Report: More PC gamers are turning to AMD's processors

Adi6293

Posts: 556   +657
This is simply not true.
For gaming, Intel's $350 9700K matches and beats AMD's much more expensive chips, right up to their flagship. Chips like the 8700K are still better then the 3700 and 3800X...heck even 3-5 generation old i7's still hang with Ryzen or beat them.
The fastest gaming chip in the world in an Intel CPU, or the KS.

An article by PC Gamer has AMD in 3rd place for 2019 Best Gaming CPU's.
For the majority of people gaming, Intel is superior.

And the folks making the 'only at certain resolutions or with certain GPU's' argument need to go look at the results again. Intel's chips are faster across the board, at various low/high resolutions and with various GPU's both red and green. The 9700K absolutely wipes the floor with the 3700X and 3800X in gaming for the price.
Not sorry.
I am not trying to be an Intel homer, Its just simply the truth.
16% of steam gamers folks. 2-3 years of Ryzen, and 16%.
The problem with this is that if you own anything below 2070S you wont see the difference between i9 or Ryzen 7 same goes for people who game at 1440p and higher. Intel is best only for 165Hz+ gaming that's it
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,553   +1,539
TechSpot Elite
1.

2. Valve has always stated its a survey of PCs with STEAM installed, they never claimed its North America and UK users only.
3. I don't see a lot of "cheerleading" for Intel or AMD because....wait for it...it's a survey of PCs with Steam installed clients for that month. Nothing more and nothing less. Completely useless to make a claim stating any peace of hardware is better then another peace. Useful when making the claim hardware is more often found on gaming PCs.
Everyone here is aware that the Steam survey is worldwide. Did you actually assume that I didn't know that? If so, thanks for posting your ID photo.

And the cheerleading is not at Steam, it's in the comments here, or haven't you read them yet?
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 624   +704
Everyone here is aware that the Steam survey is worldwide. Did you actually assume that I didn't know that?
14.4% of all Steam users switched to speaking Chinese

It's pretty clear what happened, this is a reporting change. Steam added a huge chunk of the Chinese market to their survey this month and here's what they're using:...

Everybody got that? Those here who fell into the trap of cheerleading for their favorite hardware manufacturer thanks to those numbers, please see r/woooosh.
Your own posts contradict your own statements. I neither wrote them or posted them.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,553   +1,539
TechSpot Elite
Your own posts contradict your own statements. I neither wrote them or posted them.
OK, I'll spell it out to you in simple terms.

"Steam added a huge chunk of the Chinese market..."

Does not mean "Steam added the entire Chinese market," which you could have figured out if you looked at the language numbers. There were 23% Chinese speakers the month before. Steam had been excluding a big *part* of the Chinese market previously and apparently decided to add them in again this past month. This skewed the numbers and thus you can't make any market share judgements based on those 2 months of data. That is the point.

Does that make sense to you?
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,359   +3,444
It’s going to take some time for AMD to really get a big market share. AMD over the years have let a lot of people down ...
I get you have AMD hardware now, and I thing that is great. But sIntel has also let a lot of people down, over the years, by requiring an entirely new build to move to their next generation of processors, and also by trivial performance increases from generation to generation; it seems like AMD has simply inspired sIntel to sleep at the wheel for a few more years.
I am not talking about the server space. I mean your standard admin worker. We currently put an i5 9400, 16gb ram, 256gb ssd All in One from Dell on each new staff desk and replace every 5 years. I am not saying replace all of those machines now, but Ryzen has been a good opposition for a few years and I have no option for a similar spec with one in. Even on our current tender the higher performance/ workstation models have an i7 9800k, those that one is admittedly due to be changed soon.
It is going to take time whether we like it or not; 3000+ systems even using significanly less expensive consumer space CPUs is a large chunk of change for any business to swallow. Maybe its worth becoming an AMD champion where you work.

Still, though, the one AMD system is a start. Is the IT department using that as a test case?

Those with less knowledge think sIntel is the safer bet simply because sIntel has been the only game to play for far too long.
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 624   +704
OK, I'll spell it out to you in simple terms.

"Steam added a huge chunk of the Chinese market..."

Does not mean "Steam added the entire Chinese market," which you could have figured out if you looked at the language numbers. There were 23% Chinese speakers the month before. Steam had been excluding a big *part* of the Chinese market previously and apparently decided to add them in again this past month. This skewed the numbers and thus you can't make any market share judgements based on those 2 months of data. That is the point.

Does that make sense to you?
Not even a subject that I have posted about previously. If you want to change the subject to avoid your previous posts, have at it.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,804
The problem with this is that if you own anything below 2070S you wont see the difference between i9 or Ryzen 7 same goes for people who game at 1440p and higher. Intel is best only for 165Hz+ gaming that's it
This is proven to not be true, so you can keep saying it all you want, but that doesn't change the truth.


Look at the 1080p benchmarks for the 6/12 8700K against the 6/12 3600.
The 8700K is quite faster in many games, from Battlefield (167/114 against 149/103) and Tomb Raider, 114/78 against 95/68. World War Z is another example.
Again the 3600 is a beast and does pretty well, coming within 5-10FPS sometimes...but also, half the time, its getting spanked.
This is the last time I am saying it, anyone trying to say its just at high resolutions or as extreme refresh rates is just lying to themselves, and thats biased fanboyism. You need to be open minded in the world of IT and always be willing to accept information and learn, if you choose to brand wave your only holding yourself back.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dirtyferret

rub900

Posts: 158   +83
Ryzen's been out a few years now, 16% of Steam gamers tells you that gamers don't care about Ryzen and know its a subpar performer unless you spend big, which ruins the point of getting value.
There's even less folks using Radeons...
You should see the comments on Newegg for the 5700...not good, lots of issues.

Comet Lake is coming as a 10/20 and supposed to hit 5.3Ghz in stock form, meaning it may be good for 5.5GHz with some tweaking.
I am happy for Ryzen though, its good to see another competitor in the game, as much as I like Intel, it's got to their head. Until Ryzen their prices were getting out of hand. IMO you will start to see the 3600 make a dent in Steam results, for the price that is one sweet little chip and a solid gamer.
But for gaming AMD is still 3rd place, there is no reason for gamers to upgrade if they are running Intel, which is where you get 16%.


You didn't gain anything in gaming performance.
In some games you actually lost performance.


This is true for everyone except gamers, which this article focuses on.
I want to comment but it would mean nothing .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cycloid Torus

Adi6293

Posts: 556   +657
This is proven to not be true, so you can keep saying it all you want, but that doesn't change the truth.


Look at the 1080p benchmarks for the 6/12 8700K against the 6/12 3600.
The 8700K is quite faster in many games, from Battlefield (167/114 against 149/103) and Tomb Raider, 114/78 against 95/68. World War Z is another example.
Again the 3600 is a beast and does pretty well, coming within 5-10FPS sometimes...but also, half the time, its getting spanked.
This is the last time I am saying it, anyone trying to say its just at high resolutions or as extreme refresh rates is just lying to themselves, and thats biased fanboyism. You need to be open minded in the world of IT and always be willing to accept information and learn, if you choose to brand wave your only holding yourself back.
Ok so you badic
 

Adi6293

Posts: 556   +657
This is proven to not be true, so you can keep saying it all you want, but that doesn't change the truth.


Look at the 1080p benchmarks for the 6/12 8700K against the 6/12 3600.
The 8700K is quite faster in many games, from Battlefield (167/114 against 149/103) and Tomb Raider, 114/78 against 95/68. World War Z is another example.
Again the 3600 is a beast and does pretty well, coming within 5-10FPS sometimes...but also, half the time, its getting spanked.
This is the last time I am saying it, anyone trying to say its just at high resolutions or as extreme refresh rates is just lying to themselves, and thats biased fanboyism. You need to be open minded in the world of IT and always be willing to accept information and learn, if you choose to brand wave your only holding yourself back.
Ok so they used a 2080Ti for one and for two that CPU cost half of what the 8700K does. If you changed the GPU to something cheaper ( not everyone has a 2080Ti ) say 2070 and played at 1440p you would hardly see a difference between those CPU's and that is a fact plus when you already running at over 100fps does it really matter what gives you extra 5fps? I really don't this is why I don't believe in Intel is king because the only thing they're king at is ripping you off :)
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,311   +5,772
no there is no "*" with Steams Survey. Steam might not represent every gamer out there but they do represent the vast majority and the overwhelming majority of PC's that have STEAM are part of the hardware survey. Steams numbers of roughly 77% Intel / 23 % AMD users is also backed up by surverys from Gartner group. None of that makes Intel better then AMD or vice versa. It simply states what CPU is in the majority of PCs. If you feel inadequate because of your PC hardware not being popular, thats a you problem.

Just because you don't like the results of the survey does not give you the right to bash the statistical mathematics behind it. I don't like American made pick up trucks but that doesn't mean the top three selling cars in the USA are not all pick up trucks from the big three (the F-150 more then doubling any individual import). If I sampled the parking lots of grocery stores and malls from all 50 states, guess which three vehicles will come up most???

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#two

as for the survey in the story, it only represents users for wcctech
1) Steam doesn't provide the numbers behind it's survey, ever. Methodology and data is simply not provided. What you are presenting is a prima facie argument.

2) Chinese users shot up 17% in a single month along with GTX 1060 usage. There are indicators that things like Net Cafes significantly impact the survey's numbers improperly.

Steam has had and continues to have issues parsing about single machine, multiple-user data entries. People are right to suspect the survey's legitimacy as steam has proven that they do make errors.

Even if steam hadn't made any obvious errors, everyone should question a survey which does not detail it's methodology, which is a requirement for ANY survey to be taken seriously.

You seem to assume that steam's data collection methodology is perfect, all without even knowing how they do it and the potential issues it faces.

Just a heads up, only 1% of steam users a surveyed. Steam says "at random" but once again, no explanation is provided on this.

I doubt it's a bug and you are right on the former, most likely new pre-built PCs and laptops from Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc., for xmas. There was a 2% jump in August for Intel as well.
That does not explain the massive jump in Chinese users, which accounts for a majority of the jump. A big maybe if they were American users but Christmas is not the biggest sale day in China.

The Steam survey is actually quite useful. As dirtyferret has already stated, if you understand basic statistics, in order for a survey to be statistically significant, it DOES NOT need to be taken by everyone. They key is simply to have a large enough sample of disparate users and simple math will dictate that your results will be virtually identical to the entire population at large.

As has also been stated, "official surveys" show virtually identical splits, basically proving this point.

But yes, the title IS misleading :)
Data collected incorrectly is garbage data, regardless of the sample size. If you understand statistics, methodology needs to be published in order for it to have any legitimacy. Otherwise, you don't know if the methodology is actually gathering data representative of the market nor it's potential flaws. Not having the methodology also prevents you from checking the data independently, which is key to ensuring accuracy.

This is simply not true.
For gaming, Intel's $350 9700K matches and beats AMD's much more expensive chips, right up to their flagship. Chips like the 8700K are still better then the 3700 and 3800X...heck even 3-5 generation old i7's still hang with Ryzen or beat them.
The fastest gaming chip in the world in an Intel CPU, or the KS.

An article by PC Gamer has AMD in 3rd place for 2019 Best Gaming CPU's.
For the majority of people gaming, Intel is superior.

And the folks making the 'only at certain resolutions or with certain GPU's' argument need to go look at the results again. Intel's chips are faster across the board, at various low/high resolutions and with various GPU's both red and green. The 9700K absolutely wipes the floor with the 3700X and 3800X in gaming for the price.
Not sorry.
I am not trying to be an Intel homer, Its just simply the truth.
16% of steam gamers folks. 2-3 years of Ryzen, and 16%.
The 9700K and 8700K also match the 9900K in gaming as well. The 9900K, like AMD's 8 core CPUs, only benefit from games that take advantage of the additional cores. It's entirely possible to make a benchmark without them. Of course it makes sense that the 8700K and 9900K would perform equally in games that use 6 cores, they are the exact same architecture. In the end, which processor is "better" is going to depend on what games you are benchmarking but the fact that they are all so close just shows you how much of a wash it really is. In the end, Intel has 4 processors that all perform within margin of error of each other with identical architectures at the top. Meanwhile AMD is 4.1% away from them. The numbers speak for themselves.


"heck even 3-5 generation old i7's still hang with Ryzen or beat them."

False. The 7700K, only 3 generations old and Intel's top dog of the time, can't beat Ryzen, let alone 5 generations old Intel CPUs.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/


"AMD's much more expensive chips"

What? AMD's 8c, 16t starts at $320. Intel's start at $500. The 9700K is over $400: https://www.newegg.com/core-i7-9th-...tion=9700K&cm_re=9700K-_-19-117-958-_-Product

Almost $60 over the price you quoted and that's not including the fact that AMD CPUs come with a cooler.


"For the majority of people gaming, Intel is superior."

Is that why TechSpot recommends AMD CPUs at every price point the majority of people will be buying at, gaming or otherwise?


"And the folks making the 'only at certain resolutions or with certain GPU's' argument need to go look at the results again. Intel's chips are faster across the board, at various low/high resolutions and with various GPU's both red and green."

WITH A 2080 TI, the 9900K wins by 2.8% at 1440p. In case you are not aware, that's well within margin of error and not statistically significant enough to declare one better then the other. Any lesser GPU and that 2.8% shrinks even more. Any higher resolution shrinks that lead to LESS THEN A PERCENTAGE. That's a best case scenario, given that's their top end chip.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/22.html

Even with a 2080 Ti, which a vast majority of people are not using, that is not wiping the floor. That's too close to call.
 

JaredTheDragon

Posts: 681   +433
AMD need to get into the business market. Of the 3000+ computers where I work, 1 has a Ryzen cpu, mine, and that's only because I can buy what I want so I could get a consumer model from Dell rather than having to buy business models.
Imagine not even knowing that the "business market" has been using AMD processors the entire time. I do CGI - 3D architectural visualization, specifically - for a living. Perhaps you've seen all the Vray and Corona and Cinema 4D benchmarks on this site before? That's us. That's what we use, as data sets when upgrading our computers.

That's THE business market for these processors. Me. I've still got two 8350s and an 8120 running and rendering right now, in fact. That's how the "business market" is working.
 
This is proven to not be true, so you can keep saying it all you want, but that doesn't change the truth.


Look at the 1080p benchmarks for the 6/12 against the 6/12 3600.
The 8700K is quite faster in many games, from Battlefield (167/114 against 149/103) and Tomb Raider, 114/78 against 95/68. World War Z is another example.
Again the 3600 is a beast and does pretty well, coming within 5-10FPS sometimes...but also, half the time, its getting spanked.
This is the last time I am saying it, anyone trying to say its just at high resolutions or as extreme refresh rates is just lying to themselves, and thats biased fanboyism. You need to be open minded in the world of IT and always be willing to accept information and learn, if you choose to brand wave your only holding yourself back.
It is very telling that you need pick an Intel CPU that is more than double the price of the AMD one to get one that gives better gaming benchmarks. Actual conclusion of the article you linked to (they compare to the more similarly priced, but still more expensive i5):
"The Intel Core i5 was a little faster in a few of the games tested, but the R5 3600 was miles faster where you’ll notice it. So this one's pretty cut and dry unless Intel decides to cut pricing heavily."
 

Karl Hungus

Posts: 69   +40
It is very telling that you need pick an Intel CPU that is more than double the price of the AMD one to get one that gives better gaming benchmarks. Actual conclusion of the article you linked to (they compare to the more similarly priced, but still more expensive i5):
"The Intel Core i5 was a little faster in a few of the games tested, but the R5 3600 was miles faster where you’ll notice it. So this one's pretty cut and dry unless Intel decides to cut pricing heavily."
I have issues with that statement from that article as it definitely matters what resolution you play at. The 3600 is a direct competitor to the 9600KF (these are the ones I'm considering...I don't care about on-board video), which was just cheaper than the 3600 by $20CDN ($249 CDN on Newegg.ca). I game at 1440p, and if I was to buy right now (I'm not until next year maybe) the 9600K is the clear winner by a fairly wide margin.

I don't care either way which one I get and would like to go with the 'underdog' AMD, but I only upgrade every 10 years or so when I start to notice ACTUAL performance issues that are ACTUALLY related to my CPU...5 - 10% gains are a waste of $ unless my games are stuttering or playing at 40fps or something. Better off upgrading the video card. Anyways, from that article if it's today that I'm upgrading, I would have to go with the 9600KF. If the 3600 were $25 cheaper, I'd certainly go for that instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cycloid Torus

Shadowboxer

Posts: 912   +543
You have some numbers to back this?

Also what res and gpu?

Or know of a current review that has a haswell chip in it?

"Most new AMD chips I see are slower than my now 6 year old overclocked i7 4790K in gaming. "
I don’t have any direct benchmarks. However, from gamers nexus review you can see a stock 7700K is around 7% faster than an overclocked R5 3600;


If you then look at gamers nexus review of the 7700K there is only 1fps difference between the 7700K and the 4790K at stock as they are very similar chips;



Ergo, it’s reasonably safe to assume that the 4790K when overclocked will be faster than a 7700K and therefore faster than the overclocked R5 3600 in games. I can confirm this personally, my housemate has a stock 7700K and gets a lower single and multithreaded score in cinebench than my 4790K at 4.9ghz does. I understand it’s not a direct comparison but it’s hard to find reviewers that have directly compared a 4790K with a 3xxx Ryzen part. This YouTube video is the best I can find and they most trade blows at stock, however the i7 will gain much more from an overclock than the Ryzen part.


Either way, my point stands, if you own an Intel quad from like a 3770K onwards, you probably wouldn’t notice much difference in games upgrading to most of today’s chips from AMD or Intel, maybe if you’re gaming at 144hz you might notice improvements with modern silicon but that’s about it. If AMD want us gamers to make the leap from our reliable Intel quad they need to offer us a noticeable leap in gaming performance. Same goes for Intel. Especially as chips cost a lot more than they used to (the entry level 3600 is only slightly cheaper than what I paid for my 4790k - a flagship product at the time!)

Intel have been criticised for offering basically the same silicon every year, however that means that users on older chips havent been left behind. And gaming doesn’t scale very well beyond 4 cores yet, that is changing but wont within the lifetime of today’s CPUs.

Of course both AMD an Intel (considerably more so from AMD) offer vastly more than they used to when it comes to core count and multithreaded workloads. However gaming is provably limited by single threaded performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karl Hungus

Karl Hungus

Posts: 69   +40
Either way, my point stands, if you own an Intel quad from like a 3770K onwards, you probably wouldn’t notice much difference in games upgrading to most of today’s chips from AMD or Intel, maybe if you’re gaming at 144hz you might notice improvements with modern silicon but that’s about it. If AMD want us gamers to make the leap from our reliable Intel quad they need to offer us a noticeable leap in gaming performance. Same goes for Intel. Especially as chips cost a lot more than they used to (the entry level 3600 is only slightly cheaper than what I paid for my 4790k - a flagship product at the time!)

Intel have been criticised for offering basically the same silicon every year, however that means that users on older chips havent been left behind. And gaming doesn’t scale very well beyond 4 cores yet, that is changing but wont within the lifetime of today’s CPUs.

Of course both AMD an Intel (considerably more so from AMD) offer vastly more than they used to when it comes to core count and multithreaded workloads. However gaming is provably limited by single threaded performance.
Yes, exactly. People need to be honest with themselves...they're upgrading their CPU for the sake of upgrading, not to see significant increases to performance in games. These are usually the same ones that think you'll see 'HUGE GAINS' moving from DDR3 to DDR4 ram, which is completely false. Big CPU gains ended almost 10 years ago. Going from my Athlon 64+ to an i5 4670K was a pretty big upgrade. Going from the 4670K@4.4GHz to a 3600 or 9600K will not see much of a boost in games at all. I may end up just upgrading because I want a few of the newer features that a new motherboard offers, but that would be the main reason...that, and boredom.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,972   +1,254
Intel have been criticised for offering basically the same silicon every year, however that means that users on older chips havent been left behind. And gaming doesn’t scale very well beyond 4 cores yet, that is changing but wont within the lifetime of today’s CPUs.
There are games now that use more than 4 cores the battlefield series is a good example. So this statement isn't accurate. And how can you make this claim about the life time of todays cpu's?

The next gen of consoles will be using 8 core Zen 2 chips, so games will be made to use more than a Quad core with in the lifetime of those consoles, those same games will see PC ports for some of them.

Alot of new AMD build these days are using the 3700x only those on limited budgets would be using the 3600.

If you guys want to stick to Haswell Quads for 10 years enjoy I already play games that a quad core is a bottleneck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince

Karl Hungus

Posts: 69   +40
There are games now that use more than 4 cores the battlefield series is a good example. So this statement isn't accurate. And how can you make this claim about the the life time of todays cpu's?

The next gen of consoles will be using 8 core Zen 2 chips, so games will be made to use more than a Quad core with in the lifetime of those consoles, those same games will see PC ports for some of them.

Alot of new AMD build these days are using the 3700x only those on limited budgets would be using the 3600.

If you guys want to stick to Haswell Quads for 10 years enjoy I already play games that a quad core is a bottleneck.
I can play BFV, BF1, and Battlefront 2 at 1440p at my max refresh of 75fps with my 'old' quad-core at Ultra settings just fine. These aren't games I enjoy playing (I got two of them free, one for $12...twitchy high-school kid shooters...my sons play them all), but I use them to test stability on my overclock as they are some of the RARE games that do utilize all cores. Why would I upgrade then? Nerd-status? Also if people are putting in a 3700x for gaming instead of a 3600 they are just throwing cash in the toilet:

https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/
 
Last edited:

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,972   +1,254
I can play BFV, BF1, and Battlefront 2 at 1440p at my max refresh of 75fps with my 'old' quad-core at Ultra settings just fine. These aren't games I enjoy playing (I got two of them free, one for $12...twitchy high-school kid shooters...my sons play them all), but I use them to test stability on my overclock as they are some of the RARE games that do utilize all cores. Why would I upgrade then? Nerd-status? Also if people are putting in a 3700x for gaming instead of a 3600 they are just throwing cash in the toilet.
Well I guess that would depend on if 100% of the time all you do is play games on your PC and nothing else. Since PC's are multipurpose devices I kinda don't see the point of that but to each their own.If the focus is just games only why not just buy a console will be much cheaper.
 

Karl Hungus

Posts: 69   +40
Well I guess that would depend on if 100% of the time all you do is play games on your PC and nothing else. Since PC's are multipurpose devices I kinda don't see the point of that but to each their own.If the focus is just games only why not just buy a console will be much cheaper.
Yes, my desktop is pretty much 100% for games. Any 1990's PC can browse the internet. I use a PC precisely for the reason that I can play DCS World, Steel Beasts Pro PE, Squad, Post Scriptum, Workers & Resources, Combat Mission, ANNO 1800, Transport Fever 2, etc, etc. If I played nothing but Sports and FPS games, I would have a console.