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

Boshum

TS Enthusiast
I wouldn’t say I’ve read any comments on here from anyone saying that the tiny increase in Intel usage is because Intel is better at gaming. Although as you say, Intel is better for gaming and this is measurable (and noticeable in more cases than some like to admit). But I think what the consensus generally is that Steam users ratio of Intel to AMD CPUs is 4:1 because of a combination of factors, mistrust in AMD, the fact that Ryzen has only been around for 2 years and that most people on Intel quads simply don’t need to upgrade, users spending a lot on a rig will typically buy a K series Intel if it’s for gaming. Ryzen isn’t bad for gaming by any measure but it’s demonstrably it’s least competitive aspect. If you’re buying a pure gaming rig, at least until next week the faster options come from Intel and for AMD to be faster in a value sense requires overclocking, which a lot of users won’t be comfortable doing.

As for those video cards, well those listed are cheap entry level graphics cards that can slot into any rig with no power supply upgrade. They also happen to be available in many sub $1000 laptops which is where I think most of them are.
Yes, I *really* wish they could break out laptops from desktops. Mostly because I like to comb through data and there would simply be more to look over.

Also IMO Gaming is Ryzen's second worst aspect, with h.265/HEVC encoding being the worst. At least core count can make up for that at the higher end, unlike with most games, but we'll see in a couple of days whether Zen 2 can make a dent in that metric as well.
 

brucek

TS Maniac
If you want detailed technical guides and reviews as to which CPU is best for your use cases, there's plenty of those, probably all of which are more on point than the Steam Hardware Survey.

If we want to speculate on what factors drive the results seen on the survey, I'm in the camp that believes that raw performance and raw performance per dollar are both small inputs into a buying process that often may be shaped less by perfect technical knowledge and more often by what was on the shelf, what was on sale, how much money the buyer had at that moment, what the salesman or their friend or colleague said, etc.

There's another factor in that no matter what the PC gaming public has for power, many of the games they buy are going to be highly influenced by what the current console generation is capable of.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
Comparing Canadian dollars to American ones? Be more careful next time and maybe your arguments will be more accurate.
Meh. It's not an argument. I was stating a fact that seemed to hurt you very badly. There is a difference. 9400F is still $50 cheaper, and that's a lot of money to a lot of people looking for a $200ish gaming CPU.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
So the 2600X is $140 at MicroCenter and the 9400F is $158 at Newegg. Or you can get a 2600 and overclock for the same performance.
Not everyone lives in the US and near a Microcenter. Nor do the majority overclock.

I think a lot of us know at least one person with a K or X chip and running it stock. Like I said in a previous reply to you, too many techies don't know how to think like the average consumer and you have just proven that in spades with just that one comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loki1944
Meh. It's not an argument. I was stating a fact that seemed to hurt you very badly. There is a difference. 9400F is still $50 cheaper, and that's a lot of money to a lot of people looking for a $200ish gaming CPU.
LOL you don't have to lash out at every criticism, just take it in stride. You got something wrong, an honest mistake. Own it and move on.
 
If I am remembering correctly, even the new Ryzen 3000 showed to still be behind or next to the lowly 4/8 7700K.
You are not remembering correctly. The 7700k or intel 7000 cpus were matched against earlier Ryzens 2000s and 1000s, not Ryzen 3000. The benchmarks of Ryzen 3000 such as the $200 Ryzen 3600 cpu has the Ryzebs peforming comparable to the $400 i7 9700k in gaming. I don't think anybody was comparing it to old 7000 series.
 
Last edited:

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
LOL you don't have to lash out at every criticism, just take it in stride. You got something wrong, an honest mistake. Own it and move on.
Try again. You simply reduced the difference from $150 to $50. And like I said...

"9400F is still $50 cheaper, and that's a lot of money to a lot of people looking for a $200ish gaming CPU."
 

yeeeeman

TS Maniac
Matter of the fact is that all AMD cpus now are almost at the same level as what Intel has (talking about Ryzen 2000 series). The fact that people nowadays are so stupid to not see that a CPU that gives you 99% of the competition for less money is the right choice, is not AMDs fault. We are way past the point where we can complain about CPU performance. Take whatever CPU you like from AMD's lineup and you can game comfortably. Sure, for a few FPS less here and there, but we are past Bulldozer. We are over the 60FPS limit that was touted as perceivable. Now they invented another gimmick with 144FPS, that gives you quicker response. Suuure. After people has spent all their hard earned cash to buy that expensive monitor and that super fast 9900K, they started another gimmick, 240FPS. If 144FPS is like nitpicking, 240FPS is like scrathing the surface of the moon. But people like to spend a lot of cash to go that extra inch. And they have their right to do so, but seems like more and more people nowadays are caught by this "fake extra value" trap.
We can see this trend of low IQ customers everywhere. People buy iphones for 1000$ when a 600$ android flagship gives you the same or even better performance, better camera, better everything. It doesn't give you the Apple logo, which I guess is worth that 400$ difference.
So yeah, nothing out of the ordinary, just dumb customers doing their thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Capaill and Boshum

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
Matter of the fact is that all AMD cpus now are almost at the same level as what Intel has (talking about Ryzen 2000 series). The fact that people nowadays are so stupid to not see that a CPU that gives you 99% of the competition for less money is the right choice, is not AMDs fault. We are way past the point where we can complain about CPU performance. Take whatever CPU you like from AMD's lineup and you can game comfortably. Sure, for a few FPS less here and there, but we are past Bulldozer. We are over the 60FPS limit that was touted as perceivable. Now they invented another gimmick with 144FPS, that gives you quicker response. Suuure. After people has spent all their hard earned cash to buy that expensive monitor and that super fast 9900K, they started another gimmick, 240FPS. If 144FPS is like nitpicking, 240FPS is like scrathing the surface of the moon. But people like to spend a lot of cash to go that extra inch. And they have their right to do so, but seems like more and more people nowadays are caught by this "fake extra value" trap.
We can see this trend of low IQ customers everywhere. People buy iphones for 1000$ when a 600$ android flagship gives you the same or even better performance, better camera, better everything. It doesn't give you the Apple logo, which I guess is worth that 400$ difference.
So yeah, nothing out of the ordinary, just dumb customers doing their thing.
iPhones are miles ahead of any android phone performance wise at the moment. If you’re into tech do some research. Their in house mobile silicon is very impressive from a technology standpoint. Android Authority did a piece a little while back on why iPhones are so far ahead. If you’re into tech, give it a read it’s fascinating.

Also, in gaming, current Ryzen cannot give you what Intel’s chips can. This is provable and I’m fed up of members of tech community trying to claim that the difference is imperceivable. If definitely is. In most other areas it’s true and then some with Ryzen offering more than Intel in general. But for gaming, I’m sorry but Intel is still ahead and it’s absolutely measurable and perceivable. Although this is likely to change in a couple of days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lew Zealand

Toju Mikie

TS Addict
Matter of the fact is that all AMD cpus now are almost at the same level as what Intel has (talking about Ryzen 2000 series). The fact that people nowadays are so stupid to not see that a CPU that gives you 99% of the competition for less money is the right choice, is not AMDs fault. We are way past the point where we can complain about CPU performance. Take whatever CPU you like from AMD's lineup and you can game comfortably. Sure, for a few FPS less here and there, but we are past Bulldozer. We are over the 60FPS limit that was touted as perceivable. Now they invented another gimmick with 144FPS, that gives you quicker response. Suuure. After people has spent all their hard earned cash to buy that expensive monitor and that super fast 9900K, they started another gimmick, 240FPS. If 144FPS is like nitpicking, 240FPS is like scrathing the surface of the moon. But people like to spend a lot of cash to go that extra inch. And they have their right to do so, but seems like more and more people nowadays are caught by this "fake extra value" trap.
We can see this trend of low IQ customers everywhere. People buy iphones for 1000$ when a 600$ android flagship gives you the same or even better performance, better camera, better everything. It doesn't give you the Apple logo, which I guess is worth that 400$ difference.
So yeah, nothing out of the ordinary, just dumb customers doing their thing.
iPhones are miles ahead of any android phone performance wise at the moment. If you’re into tech do some research. Their in house mobile silicon is very impressive from a technology standpoint. Android Authority did a piece a little while back on why iPhones are so far ahead. If you’re into tech, give it a read it’s fascinating.

Also, in gaming, current Ryzen cannot give you what Intel’s chips can. This is provable and I’m fed up of members of tech community trying to claim that the difference is imperceivable. If definitely is. In most other areas it’s true and then some with Ryzen offering more than Intel in general. But for gaming, I’m sorry but Intel is still ahead and it’s absolutely measurable and perceivable. Although this is likely to change in a couple of days.
I would attribute performance increase on iPhone to the iPhone's lower resolution. Performance between the flagship phones are really close, that a resolution difference can change things up

As with Ryzen's gaming performance, yes, it is lower, but if you are only gaming at 60 fps (most people) then you won't be able to see a difference between 60 fps and 69 fps. In the scenario where you had a limited budget, you would get the processor that gets 15% less fps and use the $100-$200 extra to get a better Graphics card.
 

Boshum

TS Enthusiast
Not everyone lives in the US and near a Microcenter. Nor do the majority overclock.

I think a lot of us know at least one person with a K or X chip and running it stock. Like I said in a previous reply to you, too many techies don't know how to think like the average consumer and you have just proven that in spades with just that one comment.
Average consumers don't do DIY builds, and Newegg has the 2600X for just $22 more than the 9400F. I mention that overclocking the 2600 is an option and 'I've proven in spades'? No wonder you weren't rational earlier. I guess you are one of those average consumers.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
Matter of the fact is that all AMD cpus now are almost at the same level as what Intel has (talking about Ryzen 2000 series). The fact that people nowadays are so stupid to not see that a CPU that gives you 99% of the competition for less money is the right choice, is not AMDs fault. We are way past the point where we can complain about CPU performance. Take whatever CPU you like from AMD's lineup and you can game comfortably. Sure, for a few FPS less here and there, but we are past Bulldozer. We are over the 60FPS limit that was touted as perceivable. Now they invented another gimmick with 144FPS, that gives you quicker response. Suuure. After people has spent all their hard earned cash to buy that expensive monitor and that super fast 9900K, they started another gimmick, 240FPS. If 144FPS is like nitpicking, 240FPS is like scrathing the surface of the moon. But people like to spend a lot of cash to go that extra inch. And they have their right to do so, but seems like more and more people nowadays are caught by this "fake extra value" trap.
We can see this trend of low IQ customers everywhere. People buy iphones for 1000$ when a 600$ android flagship gives you the same or even better performance, better camera, better everything. It doesn't give you the Apple logo, which I guess is worth that 400$ difference.
So yeah, nothing out of the ordinary, just dumb customers doing their thing.
How are they supposed to see it? I don't have cable tv, so can you tell me if AMD is running commercials for Ryzen, because how else are average consumers supposed to know about it? Are an equal number of Ryzen PC's and laptops being sold next to Intel machines? Moms, dads, aunts and uncles are not keeping up with AMD on their own time by visiting tech sites, because that's not what they do, so how would they know?

Average people don't need PCIe 4 nor 5GB/s SSD's, so aside from a potentially lower price and lower performance, what does AMD offer them over Intel?

Think like a consumer, not a techie.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: loki1944

Boshum

TS Enthusiast
iPhones are miles ahead of any android phone performance wise at the moment. If you’re into tech do some research. Their in house mobile silicon is very impressive from a technology standpoint. Android Authority did a piece a little while back on why iPhones are so far ahead. If you’re into tech, give it a read it’s fascinating.

Also, in gaming, current Ryzen cannot give you what Intel’s chips can. This is provable and I’m fed up of members of tech community trying to claim that the difference is imperceivable. If definitely is. In most other areas it’s true and then some with Ryzen offering more than Intel in general. But for gaming, I’m sorry but Intel is still ahead and it’s absolutely measurable and perceivable. Although this is likely to change in a couple of days.
Level1Techs did a blind test some time back and all 3 of them couldn't tell the difference. Sure, maybe for the tiny minority of gamers that have the most expensive graphics cards, primarily single task shooty shooters, and use a high refresh monitor...there is a perceivable difference. Shout out to dolphin emulation, Starcraft, and some single-threaded MMO's too, but it's not the all encompassing unqualified simplistic generic 'better for gamers no matter what' that you Intel groupies would like to believe and brainwash everyone else with.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
Average consumers don't do DIY builds, and Newegg has the 2600X for just $22 more than the 9400F. I mention that overclocking the 2600 is an option and 'I've proven in spades'? No wonder you weren't rational earlier. I guess you are one of those average consumers.
I know how to think like an average consumer. When you do things make a lot more sense.

AMD has not done enough on the last 2-3 years with Ryzen to gain recognition among the masses. It takes time to build/rebuild a brand. You seem to be in a rush.

Think like a consumer, not a techie.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
Level1Techs did a blind test some time back and all 3 of them couldn't tell the difference. Sure, maybe for the tiny minority of gamers that have the most expensive graphics cards, primarily single task shooty shooters, and use a high refresh monitor...there is a perceivable difference. Shout out to dolphin emulation, Starcraft, and some single-threaded MMO's too, but it's not the all encompassing unqualified simplistic generic 'better for gamers no matter what' that you Intel groupies would like to believe and brainwash everyone else with.
This comment is all kinds of wrong.
 

brucek

TS Maniac
We can see this trend of low IQ customers everywhere. People buy iphones for 1000$ when a 600$ android flagship gives you the same or even better performance, better camera, better everything. It doesn't give you the Apple logo, which I guess is worth that 400$ difference.
I suspect folks will argue with you on the technical merits, but to most of my friends that wouldn't even be the point anyway. They are mostly working professionals making good money. Way more important than a few hundred bucks is having high certainty that the phone upgrade will involve no interruption, no re-learning curve, no moving data from one ecosystem to another, or worse having to re-purchase on another ecosystem, etc. They aren't buying the "Apple logo", they are buying productivity and continuity. All that goes double or triple if their phone is provided by and integrated with their employer's workflow system, and all their co-workers are on iPhone too. (The same of course could apply to people who stick with Android for the same reason.)

Also there's not one of them I'd call "low IQ."
 

Boshum

TS Enthusiast
I know how to think like an average consumer. When you do things make a lot more sense.

AMD has not done enough on the last 2-3 years with Ryzen to gain recognition among the masses. It takes time to build/rebuild a brand. You seem to be in a rush.

Think like a consumer, not a techie.
I'm in no rush. I'm enjoying the ride. Intel is getting a lot of free marketing with all the unqualified and simplistic 'Intel better at gaming' BS.
Marketing is a big advantage for Intel right now, but it's not everything...a lot but not everything.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
I'm in no rush. I'm enjoying the ride. Intel is getting a lot of free marketing with all the unqualified and simplistic 'Intel better at gaming' BS.
Marketing is a big advantage for Intel right now, but it's not everything...a lot but not everything.
This isn't about you.

Ryzen isn't going to take the number one spot from Intel by targeting techies and professionals. That's why the whole "more cores" thing is a little underwhelming. A big chunk of the planet doesn't need more than 4 cores for what they do on a computer. AMD needs to improve overall performance for the masses and improve on that performance year after year before they do any serious damage to Intel's dominance and reputation.
 

Boshum

TS Enthusiast
This isn't about you.

Ryzen isn't going to take the number one spot from Intel by targeting techies and professionals. That's why the whole "more cores" thing is a little underwhelming. A big chunk of the planet doesn't need more than 4 cores for what they do on a computer. AMD needs to improve overall performance for the masses and improve on that performance year after year before they do any serious damage to Intel's dominance and reputation.
"You seem to be in a rush" "This isn't about you"
You seem to be talking about me a lot, I'm just responding.
AMD already provides excellent performance for the masses, and just as good as Intel...'for the masses'. It's OEM's that have to provide adequate systems for the masses and this is where Intel has a big stranglehold. 'More Cores' is the way to go for big future performance gains, it's just software developers need to develop more for it.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
"You seem to be in a rush" "This isn't about you"
You seem to be talking about me a lot, I'm just responding.
AMD already provides excellent performance for the masses, and just as good as Intel...'for the masses'. It's OEM's that have to provide adequate systems for the masses and this is where Intel has a big stranglehold. 'More Cores' is the way to go for big future performance gains, it's just software developers need to develop more for it.
AMD has reached the masses
-global market share says otherwise

Excellent performance
-For professionals and streamers

OEM's
-Have next to no decent Ryzen systems, nor enough of them

MMore cores are the future
-Exactly. in the future. not now. AMD does not lead in general performance right now. Intel does.

Software devs need to develop for it
-AMD parts won't lead that charge with how little their chips sell compared to Intel. Why would devs work so hard so only 20% of the planet can experience their hard work?

Intel and NVIDIA are leaders. AMD is not.
 

Boshum

TS Enthusiast
"AMD has reached the masses"
Do you like putting words in people's mouths? I never said that.

"Excellent performance
-For professionals and streamers"

That's true. This does not mean it's not excellent for mainstream uses, which it is.

"OEM's
-Have next to no decent Ryzen systems, nor enough of them
"
Exactly why I said they need to offer them.

"MMore cores are the future
-Exactly. in the future. not now. AMD does not lead in general performance right now. Intel does.
"
The future has already arrived. Check the R5 1600 vs 7600K review from a couple weeks back on this site. The future is arriving everyday.

"Software devs need to develop for it
-AMD parts won't lead that charge with how little their chips sell compared to Intel. Why would devs work so hard so only 20% of the planet can experience their hard work?
"
With consoles and Intel adding more cores, developers will develop for them and are.

"Intel and NVIDIA are leaders. AMD is not."
Leaders in marketshare, AMD leads for innovation.
 

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
S
Level1Techs did a blind test some time back and all 3 of them couldn't tell the difference. Sure, maybe for the tiny minority of gamers that have the most expensive graphics cards, primarily single task shooty shooters, and use a high refresh monitor...there is a perceivable difference. Shout out to dolphin emulation, Starcraft, and some single-threaded MMO's too, but it's not the all encompassing unqualified simplistic generic 'better for gamers no matter what' that you Intel groupies would like to believe and brainwash everyone else with.
What I love about tech is you can measure its performance. And when measured Intel’s performance in games is definitely better.

To quote Linus from his Ryzen review on YouTube when referring to gaming performance:

“In a huge surprise to only the small group of AMD fanboys who insist on remaining wilfully ignorant for some reason. In the majority of cases, Intel’s 8700K defeats the Ryzen 7 2700X. And in some cases, like in GTAV, by a substantial margin”.

He then goes on and demonstrates a few examples of Ryzen failing to hit 60fps in areas on some games where Intel can. For example like in GTAV. He also makes the point that in general Ryzen is better than Intel at most things just not gaming. He also states that Ryzen is playable but is definitely in second place to Intel for gaming.

Stop being wilfully ignorant.
 

Boshum

TS Enthusiast
S

What I love about tech is you can measure its performance. And when measured Intel’s performance in games is definitely better.

To quote Linus from his Ryzen review on YouTube when referring to gaming performance:

“In a huge surprise to only the small group of AMD fanboys who insist on remaining wilfully ignorant for some reason. In the majority of cases, Intel’s 8700K defeats the Ryzen 7 2700X. And in some cases, like in GTAV, by a substantial margin”.

He then goes on and demonstrates a few examples of Ryzen failing to hit 60fps in areas on some games where Intel can. For example like in GTAV. He also makes the point that in general Ryzen is better than Intel at most things just not gaming. He also states that Ryzen is playable but is definitely in second place to Intel for gaming.

Stop being wilfully ignorant.
What's really sad and ignorant is that you seem to believe that a higher number in a benchmark at low res with a high end graphics card always means a better experience. It doesn't even always mean a better experience WITH that higher end graphics card at low res! It's only 'better' when it makes a difference in the user experience. I am struck by how incapable Intel groupies are of understanding anything outside of a simple benchmark chart, how limited their perspectives are. I am capable of considering different factors like budget, games played, or resolution and whether a framerate difference justifies an enormous loss of multi-threaded flexibility or upgradeability...and recommend either an AMD or Intel CPU, but you see a benchmark chart and that is the limit of your capabilities. I am not willfully ignorant, you are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: loki1944