• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD clawing back GPU market share.

Good to see AMD at above 20% market share again... I hope they can sustain that 22% Market share across the whole year and return to their 24%-25% of Q4 2014..
 
Araxie said:
Good to see AMD at above 20% market share again... I hope they can sustain that 22% Market share across the whole year and return to their 24%-25% of Q4 2014..
Click to expand...


I'd prefer a more aggressive target of 35%.
 
tybert7 said:
I'd prefer a more aggressive target of 35%.
Click to expand...

that's not gona happen or not gona happen easily.. they need first to nvidia fail horribly to achieve that.. because even when the GTX 970 3.5GB fiasco they were at 18% market share and that sir was a big nvidia fail.. They need to be extremely aggressive with prices to compete with Nvidia 1070 and the upcoming 1060 (or even possible 1060TI). which by actually numbers may offer same kind of performance and audience target of AMD..

This time AMD doesn't have the mining craze help to sell all the possible AMD card available in the market. as it had with HD7900(70) and R9 290(x) cards..
 
Araxie said:
Good to see AMD at above 20% market share again... I hope they can sustain that 22% Market share across the whole year and return to their 24%-25% of Q4 2014..
Click to expand...


Its good to hear this but I would like to see JPR's numbers they tend to be a bit more accurate on how they get their marketshare (as they get it from AIB partner sales, and not from the direct IHV's).
 
razor1 said:
Its good to hear this but I would like to see JPR's numbers they tend to be a bit more accurate on how they get their marketshare (as they get it from AIB partner sales, and not from the direct IHV's).
Click to expand...

JPR as I checked last week (yes I also think they are more accurate) are around 21.7% so not extremely different, definitively closer to 22 than 21.. good enough I think..
 
Expect this trend to go even higher for Q3.

AMD won some nice deals with HP & Dell. There's a strong chance Polaris won the new Apple refresh as well.

AMD is playing the correct game, get low-end and mainstream out the door ASAP because the biggest damage done to them are having crap options in these low-power segments. This also avoids directly competing with NV's GP104.
 
Do keep in mind that if AMD sales went up ~7% and nvidia's went down ~7% that doesn't really mean they traded market share, since a 7% increase in AMD sales is a smaller absolute value than a 7% decrease in nvidia sales, it means the market contracted, which isn't great news for either of them. But some market share was obviously traded just not near a full 7%.
 
-Dragon- said:
Do keep in mind that if AMD sales went up ~7% and nvidia's went down ~7% that doesn't really mean they traded market share, since a 7% increase in AMD sales is a smaller absolute value than a 7% decrease in nvidia sales, it means the market contracted, which isn't great news for either of them. But some market share was obviously traded just not near a full 7%.
Click to expand...

One of those article address what you mentioned (sales were down roughly 10% quarter over quarter). Keep in mind though, this was Q1, not fiscal Q1. This is the post-holidays lull and is to be expected. The fact that AMD's sales increased is saying something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yakk
like this
Haha.. the PC share is growing which is all most people here see (blinkers approach..) , you should check out gaming/consoles.. AMD is killing market share. Overall market share is near parity once you factor this in.
 
-Dragon- said:
Do keep in mind that if AMD sales went up ~7% and nvidia's went down ~7% that doesn't really mean they traded market share, since a 7% increase in AMD sales is a smaller absolute value than a 7% decrease in nvidia sales, it means the market contracted, which isn't great news for either of them. But some market share was obviously traded just not near a full 7%.
Click to expand...

That's not what it measures. It measure total shipment for that quarter and works out the % due to which company.

If AMD gets 7% and NV declines 7%, it means exactly that. 7% of the total shipment switched.
 
N4CR said:
Haha.. the PC share is growing which is all most people here see (blinkers approach..) , you should check out gaming/consoles.. AMD is killing market share. Overall market share is near parity once you factor this in.
Click to expand...


Yes yet AMD has been making loses at their bottom line on the console front;)
 
razor1 said:
Yes yet AMD has been making loses at their bottom line on the console front;)
Click to expand...
Loses? Or extremely tight margins? I seriously doubt their doing it at a lose.....that doesn't mean it their turning a profit every year either but i tend to believe it helps more than it hurts
 
AMD actually is profitable by a large part with their Semi-Custom and it's the only thing keeping them afloat.

It's reported that AMD sells the PS4 APU to Sony for $100.

From 28nm, a wafer is relatively cheap and the yields are great on that process. If you plug in the numbers, it's estimated that each APU only costs them ~$35 or so. It's a money generator. So will next-gen consoles on 14nm FF, where the current wafer price is $4000, but the APU will be smaller. With Samsung's yields of 0.2 defects/cm2 (Anandtech's article look it up), most of the chips will be fine.

The problem with their low ASP/margins is due to selling Hawaii for so cheap. High TDP, 512 bit bus, complex PCB, better coolers required etc, these eat into the margins.

Going first with Polaris 11 and 10 will proof to be the correct choice, as these are small chips, better yields and volume per wafer, less complex PCBs and cooling required, attacking the mass market segments.
 
Who stated that? Yeah those rumors about the $100 is BS there is no flat rate, they get a % of the profits of the sale of the PS4, the risk is spread out between all manufactures of the console.

NO AMD is not profitable form console sales, check 2 q's ago, AMD went on record and stated the consoles created a loss. For the most part they are razor sharp margins so any fluctuation in volume sales greatly affect profit or loss.

I don't understand why you don't look things up before you make posts, this is the third post in 2 days, that you are spouting totally incorrect information.

You talk about ASP/margins, and nodes, which no you don't know what they are let alone how each one affects the other, but you come out with a conclusion that is based of a rumor of PS4 chip sales cost which is totally incorrect because its not sold that way. WTF is that all about?
 
razor1 said:
Who stated that? Yeah those rumors about the $100 is BS there is no flat rate, they get a % of the profits of the sale of the PS4, the risk is spread out between all manufactures of the console.

NO AMD is not profitable form console sales, check 2 q's ago, AMD went on record and stated the consoles created a loss. For the most part they are razor sharp margins so any fluctuation in volume sales greatly affect profit or loss.

I don't understand why you don't look things up before you make posts, this is the third post in 2 days, that you are spouting totally incorrect information.
Click to expand...
how about you link the proof you speak of. You don't link direct proof normally, you do the same as you are arguing about, just state things and expect everyone to agree you are right.
 
Look it up in the financial calls, they are all documented lol

JustReason, use reasoning and look it up.

If you don't know where to look, google is your friend.

And if you want to see the fluctuation in amount of sales would create a 30 million dollar loss, its easy to see that too, just look up how many console sales per q AMD is getting, you can find that in google too, and then compare.

AMD gets a freakin royalty for the console sales, there is no flat rate of $100 bucks or even approximation of $100 bucks.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
Look it up in the financial calls, they are all documented lol

JustReason, use reasoning and look it up.

If you don't know where to look, google is your friend.

And if you want to see the fluctuation in amount of sales would create a 30 million dollar loss, its easy to see that too, just look up how many console sales per q AMD is getting, you can find that in google too, and then compare.
Click to expand...
The point I am making is you always make a contradicting statement to someone but never prove your point but expect others to do so.
 
A quick Google search shows that AMD sells the APU to Sony for roughly $100 per unit with a margin in the mid teens.

I can't find anything to back up your claim that AMD gets a percentage of the profit. Do you have any links that you can share? I'm curious about this but couldn't find any.
 
AMD Reports Q4 2015 Results And FY 2015 Earnings

damn people can't even use google lol


AMD attributes the seasonally lower sales of semi-custom SoCs as the reason for the drop from last quarter, and the year-over-year drop is due to lower game console royalties, and lower server and embedded sales.
Click to expand...


That statement was straight from their conference call.

You guys really have to do some leg work here.

What I typed in google, AMD console loss, and the first 10 or so links, all had this lol.
 
Good to see. Hope they get back in the game. However, I hope they don't continue NV's game and raise prices so much.
 
A royalty isn't always a percentage. It can and has been a fixed rate in many cases. Your link does not back up your claim.

Now, should I explain this to you, or would that be a waste of time? Because my past experience with you is that you have been impervious to facts and numbers, bit I'd like to be proven wrong this time.
 
AMD explains how it aims to generate revenue from console business - Gamechup | Video Game News, Reviews, Features, Guides

we received licensing royalties from that
Click to expand...

So the answer is over a period of time the royalty numbers will go down but the silicon revenue and the margin contribution will go substantially up for the game console business.
Click to expand...
Yes so there’s been just a few questions on that topic, it’s fair to say that the semi-custom business model is different from our traditional PC model. The gross margins are below corporate average. The operating margins are fairly good. In our last quarterly earnings call we guided that the operating margins of gaming would start in the low double-digits. We see opportunities for that to improve overtime, particularly as we go up the volume curve and see our cost reductions both in manufacturing and productivity in general. But as a model, it’s really a very, very nice model because we designed these with our customers, our customers fund a large portion of the engineering expense and so the gross margin fall through to operating margins as a percentage is quite high.
Click to expand...

What does this mean? Its a % based on price because console prices go down.

If it was a flat rate, there would be no shift in margins!
 
problem is everyone try to make their point by saying "google it". why the hell should someone do the googling to prove themselves wrong. you want to prove someone wrong you are supposed to provide the evidence. I always do and then correct myself if proven wrong.
 
pendragon1 said:
problem is everyone try to make their point by saying "google it". why the hell should someone do the googling to prove themselves wrong. you want to prove someone wrong you are supposed to provide the evidence. I always do and then correct myself if proven wrong.
Click to expand...


Because this has been talked about many many times, every single financial call thread, its been talked about........ Its not even anything ephemeral, its easy to find.
 
awww no,, aww no.. not again this.. yes. AMD receive about 100$ per PS4 sold.. (it's a little less with Xbone).. but those 100$ isn't a net revenue for AMD because AMD doesn't produce those chips, as everyone know here they use 3rd party foundries to produce those chips so the net flow it's reaaaaaally reaaally low, yes, again its true that AMD receive those 100 bucks however the true margin of those 100$ its about 13~15% because they paid to other to produce their chips, so that's what AMD really gain for those 100$ income, just about 15$.. that's what razor1 is referring to, the total revenue and margins as low much low than what people can think of a 100$ per PS4, lol even sony receive about 18$ per PS4 sold.. this has been beaten down several dozens of times.. it was the main reason nvidia decided to not play a role with consoles, very very low margins..

to add couple of things o consider

AMD has stated in the past that typical margins hover around the 35%-40% range, and that margins on parts similar to the ones used in the PS4 yield a lower number, hovering in the mid-teens. So, the normal range of 35%-40% certainly isn’t $100 to begin with, and a “mid-teens” percentage would only be around $15. If Sony magically expended no extra costs beyond that $381 figure, the difference between Sony and AMD’s PS4 revenue would be negligible. However, due to the likely packaging, shipping, and marketing costs Sony dumps into the PS4, AMD is making more per console than Sony, but not thatmuch more.
Click to expand...

Each PS4 sale makes more profit for AMD than Sony, but how much? | Games | Geek.com
 
you cannot tell someone they are wrong and expect them to go figure out why.
 
ok next time I will ask them to prove their statement then fine?

It goes both ways, they have to do some leg work too on their posts, if they expect their posts to be valued.

any case back on topic. Consoles have done nothing for AMD thus far when you look at marketshare and their bottom line.

It would be nice if AMD actually split up their revenue streams for more transparency, but there is probably a reason they don't do this, it would look much worse per division.
 
Araxie said:
awww no,, aww no.. not again this.. yes. AMD receive about 100$ per PS4 sold.. (it's a little less with Xbone).. but those 100$ isn't a net revenue for AMD because AMD doesn't produce those chips, as everyone know here they use 3rd party foundries to produce those chips so the net flow it's reaaaaaally reaaally low, yes, again its true that AMD receive those 100 bucks however the true margin of those 100$ its about 13~15% because they paid to other to produce their chips, so that's what AMD really gain for those 100$ income, just about 15$.. that's what razor1 is referring to, the total revenue and margins as low much low than what people can think of a 100$ per PS4, lol even sony receive about 18$ per PS4 sold.. this has been beaten down several dozens of times.. it was the main reason nvidia decided to not play a role with consoles, very very low margins..

to add couple of things o consider



Each PS4 sale makes more profit for AMD than Sony, but how much? | Games | Geek.com
Click to expand...

Thank you for that. This matches up with my prior post:

Daniel_Chang said:
A quick Google search shows that AMD sells the APU to Sony for roughly $100 per unit with a margin in the mid teens.
Click to expand...
 
razor1 said:
ok next time I will ask them to prove their statement then fine?

It goes both ways, they have to do some leg work too on their posts, if they expect their posts to be valued.

any case back on topic. Consoles have done nothing for AMD thus far when you look at marketshare and their bottom line.

It would be nice if AMD actually split up their revenue streams for more transparency, but there is probably a reason they don't do this, it would look much worse per division.
Click to expand...
exactly! if anyone wants to prove anyone wrong they have to provide the proof.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
Thank you for that. This matches up with my prior post:
Click to expand...

Well no margins should never shift if its flat rate here is a hundred bucks for the chip, there has to be something else involved, if margins are going to go down, and that is what AMD stated, margins will go down as the console is on the market longer, so AMD is taking that risk based on console volume sales, going up.

That 100 bucks isn't flat, I think it changes based on how many consoles are sold through a particular time.

So lets say 200k sold, you get $100 bucks, if its 400k, you get 90 bucks. something like that, pulling numbers out of my ass, just using it as an example. Now what happens if AMD over produces, and Sony doesn't sell as expected?
 
razor1 said:
Well no margins should never shift if its flat rate here is a hundred bucks for the chip, there has to be something else involved, if margins are going to go down, and that is what AMD stated, margins will go down as the console is on the market longer, so AMD is taking that risk based on console volume sales, going up.

That 100 bucks isn't flat, I think it changes based on how many consoles are sold through a particular time.

So lets say 200k sold, you get $100 bucks, if its 400k, you get 90 bucks. something like that, pulling numbers out of my ass, just using it as an example. Now what happens if AMD over produces, and Sony doesn't sell as expected?
Click to expand...

But you're speculating. You have nothing to back up that assertion.

Also, that can be applied to my post as well. The $100 figure was based on estimates from IIHS around the PS4's launch and doesn't account for improvements in manufacturing and price drops. For all we know, AMD is selling the silicone to Sony for $75 a unit now. We don't know. The key takeaway is that all evidence shows that AMD sells the silicone at a rate, and they make a slim margin off that rate. "Royalties are down" means either "console sales are down," and/or, "margins are the same, but unit price has dropped and therefore, profit over sale price has dropped," since 15% of $75 is less than 15% of $100 (numbers are used for examples only, I am not stating definitively how much AMD makes per unit because we don't have access to the contracts).
 
Yes but that pretty much states its not a flat 100 bucks right?

We also don't know if AMD is the one sourcing or Sony or MS is sourcing......

I am presuming AMD is not fully in control of the sourcing I would think that would be ideal for them since the risk is then on Sony and MS, but in reality, that probably isn't the case, AMD probably has a hand in it as it spreads the risk.

Looking at the nV MS case, this is what nV tried to avoid by having full control and a flat rate, I don't think AMD would have such luck to remove that risk, as nV did, since nV's contract with MS was held up in court. And MS or other console companies would not go into such a bargain again.
 
Last edited:
Based on how MS and nV were battling it out it is easy to see AMD would have a big hand in manufacturing without the flat rate. Its a devil's bargin, cause there is no protection for any of the people involved. Sony's, MS's success translates to AMD's success, their failure translates to AMD's failure. This is exactly what nV was trying to avoid in their xbox contract negotiations with MS. MS stated they were paying too much for the chip and wanted to go a different route without the flat rate per chip because they were getting killed by losses of the console.

nV did go with Sony without a flat rate, they went with a % and at the end they weren't happy with it.

You think Sony and MS would go back to flat rate buying after one , MS tried to get away from it, and the second made out well with nV by using a %?

What logically explanation can one give to hurt themselves?

This isn't direct proof, but no contract is good unless both parties are involved and both parties are happy otherwise you end up in court.

You think MS would be happy with a similar contract they had with nV but now its with AMD?

You think Sony would be happy to take on all the risk on PS4 which they didn't have to do with PS3?

I want to see your guys thoughts on this, because I see no one here that stated anything remotely logical to what flat rates per chip would be good for the company that is selling the console. its only beneficial to the company manufacturing and sourcing the chip because that protects them from getting a loss, which is what MS was trying to cut down. Which Sony definitely did cut down with nV with the PS3.

So if a contract was drawn up with flat rates only one side of the contract would be happy, AMD, the other side gets hurt (if sales aren't good). Contract fails. You don't think MS and Sony have learned from the past and each others mistakes in this matter? MS and nV's court case is available for everyone to see, what MS and nV were fighting about, its not something you can't see. Sony with Artx their deal was also a % based. Come on, neither of these company's will shoot themselves in the foot after they have done something well in the past or made a mistake and now won't go down that road.
 
Last edited:
The point is AMD is gaining market share - :rolleyes: - that is real, meaning Nvidia is losing market share :eek:. This is with no major big changes in the last two quarters too :sneaky:. Why? - AMD has better performing cards $400 and down. AMD is making some money from consoles but also achieving a lot of mindshare as well, DX12 will be way more friendlier with AMD GCN arch then Nvidia's Fermi, Kepler and yet another Maxwell. Pascal is to be seen. Vulkan should as well. As developers develope more and more on AMD driven GPU's the better for AMD hardware. Pascal is being deployed as a new high end chip while AMD Polaris will be called a Mainstream chip that may indeed beat the 1070 in performance at a cheaper cost. If AMD can get a better performing card then the 1070 and everything down - Then later with a real Enthusiast chip, Vega - market share may explode for AMD. Nvidia recourse is to bargain bin their inventory at very low prices to stall the take over while they catch up on the Mainstream line. For example 970's for $200.
 
noko said:
The point is AMD is gaining market share - :rolleyes: - that is real, meaning Nvidia is losing market share :eek:. This is with no major big changes in the last two quarters too :sneaky:. Why? - AMD has better performing cards $400 and down. AMD is making some money from consoles but also achieving a lot of mindshare as well, DX12 will be way more friendlier with AMD GCN arch then Nvidia's Fermi, Kepler and yet another Maxwell. Pascal is to be seen. Vulkan should as well. As developers develope more and more on AMD driven GPU's the better for AMD hardware. Pascal is being deployed as a new high end chip while AMD Polaris will be called a Mainstream chip that may indeed beat the 1070 in performance at a cheaper cost. If AMD can get a better performing card then the 1070 and everything down - Then later with a real Enthusiast chip, Vega - market share may explode for AMD. Nvidia recourse is to bargain bin their inventory at very low prices to stall the take over while they catch up on the Mainstream line. For example 970's for $200.
Click to expand...

annnd.. this is where the dream stop and you awake in the real life.. stop the dreams man pls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top