GNU/Linux Gaming on Kbin

4 readers

1 users here now

A community for gaming on the GNU/Linux distros.

founded 1 year ago

AMD CPU Use Among Linux Gamers Approaching 70% Marketshare (www.phoronix.com)

submitted 1 year ago by staticlifetime@kbin.social to c/linux_gaming@kbin.social

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Besides being curious about the Steam Survey results for indicating the size of the Linux gaming marketshare as an overall percentage, one of the interesting metrics we are curious about each month is the AMD vs

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SFaulken@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Huh. I knew AMD currently had an edge in Gaming, but I didn't realise it was that high.

I switched to AMD on linux for non-gaming related reasons, but what is it that Intel is doing that's killing their market share? I mean, I know their CPU's don't suck, but are they just that bad?

[–] thingsiplay@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

@SFaulken You can't conclude that easily, because many are Steam Deck users. And there is no choice in CPU. It would be interesting to know the AMD vs Intel market share for Linux Gamers in Steam, without the Steam Deck data included. Wish there was a toggle. The reason is, to know if people actually choose AMD over Intel when they could.

I know that my next computer will be AMD+AMD (a change from current Intel+Nvidia). I personally don't think that Intel is bad or suck.

[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Personally, I'd say pricing particularly with earlier Ryzen. I went from an i7-860 to a Ryzen 2700, my entire build (except GPU which I carried over) was $461 due to sales (in 2019). Also I wanted higher thread count, something AMD really pushed to normalize and something useful for compiling (and my old CPU having 8 threads is why I was able to use it for so long, experience depended on how the software/game supported it though).

I mean Intel might be more competitive in some cases now and AMD less so (now that they've had success) but some of those things might still hold true in some capacity. I think AMD motherboards being cheaper was another thing, but again not sure now.

Some of it is probably also old perceptions mixed with bad PR on Intel's part (glue comments, CPU with chiller debacle), and I'd imagine worries about E core support for their newer stuff or just power draw.

[–] tal@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I believe that TMSC has pulled ahead of Intel on transistor resolution, and TMSC is fabbing AMD's CPUs.

That resolution is what drives a lot of CPU performance.