Friday, June 4th 2021

AMD Breaks 30% CPU Market Share in Steam Hardware Survey

Today, Valve has updated its Steam Hardware Survey with the latest information about the market share of different processors. Steam Hardware Survey is a very good indicator of market movements, as it surveys users that are spread across millions of gaming systems that use Valve's Steam gaming platform. As Valve processes information, it reports it back to the public in a form of market share of different processors. Today, in the Steam Hardware Survey for May 2021, we got some interesting data to look at. Most notably, AMD has gained 0.65% CPU market share, increasing it from the previous 29.48% to 30.13%. This represents a major move for the company, which didn't own more than 30% market share with its CPUs on Steam Survey in years.

As the Steam Survey tracks even the market share of graphics cards, we got to see a slight change there as well. As far as GPUs go, AMD now holds 16.2% of the market share, which is a decrease from the previous 16.3%. For more details about Steam Hardware Survey for May 2021, please check out Steam's website here.
Source: Steam Hardware Survey
Add your own comment

104 Comments on AMD Breaks 30% CPU Market Share in Steam Hardware Survey

#51
TheLostSwede
demian_vithat's the whole point @Chaitanya first post that you replied to: AMD is focusing their available wafers to consoles and to Apple (until M1) resulting in less desktop CPU and in the slowly decreased Steam HW %
you surely like to make other people replies look irrelevant


what does THAT have to do with @Chaitanya's point
Says who? Do you actually know this, or are you making assumptions?
Also, do you know that the console SoCs are coming out of AMD's allocation at TSMC, or does Sony and Microsoft have their own allocation with TSMC?
The media is reporting it as AMD allocation, but since we don't have any business insight here and neither do they, we don't know how it works.
And why would AMD focus on Apple? They use a bunch of old hardware and there's no shortage on those nodes as such.
Sorry, but unless you have some actual facts here, this is just assumptions that you guys are making.

The point is, this is a Steam survey about PC hardware, it has nothing to do with consoles.
FouquinMacbook Pro 16" uses Navi graphics. Mac Pro uses user replaceable Polaris and Vega cards currently. iMac Pro until this year had Vega. iMac 27" uses Navi.

They sell a lot of AMD chips in their current lineup.
Define a lot. Those are all fairly low volume products, with the possibly exception being the MacBook Pro.
Posted on Reply
#52
moob
KainXS5800x in particular runs hot for me but 5900x and 5600x are great cpus. It's to be expected that AMD is coming up with how intel is doing, they have flat out better cpus right now and they listen to the community. I'm surprised it's not higher tb but given the times upgrading your computer might not be a good idea for people with all the part shortages and scalping.
My 5800X definitely runs a bit hotter than the other 5000 CPUs but it's not too bad. It's also down to $370 at Micro Center, which is what I feel like the price should have been around at launch.
Posted on Reply
#53
evernessince
freeagentYou sure it was DOA? They test the shit out of them before they leave the factory do they not?

My 5900X idles down to 25c.. could be a cooling issue maybe?
They do test the heck out of them. CPU DOAs are extraordinary rare.
Posted on Reply
#54
Fouquin
TheLostSwedeDefine a lot. Those are all fairly low volume products, with the possibly exception being the MacBook Pro.
A lot: more than 150K annually, minimum. It's easy to overlook that Mac sales are substantial simply because iPhone/iPad sales dwarf it. But ~7M Macs shipped in Q4 2020, even if only 1% of them were variants of the listed models that would be 70,000 AMD equipped devices; 280K annualized. On top of that AMD produces devices specifically for Apple, such as multi-GPU solutions and custom boards with increased cost and complexity, that don't ship with completed systems and are sold as accessory SKUs. It's no small figure.
Posted on Reply
#55
Panther_Seraphin
So when people are going "where are AMD graphics cards?" they need to think about some of the decisions AMD have to make

CPUs
3xxx series Ryzen was the superior chip to anything on the market in nearly every aspect which meant everyone wanted them. 5xxx series basically turns it all up to 11 with intel misfiring on both 10th and 11th gen releases of Core.
In the server market Ryzen has been more than viable if not the superior choce in nearly all aspects especially since Rome.

GPUs
6xxx series is very much a viable product, however in recent times they have been very hit and miss. 5xxx series was a decent product but there was a lot of competition from Nvidia up and down the product stack. Radeon VII was something they could say they released but was more paper release vs a mass release.

Consoles
Guaranteed sales, Guaranteed Income and contractually obligated to deliver quite a few processors to both Sony and Xbox especially with BOTH of them releasing consoles very recently especially of differing designs in regards to Xbox so basically 3 differening SOCs required.


So where do you divide your alotment of wafers? Into areas that you know you are going to make you money and are a really safe bet or commit more to a "possible" product stack that are a complete unknown in terms of market acceptance and performance of your competition. 6xxx series availability is suffering from the success of the CPU dept literally being the goose who laid the golden egg for the last 2+ years plus the heightend demand for new SOCs from the new consoles. I can imagine AMD were like "wait people reallly really want the 6xxx series? TSMC We need MOAR!!!" while TSMC is going "Who Doesnt?"
Posted on Reply
#56
Richards
KhonjelRegarding AMD vs Nvidia in GPU share, just look at RTX 2060 vs RX 5700 (close counterpart) percentage. RTX 2060 (5%) alone dwarves RX 5700 XT (1.03%) + non-XT (0.97%) + 5600 XT (0.36%) combined. Is just AMD significantly lost the mindshare game against Nvidia, even in the midrange where AMD used to contend better on.

And like I've said previously time and time again AMD's flip-flopping on naimng convention isn't helping anybody, least of them AMD. It's kinda the opposite of the CPU side of things. There's a premordial constant hype and media coverage around Ryzen processors while for GPUs it's Nvidia said this, people can't buy RTX GPU that and so on.
Nvidia even found a valid tactic of keeping themselves on media limelight with their RTX/DLSS support announcement every few weeks, which I think replaced their AAA Game Ready Driver update they used few years ago.
Jensen knows how yo market
Posted on Reply
#57
Robin Seina
Steam Hardware Survey is a very good indicator of market movements, as it surveys users that are spread across millions of gaming systems that use Valve's Steam gaming platform.
Let me laugh. A lot of laugh. Steam survey is not very good indicator because, it is unusable as reliable statistics. It has not published its survey mechanics/method of choosing sample, nor the size of sample, and it is known, that it favours intel computers. Also it counts multiple users of same computers (typically internet café players).
Posted on Reply
#58
Richards
Robin SeinaLet me laugh. A lot of laugh. Steam survey is not very good indicator because, it is unusable as reliable statistics. It has not published its survey mechanics/method of choosing sample, nor the size of sample, and it is known, that it favours intel computers. Also it counts multiple users of same computers (typically internet café players).
Lol and YouTube is more reliable than steam smh..
Posted on Reply
#59
Robin Seina
RichardsLol and YouTube is more reliable than steam smh..
Well if you believe that, then I can laugh even more. Please, use a better arguments.
Posted on Reply
#60
TheLostSwede
FouquinA lot: more than 150K annually, minimum. It's easy to overlook that Mac sales are substantial simply because iPhone/iPad sales dwarf it. But ~7M Macs shipped in Q4 2020, even if only 1% of them were variants of the listed models that would be 70,000 AMD equipped devices; 280K annualized. On top of that AMD produces devices specifically for Apple, such as multi-GPU solutions and custom boards with increased cost and complexity, that don't ship with completed systems and are sold as accessory SKUs. It's no small figure.
Sorry, but that's a drop in the ocean. In 2019 AMD shipped 79 million GPUs.
Posted on Reply
#63
Panther_Seraphin
TheLostSwedewww.statista.com/statistics/1123778/number-of-amd-radeon-gpu-shipments-worldwide
What is interesting about that is "AMD will soon be adding Samsung smartphones to the list of platforms using their GPUs, further adding to the number of GPU shipments made by the company."

So of those 79 million how many Exynos chipsets are included in those numbers? Are all the Professional GPUs included in those as well? (I suspect yes) Are the Console GPUs also included? (Again I suspect yes)
Posted on Reply
#66
TheLostSwede
Panther_SeraphinWhat is interesting about that is "AMD will soon be adding Samsung smartphones to the list of platforms using their GPUs, further adding to the number of GPU shipments made by the company."

So of those 79 million how many Exynos chipsets are included in those numbers? Are all the Professional GPUs included in those as well? (I suspect yes) Are the Console GPUs also included? (Again I suspect yes)
And this is relevant to the Apple shipments being a drop in the ocean how?
RichardsAre the any nvidia numbers ?
Try using a search engine. I don't work for you and it's not relevant to the question I replied to.
Posted on Reply
#68
DeathtoGnomes
Panther_SeraphinWell when Xilleon was sold Handset GPUs were a fraction of what they are now in terms of numbers/capabilities. Lets hope AMD remembers that this time :D
AMD hit a good spot to get out of headsets at that time.
RichardsAre the any nvidia numbers ?
Asking about Nvida numbers in a AMD thread, who pays you to troll here?
Posted on Reply
#69
The red spirit
Panther_SeraphinWell when Xilleon was sold Handset GPUs were a fraction of what they are now in terms of numbers/capabilities. Lets hope AMD remembers that this time :D
They sold it in 2008. iPhone was already made, just like so many cool Nokias. Android was also launched on HTC G1. They sold it just before phones became super profitable, that's an awful timing. If they managed to make some deals with Apple or Samsung, AMD would be stupidly rich today. I remember Intel trying to make into phone market with their Atom chips, but pretty much everything they made sucked.

However, at this point the market is cold. There aren't any breakthroughs, pretty much all phones are the same and nobody cares about them anymore as they are exactly the same flat rectangles. Only Apple and probably Samsung are making some serious money, meanwhile others like Xiaomi, Huawei, BBK are just racing to the bottom and trying to one up each other on price. The problem is that smartphones are already good and they are basically a commodity. You can't just add one truly great feature and get all the dough anymore. Just having a good camera like Nokias did, isn't enough, just playing mp3s like Sony Ericssons did, isn't enough. The only real innovation we will see is when someone will make a new and better battery type, otherwise smartphone market is too stagnant. Perhaps it can work out for you if you don't make phones and only supply parts, but otherwise it would be a horrible idea to enter this market. I think that AMD just missed most of their possible profit there during the gold era of smartphones, where everybody wanted one no matter how shit and low spec it was. Right now buying a smartphone is no more amusing than buying a microwave oven.
Posted on Reply
#70
Panther_Seraphin
DeathtoGnomesAMD hit a good spot to get out of headsets at that time.


Asking about Nvida numbers in a AMD thread, who pays you to troll here?
3 years later they would have been the only entry into the market.
The red spiritHowever, at this point the market is cold. There aren't any breakthroughs, pretty much all phones are the same and nobody cares about them anymore as they are exactly the same flat rectangles.
Hence why Samsung/AMD are trying to add things like ray tracing etc into phones to make them "serious gaming" platforms. What I can see is that if the partnership plays out well Ninetendo may want in on that sort of chipset for the switch upgrade/replacement,
Posted on Reply
#71
TheLostSwede
The red spiritThey sold it in 2008. iPhone was already made, just like so many cool Nokias. Android was also launched on HTC G1. They sold it just before phones became super profitable, that's an awful timing. If they managed to make some deals with Apple or Samsung, AMD would be stupidly rich today. I remember Intel trying to make into phone market with their Atom chips, but pretty much everything they made sucked.
Well, they sold an ATI business unit (in 2009, not 2008 btw) that wasn't performing particularly well at the time. The Imageon BU was actually doing very poorly for ATI and if you look at the link below, you'll see that they had very few design wins. Having only 50 device implementations in seven years isn't exactly what you'd call a thriving business, nor is 250 million units across some 30 different product SKUs and six years. That's less than 5 million units per device, which is plain terrible for something like this, even more so around that time, when phones were pretty much free if you got a contract and a lot of people had 2-3 devices. Some products, like the Tapwave Zodiac sold less than 200k units and it had a custom made GPU from ATI.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imageon
In fact, it wasn't until 2008 that they had an SoC, rather than a discrete mobile graphics chip. So it's actually impossible to say what could've been, considering that they only had a single SKU with two different sub SKUs that was a complete solution that would've been suitable for phones.
Panther_Seraphin3 years later they would have been the only entry into the market.
And we know this how? If AMD hadn't sold what they saw as a costly ATI BU with very few customers, then maybe they would just have shuttered it altogether.
Did they sell it too cheap? Most likely, but the world wasn't going crazy for mergers back then as it has been doing the past few years.
Also, what says Qualcomm wouldn't have made their own GPU or continued to license technology from AMD?

It's fun to speculate, but that's all this is, speculation.
Posted on Reply
#72
95Viper
Stay on topic.
Stop the insults/name calling.

Thank You, on-topic civil discussions, please.
Posted on Reply
#73
DeathtoGnomes
Panther_Seraphin3 years later they would have been the only entry into the market.
That might be true, but AMD dropped a lot of balls (no pun intended).
TheLostSwedeAnd we know this how? If AMD hadn't sold what they saw as a costly ATI BU with very few customers, then maybe they would just have shuttered it altogether.
Did they sell it too cheap? Most likely, but the world wasn't going crazy for mergers back then as it has been doing the past few years.
Also, what says Qualcomm wouldn't have made their own GPU or continued to license technology from AMD?

It's fun to speculate, but that's all this is, speculation.
yep speculation is fun in hindsight. "Coulda,..."
Posted on Reply
#74
TheLostSwede
DeathtoGnomesThat might be true, but AMD dropped a lot of balls (no pun intended).
Well, yes and no. They made some bad business decisions, but also some that ultimately saved the company.
Imagine all the extra costs they would've had today if they still owned GlobalFoundries, it would've meant AMD would've gone bust a long time ago.
If they hadn't bought ATI, there would most likely be no AMD today either, even though they spent way too much money on ATI, which among other things is part of the reason they were doing so poorly for a while.
Maybe there would've been another GPU alternative, but even at the time, no-one else would've been able to provide as profitable discrete graphics products as ATI, as most of the competition was already dead. It was another company that was ahead of its time and clearly didn't deliver what was promised.
Not sure it made sense that they bought SeaMicro, as I don't know what kind of know-how it brought to AMD, but product wise it didn't seem to bring anything really valuable.

All that said, if you take a look at Intel, you'll see that they've made an equally amount of bad choices of the years, they just had more capital and more market share, so it has been easier for them to overcome the bad choices they made and move on from there.
Posted on Reply
#75
Colddecked
TheLostSwedeWell, yes and no. They made some bad business decisions, but also some that ultimately saved the company.
Imagine all the extra costs they would've had today if they still owned GlobalFoundries, it would've meant AMD would've gone bust a long time ago.
If they hadn't bought ATI, there would most likely be no AMD today either, even though they spent way too much money on ATI, which among other things is part of the reason they were doing so poorly for a while.
Maybe there would've been another GPU alternative, but even at the time, no-one else would've been able to provide as profitable discrete graphics products as ATI, as most of the competition was already dead. It was another company that was ahead of its time and clearly didn't deliver what was promised.
Not sure it made sense that they bought SeaMicro, as I don't know what kind of know-how it brought to AMD, but product wise it didn't seem to bring anything really valuable.

All that said, if you take a look at Intel, you'll see that they've made an equally amount of bad choices of the years, they just had more capital and more market share, so it has been easier for them to overcome the bad choices they made and move on from there.
I thought SeaMicro tech is what infinity fabric was based on?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment