AMD's Ryzen 5 1600 Skyrockets To No. 2 On Amazon, Passmark Submissions Increase

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
When people update their system, very often they run benchmarks on it to see the level of performance increase. And that's the only time they run benchmarks. So the surge on Passmark is a good and expected sign that AMD is selling a lot of Ryzen CPU's.

The non-existant market share increase on steam is also not really surprising. Since the release of the Core architecture a decade ago, Intel had been unchallenged in gaming performance. Any serious gamer has long since switched to Intel. Though Ryzen is competitive with Intel now, it doesn't beat Intel in gaming, so unsurpisingly, Intel gamers aren't going to switch to a slower CPU.

The vast majority of Ryzen users are either corporate users who won't show up on Steam, or long time AMD users who refuse to use Intel. 100% of AMD users can upgrade to Ryzen and they aren't going to affect steam market share.
 
The market share numbers are for the first 3 days of Q3: 31%, 24%, 27%, not total for Q2, which ended up being 20.6%, up from 18.1% Q1.

So as OEMs build and test systems with Ryzen for back-to-school season, we are seeing bigger percentage going to AMD, making Q3 look somewhere between 25% and 30% ... big gains for AMD.
 
Is understandable Steam results due to initial Ryzen reviews were game performance was low. But many of those has been fixed and the tech has matured.

Subsequent products and reviews will show a better picture, and after word spread, then gamers will start switching too.

I'm personally waiting for Threadripper or Zen2, and a year for them to figure things out.
 
If you're a gamer, there is no reason to wait for threadripper. Unless you enjoy paying more for a slower cpu. Same goes for the high core Intel I9's. No game is going to run faster on a same clocked 10-18 core cpu than it will on an 8 core. Power limits necesitate that higher core cpus are clocked lower resulting in slower low core application performance.

No one using a recent Intel cpu is going to switch to AMD for gaming unless they just want an AMD platform. The GPU is pretty much always the bottleneck. Current Ryzen cpu's are not going to be optimized to the point that they will outperform Intel by enough to convince people to drop their Haswell or newer Intel platform.
 
I don't think that AMD has a lot of concerns in the OEM market. Most OEM is bulk buying for corporations and government, so CPU specs aren't the most important. Price is and current generation AMDs APUs are dirt cheap. Besides Raven Ridge is coming soon.
 
PassMark here (the person who made the graph in the first place):

First of all, thanks for posting our chart.

The market share graphs we produce are per qtr (i.e. 3 months intervals), but updated daily. The screen shot above was taken on the 3rd of July, which is the start of a new qtr. This means the last data point only contains data for 3 days. Which isn't a very good sample size. Submission numbers for 1 day can vary quite a bit, but after another week or so, the true trend for the current qtr should start to be visible. In the meantime the values for the current qtr can be expected to jump around a bit.

I believe the Steam numbers are total numbers across their entire user base, for all time, so even a big movement in the current month won't be apparent for a while. So it is somewhat of a trailing indicator. Still it is a bit surprising it was slightly negative. As far as I know Valve doesn’t publish much information about the Steam Hardware Survey’s methodology at all. So we don't know how bit the sample size is, or how many new machines are sampled per month.

Based on our numbers, it is absolutely true that AMD is gaining market share.
 

Thanks for the info, that explains the change! I'll update the article accordingly. :)
 
I have a feeling it will be awhile until you will see a movement in the steams number, if you do see one. My reasoning is most Intel users will stay to Intel and upgrade to a better processor within their chipset. I myself will upgrade my 6500 to a 7700K when I'm ready. The G4560 is going to bring in alot of budget builds which will pretty much lock them into Kaybe lake. Once the rysen 3 releases and after some time we may see that line move but I don't think it will budge by more then 2% if that by the years end.
 
Can confirm. My local store queued me for two weeks just for the 1600. Meanwhile, the store owner who also a friend of mine told me for that his Intel's stuff sales are actually decreasing rapidly lately while everything Ryzen forced him to queue his customer, as I was.
Also, he said that the only Ryzen cpu lineup that doesn't sell that well are the 1400. No clue why. Nevertheless, its apparent that people are more informed now. Thanks to PC tech sites like this and the rapid development of internet access.
Meanwhile, the GTX1050ti, no matter the vendor or even cooling method applied, are the best selling GPU. I suppose the main reason is because in my country the RX 470 being somewhere around $30-50 more expensive on average. And the 480 being $20-30 more, comparable with 1060 pricing.
Interesting times.
 
kinggremlin you made many assumptions with the Threadripper that may or may not be true.

What we know about Threadripper.
* More cores and threads than the Ryzen 7.
* More PCI-e lanes for more devices like multi GPU.
* Quad channel which means faster memory bandwidth. Or may I said more channels to do memory operations with at the same time.
* All memory issues addressed by AGESA, plus some issues AGESA can't fix.
* New chipset & board required. While not called that is technically a 2nd gen or refresh that may improve things both in chipset and third party mobo vendors.

What we don't know.
* Price
* Core and turbo clocks
* Overclock ceiling

Is a valid assumptions to believe that Threadripper will have a lower clock and OC due to the amount of cores and heat will produce. But is also a valid assumptions the clocks will not be so low because otherwise AMD will have a though time selling it. But don't compare Epyc clocks because those chips are made for a different market which requires reliable 24/7 x 365 days running uninterrupted.
 
I think Ryzen is slowly catching up with people as more and more word of mouth and tech press (youtube, etc...) is reaching them.

At this moment, all 7 Ryzen processors are in the amazon (US) best sellers list (22 or below positions) with occupying 2, 4, 9, 13, 16, 19, 22 positions.

In Amazon UK, Ryzen 5 1600 is the best selling CPU for some time now. Overall Ryzen processors occupying 1, 9, 10, 15, 21, 26, 27 positions in Amazon, UK.

In Amazon Germany, Ryzen processors occupying 2, 5, 8, 9, 16, 18, 27 positions.

Ryzen may not be completely dethroning Intel, but they are giving good competition to most of the Intel HEDT line up. More importantly, AMD is back in the HEDT after a decade.
 
I actually have a different interpretation from the steam results vs amazon. I don't think the people building computers with Ryzen are all none steam users or die hard AMD fans. Rather you seeing the difference between people who build there own computers and buy pre built machines. while most people that visit this site builds there own machines including my self am betting most steam users don't. If you look at the big name companies that sell computers marketed for gaming there still very few Ryzen builds being pushed. For example dell ailenware desktop line is all Intel. To me that why we see the steam numbers we do.
 
TL;DR: Passmark is probably being used due to BIOS updates, quoting Steam numbers (which is just a small part of the PC industry) is probably not good indication of current hardware trends.

Hmm.. my guess is this is the result of the frequent BIOS updates from mobo manufacturers (which is a good indication that the manufacturers' coders are doing their jobs) and the owners retesting their rigs.

The numbers presented in the Steam survey is for systems installed with the Steam software, and not all users get surveyed or participate (its optional and anonymous). Whole regions/countries where Steam isn't that popular won't get surveyed, you might get surveyed on your most used (but crappy) laptop if you have the software installed, some users claim that they haven't gotten the survey in years, etc. For its intended purpose which is to provide numbers for devs/services that use Steam as their distribution platform, the survey is a good enough representation of what Steam users have.

Again to stress the point, these are only Steam users and not all of them as well. Saying anything like these numbers are indicative of where the current (gaming) PC industry is going... nah.. and its a bit misleading to do so. Oh and these numbers are also directly tied to new purchases, but most likely to already existing (old, very old) systems.

My best guess on the negative % points on the Steam survey is that they treat the number of surveyed computers as their 100%. Notice how the +% and -% numbers even out? They get the % difference from the last numbers they had and the % values we see reflects that. Since it's anonymous data, we won't know if users are upgrading their systems, users installing Steam on multiple systems, or if Steam is in a virtualized system. So we're really just seeing raw numbers of that month, being added and compared to the sum total of all the surveys. Again for their internal usage, these numbers are a fairly good indication of what systems Steam is being installed on.
 
It's really good to see that the Ryzen platform is doing well. I've long been following its' development and I want to support the platform because it is nice to see Intel finally has some serious competition from AMD.
 
Someone explain to me why I would go from my 6 year-old i7-2600K overclocked to a Ryzen of any flavor just to go sideways on my gaming performance? DO NOT bait and switch me about cinebenchies or video compression, I got server farms that I got access to for that kind of crap.

Explain to me why and individual user would want to spend a boatload of money to go sideways?! Ryzen is an upgrade for my pathetic FX-8320 build, but since I got burned there, once, how stupid do you think I am going to be do that again?! No Ryzen chip should be priced higher than $250, if AMD is really looking out for the interest of the consumers, simply because that is where the single core performance tracks to compare to Intel. Guess what after seeing the pathetic AMD benches, I put together my new mini-itx the i7-7700K build, something that will actually appreciably out perform my i7-2600K after six years across the board with no asterisks attached, no bait and switch.

If AMD wants to win on the server side rendering farm, by all means do it, I welcome a CPU price war any day of the week. But do NOT lie to individual user or gamer. We are NOT all idiot trumpanzees and we ARE NOT fooled. Shame on AMD!
 
TLDR: 'It doesn't make sense for me to upgrade to Ryzen based on my specific circumstances and use case, therefore it doesn't make sense for anyone and AMD is bad for selling it (at its current price)'
 


According to Anandtech, the highest selling Broadwell-E CPU was the $1700+ 10 core 7950x, which has the lowest base and boost clocks of the Broadwell-E lineup. The same one that was universally pummeled on enthusiast message boards around the internet for its high price. If that is in fact true, then I can say with 100% certainty that it wasn't gamers or home users who drove those sales. Businesses who have money and to whom time is money, will not blink at dropping huge money on CPU's that are genuinely faster for the workloads they use. A drop of a few hundred MHz will not cancel out the performance gained from more cores. Even though Intel calls the E lineup the high end desktop platform, its sales are mostly to corporate customers not home users, because that's who can really take advantage of the additional cores and features. The same will be the case for Threadripper. Threadripper will not be the fastest gaming CPU AMD sells unless AMD just decides to ignore TDP and release a 200W+ TDP CPU, which I don't see happening, since again, corporate user will be the main customers and they are not going to want use such a platform.

If you think me claiming that Threadripper will cost more than current Ryzen CPU's and run at lower frequencies are some outlandish assumptions, whatever. As far as assumptions go, those are about as low on the totem pole as you can get. The rest of your spiel are features that will have little effect on home user performance. Multi GPU gaming is all but dead. Nvidia doesn't support above 2 cards even for Titans except for "benchmarking mode."
 


You sure like shilling for AMD. What did AMD pay you 50 cents per post or something? AMD has conducted this deliberate bait and switch marketing campaign that is plain as day for everyone to see. Either they reduce their price or do their damn best stick to the server market stop with the lies to the consumer and gamer, until then AMD has managed lose what little trust, faith, goodwill, and hope linger from the socket 939 era from everyone that remembers. I am both disappointed and angry at AMD for the sham they are conducting.

When I looked back the 939 era Athlon64, they won out right in fights with Pentium 4 and they still priced lower than Intel. With Ryzen they not only suck against Intel yet they try to price it higher than their competing i5-7600K and i7-7700K. This is called stupid and arrogance of the highest order! Intel is so happy they only had to do a slight 10% price reduction and kept AMD in check. There is so price war, AMD has flatly failed their purpose!
 


Uhhhh what? Just an example with the R5 1600, but you're seriously saying that a ~200 dollar 6 core 12 thread chip that's within 10% clock for clock of a chip that costs double its price is a bad thing (while beating it soundly in efficiency no less)? Or even not good enough when most people aren't currently taxing their computers enough? Even if you're only taking gaming into the equation the ONLY resolution where it fails to match up is at 1920 x 1080, and even then its not like it does terribly. Is it as fast at gaming as literally the fastest gaming chip ever made (7700k)? No. Will it let you stream, game, have many other apps up, and a VM running at the same time without choking? You betcha. I think you've just got some way crazy expectations from a company that very recently was just fighting for its life.
 


I got news for you. AMD has always been fighting for its life. My first PC back in 1989 had an AMD 286 for crying out loud. But AMD has always provided a price advantage justification to mitigate any risk it might have imposed. If you can recall the K5 was a disaster, and Bulldozer/Piledriver was just its latest disaster. And AMD had some good ones like the K6 socket7 and socket939 Athlon64 stuff. But thru the years they, as much as they like to make claims about their gaming creds, NOT once until ryzen did they try to pass off a server chip as a gaming chip, trying to deliberately mislead gamers with completely gaming unrelated benchmarks and marketing campaign of bait and switch, and still had the gall to price higher than intel while lying bald face to rest of us! We are NOT fools, this will NOT fool us.

Recall when the K7 socketA were a bit behind on performance compared to the P3, the T-Birds and Bartons were so much cheaper than the Intel P3, that it was no brainer to with AMD, and that is when you can make the argument stand based on "within 10% clock for clock of a chip that costs double its price". But Ryzen does NOT do that across the board for any of the Ryzen chip. It fails by a whopping %30 on single cores performance almost just as badly as bulldozer/piledriver crap did vs core i3/5/7. So down the line, you can expect the ryzen to bottleneck you video card far sooner than the your skylake/kabylake, just like that crappy FX-8320 did to my GTX970. BTW that hijacking of the FX label totally destroyed whatever gaming creds they had built up.

So my expectations are fully justified, what is crazy is to expect us to swallow AMD marketing crap. Grow a spine, challenge their BS.
 

How do you figure Ryzen costs more than an Intel?

And where do you see Ryzen having 30% worse single threaded performance compared to Intel?
 


Don't take my word for it, here are all the benches people have done see:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3647vs3916

And guess what, the R7 1800x at release in March was $499, and now the street price is a still too high $412 on Ebay.

And for the R7 1700X
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X/3647vs3915

It has come down to a still too expensive $307 on EBay. The market and smart money will tell you Ryzen is price gouging their fanboys, doing a massive disservice to AMD, their reputation, and their credibility.

And the i7-7700K is $280 retail in the box at Microcenter. Easy to get reputable place see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/472529/Core_i7-7700K_Kaby_Lake_42_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

And then you get another $30 off at MicroCenter on motherboard of your choice when you get the CPU with the mobo. Tell me why I should pay for more less with AMD Ryzen? Pretty please?
 


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom