Darmok N JaladYes, but would ATi still be alive today if that hadn’t happened, or would they have been consumed by another company, perhaps even NVIDIA? Schrödinger’s cat at this point.

no, the FTC still worked somewhat back then. today we got lucky nvidia didn't buy arm.
Not that arm today is all that awesome a company.

kondaminno, the FTC still worked somewhat back then. today we got lucky nvidia didn't buy arm.
Not that arm today is all that awesome a company.

I would expect ARM to be less popular in 10 years.

This was inevitable. The 13/14th gen fiasco certainly didn't help matters and Intel handled it terribly to begin with. Plus, AMD executed pretty much every generation after Zen 1 flawlessly. Other than Zen 5 which focused mostly on server workloads, every generation brought about massive gains as well. Then obviously there was X3D which drove most gamers to AMD for obvious reasons.

The next gen should be an interesting battle.

qcmadnessI would expect ARM to be less popular in 10 years.

depends on how well arm manages to improve on their designs and how quickly risc v adoption happens.
quallcom buying tenstorrent might throw a wrench in wide industry adoption as tenstorrent was pushing the isa forward a lot.

kondaminno, the FTC still worked somewhat back then. today we got lucky nvidia didn't buy arm.
Not that arm today is all that awesome a company.

Interestingly, it might have been their purchase of ATi that kept them afloat during their really bad CPU years. Their GPUs were competitive at the time, IIRC.

Darmok N JaladInterestingly, it might have been their purchase of ATi that kept them afloat during their really bad CPU years. Their GPUs were competitive at the time, IIRC.

They were dependent on the money Abu Dhabi was shoving towards them and the 1.2 billion intel was forced to pay.
they also dumped ati's mobile graphics on Qualcomm or Samsung for some cash.

They had important x86 IP investors saw value in, that's what kept them alive.

It paid off.

They also managed to squeeze a couple of hundred million out of Chinese hygon by licensing the half baked zen 1 arch.
For which it was thanked by being placed on the entities list.

I kinda feel like AMD treated the graphics division as an unwanted stepchild, they got lucky nvidia was making inroads in to cuda not putting much effort in graphics rendering while amd still had some work left that was done under ATI.
Now it's a company that is making tens of billions each quarter and they still aren't bothering bringing anything interesting to market.
the 5090 an absolute joke due to it's price, but it does bring awesome graphics power.
AMD hasn't even bothered releasing big silicon to compete

kondaminThey were dependent on the money Abu Dhabi was shoving towards them and the 1.2 billion intel was forced to pay.
they also dumped ati's mobile graphics on Qualcomm or Samsung for some cash.

They had important x86 IP investors saw value in, that's what kept them alive.

It paid off.

They also managed to squeeze a couple of hundred million out of Chinese hygon by licensing the half baked zen 1 arch.
For which it was thanked by being placed on the entities list.

I kinda feel like AMD treated the graphics division as an unwanted stepchild, they got lucky nvidia was making inroads in to cuda not putting much effort in graphics rendering while amd still had some work left that was done under ATI.
Now it's a company that is making tens of billions each quarter and they still aren't bothering bringing anything interesting to market.
the 5090 an absolute joke due to it's price, but it does bring awesome graphics power.
AMD hasn't even bothered releasing big silicon to compete

When their server chips are the bees knees, they weren’t going to use up TSMC fab space on a big GPU. They undoubtedly chased the known cash cow instead of hoping they’d dethrone another giant. I do wonder though, NVIDIA isn’t exactly hurting in the server space either.

JustBenchingCommon misconception. They are not non stop winning. When was the last time AMD offered a faster product at a similar price point to Intel? Back in 2019 pretty much. They have been non stop losing top to bottom in both ST and MT performance in the majority of price segments.

Imagine coping this hard. Simping for intel is a mental illness. Seek help.

TheGuruStudImagine coping this hard. Simping for intel is a mental illness. Seek help.

You are right, sorry, ill repent. AMD has been winning non stop. As clearly seen by the reviews the past years, their 7600x and 7700x are obliterating the 13600k and 13700k respectively in both ST and MT performance. The gap got even bigger recently with the 9600x and the 9700x completely walking all over the 250k and 270k, the latter lagging considerably in MT performance.

We good? Can we be friends again?

Darmok N JaladWhen their server chips are the bees knees, they weren’t going to use up TSMC fab space on a big GPU. They undoubtedly chased the known cash cow instead of hoping they’d dethrone another giant. I do wonder though, NVIDIA isn’t exactly hurting in the server space either.

Given how both are giving away billions to the likes of openAI and coreweave, spending a couple of million on a run of big silicon gpus that will actually generate revenue and presence in a very important market segment…

I feel perfectly fine with what I wrote, amd doesn’t care about graphics

wheresmycarThis ain’t some minor wobble on the throne. Intel is still enormous but it’ll be fascinating to see whether they can turn the ship around, cling to its remaining dominance or eventually end up in a proper 50:50 scrap with AMD... the latter from a consumers perspective would be the best outcome.

Astonishingly, it's already getting really close to 50:50, if we account for embedded server CPUs, which AMD did not count previously, for whatever reason. Quote from Mercury Research:

"...McCarron said, AMD’s share would have been higher in the segment if the company counted embedded CPUs it shipped for networking and storage applications in data centers. Intel, on the other hand, counts such CPUs within its Data Center Group. Without this accounting difference, AMD’s server CPU share would have grown 9.2 points year over year and 2.9 points sequentially to 46.4 percent against Intel’s 53.6 percent, according to the CPU market researcher."

www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/2026/intel-s-cpu-market-share-falls-to-31-year-low-as-ai-mania-fuels-record-growth

razaronNo wonder they don't compete with nVidia at their own game (high end GPU)

They obviously compete in data centre GPUs with MI400 series. Nvidia is simply bigger and the first mover, but hey, there's a lot of space in that market. TAM is enormous, to the point that Microsoft, Google, Amazon and others can simply produce their own chips and racks. It's huge.

In client, AMD will try to come back with wider GPU portfolio on RDNA5 architecture. Currently, their upper mid range 9070XT is ding pretty, pretty well.

JustBenchingWhen was the last time AMD offered a faster product at a similar price point to Intel? Back in 2019 pretty much. They have been non stop losing top to bottom in both ST and MT performance in the majority of price segments.

This is generic nonsense, a meaningless word salad hoping to make sense. A simple example ahead. Intel was forced to cut prices across Xeon range, rapidly and dramatically. Just four months after the launch, the flagship 128 core Granite Rapids lost ~$5,400 (~30%) from the launch price, because it turned out that it was crushed in performance reviews against EPYCs and in TCO.

It's a shame that you spend so much time defending Intel without reading enough on this very tech platform and elsewhere. The credibility of your posts equals zero. Get informed.
www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-quietly-slashes-prices-of-xeon-6-cpus-by-up-to-usd5-340
www.techpowerup.com/331709/intel-cuts-xeon-6-prices-up-to-30-to-battle-amd-in-the-data-center

In client market, you will need to explain why buyers increasingly buy CPUs that are losing 'top to bottom'. Here is your opportunity to shine.

BigshrimpPersonally, I really don't care about AMD's market share gain since they are all in on AI, just like Intel and the rest. It's just one of the many heads of the AI hydra smashing the consumer market into smithereens. I have no doubt that they and the others will continue doing so with great haste since they really don't need consumers anymore.

It's AI data centre super cycle around the world. Tough at the moment for consumers. Still, new consoles are in development and CPUs too. Premium gaming CPUs will be expensive. You cannot expect anything different on most advanced N2 node, but there will be more budget options too. Don't forget that behind companies are shareholders. What appears to be not caring for consumer market is also driven by current law. It is called fiduciary duty, aka profit-driven rules of the bigger economy. You can always complain to your local politician to try to change those rules and make companies more caring to average Joe. Good luck!

Tek-CheckThis is generic nonsense, a meaningless word salad hoping to make sense. A simple example ahead. Intel was forced to cut prices across Xeon range, rapidly and dramatically. Just four months after the launch, the flagship 128 core Granite Rapids lost ~$5,400 (~30%) from the launch price, because it turned out that it was crushed in performance reviews against EPYCs and in TCO.

It's a shame that you spend so much time defending Intel without reading enough on this very tech platform and elsewhere. The credibility of your posts equals zero. Get informed.
www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-quietly-slashes-prices-of-xeon-6-cpus-by-up-to-usd5-340
www.techpowerup.com/331709/intel-cuts-xeon-6-prices-up-to-30-to-battle-amd-in-the-data-center

Cool story bro, the thread is about desktop client and mobile. Which is obviously what I was talking about. The fact taht I got 2 different people personally attacking me instead of addressing the point I raised is very interesting :D

Tek-CheckIn client market, you will need to explain why buyers increasingly buy CPUs that are losing 'top to bottom'. Here is your opportunity to shine.

If you wanna use client market share as an indication of whos got the better CPUs then clearly it's Intel, since out of every 100 people 70 of them buy Intel. It's really you who was to make the explaining, my position fits the data perfectly. Intel has been dominating for more than half a decade in ST and MT performance and that's why it has the overwhelming majority of the market. Here, ill give you a chance as well, can you name an AMD cpu at 400$ or below that was faster in ST , MT or both to an equivalent Intel cpu the past 5 years?

To be fair, the latest CPU generations from Intel are pure junk for gaming, no need to beat behind the bush.

kondaminIt’s a shame amd is fabless now, would have been so much better if they were in this position making their own chips

This does not matter. Apple and Nvidia don't have their own fabs either. Does it bother them? No. Designing chips and owning fabs invites some complex relationships and difficulties. Look at Intel. They fired over 45,000 employees in recent years. Designing and owning fabs did not help them run the company better. Separate chip designers from Silicon Valley and separate chip manufacturers has been a proven model for decades. It works.

Prima.VeraTo be fair, the latest CPU generations from Intel are pure junk for gaming, no need to beat behind the bush.

They are as fast or faster in gaming than what AMD is offering at the price point. According to TPUs review the 250k is as fast as the 9600x and the 9700x in gaming while it roflstomps them both in MT performance. It currently costs 205€ vs 250€ for the 9700x. It looks like the AMD product is junk, not just for gaming but for every workload.

JustBenchingCool story bro, the thread is about desktop client and mobile.

Did you read the title of the article?
"AMD Gains Ground as Intel x86 Market Share Goes Back to 1995 Levels"

Did you read the article? I quote:
"In the server CPU market, AMD managed to grow by 7.3 points year over year, reaching 34.5% against Intel's 65.5%. The competition is fierce in this segment, AMD has launched the 6th Gen EPYC "Venice" server processors powered by the "Zen 6" CPU microarchitecture, while Intel just announced its upcoming Xeon 7 "Diamond Rapids" CPUs and the "Crescent Island" graphics card for data centers and workstations."

The thread is about x86 ecosystem. Thank you.

Tek-CheckDid you read the title of the article?
"AMD Gains Ground as Intel x86 Market Share Goes Back to 1995 Levels"

Did you read the article? I quote:
"In the server CPU market, AMD managed to grow by 7.3 points year over year, reaching 34.5% against Intel's 65.5%. The competition is fierce in this segment, AMD has launched the 6th Gen EPYC "Venice" server processors powered by the "Zen 6" CPU microarchitecture, while Intel just announced its upcoming Xeon 7 "Diamond Rapids" CPUs and the "Crescent Island" graphics card for data centers and workstations."

The thread is about x86 ecosystem. Thank you.

Gaining ground doesn't mean it sells more than Intel though. If you read the article you would notice it is talking about SHIPMENTS only. Which means currently Intel is selling over twice as many chips as AMD.

So according to your own argument (regarding marketshare), Intel has the better CPUs, that's why they are selling more.

Hecate91Intel has their own fabs, IMO they absolutely should be held to a higher standard for the mess of being complacent they got themselves in, but proceeded to get a too big to fail helping hand of $10 billion courtesy of the US taxpayers.

And $5 billion from Nvidia. The market held them to account. Their share prices dropped dramatically, as nobody on Wall Street believed in stories they were saying. Wall Street also kicked them out of technological index.

JustBenchingI don't even know why we need to talk about something that is entirely factual, Intel has been dominating in both ST and MT for more than half a decade at almost every price point.

And yet, Intel has been CONSISTENTLY losing both market share and revenue share in last 10 years. Market share parity in x86 has been almost reached, according to director from Mercury Research. Also, revenue share in server is almost at parity I posted a link to his interview in this thread. AMD needs another ~3.5% to reach 50%.

You will need to explain what's stopping increasing number of buyers from purchasing Intel CPUs with dominant ST and MT performance. I am curious how you handle this because I am not asking you to defend Intel, but to explain why allegedly superior products are not as popular any more, across x86 segments.

iameatingjamDunno if you've noticed, but fabs are extremely hard business to run... the successful and profitable ones (or... one, rather) is the one that does that and ONLY that. Really focusing in on production gives tsmc that edge nobody else has.

This. Well said.

Tek-CheckYou will need to explain what's stopping increasing number of buyers from purchasing Intel CPUs with dominant ST and MT performance. I am curious how you handle this because I am not asking you to defend Intel, but to explain why allegedly superior products are not as popular any more, across x86 segments.

I don't subscribe to the idea that marketshare = better product. You don't either. For example you don't recognize that Nvidia has been making much better GPUs the past decade, right? So there you go.

But regardless of that, superior products ARE selling more. How many times do I need to repeat it? Intel sells over twice as many CPUs as AMD according to the very article you are commenting on. So what are you talking about my man?

JustBenchingCool story bro, the thread is about desktop client and mobile. Which is obviously what I was talking about. The fact taht I got 2 different people personally attacking me instead of addressing the point I raised is very interesting :D

You said "from top to bottom AMD is losing".
Except at the top, Intel is losing while having to undercut AMD in the server market, since AMD is ahead in power efficiency and price per core count.

JustBenchingevery 100 people 70 of them buy Intel

Out of those 70, 60 of them are buying whatever laptop they see in the store, odds are it's Intel since they're better at flooding the market with lower end CPU's.

JustBenchingname an AMD cpu at 400$ or below that was faster in ST , MT or both to an equivalent Intel cpu the past 5 years?

Sure here you go. 7800X3D is $330, faster and more efficient in games, also has an upgrade path to Zen 6 instead of needing to buy a new board and ram.

www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9850x3d/18.html

JustBenchingGaining ground doesn't mean it sells more than Intel though. If you read the article you would notice it is talking about SHIPMENTS only. Which means currently Intel is selling over twice as many chips as AMD.

So according to your own argument (regarding marketshare), Intel has the better CPUs, that's why they are selling more.

Did you read the title or the article? AMD is gaining ground, why do they have to sell more than Intel?
You keep ignoring logical arguments to move goalposts, and I assume you'd be upset unless Intel has a near monopoly.
AMD gaining market share is a good thing, without AMD's Ryzen comeback we'd still have 4 core 14nm Intel CPU's.

JustBenchingConsidering amd is an 800b$ company vs a 400b$ intel, it seems intel is doing great for being such a small company.

Small? They have THREE time more workers. Get back to sanity. They should have passed $1T long ago. Unfortunately, Gaudi AI GPU did not work and they made a series of other mistakes. The rest is history.

Hecate91Did you read the title or the article? AMD is gaining ground, why do they have to sell more than Intel?
You keep ignoring logical arguments to move goalposts, and I assume you'd be upset unless Intel has a near monopoly.
AMD gaining market share is a good thing, without AMD's Ryzen comeback we'd still have 4 core 14nm Intel CPU's.

Man, it's not complicated. If you subscribe to the idea that marketshare determines what's a good product then clearly Intel has the better products since it's selling twice as many chips. But you don't think Intel has the better chips, and therefore marketshare is irrelevant (according to you), and yet you are trying to use it to make a point. So I'll ask plainly, does marketshare determine what is a good product and what isn't? Im not expecting an answer, im expecting you to hide.

Also gaming is irrelevant on the bigger picture. It's a tiny marketshare.

Aleksandar_038Of course Intel is selling more - they are much bigger compared to AMD and can flood the market with CPU - something AMD is struggling.

This is steadily changing. This year, AMD will have allocated ~500,000 wafers, plus more next year.
wccftech.com/nvidias-cowos-ai-chip-packaging-demand-to-be-foreshadowed-in-2027-by-amd-due-to-agentic-ai-cpu-ramp-says-morgan-stanley/

Hecate91Sure here you go. 7800X3D is $330, faster and more efficient in games, also has an upgrade path to Zen 6 instead of needing to buy a new board and ram.

You are quoting a post asking for a CPU that is faster in ST, MT or both and you are replying with the 7800x 3d that is vastly slower in both. What the hell man?

JustBenchingIntel is selling drastically more cpus than amd.

As I said, I gave you the link to an interview with Mercury Research guy. The total market share in x86 is currently 46% vs 54%. Intel is selling 8% more. That's it. Read the interview and stop this nonsense. You are literally holding this discussion back because you are not informed and you need to be corrected at all times on basic stuff. Get a grip!