• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

muon said:
See above.

Like I said before, almost no one labels graphs in such an unintuitive manner as you've described. In my experience no software I've come across would plot graphs in that manner.
Click to expand...

Now it makes even less sense. How can that show only q3 results, where is q2 then? Given that q1 results was finalised and reported on the day q2 began.

The results for q1 growth was on the q2 point back then as well.

http://wccftech.com/amd-takes-meaningful-cpu-market-share-intel-first-time-3-years/

https://www.eteknix.com/amd-gains-2-2-cpu-market-share-intel-q1-2017/

The reports at the time show AMD gained market share in Q1 and and entered Q2 at 20.3%, the current amount shown when you click on q2 right now on the passmark site is 20.6%.

So if what you say is correct and they're only showing q3 data, where is the Q2? Or was it as I stated where they show market share "up to" the current date?

AMD entered q1 with 18.1%. The day q2 begins is reported to have 20.3%. So amd gained 2.2% in q1 right. That q1 gain is marked on the q2 start point if you click the top article with a screenshot of back then.
 
Last edited:
hum....

Dum dum duuuu


xfgd.png
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
Now it makes even less sense. How can that show only q3 results, where is q2 then? Given that q1 results was finalised and reported on the day q2 began.

The results for q1 growth was on the q2 point back then as well.

http://wccftech.com/amd-takes-meaningful-cpu-market-share-intel-first-time-3-years/

https://www.eteknix.com/amd-gains-2-2-cpu-market-share-intel-q1-2017/

The reports at the time show AMD gained market share in Q1 and and entered Q2 at 20.3%, the current amount shown when you click on q2 right now on the passmark site is 20.6%.

So if what you say is correct and they're only showing q3 data, where is the Q2? Or was it as I stated where they show market share "up to" the current date?

AMD entered q1 with 18.1%. The day q2 begins is reported to have 20.3%. So amd gained 2.2% in q1 right. That q1 gain is marked on the q2 start point if you click the top article with a screenshot of back then.
Click to expand...

Q2 is share is directly aboce the Q2 x-axis label as it should be. Q3 point has moved again today btw.
 
muon said:
Q2 is share is directly aboce the Q2 x-axis label as it should be. Q3 point has moved again today btw.
Click to expand...

That's the Q1 growth though. Not the market share Q2 has at its end.

That's what the articles all report. If you click them they state AMD gained 2.2% during Q1. That information on the graph at the time is on the Q2 point.
Otherwise AMD gained nothing for Q2 at all looking at the May1 date graph in the article to now.

Or is there some blunder in all the articles due to the graph updating so much?
 
Martini1991 said:
As long as AMD gained who really cares :p
Click to expand...

How I feel haha.

The good news about it all, ignoring the funky reports and graphs is that AMD gained Marketshare without their mass volume or high margin products.

They only have R5 and R7 out there right now. No R3's, no APUs, and no HEDT/Server. Those are the volume and margin items they need out; and could really help them gain marketshare as well.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
How I feel haha.

The good news about it all, ignoring the funky reports and graphs is that AMD gained Marketshare without their mass volume or high margin products.

They only have R5 and R7 out there right now. No R3's, no APUs, and no HEDT/Server. Those are the volume and margin items they need out; and could really help them gain marketshare as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, the higher end mainstream platform was what they considered the best to iron out all of the issues with the brand new platform and chips I guess. The disappointing thing about Raven Ridge being so far away is that for a lot of general use cases (e.g. family builds for non-gamers and non-content-creators), the Intel G4560 is probably a better bang-for-buck solution than the R5 1400. Three times the price to double the number of real and virtual cores doesn't sound too bad but it's not quite cheap enough to be warranted and the low end. My dad built a new PC early this year and I wish he'd have told me because if he'd have waited a short time, an R5 1600 would've been perfect for his needs (video encoding mostly).

I do wonder what Raven Ridge CPUs will cost. R5 1400 is ~£150 so the top-end Raven Ridge part (4c/8t + GPU) will presumably cost more than this, unless it's clocked a lot lower to reduce overall CPU+GPU TDP. But then we already know at least two R3s will be 4c/4t, so I also imagine there'll be 4c/4t and 2c/4t Raven Ridge parts that will compete with Intel's Pentiums. Hell, a 3c/6t or 3c/3t part is also a possibility since they'll only have one CCX activated anyway.
 
I doubt the Ryzen 3 chips will be good sellers, not at £130+ for 4 core 4 thread chips, i think the best sellers are the 1600.

It will be interesting to see how the rest of the year pans out continuing with Ryzen 5 and 7 sales and with HEDT Threadripper 'soon'tm' basically making Intel's Skylake-X look utterly daft.... i think once they land they are going to make Intel quiver in cold sweats.

With this one measure (not to be taken as granted) it already 70 - 30 to Intel, its would be nice to see it 60 - 40 to Intel by the end of the year, who would bet against that?

50 - 50 evens would be awesome.
 
haszek said:
My comment was toward Intel practices for the last few years, where IPC increase for them = MHz increase

and a bit of sarcasm if amd is going to follow....
Click to expand...

Ah yeah, tho Intel never actually said IPC increase? or did they? i'm not sure but i thought... just ( Performance: 15% >>>> 15% >>>> 15% ) altho even that was extremely questionable CEO maths.

AMD did propose an IPC increase over Piledriver with Zen, 40%, turned out to be 52%
 
Alexrose1uk said:
Where did you see that? Anyone considered generally reliable?

15% IPC gain would be very nice, especially if they combined it with a refined process allowing for higher clockspeeds at the same time.
Click to expand...
He is reporter @ largest tech site in my country and he is very reliable especially when it comes to Amd
 
humbug said:
It clearly states AMD gained 10 percentage points during Q2, Q2 (Quarter 2) is from April 1'st to June 30.

The article is correct.
Click to expand...

Except it isn't. That table is wrong. The author has made the same mistake as you for assuming the Q3 datapoint represents the movement from April to June.

Check the latest data. Where is 31% anymore? See my screenshot for earlier in the month but after the 1st of July screenshot. Very different numbers.

http://m.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html

Fine if you don't want to admit you are wrong. I would have been fine with being proven wrong, but in this case I was proven correct.

But the last point represents movement in share within Q3, 1st July to today. That is why it is moving every single day as we move through Q3.

April to June movement in share is represented by the change from the Q1 point to the Q2 point. That is very clear now. As someone that presents data every single day, that is also the intuitive way to display it, and the default behaviour of most software.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom