Ryzen with a GTX 1060 or an RX 580 VS an Intel... doesn't change anything. This is because the CPU become the bottleneck, which is only happening with tremendous GPU capabilities at the lowest resolution. The CPU is not a factor in the higher resolution and will only become worst with 8K coming around.

I have two 1080 TI in SLI only pushing a 1080p monitor, but only for FPS games. Gsync and solid 144/fps no dips was the goal. I tried a 1800x with my system the fps difference when gsync was disabled was minimal except in certain ultra high fps games, I am talking 300+ FPS in CSGO. I ran it for nearly 6 months and ditched it for an 8700k. Mainly because the Intel boards were more stable. Three boards in and my 1800x just loved to crash and I didn't have it in me to keep waiting for bios updates. I personally think the big hurdle AMD is going to have to overcome is the bias of the mobo manufactures. They seem to only build budget boards for AMD and even the top end boards they make are lack luster. I can't wait till Zen+ and Zen2. I want the same thrill I had with my Athlon XP 3200+ again. Still to this day I feel it was the best bang for my buck I ever owned.

I don't know what you were using for motherboard, but I had no problem over stability with my MSI X370 Carbon. MSI boards are bang on with Ryzen. Memory speed was an issue until AMD came up with new AGESA updates, but the latest patch for my motherboard is finally the BIOS providing 3200 MHz + speeds.

As of me, I am at 4k @ 60 FPS, so going Intel was stupid when Ryzen was released. I was getting the same gaming experience without the multi-thread performances by going Kaby Lake.

Even there, all my crashes was coming from my EVGA 1080 FTW that I ditched after it dying for a second time in less than a year.

However, my impression is that you were OC more than you should and you forgot to take into notice it was a new chipset and a new architecture, so of course stuff was to happen. When you think about meltdown to, I am just glad of my choice. If Zen 2 is interesting and I can upgrade with the same motherboard, I probably will.

My only issue right now is the lack of IGPU.

 

[redgarl]

anyone who says that no one is using a 1080ti on 1080p is wrong look at shroud and summit1g they are both using that card on 1080p at 240hz lol oh and summit1g is doing sli waterhawks 1080ti on 1080p so ya know

I don't think anyone was saying that no one uses one, just embellishing that the vast majority of 1080p gamers have gtx 1060 rx 580 level cards. I personally use a 1070 for 1080p but that's just because I was excited about Pascal and didn't want to wait.

The majority of high end GPU users are not gaming on a 200$ monitor. Just look at the G-sync and freesync monitors, the majority of their resolution is not 1080p, it is something else bigger.

Playing at 1080p with a 1080 TI is a waste. Just get a 1070. My 1080p system is right now looking for a RX 580. No way in hell I will use my TI on this.

 

[darkwanderer117]

That said, single thread performance is still a key user experience metric (unfortunately many apps still aren't multithreaded) and AMD hasn't really been able to match Intel there.

Unless you need to play games at ultra-high frame rates (more than 60 fps), Ryzen gets the job done. I have a 60 Hz monitor, and switched from an Intel 3770K to a Ryzen 1700x, and I'm really glad I did. I enjoy solid 60 fps gaming, and work tasks have doubled in performance, as expected. Multi-threaded performance is king for most PC tasks. Single-threaded performance is far more important for phones, which need to boost to finish specific tasks quickly, and then go back to power-saving mode in order to improve battery life.

AMD does gaming great. The only scenario where it doesn't fare well is in games at 1080p... with a 1080 TI. I am telling you right now, nobody is doing that. A 1080 TI is made for 2160p 60Hz or 1440p 144Hz. This stupid benchmark should have been never used, however it is spread like the good word of Jesus Christ.

Ryzen with a GTX 1060 or an RX 580 VS an Intel... doesn't change anything. This is because the CPU become the bottleneck, which is only happening with tremendous GPU capabilities at the lowest resolution. The CPU is not a factor in the higher resolution and will only become worst with 8K coming around.

I have two 1080 TI in SLI only pushing a 1080p monitor, but only for FPS games. Gsync and solid 144/fps no dips was the goal. I tried a 1800x with my system the fps difference when gsync was disabled was minimal except in certain ultra high fps games, I am talking 300+ FPS in CSGO. I ran it for nearly 6 months and ditched it for an 8700k. Mainly because the Intel boards were more stable. Three boards in and my 1800x just loved to crash and I didn't have it in me to keep waiting for bios updates. I personally think the big hurdle AMD is going to have to overcome is the bias of the mobo manufactures. They seem to only build budget boards for AMD and even the top end boards they make are lack luster. I can't wait till Zen+ and Zen2. I want the same thrill I had with my Athlon XP 3200+ again. Still to this day I feel it was the best bang for my buck I ever owned.

I don't know what you were using for motherboard, but I had no problem over stability with my MSI X370 Carbon. MSI boards are bang on with Ryzen. Memory speed was an issue until AMD came up with new AGESA updates, but the latest patch for my motherboard is finally the BIOS providing 3200 MHz + speeds.

As of me, I am at 4k @ 60 FPS, so going Intel was stupid when Ryzen was released. I was getting the same gaming experience without the multi-thread performances by going Kaby Lake.

Even there, all my crashes was coming from my EVGA 1080 FTW that I ditched after it dying for a second time in less than a year.

However, my impression is that you were OC more than you should and you forgot to take into notice it was a new chipset and a new architecture, so of course stuff was to happen. When you think about meltdown to, I am just glad of my choice. If Zen 2 is interesting and I can upgrade with the same motherboard, I probably will.

My only issue right now is the lack of IGPU.

I tried two different asus boards and one asrock board. I do OC but nothing crazy. I had my ram at 3200. The system just wouldn't stay stable. Random blue screens under load and even some times while gaming. I couldn't afford to lose any more work/time playing with Ryzen. I am sure further bios updates smoothed out the sailing and maybe an MSI board would have done the the trick. I am also positive the next round of AMD motherboards will have a much wider selection of models with the success Ryzen is having. I still think the lack of top end models hurt them for this launch.