Ryzen vs i7 (Mainstream); Threadripper vs i9 (HEDT); X299 vs X399/TRX40; Xeon vs Epyc

Yeah, Go on write to Asus. I'm sure they will listen on you. And fully locked down firmware will only be more locked down + the cooling in Asusbook intended for 65W TDP ain't going to bring much to the table. A dead end!! Sorry, but that's it. + the graphics

 

You can get 'more locked down' than 'fully locked down'?
Please, at the very least I'm providing potential ideas.
If anything, people should be taking them to heart and DEMAND of OEM's to implement them.

Yes, the likelihood of Asus doing what I suggested is low, but so what?
Not like laptops were completely non-upgradeable in the past.

Heck, I was able to upgrade a freaking mid-range GPU in my Acer into another mid range one that's 50% faster.
Granted, on the CPU end, I was pretty much left in the dark since P45 socket went under a 'revision' for supporting quad cores, and of course the cooling my dingy laptop likely wouldn't handle a 45W CPU's.

My point is that the laptops Asus is making with all AMD hardware might be different.
When was the last time we had an ALL AMD laptop at our disposal?
Not recently.
And we won't know anything conclusively until the laptops are actually released.

 

I'm not against the idea. But my statement still stands stuck. Only Clevo with Prema and MSI with Svet is a or can be a option. Not the other OEM's. They only push out locked down firmware or BGA. There ain't other options. A fully locked down Ryzen isn't a option. And not forget the graphics. A big no from me.

 

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/58252/amd-took-10-4-cpu-market-share-intel-q2-2017/index.html

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

no. i dont plan to use optane for caching at all, i plan to use optane SSD as OS boot drive. i can see a few misunderstanding from your statement and i can explain them.

- im going to assume that you think of optane M.2 cache drive can only be used for caching, which is incorrect. intel meant for them to be used for cache only but you can run them in raid and put OS on it.
- next, i don't plan to use the M.2 drive at all, at least not the current 32/64GB, reason being too small, and sequential too slow as intel purposely tuned them with low sequential for cache only purpose.
- I mentioned in my previous post was that optane SSD but there are many types, i meant the HHHL or full height card type, P4800X is one of those with 400GB i think or 350GB, though those are very costly, and intel is also coming up with newer optane SSDs by end of the yr so there are more choices, or faster choices.
- last but not least, i communicate with SSD / storage reviewers and the site they work for also has AMD system for ryzen review etc, they tested storage performance on AMD's system and they let me know the speed is junk, in comparison to intel.

@Papusan asus has some of the most locked down turd books ever. except they put high end together with bga mixed together and u get asus and overpriced piece of junk lol.

 

No I understood, my question was you said in 4K there was a 20-30% drop in performance, where did you see that? Also the only thing you definitely loose on is caching on an Intel board using optane as a dim, that I know of.

 

sorry not 4k frame rate lol, 4k random read/write QD1 performance for storage. this isnt something thats published though.

 

Then where is the proof? you made a statement that 4k R/W Q1 takes a huge hit in performance. We deal with provable facts here, if you want us to believe and respect you then you have to prove your points, not just FUD!

 

I cannot even start to understand why anyone would:

1. Advocate for Optane
2. It was dead on arrival the second it was mentioned
3. Every benchmark out there proved that with its price point, it is BETTER to buy a small SSD, which one should use as an OS drive, and use the second drive as slave
4. Optane ONLY helps the OS drive, nothing else
5. There is NO information on how the caching works, what is cached, and HOW much cache you've already used, to justify its usage
6. Barerly ANYONE buys a HDD, to then buy a new med-tier mobo to then put a useless M.2 Optane in there? Like wtf
7. Oh and it only supports the newest i7 lineup and new mobos, great, such value!

Here is a goodie for you folks, still being pro-Optane...

You saw the Linus video... and it was disappointing, now this:

 

AMD's chipset in general and its performance for storage has always been lower than intels, at least for the last 6-7 yrs since sandybridge.

edit: ops i take that back, looks like there is proof. didn't think tweaktown actually did a review on it i thought they didnt do the review.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8073/amd-ryzen-ssd-storage-performance-preview/index4.html

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8073/amd-ryzen-ssd-storage-performance-preview/index3.html

with 4k dropping performance, i have to go intel.

thats your opinion, it simply means u have no use for it or dont see the value/benefit of it. when using optane as OS drive instead of cache, it blows NVMe SSDs away. and i find it strange, when i mention optane, everyone jump the gun on the new M.2 rofl. the first consumer ssd was like 32-40GB and it wasnt much faster than WD raptor HDD, and the enthuiast people put 3-4 of them in raid.

optane just came out, you need to relax, this stuff takes time, SSDs been out for close to a decade now so of course it has its advantages. first gen optane performance already blow nvme SSD performance away, the 4k random read/write is crazy!

 

@ajc9988 like i mentioned b4 your way of thinking was correct that he is a well known top overclocker so his words hold weight, thing is humans tend to go for shortcut, efficiency and reduce efforts. if der8auer makes a mistake then false info spreads.

download this jpg and see some opinions from extremely experienced PSU reviewers out there. these guys are legit.

@hmscott http://wccftech.com/intel-hyperthre...sors-was-addressed-by-bios-fix-in-april-2017/

looks like hyperthreading bug fixed. also time intel gonna feel the HURT, too bad its only for passmark. http://wccftech.com/amd-takes-10-4-...17-largest-single-quarter-share-gain-history/

 

Optane as HDD cache just blows chunks, just like all other HDD caching compared to SSD. Optane as an SSD when the prices come down a bit may be viable. not just right now.

Unless you are dealing in high transfers of small files that difference in 4K will not really be felt on a day to day basis. The reason SSD are so fast is we went from 4K at 128KB/s on a HDD to 30 MB/s on SSD. The difference even going to 60 MB/s usually is not any where near as evident. AMD drivers are yet immature too, so over time this may level itself out even further.

Now this as a difference in files servers, if there is there too, could be a real issue for Epyc.

 

You are completely missing the point of Optane, but I am going to leave it after this last reply.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11210/the-intel-optane-memory-ssd-review-32gb-of-kaby-lake-caching

Quotes from the review.

 

Links;
http://wccftech.com/amd-takes-10-4-...17-largest-single-quarter-share-gain-history/
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0020007DNULS
http://latribunadecanarias.com/2017/07/01/radeon-vega-fe-comes-with-dual-mode-drivers/

 

Optane is more than just small 32GB Cashe disks-Toms's Hardware

"Although the DC P4800X is more expensive than NAND-based alternatives, it offsets the price with unmatched performance in nearly every workload."

Optane is new tech and it's damn expensive. But you shouldn't throw new tech down the toilet due one or two reviews. And don't forget, Samsung will also play in the backyards with it's own SSD-Z tech. Intel wouldn't be left alone in storage improvement.

 

Just looking at the pic, it is wrong. He put the temp sensor under the shroud to measure the heat at the to of the chip itself, not on the cooler, which is what that guys setup looks like. I cannot see how it was affixed on the back of the board.

Now, he is team Asus, so there is a chance, considering he mentioned Asus caught it and he said is fixing it, that you can infer any bias you want there. But, he is highly skilled at using temp probes (you don't get to that level of OC with liquid helium and nitrogen without knowing how to properly attach your probes). So, maybe he got review boards pre-release and they had issues. Maybe he drew the short straw. Maybe his PSU has an issue and is pushing too much current. But to say he isn't legit and suggest some other guy is is to say you trust the other person's opinion more (which I pointed out an issue with it in seconds of looking at it).

just saying...

 

I agree, don't bash on new tech, which some seem willing to do if it isn't their "team." (not meaning you and not poking at anyone as some would say that about me as well, just so we are clear). With that said, though, there is a chance that it just is not ready yet, not for most people. That, with the other requirements for use, makes it less appealing. It will get there. But I won't buy a machine in 2017 or 2018 based on it, personally. Now 2019-21, that is a different story, but by then you have Samsung's competition and whatever else may come, as you pointed out.

 

no, i wish to use it for OS boot device rather than caching, i dont think i could have explain it any clearer. and like i previously mentioned, 32gb M.2 cache is a joke, there are other optane SSDs available with only more to come. i wouldnt take anandtech's review all that too serious tbh, they are ways away from tomshardware SSD reviewers and pcper, besides they review it as cache which is what its meant to be used when intel made them.

clearly @Papusan understands it. if people are talking about price performance at an AMD value perspective level then it would be silly to go for optane solution. if people want the fastest CPU and storage in market today, you go for intel cpu and optane SSD, assuming its still within consumer's budget.

 

yes, i plan to run multiple vmware and game on them at same time, multiple OS's are all mostly random read/write, this would drastically boost the performance and quickness of entire system. beside vmware usage, everything else just benefits from optane, though less benefits per dollar so to speak.

it would be pointless to buy a 18core cpu to only run benchmark all day long, need real world software to take most advantage of it or its money wasted. i have just the right things to use on optane, high core count CPU with turbo boost 3.0. on the other hand i personally dont need 4k on 3 display, simply 1080p or 900p at 45 fps on 3 display is enough for me for gaming so i opt for a 1080 or 1080 TI

 

people are saying the PSU he used is junk, if u check the jpg file i uploaded u can see their comments. his videos got issues is what people are claiming.

 

Can't really trust that link... if AMD wants to increase the price to performance ratio to challenge Intel; they're already heading in the wrong direction.

If instead they have a higher performance to price ratio target; they may get somewhere...

 

What a joke... 'passmark's quarterly sales reports'.



Didn't know they were into financials now...

(I know I've never ran nor posted a passmark 'score' of any of my systems).

 

We've already discussed what affects the numbers and why. This is one more data point to add to the 20% jump from Amazon's numbers.

But, what will truly change it is the Pro series and OEM. With encrypted memory and other security features, with the current performance, especially with the R3 segment, more will come.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Your statements would be true if those 'scores' you quote were real world 'actuals'. On a Windows C:\ fully used system; not by a long shot (for the SSD's...).

If Optane can be shown to boost SSD's (and yeah; it has been shown...) and it has also been shown that an Optane sped HDD is also faster (yeah; that too has been show...) then it is not comparable to all previous HDD caching that has come before it.

Yeah; I want the 'real' Optane too (2TB and larger).

But dismissing Optane as another HDD caching scheme (which it may resemble, at first blush) is doing yourself a disservice if productivity is your goal.

To put this another way: I and almost all of my clients can be just as productive with HDD's or SSD's - of course the SSD based platforms would be 'snappier' - but more productive they most certainly are not (for almost 99% of our combined workloads).

Optane is removing another layer between cold storage and the CPU + RAM where work (i.e. productivity) happens.

If this was seen in workstation type setups (i.e. single user workflows...) in the server market; it will be killer.

 

Can you link to that 20% jump on Amazon's numbers?

Ty.

 

1:48 time mark

 

Sorry; but that is a meaningless 'analysis' from a meaningless source. (Top selling cpu's...what?).

Can't put any stock in those claims from those sources.

Market share is Number of CPU's sold by both/all vendors... not who sold more with all other factors disingenuously omitted.

 

This is discussing AMAZON'S sales. Amazon is one of the largest retailers on the planet. Linus tech tips has a deal to compile and analyze those numbers every quarter. So of the CPUs offered by Amazon, AMD now makes up 29% of their sales, up from 7% in the first quarter. I never said that was market wide, I said it was Amazon specific. Once again, stop saying I was saying it was something other than it is.

Second, the reason for looking at the benchmark site and Amazon's numbers are to get a feel for trends. We already discussed commercial consumers and that being the largest market, as well as OEM support.

So why are you trying to crap on numbers with the proper attribution of where they are from?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

I know we're discussing Amazon. I said so in my post, btw...

I don't care how large Amazon is - that is an irrelevant point. Also irrelevant is your constant accusing me of saying something you didn't. I'm replying to facts - not twisting anyone's words; try sticking to that (facts), okay?

Market Share is Number of product for each vendor divided by the whole market. Amazon is clueless here (Intel vs. AMD actual CPU sales). So is Linus tech tips... - the video's I've seen of that are proof enough that 'hits' is the only number they get.

You believe what you like as it suits your agenda. I'll pursue truth.

Do they indicate a 'trend' for Amazon? Yeah!

Do they indicate Market Share? Not by a long shot...

 

I did not bring up market share, you did. Now, the tweaktown article said it, maybe you are confusing my sharing information with fully endorsing what is said.

You acknowledged it was Amazon's numbers, but you are acting like that implies market share, SOMETHING I NEVER SAID!

These numbers do matter, as it affects custom and home builder markets to a degree. It is a data point, one that is important to the whole number, as those people often share opinions and change people's perspectives. You are this close to going back on the ignore list.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Correct; I did. And I brought it up in relationship to the post above which you chose to respond to which was claiming 'market share'.

Again; I'm not arguing any of your points past that.

But, you must actually follow the conversation a little better than you are now... really; this is tiresome.

 

"I don't care how large Amazon is - that is an irrelevant point."
"Sorry; but that is a meaningless 'analysis' from a meaningless source. (Top selling cpu's...what?).

Can't put any stock in those claims from those sources.

Market share is Number of CPU's sold by both/all vendors... not who sold more with all other factors disingenuously omitted. "

That information about one of the LARGEST retailers in the world and inventory does bear on market share. It doesn't give you the idea of the exact percentage of growth, but it shows a solid growth in that area of the market. You diminish its worth as being nothing, then dismiss it entirely.

That is the problem, you exclude data points that don't support what you say as being not worthy of inclusion. It's horse hockey!

Now, as I explained, they get all the raw sales data from Amazon. They go through it to tell their viewers what people are buying, why, and whether it makes sense. That is the goal, to show trends in purchases and what types of builds are going on. They, only because of Ryzen, started looking at the overall sales by the companies in more depth because people would be interested to see that part of the data.

We already discussed OEMs adding them at Computex. We already discussed commercial market waiting until the Pro series is out and not being able to do tests in mass unless dealing with boutiques or system integraters outside of the big 5 OEMs. This isn't trying to say they fully took that much market share. We won't see the major movements until the commercial buyers get involved, which have to test for months before the purchase and deployment.

So you are intentionally dismissive. That is the problem!

 

The information from one of the LARGEST retailers in the world is meaningless when we're talking about total CPU's sold and what % of them each manufacturer has (which is what I was talking about before you jumped into the conversation). If/when they are the only distribution channel, I'll admit this point. Right now? Not even close.

And; I'm not omitting anything; you're trying to make it what it's not.

I don't need a third party to go through raw data to interpret it for me; let alone an internet 'personality'. I have been doing fine on my own for decades, thank you.

Good to see that you too concede that they 'didn't actually take that much market share'. My point is that it isn't even that much from my viewpoint.

 

Amazon's numbers will likely match other retailers, such as Walmart, Newegg, etc., obviously to varying degrees depending on the retailer. This means that it will not compound fully into overall market share at the same rate, but of the retailers, we will see gains across the board. Every bit added is a hit to Intel. Now that they have proven demand, OEMs got on board. That now means that the numbers will shift again in the next two quarters. On server chips, we've discussed it isn't until next year, and that is the largest market for chips overall. The next is the commercial client workstations (not to be confused with the HEDT workstations we've discussed). That, too, takes time before adoption. But, seeing the demand and feature sets to get penetration, AMD has come a far way in a very short time.

Considering we have no other source and you don't have access to the raw data, why are you making this point? You repeat group think as if that is fact. Also, it doesn't matter who says it, it matters whether or not they have enough on which to state what was said. Considering they paid for the data to analyze, and you don't, nor do you point to anyone else that does for Amazon for this purpose, you are once again attacking the source in an unfair way.

As to your viewpoint, "that is like ... your opinion, man!" (Big Lebowski). As I said, revenue reports won't be here until July/August. Few outlets do quarterly analyses on CPU market share, and when they do, they revise them during the annual market share analysis, something that won't be available until next spring. So it is easy to say these things when not pointing to known market data nor to anything that supports the underlying assertion. I'll stick with citing the market information available, then framing it to help people understand the proportionality of the data to the market and expected time frames to get the full picture on the market.

 

According to your logic, looking at how well electric car sales have risen since Tesla arrived on the market, is unnecessary.

You can't dismiss pure factual data.

 

im sure each category has its own scenario and target of audience, not only that it simply a different product with vastly cost difference and usage.

since we are on the topic of CPU, i went to the video at 1:48 and i dont hear linus mention he was informed by amazon about their sales figure, he only mentioned top 4-5 are now ryzen, unless i miss something in the video prior to 1:48.

and @ajc9988 if amazon is the only channel then it wouldnt be strange for @tilleroftheearth to take it as fact because thats just logical. which implies if that was the case, intel would only sell to amazon, none to OEM or other means.

 

Funny, because I said 1:48 to make sure it wasn't missed and you cannot watch 3 seconds in where the charts on percentage of shares is at, completely ignoring the 7-29%. Interesting, if not undermining one's credibility. (1:51-2:01)

Now, if you were not so quick to jump to conclusions, and upon further review, it is limited to affiliate transactions, which likely means the numbers are narrowed to the purchases which are related to either links provided to amazon from LTT, or of accounts of viewers of the show, using email addresses to link the relevant data to be analyzed. (at 0:07-0:35)

So yes, I do need to make a correction as to what is counted by that review. But that is neither what was attacked, nor what was discussed. If a person cannot clearly state what is at issue in rejection of facts, then they are not using logic.

Further, as to insinuation that it is still not logical to look at one or a few companies sales numbers is bogus. We do that with the BLS jobs numbers every month. We do that with stock indices and spyder indices for investments. Etc. It is used statistically in many different fields regularly. You then have that use on consumer confidence ratings, etc. So, had you or he pointed to what I said on limiting the universe, then either of you would have had a point. But neither of you did. You discredited yourself by not watching even 3 seconds of the video and you both improperly suggest that one of the largest retailers numbers would be completely irrelevant, after already narrowing the conversation to this effecting the market share as it relates to custom builds and home builds where the materials are purchased retail instead of direct distributors, such as tray purchases by systems integrators. Why is it so hard for people to understand proper argument formation? Everything needed to argue the facts was already presented, instead, neither of you could be bothered to actually review the information and create a cogent presentation to undermine the significance of the data presented. It is infuriating.

 

Okay, thanks for proving that you're wrong. That is what you're saying, correct?

I will not regurgitate the last 59 pages on this thread so that I can build a 'case' you're proud of. Anyone following knows what I'm talking about; except you.

If you jump into the middle of a few posts between myself and others; make sure you understand what and how I'm responding. If you don't; kindly ask; I'll answer promptly.

But it is your assumptions that make you riled up for nothing. Even the 'explanation' you set out below doesn't change the truthfulness of my statements. Nor will it make me reconsider how I approach marketing bs 101 from Intel, AMD or anyone else.

I'll concede that Intel is surely taking a hit from AMD. But trying to use numbers from youtubers that want to think for me? No thanks. Neither is the indicated % of shares anything I'm interested in from them.

That is not how I judge a platform (popularity - by the masses or by $$$$ sales). It is neither here nor there to me.

My comments stand.

 

i donno if u watch the video or not. the table shows top 10 has 4 ryzen product, top 4 and 5 is ryzen cpu. now when it comes to chart, linus mention "it went from 7% from episode2 to 29% episode3 among our viewers". nothing states its amazon sales figure or market share.

like @tilleroftheearth said, it certainly is taking market from intel but that youtube video doesnt say much tbh. we dont have to be notified by them to realize AMD is doing much better than it was 2-4 yrs ago so it only make sense they will have market share to gain, not to mention the fact that if AMD does a little well they only have market to gain since most of the market are intel anyway.

 

I am conceding that the data provided from LTT related to Amazon's sales figures was limited to only affiliate data, with no way to show that data is actually comparable to the entire sales data of Amazon and is thereby to narrow to draw the inference I previously suggested. That is to say, I was wrong on the Amazon statistic, not the rest.

No one needs to go through all previous pages, because if we did, we'd also find so many false statements by you as well. Also, the majority here, I'm sure, can tell you are an Intel cheerleader. Hell, you couldn't be bothered reviewing the video of facts related to the current discussion to find the exact premise upon which my fault was found.

It is my assumptions made upon the plain language meaning of your writings that cause part of the issue. Your precision of language, many times, is found lacking, where you do not define the meaning or scope of the statement, thereby making it a general statement to be applied in all situations. That is improper form. I believe you have been shown to purposely exclude information and show you are not even willing to examine the truth or falsity behind your statements.

Meanwhile, data points are data points, meant for extrapolation, but also to be signified by caveats and confidence ratings, just as polling does. It is to see what significance can be extrapolated and to what degree that said statistics can be representative of the larger market. Learning how to attack the underlying data sample by looking to the group likely to be included as compared to the population at large is a great starting point, yet something you did not do. That is what I take issue with, blanket statements like "youtubers that want to think for me." I'm not allowing anyone to think for me, hence my analysis which disproved my prior statement. You cannot even be bothered doing that analysis in a cogent manner.

Also, you cannot do a direct cash sales analysis as the product's pricing varies. You look at units sold, which is properly related to popularity of sales numbers based on units sold, not on what one says one likes generally, in this specific instance.

 

i couldnt agree more. sometimes popularity does in fact reflect a great product but most often than not, with the society we are in nowadays a lot of things are over hyped, especially overhyped by people who don't understand what they are really buying into. mass majority of population would only listen to hearsay or the friends they know, or a friend of a friend, or simply silly review articles out there.

i'd rather learn this myself if i could and make my judgement from that point onward and buy for things that i'll need to use to benefit my own computing scenarios.

 

Nice how you ignore the later statement on the discussion of the data collected by amazon, which is found in that same post you quoted. Try properly reading the entirety before responding.

 

i would read more in depth if you didn't type so much, as some of the comments arent just for me but for others as well. humans like to be efficient and take shortcuts

now back onto what we were talking about originally you mention about video at 1:48 which shows amazon sales figure, i bring to your attention it doesnt mention anything other than a table. then you bring up 1:51 - 2:01 of video, so i tell you thats linus talking about his own videos and viewers, now you refer me to one of your comment about data and statistics.

now lets assume the data and statistics were right for argument sake, it doesnt change the fact that you brought up the video as original example which i pointed thing out to you. if you simply wanted to let me know statistics or data you wouldnt bring that video into it at all.

 

Did you see the smiley face? I don't care if I'm wrong and you're right.

You're missing the point by a mile here: you ignore my plain posts that I'm in Intel's camp because it is the one greatly benefitting my bottom line. That does not make me a cheerleader.

Once again; my statement has nothing to do with 'your' video. It exists separately from it and on it's own.

I do not presume that my use of the written word is final. But my imprecision is what should prompt you to ask questions instead of burying us in pseudo facts that are in the end, irrelevant to my meaning.

When I don't understand someone else; I ask for clarification. I don't show them how wrong I think I know they are.

I challenge you to find any false statement I've made in this thread and that I haven't properly responded to? You think you're the only one that sees my faults? There are better minds than both of ours here...

 

Yeah; sometimes I'm one of the masses - but I'm usually following my own drummer.

Agree 10x with your points about learn for yourself and make your own judgement.

 

Okay, @ajc9988 @tilleroftheearth and @ole!!! , and I ofc.

Let's end here. We are turning two threads into a mud fight.

---

@TANWare I think you'll like it

On another note: Tom's hardware made a good post about Ryzen: AMD's Ryzen 5 1600 Skyrockets To No. 2 On Amazon, Passmark Submissions Increase

Some outtakes, is their look on Steam's hardware list, especially looking on the CPU's, the indication is as of now:

 

It is the next sentence! It is right there at the end. No one can miss it! How is it efficient to ignore a break out sentence like that with a time code that is roughly in the same format as the one you quoted. A percentage is both datum and a statistic. Proper meaning of words are cool!

When you respond to the content of my post, such as saying that it should not be listened to and is irrelevant, then your statement has everything to do with that video and subsequent discussions on the matter. It is directly related as being the object of that conversation in that moment.

Also, if your statements were ambiguous, then I certainly would. By, a plain language analysis simply means what does the statement say if the words used are given their plain meaning. If the meaning is clear from what was stated, then the analysis ends there. It means what it says. That brings us to an analysis of meaning through omission, which is categorized as a lie through omission. It is the material fact being omitted to make the statement thereby false or misleading. It is because you omit facts so regularly to make frame of reference vague, thereby being potentially misleading that I then call you out for it. You switch context at your convenience for the conversation, in an attempt so that if later questioned, you can just change the context on a whim.

 

Expect Intel will loose 20% of its market share(Amd have 20% from before). Amd will come up to old level as before. Maybe up to 44-45%. This will hurt!!

 

I agree, but don't think it will be this year, rather in 1-2 years to get to that percentage. I'd put maybe a 26-32% range for this year, with more coming after the adoption in the corporate sphere. It may even take Zen2 to rise to the 44-45% range. But time will tell.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

im not too familiar about passmark, i have heard people talking about them having only 800k benchmarks in the entire software lifetime which desktop + laptop PC sells around 250 to 300 million units each year. so if 20% increase in passmark seems amazing but that equates to nothing when comes to market share, we will need better results or actual data and statistics.