Wednesday, February 5th 2025

AMD CPUs had 92% Market Share at German PC Hardware Retailer in January

German PC hardware retailer MindFactory sold an astonishing 25,625 AMD and Intel CPUs in January 2025. However, an honor falls to AMD this time, as Team Red has managed to capture as much as 92.16% (23,615) of all units sold by this retailer. Not only did it leave Intel with 7.84% (2010) of total units sold, AMD also beat Intel in average selling price, where AMD managed to keep ASP at 320 Euros, while Intel buyers were considering some less expensive CPU SKUs at 290 Euros. This has resulted in AMD's revenue share recording 93.45% at 8,300,674 Euros, while Intel left a smaller mark at 6.55% or 581,959 Euros. The best-selling CPU was AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D, sold in 8,390 units in January.

A detailed analysis of socket distribution reveals AMD's AM5 platform's overwhelming dominance, securing 18,410 units or 71.84% of total sales. The mature AM4 platform maintains a significant market presence with 5,205 units (20.31%), showing strong continued demand for AMD's previous-generation socket. Intel's LGA 1700, compatible with 12/13/14th generation processors, accounted for 1,745 units (6.81%), while their older platforms showed minimal market penetration. The LGA 1851 socket, supporting Intel's latest Core Ultra 200S processors, managed just 185 units (0.72%), with legacy LGA 1200 and LGA 1151 sockets trailing at 55 (0.21%) and 25 (0.1%) units respectively. AMD's latest platform market performance suggests strong consumer confidence in AM5's upgrade path and performance capabilities. This dramatic market share capture by AMD represents one of the most significant shifts in the desktop CPU market in recent years, particularly notable given the higher average selling prices at which AMD CPUs are now sold.
Source: TechEpiphanyTY on X
Add your own comment

57 Comments on AMD CPUs had 92% Market Share at German PC Hardware Retailer in January

#51
mkppo
JustBenchingIntels terribly regressive architecture beats or matches amds top end in everything, gaming includes. The review from this very site shows the 285k being a better product (especially when it comes to efficiency) than the 9950x. And yet, marketing wins once again and amd sells more. What can you do.
It's slower than the 9950x in both games and productivity but close enough in the latter. In games, increase that difference because 24H2 wasn't tested as 285K had issues with it during launch. Subsequent testing at other sites revealed that the 285K didn't get any performance boost from it but AMD certainly did and it was pretty significant, more so than the patches and updates intel brought to the 285K.

The other problem is it regressed in gaming performance to the prior generation quite significantly as 7950x3d/14900k are easily faster in gaming while being close enough in productivity. So instead of moving the needle forward, they took a step forward and a step back. That's reflected in the sales numbers, the DIY numbers are pretty bad. They're doing everything they can to push it to SI's though at heavily discounted prices.

If by marketing you mean Intel's bad press for the 285K and all, they brought it upon themselves.
Posted on Reply
#52
The Shield
3valatzyThis is a real BLESSING for the users. Intel has been caught in shenanigans for decades, it is actually a miracle that AMD survives after all the anti-competitve programs directed against its operations.
In general terms, I agree with you - in fact, I've been purchasing AMD for 20 years - both CPU and GPU (starting with Athlon 64 and ATI Radeon). But is now crystal clear that what we THINK we were seeing with Intel (14 nm process production over and over and over, no competition whatsoever, etc.), is nothing compared to what AMD and Nvidia are doing.
I mean, during the old intel-days, have you ever seen a "gaming CPU" (like 3770K, 4770k, 7700k, etc.) sold with the marketing BS of the "demand-larger-than-supply"? Because the 9800X3D - a simple 8 core - il sold at scalper-price, IF you can find IT.
Intel NEVER did something like that, even when was dominating the market.
Posted on Reply
#53
Tek-Check
WoomackI find it weird that reports are always from this one store and always give 90%+ sales for AMD chips while I have contacts in distribution, and it doesn't look anything close in many other places.
Sure. Give us numbers from other places.
Posted on Reply
#54
JustBenching
mkppoIt's slower than the 9950x in both games and productivity but close enough in the latter. In games, increase that difference because 24H2 wasn't tested as 285K had issues with it during launch. Subsequent testing at other sites revealed that the 285K didn't get any performance boost from it but AMD certainly did and it was pretty significant, more so than the patches and updates intel brought to the 285K.

The other problem is it regressed in gaming performance to the prior generation quite significantly as 7950x3d/14900k are easily faster in gaming while being close enough in productivity. So instead of moving the needle forward, they took a step forward and a step back. That's reflected in the sales numbers, the DIY numbers are pretty bad. They're doing everything they can to push it to SI's though at heavily discounted prices.

If by marketing you mean Intel's bad press for the 285K and all, they brought it upon themselves.
Feels like you and @Vayra86 are not looking at the reviews, im using the data provided by TPU. The 285k is faster and more efficient (a lot) in ST workloads, as fast as the 9950x in games (2% difference) while being a lot more efficient and matching the 9950x in MT performance and efficiency. There is nothing that the 9950x is better at.

Anyways, as i''ve said in my previous post, the same people that are buying 90% nvidia gpus are the same people buying 90% amd cpus.
Posted on Reply
#55
mkppo
JustBenchingFeels like you and @Vayra86 are not looking at the reviews, im using the data provided by TPU. The 285k is faster and more efficient (a lot) in ST workloads, as fast as the 9950x in games (2% difference) while being a lot more efficient and matching the 9950x in MT performance and efficiency. There is nothing that the 9950x is better at.

Anyways, as i''ve said in my previous post, the same people that are buying 90% nvidia gpus are the same people buying 90% amd cpus.
I did. TPU's review:





9950X is faster in both and as I said, you have to increase the gap in games because of 24H2. So it's clearly better at both, more so in games, so I have no idea what you mean by 9950X is not better at anything. 285K is more efficient and faster in ST workloads? Sure, not a new thing either. But your initial statement wasn't that.

Edit: Where are you getting the ' A lot more efficient in MT' from? That same review has the 9950X more efficient in MT workloads.
Posted on Reply
#56
Tek-Check
SL2If I wanted one I'd definitely buy somewhere else.
If... exactly.
It does not look like many want it from anywhere else either.
Posted on Reply
#57
Vayra86
JustBenchingFeels like you and @Vayra86 are not looking at the reviews, im using the data provided by TPU. The 285k is faster and more efficient (a lot) in ST workloads, as fast as the 9950x in games (2% difference) while being a lot more efficient and matching the 9950x in MT performance and efficiency. There is nothing that the 9950x is better at.

Anyways, as i''ve said in my previous post, the same people that are buying 90% nvidia gpus are the same people buying 90% amd cpus.
I am looking at the reviews, that's why your statements are so puzzling

MT perf



Application average



Only in ST, the 285k uses 10W less, or some 30% less. Now I'm curious what ST workloads you have that warrant that to be an argument here, using an i9 with 24 threads. Overall, these CPUs are quite the same in terms of power consumption.

But the 9950x is not just the equal of the 285K (I think the only differentiator here really, is price of the whole platform/build), it also has 32 threads instead of 24, and 16 full fat cores instead of just 8. Intel is not faster, does not offer more hardware, and is not notably more efficient. So I can understand why people land at the 9950x for a build that needs to have lots of threads. After all, a review is not putting a varied continuous load on the CPU, but tests scenarios, and its clear the 285K will find its limits faster than a CPU that has 8 additional threads AND 8 additional cores that are fit for anything.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Feb 5th, 2025 13:54 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts