CyberTech

Level 32
Verified
In brief: AMD has been making huge strides recently with its well-received products, allowing the company to claw back market share from Intel.

A report from market analyst firm Mercury Research shows that AMD is experiencing growth in all segments of the industry, thanks in no small part to its popular 7nm Ryzen 3000 processors. Team red is still far behind Chipzilla overall, but it’s steadily stealing market share away from its rival.

In the desktop CPU segment, AMD has seen its market unit share increase every quarter since Q2 2017. It now stands at 18 percent, marking a 5 percent year-over-year increase and a 0.9 percent jump from the previous quarter. This comes even as AMD experienced some supply issues with Ryzen 3000, which AMD CTO Mark Papermaster said was a binning issue, with the process not yielding enough high-end chips from each wafer to supply demand. With this problem now addressed, the company is likely to continue increasing its desktop CPU market share.

It’s a similar story in the server market, where AMD now holds a 4.3 percent share, representing a 2.74 percent YoY increase. Earlier this year, it was predicted that its EPYC Rome server CPUs could force Intel’s server market share below 90 percent in 2020.

AMD’s mobile processors are also heading in the right direction—it now holds a 14.7 percent market share. As noted by Tom’s Hardware, CEO Lisu Su said the Ryzen 4000 mobile chips would arrive early next year, which should address the poor battery performance in previous AMD-powered laptops thanks to their use of the 7nm process.

Intel is still the dominant player in all CPU markets, but it has been forced to cut the price of some products as it looks to compete with AMD’s more affordable offerings. With the company lagging on 7nm and PCI 4.0, expect AMD to keep chipping away at its market share.
 

shmu26

Level 85
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
I almost bought a Ryzen for my new desktop, but at the last moment I discovered that Ryzen doesn't have integrated graphics. So I would need to shell out money for a discrete graphics card that I don't really need, and then deal with all the updates and issues that come along with it, so I bought an i7 9th gen instead. It has enough cores for my needs, and faster single-core performance. And integrated graphics, of course.
 

shmu26

Level 85
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
There are Ryzen series 2000G, 3000G and upcoming 4000G also -> APUs, which comes with integrated graphics...
Thanks for the correction. Also thanks to @upnorth. So apparently it was only the particular models that were recommended to me that lacked the integrated graphics. I think the stronger ones, that compete with i7, come without integrated graphics. Is this correct?
 

shmu26

Level 85
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator

Cortex

Level 22
Verified
I've always been a fan of AMD from the beginning maybe because of lower cost? My last PC build was a A10 that performed flawlessly & now the PC passed on to family member - The Ryzen 3 I just fitted to new board runs very cool & stable - Impressed (I'm not a gamer)
 

Local Host

Level 22
Verified
They’ve got to get better/faster with writing GPU drivers.
AMD drivers are overall fine, especially in low levels APIs (ahead of NVidia).
One thing at a time. They were quite struggling financially before Ryzen came out. Now that they're stronger let's hope they can pour more resources into their GPU department.
You're putting to much faith in them, NAVI is the new AMD architecture (which will power their GPUs for the next few years), it underperforms in comparison to their NVidia counterparts (especially if you look at the fact AMD used 7nm, and NVidia was competitive in 14nm, when NVidia releases Ampere at 7nm will crush the entire AMD lineup).

There won't be any major shift in the GPU market any time soon, the same way we had in the CPU market (even though we need it).

I personally will be buying a NVidia Card if AMD fail the same way they did with the 5000 Series (lots of people are happy with those series, but anyone with a RX 500 Series card doesn't have any suitable replacement at same price range with the 5000 Series).

As an example the only suitable replacement for the RX 580 (which retailed at 250€, but at the moment costs 150€) is the 5700 (which costs +400€). Word from AMD the real replacement is the 5600 which lacks 8GB of VRAM (adding insult to injury it retails at 300€).
 
Last edited:

redsworn

Level 4
Verified
AMD drivers are overall fine, especially in low levels APIs (ahead of NVidia).

You're putting to much faith in them, NAVI is the new AMD architecture (which will power their GPUs for the next few years), it underperforms in comparison to their NVidia counterparts (especially if you look at the fact AMD used 7nm, and NVidia was competitive in 14nm, when NVidia releases Ampere at 7nm will crush the entire AMD lineup).

There won't be any major shift in the GPU market any time soon, the same way we had in the CPU market (even though we need it).

I personally will be buying a NVidia Card if AMD fail the same way they did with the 5000 Series (lots of people are happy with those series, but anyone with a RX 500 Series card doesn't have any suitable replacement at same price range with the 5000 Series).

As an example the only suitable replacement for the RX 580 (which retailed at 250€, but at the moment costs 150€) is the 5700 (which costs +400€). Word from AMD the real replacement is the 5600 which lacks 8GB of VRAM (adding insult to injury it retails at 300€).
I never implied I put my faith on them. You're reading too much into my comment.
I was simply offering my reasonable assessment as to why they were struggling to compete in GPU market. If you think you can read the future then tell me. Did you also predict that Ryzen was going to be a successful CPU lineups too?
 

Local Host

Level 22
Verified
I never implied I put my faith on them. You're reading too much into my comment.
I was simply offering my reasonable assessment as to why they were struggling to compete in GPU market. If you think you can read the future then tell me. Did you also predict that Ryzen was going to be a successful CPU lineups too?
I did expect Ryzen to perform properly, AMD only failed with FX cause they went their own way and developers optimized their Software for Intel architecture.

So AMD was forced to come up with Ryzen, which uses similar architecture to Intel, and had the expected result.

In the GPU department, there's no standard for AMD to follow, to catchup with NVidia, they need better engineers and architecture, period, NAVI is not quite there yet from the first generation results.
 
Last edited:

cruelsister

Level 37
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Intel still hasn't figured out an acceptable CPU based on the 7nm node, but instead kept pushing their tried and true 14nm product (without going into the weeds, the smaller the node, the more transistors can be packed on a die, yielding improved performance and lower heat). Even now, they still are pushing such a transition further to the future:

Intel Expects to Reach Process Parity With 7nm in 2021, Lead on 5nm - ExtremeTech

Sadly they've been making the same promise for the last 4 years.

Nvidia and AMD (both primarily using Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co) made the transition to the smaller node size and have profited greatly. To show how much of a gain they have made, consider the Market Capitalization (how much the company is worth) change from 2016 to today for Intel, Nvidia, and AMD:

Intel- Market Cap 2016 was 128 billion; in 2020 it is 274 billion;
AMD- Market Cap 2016- 7 billion vs in 2020- 62 billion
Nvidia- Market cap in 2016 was 50 billion and today is 215 billion

Although other factors obviously come into play, one can expect further erosion of total market share by the once untouchable Intel.
 
Top