June Steam hardware survey: AMD losing CPU share to Intel, Windows 10 cements top OS spot

[markwills]

I am and you are right, I'm not Melania. I'm giving him an approval rating, because he was the only choice outside of Clinton. I'm not ashamed of who I voted for.

you should be

 

[mailpup]

Perhaps some of you can get back on topic. Thanks.

 

[fluffydestroyer]

well, while Intel has the greatest vulnerability to spectre and meltdown, AMD isn't immune either, even ARM chips have shown some vulnerability

true but Intel's marketing practices are just plain evil. I have a feeling if AMD had the chance to do the same things Intel did to try to destroy their competitor and they wouldn't do it. I could be wrong but Intel is ... shameful.

 

[hahahanoobs]

It's not surprising at all to see AMD drop in a Steam survey.
While other software is available on Steam now, lets be honest, its a gaming platform mostly used for gaming.
Well, Intel's chips are better in games.
If I am remembering correctly, even the new Ryzen 3000 showed to still be behind or next to the lowly 4/8 7700K. That's great that these chips have enhanced IPC and they look good, but until they game as good or better, these Steam results won't change.
While all the various benchmarks look good in a review, in all reality not many people care about encoding or file conversion, or multitasking, or file zipping performance. All chips do those things well these days.
Steamers want gaming chips over all.

You say 'lowly' 7700k, but that was a $340 chip new in January 2017! Nothing lowly about it, that was the very best consumer chip Intel put out just two and a half years ago. Can you even buy a used one for less than $200 now? That's how much a new six core Ryzen 3600 will be.

Tests are showing that multithreaded and Ryzen specific optimisations are starting to impact performance positively in gaming. Techspot here showed how much better the Ryzen 1600 now looks against a 7600k than it did 2 years ago. No doubt in no small part to the fact Ryzen's software support is maturing, and Intel's performance is actively degrading with every security fix in Windows.

The 7600k was a little faster in games back then, now it's noticeably slower on many demanding titles showing a positive trend for more extensive multithreading in games, one you can expect to continue.

The obvious reason why AMD's CPU share has slipped back in this survey is a great many number of people are holding back on buying AMD upgrades because the Ryzen 3000 series are due soon. Count me as one of them.

What leaks and tests appear to be are showing are a bottom end Ryzen 3600 $200 AMD part is probably within 5 percent in gaming of a near $500 top of the line Intel part.

If this is indeed the case and there are another bunch of faster AMD parts above this base model, we definitely WILL start seeing significant changes in these Steam survey results in the coming year!

Intel's chips are better than AMD's for 80% of consumers. They have the brand recognition, the performance, and stability. ALL things AMD has struggled with.

AMD isn't directing where the market is going. They aren't a big enough player to do that. Intel is. Intel can add more cores like AMD did and has. AMD has gone above and beyond with their core counts, leaving most of their chips' potential UNTOUCHED by consumers. ESPECIALLY gamers when you go beyond 6 and 8 threads.

I still remember back when DX12 and Async Compute were on everyone's lips, there was a core performance test on Tom's Hardware, and performance topped out at 6-8 cores/threads. That is STILL the case today. 80% of your average consumers don't need anything beyond 4, 6 or 8 thread parts. I said this when Ryzen first launched. Hey, you have a 16 core chip from AMD you bought for cheap, but what are you gonna do with it? Start doing things you didn't do with a computer before? Yea right. Case in point, people don't buy Ferarri's to go the speed limit. AMD is surely aware of this. AMD sucks at giving us high clock speeds, hence their push for MOAR CORES. Think about it.

If AMD wants to give us more cores, fine, but give us a boost in overall performance over the competition too. Until then, AMD will continue to struggle, and for good reason.

 

[koblongata]

Don't know about others, but I have been waiting for their 10nm CPU and GPU for MORE THAN A YEAR ALREADY.

 

[ForgottenLegion]

AMD market share has to go up. What ***** is going to buy an Intel chip when Ryzen is kicking so much ***?

 

[captaincranky]

Don't know about others, but I have been waiting for their 10nm CPU and GPU for MORE THAN A YEAR ALREADY.

I've been waiting for Intel's 10 nm CPU for the best part of three years, but then I've been here a lot longer than you.

Point of fact, I won't even get involved with these arguments, until Intel either craps 10 nm parts, or gets off the pot.

Besides, I won't even build a new system if I'm forced to have Windows 10 to run it, and that's AMD or Intel.

Can we go back to politics now, pretty please?

 

[jasaero]

All this commentary and nobody is pointing out the clock speeds/core counts suggest the Intel strength is because somehow this survey has likely started to include LOTS of laptop gamers. It makes sense also as the need for a desktop to get reasonably good gaming experience gets less and less each year.

Basically until AMD really shifts their focus more mobile...stuff like this survey will show them weak. I suspect at some point though as Zen gets more saturated market share wise in desktops that AMD will start to push mobile products earlier in the cycle. Right now it seems Zen 2 mobile will be mid-cycle of Zen 2....but would not be surprised at all if Zen 2 is super successful on desktop and takes a lot of intel share if you see something like Zen 2 mobile getting replaced with Zen 3 mobile really early just cause they will have a lot of saturation on desktop and need to push laptops harder to keep momentum.

 

[Nobina]

Recently there was a benchmark between R5 2600X vs. i5 9400F and AMD was marginally better in performance but also better in some other areas...and cheaper. Right now if I was buying a CPU it would be Ryzen without a doubt. Intel is definitely more popular so even if it offers a worse product it's still gonna do well.

 

[grumblguts]

AMD losing CPU share to Intel
are people that stupid.
Honestly ive been waiting a long time to upgrade and it wont be intel again.
I havent had a driver update for my cpu in over 6 years,

 

[Geravor]

I fricking hate conspiracy theories, but its something that has been bugging my mind for a few weeks now. On my main rig, (r5 1600x, rx 590) steam never asked me about the specs of my pc.

But on the budget PC I bought for my mother (pentium g4560, using the IGP) the survey poped up within 1 month.

Coincidence? Probably yes, but its interesting nonetheless.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

It's not surprising at all to see AMD drop in a Steam survey.
While other software is available on Steam now, lets be honest, its a gaming platform mostly used for gaming.
Well, Intel's chips are better in games.
If I am remembering correctly, even the new Ryzen 3000 showed to still be behind or next to the lowly 4/8 7700K. That's great that these chips have enhanced IPC and they look good, but until they game as good or better, these Steam results won't change.
While all the various benchmarks look good in a review, in all reality not many people care about encoding or file conversion, or multitasking, or file zipping performance. All chips do those things well these days.
Steamers want gaming chips over all.

Are they still better when patches disable HT?

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Recently there was a benchmark between R5 2600X vs. i5 9400F and AMD was marginally better in performance but also better in some other areas...and cheaper. Right now if I was buying a CPU it would be Ryzen without a doubt. Intel is definitely more popular so even if it offers a worse product it's still gonna do well.

Indeed, and AMD is far less affected by all the hardware security issues. Mac Book Pros losing 40% speed thanks to HT being disabled for security. People hung about a a few fps in games but insist on buying lame *** video cards rather than spend $50 more on something that will easily overcome the fps deficit due to processors.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Intel's chips are better than AMD's for 80% of consumers. They have the brand recognition, the performance, and stability. ALL things AMD has struggled with.
...

80% of your average consumers don't need anything beyond 4, 6 or 8 thread parts. I said this when Ryzen first launched. Hey, you have a 16 core chip from AMD you bought for cheap, but what are you gonna do with it? Start doing things you didn't do with a computer before? Yea right. Case in point, people don't buy Ferarri's to go the speed limit. AMD is surely aware of this. AMD sucks at giving us high clock speeds, hence their push for MOAR CORES. Think about it.

If AMD wants to give us more cores, fine, but give us a boost in overall performance over the competition too. Until then, AMD will continue to struggle, and for good reason.

The vast majority of consumers (who are not represented in this Steam survey) don't need anything more than a Ryzen 1200. Among other things, the vast majority of consumers have something weaker than that in their current machines. And the biggest deficiency in those machines is mostly that they have spinning rust instead of SSDs. The CPU has been adequate for almost everyone since Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Ryzen 3.

AMD doesn't "struggle" (I assume you mean "have lower market share") because their chips aren't fast enough in some metric or another. They are already overkill for most people. AMD simply doesn't have the mindshare. Years of underperforming CPUs before Ryzen and I suppose the backdoor deals Intel made with the OEMs that people harp on about are the reasons. But for the vast majority of people it's not a lack of CPU performance at all.

 

[quadibloc]

After July 7, I would expect AMD to start gaining some ground. But lots of people are satisfied with the computers they have; AMD will be an attractive option for those who want a new system; that will be a fraction of the total systems in use playing games.

 

[hahahanoobs]

The vast majority of consumers (who are not represented in this Steam survey) don't need anything more than a Ryzen 1200. Among other things, the vast majority of consumers have something weaker than that in their current machines. And the biggest deficiency in those machines is mostly that they have spinning rust instead of SSDs. The CPU has been adequate for almost everyone since Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Ryzen 3.

AMD doesn't "struggle" (I assume you mean "have lower market share") because their chips aren't fast enough in some metric or another. They are already overkill for most people. AMD simply doesn't have the mindshare. Years of underperforming CPUs before Ryzen and I suppose the backdoor deals Intel made with the OEMs that people harp on about are the reasons. But for the vast majority of people it's not a lack of CPU performance at all.

Wow. Did you even read my comment?

Intel's chips are better than AMD's for 80% of consumers. They have the brand recognition, the performance, and stability. ALL things AMD has struggled with.

80% of your average consumers don't need anything beyond 4, 6 or 8 thread parts. I said this when Ryzen first launched. Hey, you have a 16 core chip from AMD you bought for cheap, but what are you gonna do with it? Start doing things you didn't do with a computer before? Yea right. Case in point, people don't buy Ferrari's to go the speed limit.

I'll also add that AMD sucks at developing software while Intel excels at it.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Remember when I said 80% of consumers? Remember when I said "4, 6 and 8 cores were enough?" Read it again if you missed it. Basically you wasted a whole paragraph repeating what I had already said claiming it as your own. Don't do that again.

Whatever.

I read and fully understand your position. You ignored mine, which is cool. Nobody convinces anyone of anything here, especially when they lead their comments with an attitude problem like you did there.

Enjoy your day!

 

[hahahanoobs]

Whatever.

I read and fully understand your position. You ignored mine, which is cool. Nobody convinces anyone of anything here, especially when they lead their comments with an attitude problem like you did there.

Enjoy your day!

You give up way too easy. Or did you give me everything you had already?
It's not MY position. It's fact, business and common sense. LOL
If you know better and without blaming Intel on AMD's behalf, why hasn't AMD excelled with first and second gen Ryzen parts? I mean, Intel chips have all these security holes and AMD has all these cores for cheap that are "good enough", you'd think AMD would be top dog by now, right?

 

[Lew Zealand]

You give up way too easy. Or did you give me everything you had already?

Nah, I just find it tiresome to discuss things with people who wander away from the topic over to making personal comments. It serves no purpose.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Nah, I just find it tiresome to discuss things with people who wander away from the topic over to making personal comments. It serves no purpose.

Cool, cause I get tired of reading copy and paste comments from 10 years ago.
Not sure how I strayed from the topic when I acknowledged you copied most of my comment claiming it as your own. The rest of your comment reads like a script. What I'm really confused about is how you said what you said about AMD being good enough after reading this article, and being witness to AMD's history.

It seems you like to ignore the facts and play the blame game. And you wonder why AMD is struggling.

 

[Toju Mikie]

The top selling CPU on Amazon is currently the Ryzen 5 2600, $149.99. They are doing well in DIY, but I think what is happening here are non DIY customers buying more laptops, which have been huge majority Intel. Also, Intel CPUs have recently received price cuts. i7-9700k is now $364.99, down from $419. i9-9900k is now $479.99, down from $525, and i5-9400f is down from $199 to $149. As for the dual core increase on Steam, I can't figure that out

 

[hahahanoobs]

It's not surprising at all to see AMD drop in a Steam survey.
While other software is available on Steam now, lets be honest, its a gaming platform mostly used for gaming.
Well, Intel's chips are better in games.
If I am remembering correctly, even the new Ryzen 3000 showed to still be behind or next to the lowly 4/8 7700K. That's great that these chips have enhanced IPC and they look good, but until they game as good or better, these Steam results won't change.
While all the various benchmarks look good in a review, in all reality not many people care about encoding or file conversion, or multitasking, or file zipping performance. All chips do those things well these days.
Steamers want gaming chips over all.

You say 'lowly' 7700k, but that was a $340 chip new in January 2017! Nothing lowly about it, that was the very best consumer chip Intel put out just two and a half years ago. Can you even buy a used one for less than $200 now? That's how much a new six core Ryzen 3600 will be.

Tests are showing that multithreaded and Ryzen specific optimisations are starting to impact performance positively in gaming. Techspot here showed how much better the Ryzen 1600 now looks against a 7600k than it did 2 years ago. No doubt in no small part to the fact Ryzen's software support is maturing, and Intel's performance is actively degrading with every security fix in Windows.

The 7600k was a little faster in games back then, now it's noticeably slower on many demanding titles showing a positive trend for more extensive multithreading in games, one you can expect to continue.

The obvious reason why AMD's CPU share has slipped back in this survey is a great many number of people are holding back on buying AMD upgrades because the Ryzen 3000 series are due soon. Count me as one of them.

What leaks and tests appear to be are showing are a bottom end Ryzen 3600 $200 AMD part is probably within 5 percent in gaming of a near $500 top of the line Intel part.

If this is indeed the case and there are another bunch of faster AMD parts above this base model, we definitely WILL start seeing significant changes in these Steam survey results in the coming year!

Buy AMD today, for tomorrow!

If you seriously think AMD's numbers are low because gamers are waiting for 3rd gen Ryzen parts, then what do you get from Intel's numbers, because the fluctuations between the two companies look awfully similar and Intel doesn't have a new chip coming out...

AuthenticAMD
17.34%
18.02%
18.26%
18.01%
17.88%
-0.13%

GenuineIntel
82.63%
81.96%
81.72%
81.97%
82.11%
+0.14%

 

[wiyosaya]

With the impending release of Zen 2, it would not surprise me if those with AMD on their build list are waiting for the new CPUs. I would if I were considering a build at this time.

 

[Shadowboxer]

The vast majority of consumers (who are not represented in this Steam survey) don't need anything more than a Ryzen 1200. Among other things, the vast majority of consumers have something weaker than that in their current machines. And the biggest deficiency in those machines is mostly that they have spinning rust instead of SSDs. The CPU has been adequate for almost everyone since Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Ryzen 3.

AMD doesn't "struggle" (I assume you mean "have lower market share") because their chips aren't fast enough in some metric or another. They are already overkill for most people. AMD simply doesn't have the mindshare. Years of underperforming CPUs before Ryzen and I suppose the backdoor deals Intel made with the OEMs that people harp on about are the reasons. But for the vast majority of people it's not a lack of CPU performance at all.

Wow. Did you even read my comment?

Intel's chips are better than AMD's for 80% of consumers. They have the brand recognition, the performance, and stability. ALL things AMD has struggled with.

80% of your average consumers don't need anything beyond 4, 6 or 8 thread parts. I said this when Ryzen first launched. Hey, you have a 16 core chip from AMD you bought for cheap, but what are you gonna do with it? Start doing things you didn't do with a computer before? Yea right. Case in point, people don't buy Ferrari's to go the speed limit.

I'll also add that AMD sucks at developing software while Intel excels at it.

I completely agree with this. Most people don’t need more than 4 cores. Games are now beginning to take advantage of 6 cores over 4 but even then if you have a quad core you’re not going to go rush out and buy a 6 core CPU as 4 cores are still fine. And as for video encoding, well, it still takes time. I go downstairs and make a coffee or something or whatever when I master my videos, more cores are faster but I’d still need to leave my PC for a bit. I’m not video editing enough to warrant needing that extra bit of time back. Actually I find my iPad Pro does a pretty fantastic job of mastering videos and have started to use that instead of my PC/laptop, the pencil is pretty awesome too, very good for video work. I don’t need an expensive 16 core monster to video edit, very few people do I think. Professionals definitely but home users? Not convinced.

I find it amusing when we see reviews of chips and in games an 8 core chip is using 40% of the CPU and running slower than a quad core which is at 90-100% and people think that’s a good thing!? So you’re going to recommending buying a chip that’s not being fully utilised and performs worse?

It’s not that surprising that steam hardware surveys have 4 Intel CPUs for every AMD CPU our there, Ryzen has only been around for 2 years. It takes years of consistently making good products to build market share. I think Ryzen 3xxx would be my go to if I needed a new CPU but I don’t, so I’m not going to buy one. Users upgrade when they need to generally and so if a newer better CPU comes along you aren’t going to see everyone selling what works fine for them now and buying it. You only get the guys who need an upgrade or people buying new systems. And the Intel quads most people are on won’t need upgrading anytime soon for most people, at least for gaming purposes.

Oh and it still amuses me that people are talking about Intel’s security flaws. The ones that have had zero confirmed breaches, that require massive resources to execute and then the performance patches that have a zero to negligible effect on performance for singular users. Well guess what, I’m running an Intel CPU and I’ve still got HT turned on, yeah I like to live dangerously lol. But seriously, you are an order of magnitude more vulnerable using an Android phone then you are an Intel based windows PC (provided you don’t click on dodgy links! You know who you are!). And I think Android phones are fine.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Doesnt surprise me. Sales of Ryzen chips are likely slowing down thanks to the impending launch of the 3000s, and Steam hardware survey can also be all over the place. I have yet to see it ever pop up on my ryzen based rig over the last year, yet my old ivy bridge rig had the survey 6-7 times over its lifespan.

Ryzen launched to great fanfare, but the 3000s are more of an incremental jump then a revolution. AMD needs to push harder into the server and mobile spaces to get consumer confidence up.