AMD took almost a quarter of the x86 CPU market in Q3, its largest share since 2006

midian182

Posts: 7,452   +67
Staff member
In brief: It’s not as if AMD needed any more good news, but here’s some anyway: the company has reached its largest share of the x86 CPU market in fifteen years and its second-highest share ever. Team red’s cut of the notebook x86 market, meanwhile, hit a new all-time high.

The Q3 2021 x86 CPU Market Share report from analyst firm Mercury Research (via HardwareTimes) will be welcome reading for AMD. The biggest reveal is that the company has increased its overall x86 CPU share by 2.1 points quarter-over-quarter, taking it to 24.6%.

That latest figure marks AMD’s second-highest overall share ever. It’s just 0.7% off the company’s record: a 25.3% share way back in 2006 during the Athlon 64 CPU era.

It was even better news in the notebook x86 category. AMD’s unit share—excluding IoT—was up 1.8 points year-on-year, giving it all an all-time high of 22%. Revenue in the section was also a quarterly record, up 3.9 points YoY to 16.2%.

AMD’s continuing success in the CPU market is also reflected in the latest Steam survey. The company has been chipping away at Intel’s lead for a long time—barring a small blip in August. Its processors are now found in 30.84% of participants’ computers, which is another record high for the firm.

AMD has been on the up since the arrival of its Ryzen CPUs in 2018, and its latest Ryzen 5000 processors are loved by gamers, professionals, and creators—it’s just a shame they’re in short supply right now, as is the case with so many pieces of PC hardware. But with Alder Lake having just launched, will AMD's surge start to slow?

Permalink to story.

 

dragosmp

Posts: 46   +49
I'd welcome Alder Lake, might lead to AMD cutting the prices a bit. I supported AMD's pricing of the 5xxx Ryzen when there was no competition, after all they need to make some money, but let's be honest - the prices have gone quite steeply up since the 1xxx Ryzens were launched. The entry level 6-core is now over 50% more expensive and it's arguable if it's the same good value the 1600 was.

Regarding Intel, I heard that there is very limited supply as the 10nm yelds are still poor. Let's see
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,207   +1,065
I'd welcome Alder Lake, might lead to AMD cutting the prices a bit. I supported AMD's pricing of the 5xxx Ryzen when there was no competition, after all they need to make some money, but let's be honest - the prices have gone quite steeply up since the 1xxx Ryzens were launched. The entry level 6-core is now over 50% more expensive and it's arguable if it's the same good value the 1600 was.

Regarding Intel, I heard that there is very limited supply as the 10nm yelds are still poor. Let's see
Conpletely agreed. We all thought competition would see cheaper pricing but since Ryzen launched in 2017 prices are through the roof.

In 2014 I purchased a high end ROG motherboard, low latency RAM and a 4790k for less money than the 5800X launched at and that was on the lower end of AMDs product stack.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 436   +561
Conpletely agreed. We all thought competition would see cheaper pricing but since Ryzen launched in 2017 prices are through the roof.

In 2014 I purchased a high end ROG motherboard, low latency RAM and a 4790k for less money than the 5800X launched at and that was on the lower end of AMDs product stack.

In 2014 housing prices were about half if not more than half the current cost. And same can be said about a lot of different things.

Some stuff is simply more expensive simply because of supply and demand. Demand is strong and Supply just isn't there.

Even before Covid video cards were already in short supply with huge demand from Miners. Going all the way back to the Radeon 5000 series, AMD cards were constantly be raided by miners. Sure there were times where supply was fine, but I still remember the fight just to get my R9 290. Even the GTX1080 I have now was in short supply when I bought it.

I've also noticed a huge uptick trend in PC gamers. Growing up it was not common to see others with a glorified gaming machine. Now everyone has them.

TSMC cant keep up with demand, and the only other one close to being on their level is Samsung. We are going to see Fabs making huge investments in future product lines.

Also lets not forget that the lack of supply has lead to massive profit margins. They are in no hurry to fix it fast.
 

AIC1Drew

Posts: 49   +38
Conpletely agreed. We all thought competition would see cheaper pricing but since Ryzen launched in 2017 prices are through the roof.

In 2014 I purchased a high end ROG motherboard, low latency RAM and a 4790k for less money than the 5800X launched at and that was on the lower end of AMDs product stack.
My 2 cents...

Competition doesn't always equal cheaper pricing. In this case, it has directly resulted in proportionate price-to-performance ratios IMO. And it has nothing to do with supply and demand. The current prices for CPUs don't reflect shortages.

Since Ryzen has been introduced we've seen at least a 4x increase in performance across the board from both competitors in only 4 years (compare that to Intel's pre-Ryzen 1st-7th gen chips). In short, pricing has followed the performance bell curve. I paid $340 for my brand new at-the-time 4790K, compared to the 5800X (currently going for $386, MRSP $449) I'd say that's more than an excellent deal for the 5800X. Twice the cores, much better single-thread, much more L3 cache, and DDR4. Btw, I still have the 4790K and it performs excellent in all but the most demanding AAA titles.

What you're essentially paying "extra" for (for the most part) is an astronomical increase in multi-threaded workload performance. How did it happen?? ...AMD needed/wanted relevance and a piece of the market. How else do you get the leading competitor's attention?? ...come out swinging in an EPYC way (pun intended).

The take away from this is those with stars in their eyes, thirsty for performance are willing to pay anything to get it. And those that are still fine with their old system will probably hang onto it a little longer.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,207   +1,065
My 2 cents...

Competition doesn't always equal cheaper pricing. In this case, it has directly resulted in proportionate price-to-performance ratios IMO. And it has nothing to do with supply and demand. The current prices for CPUs don't reflect shortages.

Since Ryzen has been introduced we've seen at least a 4x increase in performance across the board from both competitors in only 4 years (compare that to Intel's pre-Ryzen 1st-7th gen chips). In short, pricing has followed the performance bell curve. I paid $340 for my brand new at-the-time 4790K, compared to the 5800X (currently going for $386, MRSP $449) I'd say that's more than an excellent deal for the 5800X. Twice the cores, much better single-thread, much more L3 cache, and DDR4. Btw, I still have the 4790K and it performs excellent in all but the most demanding AAA titles.

What you're essentially paying "extra" for (for the most part) is an astronomical increase in multi-threaded workload performance. How did it happen?? ...AMD needed/wanted relevance and a piece of the market. How else do you get the leading competitor's attention?? ...come out swinging in an EPYC way (pun intended).

The take away from this is those with stars in their eyes, thirsty for performance are willing to pay anything to get it. And those that are still fine with their old system will probably hang onto it a little longer.
Well, AMD aren’t interested in lowering prices, they could easily drive them down, they were before the 5000 series. But they are a for profit American corporation, they will charge as high as they possibly can.

But this justification of more performance doesn’t sit right with me. We should get that as a matter of course. Otherwise are we going to be full of praise if these companies launch a 32 core CPU for $1000? When does it stop? 10 years time we get a bargain 256 core CPU at say $2000?

We need more products at less than $200. A 12900K or a 5950X is very impressive yes but no way am I spending that sort of money personally, especially as I play games, we don’t need this, the vast majority of PC users do not need lots of cores at all.

These companies will always try to drive prices upwards. We should be condemning this. I mean Ryzen 5000 charged closer to Intels old HEDT than Intels mainstream stuff.
 

AIC1Drew

Posts: 49   +38
Well, AMD aren’t interested in lowering prices, they could easily drive them down, they were before the 5000 series. But they are a for profit American corporation, they will charge as high as they possibly can.

But this justification of more performance doesn’t sit right with me. We should get that as a matter of course. Otherwise are we going to be full of praise if these companies launch a 32 core CPU for $1000? When does it stop? 10 years time we get a bargain 256 core CPU at say $2000?

We need more products at less than $200. A 12900K or a 5950X is very impressive yes but no way am I spending that sort of money personally, especially as I play games, we don’t need this, the vast majority of PC users do not need lots of cores at all.

These companies will always try to drive prices upwards. We should be condemning this. I mean Ryzen 5000 charged closer to Intels old HEDT than Intels mainstream stuff.
As long as there are plenty of people willing to pay, AMD has no incentive to lower pricing. Its literally supply and demand. The reason they were lower before the 5000 series was due to their aggressive attack at Intel's market share. Now that they're basically on par with Intel in performance, the sky is the limit. Just because you think you should get it as a matter of course doesn't ignore the unfortunate fact that's not how supply and demand works. If I was running a business, I wouldn't arbitrarily limit my profit that would otherwise allow me to expand or invest into research and development, employ more workers, and the future of my company. If people are willing to pay a significant amount it means it's of significant value to them.

Having said that, if you're looking for a sub-$200 chip, Intel still has plenty of 10th/11th gen i5 chips in that range. Checkout the i5-10400F for example.

Condemning companies cause you don't agree with their pricing is neither here nor there. Capitalism. Again, if there weren't plenty of people willing to pay current prices then they would lower over time. However, boycotting is a thing and if you rally enough people it's plausible you might have an impact.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,207   +1,065
As long as there are plenty of people willing to pay, AMD has no incentive to lower pricing. Its literally supply and demand. The reason they were lower before the 5000 series was due to their aggressive attack at Intel's market share. Now that they're basically on par with Intel in performance, the sky is the limit. Just because you think you should get it as a matter of course doesn't ignore the unfortunate fact that's not how supply and demand works. If I was running a business, I wouldn't arbitrarily limit my profit that would otherwise allow me to expand or invest into research and development, employ more workers, and the future of my company. If people are willing to pay a significant amount it means it's of significant value to them.

Having said that, if you're looking for a sub-$200 chip, Intel still has plenty of 10th/11th gen i5 chips in that range. Checkout the i5-10400F for example.

Condemning companies cause you don't agree with their pricing is neither here nor there. Capitalism. Again, if there weren't plenty of people willing to pay current prices then they would lower over time. However, boycotting is a thing and if you rally enough people it's plausible you might have an impact.
I think you missed my point. You appear to be arguing against something I didn’t say. I’m not denying capitalism, or supply and demand or even condemning AMD for raising prices. I’m just shutting down anyone who claims that before Ryzen launched Intel was milking the market when they really weren’t.

I’m not willing to pay the prices for the CPU flagships though. But the i5 12600K is quite compelling, it’s cheaper than the 5600X. The 10400 is also an option although I personally would want PCIe4, the 11400 is also cheap. I prefer the non F variants as I actually appreciate an iGPU, over the years they have come in handy for troubleshooting or even just as a stop gap. If you want to turn an old system into a server iGPUs can be very handy. Of course I won’t buy a new CPU until I can get a GPU for closer to MSRP than they actually cost.
 

AIC1Drew

Posts: 49   +38
I think you missed my point. You appear to be arguing against something I didn’t say. I’m not denying capitalism, or supply and demand or even condemning AMD for raising prices. I’m just shutting down anyone who claims that before Ryzen launched Intel was milking the market when they really weren’t.

I’m not willing to pay the prices for the CPU flagships though. But the i5 12600K is quite compelling, it’s cheaper than the 5600X. The 10400 is also an option although I personally would want PCIe4, the 11400 is also cheap. I prefer the non F variants as I actually appreciate an iGPU, over the years they have come in handy for troubleshooting or even just as a stop gap. If you want to turn an old system into a server iGPUs can be very handy. Of course I won’t buy a new CPU until I can get a GPU for closer to MSRP than they actually cost.
Yeah Intel did the logical when there was no competition. Keeping things relatively the same with only an incremental boost gen to gen. Why play a hand when no one is forcing you to.

And yeah I hear ya on the GPU end. That's also why I'm dragging it out with my 4790K. Until I can do a new build from the ground up I might as well wait till DDR5 matures a bit while GPUs recover.
 
Last edited: