01
CPU Market Share: Intel has long held a dominant position, with approximately 70% market share, while AMD is in a trailing position, currently holding about 30% market share.
According to market research firm IDC, Intel and AMD currently dominate the CPU market. In recent years, AMD has experienced rapid growth, increasing its market share.
Specifically, in the third quarter of 2021, Intel’s CPU market share was approximately 75.3%, and AMD’s market share was around 24.7%. Compared to the third quarter of 2020, Intel’s market share decreased by 3%, while AMD’s market share increased by 3%.
Intel has maintained a dominant position for over a decade, with its market share reaching a peak of about 80%. However, with the advancements in AMD products, especially in processor performance and power consumption improvements, AMD has consistently gained market share over several quarters.
Industry analysts expect this trend to continue, with AMD likely to further gain market share. However, considering Intel’s vast scale and strong brand recognition, it is expected that Intel will continue to maintain an absolute leading position in the global CPU market in the short term.
Currently, Intel holds about two-thirds of the CPU market, while AMD holds about one-third. Looking ahead, with intensifying competition, there may be some changes in the market share of both companies. However, Intel is expected to remain the leader in the entire CPU market for the foreseeable future.
02
Price Strategy: AMD’s chip pricing is more affordable, offering a higher price-to-performance ratio. Intel’s pricing is relatively higher.
According to market research firm Mercury Research, Intel’s products have a higher average selling price (ASP) for personal computers and server processors, while AMD provides a more cost-effective choice.
Specifically, in the third quarter of 2021, the average selling price of Intel CPUs was $120.2, while AMD’s was $83.5. In comparison, during the same period in 2020, Intel was at $129.2, and AMD was at $75.8. It can be observed that the average price of Intel CPUs has slightly decreased but remains higher than AMD’s.
In the personal computer CPU market, Intel’s Core series processors are generally priced higher than AMD’s corresponding Ryzen series. For example, in early 2022, a mainstream desktop-level six-core CPU, Intel Core i5-12400F, was priced at $192, while AMD Ryzen 5 5600 was priced at $199. With comparable performance, Intel’s product pricing is slightly higher.
In the server CPU market, the difference is more pronounced. Taking the second-generation EPYC series processors as an example, AMD has advantages in multicore configurations and memory bandwidth, with a lower unit price, leading to an increase in market share.
Therefore, compared to Intel, AMD emphasizes cost-effectiveness in its pricing strategy, with its products having a more budget-friendly average selling price. This is also a crucial factor contributing to AMD’s progress in the CPU market.
03
Process Technology: AMD currently primarily adopts TSMC’s 7-nanometer and 5-nanometer processes, while Intel is currently mainly using the 14-nanometer process.
According to industry reports, AMD’s main CPU products are currently produced using TSMC’s third-generation 7-nanometer process (N7) and second-generation 5-nanometer process (N5). These two processes significantly improve both density and performance.
On the other hand, Intel’s own process technology is still at the 10-nanometer level, with its tenth-generation Core series processors mainly using the improved 14-nanometer++ process. The twelfth-generation Core series, codenamed Alder Lake, adopts the Intel 7 process (originally a 10-nanometer enhanced process). Compared to TSMC’s technology, Intel faces a certain gap in process density.
In the progression of the next-generation processes, TSMC has announced the readiness of its 3-nanometer process for production, while Intel’s 7-nanometer and more advanced processes lag behind competitors. The pace of process development and the introduction of new technologies will, to some extent, affect the future performance and cost competitiveness of products.
Therefore, AMD currently has the support of TSMC in process technology, gaining a certain leading advantage. However, Intel has the capability for independent process development, and there is a possibility of catching up in the future. The development of process technology will also impact the landscape of the CPU market.
04
Chip Structure Design: Intel adopts a complex and modular design with a focus on a single core, while AMD adopts a simple and modular design with multiple cores.
Intel pursues complexity and modularity in chip design. For example, the twelfth-generation Core CPU uses a hybrid design of small and large cores, excelling in single-core performance. Intel enhances both single-thread and multi-thread performance through features like hyper-threading, L3 cache, and integrated graphics cores. Such complex modular designs demand higher requirements for process technology and power control.
In contrast, AMD’s Zen microarchitecture emphasizes cost-effectiveness and multi-core scalability. The Zen cores themselves are relatively simple, achieving overall performance improvement by integrating more cores on the same silicon. The current third-generation Zen cores can integrate up to 64 cores in a single processor. This design approach has a lower threshold for process technology and is more conducive to balancing performance and core count.
In the server CPU market, AMD has achieved a degree of success by adopting a multi-core, high-memory bandwidth design. However, in scenarios requiring strong single-thread and serial workload performance, such as high-end personal computers, Intel’s design approach still holds an advantage.
Therefore, Intel and AMD have differences and focus variations in chip microarchitecture design concepts and technical paths. This aspect also indirectly influences the positioning of products and the selection of application scenarios for both companies.
05
Product Lineup: Intel has a more comprehensive product line, while AMD focuses solely on the personal computer and server markets.
From an overall product lineup perspective, Intel and AMD have adopted different strategies. Intel aims to provide a comprehensive product portfolio, while AMD focuses more on the personal computer and server markets.
Taking X86 architecture CPUs as an example, Intel’s product series is very diverse, ranging from high-end to entry-level models, catering to various needs from data center-level servers, workstations, high-end personal computers, to laptops, two-in-one devices, and even IoT and embedded markets. Meanwhile, AMD currently mainly offers products for the personal computer, workstation, and server markets.
Additionally, Intel has other business divisions such as the network chip division, storage solutions division, and the established FPGA and AI accelerator division. AMD’s other product lines are relatively fewer.
It is evident that Intel, as a leading company in the entire semiconductor industry, has a more extensive market presence with a full product lineup. AMD, on the other hand, remains more focused on markets like personal computers and data centers, competing with Intel by providing cost-effective products in these areas.
This strategic difference also impacts the profit structure of both companies. Intel has a more diverse and stable source of profits, while AMD’s performance is relatively more volatile, closely tied to trends in the personal computer market and the outcome of market share competition.
06
Research and Development Investment: Intel’s R&D expenditure is approximately 10 times that of AMD, enabling it to independently innovate across its entire chip lineup.
There is a significant gap between Intel and AMD in terms of research and development investment. According to publicly available data, in 2021, Intel’s R&D expenditure exceeded $15 billion, equivalent to around ¥100 billion. In comparison, AMD’s R&D expenditure was approximately $1.5 billion, around ¥10 billion. Intel’s R&D expenditure is nearly 10 times higher than AMD’s.
The substantial R&D budget supports Intel in independently designing and manufacturing chips across various product lines. Intel not only has a complete product portfolio for X86 servers and personal computer CPUs but also includes network chips, FPGAs, IoT chips, as well as storage and acceleration solutions. This extensive lineup requires significant R&D investment as a foundation.
On the other hand, AMD currently focuses more on the R&D of personal computers and server CPU chips. AMD manages to maintain competitiveness in its products with a limited R&D budget, primarily due to its adoption of modular design logic. This allows performance improvement by expanding more cores on the same mechanical framework. Compared to Intel’s single-core optimization path, this approach is easier for design validation and manufacturing.
Therefore, Intel has sufficient R&D resources for comprehensive independent technological innovation, supporting its leadership position in the entire semiconductor market. AMD, on the other hand, concentrates its investment on key products, establishing a cost-effectiveness advantage to compete with Intel. The differing R&D strategies and philosophies of both companies also influence the positioning and performance of their final products.
07
Vertical Integration: Intel is a highly vertically integrated company, designing and manufacturing chips in-house, while AMD focuses more on chip design and marketing.
From the perspective of semiconductor supply chain integrity, Intel and AMD have adopted different strategies. Intel is highly vertically integrated in design and manufacturing, whereas AMD places greater emphasis on its design innovation capabilities.
Intel not only possesses the design capability for X86 architecture chips but also has its own manufacturing plants and packaging testing capabilities. Intel’s wafer fabs are the largest globally, equipped with cutting-edge process technology. This high level of vertical integration ensures a smooth transition from design to mass production and aligns with production capacity. However, it also adds complexity to the business and financial pressures.
In contrast, AMD does not have its manufacturing assets; its chips mainly rely on third-party wafer foundries like TSMC for production. AMD focuses on design-side innovation, with its chip verification and preparation work interfacing with TSMC’s process for mass production. This horizontal division of labor reduces business risks and capital expenditures for AMD, allowing resources to concentrate on design innovation. However, it also exposes AMD to uncertainties related to foundry capacity and technology roadmaps.
Therefore, Intel’s high degree of vertical integration provides greater autonomy and control. AMD achieves business efficiency and flexibility through external collaboration. Both models have their pros and cons, influencing the operational strategy choices of these two companies.
08
Procurement Model: AMD adopts an outsourcing production and international cooperation model, while Intel relies mainly on its wafer fabs.
Most of Intel’s chip production capacity comes from its wafer manufacturing plants. As of 2021, Intel has a total of 13 large wafer fabs globally, providing stable and controlled internal capacity. Intel also retains some capacity from third-party foundries to address peak market demand.
In contrast, AMD does not directly engage in chip manufacturing; it relies on external wafer foundry companies. TSMC is AMD’s largest foundry partner, supplying the majority of the 7-nanometer process orders. AMD also maintains strategic partnerships with companies like Samsung to ensure stability in capacity supply.
This difference in approach results in distinct operational models for the two companies. Intel needs significant investments to construct new factories for capacity expansion driven by process upgrades. AMD, on the other hand, achieves more flexible capacity expansion through increasing prepayments to foundries without substantial capital expenditures. However, the outsourcing model may impact the reliability of its supply chain.
Therefore, having self-built wafer fabs ensures control over capacity for Intel but introduces risks. AMD’s outsourcing model allows for more flexible capacity expansion without heavy capital expenditure, but the reliability of outsourced supply may affect production stability. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages.
09
Financial Performance: Intel has a larger profit scale and a more abundant R&D budget; AMD’s operating conditions were challenging in the past but have improved in recent years.
In the fiscal year 2021, Intel’s total revenue reached $79 billion, with a net profit of $78.4 billion. In comparison, AMD’s revenue for 2021 was $16.6 billion, with a net profit of $3.2 billion. Whether in terms of revenue or profit scale, Intel far surpasses AMD.
Intel’s substantial profits support an annual R&D investment of over ten billion dollars, providing robust assurance for continuous product upgrades. Until recent years, AMD’s R&D budget gradually increased to a level exceeding $1 billion.
It is worth noting that a few years ago, AMD faced challenging financial conditions, lagging behind competitors in CPU products and having weaker profitability. In recent years, with the launch of new products and an increase in market share, AMD’s profitability and cash flow have significantly improved. Its net profit in 2021 more than doubled compared to 2020.
Therefore, as an established industry leader, Intel leads significantly in financial strength and performance. While AMD is challenging Intel’s CPU dominance, its financial situation has strengthened, enabling AMD to gain more resources for continuous business expansion and market influence.
10
Shareholder Structure: Intel does not have a major controlling shareholder; AMD’s controlling shareholder is the Saudi investment fund Mubadala.
Intel is a typical publicly traded company with a highly diversified shareholder structure, lacking an absolute controlling shareholder. As of the end of 2021, the combined holdings of the top ten institutional shareholders in Intel accounted for less than 13%.
On the other hand, AMD’s largest shareholder is the Public Investment Fund (PIF) of Saudi Arabia, holding approximately 8.2% of the shares. The fund invested in AMD in 2016 to support the research and development of new products and capacity expansion. Apart from the Public Investment Fund, the top ten shareholders of AMD are primarily composed of institutional investors.
From the perspective of equity structure, Intel’s decision-making is relatively independent, free from external influence by controlling shareholders. However, the Saudi sovereign wealth fund may exert a certain influence on AMD’s strategic decisions.
It’s also noteworthy that former AMD CEO Dr. Lisa Su owns 3.7% of the company’s shares, making her the largest individual shareholder. Dr. Su played a crucial role in AMD’s leadership over the past decade. The current CEO, Lisa Su, continues to drive the company’s business transformation.
Therefore, corporate decisions and culture are also related to shareholder structure. While the current shareholder setups of the two companies may appear different, both companies maintain an active and forward-looking approach to their business strategies.
Related:
- AMD Game-Changer: RX 7900 GRE Overclocking Unleashed!
- Exclusive Peek: AMD New Desktop CPU Engineering Sample!
- EXPO vs XMP: Which Memory Overclocking Solution Is Best?
- What’s New in AMD 800 Series Motherboards?
- Boost Ryzen 9000: How AGESA 1.2.0.2 Improves Performance
- AMD Unveils Seamless Real-Time RAM Overclocking!
