AMD continues to erode Intel's CPU market share

midian182

TechSpot Editor
Staff member

A report from market analyst firm Mercury Research shows that AMD is experiencing growth in all segments of the industry, thanks in no small part to its popular 7nm Ryzen 3000 processors. Team red is still far behind Chipzilla overall, but it’s steadily stealing market share away from its rival.

In the desktop CPU segment, AMD has seen its market unit share increase every quarter since Q2 2017. It now stands at 18 percent, marking a 5 percent year-over-year increase and a 0.9 percent jump from the previous quarter. This comes even as AMD experienced some supply issues with Ryzen 3000, which AMD CTO Mark Papermaster said was a binning issue, with the process not yielding enough high-end chips from each wafer to supply demand. With this problem now addressed, the company is likely to continue increasing its desktop CPU market share.

It’s a similar story in the server market, where AMD now holds a 4.3 percent share, representing a 2.74 percent YoY increase. Earlier this year, it was predicted that its EPYC Rome server CPUs could force Intel’s server market share below 90 percent in 2020.

AMD’s mobile processors are also heading in the right direction—it now holds a 14.7 percent market share. As noted by Tom’s Hardware, CEO Lisu Su said the Ryzen 4000 mobile chips would arrive early next year, which should address the poor battery performance in previous AMD-powered laptops thanks to their use of the 7nm process.

Intel is still the dominant player in all CPU markets, but it has been forced to cut the price of some products as it looks to compete with AMD’s more affordable offerings. With the company lagging on 7nm and PCI 4.0, expect AMD to keep chipping away at its market share.

Permalink to story.

 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

treetops

TS Evangelist
Meh to bad they couldn't surpass intel at gaming, nice to see intel lowering their prices instead of peddling something like RT
 

JimboJoneson

TS Rookie
Meh to bad they couldn't surpass intel at gaming, nice to see intel lowering their prices instead of peddling something like RT
Intel only surpasses at gaming by any meaningful amount in this one specific scenario: 2080ti, 1080p res or lower, 240hz refresh monitor, game settings set so that 240fps is the minimum fps, and all your games can exceed 240 FPS.

Anything that's not exactly that, will be GPU bound and the difference will be within margin of error (5% or less).

People used to accurately believe that a GPU was what got you the best FPS for your games, now, due to all the Intel propoganda that is pushed that people lap up readily, they believe that the CPU is the most important thing for gaming - nothing could be further from the truth.

There was a poor sap on Tom's forum that upgraded his old AMD CPU to modern Intel one and then couldn't understand why his gaming performance didn't increase at all. The GPU does the gaming, and should be the bottleneck, not the CPU. So unless you are the 0.0000001% of people that require to play games strictly in the scenario I outlined above, your GPU is what dictates your FPS - not your CPU.

With a 1050ti, a dual core Pentium and a 6700k have the exact same performance.

To keep broadly parroting "Intel is better for games" is disingenuous. Well educated people know better and I just want people to be smart enough to not blindly fall for the rhetoric.

If you don't have a 2080ti and don't only game at 1080p and don't have a 244hz monitor, it won't really make a meaningful difference what CPU you have for gaming. At 4k there is absolutely no difference at all even with the 2080ti,

So if you want to express exactly how Intel is better for gaming - you have to include the rest of the criteria.

"Meh, too bad they couldn't pass Intel at 2080ti, 1080p, 244hz monitor gaming, for those who think they need 244hz to be any good." would have been more accurate. :)
 
Last edited:

treetops

TS Evangelist
Intel only surpasses at gaming by any meaningful amount in this one specific scenario: 2080ti, 1080p res or lower, 240hz refresh monitor, game settings set so that 240fps is the minimum fps, and all your games can exceed 240 FPS.

Anything that's not exactly that, will be GPU bound and the difference will be within margin of error (5% or less).

People used to accurately believe that a GPU was what got you the best FPS for your games, now, due to all the Intel propoganda that is pushed that people lap up readily, they believe that the CPU is the most important thing for gaming - nothing could be further from the truth.

There was a poor sap on Tom's forum that upgraded his old AMD CPU to modern Intel one and then couldn't understand why his gaming performance didn't increase at all. The GPU does the gaming, and should be the bottleneck, not the CPU. So unless you are the 0.0000001% of people that require to play games strictly in the scenario I outlined above, your GPU is what dictates your FPS - not your CPU.

With a 1050ti, a dual core Pentium and a 6700k have the exact same performance.

To keep broadly parroting "Intel is better for games" is disingenuous. Well educated people know better and I just want people to be smart enough to not blindly fall for the rhetoric.

If you don't have a 2080ti and don't only game at 1080p and don't have a 244hz monitor, it won't really make a meaningful difference what CPU you have for gaming. At 4k there is absolutely no difference at all even with the 2080ti,

So if you want to express exactly how Intel is better for gaming - you have to include the rest of the criteria.

"Meh, too bad they couldn't pass Intel at 2080ti, 1080p, 244hz monitor gaming, for those who think they need 244hz to be any good." would have been more accurate. :)
I bought a AMD 2600 a few months back, I know it's limitations. It was a good buy at $130. So is the 9400f at $150. The 3600 at $200. The 9600k at $240. Beyond that every graph known to man shows intel clearly gains more fps when your not GPU bound. That can happen at 1080p, 1440p. 83 fps, 150 fps.

I wish AMD surpassed intels 9700k, 9900k, KF and the KS at the same price. But they don't. If you do anything else while gaming for example, watch videos, stream, play music with youtube, run a virus scan, update or download. AMD wins. If I'm wrong prove it, I'm no expert but I have been obsessing over benchmarks for about 6 months ^^.


 

quadibloc

TS Addict
I am sure AMD will not do that.
When I heard that Forrest Norrod noted that the current generation of chips from AMD were intended to go head to head against Intel's upcoming 10nm processors, I was shocked. They had doubled the vector floating-point muscle on the chips, so now they were comparable to Intel's current generation of chips: but it was well known even then that Intel was going to double floating-point power yet again, for the sake of AVX-512 support, on their 10nm chips. So it seemed to me that AMD catching up with Intel was just luck, due to Intel's 10nm difficulties, and they were instead only aiming to maintain the same position relative to Intel as they had with the previous Ryzen generations.
My reaction may have been unfair. Extra floating-point vector capability comes with a cost, and not all applications benefit, so they could have been making a wise trade-off.
But it seemed to me that they never really had their foot on the gas pedal, and now that Intel isn't going to let itself stumble like this again, while I expect AMD will still maintain a strong presence, I am not expecting the current balance between the two companies to continue.