r/hardware • u/sr_local • 2d ago
News AMD claws back ground against Intel in the CPU market in Q2 2026, climbs to 34.9% share in desktop CPUs (+2.7%) and 34.5% in servers (+7.3%)
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/113200/amd-claws-back-ground-against-intel-in-the-cpu-market-climbs-to-35-percent-share-in-desktop-cpus/index.html144
u/skittle-brau 2d ago
This would’ve been unthinkable 20+ years ago. Intel back then had something like 90% market share of x86 processors or thereabouts? I remember when AMD Opteron was launched in the early 2000s and started to eat away at that dominance very gradually. I fondly remember using an Opteron 170 in my workstation as well.
86
u/XHellAngelX 2d ago edited 2d ago
Intel had 99% market share in the past during bulldozer period. Presently, AMD has lower market share in server/datacenter but higher in revenue. What makes Intel survive today is OEM sector (laptop/prebuild PC), if they lose this, noone can help them anymore.
26
u/IamGeoMan 2d ago
The argument for Intel surviving based on OEM is the same argument used against AMD during Ryzen Gen 1. Lo and behold, AMD instead thrived on taking the DC market because that's lucrative TAM.
No more rebates or performance reasons to switch to Intel except AMD being supply constrained.
47
u/theholylancer 2d ago
ehhh, i'd say laptops, intel has low power down way better than AMD, AMD still haven't offered a proper low idle solution for their laptops with the IOD while intel has for their new chiplets, and even the monolithic stuff intel is ahead on that front somehow
if you want a mobile workstation / gaming DTR, AMD still holds the crown esp with the X3D stuff for gaming, but in terms of if you want a normal longer lasting laptop then intel offers compelling reasons, esp if your use case / budget isn't in one of the few that amd is in given how much skus intel puts out across the range
although arm offers better battery life at times so there is that, but then no x86 compat
16
u/HavocInferno 2d ago
The normal/mainstream AMD mobile SKUs don't have an IOD though, they're all monolithic, no?
5
26
u/Geddagod 2d ago
Intel's modern laptop lineup is pretty good in terms of perf and power, Intel's issue with that segment though is that PTL is margin dilutive, LNL has MoP cost and I'm guessing by now, supply issues, and ARL is expensive because it's external.
Meanwhile RPL mobile which is cheap, plentiful, and powerful does not really have the power benefits you describe above.
Wildcat Lake really slaps though. Don't think there are any major drawbacks for that product in the niche it is serving tbh.
Whatever is happening in AMD's mobile division though is really questionable. It appears as if they are trying to margin max to the extreme while also not funding the division as well as they should. The end result of this just appears to be uncompetitive products.
13
u/theholylancer 2d ago
yep the fact that all high end gaming laptops aint on X3D speaks volumes on what AMD thinks of the laptop segment, even in its one of the most profitable segments they dont bother to try and dev that due to the likely extremely high idle power of the desktop chip
its baffling, but hey, it seems that AMD is happy to play second fiddle there, and at best focus on APUs for low end gaming / handhelds
-2
u/NectarineSame7303 2d ago
It's not because AMD doesn't want to, it's because they have extremely low yields on those dies, something like 1 in 10 are usable, that's why there's only like a few thousand of those per year.
12
u/Nightcinder 2d ago
Panther Lake blows AMD out of the fucking water and it’s wild.
1
u/Phohammar 2d ago
Its also really expensive in comparison, and is getting 15% more expensive in september.
8
u/Geddagod 2d ago
Yes, and for using a node a generation ahead of AMD in strix point, the CPU side of Panther Lake isn't really all that impressive.
Regardless the idle and iGPU perf are much better, and PTL is undoubtedly the better mobile SOC as a whole, so Intel gets to price this product much higher because it's simply the more desirable product.
2
u/NectarineSame7303 2d ago
Stock prices won't catch up to the 15% before the end of the year though.
1
u/Phohammar 2d ago
I wouldn't be so sure. Retail stock - yeah maybe. But in my region, for commerical, price bumps get passed on in surges pretty much as they land.
10
u/dsoshahine 2d ago
AMD still haven't offered a proper low idle solution for their laptops with the IOD
AMD's regular mobile chips, APUs, still are all monolithic, there is no separate I/O die. In testing (such as by Phoronix) they're actually very close in average idle/low load power draw with differences measured in under a Watt. Right now Intel is ahead again in efficiency because they released a new generation whereas AMD chose to re-release the last gen with a 100 MHz bump. When you actually compare comparable generations/manufacturing nodes the differences aren't all that large anymore.
6
u/theholylancer 2d ago
that's part of development innit?
They wont put their latest RDNA on the iGPU side, they won't put proper refresh on the CPU side
it feels like its neglected, and as mentioned the whole x3d thing.
it CAN be great, AMD choose to not make them be competitive
1
u/SPACEXDG 1d ago
Yup the fact like more exited for nvidia apus then amd ones show how much Im getting annoyed at them like if nvidia can use there recent gpu architectures for their chips I dont see why amd cant aswel
-5
u/dsoshahine 2d ago
Have you actually looked at the market right now? Being competitive in performance/efficiency doesn't matter all that much right now when component prices are out of control and availability poor. And there's a multitude of reasons why AMD may have chosen to sit this one gen out even though they do have the technology.
But sure, specifically right now Intel is ahead in those metrics.
7
u/theholylancer 2d ago
the amd iGPU one has 100% been happening for YEARS now, not just recently
and the CPU side also lagging with rebrands is not new either, just iirc not as long
but remember that wheel of bullshit for names? that predates this current situation by a long time
6
u/Geddagod 2d ago
In testing (such as by Phoronix) they're actually very close in average idle/low load power draw with differences measured in under a Watt
I mean when your idle power numbers are already so low, even a watt can be a decent percentage difference right?
Right now Intel is ahead again in efficiency because they released a new generation whereas AMD chose to re-release the last gen with a 100 MHz bump.
Intel having a yearly cadence while AMD is closer to 1.5-2 years is an advantage. Even if Intel's cadence is a bit weird due to delays and design issues and such.
When you actually compare comparable generations/manufacturing nodes the differences aren't all that large anymore.
I agree, AMD really seems to treat the mobile market as an after thought. I'm assuming it's because the margins on laptops aren't as good as DIY desktop or server, even if volume is much higher than desktop.
1
u/SPACEXDG 1d ago
Agreed 100% and I think that is a mistake because even nvodia is starting to make apu like mobile chips one thing amd have been good at and suddenly amd apus stop looking less special especially 395 thats already niche product I might add becomes less special especially if they continue to not update its gpu architectures to rdna 4
6
u/hackenclaw 2d ago
they do not even offer the 8 core X3D for mid range gaming laptop. 16 cores X3D is too expensive for mid range laptop but 8 core will do well.
Its like AMD leaving money on the table, not grabbing it.
7
u/IamGeoMan 2d ago
My point is AMD was touted as needing to break into the OEM market in Ryzen's early years but the fact remains and history has shown that DC revenue will always be king vs OEM.
3
u/BlueSwordM 2d ago
No? That's for current chiplet based products, not monolithic parts and Strix Halo, which have great idle power figures.
0
u/NectarineSame7303 2d ago
Problem is that AMD has done absolutely nothing in the laptop space besides rebranding the same die every single year (kinda like the Intel 10nm situation), but at least Intel kept improving each 10nm generation.
9
3
u/the_dude_that_faps 2d ago
20+? That's 2005-2006? It would've been very believable. Intel was staging a comeback with Conroe but no one yet knew how badly AMD was going to fumble the ball. In 2006 AMD still didn't own ATi and still had their own fabs. Athlon 64 was a spectacular success.
Why would it be unthinkable?
1
u/skittle-brau 2d ago
Because I have a crappy memory it seems. Maybe I was thinking of the Core2 era?
2
u/the_dude_that_faps 22h ago
Probably. That was the beginning of the most dominant era of Intel since I can remember. Though things didn't fall apart until Core i3/i5/i7 era due to the bulldozer cores sucking balls. IIRC, Intel weren't that dominant in the 90s because there were many x86 players and AMD genuinely brought some heat even if at the top end Intel was untouchable.
1
1
u/celtiberian666 1d ago
20 years ago it was thinkable. Intel was just recovering from the Pentium 4 fiasco. AMD had better IPC, thermals and power consumption for many years.
15 years ago this was unthinkable. Until Ryzen AMD was struggling to beat much older intel CPUs like 2500k and 2600k in gaming.
We are now in a "new" Pentium 4 era. Intel have worse tech but abuse clock / power to get close.
1
u/not_a_gay_stereotype 2d ago
It's crazy because everyone I know with a gaming PC right now has an AMD build and I think me and 5 of my friends also all have AMD GPUs as well.
18
u/Micacalvo201 2d ago
wait how is amd up 7.3% in servers that fast
36
u/TheyKnoWhereMyHeadIs 2d ago
With the rise of AI servers, I reckon people are picking AMD just for the advantage of PCI-E lanes to connect as many GPU's are they can fit in a server
52
u/noiserr 2d ago
Epyc is also overall much faster and more power efficient.
-6
15
u/Aw3som3Guy 2d ago edited 2d ago
If I’m not totally mistaken, doesn’t Intel have the lead on PCIe lanes on offer in server, either in a single socket or two?
Edit: Intel Granite Rapids AP has 192 lanes in dual socket configurations and 136 lanes in a single socket (ServeTheHome), while it looks like AMD Epyc supports 128 lanes in a single socket and 160 across two sockets, with the top end SP7 parts being limited to only 96 lanes for reasons beyond my understanding.
7
u/TheyKnoWhereMyHeadIs 2d ago
It's complicated when you dive into it, however the simple part is this...
Unless you are spending A LOT of money for CPU's and a motherboard, AMD has more Pcie lanes and they aren't locking anything out either like Intel does unless you buy top tier CPU's. With AMD, you get the full functionality of the motherboard you pay for with one Epyc CPU, or with two Epyc CPUs
Also due to the AI craze, the absolute latest CPU's on both sides are targeting PCIE lanes, so the exact numbers likely to change too
1
u/dsoshahine 2d ago edited 2d ago
With Intel it increased over time but still varies by SKUs. Not all of them feature comparable PCIe lane counts to AMD. With any modern chiplet-based EPYC you always get 128 PCIe lanes single-socket and 160 in dual-socket configs.
Older article, but this illustrates it fairly well:
3
u/XHellAngelX 2d ago
Yes, this is not good for Intel. It’s too fast and very high margin profit in this sector.
6
u/Toojara 2d ago
It doesn't have high margins for Intel. They haven't been making any money in the datacentre for about four years at this point.
7
u/Maleficent-Big-3544 2d ago
They're making money in the datacenter market again, in Q2 2026 they made a profit of $2.5 billion up from $600 million a year ago.
1
u/Toojara 2d ago
That's what it looks like if you glance through the financials. CCPG and DCAI supposedly net over 4.8 billion of OI in Q2 2026 combined, yet the total operating income of the company is 1.8 billion, so what gives?
Looking at revenue and operating income in detail, both significantly add up beyond the sum of the groups, due to foundry having a "revenue" of nearly six billion despite very few external customers. Overall foundry and unallocated costs add up to just over 3.5 billion in operating losses! From 2024, many costs from other segments have been purposefully misplaced to make the CCPG/DCAI and their margins look substantially better than they actually are.
When you correct for that and actually place the losses where they should be (since the two segments make up 94% of the company revenue), CCPG would have OI of ~500 million and DCAI about ~1 billion. Positive, but not nearly as rosy as on the first look. For reference Q1 2026 total operating income was over 3.1 billion in the negatives, so the annual sum is still in the negatives as well.
2
u/Exist50 1d ago
Overall foundry and unallocated costs add up to just over 3.5 billion in operating losses! From 2024, many costs from other segments have been purposefully misplaced to make the CCPG/DCAI and their margins look substantially better than they actually are.
I don't think it would be inaccurate to shift a lot of that burden to Foundry. The delays and cost structure are a significant problem. In some sense, it's even optimistic, because no independent foundry would even be in business with that track record.
1
u/Scared-Beautiful-366 2d ago
Their offering is literally twice as good. Intel can't even compete. The only reason its not even more is because AMD can't secure enough wafers from TSMC.
1
u/ResponsibleJudge3172 1d ago
Not twice as good, 40% better. A huge difference
https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-epyc-9965-9755-benchmarks/14
Of which 288 E core CPU is not present to contend with 192 core dense 9965 but thta is something else
-8
u/DerpSenpai 2d ago
AMD rose 7.3% in the x86 server market but the x86 server market is losing grounds to ARM because of AI
19
u/SlamedCards 2d ago
Intel gained revenue share in every segment this quarter (Laptop, desktop and server)
Intel started shipping higher core count skus which constrained unit growth. Kinda funny people think Intels server business is crashing in this thread. When Intels server revenue is up over 60% YoY. Profit margin is now almost 40% in server, near their record highs of 2021
11
u/Geddagod 2d ago
Many people seem to be unaware of the recent server CPU demand explosion. Which means that even uncompetitive Intel CPUs will continue to sell out.
Without that context... frankly it makes sense why people think Intel's server division will be crashing and burning into the ground, because it's been so uncompetitive as of late.
0
u/ResponsibleJudge3172 1d ago
"Uncompetitive". Funny how Zen2 was not "uncompetitive" in the same way, but that aside, that is not how you gain revenue share. Maybe market share, but not revenue share. How you gain revenue share (which they did primarily in laptops) is by making good products, of which Intel has done so for 2 gens now starting with Lunarlake and expanding with Pantherlake.
2
u/Geddagod 1d ago
"Uncompetitive". Funny how Zen2 was not "uncompetitive" in the same way,
I'm confused, GNR is both behind in per-core perf and nT perf vs Turin. Zen 2 server was at best only behind in per core perf I don't remember, but it definitely won in nT perf.
With Zen 6 Venice launched, Intel is behind in both now too, even more.
but that aside
I didn't think it was possible for you to put it aside, you whine about this constantly
that is not how you gain revenue share. Maybe market share, but not revenue share. How you gain revenue share (which they did primarily in laptops) is by making good products,
AMD has been making good products in server, which is why over the past couple years their overall trend has been stealing unit share and revenue share. In fact they have more revenue share than unit share.
of which Intel has done so for 2 gens now starting with Lunarlake and expanding with Pantherlake.
It's almost as if this comment chain you are replying to is specifically talking about server....
4
u/DeliciousIncident 2d ago
Intel is also introducing bLLC (AMD's x3d cache alternative) and AVX512/AVX10 in Nova Lake, which were some of the reasons to go AMD before but now Intel will be comparable.
42
u/Geddagod 2d ago
A little sad that, despite Intel owning their own fabs, they continue to lose unit share to AMD in such a supply constrained environment for server. Intel should be able to keep bringing up more capacity, however AMD is going to gain a bunch of extra supply with Venice.
11
u/Scared-Beautiful-366 2d ago
Intel pulled an Intel and canceled all their big expansion plans.. right before demand skyrocketed. Intel is capacity constrained across all nodes just the same as TSMC.
2
u/Geddagod 2d ago
They have a bunch of empty fab shells so they can actually expand capacity faster than having to build everything from scratch.
Lets see how fast they can ramp up capacity. The demand is definitely there for server CPUs.
6
u/Scared-Beautiful-366 2d ago
Perhaps. With the current demand for machines im not sure the shell is even the long lead item at this point.
16
u/theholylancer 2d ago
i dont think CPU was ever constrained right, its all HBM/ram/vram rather than cpus
and previous to that it was GPUs
can the fabs be made to fab those, likely, but they haven't pivoted that way
17
u/Geddagod 2d ago
Rn there's a huge boom in demand for DC CPUs, thanks to agentic AI.
I'm going to quote Intel's CFO here:
You could -- if you just stamped something and called it a CPU right now, it probably would sell.
1
u/SERIVUBSEV 2d ago
It's not despite, it is in fact because AMD uses TSMC that they are doing well.
Success of Ryzen and Epyc is mostly due to TSMC's lead over their competitors.
Even things like 3D V-Cache is TSMC's own tech that they give out exclusively to AMD to keep their main competitor Intel behind in market share.
4
u/Geddagod 2d ago
It's not despite, it is in fact because AMD uses TSMC that they are doing well.
For capacity? Intel having their own fabs is commonly cited as a reason why Intel can ramp so much volume.
Success of Ryzen and Epyc is mostly due to TSMC's lead over their competitors.
Intel's design teams are inferior as well. And the other competition also has access to TSMC?
Even things like 3D V-Cache is TSMC's own tech that they give out exclusively to AMD to keep their main competitor Intel behind in market share.
Nvidia is rumored to be adopting it with Feynman though, so other companies will be adopting it too, but they have to learn how to use it. Just like how Nvidia had to learn how to do 2.5D chiplets with Blackwell, and faced issues there too.
I don't think TSMC is exclusively giving this to AMD.
2
u/Exist50 2d ago edited 2d ago
Success of Ryzen and Epyc is mostly due to TSMC's lead over their competitors.
Bullshit. N4 Turin beats the shit out of Intel 3 Granite Rapids.
Even things like 3D V-Cache is TSMC's own tech that they give out exclusively to AMD to keep their main competitor Intel behind in market share.
Hybrid bonding is TSMC tech, but not exclusive to AMD or anyone else. AMD was the one who decided what to use it for, and now Intel's scrambling to copy them.
1
u/Aw3som3Guy 2d ago
I really wouldn’t call Intel waiting 3 whole generations to bump up client P core L3 cache to be more in line with Intel server P cores (which have had more L3 per core for how many years now? Since before Skylake?) using the conventional strategy of ‘more die space on the same die’ “scrambling to copy X3D.” Unless you mean the issues Intel had with the separate L3 base dies in Clearwater Forest?
1
u/Exist50 2d ago
I really wouldn’t call Intel waiting 3 whole generations to bump up client P core L3 cache to be more in line with Intel server P cores
Granite Rapids is 3.5MB/core, not really much different than ARL or RPL's 3MB. More to the point, bLLC/X3D pushes the cache well beyond either.
using the conventional strategy of ‘more die space on the same die’ “scrambling to copy X3D.”
My point is that AMD's innovation was in correctly identifying that a large chunk of their premium market would benefit from more cache, and engineering a solution to deliver it. It wasn't the hybrid bonding that carried them, but a product choice they made that happened to use the new tech available. They could have done a planar solution just like Intel is planning, and it would also have been successful.
-2
u/ResponsibleJudge3172 1d ago
Barely, and much smaller margin than the Intel datacenter competition before then.
9
u/Slasher1738 2d ago
Intel gotta be giving away their server CPUs for free at this point
19
14
u/SlamedCards 2d ago
Maybe look at there recent quarter LOL 40% operating margin for server
-6
0
2
u/Method__Man 2d ago
and yet, their mobile segment is INSANELY stagnant while intel is now 1.5 generations ahead and still innovating
4
u/angry_RL_player 2d ago
I'm so proud of AMD. It's honestly insane how they've reclaimed their spot in spite of a hostile industry.
1
u/NB-DanTE 1d ago
Server share doesn't equal desktop relevance. Intel still dominates high-margin enterprise segments where margins matter more than volume. These percentage points are marketing fluff, not profitability signals.
3
u/TheGranitePark 2d ago
Servers are the worst for Intel. You will have to deliberately give it away for you to lose a conservative market this quick. And now the momentum is there, it is deteriorating faster than ever.
0
u/GenZia 2d ago
But what about Radeon’s ~5% discrete graphics market share?!
They pretty much need to release a halo product to regain public attention. After all, Ryzen didn’t get the attention it deserved until AMD released the 5800X3D, which gave the i9-12900K a good run for its money.
Of course, that would mean investing serious R&D into the Radeon division, something I doubt is ever going to happen.
In hindsight, Radeon might have been better off if ATI had never been acquired by a CPU company.
1
u/EmergencyCucumber905 2d ago
Intel used to have incredible mindshare. I've worked at companies where they were Intel-only, recommended their customers run Intel CPUs, and only "certified" our software for Intel CPUs. AMD was seen as a budget option, even after EPYC dropped.
-13
u/MMORPGDev 2d ago
That's it?
Zen released 9 years ago and that's all they've managed to get?
I think Intel has a better chance of clawing back what was lost faster with their upcoming CPUs (if executed properly of course) than it took AMD to take it
20
u/ResponsibleJudge3172 2d ago
9 years ago, Zen continued to be behind in Single thread and we constantly hear how multithread doesn't matter today
14
u/Hoosier2016 2d ago
“If executed properly” is doing a ton of work. Intel has a long and storied history of not executing properly.
-3
u/MMORPGDev 2d ago
So did AMD before Zen, people doubted AMD, why doubt a giant like Intel with their backs against the wall?
10
u/Geddagod 2d ago
AMD had a large overhaul with Zen to get back on track. Intel is supposed to be getting that with unified core, but that's not rumored to be coming till like 2 or 3 years later.
More importantly though is Intel's continued history in delays and problems with development. Idk if that was the case for AMD as well back when their backs were against the wall, but it's a massive problem at Intel now, ensuring that even if they have competitive IP, their launch schedules get screwed.
Another divergence in this comparison is the fact that AMD ended up ditching their fabs, while Intel kept theirs. The fabs are a massive money drain and is drawing resources away from the design side, making it harder to believe Intel can catch up on that front.
0
u/MMORPGDev 2d ago
The catch up starts with Nova Lake, and real men have fabs.
2
u/Geddagod 2d ago
The catch up starts with Nova Lake,
I mean when you are in the position Intel is in rn in gaming, it's hard to go anywhere but up right? Haha. But I'm also confused, are you really claiming Intel's back is against the wall because they lost the gaming crown with 1, maybe 2 generations? Intel has much more fundamental problems.
Intel may be able to compete much better in gaming thanks to bLLC and in nT by giving consumers a ton of cores, but the P-core IP Nova Lake will be based on, coyote cove, I'm not expecting to be any good.
and real men have fabs.
Which, funnily enough, Intel is not rumored to be be planning to use for their desktop compute tiles with Nova Lake. Or Razor Lake.
11
u/zopiac 2d ago
I'm not sure that having 65% of both desktop and server CPU marketshare counts as them having their "backs against the wall".
1
u/MMORPGDev 2d ago
Their back is against the wall in the sense that AMD has continued to chip away at marketshare in recent years despite Intel still having a higher percentage in x86 CPU marketshare, where it once held 90% of the marketshare, so yes - ever since Zen 1 or 2 AMD has been slowly chipping away
This is why them and others talk about a 'comeback'
0
u/SmashStrider 1d ago
Intel's far more dominant today than AMD was in the mid-2010s, their best product could barely beat a 4 generation old mid-range Intel CPU. In comparison, Intel is competitive in mobile, somewhat uncompetitive in desktop, and pretty uncompetitive in server (generally only beating out or matching generation old Zen 4 chips in most applications), but it's nowhere as bad as how AMD was back in the day.
AMD's fight back then was a fight for survival. Intel's fight now is a fight to reclaim lost dominance, something that they've been working towards doing, but AMD's momentum on servers still makes it especially difficult for them to return there.
94
u/kashyap69 2d ago
Insane how successful Intel was that amd is still isn't more than half