Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Loyalty To AMD's GPU Product Among AMD CPU Buyers Is Decreasing (parsec.tv)

Posted by msmash on from the what's-happening dept.

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.

6 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. No shit Sherlock by Moheeheeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No shit Sherlock by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am curious to see if the sales will pick up right before release because if they do as they always have done the last gen chips will be selling at fire sale prices. Right before the FX line dropped you could grab a $175 Phenom II X6 for just $100 and the Phenom II X4s could be had for as low as $50, it was a great time if you wanted to build an insanely cheap gaming system.

      Personally I'll be sitting this one out barring my current system dying because...well frankly an FX-8320E with 8 cores at 4.1 GHz (4.5Ghz if I want to OC) is already super overkill for the tasks I have for it to do, I really don't see coming up with enough work to keep a 16 thread CPU fed honestly. People can say bad things about the FX chips all they want but every real world task I've thrown at it has shown it to be beefy as hell, all my games run over 60FPS with many topping 100FPS, video transcodes and editing even with huge 1080P game capture footage is nothing, hell even doing multitrack audio DSP renders just doesn't bog this chip down.

      So if they do like they did last time and have FX-8s for $100, FX-6s for $75, and FX-4s for $50? I could see those wanting a super cheap gaming or workstation PC snatching them up while the grabbing is good, the money you save can go into more RAM and a better GPU which will make a bigger difference in today's triple A games more than an extra 8 threads will anyway. Add in the fact that AM3+ gaming boards are really cheap right now? It'll be a no brainer, I seriously doubt we'll see games needing more than 6 cores anytime soon, most are just now beginning to demand a quad.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Re:Former AMD User by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    fukin hell man, use the enter key once in a while

    ps: no one cares about your entire cpu history

  3. Intel does not "make it easy" by Shane_Optima · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Intel does not "make it easy" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen i7s that didn't support Vt-d and goddamn 1.5ghz Celerons that did.

      That is one of the reasons why Intel can generally go fuck itself. You're much more likely to find whatever AMD has implemented in a CPU in all of them. ECC on AM1? Why Not?(TM)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  4. Dear AMD: by Shane_Optima · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?