Intel's Global CPU Market Share is on the Rise, AMD Starts the Downfall

[AleksandarK]

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%.


View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Taraquin]

It doesn`t surprise me. Even though Zen 3 is good, Alder lake is arguebly better, especially in the tight budget (i3 12100) and very high end segment (12700K\12900K). Zen 4 looks exciting though!

 

[TheLostSwede]

It doesn`t surprise me. Even though Zen 3 is good, Alder lake is arguebly better, especially in the tight budget (i3 12100) and very high end segment (12700K\12900K). Zen 4 looks exciting though!

AMD doesn't really have anything competitive at the lower-end.
Hopefully they've managed to work out a better top to bottom range of processors for AM5.

 

[Xuper]

AMD doesn't give a sht about CPU desktop. each EPYC CPU provides much more profit than CPU Desktop. One EPYC 64 cores with price $7500 is equal to 25x Ryzen 5600x at price $300 but more profit.

 

[Chomiq]

Poll needs a third option "I don't know".

 

[Taraquin]

AMD doesn't really have anything competitive at the lower-end.
Hopefully they've managed to work out a better top to bottom range of processors for AM5.

In mid tier budget 5600X is pretty much on pair\slightly better than i5 12400F since B660 motherboards cost way more than B450\B550. Where I live cheapest B660 now costs 140usd, while cheapest B450 costs 60usd and cheapest B550 cost 85 usd, 5600X costs 320usd, 12400F costs 220usd so I would consider them about equal given that 5600X is a few percent faster (close to 10% if tuned since 12400F is locked to 3400-3600 ram).

5800X costs 420usd and 12600KF costs 320usd, but cheapest Z690 costs 210usd, 12600KF is about 5% faster both stock and 10% tuned, but costs a bit more total with MB with 530usd vs 5800X 480-505usd.

I would consider 5600X and 5800X about equal to 12400F and 12600KF, BUT in budget i3 12100 is superior and AMD has nothing here, also 12700K\12900K is 10-15% faster than the best AMD has to offer, and the price is quite similar since you need a better and more costly MB to accomodate 5900X and 5950X..

 

[Kenjiro]

Take in mind, todays Ryzen tech will go inside Epic (and the same for Intel - i3/i5/i7/i9 -> Xeon), and potential buyer will lower future AMD orders probably replaced by Intel.

 

[zlobby]

Yes, yes! I need people to dump their shares, so I can buy the dip.

 

[Turmania]

It was borderline criminal they ignored 100-200 USD Priced CPU range. and considering that consumer base was their saviour when they were a laughing stock. They cut off themselves from one big pie of the cake, as well shown the middle finger to the core that helped them stay a float.

 

[Vayra86]

AMD should have maintained their aggressive strategy on pricing. Every time, Ryzen was still in 'development' getting on par with competitors or exceeding it by a notable margin on one aspect or another.

And now that Zen is on point, its too expensive. Not smart, they haven't consolidated their lead yet and want to cash in too early. All the while its pretty silly for Ryzen MSDT chips to cost a lot, they're the weaker derivatives of the exact same stack top to bottom.

Once again I'm left with that nagging feeling AMD never truly wants to win the war, every time they win a few battles, they drop the ball somehow. I do hope I'm wrong.

 

[qcmadness]

AMD should have maintained their aggressive strategy on pricing. Every time, Ryzen was still in 'development' getting on par with competitors or exceeding it by a notable margin on one aspect or another.

And now that Zen is on point, its too expensive. Not smart, they haven't consolidated their lead yet and want to cash in too early. All the while its pretty silly for Ryzen MSDT chips to cost a lot, they're the weaker derivatives of the exact same stack top to bottom.

Once again I'm left with that nagging feeling AMD never truly wants to win the war, every time they win a few battles, they drop the ball somehow. I do hope I'm wrong.

You have to consider semi shortage.

Aggressive pricing does not mean market share gains.

 

[z1n0x]

AMD doesn't give a sht about CPU desktop. each EPYC CPU provides much more profit than CPU Desktop. One EPYC 64 cores with price $7500 is equal to 25x Ryzen 5600x at price $300 but more profit.

They do give a shit about desktop. However with tight supply and high demand, it's obvious they will prioritize the more profitable server market.

 

[Verpal]

In mid tier budget 5600X is pretty much on pair\slightly better than i5 12400F since B660 motherboards cost way more than B450\B550. Where I live cheapest B660 now costs 140usd, while cheapest B450 costs 60usd and cheapest B550 cost 85 usd, 5600X costs 320usd, 12400F costs 220usd so I would consider them about equal given that 5600X is a few percent faster (close to 10% if tuned since 12400F is locked to 3400-3600 ram).

5800X costs 420usd and 12600KF costs 320usd, but cheapest Z690 costs 210usd, 12600KF is about 5% faster both stock and 10% tuned, but costs a bit more total with MB with 530usd vs 5800X 480-505usd.

I would consider 5600X and 5800X about equal to 12400F and 12600KF, BUT in budget i3 12100 is superior and AMD has nothing here, also 12700K\12900K is 10-15% faster than the best AMD has to offer, and the price is quite similar since you need a better and more costly MB to accomodate 5900X and 5950X..

At equal mobo + CPU price I will probably still choose 12400F though, since B660 motherboard have better feature set, sometimes better VRM, one more generation of upgrade, and pcie 4.0.

 

[seth1911]

i vote for no,
amd didnt care since a long time for customers btween 50€-150€.

 

[Cr4zy]

It doesn't help that zen3 was and still is facing issues with USB even after AMD "fixed" the issue. If I enable gen3 for my 3080 my USB audio is fine. If it's on gen4 then certain GPU usage causes audio to just drop out.

New agesas roll out and break/improve it but it's unacceptable that it's still an issue. 5950 is great otherwise but there was a lot about how bad the problem was which probably didn't help them.

Zen4 could be great unless they manage to not fix that bug...

 

[lexluthermiester]

@ratirt
Referring to our other conversation: This situation might seem like a positive, but it will still not result in Pcore "stagnation". Still, it does show Intel not asleep at the wheel.

 

[Valantar]

"AMD starts the downfall" - that's a ... strong take based on a very short period. Is Intel resurgent? Absolutely. It's not surprising either, with ADL's strong performance + good availability of lower end hardware vs. AMD's abandonment of the sub-$250 CPU market since ... what, Ryzen 2000?

From my armchair analyst perspective, it's pretty clear that AMD is severely supply constrained and are focusing all their wafers on profitable markets and contractual obligations: consoles, datacenters/supercomputers/HPC, laptop APUs (with desktop APUs mainly for OEMs but also for retail), and GPUs (high end or high priced) and high end CPUs. What's left out is low-end GPUs (well, we got the 6500 XT that ought to have been a 6400, and there are 2-3 performance tiers missing between it and the 6600) and the entirety of the low-end to mid-range CPU stack - high volume parts, but low ASP and low margin products. When corporations are guided by a philosophy of maximizing profits above all else, this is what you get.

AMD should have maintained their aggressive strategy on pricing. Every time, Ryzen was still in 'development' getting on par with competitors or exceeding it by a notable margin on one aspect or another.

And now that Zen is on point, its too expensive. Not smart, they haven't consolidated their lead yet and want to cash in too early. All the while its pretty silly for Ryzen MSDT chips to cost a lot, they're the weaker derivatives of the exact same stack top to bottom.

Once again I'm left with that nagging feeling AMD never truly wants to win the war, every time they win a few battles, they drop the ball somehow. I do hope I'm wrong.

Entirely agree on this take. They seem far too eager to inflate profits, and seem to have completely misjudged Intel's ability to bring a competitive architecture to market. I'm still rather stunned why we haven't seen major price cuts for Zen3 after ADL launched. I guess they're still selling, and Zen4/AM5 isn't too far off, but ... why not just cut prices and sell through your stock quicker? I guess they don't want to cause another shortage this way, but that seems unlikely to happen unless they cut prices like 50%.

 

[Calmmo]

Given Intel is the only one providing reasonable budget options they should be selling more.

 

[Garrus]

It doesn`t surprise me. Even though Zen 3 is good, Alder lake is arguebly better, especially in the tight budget (i3 12100) and very high end segment (12700K\12900K). Zen 4 looks exciting though!

i3-12100 still doesn't really exist though, just like last time, the i3 isn't in any shop and it is already late February, several months later after launch

"AMD starts the downfall" - that's a ... strong take based on a very short period. Is Intel resurgent? Absolutely. It's not surprising either, with ADL's strong performance + good availability of lower end hardware vs. AMD's abandonment of the sub-$250 CPU market since ... what, Ryzen 2000?

From my armchair analyst perspective, it's pretty clear that AMD is severely supply constrained and are focusing all their wafers on profitable markets and contractual obligations: consoles, datacenters/supercomputers/HPC, laptop APUs (with desktop APUs mainly for OEMs but also for retail), and GPUs (high end or high priced) and high end CPUs. What's left out is low-end GPUs (well, we got the 6500 XT that ought to have been a 6400, and there are 2-3 performance tiers missing between it and the 6600) and the entirety of the low-end to mid-range CPU stack - high volume parts, but low ASP and low margin products. When corporations are guided by a philosophy of maximizing profits above all else, this is what you get.


Entirely agree on this take. They seem far too eager to inflate profits, and seem to have completely misjudged Intel's ability to bring a competitive architecture to market. I'm still rather stunned why we haven't seen major price cuts for Zen3 after ADL launched. I guess they're still selling, and Zen4/AM5 isn't too far off, but ... why not just cut prices and sell through your stock quicker? I guess they don't want to cause another shortage this way, but that seems unlikely to happen unless they cut prices like 50%.

Again there are no 5600G in stock at our store though for example. I agree ADL is better value but AMD is selling everything they have. I think once you include motherboard prices the 5900X and 5950X are still awesome imo. The 5800X and 5600X are outclassed though.

They do give a shit about desktop. However with tight supply and high demand, it's obvious they will prioritize the more profitable server market.

And sadly reviews make it clear the best desktop part we all want is a Ryzen 6800H for the desktop. Sad. Buy Intel I guess.

 

[trsttte]

"AMD starts the downfall" - that's a ... strong take based on a very short period. Is Intel resurgent? Absolutely. It's not surprising either, with ADL's strong performance + good availability of lower end hardware vs. AMD's abandonment of the sub-$250 CPU market since ... what, Ryzen 2000?

Entirely agree on this take. They seem far too eager to inflate profits, and seem to have completely misjudged Intel's ability to bring a competitive architecture to market. I'm still rather stunned why we haven't seen major price cuts for Zen3 after ADL launched. I guess they're still selling, and Zen4/AM5 isn't too far off, but ... why not just cut prices and sell through your stock quicker? I guess they don't want to cause another shortage this way, but that seems unlikely to happen unless they cut prices like 50%.

This "downfall" take also ignores that the latest processors from AMD (ignoring APUs) are almost 2 years old (1 and a half, close enough). New stuff sells better, which just makes it more surprising that Zen 3 is still maintaining more or less the same launch prices.

And sadly reviews make it clear the best desktop part we all want is a Ryzen 6800H for the desktop. Sad. Buy Intel I guess.

I'd be very into this! But unfortunately it's pretty much settled that it will only come after AM5 and later in the cycle (not at AM5 launch).

 

[Valantar]

Again there are no 5600G in stock at our store though for example. I agree ADL is better value but AMD is selling everything they have. I think once you include motherboard prices the 5900X and 5950X are still awesome imo. The 5800X and 5600X are outclassed though.

Zen3 is still fantastic - I wouldn't dream of upgrading my 5800X for quite a while yet - but they're just being outclassed on price/performance across the board right now. You're right that 6xx motherboards are expensive, but running Zen3 on anything below B550 is also a pretty unattractive proposition, so that's mostly a wash for me. Here in Sweden the 5600G is in plentiful supply at least, but it's 25% more expensive than something like a 12400F. The 5900X and 5950X are still amazing, yes, but at that point you're well into a price range where price/performance has long since gone out the window. But none of that changes the fact that AMD literally doesn't have a single CPU option below $250 - which, for the record, used to be a pretty high end CPU price class - that isn't at least three generations old. And with them delivering significant IPC and clock speed increases for both successive generations, that makes those cheaper options very unattractive.

If I were building a budget PC today (which I thankfully am not), I would probably have to swallow my ideals and buy Intel, as AMD just doesn't have anything for me in those ranges. And that's an immense shame.

And remember: G APUs compete with laptops for supplies, which inherently limits them compared to CPUs that only compete with much lower quantity datacentres.

This "downfall" take also ignores that the latest processors from AMD (ignoring APUs) are almost 2 years old (1 and a half, close enough). New stuff sells better, which just makes it more surprising that Zen 3 is still maintaining more or less the same launch prices.

Hm. They launched on November 5th 2020. That's ... slightly less than 16 months ago. Two years is 24 months. You're being very generous in your rounding up here. They're a bit more than a year old; slightly less than a year and a half. Still not brand-new by any means, but certainly not that old. It does go some way towards explaining things, though on the other hand it also emphasizes how atrocious it is that they still haven't launched anything lower end than the 5600G for retail.

I'd be very into this! But unfortunately it's pretty much settled that it will only come after AM5 and later in the cycle (not at AM5 launch).

Why not at launch? I guess this would depend on 6nm yields and wafer outputs, and of course their increased foothold in laptops puts more pressure on that, but launching mobile APUs at CES and desktop APUs at Computex or a bit later is pretty much par for the course for Ryzen. I would be disappointed if we didn't see AM5 APUs around August or so (assuming AM5 has launched by then).

 

[Bomby569]

AMD starts a downfall is certainly over dramatic click bait. But Intel is definetly back in the game, i say this outside tech, mainly in investment terms and get all types of backlash. Everyone is blindly on board the AMD hype train.

But i notice this even in less informed consumers. At this point the tables have reversed, even if Intel has a better, cheaper CPU, people don't even consider it, all they want is Ryzen, period. I blame a lot of the media, influencers for this.

Another thing that's hillarious is common people and even some pc builders, when they hear Ryzen 5, great cpu's. In the Intel side, if it isn't I7 it isn't that good. A relic of the past

 

[trsttte]

Hm. They launched on November 5th 2020. That's ... slightly less than 16 months ago. Two years is 24 months. You're being very generous in your rounding up here. They're a bit more than a year old; slightly less than a year and a half. Still not brand-new by any means, but certainly not that old. It does go some way towards explaining things, though on the other hand it also emphasizes how atrocious it is that they still haven't launched anything lower end than the 5600G for retail.

Generationally speaking it feels closer to 2 years than to 1 year (and they were announced in October but splitting hairs really). Might also be the warped perception of time because of the pandemic or the constant desire for newer and flashier hardware, but Zen3 to me is feeling a bit on the old side.

Why not at launch? I guess this would depend on 6nm yields and wafer outputs, and of course their increased foothold in laptops puts more pressure on that, but launching mobile APUs at CES and desktop APUs at Computex or a bit later is pretty much par for the course for Ryzen. I would be disappointed if we didn't see AM5 APUs around August or so (assuming AM5 has launched by then).

There were some interviews around CES where they talked about the dynamics of DDR5 supply and how AM5 would be enthusiast first (I remember some more explicit quotes about APUs only later but that's the one I can find now)

Paul, of course, I'm not commenting on future products that are announced at this point," McAfee said. "One of the dynamics that we do think about a great deal is how and when to introduce that AM5 ecosystem and ensure that the DDR5 supply, as well as pricing of DDR5 memory, is mature and something that's easily attainable for an end-user," he continued.

"And so there may be other forces beyond the product itself that slow down or meter the introduction of APUs into that AM5 socket. You know, we do expect that to be an enthusiast-first introduction. And I think we're going to have to watch very carefully just how the DDR5 transition takes place and how quickly both supply and prices come in line to make it more affordable for a mainstream consumer that might be more interested in making a product in that socket

source: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...desktop-pcs-ddr5-pricing-impacts-release-date

 

[Dbiggs9]

Yes, yes! I need people to dump their shares, so I can buy the dip.

The dip was back in 2016

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
AMD held a high price tag too long on 5k series

They usually drop 4-6 months after release when market is saturated and plenty are around especially the top dog chips but this took to long to happen.