Steam Survey Update: It's All About Quad-cores, NVIDIA and Windows 10

[medi01]

Around 100 million consoles out there.
With 8 core CPU.
So.

Overwatch is optimized for 6 threads.

 

[Toothless]

Around 100 million consoles out there.
With 8 core CPU.
So.

Overwatch is optimized for 6 threads.

Not really, actually not the case at all. Just because cons- nevermind I'm not even going to try to explain it to you. I'll just put in a friend of mine is using a weak dual-core chip and is running the game perfectly fine.

 

[notb]

Around 100 million consoles out there.
With 8 core CPU.
So.

Overwatch is optimized for 6 threads.

If it really uses just 6 cores (I can't confirm that) then it's either just artificially limited (unlikely) or was optimized to use 6 cores by some clever multitasking.

If the latter is true, you should in fact be glad that this game can use 6 out of 8 cores.

 

[Kaotik]

Actually it popped up on me yesterday. You can do it anytime you like it’s under the Help tab.

LOL, good reasons listed...
Doesn't it record and send it off automatically? I don't recall filling anything out?

Yes, but it's supposed to ask for your permission for sending the information to Valve each time. I know for a fact that I've switched hardware several times and haven't had it pop up on me related to that, last time it popped up on my account was on my laptop, before that I went through 2 or 3 hardware changes (switched RAM (which also changed how much of RAM I have) and twice video card switch) without getting it once on my desktop

 

[Melvis]

But we're talking about market share. AMD's market share went up in value, but what about the prices? Half a year ago their best selling CPUs were under $100. Ryzen 1600 is $210 and Ryzen 7s are even more expensive.
Yet, we don't see AMD revenue from CPUs jumping by a factor of 2 (or more), so it would seem that they're not selling as many CPUs as they used to. Essentially, they're loosing the mass market of cheap CPUs, replacing it with a fairly rare high-end product.

Prices? erm where have you been? you know why the prices of there CPU's have gone up? Zen, its a good fast processor of course there going to charge more to compete with intels offerings (its competitive) How did you get a factor of 2 from? your pulling numbers out of thin air now, the Zen CPU's would of cost alot more to manufacture so the revenue there making wouldn't be as much till the cost of making these CPU's come down which it will over time and with the increase in sales which is there like I said above. They are clearing selling these CPU's and alot more then they used to otherwise the facts that are all over this thread cant happen. Remember the 939 days? its sorta like that, to buy a 3700+ Sandiego core cost me over $300 now that wasnt cheap! and compared to what you get today for the same money, Zen is holy crap cheap for the performance. So dont think there expensive when there clearly not.

APU's are coming! and this is what will cover the cheap side of the market.

AMD cards are available - they're just very expensive, so not a very sensible choice for gaming right now.

Where from? pretty much every online store in Aus and ebay show pretty much nothing or sold out or out of stock and if there is any in stock then why do you think there so expensive? because there in HIGH demand, prices go up. Nvidia is the same, the prices of 1060's have gone up over here also. Its all about the mining, and the high demand for GPU's, nothing more. When the mining boom crashes and it will watch the prices of these GPU's plummet!

 

[notb]

(its competitive) How did you get a factor of 2 from? your pulling numbers out of thin air now,

This rant about prices and how much you love Ryzen was totally unnecessary.

I'm just saying that CPUs currently offered by AMD are at least twice as expensive as what they were selling before Zen launch.
So if they were selling just as many CPUs as before, the consumer segment revenue should be up 2 times at least (and around +50% overall).
The figures we've seen after Q1 (month of Ryzen sales - including large preorders) are nowhere near this.

In 2 weeks the Q2 figures will be out. We'll see...

Remember that for the past few years a lot of AMD customers were those looking for a cheap system (including a ~$100 CPU and cheap APUs). Sure, AMD took over some market share in the mid-high-end, but they're also sacrificing some of the low-end.

APU's are coming! and this is what will cover the cheap side of the market.

Unlikely. They used to have few APU variants under $150, but the cheapest 4-core Zen APU will have to be more expensive than a 4-core Ryzen (R5 1400 is $170).

 

[Melvis]

This rant about prices and how much you love Ryzen was totally unnecessary.

This isnt a rant its just facts, and who says I love Ryzen? do you see a ryzen build in my specs anywhere? Im holding out for Zen 2 I wont touch Ryzen 1, so stop spinning stupid answers to suit your needs again.

I'm just saying that CPUs currently offered by AMD are at least twice as expensive as what they were selling before Zen launch.

Well no shit sherlock, and i wonder why that is? Your obviously new to the PC world because your answers only cover a few yrs in the tech world thats for sure. Go do some research before you make yaself look even more silly.

So if they were selling just as many CPUs as before, the consumer segment revenue should be up 2 times at least (and around +50% overall).

Again how do you know? your pulling numbers out of your arse, fun fact, im pretty sure AMD are selling alot more (god knows how many more) then there last gen, and since your a genius tell us why that is?

The figures we've seen after Q1 (month of Ryzen sales - including large preorders) are nowhere near this.

In 2 weeks the Q2 figures will be out. We'll see...

Remember that for the past few years a lot of AMD customers were those looking for a cheap system (including a ~$100 CPU and cheap APUs). Sure, AMD took over some market share in the mid-high-end, but they're also sacrificing some of the low-end.

Do you even read what I wrote? or just put your head in the clouds and say whatever comes to mind? APU's and (I think Ryzen 3) arnt even out yet, and this will cover the lower end, they already covered the mid to high end with there launch, AMD had to hit hard to get noticed and get sales and they did just that, and this is a company that is tiny compared to intel its going to take time to get everything out that is on this new gen of CPU's.

Unlikely. They used to have few APU variants under $150, but the cheapest 4-core Zen APU will have to be more expensive than a 4-core Ryzen (R5 1400 is $170).

Really? well please link us all to this so we can all see what your seeing, because again your just pulling your answers out of the clouds.....again. Wish I had your crystal ball lol

 

[medi01]

If it really uses just 6 cores (I can't confirm that) then it's either just artificially limited (unlikely) or was optimized to use 6 cores by some clever multitasking.

If the latter is true, you should in fact be glad that this game can use 6 out of 8 cores.

I do, in fact, not give a flying f*ck about overwatch (or any other game) supporting or not supporting multi tasking, but thanks for caring.

Out of 8 cores on consoles, 2 were reserved by OS (now down to 1).
Blizzard has developed with consoles in mind.

Not really, actually not the case at all.

What is "actually not the case at all", oh enlightened one

I'll just put in a friend of mine is using a weak dual-core chip and...

Oh, Blizzard game RUNS on older hardware (I run Starcraft 2 on ATI Mobility 54xx series), news at 6pm!

 

[notb]

Out of 8 cores on consoles, 2 were reserved by OS (now down to 1).
Blizzard has developed with consoles in mind.

How do you arrive at such conclusions?

Well no shit sherlock, and i wonder why that is?

How is this even relevant?
Do you understand this topic? It's not about out opinion whether Ryzen is worth the money.

Again how do you know? your pulling numbers out of your arse, fun fact, im pretty sure AMD are selling alot more (god knows how many more) then there last gen, and since your a genius tell us why that is?

If they're selling a lot more, why isn't this visible in the Q1 financial statement? It already covered first month of Ryzen sales (and the massive preorder).

It would be great if we had access to proper sale data. One of few largest online stores in Poland shows how many people bought an item. And it looks like this:
All Ryzen 7 variants combined: 396
All 7700 variants combined: 1946.
Remember Ryzen 7 represents majority of Ryzen sales. Intel 7700 (including K and T) is not even the most popular Intel CPU in online retail stores. And of course such stores are just a small portion of what Intel sells overall, while for AMD they still represent vast majority of distribution.

Quite a lot of fairly naive people tend to think that, with a very decent Ryzen offering, AMD suddenly jumped from 15 to 50% market share.
If they retain the 15%, the high price point of Ryzen will more than double their revenue (I'm not so sure about the profit).
But if it turns out that revenue in consumer sector is up by just 20-30%, it'll mean almost half of unit sales gone.

Do you even read what I wrote? or just put your head in the clouds and say whatever comes to mind? APU's and (I think Ryzen 3) arnt even out yet, and this will cover the lower end, they already covered the mid to high end with there launch, AMD had to hit hard to get noticed and get sales and they did just that, and this is a company that is tiny compared to intel its going to take time to get everything out that is on this new gen of CPU's.

Ryzen 5 1400 costs $160 while the early leak mentioned $175 (calling it Ryzen 5 1300).
If by this analogy Ryzen 3 1200 (the cheapest Ryzen planned!) will cost $120, it'll still be more expensive than AMD's Bulldozer bestsellers at the end of 2016.
And APUs will be even more expensive.

Also, we're still discussing $120+ CPUs, i.e. the segment Intel covers with Core series. This is NOT low end. Low-end CPUs are under $100 - like Pentiums and still available AMD FX. AMD decided to (at least for now) totally ignore this part of the market.

We already see the first result: Intel is rumored to limit the production of best selling Kaby Lake Pentium's and make people buy i3 instead.

Really? well please link us all to this so we can all see what your seeing, because again your just pulling your answers out of the clouds.....again. Wish I had your crystal ball lol

I don't know which part of the post this refers to.
The assumption that an APU will be more expensive than the IGP-less CPU with similar parameters doesn't really need a proof, does it?
And as for the sub-$150 APUs, here's one:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BF377W4/?tag=tec06d-20
You can google more yourself.

 

[Melvis]

How do you arrive at such conclusions?

How is this even relevant?
Do you understand this topic? It's not about out opinion whether Ryzen is worth the money.

If they're selling a lot more, why isn't this visible in the Q1 financial statement? It already covered first month of Ryzen sales (and the massive preorder).

It would be great if we had access to proper sale data. One of few largest online stores in Poland shows how many people bought an item. And it looks like this:
All Ryzen 7 variants combined: 396
All 7700 variants combined: 1946.
Remember Ryzen 7 represents majority of Ryzen sales. Intel 7700 (including K and T) is not even the most popular Intel CPU in online retail stores. And of course such stores are just a small portion of what Intel sells overall, while for AMD they still represent vast majority of distribution.

Quite a lot of fairly naive people tend to think that, with a very decent Ryzen offering, AMD suddenly jumped from 15 to 50% market share.
If they retain the 15%, the high price point of Ryzen will more than double their revenue (I'm not so sure about the profit).
But if it turns out that revenue in consumer sector is up by just 20-30%, it'll mean almost half of unit sales gone.


Ryzen 5 1400 costs $160 while the early leak mentioned $175 (calling it Ryzen 5 1300).
If by this analogy Ryzen 3 1200 (the cheapest Ryzen planned!) will cost $120, it'll still be more expensive than AMD's Bulldozer bestsellers at the end of 2016.
And APUs will be even more expensive.

Also, we're still discussing $120+ CPUs, i.e. the segment Intel covers with Core series. This is NOT low end. Low-end CPUs are under $100 - like Pentiums and still available AMD FX. AMD decided to (at least for now) totally ignore this part of the market.

We already see the first result: Intel is rumored to limit the production of best selling Kaby Lake Pentium's and make people buy i3 instead.

I don't know which part of the post this refers to.
The assumption that an APU will be more expensive than the IGP-less CPU with similar parameters doesn't really need a proof, does it?
And as for the sub-$150 APUs, here's one:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BF377W4/?tag=tec06d-20
You can google more yourself.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...yzen-3-series-in-latest-company-video.235132/

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...rocessors-sold-out-at-major-retailers.231197/

You just got burned bro!

 

[medi01]

How do you arrive at such conclusions?

Because there is hardly any other reason for them to optimize for up to 6 cores.

 

[notb]

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...yzen-3-series-in-latest-company-video.235132/

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...rocessors-sold-out-at-major-retailers.231197/

You just got burned bro!

I don't see how these discussions are relevant here. Seriously, can't you just write a few words?

Because there is hardly any other reason for them to optimize for up to 6 cores.

You still don't understand multi-thread algorithms and how multi-thread optimization works... Is there any point in trying to explain to you how this works? Because it's been months already and you haven't learned anything.

 

[Melvis]

I don't see how these discussions are relevant here. Seriously, can't you just write a few words?

You still don't understand multi-thread algorithms and how multi-thread optimization works... Is there any point in trying to explain to you how this works? Because it's been months already and you haven't learned anything.

You should look into the mirror when you write this crap as what you have put is completely irrelevant and you clearly cant even read. Even with proof after the fact you still cant even see it, like seriously? Far out boy get some glasses and please stop using your crystal ball as it isnt working for you. You have been disproved many many times but you still want to fight it by using your crystal ball logic. You clearly brand new to the PC world and need to look back in the past 20yrs and maybe then you might start putting logical answers backed up with proof instead of just picking numbers out of the sky.

Stop putting miss leading BS on this forum please and start actually doing some research before posting your crystal ball crap, its honestly making you look really stupid.

 

[notb]

Stop putting miss leading BS on this forum please and start actually doing some research before posting your crystal ball crap, its honestly making you look really stupid.

Can you point the part when I put "miss leading BS" in that post?
This is not the first time we're trying to convince @medi01 that software manufacturers are not limiting thread utilization. It's the other way around: they're forcing programs to use more CPU potential.

And btw: 20 years ago we only had a single thread in home PCs, so how it is relevant to this discussion? And to your information: I was already after my "hello world" C++ endeavour. So if you want to discuss computing, you know where to find me. Just try to use some actual arguments, not just offend me (you're pretty inept at that as well).

 

[R0H1T]

How do you arrive at such conclusions?

How is this even relevant?
Do you understand this topic? It's not about out opinion whether Ryzen is worth the money.

If they're selling a lot more, why isn't this visible in the Q1 financial statement? It already covered first month of Ryzen sales (and the massive preorder).

It would be great if we had access to proper sale data. One of few largest online stores in Poland shows how many people bought an item. And it looks like this:
All Ryzen 7 variants combined: 396
All 7700 variants combined: 1946.
Remember Ryzen 7 represents majority of Ryzen sales. Intel 7700 (including K and T) is not even the most popular Intel CPU in online retail stores. And of course such stores are just a small portion of what Intel sells overall, while for AMD they still represent vast majority of distribution.

Quite a lot of fairly naive people tend to think that, with a very decent Ryzen offering, AMD suddenly jumped from 15 to 50% market share.
If they retain the 15%, the high price point of Ryzen will more than double their revenue (I'm not so sure about the profit).
But if it turns out that revenue in consumer sector is up by just 20-30%, it'll mean almost half of unit sales gone.


Ryzen 5 1400 costs $160 while the early leak mentioned $175 (calling it Ryzen 5 1300).
If by this analogy Ryzen 3 1200 (the cheapest Ryzen planned!) will cost $120, it'll still be more expensive than AMD's Bulldozer bestsellers at the end of 2016.
And APUs will be even more expensive.

Also, we're still discussing $120+ CPUs, i.e. the segment Intel covers with Core series. This is NOT low end. Low-end CPUs are under $100 - like Pentiums and still available AMD FX. AMD decided to (at least for now) totally ignore this part of the market.

We already see the first result: Intel is rumored to limit the production of best selling Kaby Lake Pentium's and make people buy i3 instead.

I don't know which part of the post this refers to.
The assumption that an APU will be more expensive than the IGP-less CPU with similar parameters doesn't really need a proof, does it?
And as for the sub-$150 APUs, here's one:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BF377W4/?tag=tec06d-20
You can google more yourself.

You do know that the APU will most likely be single CCX variants with a Vega IGP, so how come they need to be more expensive than every R3 out there?

 

[Melvis]

Can you point the part when I put "miss leading BS" in that post?

Just scroll up, its all there, im not going to repeat myself if you dont know how to read or scroll up on a forum.

And btw: 20 years ago we only had a single thread in home PCs, so how it is relevant to this discussion? And to your information: I was already after my "hello world" C++ endeavour. So if you want to discuss computing, you know where to find me. Just try to use some actual arguments, not just offend me (you're pretty inept at that as well).

What the heck are you on about now?

You got court with your hand in the cookie jar (Your crystal ball), you got proven wrong, thats it, move on!