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 $1,570. In the last 31 months, brand loyalty to AMD seemed to push AMD CPU builders to choose AMD graphics cards at a much higher rate than Intel CPU builders. 55% of machines with an AMD CPU also had an AMD GPU; whereas, only 19% of builds with an Intel CPU included an AMD GPU. In the last six months, AMD has started to lose even more ground to Intel and to Nvidia. On the CPU builds, only 10% of gamers building on PCPartPicker were opting to buy an AMD CPU. Among these, the percentage that decided to pair their AMD CPU with an AMD GPU dropped to 51%. The challenges that AMD is seeing in the overall GPU market are being felt even amongst their loyal supporters.
of course people aren't buying AMD CPU's in the last six months, we've been waiting for the new ones to come out.
my gtx 780 blew a resistor or something. since it was last minute, I bought a r390x because it was cheap.
I no longer bother turning the heat on in my office. What's the point?
AMD CPUs are awesome.
AMD GPUs, not so much.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
fukin hell man, use the enter key once in a while
ps: no one cares about your entire cpu history
I am looking hard at Zen for my desktop as I have run out of SATA ports and the CPU is starting to show its age when running 2-3 VMs. Then I will consider the next gen AMD GPU.. maybe in another year or so.
Silence is a state of mime.
I can't even tell what their newest CPU's are.
The easy answer regarding what to look for and what to ignore: Buy an Fx-8300 for normal work, or an X4 845 for games, or one of the new Bristol Ridges for something that can be GPU-accelerated, once they hit the market, and in any other case (including high end), wait for Zen.
Ezekiel 23:20
Of course AMD desktops are cheaper. While AMD provides a better performance / price ratio than Intel, at this moment AMD does not compete in the high end category at all. If somebody wants a high end desktop (above 2000$) 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.
Yeah, but it's too bad that Nvidia doesn't feel the same way.
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).
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.
Define loyalty ? Brands position themselves as being certain things, and as long as they maintain that they are "loyal to you".
Nvidia is a good example of a computer hardware company that has maintained it's brand values, if you have one of their cards for whatever reasons you are going to to get good performance from it. ATI/AMD not so much. They have had crap drivers for windows going all the way back to win 95. That's another feature of understanding a brand.
Just out out of interest, other than a random religious war, why pick on GPU drivers?
I mean for example do you have the source code to your motherboard bios?
Can you even get the binary blob for the embedded CPU in your microwave or dishwasher?
Even If nvidia gave you the soruce code could/why would you change it?
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.
Ironically, I still use AMD graphics cards, but I switched to Intel CPUs a while back.
When I quote the GP, I see new paragraphs at "As far as AMD goes, I had a ATI/AMD Rage 128" and "They have my business with video cards,". He probably has Posting options set to "HTML Formatted" which requires <br> or <p> tags for new lines. I prefer "Plain Old Text" because I can use enter.
AMD had the market when Intel was marketing the Flop of the Pentium 4 (Spaceheater 4). Leading the way with 64 bit as well. My understanding AMD management starting going out of control at that point. Intel threw out the Pentium 4 entirely, and based Core series on the "Pentium M", originally developed as a low power Notebook CPU, as the 12000BTU air conditioner requirement for the Pentium 4 Mobile resulted in poor battery life.
I bought a couple K8 generation AMDs, but when I built my last rig, the performance/value proposition made it hard to not go with Intel, as much as I'd like to encourage competition.
Driver's weren't the issue. Both had had their fair share of driver issues (nVidia drivers supporting new games in SLI were THE WORST, it took 1.5+ months to play the latest Battlefield and COD titles in SLI, let alone with any stability). These were just flat out dead GPU's with no overclocking. I found the manufacturers for most nVidia chipset cards do not clock fan speeds properly and the GPU's would get excessively hot. Running a game for an hour would overheat them and I'd get artifacts and game crashes until they cooled up. I used MSI's AfterBurner software to ramp up the GPU Temp / Fan Speed curve so it would ramp up the fan speed MUCH sooner and got stability. I would only activate the profiles when gaming though due to excessive sound from the fans. My guess is running them with stock fan speeds most of the time caused GPU failure or perhaps heated up the solder and the GPU or even VRAM became dislodged as a reflow with a heat gun fixed one for a bit.
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
This. I just switched to Plain Text. Thats for the help! I read articles a lot via RSS but hardly comment or visit the site directly anymore.
Ah I remember those Pentium 4 Mobile's as well. I worked on a few of those at my old job, cleaning up dried out thermal paste and gunked up giant fans that were in those laptops.
The K8's also weren't bad. I almost switched then but kept a Socket 478 1.6ghz P4 for a while. Wish I went K8 then though, would have had DDR memory instead of more expensive PC133 at the time.
You don't need the source to your BIOS to boot an OS; it's an entirely separate thing. (Unless your BIOS will only boot a cryptographically signed kernel.)
You don't need the source code to your microwave to run an OS on your computer. And while it'd be nice to be able to modify your microwave to play DOOM or whatever, most people just don't care much about that, they just want it to cook their food. Microwaves and dishwashers just aren't something many people care about modifying; they're simple appliances. Computers are not. Lots of people do not want to run the OS their computer came with, and if you account for OS updates/upgrades and also patches, almost no one is.
The source code to all of Nvidia's driver isn't all that important; the problem is that their driver just doesn't work that well in Linux because of the way it's packaged, and because they don't make use of some newer features in Linux that make it nicer to use. It is possible for them to keep the "secret sauce" in a binary blob and put the stuff like KMS in open-source code, but they've done a somewhat half-assed job of it all.
The other problem with Nvidia's source code is that, on the Windows side, they've been found to put a bunch of crap in there to game the benchmarks. Testers have found huge differences in performance when running some game normally, versus after renaming the executable for instance (i.e., there's code in the driver to look for a particular executable being run, and then turn on/off certain optimizations to artificially get better numbers for that benchmark, perhaps at the expense of quality). Open-source code avoids this kind of thing.
But really, the primary problem is interoperation. It's a lot easier to make sure the system all works together correctly when you have the source code for all the components at their interfaces, so for instance if you want to redo how mode-setting works, you can fix it on both sides and send out some patches instead of having to put together a cross-industry committee and convince them to make a small change. A lot of things work quite nicely in Linux because various teams (like the Debian devs) have visibility into all the parts, and are able to contribute changes across a stack, instead of things being siloed the way it is in Windows where it's basically impossible to get another team to change something to make it work well with something on your end, so you end up with API madness.
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/
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/
Even stallman thinks it's OK for appliances.
His standard is if it's expected to be updated by consumers, it should be open (so bios should be, non-smart microwave not so much)
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
>> You don't need the source to your BIOS to boot an OS; it's an entirely separate thing.
No it really isn't. You also don't need the source to the loadable firmware of your GPU to be able to use it either.
>> the problem is that their driver just doesn't work that well in Linux because of the way it's packaged,
Nvidia GPUs have always worked MUCH better/more reliably than any ATI GPU/driver i've ever (tried to) use under Linux, at least for me. Most linux distros already come with nouveau installed and its a simple apt-get to install the nvidia linux driver.
>> most people just don't care much about that, they just want it to cook their food.
OK well if that's a legitimate excuse then it clearly also stands for all other consumer hardware, including GPUs.
>> The other problem with Nvidia's source code is that, on the Windows side, they've been found to put a bunch of crap in there to game the benchmarks
THat was like a decade ago, and ATI were doing it too.
>> But really, the primary problem is interoperation. It's a lot easier to make sure the system all works together correctly when you have the source code for all the components at their interfaces,
Sorry but thats baloney, Apart from the fact that you don't and even can't talk to the binary blob directly anyway, all you would need is the API spec. In the same way you don't talk directly or need the source to your intel CPU's microcode, which BTW is yet another example of a binary blob loaded at runtime (usually by the bios) that the same people complaining vociferously about the closedness of nVidias drivers conveniently overlook.
Here's mine but more than CPU. At least there are bullets and paragraphs. Enjoy! :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
$1570 average for an Intel game machine. Meanwhile all the AAA games are designed with a console in mind, and those sell for $200-$250.
You can build a console-murdering PC for around six to eight hundred bucks.
There is a price penalty for Intel, but it is superior. Notably, minimum frame rates are higher. I went AMD anyway because the CPU was a hundred bucks cheaper than an Intel processor about 15% faster. But I went with an nVidia video card because I've been down that other road enough times already.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They were too competitive! Granted only in the original Athlon era and briefly in the beginning of the multi-core era, but they have been competitive!.
The GPUs are in some cases (often in my country) about 65 to 75% of the price of the nvidia options but 75 to 95% as fast...... they are often a no brainer product.
The CPUs however are atrocious, AMD offers nothing and has offered nothing in a heck of a long time, their new stuff best be significantly better or in the very least, quite a bit better and MUCH cheaper than Intel
The article says only that some computer builders do not buy an AMD graphics card for their systems with AMD processors. There is no mention of buying Nvidia cards for them either. They are just happy with the integrated graphics in their APUs. As they come from AMD the story has no point and is not a news.
I buy AMD CPUs, because they're cheaper and usually a better value (power/$), 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.
Those were my thoughts. I've had much better luck with nvidia than AMD/ATI, from both a hardware and software perspective.
(YMMV)
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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.
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/
Isn't the 6845 a display controller aka CRTC ?