Come on AMD, just double that share and finally reach parity with Intel.

What surprises me the most is this:

How could AMD gain anything in 2016? I guess it's within the margin of error..

DavenCome on AMD, just double that share and finally reach parity with Intel.

That's not gonna happen anytime soon, lots of old machines running out there.

SL2What surprises me the most is this:

How could AMD gain anything in 2016? I guess it's within the margin of error..


That's not gonna happen anytime soon, lots of old machines running out there.

maybe it was not really a gain from AMD, but a loose from Intel (ie. lots of folks moved from their Intel PC to tablet?)

SL2How could AMD gain anything in 2016?

Carrizo and AM4. They made a decently significant improvement to power efficiency and even squeezed in an almost 10% IPC improvement, as well as the move to AM4 which would support drop-in upgrades to Zen when it launched. OEMs did move to integrate AM4 ahead of Zen's launch and that's where you see that tiny bump in shipments. Originally Zen was slated for a December 2016 release date but got pushed off to March 2017, so that timeline makes some sense.

I’m still waiting for the day that I get issued an AMD machine at work. I think Intel still really has the corporate world locked up.

Darmok N JaladI’m still waiting for the day that I get issued an AMD machine at work. I think Intel still really has the corporate world locked up.

I've bought 400 HP Probook/Elite Books over the past 3 years all Intel hardware. The amount of issues I've had with the Intel wireless chipset is mind blogging. This is them connecting to Cisco APs in which Cisco certified the chipset. I would certainly be opening to exploring AMD if they came with a Qualcomm chipset and I'm looking into the Qualcomm Elite chips coming out soon. I budget to replace 20% of my fleet at a 5 year depreciation.

Darmok N JaladI’m still waiting for the day that I get issued an AMD machine at work. I think Intel still really has the corporate world locked up.

Mine (in the top 20 of F500) started handing out AMD powered Thinkpads about 4 years ago.

Despite shortcomings in its products, Intel still has shady tactics to maintain its market share dominance, including... Ahe, murky contracts with OEMs and governments. Depending on perspective, these practices could be interpreted as illegal, but I'll leave that judgment to others. The connection between Intel and Huawei has only recently come to light, then.. perhaps there's still room for optimism.:p

SL2That's not gonna happen anytime soon, lots of old machines running out there.

The data is calculated based on revenue share of the market, not total machines in existence (which would be impossible to accurately tabulate). By extension the figure represents what people and business are buying now. A share of 50% for example just means they got 50% of the revenue this year.

That's the striking part, AMD has been absolutely dominating Intel in the server space offering vastly more cores and lower TCO and yet that only nets them 23.6% of the server market over 5 (soon to be six) generations of one good CPU uArch after another. If that's not a sign of how anti-competitive the market is, I don't know what is. Heck finding a premium AMD laptop is still hard, most vendors reserve that for their Intel parts.

DenverDespite shortcomings in its products, Intel still has shady tactics to maintain its market share dominance, including... Ahe, murky contracts with OEMs and governments. Depending on perspective, these practices could be interpreted as illegal, but I'll leave that judgment to others. The connection between Intel and Huawei has only recently come to light, then.. perhaps there's still room for optimism.:p

Most public institutions I've done security assessments for have a contract with Intel to get cheaper prices on Intel products if they agree to only purchase Intel for their x86 needs. They'll allow chromebooks but the computer lab must use Intel processors. There are times where I almost hope ARM takes over x86's domain so that someone can finally put a stop to Intel's nonsense.

My last Intel build was Skylake. Back then Intel meant quality. Now it means quantity (of E cores), crazy high power consumption, disappointing GPUs, and unreliable NICs. Out of those the last one hurts me the most.

Just goes to show what a thing "mindshare" is and how badly perception can hurt a business.

AMD has been firing on all cylinders since 2016 and Zen 1, 8 years, and they've at best made a dent in Intel's hegemony.

Imagine how impeccable AMD's execution would have to be in their secondary GPU unit to make similar inroads against Nvidia...

competition benefits everyone in lower prices and better performance

evernessinceThat's the striking part, AMD has been absolutely dominating Intel in the server space offering vastly more cores and lower TCO and yet that only nets them 23.6% of the server market over 5 (soon to be six) generations of one good CPU uArch after another. If that's not a sign of how anti-competitive the market is, I don't know what is. Heck finding a premium AMD laptop is still hard, most vendors reserve that for their Intel parts.

I think at least part of this is probably the life of servers. I imagine they build them with an expected in-service lifetime, and there would have to be a really big cost-benefit to retool before then. I bet it's at least 5 years before anything other than storage gets even considered for replacement.

This is pretty Epyc...........Sigh I had to.

I would like to see AMD push another 150watts into a Ryzen to match intels usages and see what they could perform with that.

Darmok N JaladI think at least part of this is probably the life of server farms. I imagine they build them with an expected in-service lifetime, and there would have to be a really big cost-benefit to retool before then? Just a guess, but I've seen these data centers go up, and I often wonder how long it takes for them to pay for themselves.

Again though, the figure from this article is share of the yearly revenue. In other words, only the sales from the specified period of time. Even if we assume that there are a ton of Intel servers in datacenters edging closer to being decomissioned, those are not a factor at all in this instance.

GodisanAtheistImagine how impeccable AMD's execution would have to be in their secondary GPU unit to make similar inroads against Nvidia...

I don't think any level of execution would. Intel doesn't have control over the software stack for games and professionals like Nvidia does. People were able to switch over to AMD processors because features aren't locked down like they are in the GPU market. In addition, Nvidia is known to get pretty nasty in times when AMD is competitive in regards to gimping performance of competitor's cards through software features. I don't see AMD beating Nvidia in RT performance when Nvidia is the one dictating the implementation.

They will never overtake Intel /end

SL2That's not gonna happen anytime soon, lots of old machines running out there.

It's not just that, most laptops still ship with Intel CPUs.

SL2That's not gonna happen anytime soon, lots of old machines running out there.

Market Share is about sales this past quarter, not actually about what machines people are using.

dragontamer5788Market Share is about sales this past quarter, not actually about what machines people are using.

True. It's not about installed base of PCs. I don't know how any analyst could measure installed base accurately.

This doesn't really tell the whole picture. ARM sales are taking away from the x86 pie. AMD is getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-will-hold-20-of-server-cpu-market-in-2023-analysts-say

64KTrue. It's not about installed base of PCs. I don't know how any analyst could measure that accurately.

That metric is not used for marketshare. It might matter when it comes to service revenue but not in this case.

www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketshare.asp

Darmok N JaladI’m still waiting for the day that I get issued an AMD machine at work. I think Intel still really has the corporate world locked up.

Companies want stability/reliability and also they don't want to have issues with BIOS'es and no beta BIOS'es...

Unsurprising. This is despite intel's shady tactics that has been going on for decades which they haven't really paid a price for. They were deemed guilty for obvious dodginess and anti-competitive practices for their shenanigans in the early 2000's but somehow their legal team managed to appeal and drag it further and they still haven't paid a dime. They were supposed to pay 1.25B in the states and 400m in EU if i remember correctly.

Now there's just less obvious anti-competitive practices but they are very much in place and many companies can't really switch. Had these not existed, the market share erosion would look even worse for intel.

Server space was always going to be a slow shift due to their nature but it's constant and based on the upcoming server processors from both camps, it doesn't look like it'll stop anytime soon.

Vya DomusIt's not just that, most laptops still ship with Intel CPUs.

And sadly will in future. Despite AMD's products being clearly superior in every aspect, and should have been OEM/vendor preference, instead of outdated (not all) and hot intel solutions, which currently are incapable to run without dGPU's, that are obviously from nVidia. The WintelVidia trio going strong for the two decades long.
Unfortunately, this might be not the case of intel bribing the laptop/desktop PC vendors/OEMs, but simply, due to availability. Intel simply has both supply and factories, as AMD sadly have none. Doesn't matter how much AMD tease people with their astonishing products, and that intel has hot turds, if intel can supply these turds in dozens of millions, and AMD simply can't.

And also, despite all the successs, even more, it's exactly the best time use the tide, to start getting into own ARM design (as K12 ARM might be very outdated).
Having own fab or two, would be also not the bad thing. As it eventually might be used for many ow in-house projects, as well as the ones that being designed and made in cooperation with other companies, like Samsung, etc. This is surely extremely expensive endeavor, but AMD then always can be fab contractor.

evernessinceThat's the striking part, AMD has been absolutely dominating Intel in the server space offering vastly more cores and lower TCO and yet that only nets them 23.6% of the server market over 5 (soon to be six) generations of one good CPU uArch after another. If that's not a sign of how anti-competitive the market is, I don't know what is. Heck finding a premium AMD laptop is still hard, most vendors reserve that for their Intel parts.

Having a good design is only half the story. AMD spun out their ailing fabs and now have to compete for fab capacity to turn their designs into actual products they can sell. They can only sell as many CPUs as they can make.

Also, nice doctoring the data in that graph. Here's what's the missing part looks like: wccftech.com/amd-takes-10-4-cpu-share-intel-q2-2017-largest-single-quarter-share-gain-history/

mkppoUnsurprising. This is despite intel's shady tactics that has been going on for decades which they haven't really paid a price for. They were deemed guilty for obvious dodginess and anti-competitive practices for their shenanigans in the early 2000's but somehow their legal team managed to appeal and drag it further and they still haven't paid a dime. They were supposed to pay 1.25B in the states and 400m in EU if i remember correctly.

Now there's just less obvious anti-competitive practices but they are very much in place and many companies can't really switch. Had these not existed, the market share erosion would look even worse for intel.

Server space was always going to be a slow shift due to their nature but it's constant and based on the upcoming server processors from both camps, it doesn't look like it'll stop anytime soon.

Exactly. Server space aside, even with stubbornness of many many people, and slow mindset change (there are almost entire countries, that prefer to stick to old 'always reliable intel/nVidia' stereotype), the market cap and penetration during and after Zen 2 should have been massive. It was Sandy bridge of AMD all over again, but this time it somehow didn't shake the disparity. At least not everywhere.
And I'm not going to mention various Ryzen-specific issues, because intel had them as well, even during and after SB domination and Bulldozer collapse.

bugHaving a good design is only half the story. AMD spun out their ailing fabs and now have to compete for fab capacity to turn their designs into actual products they can sell. They can only sell as many CPUs as they can make.

Also, nice doctoring the data in that graph. Here's what's the missing part looks like: wccftech.com/amd-takes-10-4-cpu-share-intel-q2-2017-largest-single-quarter-share-gain-history/

This is both great and worrying. Great, because AMD sells all CPUs they have, with almost as less unsold stock as possible. Thus reduces the expenses significantly. But worrying, because, if intel won't get their heads out their ... place, and start making competitive products, AMD's domination might end up worse than intel's one.

Why? Because intel was always OEM oriented first, and then consumer. They make tons of products, thus makes them cheaper to produce and distribute through reliable channels. And if needed they can be sold at lower prices with lower profits, but still be sold.
AMD on the other hand, has no big stock, and the product supply is scarcer. So if they would feel like the time has come, they can rise the prices, and it would look justified. They already tried it with Zen 3, and milked people for a good half-year/year (depending or region) during Cov and after. So...

As of factories, as I've said before... it maybe has sense for AMD to have own fab again, if they are so inclined into AI, as the time matters. nVidia won't dominate this market forever, and when/if custom ASICs will come, they will hurt not only nVidia, but all GPU market as well. So since TSMC's capacities are filled with nVidia allocations, AMD is wasting time, by waiting their own orders fullfilled. Not to mention the ever rising price growth for TSMC's nodes, and possible draught,s earthquakes, etc.