AMD Ryzen and Intel Coffee Lake CPU Market Share at 50% Each in July

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

it can't be easy, the fact is almost everyone struggles with it. CPU makers keep bundling more and more cores because they can't increase clock speed. They did it not to help consumers but because there was no other way out. 

People love to shit on Intel quad cores but the fact is that almost no software was using them, even a decade after them arrived. AMD wanted to throw as many cores as possible way before the Ryzen, and now that's the fight, but software doesn't keep up, no one does.

No one was stoping software companies from using more cores, they were out there for years in Intel and AMD. People always blamed Intel for only having the 4 cores but if software started using more cores Intel had no alternative but to release CPU's with more cores sooner, nobody did it. It's the chicken and the egg story, no one is blameless but it's way easier to put 10 cores in a CPU then to code for 10 cores.

Software companies have nothing to gain in only coding for one core, it's way more expensive to buy a 5ghz CPU than a 4 or 6 cores 2Ghz.

the thing is that until recently most people didn't have many cores left as most of the market is the i3 equivalent or lower which until now only had 2 cores, now the i3 moved to 4 cores which is great and the mid range to 6+-smt this means that coding for more cores now helps a much bigger part of the market so it should be a good catalyst for better software.

then we have the problem that most software is pretty old which means that moving to a good multicore implementation requires a lot of work though that work definitely pays off.

coding for multiple threads although harder than coding for a single thread it isn't impossible and there are lots of material about it, though its hard to convince your superior that doesn't know jack shit about coding why you need to remake a big part of the old code which might take you months to do

[AnonymousGuy]

This is 50% of new sales, not marketshare.  50% sales just means they've stopped losing ground not that they've actually gained any.

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

This is 50% of new sales, not marketshare.  50% sales just means they've stopped losing ground not that they've actually gained any.

50% of sales is more than enough to start to gain market share pretty quickly though if it stays at 50% it will plateau at 50% market share eventually 

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

This is 50% of new sales, not marketshare.  50% sales just means they've stopped losing ground not that they've actually gained any.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

Becuase how can one not gain marketshare with 50% of the sales when the Marketshare was way below 50%??

So yeah, they gained Marketshare.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

You are contradicting yourself.

 

Becuase how can one not gain marketshare with 50% of the sales when the Marketshare was way below 50%??

So yeah, they gained Marketshare.

because math.

 

If Intel and AMD both sell exactly the same number of CPU's from here on in then their market share numbers will not change.  AMD have to sell more than 50% in order for their market share too grow. 

 

Now before you say, but what about people throwing out coffeecake CPU's for ryzens? well, we don't know how much that is happening if at all (I can't see people throwing out a perfectly good CPU they are more likely to sell it which would result it still being in the market) and given we can only comment on the facts we have been given, the math is pretty solid.

[Stefan Payne]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If Intel and AMD both sell exactly the same number of CPU's from here on in then their market share numbers will not change.  AMD have to sell more than 50% in order for their market share too grow. 

That makes no sense what you are telling here.

So lets assume the CPUs will have a lifetime of 5 years, after that they are kaputt and needs to be recycled.

If AMD and Intel sell the same amount of CPUs from now on than in ~5 Years, they will have the same market share (50:50) as everything before that time is dead.

Because before this, Intel sold MORE CPUs...

 

Because some systems will just be phased out/recycled and replaced with either an AMD or Intel System.

 

 

So with a 50:50 sale, AMD's Market share will actually rise because they sell more CPU than before and Intel sells less because those people grab AMD. 

 

 

Your statement that AMD has to sell more to increase market share is just not true. Because if it were, they would have 0% right now, wich they obviously do not.

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Because some systems will just be phased out/recycled and replaced with either an AMD or Intel System.

 

 

No one is phasing out a 1 year old CPU.  And any that do would barely show up on the stats.

 

As I said, which you ignored:

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Now before you say, but what about people throwing out coffeecake CPU's for ryzens? well, we don't know how much that is happening if at all (I can't see people throwing out a perfectly good CPU they are more likely to sell it which would result it still being in the market) and given we can only comment on the facts we have been given, the math is pretty solid.

 

You are making assumptions about attrition.

[xriqn]

AMD have rapidly increased their market share due to their good price to performance on their CPUs. Intel are losing to AMD because they charge for superior performance at a completely unreasonable price in comparison to the performance you get. Keep it up AMD!

[Stefan Payne]

Just now, mr moose said:

No one is phasing out a 1 year old CPU.  And any that do would barely show up on the stats.

I never said that, I said lets assume 5 Years.

 

And what you are also forgetting is that Sandy Bridge, Bloomfield, Lynnfield, Arrendale, Phenom, Bulldozer are phased out and recicled.

And sometimes even a Haswell System (wich is already around 5 Years old) dies. Sometimes its only a Power Supply and people throw out the whole machine.

Those are replaced, with either an AMD or Intel processor. So when AMD sells more than before, they will increase their market share because old systems die or get recycled.

 

The Market Share we have right now is because AMD sold way less than Intel...

 

If AMD and Intel sell 50:50 right now, it will rapidly rise a couple of percent and then slowly rise up until both have 50:50.

 

Why are you claiming that AMD has to sell more than Intel to increase Market Share?!
That makes no sense. And violates Physics.

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

I never said that, I said lets assume 5 Years.

 

 

Alright, come back in 5 years and we can have this discussion. Because as of right now they are only comparing coffeelake to ryzen, of which ryzen has been out longer,  so buy your math if they remain on 50/50 sales then AMD should lose market share in 5 years. 

[Stefan Payne]

Why so angry?

 

If you have two Pizzerias, one sells 20 Pizzas a Day, the other 100 Pizzas A day.

Then one day The other Pizzeria comes up with a new thing and now they sell both 60 Pizzas a Day.

 

So according to you, the Market Share on Pizzas didn't change because Pizzeria B has to sell more than Pizzeria A to increase their Market Share.

 

Well, no, makes no sense. You see that, don't you?

 

Its the Same with the Market Share of Microprocesors right now. While the Market is limited, so is the ammount of sold processors, if both sell 50% each, then one day they will have almost 50%.

 

Yes, there is an existing ammount of Processors but many of them get recycled each year because they failed. So if most of the failed ones are Intel and they get replaced by AMD, the Market Share of AMD will increase, obviously...

 

 

But what you also miss is that every Processor that AMD Sells is one less for the Other and Vice Versa. So they will increase Market share because they sell more than before.

And that is the important metric!
 

That they sell more compared to the market. ie if they sold 2% of the Market demand of processors and now sell 30% of Market Demand, that means that the Market Share will rise because they sell more.

 

 

Why do you claim that it doesn?!

 

[JoeCoke]

50% seems a little.... Er... Optimistic.

[Stefan Payne]

7 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

50% seems a little.... Er... Optimistic.

Yes, it was just an example of this specific case with the numbers from this shop in this region.

 

 

The Reality is probably something like 70:30 or so,

 

[asus killer]

9 hours ago, cj09beira said:

the thing is that until recently most people didn't have many cores left as most of the market is the i3 equivalent or lower which until now only had 2 cores, now the i3 moved to 4 cores which is great and the mid range to 6+-smt this means that coding for more cores now helps a much bigger part of the market so it should be a good catalyst for better software.

then we have the problem that most software is pretty old which means that moving to a good multicore implementation requires a lot of work though that work definitely pays off.

coding for multiple threads although harder than coding for a single thread it isn't impossible and there are lots of material about it, though its hard to convince your superior that doesn't know jack shit about coding why you need to remake a big part of the old code which might take you months to do

why would you buy more than an i3 or i5, you didn't need to, it was a waste of money. Still there were cpu's from AMD and Intel with more cores avaiable, more then 4 even.

[Mihle]

@Stefan Payne Is thinking all Intel Vs all AMD CPUs.

@mr moose Is thinking just Coffee Lake Vs Ryzen.

 

But for what Mr moose said to be true, the graph would have to only show Cofffee lake and Ryzen and be all time sales for rhem, but it doesn't, it is some 7xxx gen Intel CPUs there too, and the 50/50 numbers is just for the last month. I think.

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, Mihle said:

@Stefan Payne Is thinking all Intel Vs all AMD CPUs.

@mr moose Is thinking just Coffee Lake Vs Ryzen.

 

But for what Mr moose said to be true, the graph would have to only show Cofffee lake and Ryzen and be all time sales for rhem, but it doesn't, it is some 7xxx gen Intel CPUs there too, and the 50/50 numbers is just for the last month. I think.

 

I don't really care what the graph says, the title says coffeelake v ryzen and 50/50 is even stevens on the sales front.   Percentage of actual growth will be different for each company assuming a difference in initial market share.  But add one to them and one to the other in my book is a sale each.

[Jito463]

On 8/3/2018 at 11:27 AM, Stefan Payne said:

They have a superior product to Intel...

They have a comparable product to Intel, neither one is truly superior.  Intel has advantages in some areas, while AMD has advantages in other areas.  If AMD could increase the clock speed to match up with Intel and improve their AVX2/AVX512 support, then one might be able to argue that they have the superior product.  Until then, it's a give and take situation (as it should be, in my opinion; choose what's best for me rather than be limited to one option).

[Fred Castellum]

Title is misleading, AMD and Intel both holding 50% market share is a insane change.

 

AMD's stock price would be at least double what it is now if they managed that so quickly. So in other words they'd be closing on the $40 mark.

 

[Taf the Ghost]

55 minutes ago, MyInnerFred said:

Title is misleading, AMD and Intel both holding 50% market share is a insane change.

 

AMD's stock price would be at least double what it is now if they managed that so quickly. So in other words they'd be closing on the $40 mark.

 

AMD being at 50% market share in the Retail Desktop space wouldn't actually do all that much to the stock. Even during the Bulldozer era, AMD still hung around in the 30s. All of the volume is in the OEM area.

[Fred Castellum]

9 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

AMD being at 50% market share in the Retail Desktop space wouldn't actually do all that much to the stock. Even during the Bulldozer era, AMD still hung around in the 30s. All of the volume is in the OEM area.

Retail desktop space? Surely not, server space? Definitely see a price hike. 

 

Though AMD is running on speculation hype more than anything as of late, retail market share wouldn't be a good sole indicator of company valuation however if they do have such a high market share control on the retail market I'll bet the server based market would be close behind if not already ahead. Been trading AMD since it was $2 a share, I've got a pretty good handle on how it moves now, it's honestly a really good stock to swing trade for profit.

 

If you take a look at the chart below, it's been playing within the $9 to $14 range pretty predictably until just recently where it finally blew past the $15 - $16 barrier.