Slashdot Mirror
Benchmarking Utility Shows AMD Ryzen Rapidly Stealing Market Share From Intel (hothardware.com)
According to PassMark, which publishes a benchmarking utility called PerformanceTest, the launch of Ryzen chips has resulted in a surge in AMD's share of its CPUs being tested. From a report: In the first quarter of last year, just 20.1 percent of tests were performed on AMD hardware, versus 79.8 percent on Intel chips. The gap widen by the end of the year, with AMD accounting for 17.8 percent of all tests run through Passmark's software, with Intel jumping up to 82.2 percent. Fast forward to the quarter than just ended and things are looking a bit different. AMD's share has climbed to 26.2 percent, while Intel's has slipped to 73.7 percent. Obviously Intel is still dominating, but what this shows us is that AMD was able to take a nearly 10 percent chunk out what is probably the enthusiast market from Intel. The reason we believe this is largely relegated to the enthusiast market is because AMD's Ryzen architecture is brand new, and that would be the most logical explanation as to why its numbers have suddenly spiked at the expense of Intel.
Limiting your market share sampling to people who run benchmarks is certainly not the best way to figure out how many CPUs are being sold.
That said, good on AMD for producing a chip that actually competes with Intel.
This benchmark utility not only shows how fast the new AMD processors are but it also steals market share from Intel?
I'd be interested to know how much anticipation of Ryzen's release accounted for lower AMD numbers last year. Knowing a new chip was imminent, most builders would likely hold off on constructing new systems until the new chip came out and reviews/benchmarks were available (who wants to build a system *just before* a new "bigger and better" CPU comes out?). If you were running older AMD hardware, holding off for Ryzen, odds are benchmarks were run when they were built, so there'd be no need to run benchmarks on "old" AMD systems. Intel's stronger market share would suggest Intel-based systems will be regularly upgraded/built, despite new offerings from AMD (just based on the sheer number of systems out there).
Intuitively, to me at least, it's no suprise fewer AMD benchmarks were run, which may skew the numbers (assuming the numbers are even useful in the first place (who's using these numbers to craft their corporate IT policy, or purchasing plans, or whatever?).
I am thinking the AMT hole in Intel chips has more to do with than the speed or technology of this new AMD chip.
Ryzen CPU's are not faster than Intel's offering on the top-end but for the gross majority of consumers and gamers they offer a great value. They provide a good destkop and gaming experience at a price point that's similar or cheaper than Intel's offerings.
I also see Ryzen showing up in a LOT of pre-built desktops and all-in-ones. It seems that AMD is offering builders and integrators a product at a price point that 's more attractive than what Intel offers.
Between Bulldozer and Ryzen AMD's products were garbage and Intel rightly slurped up most of the market. Now with Ryzen out, Intel has to lower their prices. I5s and i7s have been coming way down.
I like AMD. It is the best. I think that everyone should use AMD.
Maybe people tend to run benchmarks on their brand-new hardware, and not the hardware that they've been using for a while?
Just a thought.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
What seems to be happening is AMD delivered a good processor with good performance..
I built a machine with one this month for my kid. Very good performance for the power consumed if you ask me. You do have to throw expensive memory at them, but not THAT much more expensive...
I'm guessing my experience is not unique and it's nice to know that I'm not alone. However, all this really says is that folks who are building performance systems and are interested enough in their system's performance to run a benchmark program and tending to use the new offerings from AMD more often than they did before. It's good for AMD, but it's hard to make this into a clear trend in their favor over Intel. When you are starting below the basement, any step up is an improvement...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Glad to see AMD recovering and delivering a chip that offers decent performance and value. We bought a lot of AMD back in the days when you could warm your lunch up on the Intel chips. But extrapolating the vanishingly small "enthusiast" market from benchmark data into a double digit market share change seems to be more than a little but of a stretch. Intel still holds a lot of the cards with the bulk of PCs being sold. It's good to have glimmers of real competition again, though -- in any given market, having choice of vendor is a good thing for consumers.
It's a bit like measuring car sales by seeing who shows up at the drag strip to test their quarter mile times. "For the 31st year in a row the 1986 Chevy Camero is best selling car in America!"
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I read that article a week ago (possibly not from slashdot, so at least it might not be a dupe) and its conclusion seemed preposterous to me. You see sometimes websites or services (e.g. Steam) making claims about "market' behavior by extrapolating their own user data, and to a point you can say that they might represent a limited market - e.g. Steam pretty much has the "gaming market". But a benchmark making claims about market share after the release OF A NEW CPU ARCHITECTURE???
I want AMD to succeed, as without them Intel would charge us an arm and a leg for even their slow CPUs (they once did for those of you old enough to remember) - plus various other reasons - and have historically owned more AMD cpus than Intel ones, but it is obvious people would be benchmarking like crazy an "unknown" such as Ryzen, even compared to new Intel CPUs whose performance is more or less expected...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Hows that different from what the article says?
How many of those benchmarks are a complete AMD system (GPU+CPU).
"AMD still behind Intel, benchmarks confirm"
They forced board makers to rush out the X299 motherboards 2 months ahead of schedule... and after spending some time with one, I can say Intel has a problem on its hands.
Intel promises no bottlenecks in their newest chipset for RAID performance - up to 20 drives, SSD or nvme, can be used. Performance has been measured at up to 16GB/s, which seems incredible... they also promise "RAID-0 for free"
Why for free?
Because the new X299 motherboards have a "VROC Upgrade Key" socket. Unless you pony up more cash to Intel, some of the RAID features only work with Intel storage (hence the "Optane-ready" logo on these motherboards). As for RAID-0, there is Free, and then there is "free" - On the board I had, the Gigabyte X299 Gaming 7, the third nvme slot could not be used to build a RAID-0 array at all without the key (or possibly an intel-branded nvme). Worse, the RAID-0 arrays would not be recognized by Windows as BOOTABLE, which is kind of the whole point. All this is "fine print" stuff, or buried in poorly written chinglish manuals.
So, spend $400 on a new motherboard, $1000 on an intel 10-core CPU, and... no bootable RAID-0 array for you, because you didn't buy Intel Optane sticks. No technical reason for this, just a DRM key that enables artificially hobbled features on your system.
Did I mention that the VROC key isn't even available yet? Not for ANY price.
I can safely say my next system will NOT be an Intel system. Screw them and their "VROC" scam.
Going by that logic, yes, but it's not all there is to it.
AMD had a name for being cheap and slow. Now they're claiming to be cheap and fast. That itself is an incentive for people who do buy AMD to check the claims, say by running a benchmark. So it may well be that more people buying AMD are also running benchmarks than did previously. What this says about the actual market share, is less clear.
AMD is still on a downward trend on Steam, which you would think has a higher share of enthusiast CPUs than average. Of course those are accumulated figures, not new sales so changes will be smaller and depend on market share of retired processors but the rumors of AMDs recovery are a bit exaggerated. The Q2 guidance is 12% YoY growth but compared to their downhill slide they have a long climb back up to profitability.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It sounds like a good chip; does AMD still have a heat-intolerance problem? Dunno if that's ancient history now, but as my systems end up running in rather warm environments, Intel's downstepping (rather than frying) when over-warm was really a fantastic feature.
-Styopa
...6 and 8 core processors. Since previously those would be limited to Intel Extreme or Xeon CPUs, a number of people are likely buying Ryzen R5 and R7 processors.
Dell, HP, and other manufacturers prefer to ship with integrated GPUs and AMD's APU hasn't launched yet. The trick here is that customers who buy a Dell might not even care what processor they get.
On the other other hand, I assume AMD is going to aggressively undercut Intel in laptop processors, so they'll probably gain market share there.
It's long overdue, and I will admit I'm enjoying seeing Intel scramble after years of incremental improvements. I saw just the other day that Dell is now selling Ryzen equipped Inspiron gaming PC's. Looks like all Ryzen 7 at the moment, but it's a good sign that they didn't just restrict Ryzen to the Alienware line. Will be curious to see if they add SKUs with Ryzen 5 and 6 processors later. Prices are reasonable too.
When I get around to it, I'll get or build a Ryzen 7 box. While it's not the 'fastest' gaming CPU, it's miles ahead of my Core i5 650 and the multithreaded performance for video encoding has my mouth watering. I'm happy AMD didn't fixate on gaming performance. I'll gladly take 5-10% less raw speed in games to get massive boosts in other uses.
Still, I'm amazed at the mileage I've gotten out of my old Core system over the last 6 or 7 years... SSD, 16GB RAM and a video card upgrade every couple of years and it's only in the last year it's gotten hard to get a good speed/quality balance with graphics options at 1920x1080.
pretty much all the Intel chips have a known level of operation - the new chip will obviously be benchmarked more to test config changes like more or less ram or different GPUs.
Don't forget Butch...
When will we see a Mac running on AMD processors?
Because of all the garbage gaming news, I had forgotten AMD even made CPUs! Typically most of what you see is about their GPUs since they bought out ATI. I would love to get off of Intel and back onto AMD, particularly with the management engine and other binary-only spyware Intel likes to sneak on to their products. I remember fondly my allegiance to them and the K7 CPU! inventing the amd64 wasn't half-bad either. I just wish they would have kept ATI separate so that I could tell the difference.
But officer, I was only trying to achieve attain gain reach recapture reclaim recoup recover retake take back win back repossess retrieve salvage reacquire reattain.
As someone who would have put themselves in the "enthusiast" category, I can say that many (if not most) who've been around the block wouldn't use a benchmark utility in the first place.
While synthetic benchmarks might give you a real general sense of performance they are at best poor, and at worst, terrible. I recall not only benchmark companies cheating, but in additional the graphic card companies cheating. Optimizing card performance for benchmarks rather than for real life situations.
Anyway, as you said, good for AMD however.
I like green eggs and ham. So what?
I am curious to read up on more, but it isn't on the wikipedia pages, so more details are needed.
Also: Compaq was dickholes by the early 90s, nevermind mid. Think of all their proprietary memory modules for instance, plus psus and assort other garbage.
I'd say late 1992
They had some great engineering going on but never let an engineer run a company.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K