In server CPUs, Intel still has a larger market share than AMD, but judging for the published financial results, where most of the loss is in server CPUs, Intel has succeeded to keep that diminishing market share only by accepting a great loss caused by huge discounts, which has determined the action price fall, so perhaps trying so hard to retain the market share has not been an optimal decision.
So AMD definitely leads over Intel from the POV of the profits obtained in the server CPU market segment.
There are also various small markets where AMD leads comfortably over Intel by volume, e.g. Amazon currently sells much more AMD CPUs than Intel CPUs.
My phrasing is confusing and I apologize for that. I do not mean market leader in that there are more AMD CPUs than Intel CPU. I'm speaking about hardware performance.
You are right for multi-core performance, but Intel has still a slight edge in single-core performance, and in idle power usage, which is important to many. Intel also has a stronger offering in the now-popular mini PC segment.
The X3D chips typically edge out Intel for single core performance and Intel chips also need to be run hard to match them. Idle power consumption is pretty bad on AMD desktop chips, but under load AMD is typically far more efficient. Regardless, on the desktop any of Intel's advantages at the high end are somewhat moot considering that all of those chips ship with and are currently running microcode that is overvolting and degrading the silicon, causing permanent damage. There's plans for a fix, but there's a good chance that fix will come with lower performance. The N100 is a bargain, but as soon as you want passable graphics AMD becomes the only option.
Intel are facing credible competition from both AMD and ARM in most market segments amidst a quality control catastrophe, cultural problems, R&D problems. Their future outlook doesn't look very good.
