Tuesday, September 25th 2018

AMD May Regain ~30% Global Desktop CPU Market Share in Q4 2018, Says Digitimes

A report coming out of Digitimes earlier today forecasts AMD to continue their momentum in the desktop CPU market thus far in 2018, with as much as a 30% market share globally by the final quarter as per their correspondents. Their unnamed industry sources say, and we quote, "AMD has drastically changed its foundry strategy, loosening ties with Globalfoundries and contracting TSMC to fabricate its GPUs, server and PC processors on 7nm process. The policy change has sent AMD share prices rallying all the way since mid-2018 amid market expectations for better chip yield rates and performances as well as normal shipments to customers."

Intel's woes with the 14 nm process node has been reported before, let alone the troubled transition to the 10 nm process, which further helps AMD's case. The report further claims that board partners including ASUS, MSI, and Gigabyte "have ramped up production and shipments of devices fitted with AMD processors, driving up the chipmaker's share of the desktop processor market to over 20% in the third quarter. The company is very likely to see the figure further rebound to the level of 30% again." This, in addition to the recently announced AMD EPYC implementation contracts with Cisco and HPE, can make that 30% number more plausible as well. It remains to be seen what the following months hold for Intel and AMD in the desktop processor market, but there is no denying that things are competitive in multiple segments at the same time, and that is always a good thing for the consumer.
Source: Digitimes
Add your own comment

17 Comments on AMD May Regain ~30% Global Desktop CPU Market Share in Q4 2018, Says Digitimes

#1
megamanxtreme
The question I am thinking of is "Will AMD start to stagnate to let Intel catch up or keep the leaps going?" Assuming all goes well, of course. Competition is great.
Posted on Reply
#2
xkm1948
Athlon64 days flash in front of my eyes. Man those pricing were not that good.
Posted on Reply
#4
AlwaysHope
I wonder how the trade tensions between China & USA will play out now with the sanctions increasing?
What effects will this have on computer components market?
Posted on Reply
#5
notb
As usual: no source for the 20% share...

I love this part as well:
"This, in addition to the recently announced AMD EPYC implementation contracts with Cisco and HPE "
With recent announcements happening in May and early June.
Posted on Reply
#6
sergionography
megamanxtreme
The question I am thinking of is "Will AMD start to stagnate to let Intel catch up or keep the leaps going?" Assuming all goes well, of course. Competition is great.
If they innovate too fast they also would end up shooting themselves in the foot. Ultimately you need to make as much return on investment as possible rather than invest billions continuously with little return. Intel stagnated because they diversified their portfolio so they did R&D in other markets. at this point we are kind of at the mercy of the process shrinks for as long as we remain with x86 since we rely on adding more cores for performance. IPC can only be possibly improved by 5-10% per year before getting to a dead end, and higher frequency is harder and harder to come by the smaller the process gets.

We are at that point where old technology is reaching its limit, and the only way for progress is to reinvent computing altogether, such as quantum computing. Otherwise replacing silicon with Graphene or other materials is another way to improve current chips, however thats not likely to come from intel or AMD.
Posted on Reply
#7
Dammeron
Currently building a gaming rig is super expensive:
-MBs cost twice as much as their equivalent models from 6-7 years ago (highend Asus board around 200-250$ back then, up to 500$ now)
-RAM prices are over the roof
-CPU prices also had a 2x jump (i9 9900K vs. i7 2700K - yes, the new i9 is like i7 back then)
-GPUs - n/c...

So I'm waiting for Zen 2 and whatever AMD shows to counter Turing. If they do well next year, maybe we're gonna see some pricing fights between Blue, Red and Green.
Posted on Reply
#8
notb
Dammeron
So I'm waiting for Zen 2 and whatever AMD shows to counter Turing. If they do well next year, maybe we're gonna see some pricing fights between Blue, Red and Green.
Unlikely. You should not expect prices to drop down to ~2010 levels.
Demand for custom-built desktops shrunk. Gaming on a PC is becoming a niche activity.

We see a similar shift in electronics in general. Cameras shifted upwards by slowly killing low-end products (because of lower demand as well).
On the other hand, flagship smartphone prices are going up simply because people can spend more (since they don't buy PCs and cameras). They're priced like decent ultrabooks today.

But IMO it's mostly gamers' fault.
The community voted with wallets - it wants flashy, stylized PCs with unnecessary amount of cooling and other gadgets.
OC is super expensive these days and doesn't give as much gain as it used to. Then there are LEDs, funky cable management accessories, stylized motherboards and so on.
It's the same with peripherals. Who had a $100+ keyboard in 2005? Or expensive "gaming chairs"?
Gaming industry is milking players on every front.

Gaming PCs 15 years ago looked just like business / "casual" ones.
And if you wanted to OC... you only had to replace the stock cooler with a $50 one and you were good to go.

Just look at your post. "highend Asus board". Why do you need a "highend" model? Why not buy a cheaper one? There are plenty of very good $200 mobos. :-)
Posted on Reply
#9
Dammeron
notb
Just look at your post. "highend Asus board". Why do you need a "highend" model? Why not buy a cheaper one? There are plenty of very good $200 mobos. :)
Actually I needed it for all the ports and slots it had (had a huge rig for working/gaming).

But I concur - as long as people are paying for all this overpriced crap, there will be no salvation for us. It's the same with games - why they're cut out of all the content, that is sold separately in DLCs? Why all these season passes, PayToWin, shark cards, loot boxes and other microtransactions? Cause customers voted for that with their wallets...
Posted on Reply
#10
Vayra86
Dammeron
Currently building a gaming rig is super expensive:
-MBs cost twice as much as their equivalent models from 6-7 years ago (highend Asus board around 200-250$ back then, up to 500$ now)
-RAM prices are over the roof
-CPU prices also had a 2x jump (i9 9900K vs. i7 2700K - yes, the new i9 is like i7 back then)
-GPUs - n/c...

So I'm waiting for Zen 2 and whatever AMD shows to counter Turing. If they do well next year, maybe we're gonna see some pricing fights between Blue, Red and Green.
Eh... what?

A gaming rig will run fine with a 6c Intel/Ryzen, 16GB RAM and a 1070. That's a fat, beasty gaming rig already and its considered high end by many, still. It will play everything you throw at it. If you want 1440p, perhaps that should become a 1080, but then you're already gaming in enthusiast territory (top 10%) in terms of performance requirements.

- 500 dollar boards? They are the ultimate top-end you can get. In the meantime, Z boards still start at 100-110 bucks and if you pay over 150-180, you're already doing it wrong for a 'gaming rig'. AM4 is no different. Just because companies add new layers of 'enthusiast' on top of their existing line ups doesn't mean things actually got more expensive, it just means you can't look past the marketing and that should be food for thought IMO.
- The real price increase has only happened with RAM and on the total cost of a build you're looking at about a 10-12% increase for 16GB @ 2x8 GB sticks. For that, you do however get faster RAM and not the bog standard 1600 CL9 that we used to get for DDR3. You also have twice the capacity which, while recommended these days, still is twice the capacity.
- GPU, if you look at raw perf/dollar, hasn't really gotten much worse with Pascal and Pascal still is the best buy across the midrange > high end today, and will remain so for the near future. Pascal did get more pricy, but it also made a huge performance jump compared to previous generational leaps.
- Comparing an 8c16t CPU with a 4c8t... while a 4c/8t or 6c/6t is already more than enough to *max* ingame CPU performance.. yeah. Another monumental waste of cash.

The reality is that total price hasn't really increased all that much, its just that people buy insignificant crap to inflate price for themselves. Such as 500 dollar boards (I mean srsly...?), RGB, overpriced cases and shitty AIOs. There is a reason that 'premium' market niche is growing exponentially. It has the best margins, and its easy to make product for.
Posted on Reply
#11
Dammeron
Vayra86
(...)
You completely missed the whole point... We're not talking about what's worth of buying, but what You get for the same amount of money. And You get waay less in terms of performance/options for the current generation.

I'm comparing PC parts from the same performance level of 2 generations - what's the point of putting i7 2700K (best LGA1155 CPU back then) next to a high-ish range Ryzen 5/i5?

Same with motherboards - yes, You can buy a cheaper one. And guess what - You could've done it too 6 years ago. And the price difference still stands, whether You compare cheap MBs (60-70$ vs 100-110$), or expensive ones (200$ vs. 400$).

The total cost of the same level PC is much higher than few years ago.

Vayra86
GPU, if you look at raw perf/dollar, hasn't really gotten much worse with Pascal
The whole situation, where "performance/price" factor went down with new gen. GPUs is already unacceptable. That means You payed much more for not so much more of performance. Is it fine? No. 1080ti went for 700$ and it was 1,5 years ago. Why should I pay 170% (1200$), just to get only 135% performance in result after all this time?
Posted on Reply
#12
Fx
Dammeron
Currently building a gaming rig is super expensive:
-MBs cost twice as much as their equivalent models from 6-7 years ago (highend Asus board around 200-250$ back then, up to 500$ now)
This seems an exaggeration. In the US, high-end motherboards for both AMD and Intel are still between $200-300 today.
Posted on Reply
#13
Flow
Yeah, it's all a bit more expensive, but certainly not through the roof. High end boards used to be around 200, with a few around 300, but that was for extra ports etc etc.
A good board with enough power phases used to sit around 150 and budget below that. Now it's some 30 more for the same sort of hardware we got previously. Amounts can be seen in us dollars and euro's, for other valuta it would be double of my numbers, and I leave Brittish pound out of the equation, since they usually pay alot more than the rest of europe.

But in all truth, when I build a new system (7 years since the last one, hail to SB) i get motherboard, cpu and memory, the rest is from the previous system and will be upgraded at a later stage.
That was around 600 euro's back then. So if I do it now, I will most likely go around 800 euro's and that's a 25% increase in cost. then again, I needed 8GB ram back then, now I settle for 16GB, probably need a bigger psu also since my current one is blazing since around 2010, to my surprise I might add. That would be a t least 850watts which costs around 160 euro's.
Hmmm, I would also want a new case, also around 150 euro's. Just for tripple 200mm fans, as mentioned by a previous poster, cooling is also a thingy.
Well, it's certainly more expensive, but when on a budget you can still get away for around 700 bucks or so with such an upgrade. One can always reuse the pc case, drives and powersupply, videocard mouse keyboard and screen etc etc.
Only a new build would be more expensive.
Posted on Reply
#14
Vayra86
Dammeron
You completely missed the whole point... We're not talking about what's worth of buying, but what You get for the same amount of money. And You get waay less in terms of performance/options for the current generation.

I'm comparing PC parts from the same performance level of 2 generations - what's the point of putting i7 2700K (best LGA1155 CPU back then) next to a high-ish range Ryzen 5/i5?

Same with motherboards - yes, You can buy a cheaper one. And guess what - You could've done it too 6 years ago. And the price difference still stands, whether You compare cheap MBs (60-70$ vs 100-110$), or expensive ones (200$ vs. 400$).

The total cost of the same level PC is much higher than few years ago.



The whole situation, where "performance/price" factor went down with new gen. GPUs is already unacceptable. That means You payed much more for not so much more of performance. Is it fine? No. 1080ti went for 700$ and it was 1,5 years ago. Why should I pay 170% (1200$), just to get only 135% performance in result after all this time?
- You said earlier the price of an equivalent MB doubled. It really didn't, you just said the polar opposite.
- Only RAM has seen steep price increases
- PSU, and especially storage has not increased in price. Performance of storage has - we have more options now at new price brackets.
- GPU, if you look at Pascal and AMD's offering, has relatively not become that much more expensive. What has happened is that the performance gap between mid range and high end has become a whole lot wider, and the jump in performance last gen was a lot higher than generations prior to it, which justifies the price hike on same tier cards. GPU is only more expensive if you choose to play on a higher res than 1080p which frankly, is a luxury just like dual or triple screen was back in the day.

I don't consider it fair to consider the pricing of Turing relevant at this point in time. There is no telling what will happen to it.
- What's left to make a rig more expensive is simply this: wider choice in core counts/ 4c/8t is still very much sufficient today as it was back then, and while it isn't high end, you could also buy HEDT back then and get yourself 6-8 core CPUs - the price was prohibitive and high core count simply didn't pay off for gaming. Why is today any different with a 500 dollar 9900K on the table? The moment you go over 6 cores, you don't gain any meaningful FPS. The 8700K is ~20-25% more expensive for a similar core count increase and is the same type of overkill as the 2700K was back then. So let's take that in.

We have about ~100 bucks for 16GB of RAM (versus 8 GB) as a real price increase.
We have about 80-100 bucks for the 8700K over a 2700K as a real price increase.

A complete cost effective gaming rig is what, 1200-1300 bucks.
Factor in half a decade of inflation... Its really not that bad. Realistically you might say its around 10-15% more expensive.
Posted on Reply
#15
quadibloc
I would be glad to see more competition. And there was a recent news item about VIA, in conjunction with a Chinese firm, making a competitive processor. Since Intel is having chips made at TSMC, and GlobalFoundries has abandoned plans to go to 7nm, though, I don't see that Intel is really in a worse position than AMD, even if they do have problems with 10nm and everyone else gets to 7nm without any problems.
Posted on Reply
#16
medi01
megamanxtreme
Will AMD start to stagnate to let Intel catch up or keep the leaps going?
Leap mainly made up for Buldozer sucking, expecting progress like that going forward is unrealistic, oh, and Intel didn't "stagnate" either:

Posted on Reply
#17
megamanxtreme
medi01
Leap mainly made up for Buldozer sucking, expecting progress like that going forward is unrealistic, oh, and Intel didn't "stagnate" either:
It's merely a "What if" scenario but that Bulldozer part makes sense.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment