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

[evernessince]

This is a reminder to all the people worrying about Intel up and failing overnight, AMD still only has 28.7% marketshare despite being in the lead for 3 generations and a catastrophic gaggle of CPU defects on Intel's end.

Intel's monopoly power allowed pure incompetence to take root at Intel for over a decade and still dogs them to this day. Intel has to go through significant financial pain in order to shake things up and refresh itself.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Wow Intel still has 71% thought it would be less by now with AMD on a win so much. The lead Intel has is still very hard to overtake, it could take AMD years, IF they ever do overtake.

 

[Tek-Check]

What's wrong with mislabelling years on the Server graph?
Also, Passmark has differewnt numbers for all segments, so we are asking the question about methodologies used?

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Aren't those places mostly buying i3's maybe i5's? This is based on the kind of office desktops I've seen in my life; I don't think I've seen a single Celeron (and later Pentium) ever. That said I also think Lenovo is the only one currently offering AMD systems.

Depends of standard of life in country. Wow core i5 from last 5(or 7, if count from core i5 8000 series) generations is enough powerful to be base for 2+ office workseats equipped with a monitor, mouse and keyboard. Of course, with a suitable motherboard with enough video outputs, or with a splitter.

 

[Mr_Engineer]

I really don't believe it's that bad for Intel on the Desktop side. Arrow Lake doesn't have great performance but things could improve with new BIOS, drivers, patches etc. Same as was the case with Zen 5 when it was first released.

Where AMD is really destroying Intel now is in the Datacenter space and AI. This is were the high margins are.

Meanwhile, the Ryzen 9800x3d will keep selling like hot cakes.

 

[Daven]

lol for office tasks a dual core 4 thread alder lake series celeron is perfectly sufficient and very cheap. AMD really hasn't released anything in this ultra-budget segment of the market for a long time. I guess the last ones were some sort of Athlon 3000 series?

AM4 5000 series processors go down to $70 and are cheaper and faster than the Intel ones you mentioned. No one has released budget processors in over three years not including that ridiculous $100 Intel 300 dual core.

 

[Vayra86]

Wow Intel still has 71% thought it would be less by now with AMD on a win so much. The lead Intel has is still very hard to overtake, it could take AMD years, IF they ever do overtake.

Its crazy isn't it... But I remember when Intel was about to go big little and said something along the lines of 'meh, we might have to give AMD 15% of the market'.

And here we are... I think we're also starting to see the exponential growth rate of this market share, there will be a point where it all accelerates, and it could be now, for all the known reasons.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Both teams have decent product stacks, in the average real world use cases there's actually going to be little difference between them. People get way too excited and hyped now for fringe performance gains. Sure you can save seconds in application performance, unless you do really intensive stuff constantly it's not going to change your work day. It's only really the edge use cases that it makes a difference, people doing loads of very intensive cpu tasks or gaming at low res like 1080p with high end GPUs.

Servers are where CPU gains can really show, but datacenters upgrades move slowly and reliability more important than speed.

You missed a big, glaring difference between Intel and AMD's CPU offerings:

Battery Life.

I bought my kid an AMD 7490-based laptop (Asus A15) for college instead of the Intel 12/13xxx option (Asus F15) for the 50-100% longer battery life because AMD's CPUs are power efficient whereas Intel's are not. That is a huge difference where it really counts.

Wow Intel still has 71% thought it would be less by now with AMD on a win so much. The lead Intel has is still very hard to overtake, it could take AMD years, IF they ever do overtake.

Big corps (Dell, HP, Lenovo) buy Intel because they always have and they deal in huge volumes, pretty simple. That AMD is as high as it is shows that when given a choice, individual buyers will choose the better option for them.

 

[kapone32]

lol for office tasks a dual core 4 thread alder lake series celeron is perfectly sufficient and very cheap. AMD really hasn't released anything in this ultra-budget segment of the market for a long time. I guess the last ones were some sort of Athlon 3000 series?

Well I work for the Biggest Technology Company in my Country and my Laptop is a AMD APU based system. This is not 2017 anymore. Just think of what the 3500G costs for HP.

 

[3valatzy]

Depends of standard of life in country. Wow core i5 from last 5(or 7, if count from core i5 8000 series) generations is enough powerful to be base for 2+ office workseats equipped with a monitor, mouse and keyboard. Of course, with a suitable motherboard with enough video outputs, or with a splitter.

Office workseats can be fine with a mid range smartphone, as well. You definitely don't need a core i5.

Back to reality:

first Arrow Lake post launch sales numbers AMD share shoots up to 95%

Units
AMD: 730 units sold, 94.81%, ASP: 267
Intel: 40, 5.19%, ASP: 388

Revenue
AMD: 195201, 92.64%
Intel: 15509, 7.36% LOctober 29, 2024

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

 

[JustBenching]

despite being in the lead for 3 generations and a catastrophic gaggle of CPU defects on Intel's end.

Are they? Sales don't show that. See that huge spike in Q1 of 2022. That's the alderlake launch.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I hate my HP Adler Lake i7 laptop at work. Slow, terrible battery life, and liquid magma hot. All for 2 measly P-cores. MS Office isn’t exactly a model of efficiency either, especially their never ending mess they call New Outlook. Even the everyday office grunt needs more than 2 P cores.

 

[Onasi]

Since the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 times, AMD has the better products.
Unfortunately, the market is so corrupt, and they prefer shenanigans than actual product quality.

For sure, for sure, that half a decade of Bulldozer was absolute fire and it’s really unfortunate that the CORRUPT market ignores such quality products and it almost led AMD to bankruptcy. If only we bought more FXs. /s

 

[Baba]

Why does this article only post a half-truth?

Here is the complete financial statement.

AMD Reports Third Quarter 2024 Financial Results

Browse AMD’s company-wide and financial press releases.

ir.amd.com

• Record Data Center segment revenue of $3.5 billion was up 122% year-over-year and 25% sequentially primarily driven by the strong ramp of AMD Instinct™ GPU shipments and growth in AMD EPYC™ CPU sales.
• Client segment revenue was $1.9 billion, up 29% year-over-year and 26% sequentially primarily driven by strong demand for “Zen 5” AMD Ryzen™ processors.
• Gaming segment revenue was $462 million, down 69% year-over-year and 29% sequentially primarily due to a decrease in semi-custom revenue.
• Embedded segment revenue was $927 million, down 25% year-over-year as customers normalized their inventory levels. On a sequential basis, revenue increased 8% as demand improved in several end markets.

AMD's GPU's are not their focus. It is only 6.8% of their total revenue and will keep getting smaller. Hence they're abandoning RDNA and combining it with CDNA.

I don't know why you all bicker about brands. Buy what's best and don't worry about the logo. My next purchases soon will be AMD 9800X3D or 9950X3D, Macbook M4 Pro, and Nvidia 5080 or 5090.

 

[3valatzy]

For sure, for sure, that half a decade of Bulldozer was absolute fire and it’s really unfortunate that the CORRUPT market ignores such quality products and it almost led AMD to bankruptcy. If only we bought more FXs. /s

Bulldozer was ahead of its time, and never got the software support it needed in order to work....
Not to mention, that for 20 years before that "half a decade" intel had made everything possible to kick AMD out of the market..

 

[Onasi]

Bulldozer was ahead of its time, and never got the software support it needed in order to work....

That’s a popular delusion among some rabid AMD fans, yeah, but no, if we are being serious Bulldozer was just an absolute dud of an architecture with numerous flaws that no amount of software support could fix. It was AMD making an incredibly wrong prediction on the future of computing in a medium perspective and then also executing horribly on it.

 

[AnotherReader]

It's been an interesting battle. x86 has long been capable of being powerful, with Intel and AMD scaling designs down for better low-power results. Arm has long been low-power capable, and has been scaled-up for more performance. We're finally starting to meet in the middle here on power and efficiency, and emulation is finally becoming viable. Apple was able to make the jump in 2020, but they don't operate at the scale of Windows. Snapdragon X might not gain a ton of market share, but it shows what can be done now. I wonder if/when we'll see AMD make an Arm solution. They did years ago, but the concept was too early since WOA was not ready.

For AMD, it makes sense to stick to x86 where they are only one of two alternatives. The ARM market has many more competitors and they would lose their unique selling point.

This market research is becoming more and more irrelevant without taking into consideration ARM processors (Apple, Qualcomm, Mediatek, Nvidia, Ampere, Amazon, Google, etc) and new form factors (tablets, smartphones, handhelds, smart devices, etc) that have replaced laptops and desktops as client’s primary computing devices in some cases.

Even if you combine AMD and Intel revenue together, it’s just a fraction of revenue of ARM and GPU compute. Market research helps one invest and this report is not going to help with that. It will only tell you who is ahead between two players out of dozens.

For client computing, ignoring ARM makes no sense. However, for servers, it's primarily GPUs, i.e. Nvidia, that is taking the market by storm.

 

[Bones]

Wow Intel still has 71% thought it would be less by now with AMD on a win so much. The lead Intel has is still very hard to overtake, it could take AMD years, IF they ever do overtake.

Based on past events, I'm not too suprised Intel still holds a majority market share.

Intel entrenched itself years ago in many places like the server market for entities like the gov for example.
These are known to stick with what they have been running, contracts involved too and not to mention Intel's own past about slashing/undercutting the price per chip so AMD coudn't really compete for contracts, gov or otherwise.

Also:
You can't base all of what their market share "Should be" according to what gamers get and gaming PC's in general.
Computers are used in so many other things and those numbers dwarf the number of gaming PC use machines out in the wild.

There is also the public perception of "What" and "Who" makes computer chips in play too, remember years ago the little Intel aliens in their advertising?
They established their name, their product's own name (Pentium) in the minds of consumers and that's how it's been since.

It's the same basic thing for example as when you look for penetrating lube for rusty bolts and door locks, what comes to mind?
WD-40 of course.

It's a name association kind of thing Intel created and fostered over the years but now things are beginning to change.
I've only seen maybe two AMD advertisements period, used to see and hear Intel ads all the time and even now they still have those out there..... Just not as many in recent times.

That's one big reason how and why Intel still has the market share they have today.

 

[3valatzy]

That's one big reason how and why Intel still has the market share they have today.

This is starting to change...

Because:

1. Intel itself starts to make wrong decisions - the new generation is a performance downgrade (lack of SMT is a critical mistake);
2. The customers begin to see better, and the large retailers' sales numbers show that 90% and more of the sales are in Ryzen's favour, not the other way round (look at Mindfactory, Amazon, etc., where the first 7 bestselling CPUs are all AMD Ryzen, while the first Intel CPU is at the miserable 8th place);
3. x86-64 and process node stagnation - Intel is going to lose its own fabs, which means very serious problems that are only beginning to materialize today..

 

[usiname]

Office workseats can be fine with a mid range smartphone, as well. You definitely don't need a core i5.

Back to reality:

first Arrow Lake post launch sales numbers AMD share shoots up to 95%

Units
AMD: 730 units sold, 94.81%, ASP: 267
Intel: 40, 5.19%, ASP: 388

Revenue
AMD: 195201, 92.64%
Intel: 15509, 7.36% LOctober 29, 2024

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

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

 

[Punkenjoy]

Office workseats can be fine with a mid range smartphone, as well. You definitely don't need a core i5.

Back to reality:

first Arrow Lake post launch sales numbers AMD share shoots up to 95%

Units
AMD: 730 units sold, 94.81%, ASP: 267
Intel: 40, 5.19%, ASP: 388

Revenue
AMD: 195201, 92.64%
Intel: 15509, 7.36% LOctober 29, 2024

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

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.



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.

i don't fuss too much about the instruction sets. The front end could probably be swapped easily and even ARM might not last as RISC V is getting traction and require no licenses. (see the qualcomm story. In the end, arm is competitive because they design CPU for mobile and desktop now instead of just mobile.

Sadly, on x86, the primary target of every CPU uArch is still the server/datacenter market. That is why they are not that much competitive on lower power side and this is why they are getting beaten by some of these ARM CPU in single core.
On the server market, Single core perf is not that important where it is really important on desktops.

On the Server market, ARM have made some push, but x86 still in the leads for what you can get right now.

 

[AGlezB]

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.

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.

 

[Bones]

This is starting to change...

Because:

1. Intel itself starts to make wrong decisions - the new generation is a performance downgrade (lack of SMT is a critical mistake);
2. The customers begin to see better, and the large retailers' sales numbers show that 90% and more of the sales are in Ryzen's favour, not the other way round (look at Mindfactory, Amazon, etc., where the first 7 bestselling CPUs are all AMD Ryzen, while the first Intel CPU is at the miserable 8th place);
3. x86-64 and process node stagnation - Intel is going to lose its own fabs, which means very serious problems that are only beginning to materialize today..

I saw your reaction and I'd like to know what's wrong with what I posted since all that is true and yes, things did happen that way in general concerning Intel.

I'm not going to deny Intel making bad decisions as of late, that's obvious from what's been over the past few years to say the least of it.

Customers can tell what's good and what's not, provided they know something about CPUs but you can't deny many don't even give it a second thought - You mention getting parts for a build, they'll immediately think about or mention Intel, sometimes one of their chip models as reference.

It's a little someting called reputation, or in this case a well established "Brand reputation".

The point I made about "WD-40" holds because so many just don't know or bother to think about an alternative, even if it's mentioned because Intel made themselves a household name when it comes to computing in the early days (Early to mid 2000's) and because of that, when you start talking about CPU's Intel immediately comes to mind for them.
Alot of the time you literally have to explain and show it to them before they really start to understand.

That's because they tend to go with what they know....
That's just human nature, and if they don't know about the past vs today's AMD vs Intel, guess what they'll choose roughly 90% of the time?
Why Intel of course.

That's why I'm not suprised they still hold as large of a market share as they do right now.... But yeah - That's slowly changing and has been for a few years now, and it ain't getting any better ATM.

 

[Nhonho]

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.

 

[HD64G]

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.