Tek-CheckAs 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!

Well that goes against the article posted here but okay, I'll accept your article for the sake of the discussion.

Do you subscribe to the idea that higher marketshare = better products? If yes, then clearly Intel has better chips since they are selling more (according to your own article). Also nvidia has been making infinitely better GPUs as well. Am I right or wrong?

JustBenchingwith arrowlake being far ahead of amd at their respective price points.

Have you ever seen Intel releasing only two CPUs in entire generational refresh? No. This should tell you a thing or two.

You keep rambling about lower prices and better performance, but less and less people are buying it. You still have not explained to us as to why this is the case.

I explained it multiple times but you fail to address the most basic of questions. Anyways, going by marketshare Intel makes vastly better CPUs (70% vs 30%) and Nvidia makes vastly better GPUs (90% vs 10%). Case closed, over and out.

JustBenchingI explained it multiple times but you fail to address the most basic of questions. Anyways, going by marketshare Intel makes vastly better CPUs (70% vs 30%) and Nvidia makes vastly better GPUs (90% vs 10%). Case closed, over and out.

Yes, you explained that stupid, crazy people do not see that Intel is better for years and switching to AMD out of the blue.

So Intel marketshare is dwindling although they have better product due to people being stupid.

This is serious case of fanboyism. Get real and grow up.

JustBenchingMan, 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.

You're saying you don't subscribe to the idea that market share means a better product, yet at the same time you're saying Intel has better CPU's because they have more market share.
Is this some weird gaslighting attempt or something? You want people to say that Intel is better because they have more market share and sell more CPU's, which isn't the topic of the article, and is very much besides the point here.

Gaming is a part of the picture, as an enthusiast gaming is an important metric IMO.

JustBenchingYou 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?

So if the 7800X3D is so horribly slow, I wonder why it out sells faster CPU's with more cores.

RejZoROn the other hand, that will make AMD absolute monopoly.

That is rather impossible in today's world with their company and portfolio structure. They have one of widest silicon portfolio, covering almost all market segments, from CPUs, APUs, GPUs and all the way to FPGAs. No other competitor has such a spread. Intel is more CPU company, Nvidia more GPU company, Apple is APU company. So, there will always be great competitors against AMD that specialise in one or two segments. It's actually remarkable how AMD has been able to push most of those silicon segments forward without losing completely any one of them.

Hecate91You're saying you don't subscribe to the idea that market share means a better product, yet at the same time you're saying Intel has better CPU's because they have more market share.
Is this some weird gaslighting attempt or something?

Because you and tekcheck are subscribing to the idea. I don't. That's why my very first post didn't mention anything about marketshare. Instead I said Intel has been making faster CPUs in both ST and MT (by a wide margin). I focused on performance, not marketshare. Since you all realized thatit is correct and that Intel is making vastly superior CPUs at most price points, you moved on to marketshare. Now that I'm holding your feet to the fire about marketshare you are ignoring that as well and move to other things.

Hecate91So if the 7800X3D is so horribly slow, I wonder why it out sells faster CPU's with more cores.

For the same reason nvidia is outselling amd, right? :D

JustBenchingI explained it multiple times but you fail to address the most basic of questions. Anyways, going by marketshare Intel makes vastly better CPUs (70% vs 30%) and Nvidia makes vastly better GPUs (90% vs 10%). Case closed, over and out.

People tend to buy the better product sold by whatever company produces said better product. Market share typically goes up when the share of customers grow by them buying more of said products. It's pretty simple really. AMD has the better products over Intel, that's why AMD's market share has gone up. People are buying more of AMD's products that are inside the Xbox, Playstation, Steam Deck, gaming, laptop, and desktop PC CPUs, APUs, etc.

Intel has not diversified their products much at all, so they are literally stuck in only certain segments of the industry for the most part.

JustBenchingWhy would you buy a megaslow 7700x that launched at 400$ when you could have bought a vastly faster 13700k that you can keep for much longer instead of having to throw it away? Wild concept, right?

You behave like a teenager. Allow others to buy what they want and need without begrudging it. Let them enjoy. Be happy for them. Rejoice. Relax. Zen.

LittleBroWhat comes after Nova Lake? Another xxxx Lake with P-cores only, HT on, AVX-512 supported ... gamer's dream might finally come true?

HT will probably be back in client after 1954 socket. They will first reintroduce it in Xeons, on Coral Rapids platform, mid to late 2028.

JustBenchingBecause you and tekcheck are subscribing to the idea. I don't. That's why my very first post didn't mention anything about marketshare. Instead I said Intel has been making faster CPUs in both ST and MT (by a wide margin). I focused on performance, not marketshare. Since you all realized thatit is correct and that Intel is making vastly superior CPUs at most price points, you moved on to marketshare. Now that I'm holding your feet to the fire about marketshare you are ignoring that as well and move to other things.

I'm not equating that market share means a better product at all, you were the one who brought that up. That sort of resentment towards AMD having products people want to buy is some odd fanboying, having competition is a good thing.
However if Intel are making better products in every market, why are they losing ground in market share?

JustBenchingFor the same reason nvidia is outselling amd, right? :D

As already mentioned, people tend to buy the better product, better products raise market share. Nvidia has the 5080 and 5090 and until the RAMpocalypse Nvidia cards were selling better, now the 9000 series is doing very well being a better value for effectively the same performance outside the extreme niche of path tracing being promoted in a few games.
Intel got lazy with 14nm, combined with bad leadership and buying too many other companies they got too complacent, despite Intel being a larger company with more employees they can't expand into other markets as AMD has. Even with the experience Intel has with iGPU's they haven't been able to get into the dedicated gaming GPU market, or stopped what progress they had since Nvidia gave them $5 billion.

Tek-CheckThis 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.

It works so well there is just one company that can name its price because it’s swamped.
Great for the market, no competition.

Intel wasn’t as far behind technically and the financial problems it got it self in I already touched in this topic.

Monopolies are bad, vertically integrated companies can be good.

Hecate91I'm not equating that market share means a better product at all, you were the one who brought that up.

And yet in the very next paragraph you asked this

Hecate91However if Intel are making better products in every market, why are they losing ground in market share?

So how can you not subscribe to it when you ask this? You refute yourself from one paragraph to the next.

Anyways, if AMD makes better products why are they selling vastly lower number of CPUs?

JustBenchingAMD is bigger. 800b $ market cap vs 400b $ market cap.

That means investors have a higher valuation of AMD's future potential, it doesn't mean AMD is bigger than intel.

Tek-CheckThat is rather impossible in today's world with their company and portfolio structure. They have one of widest silicon portfolio, covering almost all market segments, from CPUs, APUs, GPUs and all the way to FPGAs. No other competitor has such a spread. Intel is more CPU company, Nvidia more GPU company, Apple is APU company. So, there will always be great competitors against AMD that specialise in one or two segments. It's actually remarkable how AMD has been able to push most of those silicon segments forward without losing completely any one of them.

Except for GPU / AI GPU department.

OkieDanThat means investors have a higher valuation of AMD's future potential, it doesn't mean AMD is bigger than intel.

That's what I thought but people around here call nvidia huge for having a 5T evaluation so I thought that's how we measure companies

JustBenchingAnd yet in the very next paragraph you asked this

I asked that because you said they're losing.

JustBenchingThey have been non stop losing top to bottom

So how is AMD "losing top to bottom" when they're gaining market share?

JustBenchingSo how can you not subscribe to it when you ask this? You refute yourself from one paragraph to the next.

Anyways, if AMD makes better products why are they selling vastly lower number of CPUs?

I'm not subscribing to anything, AMD is gaining market share by making the faster CPU.

iameatingjamBlame the admin for investing in all these companies, not intel. They've paid quite dearly for their past complacency already, and steps have been taken to remedy that.

Their cpu business is profitable, their fabs currently are not, making the entire company non-profitable. Should they just shed the weight? (hypothetically) If they did that... ontop of being worth half of what amd is worth, ontop of being the underdog in the diy world..... would they then be eligible to be held to same standard as amd?

I think the reality is Intel asked the admin for help, not to get into politics but Intel is one of those too big to fail companies regardless, the gov wouldn't allow Intel to lose any significant market share because they want Intel for defense contracts. And IMO, they haven't paid for their anti-competitive actions in the past, Intel has a history of dirty tactics which hurt AMD enough during the P4 era they couldn't recover until Ryzen, even then it was a matter of luck, timing, and AMD hiring talented engineers to get them back into competing again. AMD managed to save themselves, while Intel gets help doing so, I find that a rather unfair strategy especially when Intel put themselves into that situation.
Hypothetically Intel selling their fabs would save them a ton of money spent, though I think they'd get bailed out before that would happen.

iameatingjamDidn't intel also gain market share... back in the complacency days, when their cpus were not improving much yet they were taking advantage of the situation? I mean amd is essentially the auto-choice for diy right now. And Ryzen used to be a budget product. Now this 9950X3D2? (though to be fair, people did ask for that.)

Still, anything X3D is expensive, because it has that 'i5' ring. Even on am4, 4 year old cpu, selling for $350 to people who can't afford ram partially due to actions of amd themselves. Though, its still the best product for am4 and its cheaper than building a whole new pc, right? AMD is stepping all over the people that saved them from bankruptcy so AMD can pursuit more profit in enterprise. I mean, its a publicly traded company, so I'd expect no less. Same with intel and nvidia.

Anyway point being, I really don't think their actions as of late... are worthy of celebration.

Intel market share of course went up when they had made themselves the only choice, very close to being a monopoly after illegal practices of bribing OEM's to only sell PC's with Intel CPU's.
Anything with X3D is expensive, though hopefully that will change when Intel competes with bLCC cache, unless Intel decides to ramp up their prices and claim large cache is too expensive, also I'm sure Intel will want the brand prestige on a gaming CPU which will drive up the cost even more. The 5800X3D should've been $200 at most, however production had to be restarted, CPU's aren't simply extra stock sitting in a warehouse as AMD has to pay current TSMC fab prices. In the current market an AM4 CPU still provides better value than buying DDR5, building a new PC in the current market isn't ideal but I'd rather get a used AM4 motherboard and cheaper DDR4, than pay 400X more over normal prices for DDR5.
I've been seeing lots of criticism lately for AMD prioritizing the server and AI market, because of shareholders AMD has to, they're following the AI hype Nvidia has set up with the AI bubble, also going for more profitable markets helps them innovate in the rest of the product stack. And by that logic if AMD is stepping on their consumers, Nvidia is stomping on people.
AMD still provides competitive CPU's, along with long lived sockets, and GPU's with better price/performance. It would be nice if the AI bubble could pop and every company go back to focusing on the market which helped put these companies where they are now.

Hecate91I asked that because you said they're losing.

So how is AMD "losing top to bottom" when they're gaining market share?

I'm not subscribing to anything, AMD is gaining market share by making the faster CPU.

Are you actually trolling me? How can you say you are not subscribing to the idea that better cpus = better marketshare and then say amd is gaining marketshare because they making better CPUs? It's either one or the other. Either marketshare is irrelevant, or it isn't.

Anyways, AMD is majorly losing in performance in the things that matter to the PC space at large, and sadly gaming isn't it. DIY is a tiny space, gaming is a tiny subspace of a tiny space. Even in the gaming space AMD isn't winning. Their 250$ 9700x isn't faster than the 200$ Intel chip in gaming, and it's far slower in MT. People are overwhelmingly buying Intel CPUs because as I've said repeatedly and nobody can refute it Intel is offering vastly more performance in MT, for vastly less money. They have been making the better CPUs for the past half a decade, the same way AMD was making the better CPUs between 2017 and 2019 even though they were losing in gaming. You don't want to accept it for ideological reasons and nothing can convince you so I'm not sure why you are quoting me. I on the other hand im absolutely ready to change my mind, show me a review of any CPU costing between 0$ and 400$ from AMD beating an Intel chip of equal price in ST or MT the past 5 years. I mean their latest R7 9700x are barely beating Intel's 5 year old i7 and it's getting blasted by Intel's 2022 i7 13700k. The gap is massive.

I can imagine what you'd be saying if the i7 270k was actually slower than the R7 7700x. Cause this is what's going on in reverse, and yet we have to pretend that it isn't happening.

Here, easy question for you. The 14700k released in 2023 for 400$. The 9700x released in 2024 for 360$. According to every review the 14700k is faster in ST, gaming, and vastly vastly faster in MT performance. What are we talking about here?

Hecate91sell PC's with Intel CPU's.
Anything with X3D is expensive, though hopefully that will change when Intel competes with bLCC cache, unless Intel decides to ramp up their prices and claim large cache is too expensive, also I'm sure Intel will want the brand prestige on a gaming CPU which will drive up the cost even more. The 5800X3D should've been $200 at most, however production had to be restarted, CPU's aren't simply extra stock sitting in a warehouse as AMD has to pay current TSMC fab prices. In the current market an AM4 CPU still provides better value than buying DDR5, building a new PC in the current market isn't ideal but I'd rather get a used AM4 motherboard and cheaper DDR4, than pay 400X more over normal prices for DDR5.
I've been seeing lots of criticism lately for AMD prioritizing the server and AI market, because of shareholders AMD has to, they're following the AI hype Nvidia has set up with the AI bubble, also going for more profitable markets helps them innovate in the rest of the product stack. And by that logic if AMD is stepping on their consumers, Nvidia is stomping on people.
AMD still provides competitive CPU's, along with long lived sockets, and GPU's with better price/performance.

I feel like we are pretty much saying the same thing.

It would be nice if the AI bubble could pop and every company go back to focusing on the market which helped put these companies where they are now.

Lets just agree to agree on that.

JustBenchingover and out.

Finally... 🤣

qcmadnessExcept for GPU / AI GPU department.

Oh well, there will be another opportunity next year, with RDNA5. To be honest, 9070XT has similar representation on Steam Survey to 5070Ti. It's selling really well. Obviously, Nvidia has a broader portfolio and more expertise at the moment. For AI GPUs, MI400 is making a lot of contracts and there will be tens of thousands of wafers for it. Again, not as many as Nvidia, but that's fine. One advantage AMD has is that it co-develops open standards across the industry, which is hugely important, yet it's not given enough of attention and love, especially open source graphics drivers in Linux and new data centre standards, so that buyers are not locked into closed ecosystems, but have more space to mix-and-match hardware.

JustBenchingAre you actually trolling me? How can you say you are not subscribing to the idea that better cpus = better marketshare and then say amd is gaining marketshare because they making better CPUs? It's either one or the other. Either marketshare is irrelevant, or it isn't.

It is not about marketshare in one moment of time and space, it is about trend. Jesus Christ...

JustBenchingPeople are overwhelmingly buying Intel CPUs

... leading to less marketshare for Intel. I knew it!

JustBenchingEven in the gaming space AMD isn't winning. Their 250$ 9700x isn't faster than the 200$

Wasn't a 1080p chart shared in this thread showing the 9700x ahead of 14900k and 285k?

OkieDanWasn't a 1080p chart shared in this thread showing the 9700x ahead of 14900k and 285k?

I checked this. There isn't much between them, 13 and 14 700k seem to be a tiny faster.


tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9700x/images/relative-performance-games-1280-720.png

In the latest one also doesn't seem to be much between them

tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png

Aleksandar_038It is not about marketshare in one moment of time and space, it is about trend. Jesus Christ...

... leading to less marketshare for Intel. I knew it!

Do you understand that the article you are reading is talking about SHIPMENTS? It's the % of sales each company has shipped. 30% of the chips sold in q2 2026 were amd, 70% were intel. This isn't total marketshare, ie how many people have amd vs how many people have intel. If you still don't get it I can't help you, I can't understand it for you.

JustBenchingI checked this. There isn't much between them, 13 and 14 700k seem to be a tiny faster.

Tiny faster? I thought that you said that they were much, much faster and strictly superior? I am disappointed.

JustBenchingDo you understand that the article you are reading is talking about SHIPMENTS? It's the % of sales each company has shipped. 30% of the chips sold in q2 2026 were amd, 70% were intel. This isn't total marketshare, ie how many people have amd vs how many people have intel. If you still don't get it I can't help you, I can't understand it for you.

You do not understand principle of delta / YoY and therefore trying to explain evetuthing in one moment of time, completely missing the mark.

Aleksandar_038Tiny faster? I thought that you said that they were much, much faster and strictly superior? I am disappointed.



Do you understand principle of delta / YoY and therefore trying to explain evetuthing in one moment of time, completely missing the mark.

Dude isn't arguing in good faith, or legitimately can't grasp what you are trying to say. Honestly the more he goes on the sadder this whole convo becomes. Give up.

Aleksandar_038Tiny faster? I thought that you said that they were much, much faster and strictly superior? I am disappointed.

In MT, they are. Vastly. The 14700k is over 50% faster in MT workloads. EG. blender


But you pretend to misread or misunderstand to make a point. Oh well

R-T-BDude isn't arguing in good faith, or legitimately can't grasp what you are trying to say. Honestly the more he goes on the sadder this whole convo becomes. Give up.

Yeah, im arguing in terrible faith when i say that Intel has been dominating for over half a decade in MT performance at most price points. It's totally not true, that's why people have pushed back with plenty of examples instead of personal attacks.