How Much Market Share Did AMD Gain IN 2017?

[It's me!]

Well, I thought that AMD had grabbed a lot more share than this from Intel, but a lot of sites report garbage information. Still, adding nearly a million units in sales is pretty damn impressive. They also talk about how Ryzen doesn't compete against the whole market because of price and the lack of an IGP, which is a good point. the most important part is at the end of thee article they talk about how good Global Foundries 7nm is compared to Intel's 10nm. 

 

Quote

ercury Research said these numbers reflect AMD's share of the overall desktop unit share. They exclude IoT sales. The company also said that the total cumulative number of units shipped into the market for the past year (4Q16 through 3Q17) totals 96 million desktop CPUs.

According to the data, AMD gained (roughly) an additional 960,000 CPU sales over the preceding four quarters. Although that may not seem as impressive as many have expected, there are many factors we also have to consider. The numbers don't include the lucrative fourth quarter and the Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales. AMD slashed pricing during this period and competed against a largely absent Coffee Lake, so this could have been a very successful period for AMD. In fact, Lisa Su said the company tripled its sales during this period.

 

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-intel-desktop-pc-market-share,36152.html

 

 

[thorhammerz]

Epyc (server/enterprise), future (semi-custom) chips for AI, and their Ryzen/Vega APUs will be what drives and sustains medium / long-term growth (where the margins are decent and the market cap is significantly larger).

 

Let's hope AMD is able to metabolize the increase in earnings (kudos to them for finally not losing money) gleaned from their recent success to continue developing (and marketing) good products, or it'll be back to the doldrums for them (deja-vu to half a decade of FX-crap).

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, thorhammerz said:

Epyc (server/enterprise), future (semi-custom) chips for AI, and their Ryzen/Vega APUs will be what drives and sustains medium / long-term growth (where the margins are decent and the market cap is significantly larger).

 

Let's hope AMD is able to metabolize the increase in earnings (kudos to them for finally not losing money) gleaned from their recent success to continue developing (and marketing) good products, or it'll be back to the doldrums for them (deja-vu to half a decade of FX-crap).

this has happened before the difference is that now oems don't rule the market so intel cant bribe everyone and prevent amd from seeling their chips

[AresKrieger]

960,000 is 1% of the market share if said market consists of 96 million units (from a yearly perspective), not that impressive tbh the rest is speculation (also what company doesn't triple sales during black friday sales??)

[thorhammerz]

11 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

this has happened before the difference is that now oems don't rule the market so intel cant bribe everyone and prevent amd from seeling their chips

Let us hope so - but on the consumer side, AMD really needs a combination of:

• consumer awareness (hey look, there's a chip manufacturer that's not Intel, and a GPU manufacturer that's not Nvidia) on the OEM consumer base (your average joe consumer like a 30 to 60 year-old-(grand)-parent looking at a BestBuy/Amazon (e-)flyer needs to give AMD consideration when all they've known for 5 years is Intel)
  • brand recognition is very powerful - there's a reason why companies pay through the nose for ad placements in places like the Olympics (along with the usual celebrity sponsorships)
• a lack of supply issues that have previously plagued Vega 56/64 (enough production so that OEMs will feel safe enough carry product lines) AND
• a good price to performance ratio (the 2xxx-u series definitely have reasonable performance, but pricing is still murky due the lack of products debuted).

 

9 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

960,000 is 1% of the market share if said market consists of 96 million units, not that impressive tbh

Precisely the issue. On top of that, the margins aren't particularly great for desktop CPUs either (considering they need to slash prices to remain competitive with Coffee Lake, which seems to have lived past its ghost-inventory phase).

[AresKrieger]

Just now, thorhammerz said:

Let us hope so - but on the consume side, AMD really needs a combination of consumer awareness (hey look, there's a chip manufacturer that's not Intel, and a GPU manufacturer that's not Nvidia)

They also need to iron out the issues with their products, I've seen issues such as poor netflix performance with their apus and some gpus due to driver issues and various other issues regarding their cpus (mostly due to it's hit or miss nature with ram), they need to iron out issues mainstream consumers will face unless they want to undermine future sales.

[Dabombinable]

5 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

They also need to iron out the issues with their products, I've seen issues such as poor netflix performance with their apus and some gpus due to driver issues and various other issues regarding their cpus (mostly due to it's hit or miss nature with ram), they need to iron out issues mainstream consumers will face unless they want to undermine future sales.

That's Stoneyridge and older APU right? Those are all Excavator based and just plain shit.

[AresKrieger]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

That's Stoneyridge and older APU right? Those are all Excavator based and just plain shit.

No in general, it often takes them multiple generations to adapt to modern applications, for instance the only reason they've got an edge in some recent titles on the gpu side of things was adoption of mantle code by both dx12 and Vulkan, they never actually greatly optimized for dx11 over its entire life cycle (because if they had they should have been more competitive on the high end performance numbers). 

 

They use the throw more power solution at everything and their marketing approach is just as blunt, it would be wise for them to not brute force every problem as it often lands them behind their competition despite having products with potential.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

That's Stoneyridge and older APU right? Those are all Excavator based and just plain shit.

Yea nothing to iron out with those, they are just garbage and too slow to do anything including 1080p and 4k netflix. The E2-1800 in my laptop can't even play basic flash games and full speed lol.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

for instance the only reason they've got an edge in some recent titles on the gpu side of things was adoption of mantle code by both dx12 and Vulkan, they never actually greatly optimized for dx11 over its entire life cycle (because if they had they should have been more competitive on the high end performance numbers).

There's actually very little they can do about DX11, the GCN architecture just isn't as tailored to the limitations of that API like Nvidia has done. That's why there is such a flip when switching to DX12 and why Volta was able to gain such huge performance uplift in DX12 while only very slightly gaining in DX11.

 

AMD doesn't shift nearly as much product as Nvidia does so has to make the foundations of their architectures live much longer so you can't not look ahead to the future, hindsight would indicate that it would have been better to just go all in on DX11 but if you're convinced that the GPU industry is going to change you need to run with it even if you were wrong. You don't catch up or surpass your competitors by making the same thing otherwise you end up like Cyrix.

[Taf the Ghost]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

There's actually very little they can do about DX11, the GCN architecture just isn't as tailored to the limitations of that API like Nvidia has done. That's why there is such a flip when switching to DX12 and why Volta was able to gain such huge performance uplift in DX12 while only very slightly gaining in DX11.

 

AMD doesn't shift nearly as much product as Nvidia does so has to make the foundations of their architectures live much longer so you can't not look ahead to the future, hindsight would indicate that it would have been better to just go all in on DX11 but if you're convinced that the GPU industry is going to change you need to run with it even if you were wrong. You don't catch up or surpass your competitors by making the same thing otherwise you end up like Cyrix.

AMD & Nvidia also have somewhat different design philosophies for their GPUs. Nvidia's actually requires more money to pull off, as they have to invest far more heavily in their Driver team. That's a chunk of the difference. The other is that GCN was supposed to head towards the Fusion/APU convergence, which got badly derailed by Faildozer. 

[Ertman]

I think AMD needs to work on building better relationships with hardware vendors to really see improvements in sales.

[samcool55]

9 hours ago, thorhammerz said:

• a lack of supply issues that have previously plagued Vega 56/64 (enough production so that OEMs will feel safe enough carry product lines)

Supply issues are still horrible for both Polaris and Vega where i live actually, it's not only Vega.

Like, for some reason they never took off properly. When the RX 480 launched we had barely any stock and prices were 300+ euro's, that's still the case today. Like nothing at all changed. There's not even a proper split between 4GB and 8GB models, they are just all over the place.

 

They have nice tech but if it's as rare as a unicorn and expensive af, who is going to buy that?

[Misanthrope]

It's honestly disappointingly little.

 

Not sure if this is public image mishandling on their part but it seems like only the Enthusiasts are promoting AMD Ryzen products your typical influences sang the Ryzen and Threadripper praises at launch....and that was about it really. Most of their builds, even the ones where AMD is very obviously more competitive like production rigs where threadripper would shine are still intel: a cold reminder than all youtubers do not care about what's actually the best product but what they get for free and will become very creative in trying to justify stupid choices like intel X299 rigs instead of favoring Threadripper.

 

And if that wasn't enough before long intel reacted with coffee lake and AMD also released their momentum killing fucking dud called Vega so they're effectively back at switching places: One crap line of product and one "excellent for the money" one people praise in paper but don't actually but all that much in practice.

 

My guess is that they won't be able to accomplish much under this scheme we're just in for another really long cycle of competive CPUs and crap GPUs from them vs the previous one which was competitive GPUs and crap CPUs.

[Doobeedoo]

All in all it's great it's going good and keeping the momentum with releases is important. 

Really don't want to see price increase for another type of components. 

Hopefully we see more normalized prices with those.. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

My guess is that they won't be able to accomplish much under this scheme we're just in for another really long cycle of competive CPUs and crap GPUs from them vs the previous one which was competitive GPUs and crap CPUs

At least there is more money in the CPU game so that's a positive.

 

Hang on while I go find my polish, time to make that turd shine .

[Misanthrope]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

At least there is more money in the CPU game so that's a positive.

 

Hang on while I go find my polish, time to make that turd shine .

That's true now but Nvidia and maybe even intel are pushing for GPU compute so that's a possible market. One that AMD would actually have a lead on today but I am unsure if they'd be able to combat good old Nvidia and intel tactics.

[Matu20]

Gaming markets were a flop for RTG, but AMD CPU division was a huge success.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, Matu20 said:

Gaming markets were a flop for RTG, but AMD CPU division was a huge success.

AMD has had little problem selling their GPUs all year, not that you can get one, mostly, at a reasonable price. Which Nvidia must love because it increases their margins as well.

 

Computer parts got weird in 2017.

[Matu20]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

AMD has had little problem selling their GPUs all year, not that you can get one, mostly, at a reasonable price. Which Nvidia must love because it increases their margins as well.

 

Computer parts got weird in 2017.

Yeah, especially enthusiast got the shaft. 

[mr moose]

On 12/22/2017 at 10:57 AM, cj09beira said:

this has happened before the difference is that now oems don't rule the market so intel cant bribe everyone and prevent amd from seeling their chips

Are you talking about OEM's as a bunch of individual companies or as a conglomerate?  Because now CPU shipments outside the major OEM's (HP, dell, lenevo et al) only make up 10-15% of total shipments whereas back when intel did the dodge retail and home builder CPU sales were at their maximum (just under half the total sales)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263393/global-pc-shipments-since-1st-quarter-2009-by-vendor/

 

EDIT: sorry I miss read the graph, some of the "others" would include apple and minor brands.  Meaning that retail and home builders wouldn't have even made up a significant portion back then.

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: sorry I miss read the graph, some of the "others" would include apple and minor brands.  Meaning that retail and home builders wouldn't have even made up a significant portion back then.

And never will, that's why OEM deals are so important. Laptop sales is really where you want to be.

[Taf the Ghost]

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

And never will, that's why OEM deals are so important. Laptop sales is really where you want to be.

It's also exactly why Intel pulled the illegal anti-competitive actions. They looked at the Risk vs Reward and did the Machiavellian move. I think they should have gotten hit with much, much higher penalties, but in the R&D & Tech spaces, the time alone was the damage they needed to do. It worked.

 

I know some guys that have worked for Intel and it's a great company to work for, actually. Doesn't mean I have to like their Management, or the fact I was put in positions to buy inferior products because AMD was locked out of Mobile markets during a few product generations.

[leadeater]

54 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's also exactly why Intel pulled the illegal anti-competitive actions. They looked at the Risk vs Reward and did the Machiavellian move. I think they should have gotten hit with much, much higher penalties, but in the R&D & Tech spaces, the time alone was the damage they needed to do. It worked.

Yep, there was no cash amount that would have amounted to anything. The only just and correct punishment would have been to block Intel from being a supplier for laptops for a few years, now that would have actually done something lol.

[Taf the Ghost]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yep, there was no cash amount that would have amounted to anything. The only just and correct punishment would have been to block Intel from being a supplier for laptops for a few years, now that would have actually done something lol.

Some Criminal penalties at executives wouldn't have hurt, but the Enron prosecution disaster showed it's really, really hard. In larger companies, a lot of actions happen with limited direction and limited approval.  If you can't prove who ordered specific things, you can't actually prove who committed the crimes. They're still appealing the fines from the EU, and that case is from, what, 2003? 

 

But, it worked for Intel, at the cost of everyone else.