AMD captures 28.7% market share in desktops - eviltoast
  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Not surprised. I switched to AMD CPU and GPU about a year ago. Could not be happier. Ryzen sips power and I run mine in Eco mode (since I’m on an air cooler). Performance is still fantastic.

    • addie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      36 minutes ago

      Invested in a water cooler setup back when I had a Bulldozer chip, which was near essential. Now on a Ryzen, and getting it to exceed about 35 degrees is very difficult. Been very good for long-term stability of my desktop - all the niggling hard disk issues seem to just go away when they’ve not subjected to such thermal cycling any more.

      Fantastic chips.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    11 hours ago

    If you look at who is manufacturing silicon, the numbers look even worse for Intel. All of these competitors are using TSMC fabs. AMD, Apple, Qualcomm, etc.

    TSMC is the real 500lb gorilla in the room.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 hour ago

      And Intel. Intel has been using TSMC fabs for a while.

      They used to get a 40% discount, too, but that stopped recently when Pat Gelsinger said people should stop buying from TSMC because there’s a good chance they’ll be invaded.

      TSMC’s CEO didn’t like that, and said “ok, no more 40% discount for you. Effective immediately.” (TL;DR’d, obviously).

      • Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Pray they don’t, but I’m almost certain they will now that the US is appointing complete morons to every portion of the US government. The US won’t really be able to help until this rot gets cleaned out. China has four years before we can really help Taiwan again. (Or at least give them air superiority)

      • randon31415@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Biden just finalized the Arizona TSMC plant.

        If that gets invaded, I think semiconductors are the least of our problems.

        • chutchatut@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          But the Arizona plant wouldn’t be allowed to manufacture the most cutting edge chips.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Taiwans rule. Foreign tsmc fabs have to be a gen behind. This would definitely change if China took over Taiwan, but who knows what China will do or allow at that point. They could shut the whole US fab down if they want. Even if they did try to re-tool the US fab (taiwan or china or tsmc) in a few years, it would cost billions and a lot of time to get it done.

            • Da Bald Eagul@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Taiwan is incentivized to keep the latest and greatest local, so they can hopefully get protection from the USA and Europe

  • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Amazing what happens when your primary competitor spends 18 months stepping on every rake they can find.

    And, then, having run out of rakes, they then deeply invest in a rake factory so they can keep right on stepping on them.

    This’ll probably be a lot more interesting a year from now, given that the product lines for the next ~9 months or so are out and uh, well…

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      18 months? Lol.

      Intel has been stagnating since the 4th gen Core uarch in 2014 with little competition. They knew they were top dog and they sat on their hands until their hands went numb. There’s a reason “14nm++++++++++” was a running joke. This is a decade of monopolistic market behavior finally coming home to roost.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        12 hours ago

        So you’re telling me that milking my 4770k until this year when I built a new rig with AMD was in fact a genius move?

        • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Basically yeah. Up until Zen 2 intel didn’t do much innovating and only around the zen 2 era did those 4th/6th gen chips start to really struggle in modern workloads.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            TBH the only thing that caused me grief with that old beast of an i7 (other that the fact it would have bottlenecked my new GPU) was playing Stellaris.

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        12 hours ago

        That’s a wee revisionist: Zen/Zen+/Zen2 were not especially performant and Intel still ran circles around them with Coffee Lake chips, though in fairness that was probably because Zen forced them to stuff more cores on them.

        Zen3 and newer, though, yeah, Intel has been firmly in 2nd place or 1st place with asterisks.

        But the last 18 months has them fucking up in such a way that if you told me that they were doing it on purpose, I wouldn’t really doubt it.

        It’s not so much failing to execute well-conceived plans as it was shipping meltingly hot, sub-par performing chips that turned out to self-immolate, combined with also giving up on being their own fab, and THEN torching the relationship with TSMC before you launched your first products they’re fabbing.

        You could write the story as a malicious evil CEO wanting to destroy the company and it’d read much the same as what’s actually happening (not that I think Patty G is doing that, mind you) right now.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Zen1 was slower in gaming and most 1-2 core workloads, but it was immediately far faster in server, faster in highly-threaded tasks, was hugely cheaper to manufacture, didn’t have the huge security flaws Intel chips had, and was way more power efficient.

          They achieved that while still being on an inferior Global Foundries manufacturing process.

          Zen1 was overall better than Coffee Lake. Just not to PC gamers.

        • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Single core workloads Intel still had the lead. But multi core (or just multi tasking) Zen 1 was a beast. By zen 2 there was hardly a reason to get Intel even for gaming, and especially at normal setups (nobody is using a top of the line GPU at 1080p). Even when you’re “just” playing a game you still have stuff running in the background, and those extra cores helped a lot.

          Plus newer games are much more multi threaded than when zen first came out so those chips aged better as well.

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Zen 2 was only a little slower for gaming, but it cooked the 8 core Intel 9900K in multicore performance. You could stick a 16 core 3950x into a normal mobo. The chiplet was a revolution

        • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Its chronic underinvestment in engineering to “maximize shareholder value” for a decade before AMD launched Zen. Then Intel got 5 years behind on engineering, and have only managed to get 2 of those 3 caught up. The newest tile based architecture only just matches the performance of AMD’s 3 year old AM4 architecture.

        • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          12 hours ago

          early zen werent performant in lower core count loads, but were extremely competitive in multi core workloads, especially when performamce per dollar was added into the equation. even if one revisits heavy multi core workload benchmarks, they faired fairly well in it. its just at a consumer level, they werent up to snuff yet because in gaming, they were still stuck with developers optimizing for an 8 thread console, and for laptops amds presence was near non existant.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Not only that, but it was vastly more power efficient, and didn’t have the glaring security vulnerabilities that Intel had. All while being on a worse Global Foundries manufacturing process.

            Unless you were a PC gamer who also didn’t care about $/perf, Zen1 was the better architecture.

    • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      All of my computers had been Intel for many many years and here about a year and a half ago I got my first AMD computer because I had seen other people’s machines with AMD processors but I had never owned one for myself and so now I do I have one with an AMD Ryzen 5

  • walden@sub.wetshaving.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    I just built a computer for a friend and she decided to get an AMD when I told her it was about the same performance but used half as much electricity.

    This is a person who knows nothing about computers. Intel is losing their “household name” status in a big way judging by that.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    I feel like they are dropping the ball in the GPU space though, both on desktop and in servers.

    They’renot really leveraging it. They killed the steam deck line of “small core count, GPU heavy APUs” which is why Valve hasn’t updated it and competitors seem so power hungry. They all but killed server APUs, making them mega expensive and HPC only. They’re finally coming out with a M-Pro like consumer APU, but it took until 2025, and pricing will probably be a joke just like their Radeon Pro GPUs…

    And I don’t even wanna get into the AI space. They get like 99% there and then go “nah, we don’t really care about this market, let Nvidia have their monopoly and screw everyone over.” It makes me want to pull my hair out.