john_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.

ARFBecause most people are either poor, or ill-informed about the benefits of better displays, or any combination of these reasons and others.
Of course that 1080p is the resolution of the poor and non-enthusiast | pro communities.

Hell, even if people work with larger drawings, be them AutoCAD or simple pdfs, everyone's needs are larger display with higher resolutions.

Vayra86Manufacturing capacity certainly plays a part.. great point. But not entirely - after all, why would AMD not be able to throw a huge bag of money at TSMC for first dibs on a new node or said capacity? Because- this is closely related to demand and represents a risk.

JustBenchingBecause Apple amongst other companies can throw an even bigger bag I assume. Really don't know, how easy is it for TSMC to keep scaling their high end fabs? Don't they also face supply issues themselves?

Vayra86Why would their bag be bigger, I mean it is a guessing game but I dont see why Apple is special; the key difference between it and AMD is that Apple knows it sells those chips (maintain share and perhaps a tiny % of growth projected) and AMD would use it to gain market share it didnt have.

JustBenchingCause apple is massive compared to AMD and I assume it has a much higher profit margin. Apple dwarfs Intel, AMD and nvidia combined in revenue if I remember correctly. It's freaking HUGE!

JustBenchingMy point is, if we agree that amd was slapping intel hard with zen 1 and zen 3 in MT performance, the fact that now intel not only has caught up but actually leading (by not a small margin) in a lot of segments clearly means that amd is not progressing, or in other words stagnating. This is not an opinion, these are just facts. Even in ST intel is ahead, but of course not with a sizable margin.

JustBenchingAs far as I understand the graphs represent sales. Units sold. And if that is the case then the majority of customers come to the conclusion that Intel systems are better for them. I don't like using sales as an indication of what product is good or not but since that's what you are doing, clearly intel has better products.

Tek-CheckInteresting denial of reality. Just two days ago, Tom's Hardware retested the flagships for productivity. The verdict is clear. One just needs to comprehend in English to be able to digest it.
www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-9-9950x-vs-intel-core-ultra-9-285k-faceoff-it-isnt-even-close
.
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-9950x3d/26.html

Tek-CheckIf you had commanded over 90% of market share until a few years and today you command around 67% (even less, 60% according to PassMark), the question is what has happened with all those "better" products and why people buy more of "worse" products from the competitor? If you still sell better products, why is it that you cannot keep market share intact? You are still selling majority of CPUs overall, but customers are less enthused by your recent generations, for whatever reason, hence your market share is slowly, but consistently melting. This process takes years, as you know. So, the narrative that Intel has better products just because they still sell more doesn't work, I am afraid.

JustBenchingBecause Apple amongst other companies can throw an even bigger bag I assume. Really don't know, how easy is it for TSMC to keep scaling their high end fabs? Don't they also face supply issues themselves?

Tek-CheckIf you had commanded over 90% of market share until a few years and today you command around 67% (even less, 60% according to PassMark), the question is what has happened with all those "better" products and why people buy more of "worse" products from the competitor? If you still sell better products, why is it that you cannot keep market share intact? You are still selling majority of CPUs overall, but customers are less enthused by your recent generations, for whatever reason, hence your market share is slowly, but consistently melting. This process takes years, as you know. So, the narrative that Intel has better products just because they still sell more doesn't work, I am afraid.

Besides, one of key reasons why Intel still holds higher share in server CPU is due to long cycle of rack replacements (7-8 years) and historically high CPU attachment number. Majority of companies that decided to upgrade old servers replaced old Xeon systems with EPYCs, hence such rapid increase in EPYC revenues and installation base. Parity in share is expected by the end of 2026 or in 2027. Just watch it happen with Venice and Verano CPUs. We will come back to this debate again when next quarter numbers are released, and then nwxt year, and so on. You will continue to see a gradual decline, unless something big happens, such as Nova Lake and Diamond Rapids bringing winning flagships and revived enthusiasm across the board.

Dr. DroYup, I agree. Without really going into the server realm (it's beyond my grasp and I'll admit I'm out of date there), Arrow Lake is, in my opinion, a failed product, especially for all that marketing fanfare and the rebranding of "Ultra" they came up with.

It brings some industry firsts like CKD RAM support, but there were way too many performance regressions, caveats and tradeoffs for it to truly be an upgrade over its predecessors. The only CPU I truly like is the U9 285 (non K), which can make an amazing, low maintenance machine for the right price, the problem being that the price hasn't been right for any of the U9 CPUs all this time, and most people overall will be better served by a 7800X3D/9800X3D with about the same power and thermal footprint, but much better gaming muscle.

As it stands I'd say Intel is a solid 5 years behind AMD in CPU technology right now, thankfully the very large, generational level performance advantage they had over Zen 3 at the time mostly covers up for this - a good 13th/14th Gen i9, and to that extent the U9 285/285K is not going to look too bad next to a 7950X, and the U7 265K more than holds its own at the pricing being practiced against the Ryzen 7 line. The 9950X/9950X3D are straight up faster overall, and I'm all too happy to concede that, caveats regarding the 9950X3D notwithstanding.

Spoiler

JustBenchingMy observation is - AMD started from a 199$ CPU beating i5's and i7's in MT performance to today, where their 280$ 9600x losing in both MT and overall application performance to 4 year old i7s and every i5 in existence. I don't get how this is progress compared to where they started. The R5 1600 was close to the 7700k in overall performance, nowadays it's nowhere near to the 265k. And that's considered a failed CPU generation from Intel, lol.

Spoiler

JustBenchingThey had 90% marketshare when AMD wasn't making any CPUs my man. Obviously, once AMD started making CPUs again Intel wouldn't retain that 90%. How could they...

Dr. DroYes, it's true, AMD has been price creeping as they gain mind and market, and they haven't shied away from charging whatever they want on HEDT - Threadripper's a good glimpse of what the CPU market will look like without Intel in the picture, $11,700 flagships and all.

It's no surprise the 265K can often pound the 9600X and most other 8 core R7s with its 8P+12E setup, but with all the negative press and the promise of yet another generation on AMD's side, a lot of people will opt for the 9600X on that alone. The thing about Intel vs. AMD is that each type of architecture still holds an advantage at something, for example, even that 9600X is gonna look as good if not better than the 265K if your workload uses AVX-512, so it's always good to have choice, especially since to have it all right now, you're going to have to go with Threadripper.

Intel still holds the tweakers' advantage, you can extract a lot more out of the Intel chips than you can out of the AMD ones even after the release of the X870E Apex board (mostly because only their APU is tweakable to that extent), but it's only a matter of time until AMD is no longer bound by the IOD and offers the same level of tweaking ability as Intel.

I just wonder why are the U9s so bloody expensive when Intel seems able to keep relatively good stock on the 265K, for example the U9 285 costs almost double here and is almost always out of stock, the 285K then, a complete unicorn, I think I've saw 2 shipments of it since it launched, that doesn't make sense to me. Intel needed to flood the market with cheap U9 chips, but being TSMC N3B, I guess they just can't.

JustBenchingCause apple is massive compared to AMD and I assume it has a much higher profit margin. Apple dwarfs Intel, AMD and nvidia combined in revenue if I remember correctly. It's freaking HUGE!