Intel's 80% Desktop Marketshare, 92% Server Marketshare

[Dave2150]

@Journey Linked to an excellent article by the BBC in another thread, I thought this data deserved it's own thread.

Original article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56401847

Image in question:

I expected AMD to have claimed a far greater market share % in both desktop and server by now, considering how competitive Ryzen is. The server market especially, considering the huge margins on those tier products.

I wonder how the above data from Mercury Research will change over the next 12 months. Either way, I find it a very exciting time in the CPU world

 

[Dave2150]

the king is dead. long live the king.
consumers going to get screwed regardless. (just see how AMD increased their MSRP for ryzen 3)
AMD is no good guy and we need 2 competitive companies else we gonna get screwed like haswell days

A third vendor would be great. Perhaps Zhaoxin will be able to compete in the x86 landscape in the future, then again as they're Chinese it'd probably be banned by the UK/US government even if it were a competitor

 

[Dave2150]

Intel actually gained market share in that table shown by BBC for Oct-Dec period vs Prior period. They increased there market share in that period by 1.2% in mobile, 0.8% in desktop but lost 0.5% in server vs Jul-Sep, so overall increased there share. This is partly thanks to the overall market increasing in size significantly and while it meant increased sales for both sides, Intel was able to capitalise more on the increase.

No doubt AMD has mostly the better architectures, however they have much less capacity to deploy given they need to juggle CPU's, GPUs and console SOC's with TSMC. No doubt they would see a larger jump in market share if they were able to get more CPU's out there. From what I can see things are calming so I expect the above quarter increase for Intel will be a blip. Good to have competition either way and hope Intel come back with something more competitive. Zen right now does deserve the name bulldozer as that is what its doing to the competition

Personally, I think AMD will struggle long term to take further market share, simply as they don't have their own fabs. I just can't see them being a threat, unless they A). Own their own fabs again (extremely expensive, so unlikely) or B). Enter a more concrete partnership with TSMC to reserve more capacity. I don't think AMD can afford option A with current revenues, and for B, I think Apple will always be able to outbid for wafer capacity from TSMC.

At the end of the day, you can have the best CPU design for any given task, but without manufacturing capacity, it amounts to nothing.

 

[Dave2150]

I know you love Intel but please explain to my why Intel having its own FAB is such a big deal, you seem to be extremely focused on this point lately but please explain

A) Why Intel have been stuck for so long on 14nm when having their own FAB is such a benefit
B) why Intel themselves have struggled with shortages in chip production over the last few years

I know you do not tend to respond to questions that do not follow your personal opinion but i would love to hear your logic, if there is any...

Hey Cliffy. The answers to your questions are quite simple and obvious, so I was reluctant to spend time pressing keys on my keyboard to reply.

Basically, if AMD had their owns fabs, they could manufacture many more CPU's. This would allow them to gain market share vs Intel. Last quarter, they actually lost market share, as reported by the BBC in the opening post.

Intel have 15 fabs of their own, which allows them to produce millions of CPU's more than AMD each year.

In regards to your other questions:

A) Why Intel have been stuck for so long on 14nm when having their own FAB is such a benefit

They've been stuck on 14nm as developing 10nm or 7nm is very difficult.

B) why Intel themselves have struggled with shortages in chip production over the last few years

There's huge worldwide demand for CPU's, which will only get worse over time. Intel can also sell every CPU they produce, despite having huge manufacturing capacity. Intel actually spent billions doubling their manufacturing in the last 3 years.

Intel announced a few months ago that they'll be purchasing additional wafers from TSMC, this will allow them to produce even more CPU's, so will likely further increase their marketshare. In addition, TSMC currently have a more advanced process than Intel, so the Intel CPU's produced by TSMC will allow Intel huge performance gains.

This is bad news for AMD, as it'll increase the price TSMC charge per wafer and will mean less wafers/CPU's for AMD, which will likely cause it to lose further market share.

 

[Dave2150]

I think your answer to point A demonstrates very clearly the benefits of not having your own fab. Even looking at point B it seems oursouring to other FABS is the key as even with huge investment Intel still have not been able to keep up

You say you could not be bothered to reply as the answers were obvious but i and many others have questioned your decision making process and reasoning. By taking the time to explain your logic i can now see your point of view even though i do not completely agree with you. For me the key argument against is not been able to keep up with improved manufacturing processes, TThis alone has allowed AMD to over take them by at least 1 gen if not 2 and with TSMC investing so much capitol in building new Fabs to increase production i see Intel falling further behind

I think it's more important to sell as many CPU's as possible, whether they are on 14nm, 7nm, 20nm etc. Lets say Intel had closed down their fabs a few years ago - there'd be less CPU's made and thus sold, since Intel would be buying all their capacity from TSMC/Glofo, just as AMD are. Prices would explode, and it takes many, many years to build new fabs to supply the demand.

Also, I'd prefer to be in the position where I have my own fabs. Even if you have a 'bad' 5 or 10 years, where your process isn't the best in the world, you can just buy the wafers/manufacturing from the leader. This is exactly what Intel are doing, while they continue to work on their own manufacturing technology.

 

[Dave2150]

Problem with thatis in a few years time AMD will be generations ahead of Intel and no one will want the Intel chips. Plus with TSMC upping their production line i am sure AMD will be looking to secure a plentiful supply of waffers going forward. Intel are just falling to far behind the curve and they clearly do not have the in house ability to move to 7,5 or3nm anytime soon, Like with 7nm AMD will beat them to the punch for 5 and 3nm and the benefits that will provide will be a lot greater than they are currently even.

Also i really do not care who sells the most chips currently or ever for that fact. i care about having the best all round tech in my home system, if Intel regains the crown i will move back to them but i see zero correlation in chip sales and a consumer deciding on whether to go AMD or Intel. If that was true no one would want a Ferrari and every one would want a Ford, i know which of the 2 i would choose

Intel will likely retake the gaming performance crown with the 11900k - leaked slides today show it'll auto boost to 5.1Ghz on all cores (cooling permitting) and 5.3Ghz on two cores. This means highly binned chips.

Going forward a few years, it's purely speculation on who will have the best architecture, process and supply. Logic dictates this will be Intel, though perhaps I'm wrong and you're right, we'll have to see.

 

[Dave2150]

No matter how much you want this to be true it's not going to happen, the 11900K is almost certainly going to be a poor choice for 99.9% of users when you have the previous gen available or AMD.

Your sentence has no relevance to my post that you quoted. I said that I think the 11900k will retake the gaming performance crown, I didn't mention that's doing to be the best choice for 99.9% of people, that's obviously a completely different topic.

It's fine we disagree, we'll see who is right on launch day when the official reviews release.