AMD's desktop CPU share passes Intel's for first time in 15 years

brucek

Posts: 850   +1,217
Of course, but that really doesn't change anything. Now, corporation buys from OEM, it SHOULD go like this:

- "We want AMD CPU"
- "Sorry, we don't have and have no plans to get"
- "We go buy elsewhere then".

But it usually goes like this:

- "We want AMD CPU"
- "Sorry, we don't have and have no plans to get. We can only offer Intel."
- "Well, I just don't give a (peep), we buy Intel then, not my money".
I've met the occasional truly clueless corporate purchasing manager, but more often I've seen requirements generated that reflect actual business requirements. That does not include anything about brand names (why does the corporation care about AMD vs Intel); it does include performance where it is relevant, but advantages from additional cores beyond 4 for ordinary office workers are probably not on the requirements list; and, here's the kicker, it probably often includes a clause about timely delivery at volume, which is why the OEM could do it for Intel but not always for AMD. And while price is always relevant, the final bottom line price is TCO including lifetime service and internal and external support, which can make small differences in initial purchase price just an insignificant drop in the bucket.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 877   +1,637
From my experience, large corporations usually do not decide on a CPU but most often on an OEM. It's basically "we need two/ three tiers of laptops, make an offer including a service plan".

Depends on the product.

Example, all of our previous Qnaps were Intel, now we started buying AMD powered ones.

But on PC's, well, we used to buy Dell's, but looks like they are back at taking bribes from Intel, so we dropped them for Lenovo, which received an initial order of 200 laptops with Ryzen CPUs.
 

Farkinell

Posts: 188   +298
Surely there is a more reputable measure of CPU market share than "PassMark benchmarks run." Kudos to the PassMark PR manager who duped Techspot in running their press release, and shame on the TechSpot reporter who couldn't be bothered to call any legit data source to find actual reported data for two large public companies. Just for fun, should we guess what percentage of newly sold CPUs run a PassMark benchmark? I'm going to guess something well, well under 10%?

(This isn't any comment on AMD vs. Intel. AMD has recently passed Intel in being the "CPU I most want to buy", which is the metric I personally care about most.)

I must admit I usually can’t find fault in TechSpot reporting but I have to agree here, the PassMark database is absolutely not the correct metric for desktop CPU sales. It’ll be like saying the top 5 finishing cars in a race are Mercedes therefore Mercedes has overtaken Ford in car sales.

I would imagine not many $400 budget boxes ever get benchmarked, let alone the tons of crappy Dells that get shovelled out by the pallet load to corporate customers.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,233   +886
I've met the occasional truly clueless corporate purchasing manager, but more often I've seen requirements generated that reflect actual business requirements. That does not include anything about brand names (why does the corporation care about AMD vs Intel); it does include performance where it is relevant, but advantages from additional cores beyond 4 for ordinary office workers are probably not on the requirements list; and, here's the kicker, it probably often includes a clause about timely delivery at volume, which is why the OEM could do it for Intel but not always for AMD. And while price is always relevant, the final bottom line price is TCO including lifetime service and internal and external support, which can make small differences in initial purchase price just an insignificant drop in the bucket.

Corporate cares about AMD or Intel if someone on corporation cares and has high enough rank.

Timed delivery and Intel. Yeah. Basically put, Intel almost always have more serious problems delivering stuff to OEM's than AMD has. Past 3 years Intel has been very very badly capacity constrained because 10nm tech is late about 3 years. Basically put, overall Intel has had much more delivery problems to OEM's than AMD has when looking this century overall. Intel delivers on time is simply myth. Talking about servers, same thing. AMD delivers, Intel don't https://www.tomshardware.com/news/u...percomputer-delayed-due-to-intels-7nm-setback

I highly doubt TCO is higher on AMD products than on Intel products.
 

JStacts

Posts: 39   +48
From my experience, large corporations usually do not decide on a CPU but most often on an OEM. It's basically "we need two/ three tiers of laptops, make an offer including a service plan".

Oh yeah. Absolutely. It just worries me that I haven't seen any news of AMD CPUs being adopted by business lines like Dell Optiplex or HP Prodesk (Or whatever they're called these days). Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places...
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 877   +1,637
Oh yeah. Absolutely. It just worries me that I haven't seen any news of AMD CPUs being adopted by business lines like Dell Optiplex or HP Prodesk (Or whatever they're called these days). Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places...

I honestly believe that Dell is back at being bribed by Intel.

Because there is no real reason for them to continue this BS.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,713   +2,022
TechSpot Elite
"Intel also has the added worry of 5nm Zen 4 arriving later this year. Its Rocket Lake processors, which use a variant of Sunny Cove backported to the 14nm process, are reportedly dropping in March."
I find it interesting how the word "dropping" instead of "launching" has been used. Could this mean that Sunny Cove CPUs will all be DOA because they can't compete with AMD? I tell ya, the past (almost) four years have all been like Christmas since Ryzen launched. We're seeing real advancement and innovation that was denied us during the Intel sandbagging years and I couldn't be happier about that.

We're moving towards the ideal (50% Intel and 50% AMD) and if we reach it, tech advancement will really start accelerating like mad.

Everyone wins. (y) (Y)
 

Irata

Posts: 1,658   +2,777
Oh yeah. Absolutely. It just worries me that I haven't seen any news of AMD CPUs being adopted by business lines like Dell Optiplex or HP Prodesk (Or whatever they're called these days). Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places...
ProDesk and Elitedesk have been a available with AMD CPU even before Ryzen. Had one at my last job.

Dell...the best friend money can buy. Tbh, I wouldn‘t buy anything AMD based from them.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,713   +2,022
TechSpot Elite
While it is good to see them making progress, these data do not indicate a desktop market share lead. AMD really, truly, incredibly, desperately needs to get their products into corporate machines that are adopted by large offices. That is a very large and lucrative market that seems completely dominated by Intel.

There are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of office PCs that are never benchmarked (and therefore are never seen by sites like Passmark) but are used every day and represent millions if not billions in revenue to the manufacturer.
I completely agree with you. Passmark isn't a great metric for knowing what's out there (although there's no way to REALLY know for certain) because it mainly focuses on home PCs. The corporate world uses a crap-tonne of CPUs in their workplaces and those tend to all be "brand-in-a-box" because when you're buying hundreds or thousands of PCs at once, building them yourself just isn't feasible.
When time goes by, server and laptop buyers get more intelligent and situation corrects.
Their data centre share will probably be the first to jump because server managers are far more likely to purchase by spec (specifically, performance-per-watt) and EPYC has Xeon just completely dusted in that category.
Surely there is a more reputable measure of CPU market share than "PassMark benchmarks run." Kudos to the PassMark PR manager who duped Techspot in running their press release, and shame on the TechSpot reporter who couldn't be bothered to call any legit data source to find actual reported data for two large public companies. Just for fun, should we guess what percentage of newly sold CPUs run a PassMark benchmark? I'm going to guess something well, well under 10%?

(This isn't any comment on AMD vs. Intel. AMD has recently passed Intel in being the "CPU I most want to buy", which is the metric I personally care about most.)
I agree that this isn't exactly accurate because Passmark tends to only show home PCs but there really isn't any way to know the truth of the matter. What cannot be denied however is that we have two (less than perfect) trackers (Steam and Passmark) showing a trend that is a departure from what was. It's clear that AMD is winning somewhere even if we don't know to what degree.

I'd also point out that nobody has tried to argue against Steam's assertion that the GTX 1060 is the most popular video card in the world. Do I think that it's 100% accurate? Probably not but it is one of the strongest metrics of marketshare that we have, flawed though it is. I also harken back to when that Etherium craze was in full swing and I remember how it was impossible to find a Polaris card that wasn't priced through the roof. Hell, I was lucky to find an R9 Fury at some stupidly low price. It still holds up pretty well, able to play Godfall at 1080p perfectly. :D
ProDesk and Elitedesk have been a available with AMD CPU even before Ryzen. Had one at my last job.

Dell...the best friend money can buy. Tbh, I wouldn‘t buy anything AMD based from them.
TBH, I wouldn't buy anything from Dell, period. :laughing:
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,713   +2,022
TechSpot Elite
I must admit I usually can’t find fault in TechSpot reporting but I have to agree here, the PassMark database is absolutely not the correct metric for desktop CPU sales. It’ll be like saying the top 5 finishing cars in a race are Mercedes therefore Mercedes has overtaken Ford in car sales.

I would imagine not many $400 budget boxes ever get benchmarked, let alone the tons of crappy Dells that get shovelled out by the pallet load to corporate customers.
I absolutely agree but it does show a changing trend because the PassMark database used to say that Intel had the lead and that is no longer the case. It shows AMD winning somewhere and while it may look better than it really is, it's certainly not nothing.
 

brucek

Posts: 850   +1,217
For me the point in attacking PassMark as a source is not to dispute the underlying trend, but to express my disappointment in being offered such a weak-sauce source when there's so much better out there.

These are two large, very well-covered, public companies in a highly visible industry. Any wall street analyst, market researcher, or other serious industry participant could likely offer much better data along with much more insightful quotes. Or TechSpot could just provide its own analysis of existing primary sources like the required public filings of these companies. I'd be interested to read articles based on those.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,713   +2,022
TechSpot Elite
For me the point in attacking PassMark as a source is not to dispute the underlying trend, but to express my disappointment in being offered such a weak-sauce source when there's so much better out there.

These are two large, very well-covered, public companies in a highly visible industry. Any wall street analyst, market researcher, or other serious industry participant could likely offer much better data along with much more insightful quotes. Or TechSpot could just provide its own analysis of existing primary sources like the required public filings of these companies. I'd be interested to read articles based on those.
I don't think that the issue here is whether or not they could, but whether or not they would. Those guys tend to hate making things public, at least from what I've seen.
 

nodfor

Posts: 87   +144
I have no idea what exactly AMD fanboys are celebrating.
Prices right now from a search engine browsing tens of PC parts shops in my home region
10850K - 10 cores 440 eur
5800X- 8 cores, 524 eur
Price per core, 44 eur vs 65.5 eur
Intel gives you 25% more cores for 19% less money. Let's celebrate the leaps AMD made so they can charge 48% more per core than Intel.
 
These reports are incomplete. I personally procured and manage 11 Epyc servers (gen 1 and gen 2) at work and Passmark never touched them. Windows never touched them either. You would have to use HP sales data or Red Hat activations or something to know they're in use. Epyc is best at heavily multithreaded things, virtualization and the like, so I imagine there's a lot of deployed AMD servers that never get picked up by these reports. And yes, if you're curious, the servers have been very well received.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 866   +654
Someone please add a MEME of the doc dancing saying we did it with an AMD logo or Jurassic Park meme of the people in the Jeep saying HE DID IT! You SOB you did it!
 

arrowflash

Posts: 460   +498
I have no idea what exactly AMD fanboys are celebrating.
Prices right now from a search engine browsing tens of PC parts shops in my home region
10850K - 10 cores 440 eur
5800X- 8 cores, 524 eur
Price per core, 44 eur vs 65.5 eur
Intel gives you 25% more cores for 19% less money. Let's celebrate the leaps AMD made so they can charge 48% more per core than Intel.

Yeah, I'm often under the impression that AMD CPUs only offer decent bang for buck at the MSRPs they practice on the US market.

In my own backwards corner of the planet, AMD CPUs have always been heavily overpriced compared to Intel's on the mid and high tiers (this even back in the Bulldozer/Piledriver vs Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge days when Intel clearly had the better products). Here, AMDs are only cheaper in the low end.
 

SixTymes

Posts: 154   +100
Amd the new "chipzilla." the Saudi prince that invested in amd back in 2008 by buying millions of shares at $1.39-2 per share is happy again.
 

theruck

Posts: 362   +193
"AMD's desktop CPU share passes Intel's for first time in 15 years"
that is a miracle because at least in Europe the CPUs are more expensive than Intels if you can find one
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,151   +5,915
Given that gaming freaks and AMD fanboys are most likely to be purchasing AMD CPUs ATM Then, running benchmarks on them to prove to themselves and the world how smart and superior they are going with AMD, should these numbers come as any surprise?

I swore years ago to never buy another Intel CPU, until they show me something in a 10 nm process, (or less)

Unfortunately, Windows 10 put the kibosh on me building a new machine, period.
 

meric

Posts: 320   +334
I just hate the fact that AMD is falling short marketing their Ryzen mobile offerings. Imagine you make a product which is better than the competition in almost all metrics but you can't sell them effectively. Whether there an issue in marketing or OEM contracts, AMD needs to sell more mobile chips and in better quality/high end products. To be honest I don't see AMD even trying hard or giving enough effort to achieve this.
 
Yeah, maybe after 4-5 years but impossible in short term due to refined DLSS and RTX implementations of Nvidia while AMD is just getting hang of them.

I suspect Nvidia may introduce some sort of AI enabled texture/shadow/effect etc downscaling in future which will accurately predict which part downscale won't be noticeable to human eyes. Just like MP3 killed Raw audio, DLSS and similar tech will become the default except for the nitpicky few. AMD has not introduced something as exciting and they are just catching up.
People are funny. They say they want better graphics and go for higher resolutions than ever and praised ray tracing like godsend. And then they also praised to the skies a new high tech graphics downgrading technology DLSS.