For those who are interested, the source of the graph posted was here:
http://chipdesignmag.com/sld/schirrmeister/tag/intel/
I think this has a bearing on things:
Even then it doesn't make any sense. ST MicroElectronics had about $8.5 billion total revenue for fiscal 2012, and according to their last quarterly report they're on target for similar revenue this year. Qualcomm and Samsung each made about $5 billion on ARM CPU's last year. (EDIT: Notice the difference - both Qualcomm and Samsung are substantially larger than STM if you look at total revenue - this is CPU revenue *only* compared to total revenue for STM)
Never mind that most of STM's CPU's business is in ST Ericsson - a 50/50 joint venture that only accounts for about $300 million of STM's yearly revenues.
STM *may* belong there if they're counting 8-bit microcontrollers, but in that case companies like Zilog should be there too (they bought Samsungs 4-bit and 8-bit microcontroller lines), and architectures like the ST32, Z80, 6502, 8051 and others would also in that case compete in the volume charts. Incidentally, NXP exited the 8051 market at the beginning of last year, and Zilog entered the same market.. (EDIT: Zilog is small in revenue compared to most others there, but then so is STM, Broadcom and NXP in CPU revenue, so as a company it might belong there, but if counting these types of units it's architectures certainly belong on the architecture chart)
EDIT: Looking up AMD revenue numbers (from their financial filings), that data is even worse. 6.3% of a $94.2 billion market is $5.9 billion. However in 2012 earnings for AMD was $5.4 billion, and when you subtract their graphics division and others from that, you end up closer to $3.5billion to $4 billion (their GPU business alone accounts for $1billion+). So either their total estimated market size is wrong, or the AMD market share number is wrong, or they're charting something entirely different to what they say they're charting.
