The Add-in board market increased in Q3'15.

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,092
I wouldn't be too happy with 0.8% market share increase.. so from 18.. to 18.8% its just the same crap, man AMD is in bad situation, I want them to recover but this slow rate its just disappointing. I was hoping to see AMD at least at 20% market share.
 
.8% isn't much of an increase, I think we still need to wait another quarter to see if the Fury and r3x0 lines really made an impact on marketshare.
 
Araxie said:
I wouldn't be too happy with 0.8% market share increase.. so from 18.. to 18.8% its just the same crap, man AMD is in bad situation, I want them to recover but this slow rate its just disappointing. I was hoping to see AMD at least at 20% market share.
Click to expand...

I just copied the headline verbatim. I only care that PC Gaming as a whole is doing well. AMD / Nvidia / HocusPocus? Don't care who's winning as long as the market is doing well.

(Not angry at you; figure that someone else is going to question the AMD up / Nvidia down thing from the article.)

What I did find interesting was this statement. "AMD’s quarter-to-quarter total desktop AIB unit shipments increased 33.3%." But not quite sure what context to put it in as far as AMD's growth and sustainability goes.
 
cageymaru said:
I just copied the headline verbatim. I only care that PC Gaming as a whole is doing well. AMD / Nvidia / HocusPocus? Don't care who's winning as long as the market is doing well.

(Not angry at you; figure that someone else is going to question the AMD up / Nvidia down thing from the article.)
Click to expand...

I don't care too much about AMD up/Nvidia Down Im not a shareholder at any company xD. But i'm not too excited about Shipments. The quarter to quarter shipments have increased 27.6% however it decreased -3.8% year to year, which doesn't mean the market is precisely doing well..
 
cageymaru said:
What I did find interesting was this statement. "AMD’s quarter-to-quarter total desktop AIB unit shipments increased 33.3%." But not quite sure what context to put it in as far as AMD's growth and sustainability goes.
Click to expand...

Shipments isn't equal to grown or market share. they have increased shipments due to new Launch and Re-Launch of cards.. but that doesn't mean people are buying that amount of cards, Shipments isn't directly related to sold units.
 
Araxie said:
Shipments isn't equal to grown or market share. they have increased shipments due to new Launch and Re-Launch of cards.. but that doesn't mean people are buying that amount of cards, Shipments isn't directly related to sold units.
Click to expand...

That's very true. Still not seeing the usual fire sale on the cards so they might be doing better.
 
cageymaru said:
That's very true. Still not seeing the usual fire sale on the cards so they might be doing better.
Click to expand...

that's possible, but it's also possible that the increased shipment still doesn't have a saturation of cards in the market enough. Fury Series are just barely starting to be widely available which mean that as soon as they arrive they are sold out, but if they start to accumulate too much then that's when the fire sales start to help to move those cards from the shelves.
 
Year to year is a much more pertinent metric then quarter to quarter in this case due to seasonal variability.

Q2 is typically the slowest quarter for consumer products. You can see this in the history for the linked article clearly, Q2 is always the lowest with an increase to Q3.
 
Araxie said:
that's possible, but it's also possible that the increased shipment still doesn't have a saturation of cards in the market enough. Fury Series are just barely starting to be widely available which mean that as soon as they arrive they are sold out, but if they start to accumulate too much then that's when the fire sales start to help to move those cards from the shelves.
Click to expand...

Even with quantity, I don't think the Furies would be the big sellers that would change AMD's position in the market.
 
limitedaccess said:
Year to year is a much more pertinent metric then quarter to quarter in this case due to seasonal variability.

Q2 is typically the slowest quarter for consumer products. You can see this in the history for the linked article clearly, Q2 is always the lowest with an increase to Q3.
Click to expand...

that's correct. that's why i'm not too excited as the year to year decreased ~8%...
 
Remon said:
Even with quantity, I don't think the Furies would be the big sellers that would change AMD's position in the market.
Click to expand...

Not at the price AMD is asking for those cards.. so as soon as they start to drop in price the market can increase.. just a 50$ drop in Fury Series can be an entirely landscape view for AMD.
 
Remon said:
Yes, but q3 15 is almost the same as q3 2014, not following the trend show in the graph.
Click to expand...

it could be worse. at least they were able to band-aid their wounds. how much time? nobody knows but one year stuck at the same number mean the band-aid worked, they just need now to increase those numbers.
 
Araxie said:
that's correct. that's why i'm not too excited as the year to year decreased ~8%...
Click to expand...

Might be a chicken and egg quandary where you need great hardware to power new game technologies, but the new games don't visually seem more impressive than last year's. The first thing that I do when firing up a game is enable everything to see through the lens of the developer. After noticing how blurry everything is I disable everything like FXAA, motion blur, unnecessary sparkles, etc. that obscure my vision.

The end result is that I don't need a new video card for most new games. As long as I'm staying above 60fps I'm happy. 120Hz gaming was a dream, but rarely does a game run at max visuals and 120Hz at the same time. Ashes of the Singularity is going to make me upgrade after seeing all the new visuals. But we need new cards to run that at 60fps with all of the new effects they added in recently. Those cards don't exist yet.

The next big thing is VR, but honestly it fell off the map for me at least. That would require an upgrade for me as there are 2 screens to feed.
 
Araxie said:
it could be worse. at least they were able to band-aid their wounds. how much time? nobody knows but one year stuck at the same number mean the band-aid worked, they just need now to increase those numbers.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm talking about the dGPU market in general, not AMD.
 
cageymaru said:
Might be a chicken and egg quandary where you need great hardware to power new game technologies, but the new games don't visually seem more impressive than last year's. The first thing that I do when firing up a game is enable everything to see through the lens of the developer. After noticing how blurry everything is I disable everything like FXAA, motion blur, unnecessary sparkles, etc. that obscure my vision.

The end result is that I don't need a new video card for most new games. As long as I'm staying above 60fps I'm happy. 120Hz gaming was a dream, but rarely does a game run at max visuals and 120Hz at the same time. Ashes of the Singularity is going to make me upgrade after seeing all the new visuals. But we need new cards to run that at 60fps with all of the new effects they added in recently. Those cards don't exist yet.

The next big thing is VR, but honestly it fell off the map for me at least. That would require an upgrade for me as there are 2 screens to feed.
Click to expand...

yes I understand as I do exactly the same with every "blur" related technique. The only Game I really enjoyed at the first moment and never noticed the FXAA blurry mess was the Tomb Raider reboot, however not everyone its like us, and for those new cards will always going to be necessary. I love 120hz gaming and that require as much horsepower as possible to enjoy the games at my desired frame rate with as higher settings as possible, that's the reason I keep upgrading every year my GPUs and probably with more powerful cards later I finally will be able to jump from 120hz@1080P to my dream ROG SWIFT.
 
Remon said:
Nah, I'm talking about the dGPU market in general, not AMD.
Click to expand...

not exactly

AIBs.PNG
 
Araxie said:
I wouldn't be too happy with 0.8% market share increase.. so from 18.. to 18.8% its just the same crap, man AMD is in bad situation, I want them to recover but this slow rate its just disappointing. I was hoping to see AMD at least at 20% market share.
Click to expand...

Considering last year at this time they had 28.4%.

0.8% is akin to a statistical anomaly.

I think it's clear consumers were disappointed with Fury and several rebrands. Giving the appearance of something new may have gotten them less than a 1% increase, but unless they can bring a truly competitive product to market (and soon) they will end up on the shelf next to S3 and Matrox.
 
I am curious if any of you are considering that AMD shipped near next to nothing at the first half of the year (clearing the channel) so being only .8% down year to year is much more impressive. Why I always hated statistics, could make any situation look anyway you wanted.
 
these are not statistics, these are hard numbers from both IHV's. Statistics is the collection and interpretation of the collected data. By saying one vendor is selling more than the other is not statistics that's fact now there could be deviations in how each IHV states their numbers? Yes. But that would be up to JPR to determine if the numbers given to them are valid, since they are pretty much one of the industry standards, I'm sure they do their job pretty well.

BTW the numbers show AMD did ship 18% of total cards sold when they didn't have new cards (you have to check the EOL date on the r2x0 series, AMD was still making those cards and selling them), so no to say they sold next to nothing is not correct, they sold some, not as much as nV.
 
If AMD can manage to get Arctic Islands out before nvidias Pascal at a reasonable price, they may see a large uptick in market share. If not, I predict it will be more of the same, they'll contract or barely pick up a percent or two. Also it's good to see dgpu demand is up but these companies definitely need to diversify even more because the dgpu market overall continues to contract.
 
JustReason said:
I am curious if any of you are considering that AMD shipped near next to nothing at the first half of the year (clearing the channel) so being only .8% down year to year is much more impressive. Why I always hated statistics, could make any situation look anyway you wanted.
Click to expand...

They are actually down almost 10% from this time last year.
 
The quarter to quarter increase was because people were waiting on the GTX 980 Ti and the Fury X. Even for Q2, it was UNSEASONABLY low.

Despite being unannounced, these two behemoths were well covered by mainstream tech rags for 6 months before release. That also creates an expectation of price cuts, so after the Maxwell-driven Christmas rush most people waited for the big boys.

It's comforting to see that AMD at least stopped the bleeding with the Fury + re-brands. But under 20% is not where they want to be for very long if they want to earn profits. They're going to need another smash hit like the 4000 series to gain back that market share.

Sales are still falling year on year just like they always have. That's not changing anytime soon. So if AMD wants to get their sales back up, there's only one place to get it from: Nvidia.
 
Last edited:
5150Joker said:
If AMD can manage to get Arctic Islands out before nvidias Pascal at a reasonable price, they may see a large uptick in market share. If not, I predict it will be more of the same, they'll contract or barely pick up a percent or two. Also it's good to see dgpu demand is up but these companies definitely need to diversify even more because the dgpu market overall continues to contract.
Click to expand...


Its always very difficult to regain marketshare once you have lost it, but the graphics market is fickle, OEM's and system builders don't care what they have in their systems as long as they sale, and if AMD can get AI out before Pascal, and it will have to be out for close to 1Q before Pascal, they will have an advantage. If they are close, yeah its going to end up the same as we see now, if there is no performance or other metrics (power usage is a big thing for them too) that set the cards apart.
 
There was an article in Forbes where AMD said they're only going to do two new GPUs next year? Is this something like the Fury / Fury X and everything else is a rebrand? Because I don't think that would work well.

Otherwise I would expect 400s vs Pascal to be pretty competitive.
 
well it could also mean one gpu for the high end market, and one for the midrange and low end. And what ever cut downs they have fill in the rest of the line up.
 
jwcalla said:
There was an article in Forbes where AMD said they're only going to do two new GPUs next year? Is this something like the Fury / Fury X and everything else is a rebrand? Because I don't think that would work well.

Otherwise I would expect 400s vs Pascal to be pretty competitive.
Click to expand...

razor1 said:
well it could also mean one gpu for the high end market, and one for the midrange and low end. And what ever cut downs they have fill in the rest of the line up.
Click to expand...

It might be that we are starting to see the impact of their reduced allocation of funds for R&D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top