News Intel Claws Back Desktop PC and Notebook Market Share From AMD for the First Time in Three Years

[Admin]

Intel has wrested away desktop PC and notebook market share from AMD for the first time in three years.

Intel Claws Back Desktop PC and Notebook Market Share From AMD for the First Time in Three Years : Read more

 

[escksu]

Well, this is the reality I have been trying to tell those AMD "fanatics" for a long time. Intel is nowhere in trouble or dying.

Intel's dominance isn't built overnight, its not going to be demolished overnight as well. DEspite asll the performance and price advantage of Epyc over Xeons, Xeon servers still outsold Epyc ones by a massive margin (I would say easily 8:1). This is why the rise in market share for Eypc is so slow.

Intel may be earning less from each CPU, but they are selling way more CPUs than ever and despite record shipments, Intel still couldn't make enough to sell. This shows the demand for Intel CPUs never did dwindle. The news we read are mostly from DIY and it represents just a tiny portion of the entire market.

 

[Endymio]

Well, this is the reality I have been trying to tell those AMD "fanatics" for a long time. Intel is nowhere in trouble or dying...

Interestingly enough, the last time -- many years ago -- that AMD was poised to knock Intel off its throne, that attempt was also derailed by supply-side issues. Seems like history does indeed repeat itself.

 

[Murissokah]

Well, this is the reality I have been trying to tell those AMD "fanatics" for a long time. Intel is nowhere in trouble or dying.

Intel's dominance isn't built overnight, its not going to be demolished overnight as well. DEspite asll the performance and price advantage of Epyc over Xeons, Xeon servers still outsold Epyc ones by a massive margin (I would say easily 8:1). This is why the rise in market share for Eypc is so slow.

Intel may be earning less from each CPU, but they are selling way more CPUs than ever and despite record shipments, Intel still couldn't make enough to sell. This shows the demand for Intel CPUs never did dwindle. The news we read are mostly from DIY and it represents just a tiny portion of the entire market.

Yeah, any talk of Intel being in trouble is foolish. What is much more realistic is the possibility that AMD's advantage in density via TSMC could cause Intel to outsource their cutting edge nodes, at least for a while. If we consider AMD started their recovery at around 1.5B valuation to confront a 150B+ Intel, it's no small feat that they might end up forcing Intel's hand.

 

[Freestyle80]

Internet fanboys: Intel will die soon!!!

Intel makes still making sizable profits

Internet fanboys: Surprised Pikachu face

I dunno where this notion comes from that Intel will die out easily just because AMD has 'surpassed' them for once. These things dont change overnight

 

[Chung Leong]

The quarter in question is when Intel's Fab 42 came online, no? Having control over actual production of your chips does have it benefits.

 

[spongiemaster]

What is much more realistic is the possibility that AMD's advantage in density via TSMC could cause Intel to outsource their cutting edge nodes, at least for a while. If we consider AMD started their recovery at around 1.5B valuation to confront a 150B+ Intel, it's no small feat that they might end up forcing Intel's hand.

Don't forget the complete failure of Global Foundries, AMD's former manufacturing arm, to progress below their 14/12nm process is what allowed AMD to switch to TSMC's 7nm and below processes with no restrictions. As bad as Intel's foundries are doing with 10nm and below, they're doing better than AMD's which just gave up. If AMD was still stuck with GloFo as their main chip source right now with no process advantage over Intel, the market picture would be very different right now.

 

[OriginFree]

Internet fanboys: Intel will die soon!!!

Intel makes still making sizable profits

Internet fanboys: Surprised Pikachu face

I dunno where this notion comes from that Intel will die out easily just because AMD has 'surpassed' them for once. These things don't change overnight

Agreed. Intel could get entirely out of the desktop and mobile markets and still make more money than AMD, just from the server and big iron margins.
Now that said competition is always good for the end users and I do hope AMD hits that magical 25% at some point to keep Intel on their toes.

 

[hotaru251]

did ppl seriously think intel would die out?

sure, they werent doign so well, but intel is basically a titan compared to AMD.

even if they stopped making ANY profit for a year they'd be perfectly fine.

 

[shady28]

AMD simply can't get sufficient allocation from TSMC to greatly increase their market share, at least not right now. The fact they do not own their own fabs and process tech can and is capping their growth potential.

 

[Ogotai]

wow, intel fanboys sure are blind. part of the reason why intel clawed anything back, was only because of amd's supply issues. if amd were able to supply enough cpus to all of those that wanted one, this story could of been vastly different. its awesome that it seems like now the only reply most intel fanboys have now against amd, is their supply issues.
will intel die cause of a strong amd ? of course not. will/is intel hurting cause of a strong amd ? of course they are.

 

[TerryLaze]

wow, intel fanboys sure are blind. part of the reason why intel clawed anything back, was only because of amd's supply issues.

Ever since ZEN came out Intel has been making 20bil per year instead of the 10 bil they were making before ZEN...
Actual market share numbers mean bubkis, especially if you can't produce any product to keep that marketshare like AMD.

its awesome that it seems like now the only reply most intel fanboys have now against amd, is their supply issues.

It's by far not the only one but it is by far the most funny one.
AMD is selling the promise of a good CPU because that's the only thing they can produce by themselves.

 

[Ogotai]

AMD is selling the promise of a good CPU because that's the only thing they can produce by themselves.

oh, like you mean intel's promise that 10nm has been on track for the last 3-5 years ? thats why they have had to back port practically every thing that " should " of been on 10, 7 and 5, to 14nm ?

 

[TerryLaze]

spoken like a dire hard intel shill, terrylaze., so, by your OWN WORDS, intels actual market share, is meaningless.

Of course it is, as long as it doesn't mean lower sales it's completely meaningless.

oh, like you mean intel's promise that 10nm has been on track for the last 3-5 years ? thats why they have had to back port practically every thing that " should " of been on 10, 7 and 5, to 14nm ?

Intel will still be selling 14nm when AMD will have to take on loans to buy the smallest amounts of 3nm capacities because of how expensive that will be.
Intel doesn't need the gimmick of lower nm to sell CPUs as you can see by the profit that intel is making the last three years.

 

[Sergei Tachenov]

Well, this is the reality I have been trying to tell those AMD "fanatics" for a long time. Intel is nowhere in trouble or dying.

I'm not exactly a fanatic, but I do like AMD CPUs (I use them with Nvidia GPUs though). And I certainly don't want Intel to die because what makes a good product? Competition! So I really hope that Intel/AMD and Nvidia/AMD rivalry goes on for as long as possible.

 

[Ogotai]

Of course it is, as long as it doesn't mean lower sales it's completely meaningless.

the irony of that statement, is IF supply was better for zen 3, it very well could of meant lower sales for intel, but of course you will say something that is negative for amd, but positive for intel, thats what you do here, as a rebuttal.

will rocket lake help intel, seems MLID, isnt so sure :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z9TztoqSZs

seems Z590, will be at a disadvantage compared to X570.

Intel will still be selling 14nm

yea, cause 10nm is still has issues, and isnt where intel needs it to be and its 7nm has been delayed

Intel will still be selling 14nm when AMD will have to take on loans to buy the smallest amounts of 3nm capacities because of how expensive that will be.

and you know this how ? oh wait, its pure speculation and quite possibly BS

Intel doesn't need the gimmick of lower nm to sell CPUs as you can see by the profit that intel is making the last three years.

is that why most fanboys when talking about intels process says its 14nm is equal or better then TSMC's 7 ? if that was the case then the power usage would be about the same, which over all, its not, intel uses more power over all, then amd.

 

[nfineon]

It's ONLY going to get worse for AMD moving forward, APPLE pre-purchased (locked-up) 100% of TSMC's 5nm nodes for 2021 so AMD will get 0.0% of that capacity this year and most likely 2022 as well. Intel apparently locked up the rest of TSMC's 3nm nodes for 2023.

Intel basically prevented AMD from getting any capacity on the newer nodes so they are beyond very upset here, they might have a better CPU/GPU design but they won't have a single chip on sub 7nm nodes for years (even if they moved some production to Samsung 5nm), NVIDIA has that locked down.

GloFlo stopped all 7nm research so they are not an option, they are stuck on 12/14nm and are out of the equation. Intel and Apple can buy all of TSMC's cutting-edge node supply from 2021 onwards which would kill any advantage or momentum AMD has currently.

 

[watzupken]

Well, this is the reality I have been trying to tell those AMD "fanatics" for a long time. Intel is nowhere in trouble or dying.

Intel's dominance isn't built overnight, its not going to be demolished overnight as well. DEspite asll the performance and price advantage of Epyc over Xeons, Xeon servers still outsold Epyc ones by a massive margin (I would say easily 8:1). This is why the rise in market share for Eypc is so slow.

Intel may be earning less from each CPU, but they are selling way more CPUs than ever and despite record shipments, Intel still couldn't make enough to sell. This shows the demand for Intel CPUs never did dwindle. The news we read are mostly from DIY and it represents just a tiny portion of the entire market.

I think this is where you missed the point. AMD is losing market share not because people prefer Intel, rather they can't supply enough chips. At one point, I also considered switching over to Comet Lake because I can't find the Ryzen 5000 series. So I believe the swing is really due to no chips to buy at MSRP.

The other point is that, AMD have successfully made themselves known to the world. Say 5 years back, I don't really think most non tech savvy folks are aware of AMD and for tech savvy folks, AMD is like forgotten. Fast forward to 2020, I think they are more well known in all market segments. In the near term, it may not be a problem for Intel. But if Intel continues to slide, it will surely come back to bite them in the near future. They are not at risk of dying off, but the damage to their "dominance" may be here to stay.

 

[watzupken]

It's ONLY going to get worse for AMD moving forward, APPLE pre-purchased (locked-up) 100% of TSMC's 5nm nodes for 2021 so AMD will get 0.0% of that capacity this year and most likely 2022 as well. Intel apparently locked up the rest of TSMC's 3nm nodes for 2023.

Intel basically prevented AMD from getting any capacity on the newer nodes so they are beyond <Mod Edit> here, they might have a better CPU/GPU design but they won't have a single chip on sub 7nm nodes for years (even if they moved some production to Samsung 5nm), NVIDIA has that locked down.

GloFlo stopped all 7nm research so they are not an option, they are stuck on 12/14nm and are out of the equation. Intel and Apple can buy all of TSMC's cutting-edge node supply from 2021 onwards which would kill any advantage or momentum AMD has currently.

TSMC is not the only fab around with the cutting edge fab which is why you probably saw some rumors of AMD potentially diversifying their chip production over at Samsung. Intel may have blocked AMD, but it comes with a substantial cost to them as well. Going for cutting edge fab is not cheap when they are competing with Apple with even deeper pockets and a strategic partner for TSMC vs a temporary client (Intel).

 

[Ogotai]

It's ONLY going to get worse for AMD moving forward, APPLE pre-purchased (locked-up) 100% of TSMC's 5nm nodes for 2021 so AMD will get 0.0% of that capacity this year and most likely 2022 as well. Intel apparently locked up the rest of TSMC's 3nm nodes for 2023.

Intel basically prevented AMD from getting any capacity on the newer nodes so they are beyond <Mod Edit> here, they might have a better CPU/GPU design but they won't have a single chip on sub 7nm nodes for years (even if they moved some production to Samsung 5nm), NVIDIA has that locked down.

i assume you have proof of this ? sounds a tad far fetched

 

[Rdslw]

It seems like its not a thing of AMD starting to be weaker than intel, its just a problem that currently finding amd laptops with good config that does not double the cost is a problem, in laptops at least.

I see a lot of 4300u's that are ok, and they cost to value in general is awesome.
Then there are SOME 4500u's that in general should be enough but I am not happy with other pieces and as I move from 4/8 i7 it wont be as much of a difference as I hoped to get.
4600u is an urban myth, never seen one.
4700u's are fine but price is like 2x of 4300u configs and as far as I can tell, spec is identical.
4800u I've only seen on some lenowo crapware, which by experience will fall apart in 1.5years.
I ordered asus with 4800u's just before year-end and still did not receive it.


I feel like intel growth here is just because AMD cannot make more chips.
I am not saying intel is dying, but they are option for unaware and desperate right now, so this gain is probably from parents buying kids hardware as a present.

 

[neojack]

well it's logic really :

• demand is overwhelming for both companies
• overall, intell has much more production capacity. especially for low-end chips

so, lets admit that both companies sells 100% of whaterver they produce. intel produces more so they sell more and are more common in the market.

hence why the market share leans towards intel. it doesn't mean than AMD sell less than before. Both sell more than ever

 

[PCWarrior]

the irony of that statement, is IF supply was better for zen 3, it very well could of meant lower sales for intel, but of course you will say something that is negative for amd, but positive for intel, thats what you do here, as a rebuttal.

will rocket lake help intel, seems MLID, isnt so sure :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z9TztoqSZs

seems Z590, will be at a disadvantage compared to X570.

So much misinformation in this video. So let’s discuss that platform “issue” and that claim that AMD boards are supposedly superior.

(a)Features. Feature-wise the Z590 boards are richer than X570 ones. Pick any equivalent tier board e.g ASUS Maximus Hero Z590 Vs ASUS Crosshair Hero X570. It is no contest. Intel Z590 boards from midrange and above come all with Wifi6e, 2.5GBE, USB3.2gen2x2 ports and some even with thunderbolt 4, dual NICs, etc. These are all simpler to add on the Intel platform as they are being supported natively by the chipset and it is easy to include them. Also, on Intel boards you can generally use the video output if ever needed as Intel cpus do offer integrated graphics (unless you buy an F sku). And memory support for high-speed RAM on Intel in 1:1 mode is unparalleled.

(b) Price. In general motherboard prices are not that much affected by the cost of the chipset. The cost of a Z590 chipset is only 50dollars. Even if AMD’s chipset cost zero dollars it would only make AMD boards 50 dollars cheaper. Obviously AMD's chipset doesn't cost zero dollars. There is no price difference really. If you buy an equivalently equipped board the price is roughly the same. In general, what dictates the cost of the board are the features/capabilities it has. And these are in turn dictated by what the platform can offer natively. Power delivery is not different as they both have to cater to OCing the most power hungry SKU in the lineup. Sure you might say that performance per watt on AMD is better but you are still OCing a 16-core (3950X and 5950X) Versus overclocking an 8core or 10 core (11900K, 10900K). At maximum ambient/water overclocking and running the same heavy workload the top skus from both sides will draw about the same power hence the need for similar VRMs.

(c) PCIe lanes. It is very misleading to say that you have 20 Vs 24 and that therefore AMD has 4 more for another PCIe4 M.2 drive. When Intel says 20 lanes they mean 20 direct lanes from the CPU for PCIE expansion slots (16 general, for e.g. a GPU, and another 4 for an M.2). Intel does not include in that number the lanes which the CPU uses to communicate with the chipset. AMD however does. So, the 4 PCIe4 lanes that are used by a Ryzen cpu to communicate with the chipset, are misleadingly included in the lane count to appear that AMD has more that Intel. The truth is that the bandwidth that Intel and AMD are using to interface the cpu with the chipset is equal. AMD is using 4 lanes of PCIe4 while Intel is using 8 lanes of PCIe 3. That PCIe4x4 bandwidth of AMD’s link to the chipset is shared between a bunch of USB 2, 3.2 Gen 1 &Gen 2 ports, SATA ports, Ethernet ports, WiFi, etc. So sure, you can connect one PCIe4 M.2 drive to the chipset lanes but don't expect it to run at PCIe4x4 speeds like the one connected directly to the cpu. More like PCIe4x2 or PCIe4x3 speeds at best. It is no different to what Intel is doing. Intel’s chipset takes the 8 PCIe3 lanes that connect the cpu to the chipset and multiplex them into 24 PCIe3 lanes plus a bunch of natively supported usb and other ports. At the end of the day you can make arguments for ether approach. It is a tie. Personally I prefer the fanless Intel chipset and its features more that of AMD’s. And buying a second PCIe4 drive to use as a secondary drive for double the cost of PCIe3 is pointless. Even more so if you put it in a slot that will cripple its performance.

 

[Saga Lout]

I've had to edit one post, (Mr. nfineon) folks, but it's been known for a long time that this Intel -v- AMD argument is never going to end.

Respect each other in the Forum please.

 

[escksu]

is that why most fanboys when talking about intels process says its 14nm is equal or better then TSMC's 7 ? if that was the case then the power usage would be about the same, which over all, its not, intel uses more power over all, then amd.

Thats only DIY fanboys... Most of the sales goes to OEM like Dell, HP, Lenovo etc... Not DIY.

And for these OEMs, the bulk of their customer are from corporate sector, not end-users. For most of the companies, they don't really care if thats Intel or AMD CPU in the laptops/servers/desktops. Budget and support would be more critical to them.