
AMD Takes 10.4% CPU Share from Intel in Q2 2017 - vanburen
http://wccftech.com/amd-takes-10-4-cpu-share-intel-q2-2017-largest-single-quarter-share-gain-history/
======
taspeotis
> It's important to note that because PassMark's market share data is based on
> benchmark submissions it counts actual systems in use, rather than systems
> sold.

So AMD's market share would be overstated? I don't think a lot of machines get
PassMark run on them, most would be enthusiasts or review sites benchmarking
them. Ryzen has recently gotten a _lot_ of attention. Compare that to the
relative snoozefest that is/was Kaby Lake.

Dell, HP etc. machines sold for home/business use would outnumber enthusiast
builds ... ten-to-one?

Steam's Hardware Survey [1] would be one to keep an eye on, although it hasn't
been updated for June and would probably favour Intel because of Steam's
audience: gaming benchmarks show Ryzen is competitive but in terms of highest
performance for gaming Intel has the upper hand.

[1]
[http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey](http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey)

~~~
sandworm101
Things may change at steam. ATM many/most top games are not optimized for
multiple cores, particularly the indi titles. That could change. A few updates
to unity and other tools could see Ryzen become a gaming powerhouse. I'll be
in the market for a new gaming PC in a couple months. I want to go with AMD-
Ryzen. I like the concept.

~~~
desdiv
High-end Intel chips are 8 logical cores; high-end Ryzen chips are 16 to 32
logical cores. When games becomes optimized for multiple cores, both sides
win. It's only when games are optimized for more than 8 logical cores that AMD
will start having an advantage, and AFAIK no game engine has ever been
optimized towards such a niche market (between 8 and 32 logical cores). There
will _always_ be mid-tier desktop systems and laptops with less than 8 logical
cores that could be your potential customers.

~~~
sliken
Not sure what universe you live in. But for 99% of the world the "high end" is
an i7-7700k with 4 cores/8 threads. Systems with nice parts designed for
gaming are in the $1000-$2000 range ($350 for cpu, $150 for motherboard,
$100-$200 for ram, $350-$650 for GPU, and a few $100 for the rest (SSD, case,
fans, keyboard/mouse, etc) VERY few people spend more.

AMD competes in this space with basically double the cores for the same money.
Like say the R7-1700X, same price as the i7-7700k

While 8 core intel's exist they are insanely expensive and don't typically do
even 1% better at gaming. The 16-32 core Ryzen chips don't even exist yet.

~~~
desdiv
i7-7700k is 8 logical cores. Ryzen 7 is 16 logical cores. I used the phrase
"logical core" in my comment 5 times because it is unambiguous whether as the
unqualified word "core" isn't (it could be referring to physical cores or
logical cores).

------
pella
"Mindfactory.de (Large german online store) CPU Market Share"

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NQU0FtsxI6qrX1ioDIOK...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NQU0FtsxI6qrX1ioDIOKMiFhZ9uBVClK29tf4vYjpUk/edit?usp=drive_web)

------
faragon
AMD strategy is very ambitious: attack on desktop, workstation, and server.
Can't wait for buying a Ryzen Threadripper (workstation CPU) with up to 16
cores (32 threads), DDR4 quad-channel, and huge L3 cache.

~~~
NonEUCitizen
AMD is aiming for laptops as well:

[https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/5/18/15657480/a...](https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/5/18/15657480/amd-
ryzen-processors-laptops-apu-intel-chips-cores)

------
0xbear
I hope they converge towards the middle and stay there until ARM takes over
completely (which it will, within the next decade or so). I'm waiting for
Threadripper and for AMD to address Linux-related problems with Ryzen (GCC
crashes, general stability, etc), but we did build a couple of boxes with
Ryzen at work to benchmark and optimize software for, and they hold their own
against Intel performance wise, in spite of narrower SIMD.

~~~
cptskippy
I don't see your hope for AMD or your prediction about ARM happening.

I think it's much more likely that Intel will continue to produce backward
compatible x86 chips and start producing a variant that eschews backwards
compatibility in favor of performance by dropping legacy x86 features either
gradually or entirely.

~~~
iamnotlarry
Congratulations, cptskippy. You just predicted 2001. Intel and HP combined
lost to amd64.

This time around, Intel will have to take on more than just AMD. You think
eschewing backwards compatibility will work better this time?

~~~
yuhong
It would not be the same as IA-64. My idea would be to ditch the segment
registers and act if the segment base is always zero except FS and GS for
example, with a new way to handle interrupts etc of course. As a side note, I
am thinking that in such a proposal only up to SSE2 should be mandatory, as
these are the Intel patents most likely to expire soon. We should also choose
either SYSENTER or SYSCALL for 32-bit system calls and make it the same for
all x86 vendors (I am thinking of assuming that all OSes are 64-bit and only
running user mode programs in 32-bit).

~~~
geezerjay
If your feature wish list doesn't translate into relevant performance boosts,
you're wishing for a whole new stack of problems and challenges that buy you
nothing at all.

The parent poster was right: you just predicted 2001. Intel and HP combined
lost to amd64 because they'd bet on a redesign which failed to provide any
meaningful gains. Backward compatibility is there to avoid problems, and
nowadays it's highly unlikely that performance gains from new products will be
more than marginal.

~~~
yuhong
IA-64 had plenty of other problems which did not help either. This proposal
would make x86 more like a normal "RISC" processor instead without breaking
user mode and hopefully not even driver compatibility. Main benefit would be
to get rid of a lot of microcode for example.

~~~
geezerjay
IA-64 had its own problems, but your proposal would have its own problems as
well. Breaking backward compatibility is all about creating problems, and you
failed to point out any gain as a trade-off for all that pain. Getting rid of
microcode only causes problems for the potential clients and developers, and
for what?

~~~
0xbear
Breaking backwards compat isn’t actually such a big deal in certain cloud
applications, or for e.g. Java or Go. When you have full control of the stack,
a lot of interesting possibilities open up. The main issue is probably that
removing old crap isn’t going to save that much die area.

~~~
yuhong
In this case it would be easier because most JITs and compilers would not have
to be modified.

------
raverbashing
When the product is good and there's no anti competitive behaviour, that's
what happens

------
luord
My next computer is going to be a Ryzen so I'm glad it's doing this well.

------
KaoruAoiShiho
Basically fake news from wccftech haha. We'll see how much they sold next
earnings!

