Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Xbit] Intel Continues to Dominate, But AMD Manages to Slightly Gain CPU Market Share in 2011 - IDC.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Xbit] Intel Continues to Dominate, But AMD Manages to Slightly Gain CPU Market Share in 2011 - IDC. - Page 4

post #31 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkillzKillz View Post

Actually that would be Intel competing against itself.

Yeah, I know. I am not sure which one is better...
 
Cheesecake
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k Gene-Z Gen3 R9 290 G.Skill Sniper 8 GB 1866 9-9-9-28-1T 
CoolingCoolingPowerCase
Kraken Lots of airflow :P TX850 version 2 Plasti-Dipped 350D 
AudioAudioAudio
Xonar DX [sold] Sennheiser HD 555 FiiO E10 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
Phenom II X4 @ 4000/2800 ASRock Extreme4 970 Big Air Cheesecake  Tr Silver Arrow 
CoolingCase
Tr Shaman Centurion 590 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Cheesecake
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k Gene-Z Gen3 R9 290 G.Skill Sniper 8 GB 1866 9-9-9-28-1T 
CoolingCoolingPowerCase
Kraken Lots of airflow :P TX850 version 2 Plasti-Dipped 350D 
AudioAudioAudio
Xonar DX [sold] Sennheiser HD 555 FiiO E10 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
Phenom II X4 @ 4000/2800 ASRock Extreme4 970 Big Air Cheesecake  Tr Silver Arrow 
CoolingCase
Tr Shaman Centurion 590 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 105
Oh look, it's Intel fanboy thread #10000. Seriously, if you didn't realize that an 8-core that cost sub-$350 would be slower in single-threaded than a $230 quad-core, I can't help you. If you're disappointed that the FX-6100 is slower than the 1100T, that's reasonable. But what did you really expect, going from 1 core = 1 ALU, 1 FPU; to 1 module/2 cores = 2 ALUs, 1 FPU? Just grow up, get over it, go with Intel if you want higher single-threaded performance, go with AMD if you want higher multi-threaded performance. Or spend $600 on an Intel 6-core.

And also, it is something to consider. How innovative was Intel in the past ~10 years, really? AMD made the first 64-bit CPU, first dual-core on one die, first quad on one die, technically Intel got the first "APU" to market, although AMD has the first netbook APU, first 35W laptop quad, DX11 integrated graphics. Not to mention they had the first IMC, had a much better system than the FSB (HTT) , which Intel is now mimmicking. You can still OC any of AMD's desktop CPU's - the cheapest Intel CPU that can OC more than 200mhz has a $230 MSRP. AMD had unlocked multi's on midrange dual-cores since before Intel made any sort of OCing some luxury feature. But continue praising Intel for holding back their performance. I'm sure they love people falling for $120 dual-cores that are barely faster than overclocked C2D's.
 
Lanbox Lite
(16 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i3-2310M Intel HD 3000 8GB DDR3 Samsung 830 64GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
640GB Hitachi HDD Windows 7 13.3" LCD Magnesium Alloy, 3.2lbs 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GPM-UD2H MSI Hawk R5770 3x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 250 GB WD Caviar Black Samsung 20X DVD-R/RW Thermaltake MaxOrb 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Noctua NF-B9-1600 Windows 7 Pro 64-bit BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 TT Purepower 500W 
Case
TT Lanbox Lite 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Lanbox Lite
(16 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i3-2310M Intel HD 3000 8GB DDR3 Samsung 830 64GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
640GB Hitachi HDD Windows 7 13.3" LCD Magnesium Alloy, 3.2lbs 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GPM-UD2H MSI Hawk R5770 3x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 250 GB WD Caviar Black Samsung 20X DVD-R/RW Thermaltake MaxOrb 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Noctua NF-B9-1600 Windows 7 Pro 64-bit BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 TT Purepower 500W 
Case
TT Lanbox Lite 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 105
Quote:
And also, it is something to consider. How innovative was Intel in the past ~10 years, really? AMD made the first 64-bit CPU, first dual-core on one die, first quad on one die, technically Intel got the first "APU" to market, although AMD has the first netbook APU, first 35W laptop quad, DX11 integrated graphics. Not to mention they had the first IMC, had a much better system than the FSB (HTT) , which Intel is now mimmicking. You can still OC any of AMD's desktop CPU's - the cheapest Intel CPU that can OC more than 200mhz has a $230 MSRP. AMD had unlocked multi's on midrange dual-cores since before Intel made any sort of OCing some luxury feature. But continue praising Intel for holding back their performance. I'm sure they love people falling for $120 dual-cores that are barely faster than overclocked C2D's.

Well said.
Worse than crack.
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3570k Asrock z77 extreme4 Saphire R9 290 Samsung green 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 840 ssd Samsung f3 spinpoint Win8 pro X-star 2560x1440 27in 
KeyboardCaseMouseMouse Pad
Microsoft x4 Sidewinder Haf 922 Razor Naga Fragmat 
  hide details  
Reply
Worse than crack.
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3570k Asrock z77 extreme4 Saphire R9 290 Samsung green 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 840 ssd Samsung f3 spinpoint Win8 pro X-star 2560x1440 27in 
KeyboardCaseMouseMouse Pad
Microsoft x4 Sidewinder Haf 922 Razor Naga Fragmat 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 105
Wow, read this whole article and thread and I'm a bit taken back by some of the comments, though clearly Intel is dominating....

At this point I cannot even see AMD being a viable choice if Ivy Bridge brings +15 % to + 25% performance gain even....

Since Intel will be introducing the HD 4000 Graphics in Ivy Bridge, if it's good enough to run HD Video, look out!

Sure I'd love to see AMD win a lot more shares, but you all know it really comes down to a companies reputation which is dictated by facts.

Intel is winning in CPU performance, which matters the most, furthermore they are integrating more and more onto the die, which is awesome!

AMD didnt' give us more cores (moar coars!) they sold us a bunch of hype that was Bulldozer. They would have been better to call those crummy modules a core with Turbo Threading or something like Hyper Threading, rather than to try to pawn off these crummy modules as 2 cores which doesn't even perform on the level of ONE of intel's i3/i5/k7 cores, unfortunately...

With that being said, if, and that's a huge word, if AMD can deliver something competitive to the markets, I'd take a look at them again. Once AMD fans taste what Sandy Bridge & Ivy Bridge can do, they won't even bother with AMD any more, unfortunately...

I was hoping AMD would pull out a win, instead they pulled off a fail, twice! frown.gif
Edited by _GTech - 3/18/12 at 9:12pm
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
post #35 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ESP View Post

Intel's market share is so high that people optimize their programs for Intel CPU's only. With Bulldozer there were basically NO programs that were designed to run well on it and it's new instruction set. If the next generation of consoles are running on AMD CPU's that means that games will be coded to run well on them, which should translate to console ports being coded to run well on AMD CPUs.
When games are running better on AMD cpu's instead of Intel because of how they are coded, AMD will gain more marketshare.

How do you manage to code a application to utilize a architecture? It's simple, you cannot. Games aren't compiled in favor of one architecture over another. The reason Intel was and still is winning, is because of its better core performance. Let alone how many games are compiled with Intel's compiler? Maybe 1-3? More then 99% of games are compiled with Microsoft's compiler. The only reason Intel benches better is because its architecture is superior to AMD's.
Main Rig
(14 items)
 
Linux Rig
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II x3 450 Biostar A880GZ PowerColor HD 4650 DDR3 4GB Samsung MV-3V2G3/US 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 830 128GB (Pending) ASUS DRW-24B1ST Stock Windows 8 Enterprise x64 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Classic 200 300w Hipro a1410n HP 1000 DPI 
Mouse PadAudio
Standard Realtek ALC662 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Sempron 3000+ ASUS A7V8X-LA VIA KM400A 2GB DDR 333 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
40GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 Samsung Writemaster Stock ASUS Ubuntu 12.04 
PowerCase
Hipro 250W SR1500NX 
  hide details  
Reply
Main Rig
(14 items)
 
Linux Rig
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II x3 450 Biostar A880GZ PowerColor HD 4650 DDR3 4GB Samsung MV-3V2G3/US 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 830 128GB (Pending) ASUS DRW-24B1ST Stock Windows 8 Enterprise x64 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Classic 200 300w Hipro a1410n HP 1000 DPI 
Mouse PadAudio
Standard Realtek ALC662 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Sempron 3000+ ASUS A7V8X-LA VIA KM400A 2GB DDR 333 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
40GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 Samsung Writemaster Stock ASUS Ubuntu 12.04 
PowerCase
Hipro 250W SR1500NX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 105

Again, the compilers work for AMD processors because they have the same instruction set. The difference is that AMD's implementation of SSE, AVX, and other instruction sets are implemented differently from Intel which could explain some performance degradation coupled with esoteric architecture.
Quote:
Intel® IPP library is optimized for Intel and compatible processors. It is OK to use IPP library on either Intel processors or compatible AMD* processors, both 32-bit and 64-bit processor.

Actually, IPP library dispatches optimized code according to detected processor features

Also, what does the second link prove other than Intel processors are more widely used and thus their compilers are as well. There really isn't any hard proof that AMD processors are crippled especially when the FX 8150 performs similar to a 2600k in certain FP workloads.
Edited by BizzareRide - 3/18/12 at 9:11pm
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeeki View Post

I like AMD. I hope they gain more in 2012.
I agree. Their APUs really are great. I'm surprised I don't see more of them on the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtom320 View Post

Not sure about PS4 but I know for a fact both Wii U and 720 will be using some type of Power PC multi-core processor. I believe it's based off PPC7 but it's been a long time since I browsed B3D.
If PS4 is using some sort of modified BD core I see it as a mistake. Not even going into Bulldozer performance the power consumption is wayyy too high for a console that needs to pull under 200 watts system wide.
17W Trinity APUs would like to have a word with you. And there are rumors of the 720 using an x86 CPU. I believe the original Xbox did?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotUrAverageJoe View Post

Phenom II performed better than Bulldozer because they were focused on important things like IPC and memory latencies. For example, AMD decided to give up on IPC and go for higher clocks. Not only does it make the chip considerably slower, they made this change before they even finished the efficiency advancements that are supposedly in Piledriver. The end result is a chip that's not only 15% slower clock for clock than its predecessor, but also uses a ton of power at high clock speeds. That has nothing to do with Intel bias - that's a ridiculously stupid design.
It's not about IPC. It's about IPS. If they can get IPS higher, despite lower IPC, the processor will be faster. And the flaws in bulldozer aren't due to its nature, but rather its execution. It was the little mistakes that brought it down. And if they can fix those in Piledriver, then they just might have a winner.
:O
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3930k Rampage IV Formula ASUS HD 7970 DCII 16GB G.Skill 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
1.5TB WD Caviar Black 64GB Crucial M4 Corsair H100i Windows 7 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
Asus 24" 1920x1080 Thermaltake 750w NZXT Phantom Orange (special edition!) Sennheiser HD 280 
  hide details  
Reply
:O
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3930k Rampage IV Formula ASUS HD 7970 DCII 16GB G.Skill 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
1.5TB WD Caviar Black 64GB Crucial M4 Corsair H100i Windows 7 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
Asus 24" 1920x1080 Thermaltake 750w NZXT Phantom Orange (special edition!) Sennheiser HD 280 
  hide details  
Reply
post #38 of 105
Granted if Trinity improves CPU Performance & GPU Performance & is 17w, that's something to bark about, definitely!

That would be worth using for a super low powered HTPC. biggrin.gif

Piledriver will be worth taking a good look at, surely...
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
post #39 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by BizzareRide View Post

Again, the compilers work for AMD processors because they have the same instruction set. The difference is that AMD's implementation of SSE, AVX, and other instruction sets are implemented differently from Intel which could explain some performance degradation coupled with esoteric architecture.
Quote:
Intel® IPP library is optimized for Intel and compatible processors. It is OK to use IPP library on either Intel processors or compatible AMD* processors, both 32-bit and 64-bit processor.
Actually, IPP library dispatches optimized code according to detected processor features
Also, what does the second link prove other than Intel processors are more widely used and thus their compilers are as well. There really isn't any hard proof that AMD processors are crippled especially when the FX 8150 performs similar to a 2600k in certain FP workloads.

Did you look at the 1st link thoroughly? There is can be appreciable gains in performance just by changing the Vendor ID of the Nano from VIA to Intel.
GE60
(13 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsHard DriveOS
Intel Core i5 4200M Geforce GTX760M 750GB WD Scorpio Black Windows 7 Home Premium 
MonitorKeyboardMouseMouse Pad
15.6" CM Quickfire Rapid CM Xornet Steelseries QcK+ 
  hide details  
Reply
GE60
(13 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsHard DriveOS
Intel Core i5 4200M Geforce GTX760M 750GB WD Scorpio Black Windows 7 Home Premium 
MonitorKeyboardMouseMouse Pad
15.6" CM Quickfire Rapid CM Xornet Steelseries QcK+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #40 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapientia View Post

It's not about IPC. It's about IPS. If they can get IPS higher, despite lower IPC, the processor will be faster. And the flaws in bulldozer aren't due to its nature, but rather its execution. It was the little mistakes that brought it down. And if they can fix those in Piledriver, then they just might have a winner.

I think you are mistaken my friend.

IPS = IPC x CPU Frequency

How are they going to raise their IPS without working on the IPC? Bulldozer already has a very high frequency. Going from a 4.8Ghz OC to 5.3 OC will make a minimal difference. And the flaws ARE do to its nature - longer pipe/higher latencies give you a severe penalty on calculations or programs that need to access cache as quickly as possible - and that's just part of the problem. We could have a 5 page discussion about the different design flaws of BD. Even a 15% boost in IPC would only make it dead even clock for clock with the Phenom II architecture.

AMD needs to swallow it's pride and scrap this roadmap. Release a Phenom III that incorporates the new power advancements planned for Piledriver + new optimizations of BD and they'll at least be competitive. We don't have 2-3 years to wait for this new roadmap to bear fruit.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom X6 1090T ASUS M5A97 EVO Sapphire HD 6970 G-Skill Ripjaws DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
SanDisk Extreme SDSSDX-240G-G25 Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 LITE-ON Black 12X BD-ROM Corsair H80 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit ASUS VS228H-P 21.5-Inch LED Monitor Logitech Wave Corsair TX750 V2 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair Carbide 500R Logitech MX-518 XTRAC PADS Ripper 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom X6 1090T ASUS M5A97 EVO Sapphire HD 6970 G-Skill Ripjaws DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
SanDisk Extreme SDSSDX-240G-G25 Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 LITE-ON Black 12X BD-ROM Corsair H80 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit ASUS VS228H-P 21.5-Inch LED Monitor Logitech Wave Corsair TX750 V2 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair Carbide 500R Logitech MX-518 XTRAC PADS Ripper 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Xbit] Intel Continues to Dominate, But AMD Manages to Slightly Gain CPU Market Share in 2011 - IDC.