Intel & NVIDIA shows growth, AMD loose ground...

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Atech

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
3,946
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20090429PR202.html

Intel up 7.5 %
NVIDIA up 4.8 %,
AMD/ATI down 8.5 %

That gives Intel a 49.7 % marketshare, NVIDIA a marketshare of 31.1 % and AMD a marketshare at 17.1 %. and the rest is shared between VIA/S3, Matrox and SiS.

I have a hard time getting these numbers to add up with all the "AMD praise" going on in this forum eg:
"AMD has a more "effecient" core"...dosn't look like it's really paying off on the GPU market.
 
With Intel in the equation, that clearly means that they are counting the integrated graphics too. With the bad economy, the cheaper is better and nothing beats igp in term of price.

This doesn't suprise me since the last igp from AMD is HD 3200 which is already old with nVidia and Intel have released a few new models already.
 
I also find this one sorta hard to believe. LOTS of talk about Nvidia people switching in here when it came to getting a new card recently. The hype around the 4890 and 4770 is a lot noiser than that of the GTX 275 or the eventual Larrabee.

It's definitely counting IGP or you wouldn't see Intel there at all (obviously). Whats sad about that is the fact that more consumers just buy a computer from the store and say they got the new "latest and greatest." Most consumers aren't [H]ardcore like us, so IGP will reign supreme in these things all the time.

If they only did a count on tech forums like here, OCC, Guru 3D, etc I'm willing to bet Nvidia/ATI would be about 59.9%/39.9% with that extra .02% going to VIA/S3.
 
IGP sales significantly outnumber Discrete. We already know Intel sells a ton of those for its own platforms. NV also sells a lot of IGP due to the fact that it makes IGP for both Intel and AMD platforms, where as AMD's IGP is only for AMD platforms. Since Intel has a much larger volume of CPU sales, it's not hard to imagine more IGPs (that goes with Intel platforms) sold are not AMD. What we need is a breakdown of IGP and Discrete shipments.
 
Atech said:
Actually is not, it is a small segment of the gaming market, which by it self is a niche of the total market.

And a person like me, that wouldn't tocuh Steam with a thick pole, I don't figure in the stats either...
Click to expand...


No, it's a farily large, strong representation of the PC gaming population. Most people have a Steam game or too; there aren't that many people who still think Steam is the same as it was five years ago.


I think the IGP thing is probably correct. I've notice that a LOT of new notebooks and desktops are shipping with low end integrated parts. It counts a lot for market share, but it's not very profitable.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
No, it's a farily large, strong representation of the PC gaming population. Most people have a Steam game or too; there aren't that many people who still think Steam is the same as it was five years ago.


I think the IGP thing is probably correct. I've notice that a LOT of new notebooks and desktops are shipping with low end integrated parts. It counts a lot for market share, but it's not very profitable.
Click to expand...

And the majority of PC's in the world are not build for gaming...or will never run a game.
 
I had already posted a thread with numbers like these, but from JPR:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1414663

And the IGP theory is incorrect. These numbers account for GPU shipments as whole, both desktop and integrated and the market share differences reflect both aswell. However, the bulk of both NVIDIA and AMD's sales, comes from desktop GPUs, NOT integrated. It's about cards such as 9500 GTs and HD 3450's (or the HD 4000 counterpart if it exists) that are sold to OEMs (for example), where the real profits are, because they are sold in huge quantities. Integrated stuff accounts for a fairly small portion of GPU sales for both NVIDIA and AMD. Intel is the exception simply because they have nothing else but integrated GPUs.

In retrospect, and as I mentioned in other threads, AMD made the risk of cutting their profit margins to regain market share and with these latest numbers, it seems they failed. Market share was regained in Q3 2008, but lost sequentially from Q4 2008 to Q1 2009.
 
Silus said:
I had already posted a thread with numbers like these, but from JPR:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1414663

And the IGP theory is incorrect. These numbers account for GPU shipments as whole, both desktop and integrated and the market share differences reflect both aswell. However, the bulk of both NVIDIA and AMD's sales, comes from desktop GPUs, NOT integrated. It's about cards such as 9500 GTs and HD 3450's (or the HD 4000 counterpart if it exists) that are sold to OEMs (for example), where the real profits are, because they are sold in huge quantities. Integrated stuff accounts for a fairly small portion of GPU sales for both NVIDIA and AMD. Intel is the exception simply because they have nothing else but integrated GPUs.

In retrospect, and as I mentioned in other threads, AMD made the risk of cutting their profit margins to regain market share and with these latest numbers, it seems they failed. Market share was regained in Q3 2008, but lost sequentially from Q4 2008 to Q1 2009.
Click to expand...
IGP theory is incorrect????

Intel has 49.7% of the market but they don't even have a discreet GPU???
 
alg7_munif said:
HD4800 Series 9.33%
GTX 260 + GTX 280 + GTX 285 6.12%

The biggest increase is also HD 4800 series with +0.54%
Click to expand...

That would include the 4850 which is the competitor to the 9800 GTX, not surprised by those results.


Silus said:
In retrospect, and as I mentioned in other threads, AMD made the risk of cutting their profit margins to regain market share and with these latest numbers, it seems they failed. Market share was regained in Q3 2008, but lost sequentially from Q4 2008 to Q1 2009.
Click to expand...

This. "ATI is owning Nvidia blah blah blah!" The numbers simply don't back up this claim.
 
alg7_munif said:
IGP theory is incorrect????

Intel has 49.7% of the market but they don't even have a discreet GPU???
Click to expand...

You do a lot of effort to not get things don't you ?

NVIDIA is not ahead of AMD due to integrated GPU sales, which was the "IGP theory". NVIDIA and AMD (their graphics division) have the bulk of their sales in discrete GPUs, NOT IGPs, which means that their market share reflects this aswell.

And as I mentioned, though you obviously didn't read it, Intel is the exception because they ONLY have integrated GPUs, so their market share numbers reflect ONLY that portion of the market. But again, that's not the case for both NVIDIA and AMD.
 
vengence said:
This. "ATI is owning Nvidia blah blah blah!" The numbers simply don't back up this claim.
Click to expand...

I don't see any of this as another one of those NVIDIA vs ATI arguments. I'm tired of those. I'm talking about the risk taking that some consider great, but that these numbers confirm was not so great. AMD (ATI) played the cut prices game, with companies without financial problems. They also cut their own profit margins to regain market share and these numbers show what a failure that was. Obviously the economy isn't helping, but the fact of the matter remains that AMD is the only one losing.

I think AMD is feeling the pain of those choices now and we already saw a glimpse that they are feeling it and realizing that cutting profit margins won't do them any good from this point on. The fact that they wanted to release the HD 4770 @ $99 and raised it to $109, is to me an indication that they are suffering the consequences of Qimonda's problems, as I already mentioned in another thread. Samsung and Hynix don't do charity work and GDDR5 will not get cheaper, especially since NVIDIA doesn't order that type of graphics memory yet. It could also be related to poor yields in the 40 nm process, but the GDDR5 supply problem seems like a more likely culprit.
 
Silus said:
You do a lot of effort to not get things don't you ?

NVIDIA is not ahead of AMD due to integrated GPU sales, which was the "IGP theory". NVIDIA and AMD (their graphics division) have the bulk of their sales in discrete GPUs, NOT IGPs, which means that their market share reflects this aswell.

And as I mentioned, though you obviously didn't read it, Intel is the exception because they ONLY have integrated GPUs, so their market share numbers reflect ONLY that portion of the market. But again, that's not the case for both NVIDIA and AMD.
Click to expand...

If you include mobile parts in 'discrete GPUs', then yes you are correct. That's fair, I guess, because that's what the manufacturers themselves call them. However for the purposes of everyone who visits this forum, those parts are integrated.

Certainly most of AMD's sales are from add-in boards for desktops, because their mobile presence isn't worth considering.
 
nomu said:
If you include mobile parts in 'discrete GPUs', then yes you are correct. That's fair, I guess, because that's what the manufacturers themselves call them. However for the purposes of everyone who visits this forum, those parts are integrated.

Certainly most of AMD's sales are from add-in boards for desktops, because their mobile presence isn't worth considering.
Click to expand...

...

One more time...The numbers I linked to show "GPU shipments" as a whole. All types of GPUs are included in the numbers and added to the numbers you see in the graphs. In case of Intel, their GPU shipments numbers account ONLY for the integrated portion of the GPU market (since that's the only thing they have), but that's not the case for both NVIDIA and AMD, which have the majority of their sales in "discrete GPUs", are they desktop or mobile parts.

I honestly don't see why is everyone trying to spin such simple information, put into so straightforward graphs...
 
Silus said:
...

One more time...The numbers I linked to show "GPU shipments" as a whole. All types of GPUs are included in the numbers and added to the numbers you see in the graphs. In case of Intel, their GPU shipments numbers account ONLY for the integrated portion of the GPU market (since that's the only thing they have), but that's not the case for both NVIDIA and AMD, which have the majority of their sales in "discrete GPUs", are they desktop or mobile parts.

I honestly don't see why is everyone trying to spin such simple information, put into so straightforward graphs...
Click to expand...

It's not spin, it's just clearing up the confusion. The OP wonders why the seeming roaring success of ATi's new series doesn't translate into market share. Well it did: they didn't lose as much as they would have without it.

However their gains were in a small segment of the market that is decreasing in importance, while nVidia's share of the faster growing mobile market easily matches it. When you say 'GPU shipments' to a gaming forum, readers think PCI-E cards, not Macbooks.
 
The number doesn't show that the majority of the sales from AMD and nVidia are "discrete GPUs". The number only shows the "GPU shipments" which consist of integrated and discrete GPUs.

The number does however show that a very huge portion of the market is dominated by integrated graphic from Intel. If Intel managed to get a very huge market share only with integrated graphics, what makes you think that the majority of the sales from AMD and nVidia are "discrete GPUs"?
 
And here's another link for those having a hard time with those numbers:

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=18242

With another industry analysis research numbers specifically for discrete GPUs. Here's a quote:

According to Mercury's numbers for worldwide shipments, NVIDIA has a 66 per cent share of the discrete market, up from 63 per cent in Q4 2008. It's worth repeating that the percentages refer to shipments and not value, so it's safe to infer that NVIDIA outships AMD-ATI by a factor of least 2:1, if the numbers are correct: selling is a different matter, of course.
Click to expand...
 
nomu said:
It's not spin, it's just clearing up the confusion. The OP wonders why the seeming roaring success of ATi's new series doesn't translate into market share. Well it did: they didn't lose as much as they would have without it.
Click to expand...

Actually, it didn't. Ever since their release, they regained market share in Q3 2008, but then lost it in both Q4 2008 and Q1 2009. And it could never translate into big market share gains, unless they flat out dominated the competition, which they didn't.

nomu said:
However their gains were in a small segment of the market that is decreasing in importance, while nVidia's share of the faster growing mobile market easily matches it. When you say 'GPU shipments' to a gaming forum, readers think PCI-E cards, not Macbooks.
Click to expand...

If in a forum like this, where people should be "informed", people think that "GPU shipments" just mean PCI-e cards, then maybe they are not so informed...
And again, NVIDIA's share increase wasn't just related to a "growing mobile market". Read the numbers above.
 
Discrete mobile GPUs are "discrete GPUs". ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4000s are just out.
 
Silus said:
I don't see any of this as another one of those NVIDIA vs ATI arguments. I'm tired of those. I'm talking about the risk taking that some consider great, but that these numbers confirm was not so great. AMD (ATI) played the cut prices game, with companies without financial problems. They also cut their own profit margins to regain market share and these numbers show what a failure that was. Obviously the economy isn't helping, but the fact of the matter remains that AMD is the only one losing.

I think AMD is feeling the pain of those choices now and we already saw a glimpse that they are feeling it and realizing that cutting profit margins won't do them any good from this point on. The fact that they wanted to release the HD 4770 @ $99 and raised it to $109, is to me an indication that they are suffering the consequences of Qimonda's problems, as I already mentioned in another thread. Samsung and Hynix don't do charity work and GDDR5 will not get cheaper, especially since NVIDIA doesn't order that type of graphics memory yet. It could also be related to poor yields in the 40 nm process, but the GDDR5 supply problem seems like a more likely culprit.
Click to expand...


I was agreeing with you.... ATI did the dumbest thing ever. They had a product that the market could have taken for 100$ more and had the same sales numbers but with shit loads more profit. They instead decided to start a price war with a company that has lots of cash reserves and no debt. It's beyond dumb.
 
vengence said:
I was agreeing with you.... ATI did the dumbest thing ever. They had a product that the market could have taken for 100$ more and had the same sales numbers but with shit loads more profit. They instead decided to start a price war with a company that has lots of cash reserves and no debt. It's beyond dumb.
Click to expand...

Yeah, although I understand the idea to get market share back. But after seeing the latest quarterly results, it's obvious that the risk didn't pay off. But then again, no one knows the future. AMD just did it in a time where they needed the profits and with a good product line, they should have never played the "cut prices" game, with NVIDIA.
 
As others have pointed out, its including integrated graphics of which Nvidia has a larger market share than ATI. If it were of discrete graphics cards only there would be almost nothing but Nvidia and ATI and the split between them would be a lot closer.
 
vengence said:
I was agreeing with you.... ATI did the dumbest thing ever. They had a product that the market could have taken for 100$ more and had the same sales numbers but with shit loads more profit. They instead decided to start a price war with a company that has lots of cash reserves and no debt. It's beyond dumb.
Click to expand...

And just how do you know they'd have had the same sales numbers at $100 more?? Please tell. Part of the hype of the 4800 series was the performance for the price. It was critical they gain their market share back or developers would start focus exclusively on Nvidia (they already favor Nvidia as it is).
 
Mat3 said:
And just how do you know they'd have had the same sales numbers at $100 more?? Please tell. Part of the hype of the 4800 series was the performance for the price.
Click to expand...

Well, Nvidia cut thier prices to match. And speaking of margins, if they raised the MRSP by 100$, they would only have had to sell around 20% of the volume they did sell to break even at those rates. 200$ video card, figure it costs them 50$ to make and they sell the parts kit to the vendor for 75$, which frankly is being really nice on thier margin. If instead they raise the MRSP to 300$, charge thier vendor 150$ for the kit they only need to sell 20% of the amount they did to break even.

Instead the people who had lost money for 6 straight quarters decided to have a price war. Clearly I understand nothing about economics.

It was critical they gain their market share back or developers would start focus exclusively on Nvidia (they already favor Nvidia as it is).
Click to expand...
Market share is useless if your bankrupt. They failed on the market share point. They've lost market share for the last two quarters.
 
Jeffredo said:
As others have pointed out, its including integrated graphics of which Nvidia has a larger market share than ATI. If it were of discrete graphics cards only there would be almost nothing but Nvidia and ATI and the split between them would be a lot closer.
Click to expand...

The meaningful number here is the loss of market share by ATI. IGP was included in the previous numbers and between that number and this number ATI lost Nvidia gained.
 
Atech said:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20090429PR202.html

Intel up 7.5 %
NVIDIA up 4.8 %,
AMD/ATI down 8.5 %

That gives Intel a 49.7 % marketshare, NVIDIA a marketshare of 31.1 % and AMD a marketshare at 17.1 %. and the rest is shared between VIA/S3, Matrox and SiS.

I have a hard time getting these numbers to add up with all the "AMD praise" going on in this forum eg:
"AMD has a more "effecient" core"...dosn't look like it's really paying off on the GPU market.
Click to expand...

IGPs... not discrete gpus. Oh crap, Nvidia strong crew is already here, all sensible arguments are nulled and disregarded automatically.
 
vengence said:
It is both AIC(add in cards) and IGPs (Integrated Graphics Processors)
Click to expand...

So whats the point of arguing over this since the studys authors forgot to provide the breakdown inbetween aics and igps? For all we know in enthusiast end IGPs ATI could've made inroads vs nvidia as suggested by steam hardware survey yet failed in budget sector.
 
DeadSkull said:
So whats the point of arguing over this since the studys authors forgot to provide the breakdown inbetween aics and igps?
Click to expand...
They didn't forget to provide. Those numbers aren't avaliable, there is a difference. Integrated graphics is something ATI doesn't do, so if they are loosing market share, they are loosing sales.

DeadSkull said:
For all we know in enthusiast end IGPs ATI could've made inroads vs nvidia as suggested by steam hardware survey yet failed in budget sector.
Click to expand...
I think you mean AICs, not IGPs, but anyways...

Steam hardware survey is generally flawed, however lets assume it is an accurate sample. The spouted numbers are comparing 4800 series to the 200 series. Which would be fine if you were comparing the number of 4870s and 4870x2s to the number of 260s and 280s, as that might mean something. But it's not comparing that. Instead it is comparing the number of 4870s, 4870x2s AND 4850s to 260s and 280s. If you included the number of 9800GTX then it might mean something as the 4850 and the 9800 GTX are head to head competitors. The statement I sold more apples and oranges than you sold apples isn't worth anything.

As far as the steam survey goes, it doesn't tell you when those cards were purchased, so it tells you nothing of the current market conditions. It does somewhat tell you what the install base is, or at least the install base of people who play steam games. Of course, even if you tried to detect changes to that, you would never know if someone was added to the list because they got a new card or because they finally bought a steam game. Furthermore from the install base you can't extract profitablility because if you assume the install base of 280s was all bought at 600$ instead of current market conditions of 280$ you get a much different result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top