Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Intel Hardware

The Loyalty To AMD's GPU Product Among AMD CPU Buyers Is Decreasing (parsec.tv) 157

Posted by msmash from the what's-happening dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Data from the builds on PCPartPicker show an interesting trend among the buyers of AMD CPUs. Of the 25,780 builds on PCPartPicker from the last 31 months with a price point between $450âS - $5,000, 19% included an AMD CPU. This is in-line with the Steam Hardware Surveys, but things have changed recently. Builds with AMD CPUs tend to be much less expensive than those with Intel CPUs. The builds with an AMD CPU were $967 on average versus the Intel CPU builds, which were on average $1,570. In the last 31 months, brand loyalty to AMD seemed to push AMD CPU builders to choose AMD graphics cards at a much higher rate than Intel CPU builders. 55% of machines with an AMD CPU also had an AMD GPU; whereas, only 19% of builds with an Intel CPU included an AMD GPU. In the last six months, AMD has started to lose even more ground to Intel and to Nvidia. On the CPU builds, only 10% of gamers building on PCPartPicker were opting to buy an AMD CPU. Among these, the percentage that decided to pair their AMD CPU with an AMD GPU dropped to 51%. The challenges that AMD is seeing in the overall GPU market are being felt even amongst their loyal supporters.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Loyalty To AMD's GPU Product Among AMD CPU Buyers Is Decreasing More

The Loyalty To AMD's GPU Product Among AMD CPU Buyers Is Decreasing

Comments Filter:

  • No shit Sherlock (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Moheeheeko ( 1682914 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @06:06PM (#53533431)
    of course people aren't buying AMD CPU's in the last six months, we've been waiting for the new ones to come out.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @06:43PM (#53533689)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • I'm in the same boat, happy AMD customer not needing to upgrade yet. (A-8 6600K APU)
        The chip I have I selected because it uses less power than the faster chips. This is a whole new situation. Companies can't expect the same level of hardware thrash in desktops as existed in the past.

        The companies that can be happy with more stable sales will survive, the ones addicted to growth will immolate themselves.

      • The FX-8320E is already available from Micro Center for $90 most of the time. (That's an "on sale" price but it's on sale far more often than not.) And to sweeten the deal even more they give you $40 off a compatible motherboard. But the lesser members of the FX family aren't any cheaper. (They do have a couple of less expensive AMD CPUs in other series: the A6-7400 for $55 and the Athlon 5350 for $40. The latter is a 25W TDP processor that is nice for an HTPC build.) And you have to go to one of their stor
    • But the article is about GPUs, not CPUs???

    • The X86 line is old, tired. Now there's Zen in the future but I'm not holding my breath. It's like waiting for the dragons in a well known TV drama. Their A10 line isn't that great unless you want a really cheap x86 setup; i5s beat them in almost every category. Also getting sued because your core count you advertised isn't what you get doesn't bode well in terms of your roadmap or architecture plans. It also doesn't help when everybody looks at your flagship bulldozer architecture and says "Meh."

    • The RX480 launched around July/August. They got generally good reviews too (besides some power issues with the reference RX480) and were available when the 10XX line cards were either not available or being scalped for silly prices (I saw 1060s going for upwards to $400).

    • of course people aren't buying AMD CPU's in the last six months, we've been waiting for the new ones to come out.

      And yet the article is about AMD CPU users preferring GeForce over Radeon, not buyers switching over to Intel CPUs, so you might wanna read the summary. Anyway, to me, in 2016, the only "new" AMD GPU worth your USD is the RX480 8GB which stuck right in the middle of the chart. In contrary, Nvidia releases a full spectrum of GPUs for anyone from any budget class, from the quite affordable 1060 to the new Titan X. AMD CPU users wanting to spend more (or less in the case of 1060) than what the RX480 can offer

  • because it's too damn hot! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    my gtx 780 blew a resistor or something. since it was last minute, I bought a r390x because it was cheap.

    I no longer bother turning the heat on in my office. What's the point?

  • AMD CPUs are awesome.

    AMD GPUs, not so much.
    • At this point, it's the other way round. Recent GPUs from AMD are quite performant, ready for OpenCL 2.x etc. etc. CPUs...meh. Now wait a few months to get a vast improvement in that area.
      • to be fair AMD hasn't released an new CPU in 5+ years.

        • an new

          You're the first person I've ever encountered who considers the letter n in "new" to be silent. It must get a little confusing for listeners when you're complaining that the 'ew computers aren't really very 'ew and you want something better.

    • AMD's GPUs are the successors of ATi, which was never a leader in the graphics market when it was a separate company. NVIDIA otoh was very much a leader among stiff competition from the likes of 3Dfx, 3Dlabs, S3, et al

      • AMD's GPUs are the successors of ATi, which was never a leader in the graphics market when it was a separate company.

        What? Yes it was. It absolutely was. The two market leaders in graphics have been ATI (and now AMD) and nVidia for as long as anyone needs to remember.

  • I have 2 big desktops, one at work and one at home. Both AMD 6 Core rigs. Both had mid-range AMD GPUs that I upgraded 2 to 3x. My last upgrade was to nvidia GPUs. I have been generally happier with them. A 960, and a 1070.

    I am looking hard at Zen for my desktop as I have run out of SATA ports and the CPU is starting to show its age when running 2-3 VMs. Then I will consider the next gen AMD GPU.. maybe in another year or so.

    • Haven't you a free slot (PCIe 1x or 16x) for a dirt cheap PCIe 1x controller board to add two more SATA ports?
      Also, funnily, perhaps you can add more virtual CPUs to your VMs. Overallocate, and let the schedulers sort them out.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by wbr1 ( 2538558 )
        I really just want an excuse for new hardware :). The old hardware will get used though.
  • Of course AMD desktops are cheaper. While AMD provides a better performance / price ratio than Intel, at this moment AMD does not compete in the high end category at all. If somebody wants a high end desktop (above 2000$) they must use Intel and pay the hefty price premium. Moreover, even if one wants a top AMD configuration now, he will instead wait 2 months and buy a Ryzen processor.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )

      at this moment AMD does not compete in the high end category at all

      Rubbish, if you want a cluster compute node with 64 cores and 1TB of RAM you can get an AMD solution a vast amount cheaper than an Intel one. Your "high end" is not as high as you think it is.

  • Shit (Score:2, Interesting)

    by allcoolnameswheretak ( 1102727 )

    I guess this means I will have to buy a complete AMD system on my next desktop gaming PC upgrade.

    I have this terrible fear of a reality in which AMD has shut down and the world is at the mercy of the one and only Intel GPU monopoly.

  • After years of only buying AMD (had CFX 7970s and currently running an R9 290X), I'm making the switch and getting a 1080ti. I would defend AMD back in the day, but with regular driver crashes and other issues, In over it. Time to see if the grass is really greener on the other side(no pun intended).
  • NVIDIA has been consistently faster than AMD on the high end, and is able to price their low-end products in a way that puts them equal or better to AMD's products. NVIDIA also has a big library of code for developers to integrate with. So your games will generally run faster and look better on NVIDIA. There is only a single reason to buy AMD right now: they support the VESA-standard variable-framerate VSYNC that almost every monitor -- even cheap ones -- is supporting now.

  • Dear AMD: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shane_Optima ( 4414539 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @06:48PM (#53533743) Journal
    Go full tilt open source. Specs to your CPU completely opened up; nothing hidden (that doesn't mean you can't keep it patented though), unlike Intel's stuff. GPU drivers completely open sourced so that all Linux distros include it by default. Advertise yourself as the open and secure (as in no 'obscurity') option.

    Yes, we are a pretty small slice of the gaming (or general computing) pie. But we are influential. We're the ones people turn to when they ask what they should buy. Some of us (not me) will start submitting useful GPU driver patches to you, for free.

    What have you got to lose? Do you really think your current drivers are so goddamn awesome that NVIDIA is going to use them for inspiration?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kuzb ( 724081 )
      Going open source does nothing to fix shitty hardware.
      • It's not shitty for the price and feature set. Some of us care do about stuff like ECC, Vt-d. AES-NI and it's neat being able to get that even on a lower end chip.

        As far as GPUs go, admittedly these days I'm out of the loop when it comes to cutting edge gaming, but I thought ATI/AMD has basically always managed to stay relatively close to NVIDIA when it comes to the hardware, but they always lagged behind on the driver front.
        • ATI has had their moments, but it's been awhile since they've had a clear cut lead that wasn't just a generational release waiting to lose when nVidia released their new generation.
    • NO NO NO YOU GOT IT WRONG!!!

      The drop in AMD graphics card use is because the world is switching to LINUX, not because of any branding nonsense. NVidea rules Linux, so that's the reason.

      In the current post-truth era, facts just get in the way. Making logical inferences is so 2016. If you want to prevail, just lie your teeth out and get a bunch of know nothings to become you fanatic followers. In this case, Linux fan boys. Then have them repeat your nonsense and attack anyone who disagrees. One you get the

      • That makes no sense whatsoever. AMD could quickly get a foothold in Linux by having an OSS driver that ships by default. That wouldn't instantly make their driver better performing than NVIDIA's blob, but over the long term they would get help improving it and it would at the very least become better than NVIDIA's OSS driver. And despite the cliche, many Linux users want stuff to Just Work and as Windows 7's EOL looms ever closer, I suspect there will be more and more of this lazy sort of user who just want

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kuzb ( 724081 )
          ...and nobody would give a shit except for the tiny group of people who is more worried about having access to source they'd never look at. Most people just want to use their hardware, they don't give a shit if the source code is available.
          • Nobody gives a shit about AMD anyway except when they're cheaper than the Intel box. That's the thing they need to work on changing. I doubt they can out-compete Intel/NVIDIA on tech[1], so this is *a* alternate attractor. Again, it's not about winning over the public at large it's about winning over mavens who provide advice to their employers and their friends and family. Yeah, it's a long shot... but what's YOUR strategy for getting AMD to have an identity beyond "the cheap one" ?


            1. Yes yes, they'v

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guises ( 2423402 )
      They've been working on that in their GPU segment for years. That's what the Radeon driver is. The problem is those kinds of drivers take a ton of work and a lot of time and open source isn't a magic solution.
      • It's not magic, but it gets their driver included in distros like Debian (all its derivatives) by default, out of the box. That's not nothing. A surprising number of Linux users are lazy about that sort of thing, and with Windows 10 on the horizon that number is only going to grow.

        The good will isn't nothing, either. AMD needs to *stand* for something. Even when they were beating Intel in performance with the early Athlons (as well as price), Intel still destroyed them in the marketplace. They need to st

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by guises ( 2423402 )
          You mistake me. I didn't mean that I was pessimistic about the odds of this working, I meant that they have literally been doing exactly when you're asking for. For years. I don't know exactly how many... Eight years? Ten? And the Radeon driver is the result of that - it has replaced the closed-source fglrx driver in most distros (probably all at this point), and it's a good stable driver. The problem is that it's still way behind the closed-source Nvidia driver.
          • Is that true? Working with the open source driver team is not the same thing as open-sourcing all of their driver code. Is the OSS Linux driver based on, or related to the same codebase that their Windows driver is based on?

            I haven't gamed seriously in quite a few years, and it's been even more years since I've owned ATI/AMD GPU, so I'm probably behind the times. I do recall someone recently bitching about the fact that the open sourced Radeon driver had taken over as default in their favorite distro, re

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by guises ( 2423402 )
              No, the Radeon driver was started from scratch. As you surmise: they couldn't open their existing drivers for the same reason Nvidia doesn't - AMD doesn't have all of the rights, the drivers incorporate some proprietary bits from other companies. So they started a project where they would open up the hardware specs and... someone... I want to say Nortel, for some reason. Another company which starts with N dedicated a few full time employees to working on the driver.

              There was also a competing semi-open s
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • AMD has previously made the vast majority of their profits selling off their technologies and research

        Their driver technology? They're been making money off of "selling" their drivers? To whom?

        Who is buying up their CPU designs, for that matter? I know I'd drop Intel in a heartbeat if AMD had a fully open, audited design that supported all the instruction sets I care about.

        You don't even know their history on this and how it's not helped them.

        That's their fault for marketing it shitty then, if that's true. But given your other comments, I suspect they didn't do what I was saying. I'm not saying whitewash it with OSS; I'm saying actually embrace it.

        This isn't like soft

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Considering it's been brought up on Slashdot previously, that's your own willful ignorance in my opinion.

            It's willful ignorance that I don't follow the driver status for a company I gave up on like 8 years ago? The last post on slashdot I saw about regarding drivers is someone bitching that the OSS Radeon driver was being included by default in their favorite distro instead of the proprietary one.

            That little tidbit, apocryphal as it may be, did not to me imply that AMD had open sourced the good stuff. And maybe they can't for legal reasons, which sucks for them, but seeing as how ATI/AMD has had driver issu

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • They could at least open up the hardware specs to their CPUs, provided there are no legal impediments to them simply doing that. (Or, if the specs are open, advertise that fact more heavily. I know Intel's aren't.)

            If I could ditch AMT and other worrying out of band stuff, I'd gladly sacrifice a bit of performance. My broader point here is about AMD having an identity beyond "the cheap one." For a few years they were both cheaper and more powerful, but even with that killer combo they couldn't beat In
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • It was my understanding that there's a section of Intel CPU schematics that are not open to the public, with some hair-raising "don't you worry, we promise we're not doing anything evil in there" comments from Intel themselves, though I'm having trouble finding the article I read about it a while back (There's a lot of stuff I'm seeing about a "secret hidden core", but these sound less reliable and more sensationalistic than the article I call reading.) Even if there isn't a backdoor or attack vector for a

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Kjella ( 173770 )

            The opensource x.org initiatives, while many of the issues above are now resolved, will never be performant in the way nVidia is and lead to the creation of alternative graphical backends like Wayland, which, are trying to resolve these issues for 'good' opensource citizens

            Wayland is not in any meaningful way an alternative to the nVidia driver. It basically says you do the rendering, I'll do the compositing. For say full-screen games that means it's dumped straight to the display buffer while doing practically nothing. Right now the nVidia driver doesn't know how to play nice with Wayland but patches are coming [gnome.org], when it does it'll still do 99% of the heavy lifting.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • 1. Are you sure they "did that" ? Another poster was claiming their proprietary driver was from a different codebase and I've heard someone recently complain that the OSS driver still wasn't up to snuff. If they have third party IP issues that prevent them from open sourcing everything, then so be it, that sucks, but that still somewhat belies what you just said.

        2. They should advertise what they *are* doing better. Make a brand identity out of it. I'm sorry I don't follow every AMD story out there reli
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • But I'm sorry but the fact that you as a FOSS user doesn't know about it? Just shows how shitty the community is

            That's bullshit. Do you claim to know even 1/10 of the FOSS contributions in the world today? Were you aware that, for instance, in ~2012 that Intel released Cilk++ as open source when previously it was proprietary? Is every FOSS user in the world supposed to automatically know this the moment it happens?

            It's not a clubhouse. It's AMD's responsibility to say something if they want people to sit up and take notice. Your previous post implied AMD did it less than two years ago, and I haven't bought any AMD

  • People are starting to face the reality that AMD has never really been competitive. They constantly and consistently have sub-par offerings that fall well below what intel is offering. Sure you pay less, but you also get something that has a chance of not being able to do the job that needs to be upgraded every year just to keep up.
    • They were too competitive! Granted only in the original Athlon era and briefly in the beginning of the multi-core era, but they have been competitive!.

  • Maybe because they aren't the best right now. (Score:3)

    by jason777 ( 557591 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @07:18PM (#53533955)
    I've switched brands a few times over the years. My 6 year old overclocked system with an HD 5770 finally crapped out, and I looked at the latest offerings from both companies. The reviews and benchmarks were decidedly in Nvidia's favor. The pascal based cards cannot be touched right now. I went with an eVGA Geforce 1080, and really like it. I'm running QHD right now, and overclocked the card to 2Ghz with no temp issues at all. DOOM4, Tomb Raider, Mortal Kombat XL, and GTA5 look amazing with the setting on ultra while gettign 60fps minimum. So, I am not regretting this at all right now. Granted, I dropped $640 on this lol.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geek ( 5680 )

      Thats a lot of money for a video card. If that floats your boat then more power to you. In my opinion though, games move too fast these days for that level of detail to even be noticeable. I might lay down 250$ for an AMD 480 soon though. 600+ is just way too much for me to justify when you can buy a whole computer for that.

      • I hear you. But I was seriously considering getting a PS4 Pro until I realized that theres no UHD player, and it's not real 4k--its upconverted. So you figure $400-$600 for the PS4 and accessories, but the graphic capability can not in any sense come close to the real 4k amazing graphics that this card is capable of. So, I decided to go back to PC for gaming, and do not regret it.

  • Ironically, I still use AMD graphics cards, but I switched to Intel CPUs a while back.

  • Unless the company has personally treated you amazing, being the white knight for a giant corporation is an incredibly dumb thing to do, and something you only do because we're just hairless tribal chimps. But you can overcome that.

    Be a whore. Buy whatever's best at the time. When the AMD M1s were out I used nothing but. Then they slowly fell behind and I switched to Intels, and have been there ever since - I had hopes for Piledriver, but no. But if the AMD Zen is as good as it looks then I'll be all over

  • Sorry, but the last straw for me was when I upgraded the radeon drivers on my W10 machine (which I use for gaming). It took an hour to remove all the crapware AMD installed in addition to the drivers. Particularly onerous was their new video recording technology deciding that it would record a game session without telling me so it could pop up a 'see how great this was' window later on.

    My answer - spend an hour removing it all from the machine. Then go out and replace my radeon card with a low-end GTX 10

  • AMD ZEN needs to come intel pci-e lanes suck and with pci-e storage, usb 3.X more are needed.

  • I keep hearing on /. that AMD has fixed their drivers (as long as you don't want SLI), but then the Steam forums are lit up with AMD users fighting with their cards on games like Fallout 4, Doom, Far Cry 4, you name it. I got burned by an AMD Card many years ago after upgrading from my rock solid 1650x. I'm a cheapskate and don't have a ton of money so I've been gun shy on AMD. My last card was a GTX 660 and I hate to say it by my next card will probably be a 1060. I miss the better image quality AMD offere

  • The GPUs are in some cases (often in my country) about 65 to 75% of the price of the nvidia options but 75 to 95% as fast...... they are often a no brainer product.

    The CPUs however are atrocious, AMD offers nothing and has offered nothing in a heck of a long time, their new stuff best be significantly better or in the very least, quite a bit better and MUCH cheaper than Intel

  • I buy AMD CPUs, because they're cheaper and usually a better value (power/$), and nVidia GPUs because they're awesome, and really the only game in town for a while after buying out 3Dfx (and I never really liked ATI's stuff). So, I guess I kinda locked in to my hardware choices when AMD was kicking ass with the Athlon and nVidia was tearing things up with the Rivas.

  • I love the AMD GPU hardware but I regret buying my RX 470. I am stuck on Windows 8.1 because of drivers crashing SWTOR and Hyper-V Virtual machines on 10

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close