Wednesday, February 23rd 2022

Intel's Global CPU Market Share is on the Rise, AMD Starts the Downfall
Since the launch of AMD's Ryzen processors, the CPU market share has been reshaped in AMD's favor. Intel's offerings were matched by team red, and AMD quickly broke into the consumer market. However, according to the latest round of reports, it seems like that is no longer the case. As per the Japanese DIY market analysis from BCNR, sales of Intel processors started rising in mid-2021, and the company is managing to grab some market share from AMD. After nearly two years of dominance in the Japanese market, AMD is now behind Intel in sales, and team blue is getting back to its older setting.
Another source that is generally a pretty good indicator of the market share of Intel and AMD processor is PassMark. As users submit their benchmark runs, the PassMark software developer has updated the CPU market share statistics chart, mainly showing the desktop segment. It also concludes the same thing as BCRN: Intel is again gaining share in the CPU market. As it always goes hand-in-hand, AMD is losing the CPU marker share naturally. This is due to many reasons, and it seems like Intel's marketing and supply tactics are paying off. Intel now sits at 60% share, while AMD is set at 40%.
Source:
via VideoCardz
Another source that is generally a pretty good indicator of the market share of Intel and AMD processor is PassMark. As users submit their benchmark runs, the PassMark software developer has updated the CPU market share statistics chart, mainly showing the desktop segment. It also concludes the same thing as BCRN: Intel is again gaining share in the CPU market. As it always goes hand-in-hand, AMD is losing the CPU marker share naturally. This is due to many reasons, and it seems like Intel's marketing and supply tactics are paying off. Intel now sits at 60% share, while AMD is set at 40%.
112 Comments on Intel's Global CPU Market Share is on the Rise, AMD Starts the Downfall
OEMs is a different, shady story anyhow.
No one here has any idea how Ryzen 7000/Zen 4 will stack against Intel's 13th gen/RPL.
If the former is faster, at least in ST, it will mean a world to most gamers out there. As much as AMD fans haved been obsessed over MT performance ST performance is the king and no one cares if your desktop CPU has 1000 slow cores, 8 fast cores are better for absolute most mundane tasks, and more importantly games. Yeah, RPL will have 24 cores and it will certainly inflate some numbers.
The biggest issue for AMD is that they are fighting for TSMC's capacity and they cannot release low-range competitive parts. Intel Core 12100(F) and 12400(F) literally destroy anything AMD can offer.
Heard a lot of arguments, that AMD needs to establish they are a “premium brand” now, but is forcing it through pricing the way?
Given AMD's track record in CPU/APU's since 2016 and a strong comeback to high-end GPU's in 2020 and the rumors about Zen 4 / RDNA 3, putting a Headline of “Downfall” up is disgusting clickbait and TPU should be better than that, holding itself to higher standards.
Intel with their own fabs can pump these out and set whatever price they want without paying a middle man.
So they have
Quantity
Selection/variety
something AMD is struggling with.
other factors too like oooo new and shiny I want one!!
Edit lots of good comments
As for amd being aggressive on low end and price have to remember mainly using TSMC only now and they have raised prices several times and are supply constricted. If AMD put out a chip 2x performance of alder lake tomorrow for same price as 5k series it’s probable that they would still lose market share just due to supply constraints. Maybe if they kept low end and used GF to fab them it would provide more variety at the cost of efficiency from 12nm node?
This flip flop cycle happens when something new and better comes out just like Ryzen and then Ryzen 5k series. May happen again with AM5 who knows.
the GPU shortage probably isn’t helping new pc building either.
with rumors of covid rules going lax in the near future I’m just going to wait and see if anything happens with pricing.
AL > Zen3 on desktop, but that's to be expected until Zen4 arrives. Hopefully we'll see fierce competition across all price points on desktop moving forwards into the DDR5 generation.
TCO is obviously important in a business and I know you can't just swap AMD for Intel with certain products even if they are both x86 due to compatibilities issues with software. Then you have IT support contracts which usually cover a few years, and vendor discounts tied into it. With how well EPYC is doing now i've seem some of these people now coming around but there are alot that are still Intel only...
:)
Intel could do this, why? Because they were a monopolist. They had no real competition. That the CPU market is now a competitive duopoly is precisely why this doesn't work for AMD. Intel got their butts handed to them by AMD precisely because they stuck to this approach as the world changed around them. AMD can't turn around and try to act if they're an uncontested market leader when they have a competitor breathing down their neck. And remember, it's always more difficult to be an up-and-comer than an incumbent, so AMD establishing themselves as a premium brand is always going to be harder than it was for Intel to maintain their position as a premium brand. So, AMD acting as if they're in a secure lead and can charge a premium over Intel just doesn't make logical sense, even if they currently have a (very much deserved) mindshare advantage. The main outcomes of their current strategies in the CPU market will be as follows: short-term shareholder appeasement (due to high ASPs), and long-term loss of mindshare due to turning away all but the most well off customers, abandoning the midrange and budget markets entirely. This undermines any goodwill they might have gained from serving these markets previously, which is just bad PR in the long term.
And that's why I brought up that this is a problem inherent to late-stage capitalist economics and the profit-first mode of thinking: it's a short-term mode of thinking that is inherently self-destructive through undermining the basis on which it stands. Pleasing shareholders through being profitable is a possible outcome of producing good (enough) products, marketing them properly, adapting to the market, and being lucky/sleazy in the right ways at the right times. You can only plan on it as a secondary effect with complex and interwoven causes. Attempting to plan first for profits almost entirely guarantees that in the mid-to-long term, those profits will disappear, as you will have alienated your customer base and likely paved the way for a competitor to step up. (This is also why all large corporations with incumbent market leader positions buy out any and all potential threats: that's a lot quicker and easier than competing, and is thus cheaper in the short run, which pleases shareholders.)
I'm not at all arguing for AMD to remain a budget brand. If you had read what I wrote, that should be obvious - just like there's no room for a 'premium only' brand in a competitive duopoly, there isn't room for a 'budget only' brand either. They need to compete as broadly as possible, but most importantly: they need to compete. I'm arguing that they've gone from a fantastic combination of delivering great products at great prices and competing fiercely, to suddenly abandoning the vast majority of their previous customer base. They've gained inroads into previously inaccessible markets (laptops, servers) which gain them volume and continues their growth to some degree, but their pivot to "premium only brand" seems premature, especially in light of Intel suddenly beating their IPC again while also delivering significantly better value. I don't mind AMD's Zen3 pricing overall - at launch, they were still decent value. But the lack of adjustments as Intel has responded, and the lack of midrange and budget options? That's borderline inexcusable this late after launch.
To be clear, I still think Intel deserves to be in the doghouse for their consistent bribery and monopolist tactics throughout the decades, but AMD is doing a pretty poor job currently at being a better option.
Zen 3 prices were ridiculous since the beginning, and no 5300X was another big mistake. exactly. Because they did the same mistake with RDNA 2...
AMD only has so much capacity to use at TSMC and it would be utter insanity to sacrifice datacenter market share to satisfy anything in the mobile notebook market or puny DIY market let alone the low-end budget segments of either.
I3 10100F 75€
H510 64€ (If they want a really faster cpu in future maybe a i5 11400f)
16GB RAM 56€
Case + PSU 100€
Second Hand GTX 960 80€
--------------------------------
375€ with shippment on a straight 400€
No Way to make this with an AMD :laugh:
200€ for a 3600 Tray + 15€ for a Cooler, there are no 3100 or 3300x
Its like 2006 Amd fly high and falling down, now its the same they though they can take more money than intel with similar performance and upside down again :laugh:
History repeats:roll:
AMD dont geddit, they main customers for them are Price/Performance buyers in the entry and midrange segment even in OEM too.
Also, if AMD needed their consumer fans for PR for their enterprise parts, do you think it's reasonable to abandon that strategy after one generation in the lead (two if we're a bit generous)? That still seems incredibly short-sighted.
As for limited supply, that is absolutely a factor. But the priorities AMD has made with that supply is precisely why we have grounds to criticize them. There are plenty of things they could have done to improve low-end and mid-range chip supplies, including making a tiny, 4-core, half L3 chiplet for low end parts, for which they would have gotten massive numbers off of each wafer (and of course they could also have used those for low core count, PCIe/RAM bandwidth oriented EPYC chips). They've chosen to aim narrowly at the premium market with no visible concern for anything else. And with that, they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Otherwise you're just hoping for a good run when you hit retirement age.