Thursday, August 14th 2025

Report: AMD Now Commands One-Third of the Desktop x86 Processor Market

Aug 14th, 2025 09:11 Discuss (90 Comments)

Mercury Research compiled the latest data for the second quarter of 2025, with updates across the desktop, mobile, client, and server platforms. In Q2 2025, AMD achieved its best quarter yet. AMD's desktop x86 unit share rose to 32.2%, roughly one third of the market, and its desktop CPU revenue share climbed to 39.3%. Those gains reflect strong demand for Ryzen 9000 series processors and gamers' favorite X3D models, which together have driven both unit momentum and a disproportionate share of dollars in desktop sales. Note that Intel still remains the largest desktop vendor, but its unit share of 67.8% now represents a materially narrower lead than in prior years.

The desktop picture matters because value mix, not just units, is where margins are won. AMD is capturing more high-end sockets and achieving higher average selling prices, which helps its revenue share outpace its unit share. Intel continues to outsell AMD on desktops at a ratio of approximately two to one, down sharply from ratios that were far more present in earlier cycles. That compression signals a more contested market, with AMD converting enthusiast and commercial interest into concrete wins in both retail and OEM channels. Retail and DIY buyers are buying the latest Ryzen parts for gaming and content creation, while some system manufacturers are expanding Ryzen options in their higher-performance prebuilt lines.

Across the broader client landscape, AMD's total consumer unit share was 23.9% in Q2, up year-over-year, even as it slipped slightly quarter-over-quarter, and its consumer revenue share rose to 27.8%. Mobile unit share weakened for AMD relative to late 2024, but desktop strength and server gains are helping offset that softness. For Intel, the decline in desktop sales shows pressure at the higher end of its product stack as AMD narrows the gap through newer architectures and focused product placement. However, notebook share is an area where Intel is regaining some market share, making it an interesting trend to observe.

Here are the server unit shares too:

Source: Tom's Hardware

90 Comments on Report: AMD Now Commands One-Third of the Desktop x86 Processor Market

#26

kondamin

TomorrowYou dont know his workloads. You're just making generalizations.
Because you are on Zen 4 and you think you wont see much benefit from Zen 6 does not mean others won’t

Well sure, the entire thing originated from me spending money on a motherboard many years ago to run a bulldozer chip which was going to be awesome.

Now I’m like don’t pre order…

#27

Lesha

Visible NoiseIt’s 50.8% of people that choose to run Passmark, not 50.8% of the x86 cpu market (which this survey is about). Also, installed base <> market share.

That should be obvious.

#28

Vayra86

john_Mobile is disappointing. They do make better profits, but still, while they do have the chips to try to get more market share, they don't seem to can get it. probably they are limited by the number of wafers they can get from TSMC, forcing OEMs to keep choosing Intel.

And if Intel manages to come out with a better mobile CPU and better integrated graphics, especially if that CPU is made in Intel fabs with good yields, AMD's market share in the mobile market will collapse.

I'd rather think its part of the thing we've also been seeing on desktop for consumer: people don't switch readily or easily, nor do stores and supply chains. Upgrades are also not doneyearly, but 3-7 years rather.

AMD has had great mobile chips for how long now? Its certainly not as long as Zen has been something you can't ignore, which has only been since I would say 3000 series, and even then it was a toss up, and you definitely went Intel for mobile at the time still. Look at how long it took Zen to gain traction elsewhere.

kondaminWell sure, the entire thing originated from me spending money on a motherboard many years ago to run a bulldozer chip which was going to be awesome.

Now I’m like don’t pre order…

I've never understood the need to pre-empt reviews with an order. Its certainly not going to be cheaper pre launch than it is after the first reviews drop.

#29

john_

Vayra86I'd rather think its part of the thing we've also been seeing on desktop for consumer: people don't switch readily or easily, nor do stores and supply chains. Upgrades are also not doneyearly, but 3-7 years rather.

AMD has had great mobile chips for how long now? Its certainly not as long as Zen has been something you can't ignore, which has only been since I would say 3000 series, and even then it was a toss up, and you definitely went Intel for mobile at the time still. Look at how long it took Zen to gain traction elsewhere.

I believe they lack manufacturing capacity to fill all those huge OEM orders. Also intel did gain the advantage with E cores, advertising higher number of cores. Probably intel Ultra 200 is also a much better option for laptops than for desktops where X3D CPUs are killing it. Still, even with taking in consideration all these, I was expecting AMD to keep gaining in the laptop market. But they need to get serious about it. Seeing Intel based Claw being on the news these last two days with optimizations making it look even faster than Z2 Extreme in same cases, I think at AMD they are taking their usual nap thinking that they can't lose from Intel in the iGPU game. And I hope they aren't doing the same with laptop SOCs.

#30

Rightness_1

AMD have not been aggressive enough. If they want more share, then their new CPUs need to notably outperform Intel's best, not just by 2% in a handful of games, and not only with some X3D cheat cache that costs a fortune, but by 10% at least, and at every price point.

#31

_roman_

so sad. 30 Percent. So much efforts wasted to fix broken P-Core and E-cores in software and firmware.

kondaminI stopped planning for hardware that might just be a dud.
I'm certain it's going to be a nice processor but i doubt it's going to be worth it upgrading from zen4

my 7600x processor placeholder was the cheapest in may 2023. Very powerful for basic gaming and a radeon 7800xt.

I'm happy when people swap out their processors. I'll get cheaper processor upgrades in the future :)

Am4 has shown me. Buy early the socket and be patient. Cheap second hand processors will be available.

#32

JustBenching

_roman_so sad. 30 Percent. So much efforts wasted to fix broken P-Core and E-cores in software and firmware.

Broken? Thanks for your contribution, clearly you have tried them.

#33

Tek-Check

Visible NoiseA bigger share of a continuously shrinking market. A win is a win I guess.

Not at all. PC market has grown this quarter.
www.canalys.com/newsroom/worldwide-pc-shipments-up-7-in-q2-2025

Rightness_1AMD have not been aggressive enough. If they want more share, then their new CPUs need to notably outperform Intel's best, not just by 2% in a handful of games, and not only with some X3D cheat cache that costs a fortune, but by 10% at least, and at every price point.

What kind of nonsense is this? If you just look what has been achieved in last 7 years in all segments, you will completely change the narrative. Numbers speak for themselves.

#34

JustBenching

Rightness_1AMD have not been aggressive enough. If they want more share, then their new CPUs need to notably outperform Intel's best, not just by 2% in a handful of games, and not only with some X3D cheat cache that costs a fortune, but by 10% at least, and at every price point.

And how do you propose they do that? I mean it might be possible as long as intel uses TSMC but once they go back to their own fabs, what is amd supposed to do? The 265k already dwarfs whatever amd has in that segment (9700x?). Even with upcoming zen 6 rumors being true I'm not sure their 12c ccd will decisively beat the 265k in performance (it will decisively beat it in price though) like you want them to and it's not really amds fault, they just can't compete against ecores until they come up with their own solution.

I'm gaming if you don't want to include the 3d chips they are pretty much equal and all of those chips are decently fast so no real reason to complain

It's not that amd lacks aggressiveness, they are aggressive in the server space, they just don't care about us the end users. We get whatever scraps are left from the big chips.

#35

Tyler-98-W68

kondaminIntel 12, 13, ,14, 1xx and 2xx are being sold as new

Your point? Zen 4 is how old and still being sold as "new" released cpu's

#36

TumbleGeorge

TomorrowWe are roughly 18 months out from Zen 6 release.

I would be very disappointed if AMD were to delay the implementation of ZEN 6 by that much.

#37

Rightness_1

JustBenchingAnd how do you propose they do that? I mean it might be possible as long as intel uses TSMC but once they go back to their own fabs, what is amd supposed to do? The 265k already dwarfs whatever amd has in that segment (9700x?). Even with upcoming zen 6 rumors being true I'm not sure their 12c ccd will decisively beat the 265k in performance (it will decisively beat it in price though) like you want them to and it's not really amds fault, they just can't compete against ecores until they come up with their own solution.

I'm gaming if you don't want to include the 3d chips they are pretty much equal and all of those chips are decently fast so no real reason to complain

It's not that amd lacks aggressiveness, they are aggressive in the server space, they just don't care about us the end users. We get whatever scraps are left from the big chips.

Well, AMD can "conjure up" a dual x3D cache CPU when it looks like Intel are going to release a new CPU that could threaten them... There are lots of low hanging fruit in the Zen architecture and has been for years now. If you were threatened or scared of the competition, those fruits would have been picked years ago, instead of waiting for Zen 6.

#38

Tomorrow

Rightness_1AMD have not been aggressive enough. If they want more share, then their new CPUs need to notably outperform Intel's best, not just by 2% in a handful of games, and not only with some X3D cheat cache that costs a fortune, but by 10% at least, and at every price point.

AMD's best outperforms Intel's best by 30-40% now. Occasionally less. Occasionally more.
Funny that you call extra L3 as "cheat cache". You do realize that Intel CPU's also have L3?
It's not a "cheat". The same way i dont call Intel's e-cores or APO as cheats.

And how does it cost a fortune when in the AM4 generation both 5800X and 5800X3D had the same $449 MSRP. Zero price increase.
7700X to 7800X3D was $50 increase from $399 to $449.
9700X vs 9800X3D was $120 increase from $359 to $479, but this is because base Zen 5 price was $40 lower and Zen 5 X3D price was $30 higher than Zen 4 X3D.
9950X to 9950X3D was $50 increase from $649 to $699.

So X3D adds roughly $50 on average to the price of the similar CPU excluding anomalies like 5800X3D and 9800X3D where it adds zero or 120. Hardly what i would call "a fortune". The percentage also depends on the base price of the "origin" CPU. In case of 9950X3D that price increase is less than 8%.

TumbleGeorgeI would be very disappointed if AMD were to delay the implementation of ZEN 6 by that much.

Assuming standard 24 month cadence from Zen 5 release in the middle of 2024 that still leaves 12 months until Zen 6 in the middle of 2026. I was being conservative with the 18 months number as i was thinking more about X3D models that release number of months later than the standard variants.
I would be (pleasantly) surprised, if Zen 6 X3D launches 12 months from now. Not 14-15-16.

#39

kondamin

Tyler-98-W68Your point? Zen 4 is how old and still being sold as "new" released cpu's

So are zen3 systems

#40

JustBenching

TomorrowAnd how does it cost a fortune when in the AM4 generation both 5800X and 5800X3D had the same $449 MSRP. Zero price increase.
7700X to 7800X3D was $50 increase from $399 to $449.
9700X vs 9800X3D was $120 increase from $359 to $479, but this is because base Zen 5 price was $40 lower and Zen 5 X3D price was $30 higher than Zen 4 X3D.
9950X to 9950X3D was $50 increase from $649 to $699.

Your comparisons don't really make sense though, zen 3 was 40% more expensive than zen 2 (3700 vs 5800x). In fact the 6 core zen 3 cost similar amounts to the 8core zen 2. That's basically intel stagnation era kind of BS.

#41

Hecate91

Rightness_1Well, AMD can "conjure up" a dual x3D cache CPU when it looks like Intel are going to release a new CPU that could threaten them... There are lots of low hanging fruit in the Zen architecture and has been for years now. If you were threatened or scared of the competition, those fruits would have been picked years ago, instead of waiting for Zen 6.

Adding a second X3D die might be more complicated than it seems who knows, but I remember GN having a discussion with an AMD engineer and them showing a 5950X with dual X3D's.
But I disagree on extra cache being called a "cheat". The CPU having extra cache for accessing the IOD and DRAM less isn't any different than having L3 cache, and it looks like the other way around with how Intel is scared of how successful X3D has been they want some of those sales.

Tyler-98-W68Your point? Zen 4 is how old and still being sold as "new" released cpu's

Zen 4, Zen 5,Intel 12th,13th, and 14th gen are also outselling Intel's newer CPU's.

JustBenchingAnd how do you propose they do that? I mean it might be possible as long as intel uses TSMC but once they go back to their own fabs, what is amd supposed to do? The 265k already dwarfs whatever amd has in that segment (9700x?). Even with upcoming zen 6 rumors being true I'm not sure their 12c ccd will decisively beat the 265k in performance (it will decisively beat it in price though) like you want them to and it's not really amds fault, they just can't compete against ecores until they come up with their own solution.

I'm gaming if you don't want to include the 3d chips they are pretty much equal and all of those chips are decently fast so no real reason to complain

It's not that amd lacks aggressiveness, they are aggressive in the server space, they just don't care about us the end users. We get whatever scraps are left from the big chips.

I think it's more like if Intel uses their own fabs at this point, they had all kinds of hype and promises with 18A and they aren't using it for their own CPU's, and now they're hyping up 14A and are so desperate they're looking for other companies to use their fabs.
The 9700X is faster in 1080p gaming than the 265k. But I expect someone is going to list an outlier that uses extra cores for physics processing, but I don't consider that a game, more of a vehicle physics simulator.
www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-265k/19.html
The leaks on Zen 6 have claimed at least 10 cores per CCD for a while now, I think it's a realistic assumption for core count to be going up as the node is going to be on 2nm.
I don't understand why you wouldn't want to include the X3D cpu's, even with X3D, Intel has the advantage on a more advanced node and extra cores.
AMD isn't the exception either for prioritizing server/datacenter over consumer CPU's, every company does it.

#42

Tyler-98-W68

The 9700X is faster in 1080p gaming than the 265k. But I expect someone is going to list an outlier that uses extra cores for physics processing, but I don't consider that a game, more of a vehicle physics simulator

Yeah it's a game....but don't consider it one because AMD sucks at it.

www.beamng.com/game/

It's been constantly developed for over 10 years, but you know what you are 100% right. It's not like games or anything like that uses physics calculations or anything else in games, so yeah we should just celebrate and circle jerk and brag that something is way faster when playing at a poverty spec 1080P resolution when using a 4090/5090 GPU.....

Just for fun I turned my 285K into a 4P 4E Core CPU, and you know since the E-cores are complete trash and not good for anything...........

4 P-Cores and 4 E-Cores, so 8 threads total.

8 Core 285K

8 Core 7800X3D

16 Core 7945HX3D

But it's not a real world representation of real world performance at all

#43

Tek-Check

JustBenchingYour comparisons don't really make sense though, zen 3 was 40% more expensive than zen 2 (3700 vs 5800x). In fact the 6 core zen 3 cost similar amounts to the 8core zen 2. That's basically intel stagnation era kind of BS.

A selective example will never be able to support the point made because it's not accurate in a wider perspective.

Essentially, you are trying to fry our logical brains with a cheap example. It's not going to work, ever, when you keep forgetting context of CPU release and wider PC market share situation in recent years.

To be able to say anything remotely accurate about AMD's "stagnation", and to be taken seriously by anyone here, you would need to provide real performance numbers across generarions against equivalent multi-generational performance data during Intel era stagnation.

And somehow, the "stagnation" of AMD in last 7 years has brought them the biggest market share come back in recent history, across CPU segments, including recent Q2 record-breaking revenues. Millions of extra buyers seem to be buying "stagnated" and overpriced CPUs, and they are happy with those "stagnated" CPUs. You can now blame good marketing and stupidity of buyers if you want to defend the "stagnation" point. Spoiler alert - any such attempts will be futile anyway.

#44

Hecate91

Tyler-98-W68brag that something is way faster when playing at a poverty spec 1080P resolution when using a 4090/5090 GPU

I don't consider it a game because there isn't anything else to do besides wreck vehicles to see what gets smashed or add stupid amounts of HP to see how the increase in power changes how the vehicle performs.
And calling 1080P a "poverty spec" is just plain disingenuous while it's the most widely used resolution for gaming, but sure you can cherry pick with your selected examples to show that e-cores are good for some games, but most other tiles will only rely on P cores or need APO to force the game to only use P cores.

#45

Tyler-98-W68

Hecate91I don't consider it a game because there isn't anything else to do besides wreck vehicles to see what gets smashed or add stupid amounts of HP to see how the increase in power changes how the vehicle performs.
And calling 1080P a "poverty spec" is just plain disingenuous while it's the most widely used resolution for gaming, but sure you can cherry pick with your selected examples to show that e-cores are good for some games, but most other tiles will only rely on P cores or need APO to force the game to only use P cores.

So you dont have the slightest clue how the game works? The career mode? The multi player mode?

I've never touched APO, never will. Fact is nothing needs to be done, the cores are just used. I mean you've personally used e cores and documented how the dont work?

I've tested numerous different core counts and configurations, all I do is reboot and test....and it just works. Kind of like how BF6 just works on all the cores too, again I actually test and document things, you flap your gums and that's all you do.

#46

Tomorrow

I've never even heard of such a "game". I guess that surely means it's widely used and very important metric for CPU performance. /s

#47

Tyler-98-W68

TomorrowI've never even heard of such a "game". I guess that surely means it's widely used and very important metric for CPU performance. /s

Guess you live in a box, its an excellent game to guage both single thread IPC performance and multithreaded performance. More cores is better, but not lots of slow cores (like thread ripper) amd does fine if they have lots of cores.....3dcache does nothing in this particular game.

#48

Hecate91

Tyler-98-W68So you dont have the slightest clue how the game works? The career mode? The multi player mode?

I've never touched APO, never will. Fact is nothing needs to be done, the cores are just used. I mean you've personally used e cores and documented how the dont work?

I've tested numerous different core counts and configurations, all I do is reboot and test....and it just works. Kind of like how BF6 just works on all the cores too, again I actually test and document things, you flap your gums and that's all you do.

I know how it works, it's more a physics engine test than it is a game, and if it's such an amazing game, then reviewers would use it as a benchmark.
And I don't really care if some say they haven't had to use APO, Intel is still updating it because people still have a need for the application. I had a 12600K before upgrading to a 7800X3D, e-cores didn't do anything for me. A 7800X3D was a performance increase, I also have an upgrade path to Zen 6, while the Intel chip was a dead socket since I don't trust 13th and 14th gen.
BF6 also runs faster on an X3D at 1080P and 1440P, can't whine about lower resolutions with that game because it's well optimized and about any modern CPU runs great with BF6. I post a TPU benchmark proving the 9700X is faster, and of course you mention a cherry picked example of a single game.

#49

Tyler-98-W68

More 1080p poverty spec talk eh?

Funny how BF6 runs great a little gimped Core ultra 225......

Then again I play at 4k. But intel bad amd good, got it. It's very evident how much amd ball gravy you gargle, its great entertainment.

One reason BNG is not used as a benchmark is because it takes a long time to actually benchmark as you need to play the game, there is no built in benchmark tool

#50

JustBenching

Hecate91The 9700X is faster in 1080p gaming than the 265k.

Wasnt talking about gaming. It's a wash anyways, it's 5% between them. It's the overall performance that Intel absolutely dwarfs amd at that segment, but no biggie. Imagine it was the other way around, amd released the 265k and intel had the 9700x. Oh boy, I can see the comments "who games at 720p with a 5090, the AMD 265k it's twice as fast in MT performance". Let's not kid ourselves.

Tek-CheckA selective example will never be able to support the point made because it's not accurate in a wider perspective.

Essentially, you are trying to fry our logical brains with a cheap example. It's not going to work, ever, when you keep forgetting context of CPU release and wider PC market share situation in recent years.

So AMD increasing (by 40-50% mind you!) the prices of both their 6 and 8c chips needs context, but intel being stuck to 4c for 6 years doesn't need any context, Intel eveel. Mine is a selective example but yours isn't. Gotcha

Hecate91but most other tiles will only rely on P cores or need APO to force the game to only use P cores.

Stop with the propaganda, that's not what APO does. I corrected you before, do you even care about what's true? Just stop it man.

Report: AMD Now Commands One-Third of the Desktop x86 Processor Market

90 Comments on Report: AMD Now Commands One-Third of the Desktop x86 Processor Market

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts

Report: AMD Now Commands One-Third of the Desktop x86 Processor Market

Related News

90 Comments on Report: AMD Now Commands One-Third of the Desktop x86 Processor Market

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts