Friday, June 27th 2025

Intel's Server Share Slips to 67% as AMD and Arm Widen the Gap

In just a few years, AMD has gone from the underdog to Intel's most serious challenger in the server world. Thanks to its EPYC processors, AMD now captures about a third of every dollar spent on server CPUs, up from essentially zero in 2017. Over that same period, Intel's share has slipped from nearly 100% to roughly 63%, signaling a significant shift in what companies choose to power their data centers. The real inflection point came with AMD's Zen architecture: by mid-2020, EPYC had already claimed more than 10% of server-CPU revenues. Meanwhile, Intel's rollout of Sapphire Rapids Xeons encountered delays and manufacturing issues, leaving customers to look elsewhere. By late 2022, AMD was over the 20% mark, and Intel found itself under 75% for the first time in years.

Looking ahead, analysts at IDC and Mercury Research, with data compiled by Bank of America, expect AMD's slice of the revenue pie to grow to about 36% by 2025, while Intel drops to around 55%. Arm-based server chips are also starting to make real inroads, forecast to account for roughly 9% of CPU revenue next year as major cloud providers seek more energy- and cost-efficient options. By 2027, AMD could approach a 40% revenue share, Intel may fall below half the market, and Arm designs could capture 10-12%. Remember that these figures track revenue rather than unit sales: AMD's gains come primarily from high-end, high-core-count processors, whereas Intel still shifts plenty of lower-priced models. With AMD poised to launch its Genoa and Bergamo EPYCs and Intel banking on the upcoming E-core Xeon 6 series to regain its footing, the fight for server-CPU supremacy is far from over. Still, Intel's once-unbeatable lead is clearly under threat.
Sources: Jukan Choi on X, via HardwareLuxx
Add your own comment

36 Comments on Intel's Server Share Slips to 67% as AMD and Arm Widen the Gap

#26
JustBenching
ARFTo this date - still true:


256,255 views Jul 26, 2017
Intel is the world's most abusive, monopolistic tech company.

Has it crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, amd had crappy products? Why isn't the anticompetitive, anti consumer anti technology intel stopping them now, huh?
Posted on Reply
#27
Tek-Check
DavenAMD just released Grado Epyc processors on AM5 and the rumors say the chiplet count may double for Zen 6. So you could be getting 32C/64T Epycs on AM5 for under $1000 in 2026.
24+2/52T for Zen6 EPYC on AM5.
Posted on Reply
#28
ARF
JustBenchingHas it crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, amd had crappy products?
Watch the video. AMD had superior Athlon 64 that didn't sell, because criminal Intel.
Posted on Reply
#29
sLowEnd
JustBenchingWhy isn't the anticompetitive, anti consumer anti technology intel stopping them now, huh?
The market landscape is different from how it used to be

Intel doesn't have the money to pull what they did during the Netburst days and they now face competition from CPU/GPU vendors other than AMD. x86 is still important, but it's not as big a deal as it used to be.
Has it crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, amd had crappy products?
Nah, Netburst was infamously bad. Even the people at Intel didn't like it. They knew it was a hot, underperforming mess of a dead end.

www.anandtech.com/show/1517

Edit: added quote from p.138 of this interview with Robert Colwell, the guy who started Pentium 4 development
www.sigmicro.org/media/oralhistories/colwell.pdf
The last year I was there, I was not in the microprocessor group anymore, because I had parted company due of my disagreements and vision with the top brass, and I did not want to work on the follow-up to the Pentium 4 which eventually became Prescott. I didn't think it was going to be a great product, and going further down a path that I thought was technologically finished, a dead end. I wasn't willing to devote more years in my life to a cause I didn't believe in. So I bagged that, and I was reaching the conclusion that it was time to leave microprocessor group.
Posted on Reply
#30
JustBenching
ARFWatch the video. AMD had superior Athlon 64 that didn't sell, because criminal Intel.
Im sure watching a video made by adored will be a surefire way to get to the truth. 100%.
Posted on Reply
#31
Tek-Check
Back to the topic...
Any leaks pointing at how competitive Clearwater Forrest and Dianond Rapids are going to be against Zen6 Venice EPYCs?

If Intel doesn't stop this bleeding of market share in data center, they will soon come in far more challenging position than ever before.
Posted on Reply
#32
Vya Domus
thesmokingmanIt's freaking nutty that there are those still buying Xeons?
"No one ever got fired for buying IBM" became a thing for a reason. People that are in charge of supplying businesses with servers choose Intel in order to avoid having to explain to some boomer why it doesn't say "Intel".
Posted on Reply
#33
ThomasK
ARFWatch the video. AMD had superior Athlon 64 that didn't sell, because criminal Intel.
I've said this on other threads: this guy is a troll. He drinks his coffee out of a toilet bowl.
Posted on Reply
#34
blinnbanir
Tek-CheckNo. He does say later in the article 63%.


Yes, on smaller 4710 socket. Plus, they slashed prices of 128 P core SKUs by as much as $5,000 per CPU, as reported by Tom's Hardware recently. That tells you how challenging situation is. Zen5 2P systems are up to 40% faster than equivalent Xeon6 system, while offering more competitive costs of ownership and more energy efficiency. Currently, EPYCs are more than one generation ahead of Xeons in performance, hence such big changes in server market share.
Ouch
JustBenchingHas it crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, amd had crappy products? Why isn't the anticompetitive, anti consumer anti technology intel stopping them now, huh?
How old are you?
Posted on Reply
#35
JustBenching
sLowEndThe market landscape is different from how it used to be

Intel doesn't have the money to pull what they did during the Netburst days and they now face competition from CPU/GPU vendors other than AMD. x86 is still important, but it's not as big a deal as it used to be.
You don't think Intel could control the market back in 2017 that ryzen launched, but they could in 2005?
Posted on Reply
#36
sLowEnd
JustBenchingYou don't think Intel could control the market back in 2017 that ryzen launched, but they could in 2005?
CUDA (and GPGPU computing in general) didn't exist in '05 and ARM servers haven't taken off yet back then, among other things.

*
Missing out on new key markets caused them to have to do massive layoffs, such as this one from 2016
www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2016/04/intel_quarterly_results.html

The 10nm development woes they had then wasn't cheap to deal with either
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 15th, 2026 10:37 CST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts