That's a stupid, incomplete, and misleading statement. You might be able to say that at a given price point, in most games, when single tasking, at low res, and given a sufficiently powerful graphics card, that Intel chips usually have a higher average fps. You'd be lucky if 5% of people could tell the difference in a blind test, in the vast majority of scenarios.
June Steam hardware survey: AMD losing CPU share to Intel, Windows 10 cements top OS spot
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
That's a stupid, incomplete, and misleading statement. You might be able to say that at a given price point, in most games, when single tasking, at low res, and given a sufficiently powerful graphics card, that Intel chips usually have a higher average fps. You'd be lucky if 5% of people could tell the difference in a blind test, in the vast majority of scenarios.
Ryzen 2000's are already better for most gamers for the money. They may already be selling as well as Intel in the knowledgeable DIY market. It's laptops and OEM's where Intel has the leverage...not because of better products.
quadibloc
Posts: 423 +275
I'm sure things will change when the new Ryzens come out, in that AMD's share will be increasing instead of declining. But most people don't run out and buy new computers every year, so it will take quite a while for AMD to significantly increase its share of installed systems, as opposed to current sales.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
"Better", that's a subjective word. Better in Brand recognition yes but that's not a merit or advantage of the processors themselves. Better security, no and that does make a material difference. Stability certainly isn't a point for Intel either. In fact stability hasn't been an issue for processors in a long time. When was the last time a CPU launched with stability issues? Better think hard. Performance wise, Intel only wins in the absolute high end (until perhaps the very soon Ryzen 3000 series).
Also, didn't you make the argument when RTX released that they are supporting a tech that could be amazing in the future and that you have to start somewhere? Yet here you are, poking fun at AMD for doubling the number of cores twice in 3 years that gives software developers a ton more power to play with. If you haven't noticed the trend in recent games, that extra power is getting put to use. I think you fail to realize that having more cores is precisely what allows you to do things you haven't done before, as it has always been in the PC industry. Hardware comes first, Software follows and enables new experiences.
40% utilization just from the game, not accounting for anything running in the background. You have to assume that your 4 core CPU is always running in a benchmark environment with nothing running but the game, which simply is impossible for 95% of gamers. You'll also find very few quad cores nowadays that even outperform 6 core or more chips
https://www.techspot.com/review/1863-two-years-later-ryzen-1800x-vs-core-i7-7700k/
If the 7700K is being overtaken by the gaming mediocre Ryzen 1000 series, clearly lesser quadcores will not fare well. And once again, that's assuming you run a benchmark environment, which you likely don't.
I'd say most people on quad cores do need to upgrade to avoid a stuttery mess. If the 7700K is maxing out in games, you can bet lesser quad cores are having a much worse go at it. I'd also wager that a ton of PC gamers do upgrade more often then you imply here. Not everyone waits until what they have no longer works. If that's going to be your line of argument there isn't much reason to pay a premium to buy Intel in the first place.
And yet Microsoft pushes these patches out to regular users. I wonder who's security advisement people should take? Some random guy on the internet or security researcher's?
You have it backwards. AMD is better for most people right now (even most gamers). It will just take awhile for everyone to realize. The knowledgeable DIY'ers are realizing it first. Mindshare takes awhile.
Last edited:
Oh...and it's Intel that is struggling now...not AMD. Intel won't have a competitive product until 2022 at the earliest.
The numbers say otherwise. I don't need your opinion on them, I can do the math just fine. And you seem to be trying to downplaying the recession as if it was something insignificant. Were you too young back then to understand what was happening?
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
Are you guys reading the article, or am I missing something?
Well it depends. When you say 'struggling', do you mean losing in a steam survey? or something else?
Back on topic. It's most likely laptop sales that are helping Nvidia and Intel to get these high numbers. AMD still needs a lot of work there.
No matter how much I like Ryzen I still went with a laptop that has Intel+Nvidia because that was the best deal I could find in my budget.
No matter how much I like Ryzen I still went with a laptop that has Intel+Nvidia because that was the best deal I could find in my budget.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
You're right. Gaming isn't a huge money maker. Any information Steam has is irrelevant. Mom's and dads and their kids need 8+ cores to browse the web.
I would say it's more likely to be a specific class of machines, similarly to what happened when gaming cafes in China were introduced, which gave a huge boost to specific hardware (mid-range Intel+NVIDIA PCs). The current change is much smaller, but it could well be that somewhere in the world a new gaming cafe chain was introduced with low end PCs. Without the Steam survey offering per-country stats it would be hard to determine the source.
I don't believe the survey is accurate. Ryzen is clearly very popular in the DIY market, and I'm betting most enthusiasts are gamers. Certainly AMD's percentage of gamers went up since Ryzen's release in 2017 after those long years with Bulldozer. If it's not gamers buying up all the Ryzens, than who is it?
This survey shows that brand is of utmost importance in any industry. You really sell a name, a brand, a trust you created with your clients, not products from a point on. I mean, Intel has been a "bit" stuck in the past years, but people still bought their products, because people usually buy this brand, OEMs usually use this brand so these things are very hard to change in one or two years, the time Ryzen has been on the market. Also, lets not forget that AMD has been selling shitty stuff for a long time before getting their act together with Ryzen, so they still remember AMD as the hot, energy burning chips and on top of that, slower than Intel. Ryzen is a great start. They need to execute a few more years, 5 at least to get some traction again and gain back the trust that they lost during all these years.
Last edited:
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
You're just guessing.
I recommend you do some research on your own. Right now you're not giving me anything to work with. If anything, your comment is an attempt to get me to educate you, and I'm not going to do that.
If I'm guessing, you certainly are too. You appear to be assuming this one survey is an accurate portrayal of the market. Not to mention that I believe your judgement is off with statements like 'Intel is better for 80% of customers'. That tells me you don't know this stuff. It's an admittedly obsessive hobby of mine to check Amazons best selling cpu's, monthly mindfactory cpu sales reports, Newegg best selling cpu's, tech news and reviews. I don't think there is any way you could educate me.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
"You appear to be assuming this one survey is an accurate portrayal of the market."
So does TechSpot! Maybe you're in the wrong place. Or maybe computers aren't really your thing. Yet here you are, arguing with me about information in an article you don't agree with. Interesting....
Mindfactory, and Newegg are DIY shops and are NOT where the average consumer buys their computers, because average consumers don't build their own computers. Those average consumers, as well as corporations, are where the money is.
Ryzen gen 1 and 2 targeted the wrong market for a comeback. It's a start, but they have a lot of work to do. Zen marketing is all about core counts and multi-threaded performance, when we aren't there yet, and AMD isn't going to get us there unless they become the dominate player. Until then, Intel and nVIDIA dictate where things go.
You have a LOT more to learn.
Last edited:
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
Ryzen sucks at 1080p. The majority of gamers are at or BELOW that resolution, so tell me in detail how AMD is better for most people right now based on what you read in this article.
"It will just take awhile for everyone to realize."
There is so much wrong with that sentence it's not even funny.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
Your comments are so empty, I'm only replying because I can't sleep. Please stop pasting what you've read in comment sections and do your own research.
If this is struggle, Intel will be just fine for a while:
https://www.intc.com/investor-relat...t-Quarter-2019-Financial-Results/default.aspx
Being a techie can mean many things. My computer interests started in the early 90's. 1980's if you count the Commodore 64. Articles are meant to be interpreted. A June Steam survey is not an exhaustive and infallible report on the market. You are right about average consumers not building their own computers though...yay for you. These are the people that don't know very much about what's best. I am sure I have a lot to learn, but it's just that you are not in a position to teach it.
Talk about empty comments. Many people run GTX1070's at 1440p because it's fast enough for them. It's actually considered a good 1440p card. Something doesn't suck just because the fps is lower. It's clear you need to be educated, which I am not willing to do. Types of games, graphics cards used, diminishing returns at high framerates, doing more than singletasking a benchmark. So many factors, but in your mind it boils down to Ryzen sucks at 1080p...presumably because the average fps number is some arbitrarily lower number than Intel in a benchmark....nevermind how buttery smooth and high it might already be. So simple.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
Clearly you can't read so I must say goodbye now.
Me - "If anything, your comment is an attempt to get me to educate you, and I'm not going to do that."
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
This might be a semantic point, but shouldn't that read. the majority of gamers are at or ABOVE that resolution"?
Owing to the fact that 1440p is a higher resolution, and I thought that 2K monitors were really what's happening today. Since I've heard, (not from experience although I have one of the cards), that a 1050 ti makes you good to game @ 1080p
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
Did you even read the article, or did you come straight to the comments?
I've had to educate you, you are just not learning.
Similar threads
