AMD Captures 28.7% Desktop Market Share in Q3 2024, Intel Maintains Lead

[FoulOnWhite]

So, Intel still sells 70% of desktop CPUs inspite of their products being inferior in most aspects for 4 years now (since Zen3)? And there are people that pity Intel for them being on a difficult position financially? I am almost sure they keep spending big money on OEMs in order to keep their sales high for their inferior products.

Not inferior in most apsects at all, more in gaming than anything else. For most of the other stuff, they are ahead of AMD. Most of the sales of AMD CPUs are down to, imo, gamers buying X3D setups.

 

[JustBenching]

So, Intel still sells 70% of desktop CPUs inspite of their products being inferior in most aspects for 4 years now (since Zen3)? And there are people that pity Intel for them being on a difficult position financially? I am almost sure they keep spending big money on OEMs in order to keep their sales high for their inferior products

Well, you think that cause you are biased, else you'd realize they haven't been inferior in most aspects for 4 years.

Not inferior in most apsects at all, more in gaming than anything else. For most of the other stuff, they are ahead of AMD. Most of the sales of AMD CPUs are down to, imo, gamers buying X3D setups.

Not even there - the last 4 years? The first time in the last 4 years that amd got a clear lead in gaming was in 2023 with the 7800x 3d.

 

[Chrispy_]

It's pretty crazy how Intel went from a complete monopoly in every market segment to this, they could have easily squandered AMD's efforts if they became competitive in pricing but they refused to do so. I don't think people realize how big of a fuck up this is, especially in the server space, to lose 25% of that market is crazy, businesses are very risk averse and are difficult to convince to move away from the safe choice.

It's even crazier when you're an enterprise customer and you try to buy an EPYC system, too. Most of the vendors are Intel-heavy and even if you ask for EPYC you'll end up with Xeons unless you really fight for it, or tell them you're going elsewhere.

So, to grab 25% of the market when Dell and HPE in particular are so motivated to push Xeons on people who start the discussion with a request for EPYC is really quite staggering. It proves to me that AMD is making a significant dent despite massive disadvantages - the Intel that was playing dirty with kickbacks and allocation blackmail to vendors and OEMs is still very much present in the server market IME. They may have won an appeal against their €1.06billion fine for playing dirty, but that doesn't mean they've stopped - they're just using less obvious tacticts.

 

[R0H1T]

Like I said on the last page ~ the biggest customers are hyperscalers, or however you'd like to term them, the top 20(10?) cloud providers probably have 90% of the market share, & that's where AMD usually sells a boatload without too many issues!

 

[3valatzy]

The update from the last week, its not so bad, 1851 sold looping 10 motherboards.
View attachment 371115

Great reminder of how bad Intel's "latest and greatest" is. I have never seen so strong vote of protest by the customers!

Office workseat can require quite a lot of performance when you add all the security tools installed. Got an 10th gen i7 (4core 8 thread) and it take forever to boot and get ready into windows. It could definitively benefits from having more core and more raw CPU power.
At least they give us 32 GB of ram.

Then, uninstall those "security tools" and use centralised security, via servers, so that you don't get internet connection to every officeseat...

On another subject. Intel still ahead because of their fabs. They can still ship tons of CPU. AMD have to fight with many customers at TSMC and they still can't get the volume they would need to be the leader in the market.

AMD uses other fabs, too. Namely GloFo and Samsung, among others.

The desktop business market is probably why Intel still is and will continue to be ahead of AMD. Companies like to have their hardware as standarized as possible because it simplifies both adquisition and IT support and I've yet to see a big company use AMD as their main platform. SMBs will usually buy the hardware in stores like everyone else. From medium sizes and up they usually have specialized suppliers with well stablished supply lines that deal mainly in one type of plarform, mostly Intel.

The thing is that "standardisation" leads to illegal monopoly, and worse conditions for all the rest of the market - imagine if Intel remained the only maker - how much of an innovation would you expect from them, and what prices? Not good... Remember the Core i7 2000 - Core i7 7000 age - very black times for the IT.

Case in point: about four months ago I was in a meeting with the reps from one of our costumers regarding a software feature we'd recently released for them. The asked us why it was taking them so much longer to work compared to what we showed them so I asked what hardware they were using and they said Intel. We told them the presentation was made on high end AMD CPUs because they had better multicore performance and 2 minutes later I received an email from their IT department asking for AMD recomendations because they were going to buy a batch of AMD laptops for the people using the feature. Now a little detail I waited until now to mention is the client being the country's branch of a big ass Fortune 500 multinational corporation with a bit shy of 50,000 workers just in this country. The fact that they bothered to ask us about AMD gives you and idea of how far from anything AMD they usually are. In the end we told them to go with anything from the AMD 79XX series since AFAIK there are no Threadripper laptops. We've worked closely with a lot of medium to big companies and they all, without exception, use Intel.

EDIT: I just realized those unfamiliar with IT ops might not fully understand all the above. Here's the short version: if a company is big enough to have it's own IT deparment it will also have a space where they will keep spares. In a small company you might find a small closet with a few keyboards, mice, etc. and in a big one you'll more likely find anything from a big room to a whole warehouse full of everything they'd need. Those spares are there so when something inevitaby breaks the operational downtime is reduced to the time it takes to call IT and wait for them to bring in the replacement, which is a big part of IT responsabilities. So, when they said they were going to buy AMD laptops what they were actually saying was "we don't have AMD in our spares", since spares are there to replace what they actually use.

This is all good ^. At least, more and more companies begin to buy AMD's parts.

The company X can only be profitable if it has a high share of the x86 market. To do this, this company X, which is very large and has a very high operating expenses, needs to blackmail other PC and server assembly companies to they only use their CPUs (from the company X) and engage in other illegal practices. This was the only way this company X can be profitable.

I really hope that Nvidia comes in putting the sole of its shoe on the chest of Intel and AMD to they both be forced to launch new CPUs with higher IPC and lower power consumption.

This is indeed illegal and leads to global class-action lawsuits.

So, Intel still sells 70% of desktop CPUs inspite of their products being inferior in most aspects for 4 years now (since Zen3)? And there are people that pity Intel for them being on a difficult position financially? I am almost sure they keep spending big money on OEMs in order to keep their sales high for their inferior products.

Not inferior in most apsects at all, more in gaming than anything else. For most of the other stuff, they are ahead of AMD. Most of the sales of AMD CPUs are down to, imo, gamers buying X3D setups.

Inferior they are:
1. Performance.
2. Power consumption.
3. Platform support is only one (or maybe two) generation, not like with AMD - one platform is used until a new memory generation gets released - AM4 with DDR4, AM5 with DDR5, AM3 with DDR3, etc.
4. Price.

 

[R0H1T]

This is indeed illegal and leads to global class-action lawsuits.

What, did you watch too much of Law & Order: Criminal Intent recently

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Great reminder of how bad Intel's "latest and greatest" is. I have never seen so strong vote of protest by the customers!



Then, uninstall those "security tools" and use centralised security, via servers, so that you don't get internet connection to every officeseat...



AMD uses other fabs, too. Namely GloFo and Samsung, among others.



The thing is that "standardisation" leads to illegal monopoly, and worse conditions for all the rest of the market - imagine if Intel remained the only maker - how much of an innovation would you expect from them, and what prices? Not good... Remember the Core i7 2000 - Core i7 7000 age - very black times for the IT.



This is all good ^. At least, more and more companies begin to buy AMD's parts.



This is indeed illegal and leads to global class-action lawsuits.





Inferior they are:
1. Performance.
2. Power consumption.
3. Platform support is only one (or maybe two) generation, not like with AMD - one platform is used until a new memory generation gets released - AM4 with DDR4, AM5 with DDR5, AM3 with DDR3, etc.
4. Price.

The bias is strong in this one it is. Superior in market share though.

 

[Daven]

On another subject. Intel still ahead because of their fabs. They can still ship tons of CPU. AMD have to fight with many customers at TSMC and they still can't get the volume they would need to be the leader in the market.

Except that Intel makes its CPUs in TSMC fabs now due to their terrible fab nodes.

 

[kapone32]

Like I said on the last page ~ the biggest customers are hyperscalers, or however you'd like to term them, the top 20(10?) cloud providers probably have 90% of the market share, & that's where AMD usually sells a boatload without too many issues!

AWS

 

[3valatzy]

The bias is strong in this one it is. Superior in market share though.

What bias? Have you read tech articles and reviews recently?

Intel hasn't sold a single Arrow Lake CPU at Germany's largest retailer — Core Ultra 200S sales stagnate after just one week

Arrow Lake's disappointing sales match its underwhelming performance.

www.tomshardware.com

Intel hasn't sold a single Arrow Lake CPU at Germany's largest retailer — Core Ultra 200S sales stagnate after just one week​

Arrow Lake's disappointing sales match its underwhelming performance.

 

[evernessince]

Not inferior in most apsects at all, more in gaming than anything else. For most of the other stuff, they are ahead of AMD. Most of the sales of AMD CPUs are down to, imo, gamers buying X3D setups.

??? Most of the other stuff ???

Server: AMD is faster, cheaper, has more dense options per socket, and has lower TCO
Laptop: AMD is faster and more efficient
Desktop: AMD is faster in games and tied for MT, they are more efficient, they have a better platform

Overall AMD is more reliable as well. Server providers were reporting a whopping 50% failure rate with 13th and 14th gen.

Anyone who doesn't have a massive case of cognitive dissonance can see by reading a single TPU review on any recent AMD or Intel processor that AMD has the lead in more than just gaming performance.

 

[JustBenching]

??? Most of the other stuff ???

Server: AMD is faster, cheaper, has more dense options per socket, and has lower TCO
Laptop: AMD is faster and more efficient
Desktop: AMD is faster in games and tied for MT, they are more efficient, they have a better platform

Overall AMD is more reliable as well. Server providers were reporting a whopping 50% failure rate with 13th and 14th gen.

Anyone who doesn't have a massive case of cognitive dissonance can see by reading a single TPU review on any recent AMD or Intel processor that AMD has the lead in more than just gaming performance.

Wow.

I agree with the massive case of cognitive dissonance. I literally did what you just told me, read the latest TPU review. Went to the MT workloads. Im literally seeing an i7 from 2021 beating the latest and greatest R7 from 2024. Heck, even the i5 from 2022 is faster than the R7 from 2024. I think you are lying to me chief.

 

[3valatzy]

read the latest TPU review. Went to the MT workloads. Im literally seeing an i7 from 2021 beating the latest and greatest R7 from 2024

Let's see:

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review - The Best Gaming Processor

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D establishes AMD as the leader in gaming performance. This Zen 5-based X3D chip is not only fast, it also comes with full support for overclocking. Besides gaming, application performance is considerably improved over the 7800X3D, but that comes at a price.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[JustBenching]

Let's see:

View attachment 371162

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review - The Best Gaming Processor

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D establishes AMD as the leader in gaming performance. This Zen 5-based X3D chip is not only fast, it also comes with full support for overclocking. Besides gaming, application performance is considerably improved over the 7800X3D, but that comes at a price.

www.techpowerup.com

Nice multithreaded workloads you got there.

This is the normal behavior from amd fans. Claim something then show graphs about something completely different. Im out, have fun.

 

[Nhonho]

I am almost sure they keep spending big money on OEMs in order to keep their sales high for their inferior products.

Exactly what I said. Company X can only be profitable (or exist) if it extorts/blackmails OEMs. It is very large, bloated, and has very high operating costs.

And it needs to sell CPUs with a very high profit margin per CPU. In other words, it needs to win back from AMD precisely the part that makes the most profit: server CPUs.

 

[3valatzy]

Nice multithreaded workloads

The aforementioned graphs shows the relative performance including all apps, including the ones which you claim as "multi-threaded". Which, of course, is wrong, because all apps today are multi-threaded.
If you mean the one or two edge cases where all Intel CPUs are faster (because of cheating and particular optimisation for them), then it is another matter...

 

[Nhonho]

Intel still sells 70% of desktop CPUs inspite of their products being inferior in most aspects for 4 years now (since Zen3)?

This is one of the consequences of AMD not having invested as much as Intel in advertising over the years. Many people do not know that AMD exists, others think that Intel CPUs are the best. The buyers of AMD products are nerds, geeks, who follow computer news.

 

[JustBenching]

The aforementioned graphs shows the relative performance including all apps, including the ones which you claim as "multi-threaded". Which, of course, is wrong, because all apps today are multi-threaded.
If you mean the one or two edge cases where all Intel CPUs are faster (because of cheating and particular optimisation for them), then it is another matter...

Ah, we are going down another rabbit hole now. Nah I think the workloads that amd is winning is because of cheating and optimizations for them. Intel is faster but amd is bribing devs

 

[Nhonho]

According to the

Could you staff of TPU write an article about Intel and AMD compilers, since the two companies are now united to face a possible strong entry of Nvidia in the CPU market?

The legend says that compilers from both Intel and AMD always generated binaries optimized for their own CPUs and harmed the performance of the other's CPUs. I've also heard that Microsoft compilers are "neutral", they don't optimize the binary so much for a specific company's CPUs, but they also don't harm performance in favor of one of the two.

Is this true? Will Intel and AMD, from now on, develop compilers together without one harming the performance of the other's CPUs?

 

[evernessince]

Wow.

I agree with the massive case of cognitive dissonance. I literally did what you just told me, read the latest TPU review. Went to the MT workloads. Im literally seeing an i7 from 2021 beating the latest and greatest R7 from 2024. Heck, even the i5 from 2022 is faster than the R7 from 2024. I think you are lying to me chief.

Fevgatos right now trying to look at this review:

The actual chart he's referencing:

Per your own criteria, AMD's 8 core R7 is beating Intel's 12700K from 2021.

That lead only extends when you compare the 12900K to the 9950X and it gets even worse when you look at total application performance or gaming performance:

Nice multithreaded workloads you got there.

This is the normal behavior from amd fans. Claim something then show graphs about something completely different. Im out, have fun.

No, I think it's pretty normal behavior for anyone with a clear mind to point out an obvious lie.

Your're out because you feel this:

 

[JustBenching]

Fevgatos right now trying to look at this review:

View attachment 371175

The actual chart he's referencing:

View attachment 371171

Per your own criteria, AMD's 8 core R7 is beating Intel's 12700K from 2021.

That lead only extends when you compare the 12900K to the 9950X and it gets even worse when you look at total application performance or gaming performance:

View attachment 371172



No, I think it's pretty normal behavior for anyone with a clear mind to point out an obvious lie.

Your're out because you feel this:

View attachment 371177

You understand I was talking about the 9700x, right? Whateva man, amd has more MT performance, sure

 

[Jism]

Eh they do. The amount of cores your getting for the money these days is crazy. If you need gaming only a X3D model is enough, with a TDP of only 65W up to 125W those those who require it. Buying a Intel costs you almost double, where the X3D likely will beat the more expensive Intel anyway.

 

[JustBenching]

Eh they do. The amount of cores your getting for the money these days is crazy. If you need gaming only a X3D model is enough, with a TDP of only 65W up to 125W those those who require it. Buying a Intel costs you almost double, where the X3D likely will beat the more expensive Intel anyway.

Im going to use hwunboxed''s review (they have the exact same numbers as TPU) because he also has commentary.

"It also means for these Multicore workloads amd is still well behind intel's core i5 13600k" (and the i7 12700k from 2021!!).

This is from their 9700x review.

I guess Stephen suffers from cognitive dissonance too according to evernessince

 

[GhostRyder]

Biggest change is going to be once OEM's really start putting more AMD processors into devices. On the mobile market, I currently like most AMD options over Intel in nearly every scenario. As for desktop, its not nearly as black and white as there are pros and cons to both sides. That combined with needing people to change mentality towards them will help AMD gain share in the future and they need to keep pushing forward.

I mean, if I can get one I am probably going to go with a 9800X3D as my next chip if I buy in the next couple of months.