According to Mercury Research's estimates for the second quarter of 2026, AMD's x86 client CPU unit shipment share reached 30.3%. This is the first time AMD has topped 30% in this category (excluding IoT and SoC), up from 29.6% in the prior quarter and 23.9% in the same quarter a year earlier. Still, unit shipment share reflects the proportion of products entering distribution channels—it is not a measure of the installed base of PCs in use, retail sales, or revenue split. Cross-referencing AMD's and Intel's quarterly filings shows that this particular quarter was one in which AMD grew on unit volume while Intel raised its average selling price.
What the 30.3% figure actually measures
In Mercury Research's table, AMD gained unit shipment share across all four categories compared with the prior quarter. All figures are based on x86 CPU unit shipments; for the client (desktop and mobile) and server comparisons, IoT/SoC products are excluded. The percentage-point changes in the table follow Mercury's own presentation, and subtracting the displayed share figures directly may produce slightly different results due to rounding.
| Category | AMD's Q2 2026 share | QoQ change | YoY change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Client | 30.3% | +0.6 pts | +6.4 pts |
| Desktop | 34.9% | +1.8 pts | +2.7 pts |
| Mobile | 28.9% | +0.6 pts | — |
| Server | 34.5% | +1.3 pts | +7.3 pts |
The quarter-over-quarter change for the client category overall was 0.6 points—a modest shift if you focus only on the 30% milestone. But compared with the same quarter a year earlier, at 23.9%, the increase was 6.4 points. In desktop, where overall market shipments fell by more than 20%, AMD's share rose because its decline was smaller than Intel's. Here, a rising share and rising unit shipments are not the same thing.
The 28.9% mobile figure is directionally consistent with AMD's own disclosures. The company has attributed its increase in client CPU unit volume mainly to Ryzen mobile. However, Mercury Research's estimate reflects a relative proportion within the x86 market, whereas AMD's reported 34% increase is year-over-year growth in its own product shipments. Because the two figures don't share the same denominator, you cannot derive 28.9% from the 34% growth figure.
Intel's share in the same client category stands at 69.7%. Its desktop share is 65.1%, and its broader server-category share is 65.5%. AMD's 30.3% client share cannot be rephrased as "share of all CPUs." Including IoT and SoC, AMD's overall x86 share is 34.1%, versus 32.6% the prior quarter and roughly 29.4% a year earlier—but these use a different denominator.
Moreover, the 30.3% figure compares AMD and Intel within x86 alone; Arm-based PC CPUs are not included in the denominator. It does not represent "30% of all client CPUs." When comparing products, it's important to distinguish between looking at competition within x86 versus looking at the overall PC market including Arm.
Mercury reported that combined x86 and Arm CPU shipments rose more than 10% quarter-over-quarter, exceeding typical second-quarter seasonality. At the same time, desktop CPU shipments fell more than 20% year-over-year, with AMD's decline smaller than Intel's. Mercury cited high PC prices, GPU supply constraints, and seasonality as headwinds. These are not direct measurements of demand but assessments of shipment trends.
AMD grew volume, Intel raised prices
According to AMD's Q2 2026 10-Q, Client segment revenue was $3.1 billion, up 23% from $2.5 billion a year earlier. Client processor unit shipments rose 34%, while average selling price (ASP) fell 6%. AMD attributed the volume increase mainly to growth in Ryzen mobile, and linked the ASP decline to a shift in product mix, including lower sales of desktop Ryzen.
Intel reported combined notebook and desktop client revenue of $7.7 billion, up $1.1 billion from a year earlier. But client unit shipments fell 8%, while ASP rose 27%. Intel attributed most of the ASP increase to a richer mix of premium products, with a smaller contribution from demand-based pricing, and also noted that supply constraints weighed on results.
The ASP figures are not simply a like-for-like comparison of price cuts versus price increases. AMD explained its ASP decline through a shift in product mix, including a higher proportion of Ryzen mobile and lower sales of desktop Ryzen. Intel likewise attributed most of its 27% ASP increase to a greater proportion of premium products, with demand-based pricing playing a smaller role. In both cases, the mix of CPUs sold—not price changes alone—is moving the average.
Nor can you add $3.1 billion and $7.7 billion together to back out each company's revenue share. Each company's revenue is tallied according to its own accounting segments, not a shared, market-wide denominator. To assess Q2 revenue share, you would need separate data compiled using a consistent methodology.
Both companies' disclosures show that AMD's 30.3% figure cannot be taken as evidence of pricing power or dominance in higher price tiers. AMD grew unit shipments 34% year-over-year while lowering ASP, and Intel reduced unit shipments while raising ASP. Unit shipment share captures one dimension of competition, but it is not a single metric that determines product mix or profitability.
Why 34.5% and 46.4% differ in servers
AMD's x86 server unit shipment share was 34.5%. However, when Mercury narrows the comparison to just Intel's Xeon SP and AMD's EPYC—excluding other accounting segments such as networking and storage—AMD's share becomes 46.4%. The 34.5% and 46.4% figures are not competing numbers; they are comparisons with different denominators.
According to Mercury, overall x86 server CPU shipments grew nearly 20% year-over-year across the market. Intel's 10-Q also showed server unit shipments up 9% and ASP up 48%. Intel attributed the volume increase to hyperscaler demand and most of the ASP increase to a richer mix of premium products, while noting that internal supply constraints persisted. When the market as a whole grows faster than Intel's own growth rate, AMD's relative share can rise even as Intel's shipments increase. Intel's 65.5% share does not imply that its server business is shrinking.
AMD's data center revenue was $6.7 billion, up 107% year-over-year. But this segment includes Instinct MI350 in addition to EPYC, so this figure cannot be directly translated into EPYC CPU revenue or the market value of server CPUs specifically. Intel's data center segment likewise includes products beyond server CPUs, so segment revenue for both companies cannot be directly compared as a proxy for the CPU market alone.
What to watch next quarter
The 30.3% figure represents the cumulative result of AMD's client unit shipment share climbing from 23.9% a year earlier. However, revenue share for Q2 2026 has not been disclosed. There is no basis for extending unit shipment growth into a conclusion about revenue share; ASP and product mix need to be tracked side by side.
For AMD, the key questions going forward are whether Ryzen mobile unit growth continues and how the declining client ASP evolves. Intel expects the supply constraints that affected the first half to ease in the second half. If AMD's share continues to grow even after supply normalizes, this quarter's shift cannot be explained by Intel's supply shortage alone. Conversely, if Intel's unit shipments recover, that will be the first test of whether the 30.3% figure holds.
It will also be worth watching whether the market-wide shipment growth that Mercury described as exceeding typical seasonality continues into the next quarter. AMD crossing above 30% is a clear milestone, but whether it proves durable can only be judged once the next quarter's shipments, ASPs, and supply conditions are all in view.