AMD Dropping Market Share in Desktop Segment

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
12,431
Intel is gaining ground on the desktop market share

“AMD experienced a slight setback in the desktop CPU market, losing a 1% share to Intel quarter-over-quarter. AMD now controls 23% of this segment, compared to Intel's 77%. This dip may be due to AMD's preparation for the launch of its new Zen 5-based CPUs in August. Despite AMD's gains, Intel maintains its overall dominance in the CPU market. In the total client PC space, Intel holds a 78.9% market share, with AMD at 21.1%. Intel still holds the majority of revenue and market share on all fronts. However, AMD is executing well, and Intel's financial troubles could be a setback for team blue. More competition at every front is great to see, and we are curious to look at the data from upcoming quarters and analyze how well both of companies perform.”

Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/325515/...are-in-q2-2024-drops-share-in-desktop-segment
 
Excited?

AMD needed to increase retail prices to keep their margin, and as a result some of their products were more expensive than the competing products from Intel. The situation with AM5 motherboards was also ridiculous, with confusing separation of features and high prices. AMD have recently been dropping prices on Zen4, so that may change in next quarter's numbers, especially with the current Intel fiasco. They also simplified the motherboard choices with Zen5.
 
AMD stinks at getting their CPUs into the "big" market of businesses. Lucky if there's a SKU at all for Dell, HP, Lenovo... when there are like 20 for each for Intel. If AMD can ever figure out how to crack that, they could at least double their marketshare (likely much much more).

"I bought THE AMD laptop. Well, actually there I was torn between 3."

Can't decide between these 50 Intel laptops.

"What AMD desktops do you use at work?"

What's an AMD?
 
cjcox said:
AMD stinks at getting their CPUs into the "big" market of businesses. Lucky if there's a SKU at all for Dell, HP, Lenovo... when there are like 20 for each for Intel. If AMD can ever figure out how to crack that, they could at least double their marketshare (likely much much more).

"I bought THE AMD laptop. Well, actually there I was torn between 3."

Can't decide between these 50 Intel laptops.

"What AMD desktops do you use at work?"

What's an AMD?
Click to expand...
Intel has always been good at rebate programs and all sorts of other tricks to keep the big OEMs locked to Intel. The intel inside sticker thing, credit where its due that saved Intels ass for many years. On the marketing end they have had some very smart ideas. There 90s and 2000s marketing is still paying dividends to this day.

I can give Intel a nod when its due... of course on the other hand. Intel has always had massive Gov contracts to save their asses and allow to offer OEM rebates much deeper then a company forced to not loose money would do. As well as do the odd SKU unload to key oems. I mean if saying yes to 8 Intel skus... means now and then Intel drops 50,000 almost exclusive cast off skus for 1/4 cost you stick with Intel. Intel has saved some of the OEMs asses over the years with injections of high margin parts. For some of those companies scrapping by with 10-15% margins to suddenly be handed CPUs with 70% margins on them is a life saver. AMD has never been good at finding those opportunities, and have had less room to take a loose this round so a company like HP or Dell has a good Quarter.
 
cjcox said:
AMD stinks at getting their CPUs into the "big" market of businesses. Lucky if there's a SKU at all for Dell, HP, Lenovo... when there are like 20 for each for Intel. If AMD can ever figure out how to crack that, they could at least double their marketshare (likely much much more).

"I bought THE AMD laptop. Well, actually there I was torn between 3."

Can't decide between these 50 Intel laptops.

"What AMD desktops do you use at work?"

What's an AMD?
Click to expand...

ChadD said:
Intel has always been good at rebate programs and all sorts of other tricks to keep the big OEMs locked to Intel. The intel inside sticker thing, credit where its due that saved Intels ass for many years. On the marketing end they have had some very smart ideas. There 90s and 2000s marketing is still paying dividends to this day.

I can give Intel a nod when it’s due... of course on the other hand. Intel has always had massive Gov contracts to save their asses and allow to offer OEM rebates much deeper then a company forced to not loose money would do. As well as do the odd SKU unload to key oems. I mean if saying yes to 8 Intel skus... means now and then Intel drops 50,000 almost exclusive cast off skus for 1/4 cost you stick with Intel. Intel has saved some of the OEMs asses over the years with injections of high margin parts. For some of those companies scrapping by with 10-15% margins to suddenly be handed CPUs with 70% margins on them is a life saver. AMD has never been good at finding those opportunities, and have had less room to take a loose this round so a company like HP or Dell has a good Quarter.
Click to expand...
I’ve been told the lack of iGPU is what kept AMD out of most OEM builds. The OEMs have tight margins to maintain and firm price points and needing to add a dGPU left them unable to hit their needed price points. AMD has only recently fixed that but those CPU’s aren’t capable of meeting EU and California idle power requirements of 2-8w at rest.

The 9000 series may be the first AMD CPU in a long while to check all the needed boxes to get them into office systems.
But there’s doubt AMD could supply the OEM’s with them in large quantities.
 
Lakados said:
I’ve been told the lack of iGPU is what kept AMD out of most OEM builds.
Click to expand...
Yes that was my first reaction to why AMD would have gained in server-laptop without doing so in desktop, I imagine server and laptop are way more important anyway....

If you wanted to have an small iGPU with AMD, you needed to go AM5 and there was no cheap option and at least a year ago those small 7xxx iGPU were less reliable to run old stuff than intel igpu (those having been by far the most popular gpu for so long are really well supported for application that target office computers).

What was AMD competition to an nice 14100 with an intel UHD graphic 730 going for $140 retail (do not know how much for large purchasse to oem, can imagine a bit less)

I feel like maybe it was simply nothing at all ?, 14400 now they recently have some with the 7600-7600x going down, but I can imagine eom being more at ease continuing with intel, it is not like AMD offer at that price is significantly better or anything, And 14400 let you go ddr4 or 5, which at that price range for oem was interesting.

2 factor I think
- no iGPU on am4
- no AM5 competition to the 14100 (just no product at all in that price range I think, maybe the 7500f is not too far but it come without a iGPU making it a bit useless for many scenario) and not winning against the 14400, which could be the 2 big sellers.
 
LukeTbk said:
Yes that was my first reaction to why AMD would have gained in server-laptop without doing so in desktop, I imagine server and laptop are way more important anyway....

If you wanted to have an small iGPU with AMD, you needed to go AM5 and there was no cheap option and at least a year ago those small 7xxx iGPU were less reliable to run old stuff than intel igpu (those having been by far the most popular gpu for so long are really well supported for application that target office computers).

What was AMD competition to an nice 14100 with an intel UHD graphic 730 going for $140 retail (do not know how much for large purchasse to oem, can imagine a bit less)

I feel like maybe it was simply nothing at all ?, 14400 now they recently have some with the 7600-7600x going down, but I can imagine eom being more at ease continuing with intel, it is not like AMD offer at that price is significantly better or anything, And 14400 let you go ddr4 or 5, which at that price range for oem was interesting.

2 factor I think
- no iGPU on am4
- no AM5 competition to the 14100 (just no product at all in that price range I think, maybe the 7500f is not too far but it come without a iGPU making it a bit useless for many scenario) and not winning against the 14400, which could be the 2 big sellers.
Click to expand...
And the 7600 idles too hight to be sold by OEM’s for office equipment in the EU and California, which is not a small market segment.

The 7600 when tweaked can get as low as 17w, which is good but still too high.

As per EU regulation

2. SLEEP MODE
Desktop computer, integrated desktop computer and notebook computer2. From 1 July 2014
2.1. A product shall provide sleep mode and/or another condition that provides the functionality of sleep mode and which does not exceed the applicable power demand requirements for a sleep mode.
2.2. Power demand in sleep mode shall not exceed 5,00 W in desktop computers and integrated desktop computers and 3,00 W in notebook computers.
2.3. Desktop computers and integrated desktop computers where idle state power demand is less than or equal to 10,00 W are not required to have a discrete system sleep mode.
2.4. Where a product is placed on the market with a WOL functionality enabled in sleep mode:
(a) an additional allowance of 0,70 W can be applied;
(b) it must be tested with a WOL functionality both enabled and disabled and must comply with both requirements.
2.5. Where a product is placed on the market without Ethernet capability, it shall be tested without WOL enabled.
3. LOWEST POWER STATE
Desktop computer, integrated desktop computer and notebook computer3. As of the entry into force of the Regulation
3.1. Power demand in the lowest power state shall not exceed 0,50 W.
3.2. A product shall provide a power state or mode which does not exceed the applicable power demand requirements for the lowest power state when it is connected to the mains power source.
3.3. Where a product is placed on the market with an information or status display, an additional allowance of 0,50 W can be applied.
4. OFF MODE
Desktop computer, integrated desktop computer and notebook computer4. From 1 July 2014
4.1. Power demand in off mode shall not exceed 1,00 W.
4.2. A product shall provide off mode and/or another condition which does not exceed the applicable power demand requirements for off mode when it is connected to the mains power source.
4.3. Where a product is placed on the market with a WOL functionality enabled in off mode:
(a) an additional allowance of 0,70 W can be applied;
(b) it must be tested with a WOL functionality both enabled and disabled and must comply with both requirements.
4.4. Where a product is placed on the market without Ethernet capability, it shall be tested without WOL enabled.
5. INTERNAL POWER SUPPLY EFFICIENCY
Desktop computer, integrated desktop computer, desktop thin client, workstation, and small-scale server5.1. From 1 July 2014
All computer internal power supplies shall not perform at less than:
(a) 85 % efficiency at 50 % of rated output power;
(b) 82 % efficiency at 20 % and 100 % of rated output power;
(c) power factor = 0,9 at 100 % of rated output power.
Internal power supplies with a maximum rated output power of less than 75 W are exempt from the power factor requirement.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but wonder if we are seeing lagging metrics here.

AMD still gets a good chunk of their desktop sales in the enthusiast custom build market, and in that market Intel has been dominating the top of the Gaming benchmarks for a couple of years now since the launch of Raptor Lake, and looked pretty good with Alder Lake too.

I mean, it's not in ways that make a practical difference as users are likely to be GPU limited at most practical settings in most titles, but "bigger number on chart" sells products.

I can't imagine that Intels current Raptor Lake woes won't impact sales in this regard, and shift a good number of these buyers back over to AMD.

I mean, fanboys have quite the bias, but anyone who buys Raptor Lake knowing what we now know until it is positively proven to be resolved is a complete fool. Some will continue to blindly accuse tech journalists of some conspiracy against Intel and keep buying Intel, but there is no way this doesn't have a decent impact on sales.

AMD got some bad reviews from the Zen5 launch, but it is too early for that to have shown up as an impact.

For those who care about game performance, the safest bet right now is the 7800X3D, at least until Zen5 X3D models come out and we are how those perform.

The question is if Intel will have pissed off large OEM's enough with this issue to start seeing AMD make more inroads here. History certainly suggests this won't happen. Intel has a level of stickiness and survivability in the face of major problems that almost defies reason, but at some point there may be a straw that breaks the camels back.

Gaming and custom builds certainly have had a resurgence in the last decade or so, but I still don't have a good understanding of the proportion of the market these enthusiast SKU's represent. They might even be a majority of desktop parts (as non-enthusiast desktop sales have pretty much dropped off a cliff) but I imagine mobile parts are by far the biggest volume sellers. All the "normies", both enterprise and home want laptops.

Zen5 currently appears to be a disappointment, at least for gamers, but I have a feeling that we will look back at it as being ahead of its time once software that uses its features better becomes more widespread, similar to how the Pentium Pro seemed like a waste of money when it first launched, but compared to the regular Pentium was really good at doing something the regular Pentium was very poor at, running 32bit code, and that architecture formed the basis for Intels IA32 used in their next couple of generations. This only became evident (at least to the general market) years later.

Zen5's massive AVX512 improvements and other architectural improvements may look really good looking back on it in a few years.

I wish I could set a reminder and come back here in 5 years and see if I was right.
 
Last edited:
The bigger news are:
a 5.6% increase year-over-year, in the server space
a 3.8% rise year-over-year, in the laptop space

the 2 major market, desktop CPU were 30% of the market in q4 2024 I think.

1% down in desktop (I am not sure if their datas has a lower than 1% margin of error)

Zarathustra[H] said:
I can't imagine that Intels current Raptor Lake woes won't impact sales in this regard, and shift a good number of these buyers back over to AMD.
Click to expand...

Not sure when the news got mainstream, but Q2 2022 would have stopped July first, feel like it was not something talked a lot about form april to june 2024, there is some lagging indicator.

Zarathustra[H] said:
AMD still gets a good chunk of their desktop sales in the enthusiast custom build market,
Click to expand...

Those market shares numbers it would be nice to have (like they did in the article for the server) to have them in revenues, AMD revenues share is much higher than their market share in units in the server space, selling big latest Epyc cpu to big player and less old Xeon to replace really old Xeon being pick because the motherboard-ram is already there so it is much easier-faster to do and more certain to be compatible with the workload.

Maybe intel market lead is a lot on the 12100 to 14400 cpu range or maybe AMD was really strong in cheap AM4 options
 
Last edited:
Randall Stephens said:
Dell never wanted AMD because of the Intel kickbacks. I don't recommend Intel for family, so the family never buys Dell :D
Click to expand...

Dell has always been a right hand man of Intel's throughout the decades. Even though they do offer AMD CPU's these days, it's limited in terms of either their U-series Ryzens (for a single model of all-in-one computer), or workstations with Threadrippers when it comes to desktops (including Optiplex, XPS, Alienware, etc).

On the other hand, they have a full array of Intel CPU's available for all of their platforms.

About 30 years ago, Michael Dell himself frequently appeared as an "expert witness" on behalf of Intel at the Intel vs AMD courtroom cases, back when AMD was making their own 80486 CPU's, so it's not surprising at all that they are still in bed with Intel.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
People are watching their money and AMD disregards the low end desktop space, there's genuinely no surprise here.
Click to expand...
As weird as it sounds, the only inroads AMD made into the "mass major OEM desktop" space has been, even in recent history, on the lower end. I mean, not "great", but at least something there.

That is, as far as the likes of HP (for example) was concerned, AMD: a low end, cheap desktop.

Was that bias due to "deals" with Intel? Not sure.
 
cjcox said:
As weird as it sounds, the only inroads AMD made into the "mass major OEM desktop" space has been, even in recent history, on the lower end. I mean, not "great", but at least something there.

That is, as far as the likes of HP (for example) was concerned, AMD: a low end, cheap desktop.

Was that bias due to "deals" with Intel? Not sure.
Click to expand...
Well back in the day Intel would offer OEM's bundle deals in a somewhat smart and slimy way, that they got sued for and lost then Intel spent some time fighting it in court, they paid AMD a settlement fee which was pretty big but then kept fighting the fines in court because they were massive. They were able to get the fines tossed out because slimy isn't illegal, and it was recognized as a witch hunt by the courts later on.

What Intel would do was look over an OEM's numbers and go "OK they can expect to sell 500,000 of these systems with these CPUs this year" then they would build them a bundle for a bulk discount for that many CPUs, but if you ordered more than that you would get a bigger discount.
So say say the bulk deal on those 500,000 was 20%, but they say "Hey if you order 600,000 of those CPU's we can give you a discount of 30%".
Which on paper looks like a normal up sale, and legally is a normal up sale.
But Intel knew they only needed 500,000 for that year, so that means that extra 100,000 units are going to be left over, but no OEM is just going to leave them in a warehouse, they will go into next year's budget model because they already have a bunch of them. And they would do that to squeeze AMD and other competitors out of the market for future sales.

And Intel would do this on an OEM by OEM basis offering bulk discounts on their most common CPU's so if OEM A was going to need 1M of a particular CPU they would try to upsale them 1.2M and if OEM B only needed 400k units, maybe they offer them those same bulk discounts on 450k units.

So Intel offered deals and bulk discounts in a particular way to ensure that the OEMs didn't need to bring in any budget offerings from their competitors because they already had paid for overstock they needed to move, so if they were going to compete they practically had to give them away, or give them something that Intel wasn't already giving them. So that lands you at the extremes on either side of the spectrum, the high end and the low end, because Intel has the middle area of the bell curve covered.
 
Let's also not forget that the Desktop market is an increasingly shrinking one as more people switch to mobile, and many desktops themselves are moving to mobile chips because they are good enough and cheap to run.
OEMs sell the majority of Desktops, and those Desktops are transitioning to use Mobile components, small form factor towers, AiOs, etc... All of those can easily use mobile silicon because they are more than good enough for the average consumer or office worker day to day.

I love the attention that Intel and AMD still give Desktop hardware, but the money is in Mobile, Workstation, and Server.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
People are watching their money and AMD disregards the low end desktop space, there's genuinely no surprise here.
Click to expand...
cjcox said:
As weird as it sounds, the only inroads AMD made into the "mass major OEM desktop" space has been, even in recent history, on the lower end. I mean, not "great", but at least something there.

That is, as far as the likes of HP (for example) was concerned, AMD: a low end, cheap desktop.

Was that bias due to "deals" with Intel? Not sure.
Click to expand...
Is AMD squandering opportunities?
 
erek said:
Is AMD squandering opportunities?
Click to expand...
No every year is another report about how desktop sales are at an all time low.
The majority of Desktop sales are made by OEM’s, and the bulk of those go for office hardware which have a lot of stupid and annoying regulations that Intel pays a lot of money to keep up on.

Mobile, Workstation, and Server are growth markets, and AMD is kicking ass there.

AMD paying lots of money to compete for second in a dwindling market doesn’t make a lot of sense when they can focus those resources elsewhere.
 
Lakados said:
No every year is another report about how desktop sales are at an all time low.
The majority of Desktop sales are made by OEM’s, and the bulk of those go for office hardware which have a lot of stupid and annoying regulations that Intel pays a lot of money to keep up on.

Mobile, Workstation, and Server are growth markets, and AMD is kicking ass there.

AMD paying lots of money to compete for second in a dwindling market doesn’t make a lot of sense when they can focus those resources elsewhere.
Click to expand...
can you gather a HEDT CPU Market Share report?

Hmm,

1723581190442.png
 
Lakados said:
And the 7600 idles too hight to be sold by OEM’s for office equipment in the EU and California, which is not a small market segment.

The 7600 when tweaked can get as low as 17w, which is good but still too high.

As per EU regulation

2. SLEEP MODE
Desktop computer, integrated desktop computer and notebook computer2. From 1 July 2014
2.1. A product shall provide sleep mode and/or another condition that provides the functionality of sleep mode and which does not exceed the applicable power demand requirements for a sleep mode.
2.2. Power demand in sleep mode shall not exceed 5,00 W in desktop computers and integrated desktop computers and 3,00 W in notebook computers.
2.3. Desktop computers and integrated desktop computers where idle state power demand is less than or equal to 10,00 W are not required to have a discrete system sleep mode.
2.4. Where a product is placed on the market with a WOL functionality enabled in sleep mode:
(a) an additional allowance of 0,70 W can be applied;
(b) it must be tested with a WOL functionality both enabled and disabled and must comply with both requirements.
2.5. Where a product is placed on the market without Ethernet capability, it shall be tested without WOL enabled.
3. LOWEST POWER STATE
Desktop computer, integrated desktop computer and notebook computer3. As of the entry into force of the Regulation
3.1. Power demand in the lowest power state shall not exceed 0,50 W.
3.2. A product shall provide a power state or mode which does not exceed the applicable power demand requirements for the lowest power state when it is connected to the mains power source.
3.3. Where a product is placed on the market with an information or status display, an additional allowance of 0,50 W can be applied.
4. OFF MODE
Desktop computer, integrated desktop computer and notebook computer4. From 1 July 2014
4.1. Power demand in off mode shall not exceed 1,00 W.
4.2. A product shall provide off mode and/or another condition which does not exceed the applicable power demand requirements for off mode when it is connected to the mains power source.
4.3. Where a product is placed on the market with a WOL functionality enabled in off mode:
(a) an additional allowance of 0,70 W can be applied;
(b) it must be tested with a WOL functionality both enabled and disabled and must comply with both requirements.
4.4. Where a product is placed on the market without Ethernet capability, it shall be tested without WOL enabled.
5. INTERNAL POWER SUPPLY EFFICIENCY
Desktop computer, integrated desktop computer, desktop thin client, workstation, and small-scale server5.1. From 1 July 2014
All computer internal power supplies shall not perform at less than:
(a) 85 % efficiency at 50 % of rated output power;
(b) 82 % efficiency at 20 % and 100 % of rated output power;
(c) power factor = 0,9 at 100 % of rated output power.
Internal power supplies with a maximum rated output power of less than 75 W are exempt from the power factor requirement.
Click to expand...
Um, I only see an idle limit of 10w for computers that don't have sleep mode. Am I missing a line in the text or don't office pc's come with sleep mode nowadays?
 
emphy said:
Um, I only see an idle limit of 10w for computers that don't have sleep mode. Am I missing a line in the text or don't office pc's come with sleep mode nowadays?
Click to expand...

As per section 2.3 10w or below in idle does not require a sleep mode, the Ryzen 7000 series does closer to 17w with 1 CCD, and around 25w with 2 so they then require a sleep mode to comply.

As per section 2.2 in sleep mode it can’t exceed 5w, the 7000 series does at best 8w if you tune the crap out of it, so right there it’s now flunked.

And section 4.3 gives an additional power budget of 0.7w for Wake on LAN functions if they are enabled. The Ryzen does between 1 and 2.4 depending on your chipset. So even if it had managed to pass section 2.2 enabling WoL would flunk it.

So the Ryzen 3000-7000 series fail on all 3 categories for the desktop. It’s why the 9000 series focuses so heavily on power efficiency it might have a shot at meeting the power limits on single CCD chips.
These rules aren’t enforced for Workstations which is what AMD positions the Ryzen 9 series and Threadripper’s for, which is why AMD markets them differently to hit the loopholes.
 
Lakados said:
As per section 2.3 10w or below in idle does not require a sleep mode, the Ryzen 7000 series does closer to 17w with 1 CCD, and around 25w with 2 so they then require a sleep mode to comply.

As per section 2.2 in sleep mode it can’t exceed 5w, the 7000 series does at best 8w if you tune the crap out of it, so right there it’s now flunked.

And section 4.3 gives an additional power budget of 0.7w for Wake on LAN functions if they are enabled. The Ryzen does between 1 and 2.4 depending on your chipset. So even if it had managed to pass section 2.2 enabling WoL would flunk it.

So the Ryzen 3000-7000 series fail on all 3 categories for the desktop. It’s why the 9000 series focuses so heavily on power efficiency it might have a shot at meeting the power limits on single CCD chips.
These rules aren’t enforced for Workstations which is what AMD positions the Ryzen 9 series and Threadripper’s for, which is why AMD markets them differently to hit the loopholes.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that clarifies things!

Not the end of the world, but I would still be fairly annoyed at those power usage numbers when the system is twiddling its thumbs or even sleeping.
 
Last edited:
GoldenTiger said:
Most people don't have a Microcenter close by :rolleyes:. Quoting their pricing is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you shop around, you can find good deals elsewhere too.

It just isn't true that AMD does not have budget offerings.

You could get an AM5 combo of a Ryzen 5 8500G or 7600 (depending on your preference) together with a low end motherboard for a total of $235 or $255 respectively.

Can you get a little bit lower on the Intel LGA1700 side by getting an Alder Lake Celeron and a low end motherboard? Sure You can probably get down to $160 or so.

But we are only talking a $75 difference, and while the lowest end Intel options are indeed cheaper, the value equation (as for what you get for your money) is strongly in favor of AMD here.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It just isn't true that AMD does not have budget offerings.
Click to expand...
8500G was launched a long time after zen4, January 2024 I think. This time it took a while for any cheap zen4 to be relevant with the motherboard market on that socket, but that show in some way that the price range was not a priority and it launched at $180 USD as well, a Dell/Hp probably want the lowest end on a platform to go a bit lower than that, you probably are overbuying GPU wise when you buy a 8500G for the office.

13100F launch the same tiem as the 13900k, 14100F was not long after the 14900k.
 
The closest Microsenter to me is in LA, like 400 miles away. Only if I could get a new AM5 motherboard, a new AMD 9900X and 64 GB of ram for free would I drive down to LA. :ROFLMAO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top