AMD RX 7000-series gaming GPUs still mostly MIA in Steam stats — continued gains for Nvidia's RTX 40-series

Steam Hardware Survey, March 2024
(Image credit: Valve)

Valve just posted the latest results of its Steam Hardware Survey, and we have to comment yet again on the surprising lack of any AMD RDNA 3 GPUs other than the RX 7900 XTX. AMD is well-represented among the best graphics cards, offering compelling price for performance, particularly in rasterization games. Yet, its market share continues to decline, and none of the more recent 7000-series GPUs appear on Steam's list.

Looking at the overall breakdown tells a familiar story. The most popular GPUs are at least one generation old, with Nvidia dominating the top ten. Including laptop graphics entries, the highest ranked AMD GPU is the generic "AMD Radeon Graphics" at number 16, with around 2% of surveyed PCs. That's only barely ahead of "Intel Iris Xe Graphics" — integrated graphics used on 10th Gen through 14th Gen Intel mobile processors. AMD's second entry lands at position 28, "AMD Radeon(TM) Graphics." If the Steam Hardware Survey is correct, hardly any gamers use recent AMD GPUs outside of integrated graphics.

Nvidia's RTX 4060 and 4070 GPUs are both in the top ten now, with the RTX 4060 Laptop GPU at #12 and the RTX 4060 Ti — one of our least favorite GPUs of the RTX 40-series — at #15. The RX 7900 XTX only manages to rank at #59 overall, with just over a third of a percentage point. Also missing in action: Every Intel Arc GPU.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Summary of Steam HW Survey by GPU architecture
GPU FamilyNOVDECJANFEBMAR%CHG
RTX 40-Series9.67%10.28%11.45%13.36%14.28%0.92%
RTX 30-Series29.09%28.82%28.80%30.03%30.36%0.33%
RTX 20-Series9.55%9.67%9.25%10.15%10.23%0.08%
GTX 16-Series12.15%12.00%11.76%10.96%10.58%-0.38%
RX 7000-Series0.33%0.34%0.36%0.35%0.36%0.01%
RX 6000-Series3.98%3.99%4.09%3.77%3.66%-0.11%
RX 5000-Series1.44%1.44%1.43%1.29%1.24%-0.06%

Here's a look at how the various generations of hardware stand, from AMD and Nvidia (since, as noted above, Intel is MIA for dedicated GPUs). RTX 30-series reigns as the most popular solution overall, with just over 30% of surveyed PCs — and there's even a slight increase of 0.33% since last month. RTX 40-series now claims second place, with 14% of surveyed PCs and nearly a 1% increase compared to February.

Interestingly, even the RTX 20-series shows a slight 0.08% increase in overall share compared to the previous month, though the GTX 16-series and GTX 10-series both show nearly half a percentage point drop.

AMD's most popular GPU family is the previous generation RDNA 2 RX 6000-series, at 3.66%, followed by the RX 500-series at 2.53%. RX 5000-series and, at least so far, RX 7000-series GPUs haven't done as well. But again, we have to think there are at least a decent number of RX 7900 XT owners these days, not to mention the RX 7800 XT, RX 7700 XT, and RX 7600. Unfortunately, Valve's sampling and tabulation methods remain, as always, obscure.

Another curiosity is that the "Steam Deck GPU" is at position #128 with only a fraction of a percent of the total. Valve itself claims to have sold "multi-millions of units" of the Steam Deck, so the Deck is clearly underrepresented in the survey. Two million out of 130~140 million monthly active users would be more like 1.5% of all PCs, assuming proper random sampling, not the 0.06% we see in the survey, and that calls into question the whole validity of the survey.

Steam Hardware Survey March 2024 CPUs

(Image credit: Valve)

There's far less detail to be gleaned from the CPU portion of the survey, which breaks things down by core counts and clock speeds. AMD CPUs dropped nearly 1%, and Intel gained 0.83% compared to last month, though we could only guess how that breaks down into various CPUs.

We know that laptops continue to grow in popularity among many users, and perhaps that's why Intel has gained some ground. AMD's share of the survey peaked at 34.25% in January and then dropped 2% last month, however, so perhaps this is just month-to-month sampling variability.

Overall, there's nothing particularly remarkable with this month's results. Newer Nvidia GPUs are continuing to climb up the charts, but there are plenty of "missing links" that suggest strong bias in how the survey is conducted. Sprinkle liberally with salt, in other words.

The latest JPR market data suggests AMD accounts for 17% of all GPUs, with Intel at 19% and Nvidia at 64%, but that includes integrated graphics. It's too bad that there's no comparable tool showing what sort of hardware gamers are using. Hey, Epic and Tim Sweeney, could you maybe fix that?

Jarred Walton

Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.

  • valthuer
    In order to gain market share from a market leader, you either have to noticeably beat the market leader in terms of quality/functionality or significantly undercut it in terms of price. When it comes to GPUs, AMD has missed both goals. The result is stagnating market shares at a low level.

    AMD made the wrong choice, by not introducing Tensor and RT cores and ignoring them for 1-2 generations. Very bad investment decision.

    They have positioned themselves around 10% cheaper than Nvidia in terms of rasterizing performance and are satisfied with the result.

    If more doesn't come soon, GPU market share of AMD will continue to decline.
    Reply
  • blppt
    valthuer said:
    In order to gain market share from a market leader, you either have to noticeably beat the market leader in terms of quality/functionality or significantly undercut it in terms of price. When it comes to GPUs, AMD has missed both goals. The result is stagnating market shares at a low level.

    AMD made the wrong choice, by not introducing Tensor and RT cores and ignoring them for 1-2 generations. Very bad investment decision.

    They have positioned themselves around 10% cheaper than Nvidia in terms of rasterizing performance and are satisfied with the result.

    If more doesn't come soon, GPU market share of AMD will continue to decline.

    I remember being very disappointed in the RT performance of the 7xxx series after waiting for it to come out--AMD was making claims that it would be a really significant jump from my 6900XT in that area.

    Hopefully with the inclusion of their tensor core equivalent in the 8xxx series (IIRC?) I'll have a reason to upgrade. Or a significant non-RT 4k framerate boost.
    Reply
  • Joseph_138
    It looks like a lot of people are upgrading, and they are upgrading to Nvidia. GTX 16 usage is in heavy decline, RTX 40 is making the most gains, followed by RTX 30, but even RTX 20 is making tiny gains. RX 5000 and RX 6000 are also both declining, but RX 7000 numbers aren't ticking up enough to cover the losses, so even those people are upgrading to an RTX card. I would have thought that the RX 7900 GRE would have helped RX 7000 sales. but that doesn't appear to be the case. Even when it outperforms the RTX 4070, for the same price, it still doesn't seem to selling well enough to stop the shift away from AMD. There has to be a reason for it.
    Reply
  • vanadiel007
    The reason for this is marketing, nothing else. Nvidia is trying to convince everybody they need RT.
    I am very happy with my 7900XTX purchase. Adrenalin is way ahead of the Nvidia equivalent and in terms of software control it's very well supported.

    I am also futureproof as the card come with DP 2.1 connectivity, and with FSR being improved upon generation to generation I am feeling confident this card will be able to handle the games I play for at least another generation, maybe even two generations.

    I would suggest to ignore all the marketing hype, and do you own research into the 4000 Nvidia and 7000 AMD cards, and come to your own conclusion(s).
    Reply
  • salgado18
    vanadiel007 said:
    The reason for this is marketing, nothing else. Nvidia is trying to convince everybody they need RT.
    I am very happy with my 7900XTX purchase. Adrenalin is way ahead of the Nvidia equivalent and in terms of software control it's very well supported.

    I am also futureproof as the card come with DP 2.1 connectivity, and with FSR being improved upon generation to generation I am feeling confident this card will be able to handle the games I play for at least another generation, maybe even two generations.

    I would suggest to ignore all the marketing hype, and do you own research into the 4000 Nvidia and 7000 AMD cards, and come to your own conclusion(s).
    They don't need to convince anyone.

    As personal experience, I bought an RX 6700 XT. In my 1080p monitor, I put Cyberpunk 2077 in max settings, native resolution, and it ran at 80 fps. Feels so good! Then I enabled RT, and performance went down way, way too much. Like 20 fps or less. And then I thought: if I had bought the RTX 4060 for the same money, RT would be above 50 fps or so. That is a very bad feeling. Raster in 1080p will be great for a few years, but any RT effect is out of the question, as it is as good as an RTX 1070.

    RT may be a gimmick, but then again every graphics setting is. Why buy a card that is to much worse in these settings than the competition, all else being equal?

    If AMD doesn't get their RT performance at least to RTX 3000 levels, they will be out of the game again, and that will be terrible for everyone (except Nvidia and Intel, I guess).
    Reply
  • vijosef
    Nvidia is always innovating. One week it adds enhancements for youtube, other week, is AI upscaling. Next is AI frame interpolation. AMD is just imitating after the fact.
    Reply
  • magbarn
    AMD could've easily won significant new market share if they priced the 7XXX stack the same as 6XXX stack and didn't rename their cards up a step like Nvidia did. (The 7900XT is really the true 6800XT successor) They would've been sold out till now. Instead they priced to parity with Nvidia and this is what they get.
    Reply
  • artk2219
    salgado18 said:
    They don't need to convince anyone.

    As personal experience, I bought an RX 6700 XT. In my 1080p monitor, I put Cyberpunk 2077 in max settings, native resolution, and it ran at 80 fps. Feels so good! Then I enabled RT, and performance went down way, way too much. Like 20 fps or less. And then I thought: if I had bought the RTX 4060 for the same money, RT would be above 50 fps or so. That is a very bad feeling. Raster in 1080p will be great for a few years, but any RT effect is out of the question, as it is as good as an RTX 1070.

    RT may be a gimmick, but then again every graphics setting is. Why buy a card that is to much worse in these settings than the competition, all else being equal?

    If AMD doesn't get their RT performance at least to RTX 3000 levels, they will be out of the game again, and that will be terrible for everyone (except Nvidia and Intel, I guess).
    They are at RTX 3000 levels, the 7900 XTX has around the same ray tracing ability as an RTX 3090, thats the issue if you care about ray tracing, they're a generation behind. Personally I think its much ado about nothing as we still don't have cards that do not take a huge performance loss when ray tracing is enabled. That said, it'll be a bigger deal in 4 or 5 years when ray tracing is in more applications and games, so they should ideally have this issue fixed by then. Almost like that seems to line up with the next console generation or something, convenient.
    Reply
  • Notton
    The good thing about AMD GPUs
    They have good rasterization
    They offer a consistent 30% better performance/dollar compared to nvidia
    You don't have to deal with a janky 20pin power connectorThe problems, real or perceived, with AMD GPUs. In no particular order.
    30% better performance/dollar is not enticing enough when overall GPU prices are higher
    Driver performance and stability is not as good as nvidia
    Radeon is power inefficient and runs hotter and consumes more power than Geforce of similar performance
    Radeon idle power consumption is especially bad due to chiplet design
    Nvidia DLSS and frame gen are straight up better than AMD's implementation
    AI related apps works better on RTX cards
    Long standing brand recognition and quality issue that AMD refuses to address
    Repeat buyers buy what worked for them last time, which is most likely going to be an nvidia card
    AMD's Radeon naming scheme is garbage and has too many Xs
    AMD is bad at marketing certification that ensures a certain level of quality/performance (Like Intel Evo, Nvidia G-sync Ultimate)
    They don't have an easy to use app that let's you conveniently optimize a game for your PC with a touch of a button (You sell consoles. Half the work is done for you already, why not port those presets to PC?)
    Radeon dGPUs are virtually non-existant in the laptop segment
    Reply
  • artk2219
    valthuer said:
    In order to gain market share from a market leader, you either have to noticeably beat the market leader in terms of quality/functionality or significantly undercut it in terms of price. When it comes to GPUs, AMD has missed both goals. The result is stagnating market shares at a low level.

    AMD made the wrong choice, by not introducing Tensor and RT cores and ignoring them for 1-2 generations. Very bad investment decision.

    They have positioned themselves around 10% cheaper than Nvidia in terms of rasterizing performance and are satisfied with the result.

    If more doesn't come soon, GPU market share of AMD will continue to decline.
    I think AMD themselves have pretty much put in all the effort that they're going to for this generation, and started to focus on RX 8000, and a big push with the RX 9000 series in the future. RX 8000 will not focus on the high end but will instead focus on bringing mass market performance back, likely with a max price around $600 USD and performance between RX 7900 XT and RX 7900 XTX levels. The last time they did this was with the RX 5000 series, which sold pretty well. The big push will be with the RX 9000 series if they want to go for the gold again like with the RX 6000 series with competitive products at every price point. That said, for many people it still won't matter, do you know how many people I tried to convince to pickup an RX 6600, RX 6600 XT , RX 6700, or RX 6700XT instead of an RTX 3050 or RTX 3060? Or how many I've tried to convince to just look at an RX 7800 XT or 7900 GRE recently? It's kind of nuts the mindshare Nvidia has, and the amount of crap people believe about AMD's card even if they've never actually used one themselves.

    Reply