[HN Gopher] AMD vs. Intel CPU Market Share
___________________________________________________________________
AMD vs. Intel CPU Market Share
Author : temp8964
Score : 133 points
Date : 2021-06-18 18:39 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cpubenchmark.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cpubenchmark.net)
| AmVess wrote:
| Steam hardware survey is another look. Of course limited to those
| who use Steam.
|
| https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
| esturk wrote:
| Steam is analogous to PC gaming at this point and there's no
| indication there's any bias towards either group so it's a good
| estimate.
|
| From the chart, it looks like Intel lost 10% of the PC gaming
| market share in just 1 year.
| __initbrian__ wrote:
| What happened in '06?
| terramex wrote:
| Intel stopped using Pentium 4's _NetBurst_ architecture and
| switched to _Core_ derived from Pentium III
|
| _High power consumption and heat intensity, the resulting
| inability to effectively increase clock rate, and other
| shortcomings such as an inefficient pipeline were the primary
| reasons why Intel abandoned the NetBurst microarchitecture and
| switched to a different architectural design, delivering high
| efficiency through a small pipeline rather than high clock
| rates._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBurst_(microarchitecture)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_(microarchitecture)
| zsmi wrote:
| Core 2 Duo https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/10817-slideshow-
| intel-proc...
| mumblemumble wrote:
| The Intel Core line of CPUs was launched in January 2006.
| maxk42 wrote:
| Fascinating that AMD is not dominating in the arena of servers:
| That's where I would've expected the biggest adoption. They're
| generally more affordable than Intel especially in the arena of
| performance per watt, and the differences in feature parity for
| things like media playback have less of an impact there.
|
| Can anyone give me insight into why Intel is so far ahead in this
| space?
| ekianjo wrote:
| production capacity. AMD cant ship nearly as much as they would
| like.
| gnarbarian wrote:
| long-running existing contracts is my guess
| sascha_sl wrote:
| It will take a long time, but you can still see the uptick. Zen
| has the potential to take over Intel at least, considering
| density and pricing, they are exceptional value.
| karavelov wrote:
| > PerformanceTest software only runs on Windows OS
|
| I think this excludes huge population of servers as we know
| Windows is not dominant there.
| mey wrote:
| How many people outside of a homelab/lab going to run a
| performance test suite on a fleet of servers? The sample size
| must be interestingly skewed.
|
| This may be more useful information for the server market,
| even if old.
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-vs-
| intel-q3-2020-cpu-m...
| lumost wrote:
| It's pretty common actually. A server buy can easily be an
| 8 figure deal, getting servers that turn out to be stupidly
| configured for your apps that your stuck with for 5 years
| is exceptionally dumb.
| mey wrote:
| I should've emphasized lab before of homelab. Agree,
| doing a full stack hardware validation (managed to even
| get a full multi-vendor stack deployed into a Dell
| validation colo to do our internal performance test).
| Even then, we only ran out _own_ performance tests, as we
| cared about our workload, not a generic workload suite.
|
| Edit: Additionally, we only did that work on a single set
| of systems prior to purchase, not the systems post
| purchase, so 1 of N, instead of rerunning on N. It was
| presumed that performance would remain the same on same
| hardware configuration etc.
| qw3rty01 wrote:
| Are you sure? Statista has windows at a 71% server market
| share in 2019:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/915085/global-server-
| sha...
|
| Edit: Because people seem to think that the numbers are made
| up, here's some more sources with not quite as high, but
| similarly dominant numbers:
|
| Red Hat: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-continues-
| lead-linux-... - microsoft @ 49% in 2017
|
| t4: https://www.t4.ai/industry/server-operating-system-
| market-sh... - microsoft @ 47% in 2018
| jakeinspace wrote:
| I don't have access to the source, but I literally cannot
| believe that is true.
| qw3rty01 wrote:
| it says it right in the description, which you don't need
| a subscription to read
|
| > In 2019, the Windows operating system was used on 72.1
| percent of servers worldwide, whilst the Linux operating
| system accounted for 13.6 percent of servers. Compared to
| 2018, both companies experienced an increase to their
| overall market share.
| himinlomax wrote:
| That's just unbelievable on the face of it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I don't think what is described as unbelievable is that
| the source claims that, but that the claim is true.
|
| (And since it describes both "Windows" and "Linux" as
| "companies" that gained marketshare, I'm somewhat
| suspicious of their information gathering.)
|
| But not being registered with them, I don't have access
| to what passes for their detailed source information for
| that claim.
| martinald wrote:
| There's often dozens of Windows servers installed on site
| in millions of offices around the world, doing various
| tasks (email, active directory, file storage, etc).
|
| I'm sure if you looked at "servers installed in a data
| centre" then it would be closer to what you expect. But
| there are so many servers doing "boring" jobs in
| cupboards youll never see it totally skews the figures.
| yakz wrote:
| But if you looked at "servers installed in a data centre"
| what you'd discover is that there's millions of servers
| in just one building.
| himinlomax wrote:
| I'm pretty sure any one of Amazon, Google or Facebook has
| more Linux servers than there are Windows server in the
| world.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Where are the numbers if you are so sure?
| kristopolous wrote:
| In the wild at actual data centers I'd gladly bet $10,000
| it's actually under 1%.
|
| It'd be the easiest $10,000 I'd ever make
| qw3rty01 wrote:
| You'd be losing that bet. Larger datacenters tend to use
| windows because of microsoft providing support contracts.
|
| I don't have access to the full numbers, but I'd bet on
| the linux side being majority red hat for the same
| reason.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Not only does Microsoft offer comprehensive support
| packages for their products, but in fact the TCO of a
| Windows Server system is almost always lower than a Linix
| system while also having the better user productivity.
| Considering this, any business that is serious about
| digital transformation would do well to indeed reach for
| Microsoft's portfolio.
|
| Of course it's easy to make up statistics to show that
| the OS made by some Sovjet hacker in his mother's
| basement (probably using lots of stolen MS IP) is
| supposedly more popular than the products made in the US
| by a reputable firm such as Microsoft, but who is going
| to believe _that_?
| Bluecobra wrote:
| Why do you need paid support for your OS?
| kristopolous wrote:
| What planet do you live on? Have you ever been to a
| datacenter?
|
| Look at top500, it's literally 0% windows,
| https://www.top500.org/statistics/list/
|
| Many of the VPS providers don't even have windows options
| because the demand is so low it's not even worth offering
| as a product.
|
| Server farm sysadmins I know habitually lament they are
| rusty in windows whenever it's in front of them because
| it's completely vanished from their daily experience
|
| If this was a survey of companies where the weight of
| say, a liquor store with a 20 year old beater in the back
| closet that they'll call a server is 1 vote, and say, all
| of Amazon is also 1 vote, then maybe you can get that
| number, but that's basically the only way
| qw3rty01 wrote:
| top500 is a super computer dataset, it's not really
| relevant to general server market share
|
| you could even look at Red Hat, one of microsoft's
| competitors, who showed microsoft's market share at 49.6%
| in 2017: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-
| continues-lead-linux-...
| [deleted]
| hhw wrote:
| Not all servers are web facing or live in data centres.
| There are tons of small businesses that run servers in a
| backroom. Those are predominantly Windows.
| necheffa wrote:
| Are these real numbers or are they counting SMB instances
| running on commodity hardware and doing other weird junk to
| play with the stats?
|
| Windows isn't even the most used OS on Azure. Certainly
| large deployments at Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.
| accounting for a huge proportion of the population aren't
| running Windows either.
| sacomo wrote:
| I wonder if this only considers the OS that a server was
| shipped with? Which is typically nuked as soon as the
| customer receives it.
| qw3rty01 wrote:
| This may be true for small companies, but larger
| businesses tend to use windows due to support contracts.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Larger companies have no problems finding people to pay
| to support Linux, or if they are really large (say,
| Amazon), supporting it themselves and being who people
| (including big companies) pay to support and host Linux
| systems.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Servers aren't generally delivered with an unwanted OS,
| or an unwanted Windows license.
|
| If it's going to run Linux, you tick that option when
| ordering. Or you tick "no OS".
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| AMD sells server chips as quickly as they can make them. They
| are capacity constrained.
| https://www.nextplatform.com/2021/04/28/amd-hits-intel-below...
| oblak wrote:
| Probably why their stock price plummeted
| CyberRage wrote:
| Actually it makes a lot of sense. Some of the reasons include:
|
| - Stable\known CPUs, most vendors are used to Intel.
|
| - Infrastructure\Support, Intel has a lot more infrastructure
| to support customers\contracts
|
| - Long cycles, servers are more complex to replace and
| contracts can span multiple years.
|
| - Compatibility, many rely on Intel specific features or are
| afraid to try their solution on a different CPU vendor.
|
| - Relationships\Market Share, Intel still is a far bigger brand
| with more prestige
| shwestrick wrote:
| There's a lot of caveats on this data. It's only showing the
| ratio of people submitting reports through their benchmark
| software, which apparently only runs on Windows. So, that makes
| it sound like the entire space of Linux servers is excluded.
|
| I'm just speculating here, but it feels to me like they're just
| not accurately measuring the market share for servers.
| TwoBit wrote:
| Where I last worked they said it would be hard to switch to AMD
| quickly because Intel CPUs had a feature set they were
| dependent on and would take some time/effort to switch.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Where I work, we looked at the performance and ordered AMD. I
| haven't thought about it since, until now.
| dijit wrote:
| The two main reasons AMD is not dominating is servers right now
| are:
|
| 1) 5 year support contracts
|
| 2) OEM unavailability.
|
| Even now getting an AMD server is a "go out of your way"
| situation. Add to the chip shortage and you have people holding
| on to hardware a bit longer or going intel for availability
| (those are minor reasons).
|
| Anecdotally I just ordered 50 or so AMD servers.
| mark-wagner wrote:
| Yes, for example in AWS the instance types with "a" appended
| (AMD EPYC) are lower cost than the corresponding Intel-based
| instance.
| listic wrote:
| Must be the inertia. CPUs live long in server space: where I'm
| looking, server providers offer hardware for rent that is up to
| 10 years old, and AMD only started to rule CPUs in 2017.
|
| E.g. the CPU on the VPS I'm renting is from 2013, and it makes
| perfect sense that it is form Intel.
| _dark_matter_ wrote:
| We also report this among Firefox Profiles:
| https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware
|
| tl;dr we're not seeing much change over the past 18 months.
| [deleted]
| sounds wrote:
| It also shows the largest number of users running on a 2-core
| machine, for context.
| dralley wrote:
| And only 6% of users having an SSD.
| Strom wrote:
| That 6% Flash statistic is for Adobe Flash, a now extinct
| software plugin.
| sandeshd wrote:
| Apple Silicon have potential to grab the 30% market share in 2-3
| years.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Among gamers? /s
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| if they give their CPU's for free to the raspberi pi
| foundation?
| tpxl wrote:
| Apple has a 15% computer market share, of which only a fraction
| is the new ARM processors. There is a 0% chance of them having
| a 30% market share in the next 5 years.
| esturk wrote:
| Every percentage is a fraction so that statement doesn't mean
| anything. But Tim Cook has said Apple sold more M1 Macs than
| Intel-based Macs. This is an indication that fraction is over
| 50% already.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| Where is the money made? Servers.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| I wonder how they determine the server market share. It seems way
| too low given that over the last year, I see offers for AMD-based
| servers and vServers pop up everywhere at least in Germany. Many
| hosters support AMD as an option or as the only choice.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Those would be new servers - whereas old servers purchased 3+
| years ago are still humming away probably for another half-
| decade to come.
|
| Also, VPS/hosting are far from the entirety of the server
| market: don't forget all the on-prem, enterprise, and SOHO
| boxes.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| The longevity is a good point, but if those numbers are
| derived from users running PassMark on those servers, I would
| suspect that they don't keep running the software on their
| server they purchased some years ago: From my understanding,
| people would be more likely to run this software on a
| recently-purchased computer to evaluate its performance.
| qalmakka wrote:
| Yeah, EPYC CPUs kicks ass while Xeons cost an arm and a leg, so
| I really don't understand how Intel could be selling more
| server CPUs than AMD right now, unless it is due to some OEM
| shenanigans (like on laptops)
| magila wrote:
| A lot of server customers care about more than just how good
| the CPU itself is. Having a reliable support ecosystem and
| platform continuity is an important consideration in the
| server market. Intel has proven for decades that they can
| provide these things, while AMD burned a lot of people when
| the Opteron line was left to rot. It's going to take time for
| AMD to prove itself a reliable supplier in the server market.
| LotusEnthusiast wrote:
| Apple is really sticking to what Jobs said:
|
| "People who like software want to build their own hardware"
|
| I am surprised, I thought they'd be moving towards the higher
| margins of software and marketplace even more
| CrazedGeek wrote:
| I'm surprised AMD's laptop share increased that much (even in
| benchmarks) -- when I went looking for an AMD laptop a couple
| months ago, I could only find a handful that seemed good.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| Relatively few people are probably looking for the perfect
| laptop. The average user might just want something cheap that
| does the basic tasks for them, and this is exactly where you
| will find more and more AMD CPUs.
| mhh__ wrote:
| The _average_ user might not a really know what a CPU is,
| keep on mind.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| It's also exactly where you will find absolutely nobody who
| makes a habit of running PassMark on their computer.
|
| This graph more-or-less only measures the enthusiast Windows
| user market.
| huntertwo wrote:
| Funny that you mention that AMD CPUs are the 'cheap and
| basic' option when it seems like over the past 5 years Intel
| has become the inferior chip manufacturer.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| I didn't mean to imply that the CPUs are inferior, quite
| the contrary - they give you more bang for the buck, which
| is why you often find them in _cheap offers_. When the AMD
| CPUs are cheaper than the Intel CPUs, of course more
| computer makers will put them into their cheap builds. The
| fact that they are better CPUs is a nice bonus.
| sjcoles wrote:
| Until the 4000 series of Ryzen mobile Intel had a pretty
| clear lead in 15-25w part market. With wider availability
| of Ryzen 5000 series mobile CPUs I expect to see far more
| options by Q12022.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| I would suspect it's a denominator effect of Apple dropping
| intel chips.
| 867-5309 wrote:
| and also AMD's new integrated graphics
| trynumber9 wrote:
| I doubt it. Consider that Apple is the #4 personal computer
| vendor after Lenovo, Dell, and HP. They have less than 10%
| market share and many of their products are still shipping in
| Intel versions.
| esturk wrote:
| Tim Cook have said Apple sold more M1 Macs than Intel-based
| Macs. In a recent Gartner report, Apple held 8% of the
| market share worldwide. This implies Intel has lost over 4%
| of the market in just one quarter.
| gpm wrote:
| Intels drop is almost exactly equal to AMDs gain (20% market
| share between the most recent two laptop datapoints for
| both). If it was just intel laptops dropping out and
| converting to apple silicon you wouldn't expect AMD to grow.
|
| I suspect that macs just aren't represented in this graph,
| probably very few people benchmarks macs when they're
| identical to all the other macs.
| [deleted]
| zsmi wrote:
| < I suspect that macs just aren't represented in this graph
|
| It looks like their software doesn't support macOS so it's
| pretty safe to say there are no Macs in the dataset.
|
| Their software does support Andriod & iOS. It would be
| interested to see how these changed if they were included.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| I know plenty of people who run Windows on intel Macs
| (particularly the laptops) in various ways and they
| actually do play with benchmarks to see how well it
| works.
| rdsnsca wrote:
| Apple says only between 2 and 4 % of its users use
| Bootcamp to run Windows.
| mgolawala wrote:
| They wouldn't be running windows on the Apple Silicon
| macs though, just the intel ones.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Apple Silicon doesn't show
| up anywhere in the benchmark. If we were seeing a chart
| of totals rather than percentages, I'd expect to see a
| void where Apple Silicon entered.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| From the notes at the bottom:
|
| > As the PerformanceTest software only runs on Windows OS
| and counts on user submitting their benchmarks. This chart
| may be non reflective of non Windows user base.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Yes, but consider if you have three laptops:
|
| 1. intel running Windows OS
|
| 2. AMD running Windows OS
|
| 3. intel Mac running Windows (various ways)
|
| Then the intel percentage is (1+2)/(1+2+3) and the AMD
| percentage is 2/(1+2+3). But if Apple hardware is a
| significant portion of the benchmarks, then when intel Macs
| disappear, the fraction of systems that can submit the
| benchmark decreases. So the intel percentage decreases and
| the AMD percentage increases.
|
| The denominator changes identically for intel and AMD.
| rdsnsca wrote:
| Apple says only between 2 and 4 % of its users use
| Bootcamp to run Windows.
| blackcat201 wrote:
| Kinda surprised on the server chart, consider most of my Linode
| and Vultr instance are running on AMD epyc CPUs for a years for
| now (at least since I last checked). I believe the market shares
| for AMD is much higher than the chart shows consider how low the
| cost per core is for a CPU slot.
| axlee wrote:
| *among people using benchmark software.
|
| There is definitely a selection bias at play here: your run-of-
| the-mill personal computer owner does not even know what a
| benchmark is. Interesting (but not surprising) trend among
| enthusiasts though.
| tovej wrote:
| Early adopter usage is definitely a valuable indicator though.
| axlee wrote:
| Is it though? There is historical data for that, and even
| when AMD was crushing Intel for years on all benchmarks
| including price/performance and early adopter usage, Intel
| ultimately ended up with a larger market share. Prescott was
| a (litteral) hot mess and the Athlon 64 3xxx series was
| amazing, but it did not take long until things came back to
| normal with the introduction of the Core series. I expect the
| same to happen here. AMD is great at slipping through the
| cracks between Intel's CPU generations, but it cannot seem to
| be able to become a market leader.
| tovej wrote:
| This is not performance data, this is market share data.
| axlee wrote:
| This is precisely my point: there were numerous moments
| in the past when AMD was trailing closely Intel among
| enthusiasts because of a superior product, but ultimately
| it never led to AMD overtaking Intel in the overall
| consumer market: Intel has always been able to catch up
| within a generation. I see no reason why this time would
| be different. And thus, the enthusiast market has little
| to no bearing on the overall market share.
| pmontra wrote:
| The overall consumer market is decided by what OEMs ship
| in their laptops and desktops. Normal people cares about
| Intel and AMD as much as they care about the brand of the
| gasoline in their car, possibly less. Convince Dell & Co
| to buy from AMD and AMD is going to have the upper hand
| in consumer market.
| charwalker wrote:
| UserBenchmark, at least in recent years, has skewed any
| subjective content toward Nvidia/Intel ex core count
| comparisons. This site is solid.
| 867-5309 wrote:
| another enthusiast one: top 10 AMD 60% / Intel 40%, top 50 AMD
| 34% / Intel 66%
|
| https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/
| enoughistough wrote:
| Microsoft Now Brings Next-Gen Games to Xbox One Through Cloud
|
| https://corexbox.com/3353/microsoft-now-brings-next-gen-game...
| sxp wrote:
| Another pair of data points:
| https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
|
| AMD has gone from 20% to 30% in the past 18 months among PC
| gamers.
| shmerl wrote:
| Another one:
| https://www.gamingonlinux.com/index.php?module=statistics&vi...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-18 23:01 UTC)