News AMD's discrete desktop GPU market share hits all-time low as Nvidia extends its lead

[palladin9479]

And I don't follow the market that well to know if 750k is good sales for amd or not but it is dwarfed by what nvidia sells.

Yes because nVidia has traditionally been over 80% of GPUs made.

You guys seem to think that GPU's take a month or less to go from order to your front door, which is insane though understandable in a world of 140 characters of less. It's more like six to nine months depending. TSMC wafer capacity is auctioned out a year in advance, anyone buying silicon capacity today is going to have delivery in mid 2026 or later. The silicon for all these 9000 series chips were reserved back in early to mid 2024. Both the 9000 GPU's and 9000 CPU's use the same 4nm FinFET process, so AMD can chose how much of that pre-purchased silicon to use for each but it has to do that months in advance. If AMD wants to sell more 9060/9070's they need to make less 9700/9070/9950's and that decision will take three to six months to take effect depending on what's going on at TSMC.

AMD planned on selling X CPU's and Y GPU's in 2025 and purchased silicon from TSMC accordingly. And btw nVidia use's that same 4nm node only with their own custom process, so AMD is competing with nVidia at auction for the silicon and process machinery. With this happening, nVidia seems to have largely dropped out the consumer market with the 50 series being a paper launch. Those sales numbers are for total GPU's, not just the ones made in 2025. When nVidia stopped providing it's 80% supply, it caused the prices to skyrocket and all those pallets of older generation cards skyrocketed in value. For example in January I bought my 7900 XTX for $850, that exact same card is now selling for $1300. Those sales numbers are the older inventory evaporating away. Seriously go look at all the 30 series and older cards available now.

 

[palladin9479]

TSMC only has so much capacity, and AMD was probably forced to make a decision based on that. AMD makes a bulk of its money in datacenter, so I would not be surprised if that is where most of the wafer allocation has went. Nvidia is the same in that regard, with GeForce taking a back seat to more lucrative profits to be had elsewhere. The 9000 series has been a surprising hit. The price/performance vs Nvidia has been great, and Nvidia keeps creating one PR disasters after another. Melty connectors still being a thing, and the 50 series drivers being a total mess, the 5070 as fast as a 4090 lie, the 5060 and 5060ti review blocks, and trying to strong arm creators on how they do their reviews of said cards. It's a perfect storm that probably nobody could have predicted.

Yeah AMD straight up admitted they didn't expect this kind of reaction and these sales numbers. People acting like AMD somehow isn't selling cards faster then they can print chips is just insane.

 

[palladin9479]

I’m sorry, but no, companies have entire divisions dedicated to predicting market size. AMD clearly was not looking to gain market-share, they hedged their bets and allocated a conservative amount of wafers because they didn’t think they would be as competitive as they turned out to be. This is the opposite of intent to gain market share.

Umm ... you realize nVidia hasn't made any 40 series for months and only a small number of 50 series this year? All those sales are the preexisting inventory of 30 models evaporating.

 

[thestryker]

AMD and Intel both undoubtedly allocated wafers based on sales of prior generation parts. Seeing as both companies had cards sitting on shelves it's not surprising that they would be a bit conservative. Volume wise I believe TSMC N5 nodes are the most in demand of their advanced nodes and fabs are running at capacity. When they brought the AZ fab online what capacity was available was immediately snatched up. That means any immediate wafer buys would undoubtedly cost a premium price which probably wouldn't be worth it for consumer parts.

 

[TerryLaze]

Yes because nVidia has traditionally been over 80% of GPUs made.

You guys seem to think that GPU's take a month or less to go from order to your front door, which is insane though understandable in a world of 140 characters of less. It's more like six to nine months depending. TSMC wafer capacity is auctioned out a year in advance, anyone buying silicon capacity today is going to have delivery in mid 2026 or later. The silicon for all these 9000 series chips were reserved back in early to mid 2024. Both the 9000 GPU's and 9000 CPU's use the same 4nm FinFET process, so AMD can chose how much of that pre-purchased silicon to use for each but it has to do that months in advance. If AMD wants to sell more 9060/9070's they need to make less 9700/9070/9950's and that decision will take three to six months to take effect depending on what's going on at TSMC.

AMD planned on selling X CPU's and Y GPU's in 2025 and purchased silicon from TSMC accordingly. And btw nVidia use's that same 4nm node only with their own custom process, so AMD is competing with nVidia at auction for the silicon and process machinery. With this happening, nVidia seems to have largely dropped out the consumer market with the 50 series being a paper launch. Those sales numbers are for total GPU's, not just the ones made in 2025. When nVidia stopped providing it's 80% supply, it caused the prices to skyrocket and all those pallets of older generation cards skyrocketed in value. For example in January I bought my 7900 XTX for $850, that exact same card is now selling for $1300. Those sales numbers are the older inventory evaporating away. Seriously go look at all the 30 series and older cards available now.

What does any of that have to do with zero sum market and amd selling cards left and right?!
Is 750k a high, low, or normal number of cards amd sells around a new release, that's the thing you should be answering.

 

[Fox Tread33]

Shipments of AMD's GPUs in Q1 declined almost twofold from Q4 despite the launch of Radeon RX 9070-series products that AMD deems successful.

AMD's discrete desktop GPU market share hits all-time low as Nvidia extends its lead : Read more

June 7, 2025 - Competition is supposed to spur innovation, make the market place better, and offer the consumer more options and possibly better quality. Apparently, AMD's leadership are unaware of this business fundamental. I have no idea what demands AMD has on it in regards to design, production etc. However, as a consumer, I find it annoying, inconvenient, and puzzling that AMD has pretty much accepted a lower position in their industry. Is it possible that the fact that the heads of AMD and Nvidia are cousins, come into play at all? Whatever the reason, I think AMD has let down their shareholders and the consumers. Lastly, I have to wonder why there are so few companies that design and make GPUs. By comparison, the auto industry is a mad house with an extreme amount of competing brands. Strange. 🤔

 

[TerryLaze]

However, as a consumer, I find it annoying, inconvenient, and puzzling that AMD has pretty much accepted a lower position in their industry. Is it possible that the fact that the heads of AMD and Nvidia are cousins, come into play at all?

No, amd just doesn't have the money to convince tsmc to make stuff for them instead of for nvidia.
Nvidia buys up everything they can and the fact that amd was able to make any gpus at all is probably down to the fact that they have a contract with tsmc that they made years ago.

 

[rambo919]

Doesn't this just indicate that AI is outstripping both gaming and crypto and AMD lags behind Nvidia there?

The problem is AMD delusionally keeps trying to beat Nvidia at a game it dominates.... when it should instead develop its own markets.... and it cannot even be difficult. The astounding thing is it broadcast it is abandoning high end GPU markets and instead.... desperately tries to cling on to them.

If they actually do what they say for once it will go better for them. They can easily dominate low to mid gaming with discrete GPU's and low to mid AI with iGPU's.... their real competitor never was Nvidia but Intel or at least thats been the case for the last decade. Let Nvidia claim the top crowns.... it wont actually hurt if they do it right.

 

[rambo919]

Umm ... you realize nVidia hasn't made any 40 series for months and only a small number of 50 series this year? All those sales are the preexisting inventory of 30 models evaporating.

Especially Compulsive Upgrade Disorder sufferers forget how many people wait for new releases so that the older gen hardware can get discounts.... and how this percentage of consumers has increased in the last years as prices have ballooned.

 

[palladin9479]

What does any of that have to do with zero sum market and amd selling cards left and right?!

Ehh there is no zero sum...
750k is high for AMD, though no where near enough to satisfy the latent market demand from nVidia switching focus to datacenter.

 

[palladin9479]

Especially Compulsive Upgrade Disorder sufferers forget how many people wait for new releases so that the older gen hardware can get discounts.... and how this percentage of consumers has increased in the last years as prices have ballooned.

This goes back years to the crypto mining crazy and how they caused card prices to skyrocket and supply to dry out. Nvidia responded to that by ramping up production the 30 series, "AI all the things" hadn't happened yet. Then the crypto crash happened and nVidia ended up massively overproducing 30 series cards, leading to less demand for when the 40 series was made. nVidia didn't want there to be a glut of 40 cards when the 50 series came around and so reduced and then stoped making them last year with the intention of having the supply of 40 cards run out prior to the 50 series launching.

Well they succeeded, when the 50 series landed there wasn't much 40 series left in stock and anyone with a 30 series or older card wanting to upgrade was stuck fighting scalpers and bots for the few 50 series produced. This caused prices to explode across the board, remember nVidia made 80% of the consumer GPU market, they effectively controlled supply and created an artificial shortage to increase the price of their next generation product. Of course we have two other players in the market so that kind of market manipulation only works until the others can respond to that artificial shortage. As I mentioned earlier semiconductors have a long lead time so AMD and Intel's response is going to take more then six months to really be effective.

Anyone expecting AMD / Intel to alter card production volume in thirty to ninety days is wildly ignorant. Depending on TSMC availability it's a six to nine month lead time on that change.

 

[TerryLaze]

Anyone expecting AMD / Intel to alter card production volume in thirty to ninety days is wildly ignorant. Depending on TSMC availability it's a six to nine month lead time on that change.

I don't know if amd and nvidia are going to use it, but intel is going to use their foundry, they will be able to alter production as fast as the FAB can produce them.

 

[beyondlogic]

amds market strategy is absolute garbage which is why its always going to suffer being slightly cheaper then your competition isn't enough they need to come in at a lower price with high performance to steal market share. 9060 xt 16gb is ok value but its not blowing away. the 8gb card comment from amd is so out of touch that i really need to ask is amd market team ok because they seem to fumble the ball even when they have a winning product someone on the team seems to poot there size 9 in there mouth.

 

[palladin9479]

I don't know if amd and nvidia are going to use it, but intel is going to use their foundry, they will be able to alter production as fast as the FAB can produce them.

That might save a month or two because chips are made in multiple stages. The reason everyone uses TSMC is they have the fastest fabrication methods and plenty of capacity. It just takes time to get into the queue. And there is always high demand for whatever the latest process node is.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Umm ... you realize nVidia hasn't made any 40 series for months and only a small number of 50 series this year? All those sales are the preexisting inventory of 30 models evaporating.

You are skirting around my point yet again. It’s a SIMPLE point. If you say you are going for significant marketshare (to summarize Frank Azor: specifically to the point that game designers see AMD’s platform as important enough to optimize for in the PC segment), then you produce the hell out of your product to meet the demand levels that meet your goal. AMD did NOT do that…because it was just a last minute marketing platitude to explain away the dumping of the 9000 series’ high end. Simple as that…If AMD really set this goal for this generation, then it would have been made well before release and well before any wafer allocations so that the proper resources can be mustered to achieve the goal. Tell me in all honesty that you believe this is the case given the lousy volume availability and AMD now currently being even worse off in marketshare than before they launched the “gain significant marketshare 9000 series”? Cause it’s either AMD made a marketing platitude, or AMD has some pretty inept directors and coordinators in their graphics division to royally mess up the goal dictated by AMD’s C-Suite.

I am an adamant AMD supporter, Intel’s Sandy Bridge has been the only non-AMD cpu I’ve owned in my 30 years building computers, and I have bought every RDNA generation released to date because I want AMD to become a real competitor to Nvidia, but I have to call a Spade a Spade on this one

 

[-Fran-]

If AMD really set this goal for this generation, then it would have been made well before release and well before any wafer allocations so that the proper resources can be mustered to achieve the goal. Tell me in all honesty that you believe this is the case given the lousy volume availability and AMD now currently being even worse off in marketshare than before they launched the “gain significant marketshare 9000 series”? Cause it’s either AMD made a marketing platitude, or AMD has some pretty inept directors and coordinators in their graphics division to royally mess up the goal dictated by AMD’s C-Suite.

I also had that thought early on, but this is the conclusion I arrived to: they're threading carefully.

There's two (main) reasons I think:
1- Past inventory: this one is easy to understand, so I won't explain too much, but it's fair to say AMD still has plenty RDNA2 and RDNA3 inventory in multiple regions they need to get rid of.
2- New marketing: I have to wonder if the people making the contracts with TSMC and scheduling all the volume just did not trust their "marketing" (sales and marketing) divisions to be able to move a big volume of cards.

I can't remember what other things they're building in the same nodes and factories used by RDNA4, but that could also be a factor: opportunity cost.

Regards.

 

[palladin9479]

You are skirting around my point yet again.

Ok bro you do you.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Ok bro you do you.

Appreciate it.

 

[rambo919]

If you weren't a fan, the spin never made much sense in the first place. The high end is the halo product. It's what moves the lower tiers. You don't forsake it to increase market share.

Yeah that's a myth told to shareholders to increase share value.... sometimes you can do well enough just with the lower tiers if you focus properly enough on them.

 

[TerryLaze]

A company's goal isn't to beat the competition. Beating the competition is a means to an end, but it's not the end, not the goal. The goal is to increase the company's value, reflected in its share price.

Only if they are planning to sell the company, or use the shares for mergers.
Share prices are irrelevant after you already bought the shares unless you want to sell them.
Also the share price doesn't always show the companies value, look at the gamestop meme stock.

The goal is to make money so the company can grow bigger and give out dividends to the shareholders so that they can also make some money.

Ditto for Intel. To get back in the black, it will have to put out competitive AI products first. It'll need to focus on areas with good ROI, which is not consumer GPUs.

The only thing they need to do to get back into the black is to stop making FABs...
If they start making competitive AI products they will massively boost their income.

 

[palladin9479]

Share prices are irrelevant after you already bought the shares unless you want to sell them.

Ok going to stop you right there, that is not what share price is used for as a company. That perspective is purely from a 401K or stock investor perspective, someone who makes money from the differential in bought vs sold prices. That is what consumers use stock for not companies. Publicly traded companies use stock prices as a way to raise capital by issuing new stock. The higher a companies stock price the more capital it can generate by issuing that new stock which is then purchased by consumers.

This is why Intel's cratering stock price was so bad for them, they desperately needed more capital to shore up their liquidity issue, but prices so low that new capital would of diluted existing investors who would absolutely not be happy. That situation cost their CEO his job, for better or worse.

The goal is to make money so the company can grow bigger and give out dividends to the shareholders so that they can also make some money.

Hmm not really, unless you are doing real estate, dividends aren't how you really to extract value from an investment due to the IRS treating it like income. Some companies do pay dividends because they are obligated to but most value is provided to the investor in the form of unrealized gains from asset inflation. As the IRS doesn't really care until the gains are realized, there are many options you have as a way to avoid having to pay taxes. Tax avoidance is using existing regulations and laws to mitigate taxes and is not a crime (before anyone attempts to straw man this). Dividends on the other hand, are treated as cash income and your options are rather limited, the most you can do is attempt to treat them as long term capital gains for the lower rate but that requires you defer them for a full year, otherwise they become regular income.

 

[TerryLaze]

Ok going to stop you right there, that is not what share price is used for as a company. That perspective is purely from a 401K or stock investor perspective, someone who makes money from the differential in bought vs sold prices. That is what consumers use stock for not companies. Publicly traded companies use stock prices as a way to raise capital by issuing new stock. The higher a companies stock price the more capital it can generate by issuing that new stock which is then purchased by consumers.

Explain to me like I'm five.
How does a high stock price allow you to sell more than 100% of a company (without going to jail)
Because if you are talking about anything else, like stock split, you are still talking about current stock holders having to sell their stocks for this capital to be realized.
Unless a company can just tell their investors that ""yoink" now your shares are only valued half and we will sell the other half to whomever.
And if a company isn't already sold 100% then you can sell what's left at any price, sure you would want to sell at as high as possible but still.

This is why Intel's cratering stock price was so bad for them, they desperately needed more capital to shore up their liquidity issue, but prices so low that new capital would of diluted existing investors who would absolutely not be happy. That situation cost their CEO his job, for better or worse.

No, this would be why AMD would have raised an insane amount of capital when their stock skyrocketed and would have taken over all of tsmcs production and would be having a ball right now.
Are you saying that AMD didn't know that they could do that?! Or that they are just too stupid to be successful?!

Hmm not really, unless you are doing real estate, dividends aren't how you really to extract value from an investment due to the IRS treating it like income. Some companies do pay dividends because they are obligated to but most value is provided to the investor in the form of unrealized gains from asset inflation. As the IRS doesn't really care until the gains are realized, there are many options you have as a way to avoid having to pay taxes. Tax avoidance is using existing regulations and laws to mitigate taxes and is not a crime (before anyone attempts to straw man this). Dividends on the other hand, are treated as cash income and your options are rather limited, the most you can do is attempt to treat them as long term capital gains for the lower rate but that requires you defer them for a full year, otherwise they become regular income.

Hmmm, one has to wonder why the IRS treats one as income and not the other................................................................
Maybe because the one makes you money, as I said.

 

[palladin9479]

Explain to me like I'm five.

If you genuinely want to learn, yes I can explain. If your attempting to argue in bad faith, and it looks like you are, then I'm not going to waste my time and effort.

 

[TerryLaze]

If you genuinely want to learn, yes I can explain. If your attempting to argue in bad faith, and it looks like you are, then I'm not going to waste my time and effort.

No bad faith here, as you saw I explained my point of view, please do so as well.

 

[palladin9479]

No bad faith here, as you saw I explained my point of view, please do so as well.

Right....

It's not a point of view ... it's how capital markets work...

Your response tells me all I need to know.