Slashdot Mirror
The Loyalty To AMD's GPU Product Among AMD CPU Buyers Is Decreasing (parsec.tv)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Data from the builds on PCPartPicker show an interesting trend among the buyers of AMD CPUs. Of the 25,780 builds on PCPartPicker from the last 31 months with a price point between $450âS - $5,000, 19% included an AMD CPU. This is in-line with the Steam Hardware Surveys, but things have changed recently. Builds with AMD CPUs tend to be much less expensive than those with Intel CPUs. The builds with an AMD CPU were $967 on average versus the Intel CPU builds, which were on average $1,570. In the last 31 months, brand loyalty to AMD seemed to push AMD CPU builders to choose AMD graphics cards at a much higher rate than Intel CPU builders. 55% of machines with an AMD CPU also had an AMD GPU; whereas, only 19% of builds with an Intel CPU included an AMD GPU. In the last six months, AMD has started to lose even more ground to Intel and to Nvidia. On the CPU builds, only 10% of gamers building on PCPartPicker were opting to buy an AMD CPU. Among these, the percentage that decided to pair their AMD CPU with an AMD GPU dropped to 51%. The challenges that AMD is seeing in the overall GPU market are being felt even amongst their loyal supporters.
of course people aren't buying AMD CPU's in the last six months, we've been waiting for the new ones to come out.
my gtx 780 blew a resistor or something. since it was last minute, I bought a r390x because it was cheap.
I no longer bother turning the heat on in my office. What's the point?
AMD CPUs are awesome.
AMD GPUs, not so much.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I was a BIG AMD fan back in the Athlon 64 Days. I had a Athlon 64 X2 3400+ 939, later upgrading to a AMD FX-60 CPU in the same socket. Those were the brief days where AMD performance beat out Intels on multi-core systems. However once the i7 series came out, Intel was back on top again. I had i7 920, now a i7 4700K and will be getting i7 7700K once they released. Yes the Intel CPU's are more, but cost per performance is well worth it especially considering I upgrade every 3-4 years. As far as AMD goes, I had a ATI/AMD Rage 128, Radeon 7000, Radeon-All-In-Wonder 8500DV, then switched to nVidia with a 7900GT, that failed on me, then a 8800GTS, that failed one me, then GTX 275, that failed one me and stupid me got dual GTX 570's in SLI. SLI never works right especially with new releases. Coupled with my fail rate of nVidia chipset cards, I went with a AMD R9 290 which was reasonable price for a video card with top performance. Still have it and still play most games I have on high settings no problem. No plans to uprgade, but when I do for Desktop systems I will be keeping with good luck AMD. For laptops, I've gone nVidia just because they have better graphics switching than AMD currently between integrated and dedicated. They have my business with video cards, but CPU's they have a long way to go to get me to consider them performance wise. I can't even tell what their newest CPU's are. Intel makes it easy, i3 Basic, i5 mid range i7 high end. and models are easy where in WXYZ, W= generation, XYZ high numbers are faster within the generation. AMD with Their FM2 and AM3+ cores I cant tell whats low end and whats high end easy enough.
When they claimed they were going to be committed to open source for their drivers, I bought their products exclusively for years. Then I noticed that I was still being forced to get binary blobs after about 3 years, I switched to Intel exclusively. Oddly enough they're the only company that seems to care about open source at all.
I am looking hard at Zen for my desktop as I have run out of SATA ports and the CPU is starting to show its age when running 2-3 VMs. Then I will consider the next gen AMD GPU.. maybe in another year or so.
Silence is a state of mime.
Of course AMD desktops are cheaper. While AMD provides a better performance / price ratio than Intel, at this moment AMD does not compete in the high end category at all. If somebody wants a high end desktop (above 2000$) they must use Intel and pay the hefty price premium. Moreover, even if one wants a top AMD configuration now, he will instead wait 2 months and buy a Ryzen processor.
Intel makes it easy, i3 Basic, i5 mid range i7 high end.
First off, this information is useless without knowing the generation (Sandy Vagina or whatever) and even knowing the generation isn't nearly enough information. U (low power) variants are slower across the board, K variants mean overclockability or something, and if you actually care about specific features like AMT, Vt-d, Vt-x, AES-NI, etc. you pretty much *have* to head on over to Ark because there's no consistency whatsoever. I've seen i7s that didn't support Vt-d and goddamn 1.5ghz Celerons that did.
Their market segmentation strategy is chaos and the i3/5/7 thing is pretty much worthless, though admittedly Ark is nice saving grace that I really wish AMD would copy.
I guess this means I will have to buy a complete AMD system on my next desktop gaming PC upgrade.
I have this terrible fear of a reality in which AMD has shut down and the world is at the mercy of the one and only Intel GPU monopoly.
After years of only buying AMD (had CFX 7970s and currently running an R9 290X), I'm making the switch and getting a 1080ti. I would defend AMD back in the day, but with regular driver crashes and other issues, In over it. Time to see if the grass is really greener on the other side(no pun intended).
AMD processors run hot, have very little cache, and generally don't get the job done. ATI video cards run hot, and generally don't get the job done either. It's no wonder their fanbase is finally waking up to these facts. captcha: unbiased
NVIDIA has been consistently faster than AMD on the high end, and is able to price their low-end products in a way that puts them equal or better to AMD's products. NVIDIA also has a big library of code for developers to integrate with. So your games will generally run faster and look better on NVIDIA. There is only a single reason to buy AMD right now: they support the VESA-standard variable-framerate VSYNC that almost every monitor -- even cheap ones -- is supporting now.
Go full tilt open source. Specs to your CPU completely opened up; nothing hidden (that doesn't mean you can't keep it patented though), unlike Intel's stuff. GPU drivers completely open sourced so that all Linux distros include it by default. Advertise yourself as the open and secure (as in no 'obscurity') option.
Yes, we are a pretty small slice of the gaming (or general computing) pie. But we are influential. We're the ones people turn to when they ask what they should buy. Some of us (not me) will start submitting useful GPU driver patches to you, for free.
What have you got to lose? Do you really think your current drivers are so goddamn awesome that NVIDIA is going to use them for inspiration?
Stop being loyal to brands cause they certainly arnt loyal to you.
People are starting to face the reality that AMD has never really been competitive. They constantly and consistently have sub-par offerings that fall well below what intel is offering. Sure you pay less, but you also get something that has a chance of not being able to do the job that needs to be upgraded every year just to keep up.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
AMD has released *LOTS* of actual new cpus in the past 5 years. FM2, AM1, and the laptop/server equivalent CPUs/sockets were all new designs. IN FACT, it is impossible to obtain an IOMMUv2 system that is not an 'SoC' design. (AM3+ is the last of the hypertransport+southbridge based systems. While there is still a southbridge/superio-like device for some ancillary features, the actual IO busses are now on-chip for new CPUs.)
What they have *NOT* released was new AM3+/C32/G34 equivalent CPUs, or CPUs without Intel ME-equiivalent issues (Called SEE or something else I forget, and implemented with either an LM32 on early southbridge based models, or an ARM A5 core as a dedicated Trustzone/Secure Kernel processor on FM2+.. original FM2 was LM32 based, or didn't include it. Details on this are scarce online and somehow haven't made it onto wikipedia despite years of processors.)
Having said that, apparently hackaday has up a documented hack for the Intel ME issue that initializes the ARC ME processor, but deletes the 'app blocks' that operate the PCI Management Engine interface and the Network Device bringup and service code, allowing you to run SandyBridge+ chips without crashing AND without 'network/system functional' ME services, for people who consider it a security issue. AFAIK the AMD system uses a single signed image which sadly doesn't avail itself of a similiar 'workaround'. Meaning that outside the latest gens of Intel hardware that ALSO have a signed VGA Bios (since Intel GPUs are now GPGPU capable, and thus a similiar but not as far ranging threat as the ME) you can now have more freedom/security with a post 775 Intel system than you can with an AMD FM2+ or soon Zen system.
Hopefully AMD will change its tune and at least at Zen+1/AM4+ provide chips which can support strapping the AM4 chips to use a signing key from the SPI flash chip, instead of using the onboard AMD signing key, allowing end-users to control their own TrustZone/SEE cores and thus the security of their encryption keys and system in general.
For those asking why that capability is needed: Because being able to sign your bios with a non-standard key DOES provide security, especially with open source bios implementations like Coreboot, which could actually make use of the secure environment features to keep serious but non-state hackers from rewriting your bios, even if they can pwn the rest of the system up to (former) supervisor level.
Seriously, Zen is about to drop. AMD haven't had a new CPU for years.
I'm sure it's a total co-incidence you're sinking the boot into AMD one month before Zen is meant to come to market.
How stupid do you think we are?
I've switched brands a few times over the years. My 6 year old overclocked system with an HD 5770 finally crapped out, and I looked at the latest offerings from both companies. The reviews and benchmarks were decidedly in Nvidia's favor. The pascal based cards cannot be touched right now. I went with an eVGA Geforce 1080, and really like it. I'm running QHD right now, and overclocked the card to 2Ghz with no temp issues at all. DOOM4, Tomb Raider, Mortal Kombat XL, and GTA5 look amazing with the setting on ultra while gettign 60fps minimum. So, I am not regretting this at all right now. Granted, I dropped $640 on this lol.
I have some motherboards with AMD 8088 processors on them. I don't think AMD ever made a clone of the 6845. I'll just use the original, a rockin' Motorola 6845.
Ironically, I still use AMD graphics cards, but I switched to Intel CPUs a while back.
Unless the company has personally treated you amazing, being the white knight for a giant corporation is an incredibly dumb thing to do, and something you only do because we're just hairless tribal chimps. But you can overcome that.
Be a whore. Buy whatever's best at the time. When the AMD M1s were out I used nothing but. Then they slowly fell behind and I switched to Intels, and have been there ever since - I had hopes for Piledriver, but no. But if the AMD Zen is as good as it looks then I'll be all over that. Same thing with graphics cards. I've done Voodoo, Matrox, ATI, Nvidia, AMD, using an NVidia 1080 right now just because it was best bang for the buck with least power and noise.
Do you really think they care if AMDNo1Fan is out there defending it in every thread and loyally buying only AMD? Only insofar as it means they can raise prices on you. Buy from someone else and force them to get better.
Sorry, but the last straw for me was when I upgraded the radeon drivers on my W10 machine (which I use for gaming). It took an hour to remove all the crapware AMD installed in addition to the drivers. Particularly onerous was their new video recording technology deciding that it would record a game session without telling me so it could pop up a 'see how great this was' window later on.
My answer - spend an hour removing it all from the machine. Then go out and replace my radeon card with a low-end GTX 1060 which performed better and uses 1/3 the power. Instead of buying into AMD's next-gen Polaris.
--
In anycase, external GPUs only matter for game playing these days, or if you need to multi-head four or more monitors. The GPU packed onto the cpu die is plenty fast enough for almost everything these days, and its video acceleration is decent so there's really no reason to buy an external GPU unless you are a game-player.
For non-game activities, AMD's APUs or Intel's GPUs on the cpu chip work fine. I have no problem driving two 4K monitors on my workstation (nearly all of my machines being Intel these days, since AMD dropped the ball on power consumption years go). That said, Intel has been far more open in the last few years and both Linux and DragonFly work great with Intel's built-in CPUs and can use all the 2D, 3D, and video accel features.
The fact that low-end GPUs packed into cpus work fine removes a large vector for customer loyalty. And the crapware AMD started forcing onto people finished the job. Hence why I have a little 1060 in my windows gaming box now. Nice and quiet, zero stress on the board or the machine... no reason to spend more money on a higher-end card.
-Matt
AMD ZEN needs to come intel pci-e lanes suck and with pci-e storage, usb 3.X more are needed.
The RX480 launched around July/August. They got generally good reviews too (besides some power issues with the reference RX480) and were available when the 10XX line cards were either not available or being scalped for silly prices (I saw 1060s going for upwards to $400).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Once upon a time, snobs like you decried the x86 line for having too much legacy tech bogging it down. "Build us a CPU with a clean sheet spec!" you all cried. So Intel did, and produced the Itanium. What did you people (yes, YOU people) do?
You proceeded to bash Intel for dropping backward x86 compatibility, and didn't buy it.
I keep hearing on /. that AMD has fixed their drivers (as long as you don't want SLI), but then the Steam forums are lit up with AMD users fighting with their cards on games like Fallout 4, Doom, Far Cry 4, you name it. I got burned by an AMD Card many years ago after upgrading from my rock solid 1650x. I'm a cheapskate and don't have a ton of money so I've been gun shy on AMD. My last card was a GTX 660 and I hate to say it by my next card will probably be a 1060. I miss the better image quality AMD offered and the vastly better performance for the price, but I don't have it in me to screw with video drivers on and off...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I have a AMD system running a 8350 cpu with R9-390x viddy card on a Sabertooth fx990 mainboard.. Runs everything fine for me .I know it's not the fastest system around but I'm happy with it. /
$1570 average for an Intel game machine. Meanwhile all the AAA games are designed with a console in mind, and those sell for $200-$250.
A fool and his money, as the saying goes...
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
The GPUs are in some cases (often in my country) about 65 to 75% of the price of the nvidia options but 75 to 95% as fast...... they are often a no brainer product.
The CPUs however are atrocious, AMD offers nothing and has offered nothing in a heck of a long time, their new stuff best be significantly better or in the very least, quite a bit better and MUCH cheaper than Intel
The article says only that some computer builders do not buy an AMD graphics card for their systems with AMD processors. There is no mention of buying Nvidia cards for them either. They are just happy with the integrated graphics in their APUs. As they come from AMD the story has no point and is not a news.
You've already missed the boat on buying AMD stock. Stop trying to take it down with you fake news FUD.
I buy AMD CPUs, because they're cheaper and usually a better value (power/$), and nVidia GPUs because they're awesome, and really the only game in town for a while after buying out 3Dfx (and I never really liked ATI's stuff). So, I guess I kinda locked in to my hardware choices when AMD was kicking ass with the Athlon and nVidia was tearing things up with the Rivas.
I wanted to build a new AMD based PC, I couldn't even find an AMD motherboard, here in Malta.
So I switched to Intel. That's why.
I had an older core-2 duo that I wanted to upgrade to a core-2 quad. Being an AMD guy in general I never even stopped to think that Intel wouldn't support the virtualisation extensions on the faster/newer chip, but *surprise* it wouldn't run my VM's properly.
You need to be *very* careful with model #'s when it comes to Intel and stuff like this.
I will say one thing: it does appear that Nvidia's OpenGL performance is still better than AMD. Thankfully though most of the GL games I play also support Mantle.
The nice part: no more third-party kernel drivers. The AMDGPU driver is baked in and works nicely.
Right on. As far as I'm concerned, the OP put out a click bait article.
Here's a nice rebuttal
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3153058/computers/no-amd-loyalists-arent-abandoning-radeon-graphics-cards-in-droves.html
I've purchased mostly ATI (now AMD) GPUs over the years. The problem is that they stopped selling what I wanted. I really liked the All-in-Wonder boards (aside from the 9800 whose fan locked up). Trying to find a decent video capture board these days is pretty difficult. I still end up with ATI chipsets but I don't pay a premium price for them anymore that's for sure.
My machine sucks. It's an AMD 800 MHz X 4cpu. Decided to upgrade. A lot of the bare bones companies didn't even offer ATI. They all offered Nvidia. The GPU I have right now is a Nvidia. I don't like it because I have to compile a driver every time I go to upgrade the kernel. WTH do I need to do that this day in age?
So I ended up buying a 5 GHz AMD with a 1000+ GPU Nvidia card. I'll put the old card in there too. The MB + power supply I bought will handle it.
ATI had better wake up, or they'll be out. Nvidia - let others distro your driver.... damnit! I understand I'm a Linux guy. Doesn't mean I want to compile all the time.
I love the AMD GPU hardware but I regret buying my RX 470. I am stuck on Windows 8.1 because of drivers crashing SWTOR and Hyper-V Virtual machines on 10
http://saveie6.com/