AMD market share in CPUs increasing

I just track this: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html

1676271817477.png
 
I got one am glad to see AMD's recent success. They have been able to build solid momentum. here's hoping they can keep that up
 
I couldn't agree more, I remember what happens in the i5 2500 era tho... I feel like that sleeping giant may awaken again but I feel like AMD is MUCH better poised to respond.
 
philb2 said:
Me too. These days AMD is the pioneer, the market leader. Intel is playing catchup technically. Intel's only real strength is its size.

Lisa Su deserves all the money she gets paid.
Click to expand...

Not sure, in my opinion they sat on their throne pretty quickly and stopped innovating in the consumer space after the 3000 series. Remember how we got upset about Intel staying on 4c8t for generation after generation? They did that because there wasn't anything else within spitting distance in terms of competition.

Remember when AMD released their 16/32 R9s? Then again for the 5000 series... Then again for the 7000 series.... And I bet when the next series comes out, it will be 16/32.

AMD is now the one stagnating and Intel is actually bumping core counts each generation....
 
KazeoHin said:
Not sure, in my opinion they sat on their throne pretty quickly and stopped innovating in the consumer space after the 3000 series. Remember how we got upset about Intel staying on 4c8t for generation after generation? They did that because there wasn't anything else within spitting distance in terms of competition.

Remember when AMD released their 16/32 R9s? Then again for the 5000 series... Then again for the 7000 series.... And I bet when the next series comes out, it will be 16/32.

AMD is now the one stagnating and Intel is actually bumping core counts each generation....
Click to expand...

Yeah. the only reason Intel went big/little was they couldn't fit enough real cores on the die, Within a year, Zen5 will be out with 32/64. B The intel sub-forum is your home.
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
Yeah. the only reason Intel went big/little was they couldn't fit enough real cores on the die, Within a year, Zen5 will be out with 32/64. B The intel sub-forum is your home.
Click to expand...

And I highly HIGHLY doubt AMD will launch a 32-core AM5 chip, but I also hope I'm wrong. there are NO murmurs of a 16-core CCD, and the current package area can't support 4 CCDs + the current IOD, which the current IOD is not compatible with more than two CCDs. So even if they created a new IOD with support for four CCDs, they physically couldn't fit them.

Also: Intel's bet on B/L is actually paying off. Right now a Core i5 wipes the floor with a Ryzen 7 in both single-core speed and multi-core speed. Both released within a week of eachother, so you can't argue "bUt InTeL'S nEwEr!1"

Say what you want but... if it's stupid, but works: it isn't stupid.
 
KazeoHin said:
And I highly HIGHLY doubt AMD will launch a 32-core AM5 chip, but I also hope I'm wrong. there are NO murmurs of a 16-core CCD, and the current package area can't support 4 CCDs + the current IOD, which the current IOD is not compatible with more than two CCDs. So even if they created a new IOD with support for four CCDs, they physically couldn't fit them.

Also: Intel's bet on B/L is actually paying off. Right now a Core i5 wipes the floor with a Ryzen 7 in both single-core speed and multi-core speed. Both released within a week of eachother, so you can't argue "bUt InTeL'S nEwEr!1"

Say what you want but... if it's stupid, but works: it isn't stupid.
Click to expand...
Please your exaggerations are quite pitiful. Single core matters less and less every day. ALMOST EVERYTHING is multithreaded. The performance is so close that blindfolded no one could tell the difference. Plus instead of having to buy a new everything ever two years as is the case with intel - with AMD you just drop in a new proc.
 
Mega6 said:
Please your exaggerations are quite pitiful. Single core matters less and less every day. ALMOST EVERYTHING is multithreaded. The performance is so close that blindfolded no one could tell the difference. Plus instead of having to buy a new everything ever two years as is the case with intel - with AMD you just drop in a new proc.
Click to expand...
You're talking to guy who is currently using a threadripper 🤣

An Intel fan boy I am not. But if you have to say 'it doesn't matter' than you're trying to convince yourself. 13600k VS 7700X, find a benchmark where the AMD is ahead: GO!
 
competition is good, neither company gives a hoot about you the consumer so buy whatever makes sense to you.
 
KazeoHin said:
You're talking to guy who is currently using a threadripper 🤣

An Intel fan boy I am not. But if you have to say 'it doesn't matter' than you're trying to convince yourself. 13600k VS 7700X, find a benchmark where the AMD is ahead: GO!
Click to expand...
Sorry, not interested in your cherry picked fishing trips. A quick review of your posts tells the truth.
 
KazeoHin said:
And I highly HIGHLY doubt AMD will launch a 32-core AM5 chip, but I also hope I'm wrong. there are NO murmurs of a 16-core CCD, and the current package area can't support 4 CCDs + the current IOD, which the current IOD is not compatible with more than two CCDs. So even if they created a new IOD with support for four CCDs, they physically couldn't fit them.
Click to expand...

Team Red also has big plans to bump up the core count of the next-gen chips. The Ryzen 8900 series of CPUs might have up to 32 CPU cores, according to info revealed by reliable leaker RedGamingTech
 
Mega6 said:
Sorry, not interested in your cherry picked fishing trips. A quick review of your posts tells the truth.
Click to expand...
Lololol I speak the truth. When AMD was hungry and kicking Intel's ass, I was eating out of their hand. They got confident, then cocky, now stagnant.

Good deflection, I'm guessing you couldn't find ONE benchmark where a Ryzen 7 beats an i5
 
KazeoHin said:
Lololol I speak the truth. When AMD was hungry and kicking Intel's ass, I was eating out of their hand. They got confident, then cocky, now stagnant.

Good deflection, I'm guessing you couldn't find ONE benchmark where a Ryzen 7 beats an i5
Click to expand...
You know this was AMD's roadmap all along right which they can't magically change gen on gen? CPU archs take a few years from design to actually being materialized. When they designed the CCD's, they built everything around it starting from laptops to EPYC's many years back. And the way the CCD's are designed they were always going to be 8 cores from Zen 1-4. If you follow their CPU architecture on a low level, you'll notice that upto Zen 3 there was low hanging fruit that allowed performance extraction relatively easier, as is the case with every new architecture. There weren't many left by the time they reached Zen 4, and what they did for Zen 4 absolutely made the most sense before switching to a completely new architecture with Zen 5. Crucially, Zen 4 on servers were a massive step up with what they did with Genoa and MI300. Looking at those two, your argument about them being cocky and stagnant makes zero sense. You're basing it off the fact that they stayed at 16c/32t in the client space which is something they couldn't do anything about regardless of whether they're stagnating or not. Also, they do have plans for big.little with Zen 5 from what I hear, just not the way intel does it which has its own issues depending on the usage case but that's another topic altogether.

Also, I can easily find benchmarks where a 7700x beats a i5 13600K. Not going to waste time linking pictures from a review but i spent a few seconds to open Hardware Unboxed's Ryzen 7700 non x review from two months back and the 7700X is faster in adobe, 7 zip, some games etc. What's the point you're trying to make? It doesn't matter what class of CPU beats the other because at current prices they seem pretty evenly matched. Sure, big.little has given intel a massive uplift compared to what they were doing earlier but it's only allowed them to, on an absolute level, roughly match AMD's performance at a much higher power draw which is consequently hurting them in servers which make up the bulk of numbers in OP's chart anyway.

Rocking a threadripper or 13900k doesn't matter, what does is your posts which are always heavily anti-AMD and sometimes..cocky. Are you frustrated they aren't releasing new threadrippers on time?
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
Yeah. the only reason Intel went big/little was they couldn't fit enough real cores on the die, Within a year, Zen5 will be out with 32/64. B The intel sub-forum is your home.
Click to expand...

I question what the use of such a thing would be.

I think we are already pretty core saturated as is.

I have a 24c/48t threadripper, but I bought it for the PCIe lanes, not for the cores. Only on the very rare occasion I do some video encodes or something do I see any benefit beyond 6-8 cores.

I'd rather have fewer highly binned fast cores than a bunch of extra cores I'll almost never use.
 
Last edited:
Yet I dropped a 5900X to a 5800X3D as it was a nice upgrade, core counts are not everything unless your actually leveraging those cores with software. I see no real need on the consumer level to go beyond 16 cores and 32 threads, that is overkill for 99% of the market. I prefer to see more innovation in speeding up single cores rather then piling on a bunch of slower cores. I also don't need it sucking down 400 watts when I am using it as well.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I question what the use of such a thing would be.

I think we are already pretty core saturated as is.

I have a 24c/48t threadripper, but I bought it for the PCIe lanes, not for the cores. Only on the vet rare occasion I do some video encodes or something do I see any benefit beyond 6-8 cores.

I'd rather have fewer highly binned fast cores than a bunch of extra cores I'll almost never use.
Click to expand...

Amen, we don't need more cores, we need lower power consumption. 32 may show up next AMD chip, I don't need it, most don't. Hell, most game engines can't use more than a few of them at this point.
 
Right now, on the personal desktop side of things, 32 threads is already a nice amount for sure, but os-software and rest of the computer could get better at using more of them, more of the time has we go.

Instead of using cpu space for more cores at the moment, intel meteor core, AMD via xilinx and otherwise, could maybe use it for more specialized hardware to accelerate the most common and that benefit the most from it a la Apple.

And has they get better at scheduling stuff, maybe go for 3 type of cores.

Say 2 core that are ultra fast non MT lower cache, single thread specialist.
4 MT regular cache
6 MT extra cache

Or something of the sorts.

Randall Stephens said:
most game engines can't use more than a few of them at this point.
Click to expand...
I think some already can use 32 threads+ when loading assets for their decompression, should be easier than during live game loop.
 
LukeTbk said:
Right now, on the personal desktop side of things, 32 threads is already a nice amount for sure, but os-software and rest of the computer could get better at using more of them, more of the time has we go.

Instead of using cpu space for more cores at the moment, intel meteor core, AMD via xilinx and otherwise, could maybe use it for more specialized hardware to accelerate the most common and that benefit the most from it a la Apple.

And has they get better at scheduling stuff, maybe go for 3 type of cores.

Say 2 core that are ultra fast non MT lower cache, single thread specialist.
4 MT regular cache
6 MT extra cache

Or something of the sorts.


I think some already can use 32 threads+ when loading assets for their decompression, should be easier than during live game loop.
Click to expand...
With chiplets and 3d cache, we need APUs with decent CPU and GPUs. Maybe before I die.................
 
Randall Stephens said:
With chiplets and 3d cache, we need APUs with decent CPU and GPUs. Maybe before I die.................7
Click to expand...
I would like more PCIE lanes, so that we could have more adapter slots in motherboards. Plus higher top speeds for a "reasonable" number of cores, say 8. And no increases in power consumption or price.
 
mkppo said:
What's the point you're trying to make? It doesn't matter what class of CPU beats the other because at current prices they seem pretty evenly matched.
Click to expand...
1678492283217.png


i5 'evenly matches' Ryzen 7 (except in the majority of multithreaded... Everything Single threaded...) so AMD has to lower prices. That's not something to be proud of.
 
KazeoHin said:
View attachment 555282

i5 'evenly matches' Ryzen 7 (except in the majority of multithreaded... Everything Single threaded...) so AMD has to lower prices. That's not something to be proud of.
Click to expand...

So you change your argument from "Ryzen 7 doesn't beat i5-13600k in ONE benchmark" to i5 evenly matches 7700X in some benchmarks and beats it in others because you got proven wrong on multiple arguments of yours. Price adjustments are so common in the industry that it has nothing to do with pride. It can be to not cannibalize Zen 3 sales, it can be to make $$$ before 13th gen launch and a whole host of reasons we don't know. But they've reduced prices to the point that they're extremely competitive now so i'm not sure what you're whining about as your arguments sort of fall flat.

Secondly, you fail to realise they have different naming conventions because i5 also competed against Ryzen 7 last gen but they have two ryzen 9's to compete with i7 and i9. So this is nothing new and not even a point worth mentioning.

Fact is this though, AMD are clawing back market share from intel because they can't really compete in most applications outside of the desktop space. Sure there are products in the pipeline but the delays have, and continue to, hurt them.
 
It's funny. "AMD is stagnant because core counts aren't increasing". No, people were saying Intel was stagnant not because of just core counts, but also because the actual generation improvement was so low most of the time you could just skip 4 gens with no issue.

Ryzen is still not having that issue. The Zen4 cores shot up the boost speeds big time. They will smoke a ryzen 3000 part. That's still improvement, and quite a bit of it. No measly little 5-10% gains here which was what intel was giving for a long time.
 
NightReaver said:
It's funny. "AMD is stagnant because core counts aren't increasing". No, people were saying Intel was stagnant not because of just core counts, but also because the actual generation improvement was so low most of the time you could just skip 4 gens with no issue.

Ryzen is still not having that issue. The Zen4 cores shot up the boost speeds big time. They will smoke a ryzen 3000 part. That's still improvement, and quite a bit of it. No measly little 5-10% gains here which was what intel was giving for a long time.
Click to expand...
Fair point.
 
RecentlyAdded said:
So true, i7 gen 3 to gen 11 all had 4 cores
Click to expand...
I think that at some point, lots of guys develop brand loyalties that make it easier when it's time to upgrade. Me, I'm an ASUS man, got my first ASUS board like 20 years ago. Yes, I know that ASUS RMA sucks, but overall, ASUS has been very good for me. I'm also now an AMD man, because I like their technology leadership. IF, IF, IF AMD and Intel had the same exact processor models, I'd still choose AMD because without AMD to goad Intel, prices would shoot up.

So when I recently did an upgrade, it was which AMD CPU and which ASUS ROG board for that CPU. I do have a budget target, which means I don't get the mostest/mostest in either category. I do content creation, not gaming, also a consideration.

Ask me again in 10 years. Will I still have the same brand loyalties? I dunno.
 
Last edited:
Yeah...no. I don't do brand loyalty. I go with whoever gives me what I'm looking for in my budget for the best value. I was even considering Intel after being with AMD since my fx6300 because it could have been interesting, but that MC 7900x combo kills everything else and won me over.
 
NightReaver said:
It's funny. "AMD is stagnant because core counts aren't increasing". No, people were saying Intel was stagnant not because of just core counts, but also because the actual generation improvement was so low most of the time you could just skip 4 gens with no issue.

Ryzen is still not having that issue. The Zen4 cores shot up the boost speeds big time. They will smoke a ryzen 3000 part. That's still improvement, and quite a bit of it. No measly little 5-10% gains here which was what intel was giving for a long time.
Click to expand...
very true.. hell i'd say a large portion of intel users sat on ivy bridge up until the 8k series released which was the first worth wild performance improvement after the 2600k.

philb2 said:
I think that at some point, lots of guys develop brand loyalties that make it easier when it's time to upgrade. Me, I'm an ASUS man, got my first ASUS board like 20 years ago. Yes, I know that ASUS RMA sucks, but overall, ASUS has been very good for me. I'm also now an AMD man, because I like their technology leadership. IF, IF, IF AMD and Intel had the same exact processor models, I'd still choose AMD because without AMD to goad Intel, prices would shoot up.

So when I recently did an upgrade, it was which AMD CPU and which ASUS ROG board for that CPU. I do have a budget target, which means I don't get the mostest/mostest in either category. I do content creation, not gaming, also a consideration.

Ask me again in 10 years. Will I still have the same brand loyalties? I dunno.
Click to expand...

i don't have a brand loyalty, i just won't buy intel.... and ASUS.. :p but i also won't just blindly buy AMD CPU's just because it's AMD. i completely skipped bulldozer for example. stuck with my phenom II for way longer than i should have but it never got bad enough that i had to buy an intel cpu but damn was it getting close if leaks about ryzen hadn't of started happening around 2015
 
KazeoHin said:
Not sure, in my opinion they sat on their throne pretty quickly and stopped innovating in the consumer space after the 3000 series. Remember how we got upset about Intel staying on 4c8t for generation after generation? They did that because there wasn't anything else within spitting distance in terms of competition.

Remember when AMD released their 16/32 R9s? Then again for the 5000 series... Then again for the 7000 series.... And I bet when the next series comes out, it will be 16/32.

AMD is now the one stagnating and Intel is actually bumping core counts each generation....
Click to expand...
Innovation is hard - they were able to go from 8c to 16c due to the drop from 14nm to 7nm letting them fit 8C per CCD. Getting past that has proven difficult - 5nm FinFET is good, but it ain't the kind of jump that we got with 14nm to 7nm FinFET in terms of density. It's coming, just takes time.
Mega6 said:
Yeah. the only reason Intel went big/little was they couldn't fit enough real cores on the die, Within a year, Zen5 will be out with 32/64. B The intel sub-forum is your home.
Click to expand...
Yep @ the first part - we'll see on the second (I hope so!). I still need PCIE lanes though.
KazeoHin said:
And I highly HIGHLY doubt AMD will launch a 32-core AM5 chip, but I also hope I'm wrong. there are NO murmurs of a 16-core CCD, and the current package area can't support 4 CCDs + the current IOD, which the current IOD is not compatible with more than two CCDs.
Click to expand...
They always have the Threadripper IOD - it's a space issue then, not compatibility.
KazeoHin said:
So even if they created a new IOD with support for four CCDs, they physically couldn't fit them.
Click to expand...
Bingo
KazeoHin said:
Also: Intel's bet on B/L is actually paying off. Right now a Core i5 wipes the floor with a Ryzen 7 in both single-core speed and multi-core speed. Both released within a week of eachother, so you can't argue "bUt InTeL'S nEwEr!1"
Click to expand...
Sure, for some workloads - doesn't do some of us any good (I love the 12th/13th gen procs, I have one, but I also have to turn off e cores for certain server workloads and OSes, and hypervisors don't know what to do with them, especially if double abstracted). They're damned good procs, but lets be honest - they shoved the little cores in because they couldn't physically fit more P cores, not because they wanted a hybrid architecture. Their issues with 10NM caused that choice - and the fact that htey had a working design (ish) from mobile, where it does matter. I'm excited personally for W7/W9 Sapphire Rapids - that fits my needs more accurately. (And yes, I do have a 12900 - so talking personal experience here).
KazeoHin said:
Say what you want but... if it's stupid, but works: it isn't stupid.
Click to expand...
ROFL but true.
 
lopoetve said:
Innovation is hard - they were able to go from 8c to 16c due to the drop from 14nm to 7nm letting them fit 8C per CCD. Getting past that has proven difficult - 5nm FinFET is good, but it ain't the kind of jump that we got with 14nm to 7nm FinFET in terms of density. It's coming, just takes time.
Click to expand...
Even if the core counts aren't going up, the performance surely is. It feels like just yesterday people were having trouble with Ryzen not surpassing 4 ghz by much, then getting close to 5ghz, then barely above 5ghz...now my 7900x does 5.7ghz no problem. All the way from my Ryzen 1600 which had a boost speed of 3600mhz!

AMD Ryzen has been maturing very well this whole time.
 
NightReaver said:
Even if the core counts aren't going up, the performance surely is. It feels like just yesterday people were having trouble with Ryzen not surpassing 4 ghz by much, then getting close to 5ghz, then barely above 5ghz...now my 7900x does 5.7ghz no problem. All the way from my Ryzen 1600 which had a boost speed of 3600mhz!

AMD Ryzen has been maturing very well this whole time.
Click to expand...
Oh yes. Agreed. They’re good chips all around right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top