AMD Briefly Overtakes Intel in Desktop Market Share According to PassMark Data

[Uskompuf]

PC benchmarking software company PassMark has recorded the market share of AMD and Intel processors based on their testing data. This data dates back to Q1 2014 and shows Intel dominating the desktop market. AMD has been gradually making ground on Intel since they launched their Ryzen processors in 2017 which have quickly become some of the best processors available. Thanks to the success of Ryzen the market share of AMD desktop processors recently overtook Intel reaching 50.8%, this number has now fallen to 49.8% as the data continues to be updated with new tests but the trend is clear. While AMD has made tremendous gains in the desktop market they still fall far behind in the laptop and server segments with 17% and 1.1% market shares respectively. This puts AMD's total market share across all segments at 38.2% according to PassMark data.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Flanker]

I thought the gap would narrow in the server market too

 

[JAB Creations]

I thought the gap would narrow in the server market too

This is for PassMark's market share. It's like Steam: Steam isn't the only gaming platform and gaming as a whole is only part of a greater overall market. Perspective matters.
View attachment Perspective.webp

 

[fancucker]

AMD has a number of issues though that hinder market acquisition - teething issues with chipsets and newer generation processors, constant need to apply BIOS updates to fix performance issues, supply and reliability issues in the server sector. And it is no longer providing compelling options at the budget option (10100, 10400, 10700). Intel remains the better option.

 

[Max(IT)]

Unfortunately these good numbers are driving AMD pricing in the desktop market to a crazy level. The ridiculous price of a six core like the 5600X (but also of the 8 cores 5800X) are the results of AMD overtaking Intel.

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

Unfortunately these good numbers are driving AMD pricing in the desktop market to a crazy level. The ridiculous price of a six core like the 5600X (but also of the 8 cores 5800X) are the results of AMD overtaking Intel.

Crazy level? What price did the 1800x debut at? Oh yeah, $500, and what price is a 5800x now? Oh yeah $450, and what company is solely responsible for bringing CPUs with more than four cores down under $1000 in just over three years while Intel stagnated? Oh yeah, AMD. Prices arent crazy, that's solely your perception a d isn't supported by objective analysis or empirical data. You're just taking the $50 price bump and exaggerating it when it's perfectly reasonable considering the 3000 series wasn't the fastest single thread products on the market, so AMD priced them accordingly. 5000 series is now the best at everything, so AMD priced it accordingly.... You can't have it both ways, top performance in every metric with a price based on not being the best.... Why is it that people have this expectation that regardless of changes in performance, AMD should still be priced as a budget option as if it weren't currently the best?

AMD has a number of issues though that hinder market acquisition - teething issues with chipsets and newer generation processors, constant need to apply BIOS updates to fix performance issues, supply and reliability issues in the server sector. And it is no longer providing compelling options at the budget option (10100, 10400, 10700). Intel remains the better option.

Better for what reasons? Can you specify these Chipset issues and other problems?

 

[Max(IT)]

Crazy level? What price did the 1800x debut at? Oh yeah, $500, and what price is a 5800x now? Oh yeah $450, and what company is solely responsible for bringing CPUs with more than four cores down under $1000 in just over three years while Intel stagnated? Oh yeah, AMD. Prices arent crazy, that's solely your perception a d isn't supported by objective analysis or empirical data. You're just taking the $50 price bump and exaggerating it when it's perfectly reasonable considering the 3000 series wasn't the fastest single thread products on the market, so AMD priced them accordingly. 5000 series is now the best at everything, so AMD priced it accordingly.... You can't have it both ways, top performance in every metric with a price based on not being the best.... Why is it that people have this expectation that regardless of changes in performance, AMD should still be priced as a budget option as if it weren't currently the best?


Better for what reasons? Can you specify these Chipset issues and other problems?

Lol in case you didn’t notice, this isn’t 2017 anymore...

 

[PrEzi]

AMD has a number of issues though that hinder market acquisition - teething issues with chipsets and newer generation processors, constant need to apply BIOS updates to fix performance issues, supply and reliability issues in the server sector. And it is no longer providing compelling options at the budget option (10100, 10400, 10700). Intel remains the better option.

LoL... Intel damage control much ?
Since after a few months after the very first ZEN release and after the big AGESA update 1.0.0.6 there are no major problems.... null, zero, zilch.
But as AnarchoPrimitiv said (just for the sake of having fun) you are welcome to name a few new ones if you can.... let's say - from 2020 ?

 

[londiste]

Crazy level? What price did the 1800x debut at? Oh yeah, $500, and what price is a 5800x now? Oh yeah $450, and what company is solely responsible for bringing CPUs with more than four cores down under $1000 in just over three years while Intel stagnated? Oh yeah, AMD. Prices arent crazy, that's solely your perception a d isn't supported by objective analysis or empirical data. You're just taking the $50 price bump and exaggerating it when it's perfectly reasonable considering the 3000 series wasn't the fastest single thread products on the market, so AMD priced them accordingly. 5000 series is now the best at everything, so AMD priced it accordingly.... You can't have it both ways, top performance in every metric with a price based on not being the best.... Why is it that people have this expectation that regardless of changes in performance, AMD should still be priced as a budget option as if it weren't currently the best?

There were also 1700 ($329) and 1700X ($399).

As for <$1000 for more than 4 cores claim, you need to specify desktop. There were CPUs with more than 4 cores before Ryzen.
6-core Sandy Bridge-E was about $600 back in 2011. Haswell-E introduced 8 cores at $1000 in 2014 and as a response to Ryzen Skylake-X brought 8 cores down to $600 in 2017.

Remember also that for these 4-core CPUs $330 was a high price to pay.

With no other 6-core models available, 5600X brings a $100 price bump to 6-core CPUs. 1600 was $219, 2600 and 3600 were $199. 5600X is $299.
Similarly with 8-core. 1700 was $329, 2700 was $299, 3700X was $329 and 5800X is $450.

 

[laszlo]

prices won't drop and is possible that they'll be higher compared to last year... tsmc cut the discounts..can't face the demand...raw material prices increase...

 

[hat]

Too much demand, not enough supply. When every single current generation graphics card is out of stock nearly everywhere... that isn't a good sign. Prices can only go up from here, not down. I'm surprised Intel CPUs are even available, but I guess that comes from them running their own fabs rather than relying on TSMC. We've been hearing a lot about supply issues over there too though, so it wouldn't surprise me to see Intel CPUs out of stock everywhere soon as well.

 

[john_]

NEVER, EVER base ANY conclusions on data from PassMark that are based on only a few days data.

PassMark started collecting new data from January the 1st for this quarter. That means that if ONLY ONE person with an AMD system had run the benchmark that day, then AMD's share on January the 1st would have been 100% and Intel's 0%.

It's much more accurate to wait at least 1 month before starting making conclusions based on PassMark's data.

 

[Melvis]

Unfortunately these good numbers are driving AMD pricing in the desktop market to a crazy level. The ridiculous price of a six core like the 5600X (but also of the 8 cores 5800X) are the results of AMD overtaking Intel.

Let me take you back to a time where CPU's where actually expensive, 2005, AMD king of the hill, FX 57/60 CPUs cost around $1000, Intels P4 Extreme!!!! CPU's cost even more, and this was a 1 or 2 core CPU that was basically out dated a yr or so later. A CPU of today lets say the 5900X which is still under the $1000 mark even in AUS (which the 2005 CPU's where priced at) is going to still be used or useful in a PC even 10yrs later, so in reality your getting ALOT more for longer at same or less cost.

 

[medi01]

Judging by mindfactory figures, in DIY market it's bloodbath.

On the other hand, 80% of the desktop market is in OEM hands, which is overwhelmingly Intel.

 

[john_]

Judging by mindfactory figures, in DIY market it's bloodbath.

On the other hand, 80% of the desktop market is in OEM hands, which is overwhelmingly Intel.

DIY market is only about 6-7% of the whole market (desktops+laptops).

 

[1d10t]

From that graph we can draw conclusion, almost entire Xeon user using Windows so they can install Passmark

 

[medi01]

DIY market is only about 6-7% of the whole market (desktops+laptops).

Uh, never heard of DIY laptops.
On dekstop side, it is about 16%, or it was, the last time I've checked.

 

[Max(IT)]

Let me take you back to a time where CPU's where actually expensive, 2005, AMD king of the hill, FX 57/60 CPUs cost around $1000, Intels P4 Extreme!!!! CPU's cost even more, and this was a 1 or 2 core CPU that was basically out dated a yr or so later. A CPU of today lets say the 5900X which is still under the $1000 mark even in AUS (which the 2005 CPU's where priced at) is going to still be used or useful in a PC even 10yrs later, so in reality your getting ALOT more for longer at same or less cost.

2020 CPUs are more powerful than 2005 CPUs. What a great point you made...

 

[john_]

Uh, never heard of DIY laptops.
On dekstop side, it is about 16%, or it was, the last time I've checked.

If there where any DIY laptops then the DIY market would have been bigger. But when we talk about x86 market we talk about desktops and laptops. Granted this article talks only about desktop market share.

 

[B-Real]

AMD has a number of issues though that hinder market acquisition - teething issues with chipsets and newer generation processors, constant need to apply BIOS updates to fix performance issues, supply and reliability issues in the server sector. And it is no longer providing compelling options at the budget option (10100, 10400, 10700). Intel remains the better option.

XR That's why, despite the fact that Zen 2 CPUs went back to their MSRP pricing after being much cheaper for months, on German, US and UK Amazon, there is usually 12-14 AMD CPUs in the top 20 best sellers, 7-8 AMD CPUs in the top 10, 4 in the top 5 and usually 3/3 in the top 3.

There were also 1700 ($329) and 1700X ($399).

As for <$1000 for more than 4 cores claim, you need to specify desktop. There were CPUs with more than 4 cores before Ryzen.
6-core Sandy Bridge-E was about $600 back in 2011. Haswell-E introduced 8 cores at $1000 in 2014 and as a response to Ryzen Skylake-X brought 8 cores down to $600 in 2017.

Remember also that for these 4-core CPUs $330 was a high price to pay.

With no other 6-core models available, 5600X brings a $100 price bump to 6-core CPUs. 1600 was $219, 2600 and 3600 were $199. 5600X is $299.
Similarly with 8-core. 1700 was $329, 2700 was $299, 3700X was $329 and 5800X is $450.

There will be cheaper 6 and 8 core variants in Zen3, that's for sure. AMD chose a different strategy to release the more expensive models months earlier by maximizing profit.

 

[kapone32]

There were also 1700 ($329) and 1700X ($399).

As for <$1000 for more than 4 cores claim, you need to specify desktop. There were CPUs with more than 4 cores before Ryzen.
6-core Sandy Bridge-E was about $600 back in 2011. Haswell-E introduced 8 cores at $1000 in 2014 and as a response to Ryzen Skylake-X brought 8 cores down to $600 in 2017.

Remember also that for these 4-core CPUs $330 was a high price to pay.

With no other 6-core models available, 5600X brings a $100 price bump to 6-core CPUs. 1600 was $219, 2600 and 3600 were $199. 5600X is $299.
Similarly with 8-core. 1700 was $329, 2700 was $299, 3700X was $329 and 5800X is $450.

It does not matter what you think even at those prices the AMD CPUs sell out in minutes. This is 2021 and AMD is not the company you seem to be entrenched in the position that this is AMD circa 2015. The 5800X is worth every cent that they charge for it. In fact the 5800X is about 60% faster than a 1700 with a 4.8 GHZ OC.

 

[Melvis]

2020 CPUs are more powerful than 2005 CPUs. What a great point you made...

2005 CPU's are more powerful then 1995 CPUs but would still be outdated a yr later, so what exactly is your point?

 

[Makaveli]

I thought the gap would narrow in the server market too

Nope.

That market does things very slowly. Just because a competitor has a better cpu doesn't mean you can just switch. There are support contracts to deal with, OEM discounts, etc. They have to look at TCO and other metrics also. Gaining marketshare in the server market will not be the same as on desktop. That is a totally different nut to crack.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This is sort of like going to a hot-rod shop and determining what percentage of the market is Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Toyota etc based on what percentage of each brand was run on the dyno.

You'd likely conclude that 90% of folks own a Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger.

 

[Voultapher]

That server share is hardly representative

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338208878278926338