AMD is competitive!

[ManofGod]

The thing is, up until the new CEO came on board, there was no one to take the reigns and steer all of AMD in the right direction. I personally am appreciative because I now have 2 Ryzen builds that I have had since last March at release. Also, she is helping with RTG and taking care of things there, especially with keeping things quiet and stopping a lot of that hype that was occurring before.

In the PC industry, we desperately need competition or it will be left behind by the mobile industry. I blame, at least in part, the fact that Intel dragged their feet for years will slight bumps in performance as part of the reason for the decline of the PC. This is the exact reason competition from AMD is critical and needed, otherwise, the PC market will decline faster and even more than before.

Edit: AMD is not dead, despite what many were saying over the years, thankfully.

 

[Stryke1983]

I feel like this is one of the reasons that AMD fans have a bad reputation. They have too many feelings about a giant corporation that just happens to make computer components.

 

[Pantalaimon]

I feel like this is one of the reasons that AMD fans have a bad reputation. They have too many feelings about a giant corporation that just happens to make computer components.

Really? There's no Intel or NVDIA fans behaving similarly?

 

[OrangeKhrush]

You have just opened the good ol "can o worms". I can see it stryking a few nerves on the way.

 

[JustReason]

I feel like this is one of the reasons that AMD fans have a bad reputation. They have too many feelings about a giant corporation that just happens to make computer components.

Hey at least he is in the AMD section doing it. I happen to agree with him and share his enthusiasm. You have to admit, AMD fans have had a rough go of it the last few years. Even now we say how fast or great our new systems are, with no competitive comparisons and almost immediately we get flooded with biased benchmarks just to quell any chance someone may wander into the thread and think they may want to purchase an AMD CPU.

 

[ManofGod]

You have just opened the good ol "can o worms". I can see it stryking a few nerves on the way.

Not if one is willing to think objectively. Heck, had I realized it, I would have just stuck with the FX 8350 and 32GB of ram build I was using at work this time last year, instead of upgrading that machine. (It was very fast for the purpose I was using it for but, alas, upgrade bug and all that. ) Probably a good thing the Threadripper was not there at release or I would have spent the additional money, just because.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

I feel like this is one of the reasons that AMD fans have a bad reputation. They have too many feelings about a giant corporation that just happens to make computer components.

all the camps do it, the nvidia fanboys are by far the loudest about anything nvidia hardware might do better than some one elses while ignoring any potential shortfallings. it is what it is though, i don't really have a problem with it as long as people legitimately know what they're talking about without cherry picking benchmarks to get their point across.. cough cough i'm sure everyone here knows who i'm talking about cough cough..

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Not if one is willing to think objectively. Heck, had I realized it, I would have just stuck with the FX 8350 and 32GB of ram build I was using at work this time last year, instead of upgrading that machine. (It was very fast for the purpose I was using it for but, alas, upgrade bug and all that. ) Probably a good thing the Threadripper was not there at release or I would have spent the additional money, just because.

I am sure someone will tell you that your cores are 50% slower and post the same ol benches of one outcome that was outdated and moan about the use of DDR X speeds because it is an overclock lol

 

[juanrga]

The thing is, up until the new CEO came on board, there was no one to take the reigns and steer all of AMD in the right direction. I personally am appreciative because I now have 2 Ryzen builds that I have had since last March at release. Also, she is helping with RTG and taking care of things there, especially with keeping things quiet and stopping a lot of that hype that was occurring before.

In the PC industry, we desperately need competition or it will be left behind by the mobile industry. I blame, at least in part, the fact that Intel dragged their feet for years will slight bumps in performance as part of the reason for the decline of the PC. This is the exact reason competition from AMD is critical and needed, otherwise, the PC market will decline faster and even more than before.

Edit: AMD is not dead, despite what many were saying over the years, thankfully.

Evidently RyZen chips are a massive improvement over Piledriver FX chips. I don't know anyone that has stated the contrary. Do you?

Now competition is usually measured against other vendors. How we measure competition? We can use technical elements as performance, efficiency,... or we can use sales.

Using technical elements, one can see eight-core top RyZen being beated by six-core Coffeelake in throughput workloads as Blender, despite throughput is a favorable case for RyZen muarch. One can see RyZen chips literally destroyed by CoffeeLake chips in latency-workloads, with performance gaps up to 60%

Using sales to evaluate competitiviness, we can see that RyZen only provided a minor impact in sales. Financial data from Intel shows that RyZen impact in Intel finances was near-zero. Most people purchasing AMD was people don't purchase Intel. Few people has moved from Intel to AMD (see below). Recall also that funny tweet from Lisa Su giving the thanks to "fans" for the RyZen sales.

Sales data collected by third parties show that RyZen only gives a 3% marketshare gain to AMD before CoffeeLake launch. Indeed, AMD desktop marketshare was 9.9% in 4Q16 (before Zen launch) and it was about 12.9% in 4Q17. But things have changed after CoffeeLake. As reported by mindfactory.de and Amazon, Intel is #1 in sales with CoffeeLake. AMD has lost those 3% points and its current marketsharte is back to pre-Zen times.

AMD is not dead, but that "comeback" that been claimed in the media and in forums was only hype. I recall all the hype during the last years: Zen is the new K8; Intel is doomed; Intel is going bankruptcy; AMD will get back 20% of server market by end of 2017, AMD will be gaming king... it all vanished as hot air.

 

[ManofGod]

all the camps do it, the nvidia fanboys are by far the loudest about anything nvidia hardware might do better than some one elses while ignoring any potential shortfallings. it is what it is though, i don't really have a problem with it as long as people legitimately know what they're talking about without cherry picking benchmarks to get their point across.. cough cough i'm sure everyone here knows who i'm talking about cough cough..

Yep, you were right, here come the charts and cherry picking. Thankfully, facts and competition do not bend to a persons whim. Personally, I would think that Intel fans would be happy since they now have something that would not have occurred otherwise for a while longer, and that, because of competition. Oh well, you just cannot please some people.

 

[Stryke1983]

Really? There's no Intel or NVDIA fans behaving similarly?

Straw man argument. I never claimed NO ONE ever did the same for other companies. However there is definitely a weird trend toward 'supporting' AMD instead of just treating them like they are, which is Generic Computer Component Manufacturer #2. People put too many feelings into buying certain components.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/37823-analysts-claim-amd-will-be-bankrupt-by-2020

Kerrisdale Capital Investment has knocked out a report which makes grim reading for AMD.

"We agree that these may be potential future growth avenues but these are extremely long shots, more suitable for companies with deep pockets, such Samsung Intel - certainly not for an ailing chipmaker. The semi-custom business is more promising but even here, AMD chose the wrong path," the report said.

All I can say is fuck you Kerrisdale Capital asswipes..

 

[juanrga]

Personally, I would think that Intel fans would be happy since they now have something that would not have occurred otherwise for a while longer, and that, because of competition. Oh well, you just cannot please some people.

Some AMD fans reacted badly to CoffeLake and Skylake-X launches. It seems like if they didn't really like competition.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

The amount of mental gymnastics is worth a gold in a paraderpathon. Lets pass half truths as generalised facts, example a 4N blender with AVX and 4.8ghz can beat a 3.4ghz R7 because it has Massive clockspeed advantage and clockspeed has greater impact than threads derp. However a 8600k even clocked can't beat a 1600X with the 6 threads helping offset clock disadvantage.

The initial article deals with total addressed market but if talking desktop only as the report stated, significantly higher. Mindfactory showed one source of market sales and AMD outsold intel significantly june through november and more importantly on high ASP HEDT parts. Ill have more data soon to compare against.

But it is funny when someone believes their own BS to be fact.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Some AMD fans reacted badly to CoffeLake and Skylake-X launches. It seems like if they didn't really like competition.

Why would they. Actually no one cares. Have you seen all of the forums filled with threads on how every AMD Ryzen user was so upset about it that they dumped their system and bought Intel again , don't think so ....\

 

[juanrga]

The amount of mental gymnastics is worth a gold in a paraderpathon. Lets pass half truths as generalised facts, example a 4N blender with AVX and 4.8ghz can beat a 3.4ghz R7 because it has Massive clockspeed advantage and clockspeed has greater impact than threads derp. However a 8600k even clocked can't beat a 1600X with the 6 threads helping offset clock disadvantage.

So, according to you, a stock clocked 8600k cannot a beat a 1600X in Blender because the AMD chip has six extra threads?

But it is funny when someone believes their own BS to be fact.

Agree!

 

[dragonstongue]

Evidently RyZen chips are a massive improvement over Piledriver FX chips. I don't know anyone that has stated the contrary. Do you?

Now competition is usually measured against other vendors. How we measure competition? We can use technical elements as performance, efficiency,... or we can use sales.

Using technical elements, one can see eight-core top RyZen being beated by six-core Coffeelake in throughput workloads as Blender, despite throughput is a favorable case for RyZen muarch. One can see RyZen chips literally destroyed by CoffeeLake chips in latency-workloads, with performance gaps up to 60%

Using sales to evaluate competitiviness, we can see that RyZen only provided a minor impact in sales. Financial data from Intel shows that RyZen impact in Intel finances was near-zero. Most people purchasing AMD was people don't purchase Intel. Few people has moved from Intel to AMD (see below). Recall also that funny tweet from Lisa Su giving the thanks to "fans" for the RyZen sales.

Sales data collected by third parties show that RyZen only gives a 3% marketshare gain to AMD before CoffeeLake launch. Indeed, AMD desktop marketshare was 9.9% in 4Q16 (before Zen launch) and it was about 12.9% in 4Q17. But things have changed after CoffeeLake. As reported by mindfactory.de and Amazon, Intel is #1 in sales with CoffeeLake. AMD has lost those 3% points and its current marketsharte is back to pre-Zen times.

AMD is not dead, but that "comeback" that been claimed in the media and in forums was only hype. I recall all the hype during the last years: Zen is the new K8; Intel is doomed; Intel is going bankruptcy; AMD will get back 20% of server market by end of 2017, AMD will be gaming king... it all vanished as hot air.

well I know quite a few personal freinds who WERE diehard Intel purchasers who jumped ship due Ryzen (including one of my own brothers) so while "data" may not show it, there was at least some impact of it, possibly some from Intel own issues with their x200 motherboards not really being ready for full market readiness/unstable
possibly cause folks to return those systems and put the $ towards AMD..speculative of course

AMD marketshare is up, they are making $, so therefore, they MUST be doing something right either way one wants to look at it....I personally do not trust most of those "third parties" because 3rd party would also include majority who are very much skewed bias towards Intel and Nvidia while demonizing AMD at every chance they can

 

[kirbyrj]

Some AMD fans reacted badly to CoffeLake and Skylake-X launches. It seems like if they didn't really like competition.

That's your perception of events. And in the year you've been here, it's well established that your perception is skewed. The fact that you're in the AMD section posting random Intel benchmarks in a thread where a guy is simply stating his experience with AMD products shows exactly why you should be on everyone's ignore list. Start your own thread called "Juanrga's bullshit" in the Intel section and post all your handpicked graphs there.

 

[juanrga]

well I know quite a few personal freinds who WERE diehard Intel purchasers who jumped ship due Ryzen (including one of my own brothers) so while "data" may not show it, there was at least some impact of it, possibly some from Intel own issues with their x200 motherboards not really being ready for full market readiness/unstable
possibly cause folks to return those systems and put the $ towards AMD..speculative of course

AMD marketshare is up, they are making $, so therefore, they MUST be doing something right either way one wants to look at it....I personally do not trust most of those "third parties" because 3rd party would also include majority who are very much skewed bias towards Intel and Nvidia while demonizing AMD at every chance they can

Your personal experience agrees with that data shows wordlwide. Data shows that few customers changed from Intel to RyZen. That is why the impact of RyZen on Intel finances and marketshare was small.

AMD marketshare was up by about 3% before it started to go down (after CoffeeLake launch). AMD is making $, but enough?

So now third parties measuring sales and marketshare are cheating numbers to favor Intel and Nvidia? Amazon and Mindfactory are also? Why is any negative news about AMD always replied with a conspiracy theory?

 

[juanrga]

That's your perception of events. And in the year you've been here, it's well established that your perception is skewed. The fact that you're in the AMD section posting random Intel benchmarks in a thread where a guy is simply stating his experience with AMD products shows exactly why you should be on everyone's ignore list. Start your own thread called "Juanrga's bullshit" in the Intel section and post all your handpicked graphs there.

He opened a thread to share his thoughts about AMD competitiveness. What is the problem with disagreeing with him? What is the problem with giving sales data and benchmarks that show a different picture to his experience? What is the problem with explaining him why Intel did hit a IPC wall?

I also note how you don't complain when one user claims here that "8600k even clocked can't beat a 1600X", but if I give a pair of benches where a 8600k on stock settings beats a 1600x you consider that "Juanrga's bullshit".

You can call me AMD hatter all the time. The other day I mentioned that Zen2 is a 2019 product and you accused me of being "anti-AMD".

 

[dragonstongue]

marketshare is not 100% fully documented by all companies in the same places, nor does it account for "returns" to purchase a different product from a different competitor, and yes I call skewed because MOST numbers from Intel or Nv will always "favor" them, at least in my conspiracy theory, they have the $$ to pay off the numbers from a 3rd party they do not want to be shown. (lord knows they have done this time and again for many other reasons)

Is media by and large not incredibly biased this day and age, by who has the most $$ in the greasiest palms?..all the massive corporations have shareholders who WANT to see the big numbers, if they do not see the big numbers, they pull their "support" from those companies, which leads to a massive loss of shareprice, the larger the dump, usually leads to less wanting to "buy in"

anyways

 

[juanrga]

marketshare is not 100% fully documented by all companies in the same places, nor does it account for "returns" to purchase a different product from a different competitor, and yes I call skewed because MOST numbers from Intel or Nv will always "favor" them, at least in my conspiracy theory, they have the $$ to pay off the numbers from a 3rd party they do not want to be shown. (lord knows they have done this time and again for many other reasons)

Is media by and large not incredibly biased this day and age, by who has the most $$ in the greasiest palms?..all the massive corporations have shareholders who WANT to see the big numbers, if they do not see the big numbers, they pull their "support" from those companies, which leads to a massive loss of shareprice, the larger the dump, usually leads to less wanting to "buy in"

anyways

Of course those conspiracy arguments don't apply when numbers favor AMD. When Mindfactory, Amazon, Passmark, Mercury research, and other third-party sources showed an increase in AMD sales and markethare after Zen launch, all was legit and 100% fully documented. Now that the same sources show a different picture after CoffeeLake launch, then now and only now everything is ill-documented and biased.

 

[Dan_D]

The thing is, up until the new CEO came on board, there was no one to take the reigns and steer all of AMD in the right direction. I personally am appreciative because I now have 2 Ryzen builds that I have had since last March at release. Also, she is helping with RTG and taking care of things there, especially with keeping things quiet and stopping a lot of that hype that was occurring before.

In the PC industry, we desperately need competition or it will be left behind by the mobile industry. I blame, at least in part, the fact that Intel dragged their feet for years will slight bumps in performance as part of the reason for the decline of the PC. This is the exact reason competition from AMD is critical and needed, otherwise, the PC market will decline faster and even more than before.

Edit: AMD is not dead, despite what many were saying over the years, thankfully.

The decline in the PC wasn't due to Intel dragging it's heels. It's due to the proliferation of mobile devices. Mobile devices have gotten more powerful, and eliminated the need for home users to have a traditional PC. These days a personal computer has become a niche item. AMD had no impact on this decline. Intel didn't even raise prices in AMD's virtual absence from the market place. While Intel's IPC has been stagnant, it's performance per watt has improveed greatly over the years. This is in pursuit of the server and mobile markets where performance per watt is king.

And no, AMD wasn't and isn't dead. AMD's ability to operate without making a profit is astounding. I'm glad for Ryzen and Threadripper, although it's made Intel go full retard with it's offerings.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

So, according to you, a stock clocked 8600k cannot a beat a 1600X in Blender because the AMD chip has six extra threads?

Agree!

We can agree that you are full of shit, posting the favourable ones ie: ones that are not thread sensitive hence i5 quads doing well but ignoring the full render benches that shows AMD outrighting. Cherry pick much?

If one tests less thread orientated benches that favour IPC + clockspeed then Intel will will and a i5 7600K will beat an AMD R7, but when you use real render testing with maximum threads under full load the i5 8600K overclocked is behind or struggling to beat the 1600X at the cost of significantly more power. Now I would like to r un all these benches locked at 3ghz to see what clock vs clock shows given how much advantage Intel has on clockspeed and as before Clockspeed has a greater influence over core count.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

The decline in the PC wasn't due to Intel dragging it's heels. It's due to the proliferation of mobile devices. Mobile devices have gotten more powerful, and eliminated the need for home users to have a traditional PC. These days a personal computer has become a niche item. AMD had no impact on this decline. Intel didn't even raise prices in AMD's virtual absence from the market place. While Intel's IPC has been stagnant, it's performance per watt has improveed greatly over the years. This is in pursuit of the server and mobile markets where performance per watt is king.

And no, AMD wasn't and isn't dead. AMD's ability to operate without making a profit is astounding. I'm glad for Ryzen and Threadripper, although it's made Intel go full retard with it's offerings.

Coffee lake was slated for 2016 then delayed then advanced because of Ryzens success in t he DT market space, similarly Intel tried to undercut AMD with Skylake X knowing that TR was to be released, it didn't exactly work out to well. AMD clearly did something t o intels plans.

 

[Dan_D]

Coffee lake was slated for 2016 then delayed then advanced because of Ryzens success in t he DT market space, similarly Intel tried to undercut AMD with Skylake X knowing that TR was to be released, it didn't exactly work out to well. AMD clearly did something t o intels plans.

As I said, Intel went full retard with it's offerings. It's thrown everything and the kitchen sink at the market trying to see what would stick. I never said Intel never felt threatened, I said that the decline of the PC market and it's decline isn't a result of lack of competition from AMD's. Intel's behavior at times is very much reactive to AMD as we've seen lately, but the decline of PC sales has to do with mobile devices.

 

[juanrga]

We can agree that you are full of shit, posting the favourable ones ie: ones that are not thread sensitive hence i5 quads doing well but ignoring the full render benches that shows AMD outrighting. Cherry pick much?

You can agree with others whereas being completely wrong. Just mentioning!

You said that i5 cannot beat a 1600X even when the i5 is overclocked. "However a 8600k even clocked can't beat a 1600X with the 6 threads helping offset clock disadvantage." Anything what I have to do to refute that is to find a single Blender bench where an i5 on stock clocks beats an 1600X. It is not cherry picking. The correct term is counterexample.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

As I said, Intel went full retard with it's offerings. It's thrown everything and the kitchen sink at the market trying to see what would stick. I never said Intel never felt threatened, I said that the decline of the PC market and it's decline isn't a result of lack of competition from AMD's. Intel's behavior at times is very much reactive to AMD as we've seen lately, but the decline of PC sales has to do with mobile devices.

The exciting world of Intel with more flavours of 4 cores and 8 threads K or non K and overclocking insurance on the K models , the crowd went wild ....

 

[Dan_D]

The exciting world of Intel with more flavours of 4 cores and 8 threads K or non K and overclocking insurance on the K models , the crowd went wild ....

Don't forget about esktop processors that cost over $1,500 and quad core processors that gimp HEDT motherboards.

 

[juanrga]

The exciting world of Intel with more flavours of 4 cores and 8 threads K or non K and overclocking insurance on the K models , the crowd went wild ....

It doesn't have anything to do with PC decline.

 

[ManofGod]

Don't forget about esktop processors that cost over $1,500 and quad core processors that gimp HEDT motherboards.

Yes, it was the mobile devices that caused the PC market to decline but, not exclusively, in my opinion. I still do not think that the desktop PC is niche but, having no real reason to upgrade to a newer PC because the predominate cpu maker was not bothering for years had an effect on that decline as well.. For years, we had a good reason to upgrade or purchase every one too two years or so. After that, not really at all, at least until now.

 

[Briguyatx]

The decline in the PC wasn't due to Intel dragging it's heels. It's due to the proliferation of mobile devices. Mobile devices have gotten more powerful, and eliminated the need for home users to have a traditional PC. These days a personal computer has become a niche item. AMD had no impact on this decline. Intel didn't even raise prices in AMD's virtual absence from the market place. While Intel's IPC has been stagnant, it's performance per watt has improveed greatly over the years. This is in pursuit of the server and mobile markets where performance per watt is king.

And no, AMD wasn't and isn't dead. AMD's ability to operate without making a profit is astounding. I'm glad for Ryzen and Threadripper, although it's made Intel go full retard with it's offerings.

I'm sure mobile had a pretty decent impact on it, but I would also argue it was the very minor increases in performance that caused a reduction in sales year over year. Previously, it seemed like every year the next great piece of hardware came out that showed huge performance increases. Arguably, for most users today, a sandybridge equivalent cpu with enough ram and an SSD upgrade would feel just like a brand new system for most tasks. There is simply no need to upgrade or buy a new system for most users.

The last 2 versions of windows haven't exactly been successes driving new PC sales like in the past.

 

[Dan_D]

I'm sure mobile had a pretty decent impact on it, but I would also argue it was the very minor increases in performance that caused a reduction in sales year over year. Previously, it seemed like every year the next great piece of hardware came out that showed huge performance increases. Arguably, for most users today, a sandybridge equivalent cpu with enough ram and an SSD upgrade would feel just like a brand new system for most tasks. There is simply no need to upgrade or buy a new system for most users.

The last 2 versions of windows haven't exactly been successes driving new PC sales like in the past.

It's hard to know what impact Intel's lethargic pace had on the desktop market. However, I still think it was primarily mobile sales and people phasing out desktops in favor of laptops and tablets that's the cause of the decline. Most people would rather browse on a tablet while sitting on their couch than hack away at a keyboard and monitor while sitting in an office chair. Microsoft, Intel and everyone else had major shifts towards mobile devices. They weren't doing that because Intel was being lazy. They were going where their data said the market was trending.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

It's hard to know what impact Intel's lethargic pace had on the desktop market. However, I still think it was primarily mobile sales and people phasing out desktops in favor of laptops and tablets that's the cause of the decline. Most people would rather browse on a tablet while sitting on their couch than hack away at a keyboard and monitor while sitting in an office chair. Microsoft, Intel and everyone else had major shifts towards mobile devices. They weren't doing that because Intel was being lazy. They were going where their data said the market was trending.

This, and per Paul Alcorns article it seems Desktop is a very small niche market one which AMD probably has around 40~ % share of, but the Total addressed market has AMD around 12% which is due to factors like:

1. AMD AWOL from laptop and tablet markets
2. AMD has no iGPU part so zero involvement in integrated solutions market which is 30% of the market pie
3. No server market with little data on Epyc at current.

APU's are coming soon so AMD will be able to address those two to some extent, though the big money turner will be the the partnership with intel, Vega M solutions is the big head turner and likely the big pie in that custom solution, I can see it being a very high ASP part for AMD.

Lisa Su targeted 20% total addressed markets by 2019 and that is a realistic prospect

 

[Pantalaimon]

Straw man argument. I never claimed NO ONE ever did the same for other companies. However there is definitely a weird trend toward 'supporting' AMD instead of just treating them like they are, which is Generic Computer Component Manufacturer #2. People put too many feelings into buying certain components.

Deflection. You did not answer my question. Saying you did not claim no one did the same for other companies is not the same as answering whether there are Intel and NVIDIA fans behaving the same way.

 

[juanrga]

This, and per Paul Alcorns article it seems Desktop is a very small niche market one which AMD probably has around 40~ % share of

The article mentions a projected desktop marketshare of 12.9% for AMD in 4Q17, but it doesn't consider CoffeeLake sales. Intel stole marketshare back with Coffee. Check Amazon or Mindfactory sales. AMD current marketshare is almost back to pre-Zen times: 9.9% (4Q16).

 

[Dan_D]

This, and per Paul Alcorns article it seems Desktop is a very small niche market one which AMD probably has around 40~ % share of, but the Total addressed market has AMD around 12% which is due to factors like:

1. AMD AWOL from laptop and tablet markets
2. AMD has no iGPU part so zero involvement in integrated solutions market which is 30% of the market pie
3. No server market with little data on Epyc at current.

APU's are coming soon so AMD will be able to address those two to some extent, though the big money turner will be the the partnership with intel, Vega M solutions is the big head turner and likely the big pie in that custom solution, I can see it being a very high ASP part for AMD.

Lisa Su targeted 20% total addressed markets by 2019 and that is a realistic prospect

To be more specific, I've seen the research done by companies like MSI, Intel and GIGABYTE which shows that the traditional PC has been replaced by a niche system built primarily for gaming and workstation tasks. General computing is done by traditional mobile and tablet devices now. I've worked in the corporate IT world as a contractor for a lot of different companies over a 20 year period. I've seen the trend in large organizations towards mobile devices for more than 10 years now. Corporations typically issue laptops rather than desktops. Server densities have grown to allow more applications to be virtualized. The traditional desktop and server model we knew from the 1990's doesn't really exist anymore. In the home, you won't find too many new OEM machines used for traditional non-performance oriented tasks. When you encounter these machines, they are typically very old.

This is why companies like MSI have rebranded so much hardware around being gaming oriented. They are doing this because it works. Traditional motherboards on the lower end of the spectrum probably see far more sales I China and emerging markets than in the U.S..

Lastly, there is little data for Epyc, because chances are it isn't out there in any kind of serious quantities. I get the impression that OEMs didn't have a massive amount of time to do the type of validation and QVL testing that's normally required to get those products ready for production. Sure, they are out there now, but a lot of companies are going to be leary of them. Many people making IT decisions will go with what they know. Believe it or not, many of the people who make purchasing decisions in data centers and businesses know surprisingly little about computer hardware. They'll buy the brands and models they are used to buying until the OEM steers them towards something else after discontinuing that model.

While I think AMD's lack of presence in the market may have contributed to declining sales in some cases, I think that the overwhelming reason for a reduction in traditional PC sales comes from the proliferation of mobile devices over all other factors. Intel's obviously shifted it's strategies towards mobile and server markets which are in demand. Desktop offerings are either some sort of scaled up mobile CPU or some scaled back server CPU. Both have performance per watt as one of their main selling points. Furthermore, I don't think that Intel's lack of progress has as much to do with AMD as people seem to believe. I think it has to do with the fact that performance per watt improvements are harder to achieve than simple increases in performance.

Intel isn't stupid. It's kept it's prices for the top end of the mainstream segment pretty consistent since the Sandy Bridge days. The HEDT segment has only shown significant price changes on the high end, and really only due to Intel offering higher and higher end commercial silicon from the Xeon line in the Core i7 /i9 families. Intel learned from the Core i7 980X that the only Extreme Editions that sell are the ones that offer something significant that enthusiasts can't get through simple overclocking. That's why it was far more successful than it's successor, and why higher core counts are reserved for those higher end chips.

Intel's done the best that it can regarding IPC and clock speed improvements. If Intel could have brought us 6GHz CPU's with reasonable TDP's and greater IPC while still maintaining it's performance per watt improvements it likely would have. Intel damn well knows that lots of people have stuck with their 2500K and 2600K CPU's due to a lack of performance in subsequent products. This is why they've tried to sell it's CPUs to gamers through various marketing ploys and through platform features. It's not nothing else to entice gamers with. That's why Intel said shit like: "Skylake was built from the ground up for gaming" which we know is highly unlikely to be a completely true statement.

Yes, they've reacted to AMD with a scorched earth type of strategy because it hadn't counted on how good Zen actually was. Zen isn't faster, but it does offer more bang for your buck in a lot of cases. Intel probably wouldn't have released a six core mainstream part were it not for AMD. It wouldn't have released a stupid and nearly useless four core part for it's HEDT motherboards were it not for AMD. Intel almost certainly wouldn't have released anything beyond 10 or 12 cores for the HEDT market without Threadripper either. So yes, Intel does react to the slightest hint of a threat and that's good, but AMD's lack of presence in the market isn't responsible for the decline in PC sales by a huge amount, if at all. It's also not necessarily responsible for Intel's lack of IPC improvements over the years. The need for a raw performance increase over the previous generation hasn't been present on it's own in almost a decade.

 

[Stryke1983]

Deflection. You did not answer my question. Saying you did not claim no one did the same for other companies is not the same as answering whether there are Intel and NVIDIA fans behaving the same way.

Are you being serious? Do you preface every comment you make about a group of people with a disclaimer listing every alternate group in that category and specify that elements of those other groups may also exhibit some of the same traits to different degrees?

At this point I'm not sure if you are just not thinking through what you're saying or if you are just being deliberately obtuse, so I'll just leave it here now that this thread has proved my point.

 

[GilmourD]

What annoys me about arguments like you see in threads like this are that even Intel fanboys should be happy about a competitive AMD. AMD being competitive lights a fire under Intel's ass. AMD putting out good chips is good for people that only buy Intel, as long as Intel responds well.

 

[c3k]

I've got a build itch threatening to overcome the tightness of my wallet. The heart of it will be an AMD Ryzen. I'll wait for the Ryzen+ to be released (that itch will not let me wait for Ryzen2).

My intel rigs are doing well enough that I don't see a rational argument for upgrading my 4790k (the older of the two intel cpus I have) with any current intel offering.

My Ryzen+ build will displace my FX8350 in my HTPC build. That FX8350 will, in turn, push aside the 1090T in my "emergency" rig...which has just lately been taken out of mothballs for a dedicated, secondary, function.

My holdbacks are: Intel hasn't shown enough performance increase to warrant replacing a good cpu; AMD's latest cpu is far better than their previous; GPU prices are crazy and I won't upgrade them, and monitors, until/unless prices come down.

AMD's willingness to keep socket and mobo compatibility across cpu upgrades is a game-winner. I don't have to rip out a mobo, with all the pain that entails, I don't have to buy new (overpriced) ram. I just have to flash the mobo and toss in a new chip.

Having 2 AMD and 2 Intel desktops keeps me happy. Thanks, AMD, for staying in the game.