Firefox survey puts AMD GPU marketshare ahead of Nvidia.

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This is almost exactly what I got, the HDD spec is a straight up lie though. It says 5400 RPM but that is not what is printed on the actual thing and it doesn't feel like any other 5400 RPM HDD I've used before.

 

https://support.hp.com/nz-en/document/c03513703

So the vomit boxes still exist as well-just with 2.5" HDD instead of 5.25" Quantum Bigfoot. I got lucky with my last HP laptop then as its (now 7 year old) 500GB Hitachi 7200RPM HDD reads and writes sustained at 120MB/sec.

[LAwLz]

40 minutes ago, KuronoXD said:

Hey, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. If you know it's a miscommunication over semantics, then just accept that you understood wrong and move on, especially if it's been explained to you over and over.

Again, your misunderstanding about the 10% doesn't change the fact that the percentage has taken into account the same variables as Steam (which is what I was referring to where you quoted me, not that Steam is wrong, as you mistakenly inferred); 10% of internet users and 1% of internet users. You keep arguing that because you understood wrong the 10%, it somehow stops being about internet users.

I've been using (and sometimes even pointing out that I'm doing so) statistics terms in other posts in this thread. If you don't pay attention to anything other than the selective posts you misunderstand, it's a matter of course that you end up arguing with incomplete information.

I can't tell if you're trolling me or just doesn't understand how statistics work. Let me explain it to you in as simple terms as possible.

 

You were comparing Firefox's users to Steam's users.

The Firefox data you presented said that Firefox has roughly 10% market share. That was gathered by looking at traffic to popular sites and then looking at the percentage of users visiting them used Firefox. This showed that about 10% of users visiting that site used Firefox. This means that according to those statistics roughly 10% of all Internet users use Firefox as their browser.

You presented this as 10% of the world population (world population means the total number of humans currently alive in the world). You were wrong on this because what you meant was 10% of browser users use Firefox. Browser users and world population are two very different metrics.

10% of browser users does not equal 10% of the world population. In order to convert from one to the other you need to subtract the people who do not use browsers from the total world population, and then take 10% from that in order to get the % of the world population which uses Firefox.

 

Then let's look at the Steam statistics.

The article you linked says that there were 65 million Steam accounts. Since there were (at the time) approximately 7.121 billion people on Earth they said that 0.9% of the global population had a Steam account. The 65 million number came straight from Valve and the 7.121 billion number came from somewhere else. We do not need to subtract the users who do not have Internet access here because it was a strict comparison right from the start between the total number of accounts vs the world population. We do not need to convert from "% of Internet users who use Steam" to "% of world population" here because it was already done.

 

Do you understand now? What I did when I shrunk the 10% number down to 4 was that I normalized the statistics so that they could be directly compared. Then you tried to for some apply the normalization process to the Steam statistic for some reason.

 

You were comparing apples (% of Internet users) to oranges (% of world population) and when I undid your mess (converted % of Internet users to % of world population) you messed it up again and accused me and other people of being ignorant.

When you compare different metrics gathered through varying methodologies you need to normalize the results in order to do a straight comparison. You can't say 8% of coffee drinkers is more than 5% of the world population just because 8 is a bigger number than 5. You need to take into account that not everyone drinks coffee, and that means subtracting a part of that 8% to normalize the numbers. You don't subtract people who don't drink coffee from the world population.

 

Stop embarrassing yourself, please.

[Mr.Meerkat]

21 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

So the vomit boxes still exist as well-just with 2.5" HDD instead of 5.25" Quantum Bigfoot. I got lucky with my last HP laptop then as its (now 7 year old) 500GB Hitachi 7200RPM HDD reads and writes sustained at 120MB/sec.

My Asus laptop also had a 7200RPM drive. To be fair, they bothered adding a 16GB cache drive to the machine so I guess it would have been dumb to use a slower drive .

 

Problem is it could barely sustain 100MBps so they might as well have gone with a 5400RPM drive. At least I don't need to partition out my 128GB SSD and am able to install linux onto the cache drive (as it detected as an normal drive). 

[Matu20]

I'm having issues trusting these numbers. AMD should be nowhere near Nvidia, let alone exceeding it.

[JoostinOnline]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

My cheap laptop had a 4200 RPM HDD in it, 5400 shockingly isn't the slowest they go. Even this shocked me, only found out when removing it.

Maybe they're 4200RPM then. I didn't think there were drives that slow anymore, so I automatically assumed they were 5400RPM. 

[Heesleemer]

Curious how many are apple products 

[flibberdipper]

18 hours ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

To be fair, that's partially caused by the shoddy HDD that manufacturers put into them. This doesn't just affect AMD based laptops either. My sister's laptop even with an i5 5257U takes 1m 30s to boot up and then takes something like 30 seconds to open up chrome just because the HDD it has is always pinned at 100% (even after leaving it alone for 20 mins, after booting up). 

Nah, a lot of APUs are still balls ass slow. Granny's laptop with some kind of Skylake U-series i3 beats the ever loving piss out of her desktop with an A6 3650 in basically everything, even though the laptop is stuck with a 1TB 5400RPM drive while the desktop has a rather speedy 1TB 7200RPM drive.

[MoonSpot]

This is only good for AMD if you follow the PS3 install base logic that people were fond of several years ago.  Many people bought PS3s as an inexpensive Blu-Ray player.  That didn't necessarily mean that there were more titles sold for that console for the data point in and of itself.

 

If I were making F2P, flash games, or an otherwise easily accessible game for J.Q.Public than I'd put more stock into this firefox hardware report.  Otherwise the steam survey is probably a better bet for higher tier Dev studios.

It'll be much more interesting in a couple years if intel manages to push a lot of AMD graphics in the "New deal" CPU/GPU combo they are looking to start selling.  No bean counter alive would look at a 60%+ install base (iGPU/APU) and write them off as potential customers without some serious thought.  I think Polaris and Vega stand to get a good deal of time from Devs.  We'll see what that means, if anything, in the end.

[Mr.Meerkat]

27 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

Nah, a lot of APUs are still balls ass slow. Granny's laptop with some kind of Skylake U-series i3 beats the ever loving piss out of her desktop with an A6 3650 in basically everything, even though the laptop is stuck with a 1TB 5400RPM drive while the desktop has a rather speedy 1TB 7200RPM drive.

Hmmm...a low-end CPU released in 2011 versus a half-mid, half-low tier CPU released in 2015, sounds like a recipe of fairness  

 

Anyway, seriously, if you were to compare something similar in price such as the i3 2100 (assuming both costs somewhere around $120 back then), its not too bad. 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-2100-vs-AMD-A6-3650-APU/m41vsm1954

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-HD-2000-Desktop-11-GHz-vs-AMD-Radeon-HD-6530D/m7697vsm7795

 

The i3 is considerably faster than the A6 CPU wise however in terms of the iGPUs, the HD6530D beats the living shit out of the HD2000. 

 

In other words, back then, the A6 was a perfectly acceptable CPU. 

[flibberdipper]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Hmmm...a low-end CPU released in 2011 versus a half-mid, half-low tier CPU released in 2015, sounds like a recipe of fairness  

 

Anyway, seriously, if you were to compare something similar in price such as the i3 2100 (assuming both costs somewhere around $120 back then), its not too bad. 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-2100-vs-AMD-A6-3650-APU/m41vsm1954

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-HD-2000-Desktop-11-GHz-vs-AMD-Radeon-HD-6530D/m7697vsm7795

 

The i3 is considerably faster than the A6 CPU wise however in terms of the iGPUs, the HD6530D beats the living shit out of the HD2000. 

 

In other words, back then, the A6 was a perfectly acceptable CPU. 

It;s all well and good other than she bought the laptop for 500 and change a few months ago vs the desktop back in 2014? for almost 800.

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, tmcclelland455 said:

It;s all well and good other than she bought the laptop for 500 and change a few months ago vs the desktop back in 2014? for almost 800.

Ermmm, someone may have been ripped off then  

No matter how you put it, $800 for 3~ year old low-end hardware doesn't sound like a great deal...

[flibberdipper]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

Ermmm, someone may have been ripped off then  

No matter how you put it, $800 for 3~ year old low-end hardware doesn't sound like a great deal...

Yep. Honestly the worst part was that where she bought it, it was the fastest thing there. Like the fucc is wrong with you cucks to sell new shit that's about as fast as constipation on prom night.  

[TidaLWaveZ]

5 hours ago, Matu20 said:

I'm having issues trusting these numbers. AMD should be nowhere near Nvidia, let alone exceeding it.

That's because most people of our tech nature don't group integrated GPU's with discreet GPU's and the majority of the systems out there are just running with integrated graphics either in large scale by companies or by basic user purchase.

 

The percentage of people using dedicated cards is too small in comparison to people using integrated graphics to show on the graph, except one from Nvidia(GT210) that seems to be completely dominant as far as dedicated cards among firefox users.

[Matu20]

16 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

That's because most people of our tech nature don't group integrated GPU's with discreet GPU's and the majority of the systems out there are just running with integrated graphics either in large scale by companies or by basic user purchase.

 

The percentage of people using dedicated cards is too small in comparison to people using integrated graphics to show on the graph, except one from Nvidia(GT210) that seems to be completely dominant as far as dedicated cards among firefox users.

But still, I have never seen an AMD APU out in the wild. Most office PCs run Intel and home PCs use dGPUs.

[TidaLWaveZ]

2 minutes ago, Matu20 said:

But still, I have never seen an AMD APU out in the wild. Most office PCs run Intel and home PCs use dGPUs.

Me neither but these metrics reflect that sentiment, the graph is just a little odd because there's so many instances below 1% that aren't shown that add up.

 

65% Intel 

15% AMD

14% nvidia

5% other

 

 

 

[KuronoXD]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I can't tell if you're trolling me or just doesn't understand how statistics work. Let me explain it to you in as simple terms as possible.

 

You were comparing Firefox's users to Steam's users.

The Firefox data you presented said that Firefox has roughly 10% market share. That was gathered by looking at traffic to popular sites and then looking at the percentage of users visiting them used Firefox. This showed that about 10% of users visiting that site used Firefox. This means that according to those statistics roughly 10% of all Internet users use Firefox as their browser.

You presented this as 10% of the world population (world population means the total number of humans currently alive in the world). You were wrong on this because what you meant was 10% of browser users use Firefox. Browser users and world population are two very different metrics.

10% of browser users does not equal 10% of the world population. In order to convert from one to the other you need to subtract the people who do not use browsers from the total world population, and then take 10% from that in order to get the % of the world population which uses Firefox.

 

Then let's look at the Steam statistics.

The article you linked says that there were 65 million Steam accounts. Since there were (at the time) approximately 7.121 billion people on Earth they said that 0.9% of the global population had a Steam account. The 65 million number came straight from Valve and the 7.121 billion number came from somewhere else. We do not need to subtract the users who do not have Internet access here because it was a strict comparison right from the start between the total number of accounts vs the world population. We do not need to convert from "% of Internet users who use Steam" to "% of world population" here because it was already done.

 

Do you understand now? What I did when I shrunk the 10% number down to 4 was that I normalized the statistics so that they could be directly compared. Then you tried to for some apply the normalization process to the Steam statistic for some reason.

 

You were comparing apples (% of Internet users) to oranges (% of world population) and when I undid your mess (converted % of Internet users to % of world population) you messed it up again and accused me and other people of being ignorant.

When you compare different metrics gathered through varying methodologies you need to normalize the results in order to do a straight comparison. You can't say 8% of coffee drinkers is more than 5% of the world population just because 8 is a bigger number than 5. You need to take into account that not everyone drinks coffee, and that means subtracting a part of that 8% to normalize the numbers. You don't subtract people who don't drink coffee from the world population.

 

Stop embarrassing yourself, please.

Accusing me of trolling because I won't agree with you is your argument now? Sad.

 

I already told you that whatever you understood or whatever vague terms I used, the fact that 10% refers to "people who use browsers" and thus "people who use the internet" won't change. Whether I made a mistake or you made a mistake, that meaning won't change; you have fervently latched on to the wrong notion that 10% refers to the 7 billion people on Earth either because that's your only argument to say I'm wrong or just because you're dense.

 

Let's leave it here clearly:

10% = People who use browsers/Internet

10% != 7 billion people

 

Can you get it now? That there is no need for normalisation? That I said that if you wrongly applied this normalisation to Firefox's numbers you should wrongly apply it as well to Steam's, because they both had already been normalised? You can't fix anything, because there is nothing to fix, other than your misunderstanding.

 

Oh, and I said that you didn't pay attention not that you were ignorant, sorry if I hurt your ego or pride, but I never said anyone else was as well. Don't make it a blanket statement to paint me like a bad guy who insulted everyone.

 

But it doesn't matter how many times I explain all of this, you already said that you were willing to drop it only if I apologised and said I was wrong; you're not arguing over who has reason, you just want to be right, so maybe let's just agree to disagree.

[SansVarnic]

- Moved to Graphics Cards -

 

@KuronoXD Your topic does not meet the Posting Guidelines for News and Review Section please review and update.

Quote

When creating a thread in the News subforum, please make sure your post meets the following criteria:

• Your thread must include some original input to tell the reader why it is relevant to them, and what your personal opinion on the topic is. This needs to be MORE than just a quick, single comment to meet the posting guidelines.
• Your thread must include a link to at least one reputable source. Most of the time, this should be a respected news site.
• Your thread should also include quotes from the cited source(s). While you shouldn't just copy the entire article, your quote should give the reader a summary of the article in a way that gives the key details, but also leaves room for them to read the full article on the linked website. Please use quote tags to show that you have copied this content from another site.
• The title of your thread must be relevant to the topic and should give a reader a good idea of the contents of the thread. Copying the title of the source is permitted but absolutely not required. It should be to the point and not be done in such a way as to mislead a reader, such as clickbait, etc.
• If your article is about a product or some form of media, images are always appreciated, although they are not required.

Failure to comply may result in your thread being locked or removed without warning.

When you have updated, pm me and I'll move it back.