Came here to post this. Nice try AMD, counting individual cores. Worse, for joke CPUs like threadripper with 64 "cores" this statistic is even more awful. As usual, consumers are voting with their wallets and continuing to buy Intel.
"As usual, consumers are voting with their wallets and continuing to buy Intel. " oh?? you sure about that ?? care to post proof of this ? oh wait, you CAN'T as it is just your usual BS biased gabage.
Yeah, 'cause sales volumes of 64-core >$4000 parts that have been on the market a few months at best are large enough to actually affect these numbers. Sure.
Consumers voting with their wallets and are buying AMD. on mass. Intel has almost been completely driven out of the DIY market completely. So people that actually know what they are doing are buying AMD.
Only OEM's still buy intel. and as the pentium 4 proved, OEM's can sell any and all crap and get away with it. they aren't buying intel because they want to, they are buying it because they have to because of long running contracts.
OEM buy because common people want to have Intel. Because their every Computer from last 50 years have had Intel... Intel still sells more cpus than amd by big lead! But amd in gaining Little by Little.
Common people don't know or care what's inside their computer. They judge the computer more based on aesthetics and price, and maybe more tangible numbers like "How many gigabytes does it have?"
To be fair Korguz, Intel does have a place in the market. And that's what competition is good for.
But for general purpose use, AMD is on top right now, and that should push Intel to think of General uses, not specialized ones (AVX-512, Gaming at extreme framerates).
AMDs place in the market benefits both Intel and Nvidia. When people start throwing around terms like monopoly, both can point to AMD (while holding in a laugh like the Biggus Dickus sketch in Life of Brian).
AMD is not on top of anything. Superfluous cores, no integrated graphics, and abysmal clock rates, massive software issues from Driver and firmwares.. They do put out some cracking good Marketing - which is good reading when taken with the much much lower actual performance. When software developers solve the decades old "How do I easily make my code more parallel" then maybe all those "extra" cores will be of benefit outside of some benchmarks - What exactly is Cinebench used for in the real world? I know it does video encoding/transcoding - but is it the market leader? I know no one who does video for a living uses Blender - pretty much just some benchmarking stuff, right?
The fools are buying AMD - cool to root for underdog. Buying Intel or AMD or Ford or whatever does not make you smarter, foolish, taller or more attractive to the opposite sex (or same sex, whatever)... It is a consumer product, and 90% of consumers have decided that the consumer products bearing the Intel name sell better than the other brand most consumers have never heard of or see, rightly so, as a budget systems that runs almost as good as Intel. In a world with Intel, why would you go with something that only compares itself to Intel.
Buy what you want and can afford and enjoy it. No one really cares.
You are denser than Intel's failed density plans for 10nm, Timecop.
People don't give a shit what powers their laptop, they only care if it "performs good". You give any consumer 2 laptops, one with an AMD CPU, and one with an Intel CPU, none would care. However, if you said Laptop 1 was 200$ cheaper, they'd take that in a heartbeat, no matter if it's Intel or AMD. Consumers are extremely simple people, and the reason OEMs stuck with Intel was because there wasn't a good AMD alternative, and because Intel was giving them discounts/incentives. Remember that AMD tried giving (I think it was HP or someone else) a huge amount of FREE CPUs, but they didn't accept it because it would still not be good for their finances, because they were relying on Intel incentives.
So no, OEMs aren't buying Intel CPUs because it's "what people want", it helps their bottom line, that's it, that's all. Consumers care about pricing, not the little details like what CPUs in their laptop. I know, I worked Best Buy for almost 2 years, and I've had to explain to people why that 300$ laptop isn't a good deal over the 500$ one... Many, many, many times...
Funny - Tiger Lake reaches that 2.7x density. You need to update your information. Do you think the first gen of 14nm is as dense as the the most recent? TSMC would have renamed that node from 14 to 13 to 13 to 10 each time a + was added. 16/14/12 is all the same node, just improvements, like intel 14nm. TSMC still has work thru the issues with cobalt, which Intel now has down pat.
OEMs are giving their large customers what they want. Reasonable amount of usable cores, integrated graphics that are sufficient for typical office usage and a long unbroken line of upgrades and stability. Price is not always the most important metric - and having to add that discrete video card add complexity, a line item in the BoM and added load on IT and Support to support that card.
IF HP could have found a customer for those "free CPUs" you can bet they would have sold them. The people making the decision what goes into the desktops and data centers are some of the same people who, in their earlier jobs, were the ones who had the clean up the Opteron ECC debacle... and after all those almost new Opteron systems being dumped and replaced with Intel - they still remember those long days and nights cleaning that mess up.
I am not constrained by finances - when the new Dell 13 2-in-1s were released, to replace my almost 2 year old Dell 13 2-in-1s - didn't even look at the price - turned out to be $2250 each including carrying case, extra PS Brick, etc. Didn't care about the price - so no, $200 would not have made a bit of difference here. Not everyone looks at price as the primary metric.
I never worked retail, but did assist a few friends make their choice at a Best Buy - and for them, it was AMD making a comparison to Intel, and in a world that has Intel, they chose Intel. Some people I know automatically would look at the tier above - they know that a laptop is a 2-3-4 year device and better to spend a little more upfront and get a machine that might last a little longer in usefulness.
One must not forget that amd has not yet beaten intel everywhere in terms of delivering the best product.
Firstly there is the office pc crowd. These generally have a pretty fixed budget and do not want to add a graphics card. The best AMD can offer in that regard is the 3400g which can't really compete in the common i5 price bracket. This lack propagates further through the stack even when amd is the best option.
In the laptop market, intel still beats amd a lot on especially idle power consumption. This is not something OEM's may want to comprimise on too much.
So yea you can say intel will sell anyway, however that is certainly not the entire story.
and this could all change when amd releases ryzen mobile 4k series, and their desktop version of the APU based on zen 2, as from what was released back in Jan and CES, seems amds nez 2 based mobile chip, looks like it will continue what zen 2 has done on desktop and server, the only unknown is power usage
Yeah yeah yeah always the NEXT AMD thing - not the current AMD thing - been saying the same since Ryzen 1 -- just wait until Ryzen 2 --- just wait until Ryzen 3 .... Ryzen 10.
The Ryzen 4x00 APUs are interesting - but just that - interesting.
At some point AMD needs to have it's products match the marketing - they have not yet. Intel posting record quarters, quarter after quarter. Maybe Ryzen is comparable to 8th Gen, and it's GPUs are not Turing level, but Pascal level. Shooting where the competition will BE and not where they were 2 years ago would be a radical shift in the right direction.
Ms Su maybe not be the dumpster fire her predecessors were - but no contingency clause in the wafer purchase agreements with GF.... "WPA contingent upon Next Node sampling within x months" would have save AMD a ton of money - that's why the IO dies are 12nm GF - they were paying for the wafers whether they contained useful dies or were "blank".
Maybe some, and it's en masse. AMD had the #1 position on several sites - which amounted to little to nothing. Most serious gamers have a preference - whether it's Intel or AMD it doesn't matter - it's a small market. I prefer i9900K at 5Ghz and dual 2080RTI on a 4K 120Hz monitor - some prefer to play super high frame rates on lower resolutions... some people buy beast systems to play Hearthstone. So thinking that "gamers" is a monolithic group is foolish.
also en masse at some point would be reflected in revenue...
Wrong.... Consumers are buying Intel because they do not know anything about CPU architecture and performance. Intel spends a lot of money to get vendors to push their CPUs. We just went through this with server quotes. For same price we could either get a server with two AMD EPYC 7262 or two Xeon Silver 4112. We have to ask every time for AMD server quotes otherwise you will get an Intel quote.
Yeah yeah yeah - IF people only UNDERSTOOD the absolute SUPERIORITY of MY most favorite FACELESS CORPORATE ENTITY they would be buying them in heretofore UNHEARD of LEVELS.
Ford vs Chevy. Coke vs Pepsi. Craft Beer vs Bud Light. Sedan vs SUV. See how that works?
I actually didn't even notice this was stating cores and not cpus. Keep in mind major of AMD Zen chips are desktops and more 8 cores. 6 core sounds like minimum and not average
Average AMD user purchase AMD for core count - plus keep in mind older Zen's had less cores - so the number of chips is off.
30m / 6c = 5m 80m / 8c = 10m 120m / 12c 10m
or total of 25m
The number of cpus is hard to estimated by cores but I would guess
Those number are fascinating. It means we now have information to suggest AMD shipped twice as much Zen as they did in 2018.
However this doubling of Core Shipment did not results in significant uptake of Revenue. That means AMD has shipped same number of Chips with ASP being roughly the same at double the core.
Like bragging that you have 8 fingers on each hand, 3 of which are not connected to the hand via any sort of bone structure. Just 3 useless fingers not useful for much.
AMD created the "superfluous core" strategy, knowing that it looks really good on paper and offered little to no benefit except for 1% of the market and benchmarks. The market centered around 4 cores on the average PC because that was usable... more cores, without a revolution in software development, are (my i9900K included) largely unused. Benchmarks are not useful - I guess they are the age old Camaro vs Mustang back from when I was a kid for the modern age - didn't matter much then, very few Camaro drivers switched to Mustang or vice versa due to a couple races going one way or another. All comes down to preference.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
Back to Article
TristanSDX - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link
260m / 6C (Average) = 43 m chips, weaktimecop1818 - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link
Came here to post this. Nice try AMD, counting individual cores. Worse, for joke CPUs like threadripper with 64 "cores" this statistic is even more awful. As usual, consumers are voting with their wallets and continuing to buy Intel.Korguz - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link
oh shut up timecop1818, your BS bias against AMD is getting old, and just makes you look like a shill and moron.Korguz - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link
"As usual, consumers are voting with their wallets and continuing to buy Intel. " oh?? you sure about that ?? care to post proof of this ? oh wait, you CAN'T as it is just your usual BS biased gabage.Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
And you incessant need to defend AMD at all costs is getting old as well.Sharma_Ji - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link
Good morning, timecop.Hope you got enough sleep.
Valantar - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link
Yeah, 'cause sales volumes of 64-core >$4000 parts that have been on the market a few months at best are large enough to actually affect these numbers. Sure.The_Countess - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link
Consumers voting with their wallets and are buying AMD. on mass. Intel has almost been completely driven out of the DIY market completely. So people that actually know what they are doing are buying AMD.Only OEM's still buy intel. and as the pentium 4 proved, OEM's can sell any and all crap and get away with it. they aren't buying intel because they want to, they are buying it because they have to because of long running contracts.
haukionkannel - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link
OEM buy because common people want to have Intel. Because their every Computer from last 50 years have had Intel...Intel still sells more cpus than amd by big lead! But amd in gaining Little by Little.
Guspaz - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link
Common people don't know or care what's inside their computer. They judge the computer more based on aesthetics and price, and maybe more tangible numbers like "How many gigabytes does it have?"Xyler94 - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link
OEMs buy Intel because Intel is giving them a discount. It's that plain and simpletimecop1818 - Saturday, March 7, 2020 - link
OEMs buy Intel because that's what consumers want.Korguz - Saturday, March 7, 2020 - link
as Xyler said, intel HAS to be offering discounts now to keep them buying intel, only a fool like you, would still by intelXyler94 - Monday, March 9, 2020 - link
To be fair Korguz, Intel does have a place in the market. And that's what competition is good for.But for general purpose use, AMD is on top right now, and that should push Intel to think of General uses, not specialized ones (AVX-512, Gaming at extreme framerates).
Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
AMDs place in the market benefits both Intel and Nvidia. When people start throwing around terms like monopoly, both can point to AMD (while holding in a laugh like the Biggus Dickus sketch in Life of Brian).AMD is not on top of anything. Superfluous cores, no integrated graphics, and abysmal clock rates, massive software issues from Driver and firmwares.. They do put out some cracking good Marketing - which is good reading when taken with the much much lower actual performance. When software developers solve the decades old "How do I easily make my code more parallel" then maybe all those "extra" cores will be of benefit outside of some benchmarks - What exactly is Cinebench used for in the real world? I know it does video encoding/transcoding - but is it the market leader? I know no one who does video for a living uses Blender - pretty much just some benchmarking stuff, right?
Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
The fools are buying AMD - cool to root for underdog. Buying Intel or AMD or Ford or whatever does not make you smarter, foolish, taller or more attractive to the opposite sex (or same sex, whatever)... It is a consumer product, and 90% of consumers have decided that the consumer products bearing the Intel name sell better than the other brand most consumers have never heard of or see, rightly so, as a budget systems that runs almost as good as Intel. In a world with Intel, why would you go with something that only compares itself to Intel.Buy what you want and can afford and enjoy it. No one really cares.
Xyler94 - Monday, March 9, 2020 - link
You are denser than Intel's failed density plans for 10nm, Timecop.People don't give a shit what powers their laptop, they only care if it "performs good". You give any consumer 2 laptops, one with an AMD CPU, and one with an Intel CPU, none would care. However, if you said Laptop 1 was 200$ cheaper, they'd take that in a heartbeat, no matter if it's Intel or AMD. Consumers are extremely simple people, and the reason OEMs stuck with Intel was because there wasn't a good AMD alternative, and because Intel was giving them discounts/incentives. Remember that AMD tried giving (I think it was HP or someone else) a huge amount of FREE CPUs, but they didn't accept it because it would still not be good for their finances, because they were relying on Intel incentives.
So no, OEMs aren't buying Intel CPUs because it's "what people want", it helps their bottom line, that's it, that's all. Consumers care about pricing, not the little details like what CPUs in their laptop. I know, I worked Best Buy for almost 2 years, and I've had to explain to people why that 300$ laptop isn't a good deal over the 500$ one... Many, many, many times...
Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
Funny - Tiger Lake reaches that 2.7x density. You need to update your information. Do you think the first gen of 14nm is as dense as the the most recent? TSMC would have renamed that node from 14 to 13 to 13 to 10 each time a + was added. 16/14/12 is all the same node, just improvements, like intel 14nm. TSMC still has work thru the issues with cobalt, which Intel now has down pat.OEMs are giving their large customers what they want. Reasonable amount of usable cores, integrated graphics that are sufficient for typical office usage and a long unbroken line of upgrades and stability. Price is not always the most important metric - and having to add that discrete video card add complexity, a line item in the BoM and added load on IT and Support to support that card.
IF HP could have found a customer for those "free CPUs" you can bet they would have sold them. The people making the decision what goes into the desktops and data centers are some of the same people who, in their earlier jobs, were the ones who had the clean up the Opteron ECC debacle... and after all those almost new Opteron systems being dumped and replaced with Intel - they still remember those long days and nights cleaning that mess up.
I am not constrained by finances - when the new Dell 13 2-in-1s were released, to replace my almost 2 year old Dell 13 2-in-1s - didn't even look at the price - turned out to be $2250 each including carrying case, extra PS Brick, etc. Didn't care about the price - so no, $200 would not have made a bit of difference here. Not everyone looks at price as the primary metric.
I never worked retail, but did assist a few friends make their choice at a Best Buy - and for them, it was AMD making a comparison to Intel, and in a world that has Intel, they chose Intel. Some people I know automatically would look at the tier above - they know that a laptop is a 2-3-4 year device and better to spend a little more upfront and get a machine that might last a little longer in usefulness.
HStewart - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
This is oldest bias statement of them all - simple as that.Qasar - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - link
not really, cause its probably still true, simple as that, unless you would like to post proof other wise there, hstewart ?qlum - Saturday, March 7, 2020 - link
One must not forget that amd has not yet beaten intel everywhere in terms of delivering the best product.Firstly there is the office pc crowd. These generally have a pretty fixed budget and do not want to add a graphics card. The best AMD can offer in that regard is the 3400g which can't really compete in the common i5 price bracket. This lack propagates further through the stack even when amd is the best option.
In the laptop market, intel still beats amd a lot on especially idle power consumption. This is not something OEM's may want to comprimise on too much.
So yea you can say intel will sell anyway, however that is certainly not the entire story.
Korguz - Saturday, March 7, 2020 - link
and this could all change when amd releases ryzen mobile 4k series, and their desktop version of the APU based on zen 2, as from what was released back in Jan and CES, seems amds nez 2 based mobile chip, looks like it will continue what zen 2 has done on desktop and server, the only unknown is power usageDeicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
Yeah yeah yeah always the NEXT AMD thing - not the current AMD thing - been saying the same since Ryzen 1 -- just wait until Ryzen 2 --- just wait until Ryzen 3 .... Ryzen 10.The Ryzen 4x00 APUs are interesting - but just that - interesting.
At some point AMD needs to have it's products match the marketing - they have not yet. Intel posting record quarters, quarter after quarter. Maybe Ryzen is comparable to 8th Gen, and it's GPUs are not Turing level, but Pascal level. Shooting where the competition will BE and not where they were 2 years ago would be a radical shift in the right direction.
Ms Su maybe not be the dumpster fire her predecessors were - but no contingency clause in the wafer purchase agreements with GF.... "WPA contingent upon Next Node sampling within x months" would have save AMD a ton of money - that's why the IO dies are 12nm GF - they were paying for the wafers whether they contained useful dies or were "blank".
HStewart - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
Gamers voting with their wallets and are buying AMD. on mass.Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
Maybe some, and it's en masse. AMD had the #1 position on several sites - which amounted to little to nothing. Most serious gamers have a preference - whether it's Intel or AMD it doesn't matter - it's a small market. I prefer i9900K at 5Ghz and dual 2080RTI on a 4K 120Hz monitor - some prefer to play super high frame rates on lower resolutions... some people buy beast systems to play Hearthstone. So thinking that "gamers" is a monolithic group is foolish.also en masse at some point would be reflected in revenue...
kevin.mcc - Monday, March 9, 2020 - link
Wrong.... Consumers are buying Intel because they do not know anything about CPU architecture and performance. Intel spends a lot of money to get vendors to push their CPUs. We just went through this with server quotes. For same price we could either get a server with two AMD EPYC 7262 or two Xeon Silver 4112. We have to ask every time for AMD server quotes otherwise you will get an Intel quote.Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
Yeah yeah yeah - IF people only UNDERSTOOD the absolute SUPERIORITY of MY most favorite FACELESS CORPORATE ENTITY they would be buying them in heretofore UNHEARD of LEVELS.Ford vs Chevy. Coke vs Pepsi. Craft Beer vs Bud Light. Sedan vs SUV. See how that works?
HStewart - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
I actually didn't even notice this was stating cores and not cpus. Keep in mind major of AMD Zen chips are desktops and more 8 cores. 6 core sounds like minimum and not averageAverage AMD user purchase AMD for core count - plus keep in mind older Zen's had less cores - so the number of chips is off.
30m / 6c = 5m
80m / 8c = 10m
120m / 12c 10m
or total of 25m
The number of cpus is hard to estimated by cores
but I would guess
psychobriggsy - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link
To compare: over 1.2B Jaguar cores shipped in the consoles alone.And that will be replicated this generation with the Zen 2 cores.
ksec - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link
Those number are fascinating. It means we now have information to suggest AMD shipped twice as much Zen as they did in 2018.However this doubling of Core Shipment did not results in significant uptake of Revenue. That means AMD has shipped same number of Chips with ASP being roughly the same at double the core.
In that sense it is not good news.
HStewart - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
Yes exactly, but the statement about cores is misleading.Qasar - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - link
how so ???Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
Like bragging that you have 8 fingers on each hand, 3 of which are not connected to the hand via any sort of bone structure. Just 3 useless fingers not useful for much.AMD created the "superfluous core" strategy, knowing that it looks really good on paper and offered little to no benefit except for 1% of the market and benchmarks. The market centered around 4 cores on the average PC because that was usable... more cores, without a revolution in software development, are (my i9900K included) largely unused. Benchmarks are not useful - I guess they are the age old Camaro vs Mustang back from when I was a kid for the modern age - didn't matter much then, very few Camaro drivers switched to Mustang or vice versa due to a couple races going one way or another. All comes down to preference.