• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Article "AMD vs. Intel CPU Market Share Q4 2019: EPYC and Ryzen Growth Decelerate, Mobile Ryzen Up" - Tom's

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,605
8,463
136
Yeah and AMD had crap for a decade plus so whats your point? In the last 12 to 18 months AMD FINALLY brought something to the table worth looking at? Big freaking deal....
Corporate culture doesn't move as fast as you do man. It is going to take AMD a lot of time and money to change mindsets and like I mentioned above they didn't do themselves any favors by having noncompetitive products for so long.

Anyway, my original point still stands it isn't just Intels "marketing genius" holding AMD from gaining more market share. A lot of the blame lays at the feet of AMD as well.
So you hold them responsible forever for mistakes make in the past. If I did that everyone in the tech industry would be garbage.

Wake up , its 2020 dude.
 

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
4,847
579
126
So you hold them responsible forever for mistakes make in the past. If I did that everyone in the tech industry would be garbage.

Wake up , its 2020 dude.
OMG NO! Nowhere in my posts did I say that is how I personally perceive the state of AMD past or present. I hate repeating myself so I'm not going to. Reread my posts and if you still don't understand what I am trying to say then that is not my problem.
 

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
4,847
579
126
Nobody implied that Intel marketing is solely to blame, most of the other factors where actually mentioned already in this very thread.

What you responded to was purely about Intel's product segmentation and the false impression that AMD has gaps in its products range where it actually doesn't as it doesn't segment everything as finely as Intel does.
Alright I can see that perspective and agree with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lobz

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,018
599
136
What is perplexing to me is that AMD is gaining marketshare at a much slower rate than they did during the K8 heyday. o_O
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Thunder 57

itsmydamnation

Platinum Member
Feb 6, 2011
2,084
1,467
136
What is perplexing to me is that AMD is gaining marketshare at a much slower rate than they did during the K8 heyday. o_O
I wonder if its AMD induced? Back in K8 days when AMD owned the fab it maked sense to run it at 100% and then figure out the price points etc to maximise revenue/margin. But now that they are buying wafers and wall street has an obsession with margins along with the increased risk position of ordering more wafers maybe AMD is just playing it safe?
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,345
1,505
106
What is perplexing to me is that AMD is gaining marketshare at a much slower rate than they did during the K8 heyday. o_O
To be fair, back then intel's P4 was complete garbage. It was good in one thing: encoding (but just because of an instruction set advantage). That was also the time where every AMD hater tried to ridicule the FX CPUs, saying that nobody cares about gaming.
Nowadays intel's consumer CPUs have absolutely nothing wrong with them, after the core count catch-up they are actually very good products, they're just poor value compared to AMD's respective offerings (same goes for the 5500XT, it's a damn fine GPU - for $150, not for $200 ffs). Enterprise CPUs have severe security issues, but after mitigations those are just making them to have even poorer value, which seems to be almost entirely offset by their excellent sales team - or should I say sales army? :laughing:
I'm not completely surprised that things are moving slower than back then, but I'm surprised that sometimes it seems they aren't moving at all :D
 
Last edited:

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
440
210
116
What is perplexing to me is that AMD is gaining marketshare at a much slower rate than they did during the K8 heyday. o_O
On the server side, Opteron addressed what was becoming a serious issue - the x86 architecture's 4GB memory limit - and Intel didn't have a remotely worthwhile response until Woodcrest, and arguably not even until Nehalem. Rome is good, but unless you need the high core counts it offers, it's not really as overwhelmingly superior as the K8 Opterons were against the mid-2000s Xeons.

On the desktop side, weird as it sounds, I think the fact that such a small percentage of Ryzens have iGPUs is really hurting AMD with OEMs, who aren't going to go to the extra mile of putting together an AMD system with a dGPU when they can save the time and money putting together an Intel system with an iGPU, which will meet the needs of probably 90% of their customers.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,345
1,505
106
On the server side, Opteron addressed what was becoming a serious issue - the x86 architecture's 4GB memory limit - and Intel didn't have a remotely worthwhile response until Woodcrest, and arguably not even until Nehalem. Rome is good, but unless you need the high core counts it offers, it's not really as overwhelmingly superior as the K8 Opterons were against the mid-2000s Xeons.
That too!
 

moinmoin

Golden Member
Jun 1, 2017
1,781
1,789
106
What is perplexing to me is that AMD is gaining marketshare at a much slower rate than they did during the K8 heyday. o_O
Today's server market is much more entrenched in x86 which to much of the audience nowadays equals Intel. Back in the K8 heyday x86 was only one of many competitive ISAs and even Intel tried to move away from it with Itanium.
 

JoeRambo

Senior member
Jun 13, 2013
842
505
136
Athlon64 was way better than P4 and Opterons were 64bit with IMC versus Xeon garbage. So no wonder AMD has been gaining market share and recognition real fast. It took special stupid decisions to loose that momentum and the rest is history.

Right now Intel in client computing has competent products, just that AMD is better value and is ahead in HEDT that is a niche within of a desktop computing niche.
Enterprise computing has a lot of inertia and is helped by Intel's sales army just like @lobz mentioned above.

One has to wonder what-if Intel had no capacity problems and was able to declare pricing war on AMD in client computing.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,769
973
136
What is perplexing to me is that AMD is gaining marketshare at a much slower rate than they did during the K8 heyday. o_O
Hasn't AMD said that they're steadily selling all of the Ryzen parts that they can make? Perhaps there's a few models that are starting to build up a stockpile, but the chiplet-based approach should allow them to make small adjustments to production to some degree to avoid this issue by increasing production to where there's more demand.

We know that they're drastically increasing their wafer purchases from TSMC as that's already been announced. They certainly wouldn't do that if they could satisfy demand with existing production.

Perhaps the simple answer is that they can't gain marketshare any faster than they currently are because they can't sell enough products to do so, at least not in any way where they could have doubled their gains or something that large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

rainy

Senior member
Jul 17, 2013
438
263
136
You seem to have forgotten about the 2600/2600x/2700/2700x. :confused:
True, however Zen+ (Pinnacle Ridge) was only a small improvement over Zen (circa 3 percent higher IPC) - Zen 2 have delivered about 15 percent.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,289
1,355
126
When you are talking about client, easily most of the market is boring corporate desktops and laptops. While they could use Ryzen more, they have little reason to switch. Except for the shortage of course.
 

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
696
295
106
my take on this

laptop- Intel doesn't have any problems there, renoir is coming but so is tiger lake
desktop- lets face it, since i7 6700k the average joe doesn't feel a difference and corporate even more so
power is problem only for heavy workloads and the typical use for the total system power case+monitor you dont know the difference between new ryzens and new cores
intel system have an advantage in iGPU and lower idle power
my 3900x is an overkill for me, 3950x even more- its a halo product which is important for the image of AMD but it doesn't force the sales much
not to say, I am pretty much pissed with total system power of my 3900X at default
hedt- intel has nothing to offer here, but hedt is more of halo product than real money maker
workstation- xeon is not as good as TR, but not that bad
up to 32C server- intel is competitive performance, price/power not but it doesn't seem to be enough
64C- the big fat kill by AMD- but the reviews of high core count deceive by its price/perf caclulations- they completely miss license costs, transition costs, service costs etc..

as for the 2003 times...
the p4 on desktop was ok for general and more workstyle usage, gaming was awful (min fps)
but the desktop p4 had 200MHz quad pumped fsb (effectively 800MHz) and it was even then bandwitch starved in critical situations
but the xeon- not only it had 2,8GHz freq compared to 2,8GHz of opteron, but had 100MHz quad pumped bus shared between 4!!yes 4 of CPUs, so 400 MHz/4=100MHz for 1 xeon
combined with pathetic x87 FPU and high memory latencies it was a hand calculator compared to the opteron

now its definitely not the case except very halo and niche high core counts, which benefit really VMs and render farms
everyone else calculates the linense costs with benefits

but imo 2020 is the year of change- AMD delivers MIlan/zen3 and if Intel postpones icelake server then (very unexpected/sarcasm off) the game will change

or maybe the big gamers have already some intel prototypes that are worth the wait...

the biggest problem of Intel isn't performance now, but the shortages
 
  • Like
Reactions: OriAr

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,466
2,324
126
This will be an eye opener for many of you and will help you understand how Server IT people think and operate in purchasing a Server.

This is from an AMD research done with a subject of 600 ITDMs from US, Germany and China (200 from each country).









 
Last edited:

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,289
1,355
126
Thing is, "Enterprise & Government" server revenue was down 7% for Intel last year. I don't know how much you can blame AMD for that though. But Cloud was up 48%. I should point out that AWS EC2 doesn't have any Rome instances available yet, only a couple Naples ones.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,345
1,505
106
Thing is, "Enterprise & Government" server revenue was down 7% for Intel last year. I don't know how much you can blame AMD for that though. But Cloud was up 48%. I should point out that AWS EC2 doesn't have any Rome instances available yet, only a couple Naples ones.
Of course you have AMD to blame for it. Though you don't see that in official MSRPs, but ever since Naples hit, and even more so since Rome hit, Intel have practically been giving away top-end platinum segmentated products for high silver - low gold prices. That's how it's possible to earn a bit less revenue even when you're selling everything you make and then some (except maybe for the unwanted by anyone HEDT chips).
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,692
1,065
136
Of course you have AMD to blame for it. Though you don't see that in official MSRPs, but ever since Naples hit, and even more so since Rome hit, Intel have practically been giving away top-end platinum segmentated products for high silver - low gold prices. That's how it's possible to earn a bit less revenue even when you're selling everything you make and then some (except maybe for the unwanted by anyone HEDT chips).
The shortage isn't necessarily due to selling more parts. Production volume is planned out many years in advance. But when you have to increase the die size quite a bit, to increase core count for example then your projections on how much equipment you need go out the window. And it isn't cheap or easy to just add more machines to the line. Forcing Intel to go over 4 cores for mainstream is costing them capacity.
 

moinmoin

Golden Member
Jun 1, 2017
1,781
1,789
106
This will be an eye opener for many of you and will help you understand how Server IT people think and operate in purchasing a Server.

This is from an AMD research done with a subject of 600 ITDMs from US, Germany and China (200 from each country).









Disappointing that security is so low with 113 in the first slide. And it's framing as "Balance between performance and security" even leaves the possibility that plenty people think Intel's balance in that regard has been perfectly fine. Meh.
In the last slide I take the high ranking server processor info/spec/features gets as another call for AMD to finally offer clear processor pages like Intel does with ark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,692
1,065
136
Disappointing that security is so low with 113 in the first slide. And it's framing as "Balance between performance and security" even leaves the possibility that plenty people think Intel's balance in that regard has been perfectly fine. Meh.
In the last slide I take the high ranking server processor info/spec/features gets as another call for AMD to finally offer clear processor pages like Intel does with ark.
Having had to do schmoozing on one of my past jobs, I can tell you it's all about the pitch. The product doesn't matter. What does matter is assurances and ego inflation. If you can do that you can sell anything. Can AMD overcome this? Yeah, but it will be a fight. You have to have a very clearly superior product, which they do today. And high skill sales. I think they will get there, but not as fast as some people may like.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,345
1,505
106
The shortage isn't necessarily due to selling more parts. Production volume is planned out many years in advance. But when you have to increase the die size quite a bit, to increase core count for example then your projections on how much equipment you need go out the window. And it isn't cheap or easy to just add more machines to the line. Forcing Intel to go over 4 cores for mainstream is costing them capacity.
What I really meant by that: they are selling much bigger dies for the price of lower priced and smaller dies, in order to prevent or at least hinder AMD from gaining more ground as much as they can, hence selling more effective silicon area for the same amount of money. That alone could (and in my opinion did indeed) cause both a shortage and a lower revenue for some of the most affected business segments.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,692
1,065
136
What I really meant by that: they are selling much bigger dies for the price of lower priced and smaller dies, in order to prevent or at least hinder AMD from gaining more ground as much as they can, hence selling more effective silicon area for the same amount of money. That alone could (and in my opinion did indeed) cause both a shortage and a lower revenue for some of the most affected business segments.
They had also planned on 10nm actually working so they could pull their chipsets, ethernet chips, modems etc into unused 14 nm. Except it didn't... That has cost a few billion bucks as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lobz

ASK THE COMMUNITY