Europeans prefer AMD CPUs according to EHA

[porina]

Quote

Independent survey shows AMD has increased in popularity by 50% over the last two years. The most recent survey by the European Hardware Association (EHA) included a full set of responses to a broad range of questions from more than 10,000 respondents. They expressed a distinct preference when asked about the next desktop processor that they would buy, with over 60% choosing AMD.

 

Source: https://www.eha.digital/research/amd-tops-60-in-european-cpu-preference-study/?sf224707198=1

Via: https://twitter.com/AMD_UK/status/1199689438621769728

 

 

Like any survey, we have to be a little careful about how the results were obtained, and how it translates to the wider world. They say they had 10000 responses, but it doesn't say who made up these responses beyond the chart top saying "European tech enthusiasts". Is that us, on forums like this? Did anyone here fill in their survey? I hadn't even heard of them up to now...

 

Still, with that caution to one side, to the question what will your next CPU be, AMD has grown in choice from around 40% in 2017 to 60% now, the 50% increase mentioned in the quote. 

 

It is also interesting they also factored in what GPU will it be paired with. Those choosing Intel CPUs overwhelmingly prefer to pair with nvidia. Those choosing an AMD CPU, it is closer to 1/3 choosing AMD GPU over nvidia. Based on typical posting in this forum at least, I would have expected the proportions to look much different than they obtained.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

That makes sense when you consider the data that mindfactory.de provided that they were selling two AMD processors for each Intel one and that at some point the R5 3600 was outselling entire Intel's lineup.

Let's wait for Intel's response, it should be good and it definitely will be good from a consumer standpoint

[RollinLower]

13 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

That makes sense when you consider the data that mindfactory.de provided that they were selling two AMD processors for each Intel one and that at some point the R5 3600 was outselling entire Intel's lineup.

Let's wait for Intel's response, it should be good and it definitely will be good from a consumer standpoint

ah yes, competition in the market. the consumer always wins!

i do hope intel manages to cath up tough. right now it's pretty much total AMD domination in almost all markets, except maybe server. tough the EPYC linup is looking pretty threatening aswell..

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, RollinLower said:

it's pretty much total AMD domination in almost all markets, except maybe server. tough the EPYC linup is looking pretty threatening aswell..

AMD has a very good grip on a lot of server segments. With maybe the exception of AVX512. 

[Morgan MLGman]

5 minutes ago, RollinLower said:

ah yes, competition in the market. the consumer always wins!

i do hope intel manages to cath up tough. right now it's pretty much total AMD domination in almost all markets, except maybe server. tough the EPYC linup is looking pretty threatening aswell..

From what I know from official representatives, companies like DELL/EMC start pushing EPYC-based servers to more and more customers and partners, they're organizing more and more events and training courses to help adopt EPYC servers and convince customers that they're a very good option.
They didn't put that much of an effort when 1st gen EPYC launched, I'm glad they came around with the launch of Rome chips.

[hollyh88]

25 minutes ago, porina said:

Source: https://www.eha.digital/research/amd-tops-60-in-european-cpu-preference-study/?sf224707198=1

Via: https://twitter.com/AMD_UK/status/1199689438621769728

 

 

Like any survey, we have to be a little careful about how the results were obtained, and how it translates to the wider world. They say they had 10000 responses, but it doesn't say who made up these responses beyond the chart top saying "European tech enthusiasts". Is that us, on forums like this? Did anyone here fill in their survey? I hadn't even heard of them up to now...

 

Still, with that caution to one side, to the question what will your next CPU be, AMD has grown in choice from around 40% in 2017 to 60% now, the 50% increase mentioned in the quote. 

 

It is also interesting they also factored in what GPU will it be paired with. Those choosing Intel CPUs overwhelmingly prefer to pair with nvidia. Those choosing an AMD CPU, it is closer to 1/3 choosing AMD GPU over nvidia. Based on typical posting in this forum at least, I would have expected the proportions to look much different than they obtained.

 

ofc, they are cheaper here than intel parts. you can get a 2600x at 130 bucks here in the netherlands. any overclockable good intel 6 core part is at/above 220 bucks. 

or how about 8 core parts. 2700x 170 bucks closest intel 8 part overclockable cpu? 363 bucks. 

amd clearly wins when talking about cpu. Gpu however.. different story. here you can better save a bit more and get a 2070 super than get a 5700xt that is good and at around 500 bucks. Just not worth it. 

[Doobeedoo]

Yeah not too surprising really. They've strengthened their brand and prices are great. It's also true that people tend to pair Intel and Nvidia or just full AMD more. Build a solid amount of PCs also pre builds tend to be like such too. 

[Teddy07]

21 minutes ago, hollyh88 said:

ofc, they are cheaper here than intel parts. you can get a 2600x at 130 bucks here in the netherlands

You can get a mainbord and 16GB ram also for very cheap.

 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, RollinLower said:

ah yes, competition in the market. the consumer always wins!

i do hope intel manages to cath up tough. right now it's pretty much total AMD domination in almost all markets, except maybe server. tough the EPYC linup is looking pretty threatening aswell..

Honestly I think the laptop market is where intel has the strongest hold.

[Ezzy-525]

At least in the UK, you'd have to be mad to prefer Intel over AMD if you want value for money.

 

A quick jump over to my preferred PC parts supplier and their front page:

 

 

The 9700K is pretty much £35 more expensive for 8 threads less and no cooler.

 

SPECIFICATIONS:

CPU Type: Intel Core i7
CPU Model: 9700K
Socket: 1151
Architecture: Coffee Lake Refresh
Manufacturing Process: 14 nm
No. of Cores: 8 Core
No. of Threads: 8
Core Ratio: 36 x
Clock Speed: 3.6 GHz
Turbo Speed: 4.9 GHz
 

vs

 

CPU Type: AMD Ryzen™ 7

CPU Model: 3700X

Socket: AM4

Architecture: Zen 2

Manufacturing Process: 7 nm

No. of Cores: 8 Core

No. of Threads: 16

Clock Speed: 3.6 GHz

Turbo Speed: 4.4 GHz

 

I'll save some cash and stick with Team Red thank you very much!

[leadeater]

50 minutes ago, Ezzy-525 said:

I'll save some cash and stick with Team Red thank you very much!

Why pay more for the 3700X? You can make the 3700 the same thing just by adjusting power targets.

[cj09beira]

4 hours ago, RollinLower said:

ah yes, competition in the market. the consumer always wins!

i do hope intel manages to cath up tough. right now it's pretty much total AMD domination in almost all markets, except maybe server. tough the EPYC linup is looking pretty threatening aswell..

 

4 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

That makes sense when you consider the data that mindfactory.de provided that they were selling two AMD processors for each Intel one and that at some point the R5 3600 was outselling entire Intel's lineup.

Let's wait for Intel's response, it should be good and it definitely will be good from a consumer standpoint

with we so close to the next big thing having amd dominate for a few years would probably end up being better long term, btw pretty sure x86 patent will expire pretty soon so we might see some new players try to enter the market

[williamcll]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

Why pay more for the 3700X? You can make the 3700 the same thing just by adjusting power targets.

And by the same logic I could push a 3700X to a 3800X as well, which would make its performance a lot closer to the 9700K

[muito_gostoso]

today everyone prefer amd,

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, williamcll said:

And by the same logic I could push a 3700X to a 3800X as well, which would make its performance a lot closer to the 9700K

the difference between non X and X is usually an obtainable (but not guaranteed)  OC,  The difference between the 700 and the 800 is much less obtainable as the 800 can usually be pushed further again.

[dizmo]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

Why pay more for the 3700X? You can make the 3700 the same thing just by adjusting power targets.

What mythical chip is this?

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

the difference between non X and X is usually an obtainable (but not guaranteed)  OC,  The difference between the 700 and the 800 is much less obtainable as the 800 can usually be pushed further again.

Maybe previous generations, I don't think that's true with this one (as Gamers Nexus would lead me to believe).

[Mooshi]

Considering the taxes,I'm not really shocked.

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, dizmo said:

What mythical chip is this?

Argh bitten by the Ryzen Pro SKU only problem. At least I can give credit to AMD for actually reducing the pointless SKUs though.

[LeSheen]

17 hours ago, porina said:

Based on typical posting in this forum at least, I would have expected the proportions to look much different than they obtained.

Most posts here recognize the bang for the buck approach of amd and respect it. Yes their highend CPU's are finally competitive with intel even beating them in some cases. Unfortunately this is not (yet) the case for their "high end" GPU's . 

 

The rx 5700 xt was a good competitor to the rtx2070, but now we have the rtx2070 super. And that's not even the real high end of nvidia (rtx2080, rtx2080 super, rtx2080ti,...).

The rx5700xt is more then enough for 1080p gaming, but 4k and 3440x1440 is a bit to much to chew for it.

I would love to swap my rtx2070 for some amd card if it actually could improve performance on 3440x1440.

[Humbug]

On 11/28/2019 at 1:52 PM, LeSheen said:

Most posts here recognize the bang for the buck approach of amd and respect it. Yes their highend CPU's are finally competitive with intel even beating them in some cases. Unfortunately this is not (yet) the case for their "high end" GPU's . 

 

The rx 5700 xt was a good competitor to the rtx2070, but now we have the rtx2070 super. And that's not even the real high end of nvidia (rtx2080, rtx2080 super, rtx2080ti,...).

The rx5700xt is more then enough for 1080p gaming, but 4k and 3440x1440 is a bit to much to chew for it.

I would love to swap my rtx2070 for some amd card if it actually could improve performance on 3440x1440.

It seems like now AMD is making money on CPUs and they want to keep most of their limited 7nm supply for CPUs. GPUs aren't as lucrative for them. I too wanted them to start making high end RDNA GPUs in 2019 but it seems like the announcement has got pushed to January 2020 CES. They have been increasing their R&D budget too as they are profitable now. 

 

Hopefully as 7nm ramps up next year to higher volumes we can get back to the days when they offered an entire line up from low end to high end on the same base architecture. Their gaming offerings are too fragmented now between Polaris, Vega, Navi. Same with the naming schemes, they need to unify everything and send a clear message to buyers- this is what we offer, something for every price range. It's a mess right now.

[Sakkura]

On 11/28/2019 at 9:22 AM, LeSheen said:

Most posts here recognize the bang for the buck approach of amd and respect it. Yes their highend CPU's are finally competitive with intel even beating them in some cases. Unfortunately this is not (yet) the case for their "high end" GPU's . 

 

The rx 5700 xt was a good competitor to the rtx2070, but now we have the rtx2070 super. And that's not even the real high end of nvidia (rtx2080, rtx2080 super, rtx2080ti,...).

The rx5700xt is more then enough for 1080p gaming, but 4k and 3440x1440 is a bit to much to chew for it.

I would love to swap my rtx2070 for some amd card if it actually could improve performance on 3440x1440.

Why are you comparing the 5700 XT to the 2070 and 2070 Super though? It's cheaper than the 2060 Super. Which it is also faster than.

[LeSheen]

26 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Why are you comparing the 5700 XT to the 2070 and 2070 Super though? It's cheaper than the 2060 Super. Which it is also faster than.

- It not that much slower, but still 100 euros cheaper

- Like i mentioned I have a rtx2070. Would be dumb to switch to something less powerfull. -> 5700xt best amd has to offer at the moment.

- I was talking about high end, not fair performance comparison. That's the best they have to offer.

[Unixsystem]

On 11/27/2019 at 9:10 AM, RollinLower said:

ah yes, competition in the market. the consumer always wins!

i do hope intel manages to cath up tough. right now it's pretty much total AMD domination in almost all markets, except maybe server. tough the EPYC linup is looking pretty threatening aswell..

Intel is currently "caught up". While I certainly think that AMD is the better buy for 95% of use cases, it's not like AMD totally leapfrogged Intel in every way. Their scaling tech is ridiculously smart and helps future proof them, but Intel is still a long way from being "behind". 

 

We'll see how big the jump is with Zen 3. If AMD can manage anything close to a Zen2 level IPC bump (or start pushing clocks up a few hundred Mhz), then they'll be a point where they will be pretty unequivocally ahead of Intel. The real question us whether or not Intel gets 7nm out on time. If they do, then they'll get a double node shrink in addition to all the architectural work that they did for Cannonlake and its derivatives but weren't able to implement due to the lack of 10nm.

 

While I'm not convinced Intel can meet their deadline (2021 for mass production, I believe), if they manage it then I'd be more worried about AMD maintaining their momentum than I am about Intel staying competitive. As much as AMD is a feel good comeback story, it's important to stay objective about just how many resources Intel has to rely on. Intel has gotten fucked, partly due to their own hubris and largely due to manufacturing issues that they couldn't have predicted, but if they get back on track they'll be able to punch back absurdly hard.

 

The AMD comeback has been as much a story of Intel's failure as it has AMD's own successes. 

[tech.guru]

On 11/29/2019 at 6:15 PM, Waffles13 said:

Intel is currently "caught up". While I certainly think that AMD is the better buy for 95% of use cases, it's not like AMD totally leapfrogged Intel in every way. Their scaling tech is ridiculously smart and helps future proof them, but Intel is still a long way from being "behind". 

 

We'll see how big the jump is with Zen 3. If AMD can manage anything close to a Zen2 level IPC bump (or start pushing clocks up a few hundred Mhz), then they'll be a point where they will be pretty unequivocally ahead of Intel. The real question us whether or not Intel gets 7nm out on time. If they do, then they'll get a double node shrink in addition to all the architectural work that they did for Cannonlake and its derivatives but weren't able to implement due to the lack of 10nm.

 

While I'm not convinced Intel can meet their deadline (2021 for mass production, I believe), if they manage it then I'd be more worried about AMD maintaining their momentum than I am about Intel staying competitive. As much as AMD is a feel good comeback story, it's important to stay objective about just how many resources Intel has to rely on. Intel has gotten fucked, partly due to their own hubris and largely due to manufacturing issues that they couldn't have predicted, but if they get back on track they'll be able to punch back absurdly hard.

 

The AMD comeback has been as much a story of Intel's failure as it has AMD's own successes. 

Intel failure has to do with using its own foundary and the amount of capital needed for foundary upgrades and research to new processes.

 

AMD gave up its own foundary long ago, and switched to TSMC. Intel doesnt have the R&D to compete with TSMC on foundaries its budget way suprasses intel.

 

Intel is competing against TSMC and not just AMD. TSMC has a narrower focus in its business.

 

intel cant outspend AMD and expect to win this race just because they have more resources. AMD made smart partnerships that allowed it to dethrone intel and personally cant see that changing because TSMC is moving faster than intel at the moment

[Tristerin]

Also relevant: