Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD Businesses Intel Technology

AMD Gained Market Share For 6th Straight Quarter, CEO Says (venturebeat.com) 123

Posted by msmash from the marching-forward dept.
Advanced Micro Devices CEO Lisa Su said during her remarks on AMD's first quarter earnings conference call with analysts today that she was confident about the state of competition with rivals like Intel and Nvidia in processors and graphics chips. She also pointed out that the company gained market share in processors for the 6th straight quarter. From a report: AMD's revenue was $1.27 billion for the first quarter, down 23% from the same quarter a year ago. But Su noted that Ryzen and Epyc processor and datacenter graphics processing units (GPUs) revenue more than doubled year-over-year, helping expand the gross margin by 5 percentage points. If there was a lag in the quarter, it was due to softness in the graphics channel and lower semi-custom revenue (which includes game console chips). Su said AMD's unit shipments increased significantly and the company's new products drove a higher client average selling price (ASP).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Gained Market Share For 6th Straight Quarter, CEO Says More

AMD Gained Market Share For 6th Straight Quarter, CEO Says

Comments Filter:

  • Yep, since Ryzen, AMD is THE desktop CPU to get (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @04:18PM (#58524042)

    My router has been running an embedded 64-bit, 12W AMD CPU too for 4 yrs now. The desktop and router were purely price/performance decisions.

    AMD Ryzen desktop is 65W and 13,000 passmarks for $140. Intel can't touch that. Wish the iGPU support from AMD was better on Linux. Still a little iffy for Linux desktops. The Ryzen 5 1600 was $80 a few weeks ago for just a little less performance. Freakin' awesome deal for 12-cores and 65W.

    The only place where I prefer Intel is laptops at this point. Intel has better Linux iGPU support, cooler (less heat) mobile chips and really knows how to cut back on power so an i5-8250U gets 8+ hrs on a charge for my typical use. I haven't looked at the newer AMD offers recently. Perhaps the 2500u is good in the same ways?

    I need to replace a 1st-gen Core i5 (2010) and another Ryzen for sub-$200 is very likely the solution.

    I'm a fan of Ryzen.

    • I agree with that: Ryzen is a brilliant CPU line

    • Intel still has an edge on single thread perf (Score:4, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @04:50PM (#58524136)
      but for the most part it's not an issue. Thanks to the consoles most games are written to use multi-core now. There's lots of older games that don't but the Ryzens are plenty fast enough for that.

      • Re:Intel still has an edge on single thread perf (Score:4, Interesting)

        by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @06:02PM (#58524414)
        Even though many games now scale well with core count, most are still bound by a single thread so unless you have an exceptionally low core count, having the fastest single core performance still matters. Right now that’s Intel, but the next generation of AMD CPUs could surpass them.

        The other side is that nothing can bottleneck the CPU at 4K so even older i5 chips will still run as well as modern 8-core chips at that resolution. Some games even run almost as well on a Celeron as an i9, so there’s not a huge push for top end CPUs if you run top-end GPUs at the highest settings and resolutions.

        The real value of the consoles is getting developers to use AMD hardware so that the PC ports have some optimizations in place so they don’t get completely smoked by NVidia.
        • sure, if you're rockin a GTX 1080 or more yeah. But for those of us that don't have $400+ to blow on just our GPU a 2600 (even the non-X variant) can't get overwhelmed in even crap ports like Arkham Knight when paired with a 1060 or a RX580 8GB (you'll run out of vram on the 4gb model).

      • My brother actually setup a Ryzen PC in January for his 2 daughters to play games on. He split a R7-1700 and gave each one a RX580. Thing runs like a champ and only costed 1 computer and 2 already purchased GPU's.

        • Two keyboards?

          • 2 everything, ssd, monitor, keyboard, mouse. made 2 full computers out of 1. Virtualization is awesome.

    • For a desktop, I now run an early Ryzen 1700 with 8 buttery smooth cores, each 2x SMT, and a modest 32 GB of memory. This is a serious step up from its predecssor, an i5 with a chintzy 4, non SMT cores. Wow, got that old time feeling back where a new computer every three or four years meant 3-5x more performance. Being in early, I had to work through a couple of serious processor bugs, one requiring an RMA and the other a bios update. Well, I'm old enough to remember F00F and the div bug, so no big deal. T

      • The practical workload gap between Ryzen and Threadripper is quite narrow. A problem for which threadripper would be significantly superior would be even more superior on some cloud rental.

        • Threadripper is where you go when Ryzen starts to feel like Methadone. It's really a different class of machine.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by aliquis ( 678370 )

            If you need PCI express lanes or the memory bandwidth for 16 cores with upcoming generation.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aliquis ( 678370 )

        Navi 3080 make more sense than Radeon VII.

    • My SteamBox is a Ryzen 3 2200G (256GB PCIe SSD, 8GB RAM) running Debian Testing. It's basically a Debian installation, with LXDE with nothing installed except Steam, launching Steam in Big Picture mode.

      The graphics work just fine. No problems whatsoever and the performance is perfectly fine.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      AMD Ryzen desktop is 65W and 13,000 passmarks for $140. Intel can't touch that.

      I'm a fan of Ryzen as well but you need to back off on the hyperbole. AMD and Intel both have relative strengths in different fields. AMD may have price performance vs power for high core count, but Intel still outperform AMD in work per watt in all mobile processors, and AMD "can't touch" Intel in terms of single core performance, where even AMD's best performer barely matches Intel's middle of the rung chip.

      Choose your device for your workload. My workload wanted a 2700X and it was very price competitive

      • AMD "can't touch" Intel in terms of single core performance, where even AMD's best performer barely matches Intel's middle of the rung chip.

        Gloat about this after Intel institutes some hardware level Specter/Meltdown fixes (ie when Intel stops cheating).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by aliquis ( 678370 )

      Now I have a Ryzen 5 2600X and an RTX 2070 and fast RAM.

      I still feel like Overwatch stutter sometimes. My screen is just 60 Hz though and it may just be my reaction time / network lag combined with the frame rate which induce that feeling.

      Anyway Intel has been leading for games so far.

    • Unless of course you don't play games and just want a simple machine. The requirement to purchase a video card for the 'good' CPUs is ridiculous.

      Intel can build a GPU into their 9900k, why can't AMD put something crap in there in the mean time?

      I literally can't use AMD as a solution for my needs due to this lack of foresight.

  • Things are looking up (Score:5, Informative)

    by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @04:22PM (#58524048)

    They've got a shot at staying competitive too, as long as they keep aggressively improving the Zen architecture. They're about to start shipping 7nm Ryzen chips in volume within the next few months, while Intel isn't expected to start shipping their equivalent chips (Intel's 10nm process is equivalent to TSMC's 7nm) until at least 2021. AMD's got more than a one year advantage to capitalize on.

  • at least right now. The GTX 1650 is $50 more than an RX570, has half the RAM and it's $30 - $50 cheaper. You do give up 50 watts of peak power consumption, but you're getting a 1080p 60fps card with 8GB for $130-$160 bucks. The 580 and 590 aren't bad either if you get 'em on sale or for cheap on ebay.

    Nvidia still owns the top end though ($350+).

    • Re:They basically own the sub $200 GPU market (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @05:28PM (#58524278) Homepage

      They basically own the sub $200 GPU market at least right now. The GTX 1650 is $50 more than an RX570, has half the RAM and it's $30 - $50 cheaper. You do give up 50 watts of peak power consumption, but you're getting a 1080p 60fps card with 8GB for $130-$160 bucks. The 580 and 590 aren't bad either if you get 'em on sale or for cheap on ebay.

      The bigger problem for AMD is that now post-crypto craze you have a lot of second hand cards in the same price range. If you look at the Steam Hardware survey the RX570 is not a very popular card with 0.34% of the market. That and it's an older design (same chip as the RX470 from August 2016 with better clocks/memory), so it probably doesn't contribute much to AMD's profits. The GTX 1650 looks like a halo product for a chip they primarily want to put into gaming laptops where the power consumption matters. I doubt it'll sell much but I doubt nVidia cares. P.S. It does have a MSRP of $149 so $50 is a big exaggeration.

  • Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @04:26PM (#58524062) Homepage

    I've been a fan of the Intel/nVidia pairing for quite a while, but recently I was picking parts for a new low-budget desktop. I picked an AMD setup, and I'm not surprised to hear others are doing the same.

    AMD has made major advances with the Ryzen line, and since they've moved to unify their sockets, even a low-end motherboard can accept all but their highest-end processors. The integrated graphics are acceptable, and leave options open for a dedicated card later.

    In response, Intel has offered "more of the same": A shiny i9 with a few extra cores and a premium price.

    In the current desktop market, any processor is "good enough". Current applications aren't really pushing the boundaries of the technology right now, so we don't need the pure performance Intel still offers. Instead, I'm more interested in a system that I can upgrade when I need to. AMD seems to have that market well-covered for now.

    • A Ryzen 5 1600 can train my tensorflow. org models in very acceptable times ^^
    • Same here, always went with Intel/Nvidia, not that I'm fond of these companies or any really, but if I had to build a new workstation today it would be all AMD. Wasn't long ago that I never imagined I would say this. Today, I can't imagine forking the $ for an Intel CPU, it just doesn't make sense anymore.
      • in the GPU market, NVDIA still a better player...

        • Certainly true, but I found myself asking whether it really mattered. For half the price, I can get 75% of the performance, and it'll run most of today's workloads just fine. No, it wouldn't do real-time ray-tracing in extreme quality, but it'll draw the shapes and show the monsters go splat.

          Really, what more does one need to for today's computing?

          Now, back in my day, if we had graphics, "high resolution" was 640x480, and we liked it! These young whippersnappers with their 4K and their VR and their 60FPS an

          • Really, what more does one need to for today's computing?

            tensorflow.org (but, for common use, I agree with you!)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anonymous Coward

      In the current desktop market, any processor is "good enough".

      For us software developers, lots and lots of cores are nice. Compiling big projects, it can use as many cores as you can sneeze at.

      I think the video transcoding and editing guys like 'em too.

    • Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @05:36PM (#58524318)

      I've been a fan of the Intel/nVidia pairing for quite a while, but recently I was picking parts for a new low-budget desktop. I picked an AMD setup, and I'm not surprised to hear others are doing the same.

      AMD has made major advances with the Ryzen line, and since they've moved to unify their sockets, even a low-end motherboard can accept all but their highest-end processors. The integrated graphics are acceptable, and leave options open for a dedicated card later.

      In response, Intel has offered "more of the same": A shiny i9 with a few extra cores and a premium price.

      And I'm sure Intel actually wants it that way. Because right now they're in a great spot - big and powerful, but with a competitor that's actually competitive and not about to go bankrupt. Intel-AMD duopoly for things like x86 patents is secure, Intel is able to keep away government regulators wanting to break them up over anti-monopoly laws and such, and in general, life is great.

      Had AMD floundered, then Intel would be in a host of legal trouble. So Intel is letting AMD be fresh and exciting and get them a sizable amount of money in the bank. AMD is in a good spot with Intel. And I'm sure Intel has something should AMD get too big.

  • They started making good chips (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They started making good chips, like in the early 2000s. Way better than their intervening strategy (bad chips).

  • Apparent leaks from Ryzen 3000 engineering samples. Current Ryzens are already at ~Broadwell levels of single-threaded IPC. Even a 5-7% boost would put them in Skylake/Coffeelake territory.
    https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/rumor-amd-seeds-board-partners-ryzen-3000-samples-runs-4-5-ghz-and-show-15-extra-ipc.html [guru3d.com]
    https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-x570-chipset-gets-pci-express-4-and-usb-3-1-gen2.html [guru3d.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)

Close