[HN Gopher] AMD Grabs over 30% CPU Market Share as Intel Continu...
___________________________________________________________________
AMD Grabs over 30% CPU Market Share as Intel Continues to Decline
Author : oumua_don17
Score : 122 points
Date : 2023-02-15 20:32 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wccftech.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (wccftech.com)
| pjdkoch wrote:
| Such a misleading title.
|
| > [...] AMD now has a market share of 31.3% (up from 28.5% in Q4
| 2021) versus Intel's 68.7% (down from 71.5%)
|
| That's not "grabbing over 30%" in my book. It's grabbing 2.8%.
| agnokapathetic wrote:
| 28.5% -> 31.3% is a 9.8% increase in ~1 year.
| password11 wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/1102/
|
| We're always having this same rehashed argument over and over
| again on HN. "My [CPU manufacturer] grew by 100% this year."
| Market share is an absolute percentage, so you should talk
| about it using absolutes. It doesn't make sense to talk about
| relative increases unless we're talking only about AMD
| revenue without respect to the overall market.
| mypalmike wrote:
| The result of subtraction of percentages as you have done is
| typically given units in "percentage points" or "basis
| points" (with a scalar offset) in order to avoid ambiguity.
| The "percent change" or "percent increase" is calculated as
| is typical with any numerical change, (x1 - x0) / x0.
|
| https://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage-points.html
| dangus wrote:
| I don't think the word "Grabs" specifically implies a change
| (delta) instead of the overall state. The word isn't that
| specific, it's really a colloquialism. This seems like a
| perfectly understandable headline to me.
|
| "I grabbed four slices of pizza"
|
| "dangus grabs 50% of the pizza"
| [deleted]
| hnburnsy wrote:
| What would be even better than this duopoly would be three or
| more players. I was disappointed when Windows Mobile folded as
| look what we are stuck with now. Sucks that markets like this
| devolve into only two major players like consoles, mobile OSes,
| CPUs, GPUs, commercial aircraft, rail freight....sigh.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Apple design their own silicon too, it's a shame they aren't
| interested in the data centre given what an advantage they
| could have in the coming AI wars. They need to wake up on that
| one and get an ecosystem for AI that could potentially lead to
| them winning.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| When are AMD 3nm part expected? Mid 2024?
| nottorp wrote:
| As a cpu buyer, I'd like amd and intel to get stuck at 50-50
| market share and fight tooth and nail by introducing cheaper and
| faster models every year. And maybe discover low power computing,
| although that's wishful thinking.
| imiric wrote:
| The upcoming Phoenix APUs from AMD are a game-changer for
| portable and handheld devices. Between 15 and 45W TDP,
| Zen4/RDNA3... They're slowly trickling out to thin and light
| laptops, but I can't wait to get them in the next Steam Deck
| killer.
| whoisthemachine wrote:
| Exciting indeed. And if it still runs Steam I doubt Valve
| will blink an eye.
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| A hardware refresh is not on valve's list unless there is a
| significant performance gain.
| sagarm wrote:
| You can set lower power limits for both AMD and Intel's chips
| to improve perf/watt. AMD benefits more than Intel when doing
| so.
|
| Here's some more reading if you're interested:
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power...
| nottorp wrote:
| I can and I have. There's a ryzen limited to 70 W in the bios
| under my desk :)
|
| 99.99% of the population doesn't know this option exists.
|
| And 0.01% want BIGGER NUMBERS OMG 720FPS!!! and ruin power
| consumption worldwide for everyone else.
| rwaksmunski wrote:
| Great job AMD, now do RISC V so Apple's M1 can get some
| competition.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| If they did, what OS would run on it? The only options I know
| of is Linux or one of the BSDs so you're either looking at the
| server market (where M1 is not a competitor anyway) or the
| Linux desktop market, which is small - nothing close to 30% of
| desktop/laptop PCs.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I can see server market being a thing, as ARM is just now
| starting to make inroads there so there might be room for a
| new emergent RISC market, assuming it could be price/watt
| competitive. But I agree, it would be a tiny market.
|
| Another option is if AMD decided to get into the mobile /
| embedded SoC market for real, and didn't want to pay an ARM
| license to do it.
| quelsolaar wrote:
| Actually RISC-V is worse than x64 when it comes to performance
| per watt. It is designed to be very simple, not to be
| efficient. It does not natively have common instructions like
| add multiply. To make an efficient modern processor, you want
| to larger more specialized instructions that do more per clock
| cycle and have dedicated hardware for common tasks.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| _" It does not natively have common instructions like add
| multiply"_; this is is misinformation. Almost anybody
| implementing RISC-V -- esp if they are targeting an MCU
| instead of MPU -- is implementing instruction variants which
| include signed and unsigned multiply and divide, and my
| understanding is the P and probably V extensions include
| various add-multiply instructions.
|
| https://github.com/riscv/riscv-p-spec/blob/master/P-ext-
| prop...
|
| See section 3.2.
|
| The instruction set is specified in a 'modular' fashion and
| has standards for various extensions, including compact
| instructions, vector extensions, etc. Compilers like GCC and
| LLVM support targeting these extensions.
|
| I'm not saying AMD should make a RISC-V CPU, but if they were
| to hypothetically do that, they'd clearly be including a pile
| of the ratified extensions.
| monocasa wrote:
| RISC-V is designed to be efficient; when compared on the same
| litho processes and gate counts it's very competitive wrt
| perf/watt.
| zik wrote:
| You might want to check your sources on that. Everything you
| said is wrong.
| wincy wrote:
| This seems like a weird metric, CPU market share seems to only
| include actual drop in CPUs that go with motherboards, right? If
| that's the case, wouldn't the overall CPU market be shrinking as
| we get things like the M-Series MacBooks and Macs coming out?
|
| To me, the more interesting question is what does the overall
| market of compute devices that can be used in a fashion similar
| to what AMD and Intel sell (being charitable and leaving out
| mobile) look like and what percentage of that market do AMD and
| Intel make up? Has the overall market grown? Is it growing faster
| overall than the laptop/desktop/server/hpc space that intel and
| AMD are catering to?
| aetherspawn wrote:
| We bought a $9000 single socket AMD (2.4 GHz) 40 core server from
| Dell and a $27,000 dual socket Intel (2.8 GHz) 100 core server
| from Dell.
|
| The AMD server is at full load, using around 150W whereas the
| Intel server idles at 450W doing absolutely nothing and pushes up
| to 700W if we load it up.
|
| In hindsight, I regret not just buying 3 of the AMD servers for
| the same price. I had this fallacy that the Intel server would be
| magically more energy efficient, but that has turned out to be
| FUD and baloney.
|
| NB Power usage measured at the wall socket with voltage and
| current monitored PDUs.
| helf wrote:
| While I don't doubt the AMD server with less than half the core
| count draws a lot less power, I would /like/ to know more
| details. Like what model/SKU servers? What are the actual model
| chips? How are they configured? blahblah
|
| Going "I got X and Y and with no further information X is so
| much better than Y!" online gets so fucking old.
|
| And I am genuinely curious. Not just being antagonistic. I am
| looking at some newer servers soon and have been debating Intel
| or AMD and I like seeing actual reallife results people have
| had.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| toast0 wrote:
| Looking at wattage alone doesn't tell us very much; idle at
| 450W seems pretty broken, sure... but how much more traffic
| does the Intel at 700W than the AMD at 150W? With 2.5 the
| cores, I'd expect at least 2.5x the traffic?
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Sounds like there is something else going on there, since the
| Xeon CPU idle power consumption is nowhere near 200W [0]
|
| [0] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16594/intel-3rd-gen-xeon-
| scal...
| helf wrote:
| Right? That is why I want to know more details instead of
| this vague garbage.
| helf wrote:
| Not to mention the fact that "pushing up to 700W underload"
| is.. absolutely nothing since that means, ignoring everything
| else and just assuming CPU drawing that, the cores are only
| using 7w PER CORE.
|
| And this AMD system is using apparently a peak of 3.75w per
| core? really?
| esperent wrote:
| This comment made me realize I've never seen power per core
| specified. That seems like a great metric. Would
| calculating this be as simple as dividing peak usage by the
| number of cores? (Ignoring that modern CPUs have multiple
| core types)
| toast0 wrote:
| Power per core is pretty variable though. If you've got a
| lightly threaded workload, you shouldn't be getting 40-52
| cores per socket, but many of the cores could be at near
| 0w and some of the cores will use more power than they
| would on an all cores workload.
| fomine3 wrote:
| * dual socket is power hungry for both platform
|
| * still 450W at idle isn't only due to dual CPU
|
| * 150W for full load, really?
| [deleted]
| TeeMassive wrote:
| I had similar experience in another job in a big corporation.
| It was obvious that AMD chips were way better and cost
| efficient. But management only wanted to pay for Intel because
| it's "Enterprise grade".
| vel0city wrote:
| Which AMD chip is 40 cores?
| TOMDM wrote:
| These is missing something. Looking at just the Q4 2022 numbers:
|
| AMD Desktop CPU Market Share 18.6%
|
| AMD Mobility CPU Market Share 16.4%
|
| AMD Server CPU Market Share 17.6%
|
| AMD Overall x86 CPU Market Share 31.3%
|
| What's causing the bump from 16%-18% share to 31% in the avgs?
|
| Are they including game consoles in the x86 market share?
| forty wrote:
| I understand that the 3 first statistics include non x86 CPUs
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| I find that difficult to believe, unless they did something
| weird like to lump smartphones into mobility.
|
| I thought ARM represented like ~5% of server install base,
| and maybe like 10% of 2022 server sales. Similarly, I
| understood Chromebooks + Macbooks (the two major laptop ARM
| products) to be on the order of 25% of laptop sales.
|
| These are both real and meaningful chunks of market, but I
| don't think they're enough to make up for the discrepancy in
| numbers. Perhaps they are including game consoles.
|
| [Edit] - found reporting on 2021 numbers they clearly seem to
| indicate that the first three sets of numbers are x86 only
| (https://venturebeat.com/consumer/mercury-research-amd-
| closes...)
|
| The two big extra categories would seem to be game consoles
| (as suggested by GP), and IoT.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| These numbers are really bad for both AMD and Intel,
| honestly. It suggests that the x86 server/desktop monopoly is
| getting crushed in a major way.
| vondur wrote:
| I assumed it's due to their server chips being way more
| efficient, powerful, and cheaper than the equivalent parts from
| Intel.
| zxexz wrote:
| Yeah this must be it. In my experience new AMD server chips
| are better in pretty much any way, for most workloads.
| Everybody I know seems to agree. It just doesn't make
| economic sense to go Intel for new servers.
| neogodless wrote:
| That is not an answer to the (math) question they were
| asking.
| vondur wrote:
| I found this bit from networkworld.com: "In the server
| market, AMD's total market share grew from 10.7% at the start
| of 2022 to 17.6% at the end of the year, while Intel fell
| from 89.3% at the start of the year to 82.4%. Interestingly,
| the server chips that are selling the most aren't the newest
| and greatest models" Hard to tell what calculations are being
| used to derive the percentages. Maybe they are using dollar
| amounts per total spending on all chips, and server chips
| cost more, therefore driving the market share numbers?
| unxdfa wrote:
| Not sure how long that'll play out. The 13th gen have barely been
| integrated in stuff and they seem to, at least on single thread,
| smash AMD in the price/performance ranking. 13700K is a beast of
| a CPU for not much money. Also the next two gens of Intel stuff
| is very different. At least AMD are giving them an ass kicking
| which they deserve.
|
| My PC has a 12400 in it which actually realistically kicks my M1
| Pro MBP in the teeth on some things which is embarrassing as it's
| a junk ass end Lenovo desktop machine that cost <$500.
|
| We live in interesting and exciting times.
| sliken wrote:
| Keep in mind the prices are changing quickly as of late. AMD
| brought out the 7700, 7900, and 7950 (non-x) that are cheaper,
| generate less heat, and include a fan. There's also been pretty
| heavy discounts on the 7700x/7900x/7950x AMD chips as well.
| DDR5 and Motherboard prices for the am5 chips are dropping as
| well. Microcenter is even including 8GB free with a CPU
| purchase. The price/perf of the AM5 platform has changes quite
| a bit in the last month.
|
| Intel does win some benchmarks, but often at substantially
| higher power consumption. The AMD chips run cooler and even
| significantly reducing the TDP down to 65 watts often has a
| single digit percentage slow down.
| unxdfa wrote:
| The cost in the 7000 series is the motherboards at the
| moment. They're still extortionately priced. 2x the price of
| an equivalent Intel one and that hasn't changed. It's
| improving but nowhere near reasonable. The AM4/B550 combo is
| still pretty good however.
|
| 99% of what I do is single thread bound so I really want to
| see some single thread power benchmarks but no one seems to
| bother with those.
|
| I'm in the market for a PC with the best single thread
| performance out there at the moment so I've got several
| machines configured in pcpartpicker and spreadsheets at the
| moment :(
| sliken wrote:
| Have you looked recently?
|
| I've been tracking DDR5 motherboard (I think the perf is
| worth it), MicroATX (don't need fullsize), I don't need
| blinking lights, watercooling systems, wifi, or exotic
| sound systems, so I go for relatively barebones
| motherboards. I do want something small, quiet, 2.5G
| ethernet, and has dual m.2 slots.
|
| On Newegg I found an Intel ASRock Riptide for $159 [0].
|
| On Newegg I found an AMD ASRock Riptide for $169 [1].
|
| I'll happily take the AMD and end up with a quieter and
| cooler system for the $10.00 premium. Debating between a
| 7700 (non-x), 7700X3D, or 7900 (non-x). Hopefully it lasts
| as long as my current (2015) desktop.
|
| Do you consider a $10 premium "extortionately priced"?
|
| [0] https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162061 [1]
| https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162083
| unxdfa wrote:
| UK here. Based on my needs, an Asus Prime H610 board
| that'll take a 13700K is PS85. The cheapest AM5 board is
| PS175.
|
| (I'm checking one vendor here who I know has a decent
| returns policy when your system integration goes to hell,
| another common AMD problem from much experience!)
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| A520 motherboards should be coming out soon. Hopefully
| they're cheap and don't suck.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Apple to oranges. 12400 has a TDP of 65W while M1 has 13.8W.
| What can a 15W Intel do? Not much
| unxdfa wrote:
| Don't really care. I use my MBP as a desktop machine and the
| TCO over 5 years including the electricity of the PC is much
| much lower.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| I use my 150$ hand crafted hammer to screw in screws, but
| it gets beaten by my 5$ screwdriver at screwing
| performance, shameful.
| Groxx wrote:
| To get an equivalent metaphor here, you'd have to include
| "the $5 screwdriver also destroys $300/year worth of
| projects more than the hammer-screw"
|
| And then yeah. Shamefully short-sighted to use the $5
| tool.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| My work laptop running a desktop grade CPU is plugged into
| something that that measures my electricity usage and it
| uses about 100 kwh per year. During work hours, the price
| of electricity where I live is around 25 cents per kwh (and
| I live in California).
|
| Unless you're constantly pegging your CPU, I think you're
| over-estimating the TCO of a PC laptop.
| izacus wrote:
| That's not true at all, M1s in MacBooks absolutely draw more
| than 15W - they can go all the way up to 90W for whole
| package.
|
| M1 are silly efficient but not 10x magical:
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-
| performanc...
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| The equivalent Intel laptop is at 220W for both CPU and GPU
| in the same scenario.
|
| So no 10x, but clearly 2.5x.
| Paianni wrote:
| AMD has the edge on performance per watt though.
| nottorp wrote:
| > My PC has a 12400 in it which actually realistically kicks my
| M1 Pro MBP in the teeth on some things which is embarrassing as
| it's a junk ass end Lenovo desktop machine that cost <$500.
|
| And if you factor in power consumption at EU prices?
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| MBP is the only computer I can run intense workloads at high
| performance while it remains completely silent. I've been
| waiting for such a machine for a long time. When intel can
| match that they'll have my attention.
| unxdfa wrote:
| My 14" MBP is not silent under load. It's not loud but not
| silent.
|
| You can build a suitably quiet PC. Be Quiet power supply,
| case, fans and cooler. Job done. They run very quiet. I had a
| 125W TDP CPU in one of them and you could barely hear it
| under load.
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| I've tried some pretty intense undervolts and power
| throttling but my PCs have always been annoyingly loud. I
| think I just need to get a case full of noctuas in my next
| build. But the dgpu will always be loud as shit regardless.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| >The 13th gen have barely been integrated in stuff and they
| seem to, at least on single thread, smash AMD in the
| price/performance ranking.
|
| Costs more to run, costs more to make, runs hotter and louder,
| by "smash" we're usually talking single digit performance
| gulfs, and performance is worse in a fairly broad amount of
| applications and where Intel's performance IS better it often
| is in an application where you would never be able to tell the
| difference without measurement tools.
|
| The 12400 "kicking the m1 in the teeth" is likely due more to
| software optimisation than the 12400 actually being
| meaningfully better.
|
| Your like of Intel's products as a consumer isn't really a
| reflection of their competitiveness. The only reason you're
| willing to buy their products at all is that Intel is cutting
| their margins to the bone whereas AMD is making stacks on every
| sale. Intel has had the best single core performance for eons
| and that hasn't saved them from their decline.
| unxdfa wrote:
| In synthetic benchmarks, indeed. In my workloads there's
| about a 20% lead and yes that might be due to software
| optimisation etc or something like that but that is a real
| factor in the outcome. If it saves me 5% of my time that
| gives me 10 days a year back.
|
| To be clear I'm no loyalist. I went from an AMD 3700X to a
| 2020 M1 Mac Mini originally because that spanked it. Then to
| an M1 Pro which was regrettably no real improvement. Then to
| a 12400 because I had one as a comparison point and it was
| faster. Now likely a 13700K. Next time, it might be AMD,
| might be an M3. Who knows?!
|
| I'm mostly just glad I can jump around and pick whatever is
| on the market rather than being locked into one product or
| platform now.
| swamp40 wrote:
| AMD also has chipsets that are making their way onto
| motherboards. Video, PCI, USB, etc. We had a problem with an HID
| device of ours that would work fine with the ubiquitous Intel USB
| chipsets for the last 10 years, but didn't work properly with the
| AMD USB chipset on a new laptop.
|
| So Intel is losing chipset share, too.
| dawnerd wrote:
| I really need to upgrade my personal media server but both
| companies' CPUs just use way too much power. It's kind of
| ridiculous. Yes, they're fast but power hungry as heck. Makes my
| dual xeons I run now look energy efficient.
| seniorivn wrote:
| how much power do you need? you can buy arm, either sbc, if you
| don't need performance at all, or apple mini, if you do
| sliken wrote:
| The 7700/7900/7950 have a 65 watt TDP, idle much lower, and can
| be underclocked if you want lower. I certainly wouldn't
| consider 65 watts as "power hungry as heck".
|
| Did you by chance read an Intel i9 review? Yes, Intel's going
| crazy on the power front trying to match the AMD performance,
| which of course lead to AMD pushing it a bit as well. But the
| new non-X AMD CPUs are quite power efficient for the
| performance.
|
| If that's still to much the M2 or M2 Pro in a mac mini is
| rather efficient on power and still performance quite well.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Note that a typical 27" monitor uses 80 Watts.
|
| So yeah, 100W or 65W TDP is not much at all.
| sliken wrote:
| From what year? Maybe 2010? The type that would feel pretty
| warm when touched, especially on the top edge?
|
| I have a 27" Dell U2719DC from 2 years ago, pretty average
| monitor, 2560x1440, includes a USB hub, and has a USB-c
| ports for charging other widgets.
|
| On a bright screen, like full screen tab of HN I get 22
| watts. If I have a darker screen like anything full screen
| in dark/night mode (white text on black background) I get
| 20 watts. When I touch the screen or top edge it's pretty
| close to room temperature.
|
| To be fair my work configuration uses two of the 27"
| monitors.
|
| I'm measuring with a kill-a-watt, which has a decent
| reputation for accuracy.
| fomine3 wrote:
| Dual Xeon is worst for idle power consumption that is most of
| the time of personal media server. Just buy old Intel micro PC
| that is good for idle power consumption.
| rektide wrote:
| They're not though? They both offer incredibly fine control
| over how much power they consume, and will happily run at way
| lower power. They seem to accept undervolting pretty well too,
| which is a little riskier-of-instability/fancier.
|
| There is some new inefficiency on AMD builds now that the Core
| Chiplet Die (CCD) and IO Die (IOD) are separate units, not
| monolithic. DDR5 also taked more power. The fancier X670
| chipset (really, two chipset dies) also takes power & could
| very much use some tuning, but it's also doing a beastly amount
| of IO work, in some cases for good cause (more low power
| capabilities/better idle would be appreciated though! One of
| AMD's first in house chipsets in a long time).
|
| We've barely started exploring how well behaved we can make the
| just launched 65w ryzen parts... but it wouldnt be shocking to
| me if there's not really any advantage, if they literally end
| up being nearly the same part, rebadged & preconfigured to
| lower power. Is there even really going to be any binning to
| have selected these? You know maybe not!
|
| Out of the box most chips come tuned for speed, but ask them to
| be a little nixer, turn on eco mode or power the power point,
| they are stunningingly efficient. Alas idle could use some
| tuning; staying under 40w idle is harder than it ought to be.
| piinbinary wrote:
| Have you looked at the power draw of the non-X variants of
| AMD's cpus? It might be closer to what you are looking for.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Modern CPUs scale quite non linearly and the default set-point
| is where it is for marketing reasons. My i7-7800 can do 1 work
| for 70 watts, 1.25 works for 150 watts or 0.9 works for 38
| watts.
|
| Just underclock/undervolt, problem solved.
| jeffbee wrote:
| It is sort of incredible that HN can't figure out how to set
| the power limits on CPUs. It's almost like they deserve the
| walled garden Apple gives us without any knobs or controls.
| bzmrgonz wrote:
| holy cow that's a big chunk of marketshare.
| bob1029 wrote:
| From an investor perspective, AMD was a fantastic story due to
| Intel's 10nm process slip. AMD also got the jump on MCM which is
| arguably the most disruptive innovation in the mix.
|
| I think the pendulum has begun to swing the other way. Intel is
| catching up and surpassing in some important areas already.
|
| I've held positions both in AMD and Intel over the years. Right
| now I am long INTC.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-15 23:00 UTC)