AMD overtakes Intel in benchmark desktop CPU market share but still struggles to build on Ryzen 4000 laptop APU success

[Redaktion]

The CPU market share graphs over at the PassMark benchmark site make for interesting reading lately, as it seems AMD has once again surpassed Intel in terms of desktop CPU market share. This last happened back in the first quarter of 2021. However, it appears love for Ryzen laptop APUs hasn't really blossomed since the advent of Ryzen 4000.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-overtakes-Intel-in-benchmark-desktop-CPU-market-share-but-still-struggles-to-build-on-Ryzen-4000-laptop-APU-success.950865.0.html

[Derek36]

In the last 3 years, all my internet community that has bought a laptop has bought it with an AMD chip because they perform better and consume less than Intel. The problem is that OEMs are creating unfair competition where the same laptop has worse AMD parts than Intel and we are all seeing it.
This has to change now with AMD Halo, which is one of the best products on the market for 95% of the population.
Now all that remains is for AMD to tell TSMC to increase production because few AMD laptops are seen in stores. Why is that? I think there are a lot of briefcases going around, hence the ruin of Intel.

[Andrew4567]

AMD laptops are much less durable than Intel based ones and they fail much more than them. So if you want quality and hardware that can work for many years buy Intel only and avoid AMD at all costs.

[RobertJasiek]

AMD laptops are much less durable than Intel based ones and they fail much more than them.

Evidence please!

[Dont_Look_Up]

Well done @Daniel R Deakin,

This one of the most objective and balanced articles I have read on this site.

I have to highlight two point of the article regarding the lack of market share for AMD laptops:

1. Lack of availability (already mentioned by the author). AMD should do better on this.

2. Intel's shady (probably illegal as abuse of its market position) OEM lock-in tactics. Intel is basically blackmailing the OEMs that they will loose "special discounts" on its CPUs (normal CPU prices overinflated by Intel on purpose, so OEMs can only use them if they obey Intel's exclusivity terms...). Author is calling this tactics as "OEM incentives and deals". Very diplomatic term for what it is a clear blackmailing tactic.

[GeorgeS]

so OEMs can only use them if they obey Intel's exclusivity terms...). Author is calling this tactics as "OEM incentives and deals". Very diplomatic term for what it is a clear blackmailing tactic.

IMHO: Two things are going on here.

First and foremost as you and others have pointed out, Intel likely has illegal back office monopoly deals in place with OEM's that limit AMD's ingress into various markets.

Secondly it is a matter of historic product placement. For DECADES AMD platforms are/were marketed as the 'budget' or 'bang for the buck' choices vs the 'premium Intel' choices. Sadly the AMD powered offerings also were lacking on screens, ports and other features generally 'reserved' for 'high end' devices (that of course were powered by costly Intel parts).

In other marketing words a "high end AMD system" is almost an oxymoron.

[Jason Rogers]

I think this entire article is a bit disjointed, 10 years ago the authors comments would be valid.
Where have you been in the last couple of years? Maybe it's best I hadn't woken you from your slumber.
AMD is winning in all market sectors.I think OEMs are tired of Intel, they're not the mighty blue anymore.
AMD have superior products, it's really a matter of time they start to dominate the laptop sector.

[TunaMcButter]

So you got your info from passmark? Oh ffs why not just get it from AMD fan boy's jfc