AMD Sold 79% of All CPUs in July (techradar.com) 194
An anonymous reader quotes TechRadar:
AMD's Ryzen 3000 series processors, spearheaded by the Ryzen 7 3700X, have led what looks like an unprecedented assault on Intel's CPUs, at least going by the figures from one component retailer. The latest stats from German retailer Mindfactory (as highlighted on Reddit) for the month of July show that AMD sold an incredible 79% of all processor units, compared to 21% for Intel.
AMD's top-selling chip was the Ryzen 7 3700X, and get this: sales of that one single processor weren't far off equaling the sales of Intel's entire CPU range (at around the 80% mark of what Intel flogged). In June, AMD's overall market share was 68% at Mindfactory, so the increase to 79% represents a big jump, and the highest proportion of sales achieved by the company this year by a long way.
To put this in a plainer fashion, for every single processor sold by Intel, AMD sold four.
Ryzen 3rd-gen offerings have seemingly sold up a storm in the first couple weeks on shelves, and then slowed down, although that slippage is likely due to stock shortages rather than falling demand (the new flagship Ryzen 9 3900X chip is vanishingly thin on the ground, for example, and is therefore being flogged for extortionate prices on eBay in predictable fashion)... [W]e can throw in as many caveats as we like, but the plain truth (at least from this source) is that AMD's doing better than ever, and grabbing a truly startling proportion of CPU market share -- even with apparent stock issues providing some headwind.
AMD's top-selling chip was the Ryzen 7 3700X, and get this: sales of that one single processor weren't far off equaling the sales of Intel's entire CPU range (at around the 80% mark of what Intel flogged). In June, AMD's overall market share was 68% at Mindfactory, so the increase to 79% represents a big jump, and the highest proportion of sales achieved by the company this year by a long way.
To put this in a plainer fashion, for every single processor sold by Intel, AMD sold four.
Ryzen 3rd-gen offerings have seemingly sold up a storm in the first couple weeks on shelves, and then slowed down, although that slippage is likely due to stock shortages rather than falling demand (the new flagship Ryzen 9 3900X chip is vanishingly thin on the ground, for example, and is therefore being flogged for extortionate prices on eBay in predictable fashion)... [W]e can throw in as many caveats as we like, but the plain truth (at least from this source) is that AMD's doing better than ever, and grabbing a truly startling proportion of CPU market share -- even with apparent stock issues providing some headwind.
What is truly surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
is that so many are still buying Intel CPUs, which currently are both worse and more expensive than equivalent AMD offerings. Maybe this is some Stockholm syndrome shit, I don't know, but it's puzzling.
Not surprising looking at history (Score:5, Informative)
I routinely see people acting like AMD has always been playing second fiddling, totally ignoring that ~5+ year period in the 2000s where they decimated Intel by eschewing Mhz-chasing while also simultaneously putting the nails in the coffin of Itanium (for better or worse) by introducing AMD-64. Intel had to ditch Netburst (including in the consumer segment Pentium 4 and Pentium-D) entirely and start over using their Pentium 3-linage laptop processor as the basis for their Core line so they could be competitive with AMD again.
But even though they were the best (*and* the cheapest) for years, as I recall they never passed Intel in sales. Brand name recognition counted for way more than it should've. I don't know what's different this time around, but I'm glad AMD is giving Intel a run for their money again. Intel's market segmentation and labeling philosophies in particular infuriates me (the i3/i5/etc. stuff mean absolutely nothing. Features are supported or not supported almost at random. I've seen not just i5s but even Celerons that supported Vt-d, and i7s that did not.)
Re: (Score:3)
I totally agree with you!!
The last couple of PCs where I had a say, ie. not my company PCs where I have had laptops with Intel i5 and i7, I evaluated the specs and found that AMD both were high performance and gave value for money, so a no-brainer.
I think the choosing of Intel is close to the "no one has ever been fired from choosing IBM" mantra.
Upper management in many companies are still missing education and understanding on details, and middle management are without the cohones to tell their bosses the
Re: (Score:2)
where I have had laptops with Intel i5 and i7, I evaluated the specs and found that AMD both were high performance and gave value for money, so a no-brainer.
Then you don't know fuck about laptops. You want them to be as capable as desktops in computing, but the reality is that you will trade off money and/or processing power on laptop hardware to be as battery efficient and least heat generating as possible. AMDs haven't put out competitive CPUs to Intel, particularly on laptops, until Zen2 (i.e. now).
Re: (Score:2)
AMDs haven't put out competitive CPUs to Intel, particularly on laptops, until Zen2 (i.e. now).
AMD briefly had mobile athlon 64 dual-core processors which were very good value for money, but they didn't support them very well at all (they were bad with windows, and worse with linux) and hardly anybody used them. And the original Athlon and Athlon XP processors were much better than then Intel processors for power consumption on the desktop. Intel has always had superior process technology to AMD until now, and yet AMD still had better power consumption there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is such utter crap. Just because you're still getting everything from the same vendor doesn't mean you're getting the same things. Even if the products still carry the same name.
Re: (Score:2)
That was probably the case 5+ years ago, but even Windows has had tools for administrators to easily add driver support to imaging processes going back to Windows XP. Linux doesn't has drivers in any distribution worth talking about for both platforms (unless you are talking about Nvidia Optimus laptops), so the argument doesn't hold for the datacenter either.
Even AWS is offering AMD based instance hosting now, at a 10% discount, even.
If you are still dealing with driver issues on some exec's laptop, your
Re: (Score:2)
That should read "Linux has drivers in any distribution worth talking about..."
Stupid lack of an edit button.
Re: (Score:3)
I routinely see people acting like AMD has always been playing second fiddling, totally ignoring that ~5+ year period in the 2000s where they decimated Intel by eschewing Mhz-chasing while also simultaneously putting the nails in the coffin of Itanium (for better or worse) by introducing AMD-64. Intel had to ditch Netburst (including in the consumer segment Pentium 4 and Pentium-D) entirely and start over using their Pentium 3-linage laptop procåessor as the basis for their Core line so they could be competitive with AMD again.
Technically, that happened. Economically... companies price their CPUs at what they'll sell at. The marginal cost of a CPU is on an existing design and an existing process has almost nothing to do with what it sells for. The commitments on wafers and production volume are made years in advance, particularly as long as AMD had their own factories. Intel knew how rapidly AMD could scale up production and knew they had a grace period to come up with a comeback. That's part of the reason AMD fell so hard, they
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, that happened. Economically... companies price their CPUs at what they'll sell at.
Actually, this reminds me of something I forgot to say: AMD probably made a serious mistake in keeping their processors cheaper than Intel's. They really needed to break their old image as "the bargain option" (I'm saying this as someone who used a K6-2 when I was a kid. It was ok for some things but man when it sucked, it sucked.) and the best way to do this would've been to not just quietly rely on tech magazines to trumpet their praises, but to actually charge more than Intel. This would've certainly hel
Re: (Score:2)
"But even though they were the best (*and* the cheapest) for years"
I've bought AMD almost exclusively for my personal desktops for almost 20 years. They've been more than good enough for a long time and it was very easy to upgrade ..Dell... helped keep Intel In
in stages from AM2 to AM3+.
AM4 required all-new parts except for storage & graphics.
Have never had the use of an AMD laptop or server although I've heard some of the Opterons were beasts.
But Intel's chip prowess and secret deals with OEMs
Re: (Score:3)
as I recall they never passed Intel in sales
They likely still haven't. Headline is misleading- AMD procs are outselling Intels on a large german retailer.
There's no evidence to suggest that they are everywhere. On Amazon, at least, the 9900K, 9700K, and 8700K are still outselling the 3700X.
One of AMDs low end procs currently has the #1 slot, but the 9700K is at #2, at ~3x the price.
None of this trying to comment on merit, only that the world's largest retailer paints a slightly different picture.
Re:Not surprising looking at history (Score:5, Informative)
Is this [amazon.com] the place where you are getting your figures? Because you are right that the now-superceded Ryzen 2600 is at #1 and 9700K is at #2, but you fail to mention that Ryzen then takes up the position of #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, and #8. That means that AMD has taken 7 out of the top 10 positions.
The 3700X that you chose for your comparison isn't even in the top 10, so why pick that one? The sales results being reported here are not about whether the high-end processors of each brand are outselling the other, but the all CPUs in total. It is the number of units, not the amount of Dollars (or Euros). That means you can't just ignore the other AMD processors to cherry-pick the one that you want to compare with.
Since we don't know the number of CPUs sold - only the relative rankings - then we can't say if Amazon's list confirms Mindfactory's figures. But that means we also can't say that it disproves them either.
Re: (Score:2)
I picked the 3700X, along with the 9900K because they are competitors.
The models I chose were all to demonstrate that, where 2 models compete, the Intel seems to be faring better. AMD, as always, is kicking ass at the low end.
Re: (Score:2)
9900K competes with 3900X. The fact that you had to pick a model that is two pricing layers lower than one you wanted to pit it against to get a victory is telling of the depth of pit Intel finds itself in in the top end desktop offerings.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that the point you were trying to make?
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the fact that you showed to be utterly misinformed or intentionally lying?
I had no point beyond that.
Re: (Score:2)
I said: 9900K competes with 3700X, to which, the 9900K is ahead of in best selling listings, but only slightly.
You said: No, it compete with the 3900X (which is more expensive than the 3700X), which means your point must be trying to spin something!
Where your correction, or difference in viewpoint, only served to further my point that Intel is still winning between competing chips, and that AMD is slurping up the low end, as they have for years.
End of the day,
Re: (Score:3)
You forget the most important part, which is why most people don't remember this period of AMD's dominance. Intel's conviction for anti-competitive behaviour. Where to help the catastrophic situation with P4, they threatened OEMs that unless they sold a specific percentage of intel CPUs(iirc in the 80%s) of all CPUs sold by that OEM, they'd have problems with supply of intel CPUs.
AMD, which expected to get massive sales as their CPU offering was crushingly superior, invested into more fab capacity at this t
Re: (Score:2)
And, of course, the years where the Intel compiler was rigged to sandbag AMD processors. Coupled with the fact that many benchmark programs were compiled using the Intel compiler.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a whole other can of worms. Photoshop for example still performs far better on Intel than AMD CPUs. Yes, this includes the new ryzen 3xxx parts.
Current situation is mostly "are you looking for a CPU for gaming or photoshop only? Intel is your choice. For everything else, get AMD".
But I don't think this is so much on Intel as lack of resources on AMD's side. Intel has a dedicated team that works with software vendors to optimize their software for Intel's CPUs, and that team is wildly more successful
Re: (Score:2)
This went WELL beyond just working with vendors to help them optimize for a particular processor. The runtime startup emitted by icc literally had a case in it's logic to choose the least optimal code if it detected an AMD processor. To the point that if you used a preload library or hacked that case out of the binary using a hex editor, the AMD magically became a real contender.
That's a lot of head to head benchmarks where the AMD processor "came up short" only because it was sandbagged.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, that was a small part of it. Overwhelming bulk is in the fact that AMD/ATI has been genuinely bad with their software support, even without any input from Intel's anticompetitive practices.
Re: (Score:2)
In the server and supercomputing domain, it was a HUGE part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
And, of course, the years where the Intel compiler was rigged to sandbag AMD processors. Coupled with the fact that many benchmark programs were compiled using the Intel compiler.
Nothing changed; Intel's compiler and libraries are still rigged against AMD processors. The court only required Intel to document it which they did by originally posting an image of the text announcing it so that searches would not find it as a fuck you to the court.
Eh not brand name recognition (Score:2)
Eh, AMD not dominating Intel in sales in the early 2000s had nothing to do with brand name recognition, it was all about Intel paying off retailers, integrators and "journalists". They had to pay a few billion for that illegal behavior which, of course, was very little and very late.
Re: (Score:2)
I routinely see people acting like AMD has always been playing second fiddling, totally ignoring that ~5+ year period in the 2000s where they decimated Intel by eschewing Mhz-chasing while also simultaneously putting the nails in the coffin of Itanium (for better or worse) by introducing AMD-64.
Itanic was doomed because Intel failed to provide a magic compiler that would make it performant.
Intel seems to have lost their touch in every category; they no longer have the lead in process technology, they no longer [are believed to] design superior silicon, and they no longer have superior compiler technology. At this point, it doesn't look like they have any technical reason to continue to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the days of the x86, they got there by accident. The entire x86 line was supposed to be used as I/O coprocessors for the iAPX 432. But the latter was so heavyweight that people noticed things were a lot faster if you had the "I/O processors" run the program themselves. And so the IBM PC was born.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess you've never heard of a "pivot" before.
Before pivots had their Andy Warhol moment: lucky lightning strike; after pivots become the in thing: just another day in the office at Innovation Inc.
[*] Here "Inc." stands for Incarnate.
The 432 was intended to be the successor of the 386, but it was complicated and late.
Meanwhile Intel had an 860 team and a follow-on 486 team competing with each other.
———
Oral History of John H. Crawford [computerhistory.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The 432 started before the 8086 was even finalized (and the 386 wasn't even in planning), everything you posted is after the observation that running on the "I/O processor" was faster than running on the CPU. It's easily seen in retrospect, perhaps not so easily seen at the time that by that point the 432 was a dead whale being kicked down the beach.
On the positive, they did manage to salvage some of the 432 tech in the form of the i960, which was a commercial success even if nowhere near the level of the h
Re: (Score:2)
As you say - for better or worse - AMD won the 64-bit instruction race. (It was certainly the better solution at the time, whether the long-term might have been well served by something more radical could be debatable).
Thing is, graphics plays an important part - whether it is integrated, or the support of external processors. AMD only bought ATI in 2006, and it took a while to really get their ducks in a row, with improved driver support, better integrated chips, etc. By the time AMD would have been in a p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it's more that bulldozer was a wrong tool for the market at the time. In that architecture, it was a conscious decision on part of AMD to sacrifice IPC for more cores. And at the time, parallelism in software for CPUs was still in its infancy on desktop side. It was just a wrong design choice.
Today's software market with much better multithreading optimization across the board works a whole lot better on "lower IPC, more cores" parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I wish to emulate games and overclock.
Re: (Score:2)
not surprising. people that buy individual processors are mostly gamers and intel still has the lead in single thread performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus its not how many benchmarks Intel is better at, its the benchmark's relevance. If its use case is almost non-existent, nobody cares who beat who.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
RAID support on consumer motherboards is absolutely terrible irrespective of intel or amd, better to buy a serious server raid controller.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Better to use software raid usually, so you don't get stuck dealing with some dealer-specific hw raid BS later when the hardware fails.
Re: (Score:2)
A thousand times this if you think you might like to still have access to your data if you upgrade or replace your disk controller.
Re: (Score:3)
Software raid and "fakeraid" are two different things...
The fakeraid offered by cheap controllers has all the disadvantages of proprietary hardware raid controllers (ie nonstandard formats), but none of the performance benefits (eg battery backed write cache, dedicated channels, asic to compute checksums etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, if I plan on building a PC that will use Optane to make a 6TB SSD/HDD hybrid for a Steam gaming volume, I'll be going Intel. OTOH, software caching solutions such as PrimoCache make the AMD case doable as well.
You have to be kidding. What steam user is going to buy 6TB worth of SSD storage for their games? They'll just buy 2TB, and swap in and out the games they *very* infrequently play. Change that picture to someone who likes to play games while transcoding their latest movie/TV series. Those people will still buy 6TB worth of SSD, but they'll be buying the AMD CPUs. Intel's multithreading is nerfed for another family generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse in what way? Quantify exactly what you mean.
IPC crown: Intel
Management engine capabilities for businesses: Intel
Power efficiency: Intel (obviously talking laptops not tablets here).
Building a general purpose / high end desktop, well that has been AMD for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything that isn't single thread IPC dependent like gaming and photoshop.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything that isn't single thread IPC dependent like gaming and photoshop.
Except that's still not true. My current workload isn't IPC dependent but I sure as fuck wouldn't want a power hungry AMD chip in this machine while it runs on a battery.
Re-read my comment. IPC is a piss small criteria compared to the many that you should put thought into when picking a chip.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to relax. It's ok to like something that is simply not as good as another thing competing with it. It's ok to prefer it to the objectively better option.
That's how luxury products work.
What's not ok is to try to push your preferences on others under false pretences.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm closely following the Ryzen 3000 launch and let me tell that it's probably the most issues-packed launch I've ever seen if you're using a motherboard other than the one based on the X570 chipset (which on average cost over $200). And x570 motherboards are not without their quirks as well.
Intel on the other hand is a known quality: you buy it and everything works. Yeah, they change sockets often but I've never perceived this to be an issue because changing CPUs even biennially doesn't make any sense. T
Re: (Score:2)
People are making the mistake of reading too much into the Zen2 family release. Whether AMD or Intel, the first, freshest release of CPUs are always in small quantity, and have growing pains. This is all aimed for November/December.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's akin to the old "no one was ever fired for buying IBM" mantra from the 80s.
Re: (Score:2)
People buy shit that is worse and more expensive all the time. This is usually a result of advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
These flaws are only marginally relevant in server space and utterly irrelevant everywhere else.
Which is why sane people tell the hysterical "omg these CPUs are broken" crazies to shut up and deal with their hysteria with meds. All while these "broken" CPUs run just fine.
79% of all CPUs* (Score:5, Informative)
*if you only look at sales of discrete CPUs to people building their own computers from scratch and purchasing from one particular German retailer.
Re: 79% of all CPUs* (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is on the Slashdot editors - it's basically how the Tech Radar site wrote its own drooling headline and article. Slashdot has pretty much always just posted stories more or less as written.
Look, I'm not a particular fan of Intel... but I am a fan of well-written tech journalism, which is getting increasingly difficult to even find. I imagine that's largely due to most of these tech sites getting rid of actual staff and basically becoming blogging platforms where inexperienced kids are wil
Re: (Score:2)
What I found amusing is that a tech article found it necessary to explain what 79% is:
To put this in a plainer fashion, for every single processor sold by Intel, AMD sold four
I'm disappointed in the direction Slashdot comments have gone over the years but there is only so much the Slashdot editors can do working today's "high tech" articles.They have my sympathy.
Re: (Score:3)
And depending on where [yahoo.com] you get the story, it's not all rosy reporting for Advanced Micro Devices:
TLDR...
After taking the helm in 2014, AMD CEO Lisa Su mapped out a way forward to catch up to these bigger rivals. She decided to skip the 10-nanometer node on AMD's portfolio of chips and go straight ahead to 7-nanometer. That decision, made a few years ago, has catapulted AMD ahead of Intel this year in the race to 7-nanometer CPUs for both PCs, desktops, and data centers. Nevertheless, AMD's recent earnings report only showed a paltry $0.08 in non-GAAP (adjusted) earnings per share (EPS). Additionally, the company lowered its full-year guidance, which has been impacted by the trade war with China and declines in the current game console cycle.
Re:79% of all CPUs* (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, mindfactory is a common source for "PC hardware sales directly to machine builders". It's probably the biggest shop in EU for this sector at this point (typically either best or very close to best prices), and it's rare in that it has some transparecy with its sales.
Re: (Score:2)
*if you only look at sales of discrete CPUs to people building their own computers from scratch and purchasing from one particular German retailer.
Of course... Most customers don't buy discrete CPU's and don't build their own computer. It's a small fraction of the market. HOWEVER: the kind of person who builds their own computer from scratch also tends to be the person who gets asked what computer they should buy the next time their co-worker, grandma, or other extended family member is looking to get a new one. The more mindshare AMD gets among techies, the more the market as a whole will flow towards them.
Of course there'll be a delay, but Intel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... of course.
I think that most of us Slashdot readers know that the percentage of people who buy prebuilt desktops instead of building their own is probably well above 90% now, so that retail sales numbers for a CPU launch are pretty meaningless to the bottom line of the company producing them.
The real question is if the author of this "story" is a diehard AMD fanboy, or just someone trying to do yet another bump and dump scam on AMD stock.
Re: (Score:2)
So based on this I should buy AMD stock? (Score:5, Informative)
When I RTFA, I can't believe that it is just based on one retailer. There's no discussion on brands, price point and it's only for one month (could there have been a sale)?
C'mon, somebody's being too much of an AMD fanboy here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's one retailer, that sales to a small nitch of builders. Hardly what I call impending doom for Intel. I'm not going to look it up but I'm willing to bet that sales of Intel in the same market for Intel processors in laptops alone beat what is mentioned in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the firm Mercury Research, AMD market share in CPUs was around 16% at the desktop and around 13% at the laptop space at 2019Q1. These numbers are too low compared to the 79% coming from this computer shop in Germany. I have not heard of any of these two companies - Mercury Research data is better aligned with my bias. Shops like Dell, that tend to move a huge number of
Re: (Score:3)
ccording to data from Mercury Research, two generations of Ryzen increased AMDâ(TM)s x86 desktop unit market share from 12.2% to 17.1% between the first quarters of 2018 and 2019. Its x86 notebook unit market share rose from 8% to 13.1% during the same period. Its market share rose as its rival Intel suffered supply shortages, which encouraged customers to switch to AMDâ(TM)s CPUs.
Now this more of what I expect. More realistic number but still enough to make you sit up and take note. Damn, it's nice to see AMD gaining some ground on Intel.
Re: (Score:3)
Then there are servers where AMD is going to release new "Rome" 2nd gen Epyc CPUs next week. Today the marketshare is massively intel there, but that too might start shifting.
I've looked at the Epyc CPU's specs. Those things are going to be beasts. Like the desktop offers from AMD they trail behind some what in IPS. But lets be honest about it. The AMD IPS is so close, does it really matter that much? I doubt even dedicated gamers are going the notice the 2% difference.
In servers the IPS difference matters even less. The nature of servers is to spread as much load around as many cores as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
could there have been a sale
No, there was however a hotly anticipated release for which many people have delayed purchasing a PC.
3900x has been MIA since launch (Score:2)
Re: 3900x has been MIA since launch (Score:3)
I bought a 3900X on release date. Microcenter had people waiting in the parking lot hours before they opened on launch day. They ran out of 3900X processors around noon.
Re: (Score:2)
I usually "wait for the competition to release something before I buy" because there is an inevitable price drop in what I actually want when that happens. By that time generally the supply has stabilized, and anything that's only going to explode on early adopters has already done so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
9700Ks & 9900Ks are always going to be in short supply, which is why they have a higher than average price tag. The bottleneck is manufacturing physics; Intel just can't make them at the same yields as their earlier CPUs, due to the nanometer circuitry size. This is why Intel is screwed. Even with Intel eating their profit margins, AMD is going to have an easier time manufacturing more CPUs at cheaper prices.
TIL: (Score:2)
Slashdot allows blatantly misleading headlines on their website.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot allows blatantly misleading headlines on their website.
You're a slow learner.
Got it! (Score:2)
>"AMD's Ryzen 3000 series processors, spearheaded by the Ryzen 7 3700X, have led what looks like an unprecedented assault on Intel's CPUs"
That is exactly what I just bought- a Ryzen 3700X and Asus X570-P motherboard to replace my old Phenom II system I have been using for 8 years (!). Coupled it with the blisteringly fast Corsair MP600 M.2, HyperX 3466 RAM, slapped Mageia 7.1 on it and away I go! Very happy so far.
I waited only a few hours too long to decide on all the components and then all four went
they're also messing it up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I'm missing something deeper in your post, isn't "2nd generation" a fitting term for Zen 2?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah got it now. Thanks for the clarification.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else get what I got which is a Ryzen 3 3200G CPU with "2nd generation CPU" print on the front of the box by accident? I did.
No. Ryzen 3 3200G CPUs are 2nd generation Zen+ architectures.
All Ryzen 3 3xxx products are as are all Ryzen 3, 5 and 7 3xxx chips with a U or H designation for mobile.
3rd Generation chips aren't available with mobile or APUs yet.
Very misleading headline (Score:2)
The headline is more than a little misleading. It completely forgets that not every CPU is in a desktop PC.
Possibly, "In the desktop PC market, one retailer reports..."
Pareto distribution sideshow (Score:2)
Do people here immediately recognize that this shakes down almost exactly the same in the Android vs iPhone marketplace? Or does the cluestick cease to cover the Pareto distribution once user ids reach six digits? (Exactly as predicted by the Pareto distribution through his hubba hubba spokesperson, Dunning Kruger.)
iPhone vs Android market share [macworld.co.uk] — 8 February 2019
It's news, but the headline is misleading (Score:2)
The actual story is that AMD desktop CPUs vastly outsold Intel at one component reseller. Anecdotal reports about sales at US-based retail sellers of CPUs suggest a similar phenomenon there.
But that's a long way from saying that AMD is selling nearly 80% of all the CPUs sold because retail sales are only a small part of the total. The bulk of CPU sales are to computer manufacturers that in turn build them into systems; AMD is not as big a presence there. And a large chunk of CPU sales are for laptops and ta
Re: Uhm ok, this is one random retailer in Germany (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its AMD vs. Intel clickbait. A predictable post on Slashdot on a Saturday afternoon in 2019.
Yay Coke! No!!! Yay Pepsi!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many polls have around 1000 people as sample size and 97% accuracy, so sample size is not a problem.
The problem though is sample relevance, which in this case doesn't cover the whole spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uhm ok, this is one random retailer in Germany (Score:5, Informative)
>Is there any evidence this represents a global trend?
Mindfactory is a fairly common source to cite for EU sales. EU sales typically mimic US sales as well. So yes.
>Did the retailer have a huge discount?
Mindfactory is as large as it is in EU specifically because it offers great prices. On everything.
>Do they specialize in supporting AMD buyers?
No.
>Did they raise prices on Intel?
No.
>What is their typical AMD vs Intel ratio over the last 12 months? What are the YoY figures? Quarter vs Quarter?
The reason mindfactory is commonly cited for these kinds of sales is because they release some figures. Unlike most retailers that release little to none. There's however a limit to their transparency as well.
>Was there a local shipping problem with Intel CPUs that month?
No. There's a global production problem with Intel CPUs however.
>Did AMD incentivize the retailer to push AMD?
Probably, just like Intel incentivizes the same retailer to push Intel.
>Did a web site bug hide the Intel chips?
No. This is the biggest EU "hardware to builders" retailer. Any such "bugs" would result in serious HR consequences to those involved. This is a German site, and Germans are nothing if not utterly anal about things working as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Any modern retailer should be tracking sales on the web site, and wild swings should set off alarms, be they a broken particular product page or an unexpectedly popular product.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course, this was a release window of a new product that was expected to do well.
Re: (Score:2)
Myself and my knowledge of this particular scene as a hobbyist PC builder who lives in another EU country and has used mindfactory before.
Re: (Score:2)
You've come up with so many reasons while missing the obvious: AMD launched a new product. Seriously why even question the results. No shit they will see a massive spike in sales.
Re: (Score:2)
AMD is the PCI-E Lane king!!!!! (Score:3)
AMD is the PCI-E Lane king!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Single core performance is still king, and AMD individual core performance is significantly lower than the Intel equivalent.
You're being a little too intransigent in your thinking. AMD CPUs will have significant performance margins over Intel with multithreaded performance; particularly if they can avoid the need for certain "Spectre" patching. Meltdown/Spectre is really fucking over cloud providers, basically making their equipment 40% slower for their operations. As game developers accomodate more multithreaded computing to improve performance, you'll have a reason to prefer the cheaper(?) AMD CPUs. Zen2 is only a percenta