News Desktop CPU Sales Lowest in 30 Years, AMD Gains Market Share Anyway

[Admin]

AMD makes big gains in desktop, mobile and server CPU markets.

Desktop CPU Sales Lowest in 30 Years, AMD Gains Market Share Anyway : Read more

 

[escksu]

This trend is to be expected. COVID causes unusually high volume (as many rushed to buy PC/laptops). Of course few would be buying right now.

 

[Co BIY]

I'm surprised the increase in desktop wasn't more but maybe many sales of AMD chips are replacing earlier chips on the same board.

 

[JWNoctis]

Is that...LGA775 on the article link image? Still well recognizable I guess.

 

[Jimbojan]

I am sorry, I cannot see any reason AMD's desktop or notebook can gain market share as Intel's similar parts have better performance and lower price, you and most evaluators said so. Intel's server may be lagging mainly because Sapphire Rapids is delayed. I can believe it. Is there something wrong here or a scam by AMD?

 

[JWNoctis]

I am sorry, I cannot see any reason AMD's desktop or notebook can gain market share as Intel's similar parts have better performance and lower price, you and most evaluators said so. Intel's server may be lagging mainly because Sapphire Rapids is delayed. I can believe it. Is there something wrong here or a scam by AMD?

Feel free to bring up statistics that says otherwise.

To be fair, in mobile space at least, Intel did not really catch up to Zen 3 APU offerings with their mobile processors until 12th-gen. Their 11th-gen had somewhat superior IPC but ran too hot, while 10th-gen, their common offering when Zen 3 came out, was significantly weaker. Also, mobile AMD processors - unlike mobile AMD GPU - was not unobtainium. You can't gain market share if you can't supply the market.

Then again, if performance is all that the market is after, AMD would have been killed by FX series (to be fair, they almost were), if Intel had not been killed by the hot mess that was NetBurst first.

 

[Ogotai]

I am sorry, I cannot see any reason AMD's desktop or notebook can gain market share as Intel's similar parts have better performance and lower price, you and most evaluators said so. Intel's server may be lagging mainly because Sapphire Rapids is delayed. I can believe it. Is there something wrong here or a scam by AMD?

well, if you can provide links that show and prove other wise, then by all means.

 

[plateLunch]

Jimbojan is a troll. Ignore him.

 

[Johnpombrio]

AMD has done a remarkable job in both servers and laptops. I expect that Intel will figure out a way to chop this down somewhat but all credit to AMD for its sucesses.

 

[Sleepy_Hollowed]

This sounds about right.

I replaced a 2600 CPU from Intel with AMD due to power/performance ratio + cooling requirements (which all add up to PSU power and total system power).

Unless AMD breaks something on their roadmap or Intel happens to destroy them in those, might happen again as well, though that nasty AMD CPU vulnerability might throw a curveball if the fix takes too much performance out.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Time for AMD to continue Steam Rolling Intel and making them bleed like a wounded animal.

 

[TerryLaze]

I am sorry, I cannot see any reason AMD's desktop or notebook can gain market share as Intel's similar parts have better performance and lower price, you and most evaluators said so. Intel's server may be lagging mainly because Sapphire Rapids is delayed. I can believe it. Is there something wrong here or a scam by AMD?

While 2021 was a good year for AMD the last two quarters AMD has increased their revenue by making less money than before, they are dumping their products at discount prices to at least make some money out of it.
This quarter they made more than 40% less money compared to q1 even though their revenue increased.

AMD Quarterly Revenue       AMD Quarterly Net Income

(Millions of US $)                        (Millions of US $)

2022-06-30    $6,550             2022-06-30    $447

2022-03-31    $5,887             2022-03-31    $786

2021-12-31    $4,826             2021-12-31    $974

2021-09-30    $4,313             2021-09-30    $923

2021-06-30    $3,850             2021-06-30    $710

2021-03-31    $3,445             2021-03-31    $555

 

[bit_user]

While 2021 was a good year for AMD the last two quarters AMD has increased their revenue by making less money than before, they are dumping their products at discount prices to at least make some money out of it.
This quarter they made more than 40% less money compared to q1 even though their revenue increased.

Well, there's somewhat of an economic downturn and they're on the eve of launching a new generation. So, I don't see it as a reflection on their products or execution that they currently have to do some discounting to move product.

 

[-Fran-]

Why do you keep disappointing people, AMD? You should be going down, like Intel! Why are you being successful at times like these? HOW DARE YOU?!

Heh.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

Well, there's somewhat of an economic downturn and they're on the eve of launching a new generation. So, I don't see it as a reflection on their products or execution that they currently have to do some discounting to move product.

And nobody said that it is. (a reflection on their products or execution that they currently have)

But if the question is why does the revenue go up for them but down for everybody else the answer is because they are willing to make less money.
They made less money than they did q1 2021 with almost half the revenue.

 

[cfbcfb]

I have a theory for this. I don't think that it's related to a covid buying surge. We had one hell of a computer buying surge in the years leading up to Y2K (remember that? and shipments in 2000-2002 for microprocessors was supposed to be way down, but that didn't happen. Sales kept going.

My theory is that we've gone about 5 years past where a midrange, even a low end cpu is more than most people really need, and many blind tests have shown that its hard to tell between two different computers in regular everyday use.

Other than windows 11 not wanting to run on some capable platforms due to TPM issues, I have a 6th gen i7 machine, along with an 8 core ryzen 5800 system and a 12th gen i7 12 core. Hard to tell which one I'm on just using a browser and regular apps.

Except for games, where sloppy bad coding rules, the hardware competed itself to a level where a 12th gen i3 is pretty darned good for most needs, even gaming with a low to upper midrange card and software bloat hadn't kept up.

Just give it a minute or two, and we'll need a 16GB 12 core system just to boot in under 15 minutes?

 

[waltc3]

When you deal only with percentages, things can get lost in the process. Thirty years ago, the total number of computers sold every year was less than a decent game will sell today in the first couple of weeks. IIRC, in 1986, the global installed base of computers was ~6 million. The C= Amiga was close to a million of that number. In 1990, it was ~ten million. Growth was slow as molasses, there were no consoles, no Internet, no 3d games (everything was 2d only.) Today's global installed base of computers is somewhere between 1.5-3 billion, and it very much depends on who you ask, literally! PCs, that is notebooks, desktops and workstations, are selling at the rate of 300-400 million a year.

OK, the only point I want to make is that there is literally no comparison between 25% market share in 1990 and 25% market share in 2020 and later. They mean wildly different things.

 

[rluker5]

Feel free to bring up statistics that says otherwise.

To be fair, in mobile space at least, Intel did not really catch up to Zen 3 APU offerings with their mobile processors until 12th-gen. Their 11th-gen had somewhat superior IPC but ran too hot, while 10th-gen, their common offering when Zen 3 came out, was significantly weaker. Also, mobile AMD processors - unlike mobile AMD GPU - was not unobtainium. You can't gain market share if you can't supply the market.

Then again, if performance is all that the market is after, AMD would have been killed by FX series (to be fair, they almost were), if Intel had not been killed by the hot mess that was NetBurst first.

You are conflating mobile and desktop. In mobile vs desktop, Intel has similar chips that are power throttled. AMD has different chips. The desktop ones are faster, but the I/O die uses so much power that laptop cooling would hold it at about 60c idling. The mobile ones have a fraction of the cache and other architectural differences from not having a discrete io. The mobile ones are comparable to Skylake in performance and generally sit at the bottom of charts.

Not as bad as when you had to read the fine print to see if you were getting an FX or Jaguar, but pretending mobile zen is equivalent to desktop zen is misleading.

 

[-Fran-]

You are conflating mobile and desktop. In mobile vs desktop, Intel has similar chips that are power throttled. AMD has different chips. The desktop ones are faster, but the I/O die uses so much power that laptop cooling would hold it at about 60c idling. The mobile ones have a fraction of the cache and other architectural differences from not having a discrete io. The mobile ones are comparable to Skylake in performance and generally sit at the bottom of charts.

Not as bad as when you had to read the fine print to see if you were getting an FX or Jaguar, but pretending mobile zen is equivalent to desktop zen is misleading.

They didn't mix or swap Mobile and Desktop. He's spot on.

The only advantage Intel (still) has over AMD in mobile is when they push the power over 45W and that is very well known. Also, Intel does not use the exact same CPUs for Desktop and Mobile either, at least, not anymore. AMD does bring them to Desktop though, but it is as you say and they are underwhelming as pure CPUs.

Some links:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWHGZJYBGQI

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK5T4SvTgeQ

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S64_a7PChzs


Regards.

 

[bit_user]

But if the question is why does the revenue go up for them but down for everybody else the answer is because they are willing to make less money.
They made less money than they did q1 2021 with almost half the revenue.

Well, maybe they just haven't quite accepted the need for strong-arm tactics to move inventory, like Intel's threats of looming price-rises on Alder Lake.

Intel Planning Price Increase on CPUs To Resolve Overstock Issues At Factory Level

Intel is considering raising costs on older processors to open supply to begin shipping Raptor Lake CPUs in the coming future.

wccftech.com

 

[TerryLaze]

Well, maybe they just haven't quite accepted the need for strong-arm tactics to move inventory, like Intel's threats of looming price-rises on Alder Lake.

Intel Planning Price Increase on CPUs To Resolve Overstock Issues At Factory Level

Intel is considering raising costs on older processors to open supply to begin shipping Raptor Lake CPUs in the coming future.

wccftech.com

Huh?! how is making your product less desirable by increasing prices a strong-arm tactic to move more product?
Or are you just bored so you started with the mud slinging already?

Also tsmc is doing the same thing, 10% increase for newer nodes and 20% increase for older nodes last year and another 6% in a few months, that's just what they have to do.

You have to learn to separate the actual news from the opinions stated by those who write them.

Look at this following link.
Omg you better buy all your tsmc products now before you get hit by that 20% + 6% price increase next year, omgz..fast!
That's not a strong-arm tactic, that's a spread FUD tactic.
Prices will increase for all the companies but it won't be that drastic.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-to-hike-chip-prices-in-2023

The world's largest contract maker of semiconductors plans to increase prices for most of its fabrication processes by 6% starting from January 2023, reports DigiTimes. Last year TSMC increased prices on chips made using its N7 and N5 process technologies by 10%, while prices of older N16 and thicker nodes grew 20%. Earlier this year, it was reported that TSMC was considering increasing chip prices by up to 9% starting from 2023, but it looks like the company won't be quite that aggressive with its price hike.

 

[bit_user]

In 1990, it was ~ten million. Growth was slow as molasses, there were no consoles, no Internet, no 3d games (everything was 2d only.)

No consoles? Well, we had NES, Sega Genesis (Aug 1989), SNES (Aug 1991)...

Yeah, 3D games didn't start to happen until the early 90's. Wing Commander (Sept 1990), Eye of the Beholder (Apr 1991), Comanche: Maximum Overkill (1992), Wolfenstein (May 1992), Doom (Dec 1993), Descent (Mar 1995), Quake (Jun 1996)...

but computer games started to get interesting even before 3D. Games like AD&D: Pool of Radiance (1988), Sim City (1989), Civilization (Sep 1991), Castles (1991), Ultima 7 (Apr 1992), Darklands (1992), etc. had plenty of mass appeal on a 286 or 386SX and a VGA card. Okay, okay... Ultima 7 needed a 386 and really wanted a 486.

 

[bit_user]

AMD has different chips. The desktop ones are faster, but the I/O die uses so much power that laptop cooling would hold it at about 60c idling. The mobile ones have a fraction of the cache and other architectural differences from not having a discrete io.

Uh, I guess 1/2 is a fraction, but people typically use "a fraction" to mean quantities smaller than that.

Benchmarks of the 5600G vs. 5600X show the X has a distinct performance advantage, but it's less than 10%. Not worth making a huge deal over.

BTW, Intel uses different dies in its entry-level and mainstream laptops, as well. Only their H-series typically uses the same die as their desktop CPUs, but I think Alder Lake discontinued that trend.

The mobile ones are comparable to Skylake in performance and generally sit at the bottom of charts.

You definitely need to take another look at those charts...

Not as bad as when you had to read the fine print to see if you were getting an FX or Jaguar, but pretending mobile zen is equivalent to desktop zen is misleading.

No, the main thing to watch out for is whether it's a 15 W or a 35 W part. That makes a huge difference, and it's mostly in the additional power delivery and cooling which lets the 35 W parts stretch their legs.

 

[bit_user]

Huh?! how is making your product less desirable by increasing prices a strong-arm tactic to move more product?
Or are you just bored so you started with the mud slinging already?

No, if you read the article, the point they make is that Intel warned its customers of the impending price rises, in hopes they would move up their orders before then. This is a fairly established practice, for Intel.

I guess you could say there's nothing wrong with warning your customers of upcoming price rises, but if you do it when you're sitting on a glut of inventory and the price rise is timed according to a financial reporting deadline that you'd like to boost your sales numbers by, then it really looks like a strong-arm tactic. Especially if you then don't follow-through on the price rise, or subsequently lower prices back down, as the article points out.

Also tsmc is doing the same thing, 10% increase for newer nodes and 20% increase for older nodes last year and another 6% in a few months, that's just what they have to do.

The difference is that they're not sitting on a pile of inventory, with an upcoming successor product launch looming. TSMC is raising prices on product that's not yet even manufactured. It's really not comparable.

You have to learn to separate the actual news from the opinions stated by those who write them.

I know it's a trash site, but their sources aren't (Digitimes, Toms Hardware).

 

[TerryLaze]

No, if you read the article, the point they make is that Intel warned its customers of the impending price rises, in hopes they would move up their orders before then. This is a fairly established practice, for Intel.

Yes that is the point the "reporters" are making.
Do we have any link to any actual intel statement?

The difference is that they're not sitting on a pile of inventory, with an upcoming successor product launch looming. TSMC is raising prices on product that's not yet even manufactured. It's really not comparable.

But you are only basing that opinion on an article that you don't know how accurate it is.

TSMC has products from like 3 or 4 big players that are up-comming, already produced to a large degree but not yet sold. Nvidia AMD apple intel all have products made at tsmc, with new models coming out very soon, where they will have to weigh their options on if they should increase production now where it's cheaper or risk paying more and have their products be more expensive later on.

Intel is just saying that future products will have a price increase and so does tsmc, that will affect all future products made by intel as well as tsmc, including amd nvidia apple intel and anybody else that is an tsmc customer.