NVIDIA Losing Market Share to AMD and Intel

Yakk said:
Been hearing similar comments more often lately.

Seems like nvidia's marketing is faltering for some reason, as their products have almost always been overpriced through the years.

Just that right now more people are talking about it.
Click to expand...

I think it's because before nVidia had the 'top-dog' going for it. Everyone, used to know the baddest, meanest cards were made by nVidia and you wanted to buy the card from the BEST company. Now though, the ATI is kicking nVidia's ass in both price and performance everywhere in the market up to and including as HardOCP's review showed Tri-CF vs Tri-SLI.

How does one compete against THAT kind of dominance? nVidia: keep our prices high and expect people to buy our products out of brand loyalty and reputation; and hope they are on top come the next-generation.

Marketing can cover up an inferior product only so long. Easier said than done when there aren't standard benchmarks or games to compare products directly against eachother. IE IPad 2 versus other tablets, its a bit subjective because the software, os, features, hardware are all different.

With two video cards, all that really matters are the numbers produced at given resolutions/settings. If Card A produces higher fps and allows more graphical fidelity, it's lost. There's no real difference in features except 'PhysX' which is a gimmick supported by few games at best. It's harder for marketing companies to say 'look at this hand gesture!'. Its amazzzzinggg!
 
WBurchnall said:
I think it's because before nVidia had the 'top-dog' going for it. Everyone, used to know the baddest, meanest cards were made by nVidia and you wanted to buy the card from the BEST company. Now though, the ATI is kicking nVidia's ass in both price and performance everywhere in the market up to and including as HardOCP's review showed Tri-CF vs Tri-SLI.

How does one compete against THAT kind of dominance? nVidia: keep our prices high and expect people to buy our products out of brand loyalty and reputation; and hope they are on top come the next-generation.

Marketing can cover up an inferior product only so long. Easier said than done when there aren't standard benchmarks or games to compare products directly against eachother. IE IPad 2 versus other tablets, its a bit subjective because the software, os, features, hardware are all different.

With two video cards, all that really matters are the numbers produced at given resolutions/settings. If Card A produces higher fps and allows more graphical fidelity, it's lost. There's no real difference in features except 'PhysX' which is a gimmick supported by few games at best. It's harder for marketing companies to say 'look at this hand gesture!'. Its amazzzzinggg!
Click to expand...

do not forget cuda, that seems to be shorter lived cause people doesnt like being locked.
opencl is getting more support over cuda, no matter how much slower it is, atleast then they don't need to code twice or 3 times.
and amd is putting in marketing force, and you start to see amd sponsoring things, doing more marketing.
I just hope they don't end up being ignorant and live on marketing.

They sure didnt during amd's cpu golden age, they pressed on hard as ever.
 
Did you guys check the link posted on the previous page? Nvidia was 60% while amd was 40%. Amd sold less...
 
05251975 said:
the new nvidia 590 video card, is a lot slower than the amd 6990... is this why?
Click to expand...

Heat issues, power issues. The 580 chips in the 590 are considerably underclocked resulting in less performance than 580x2 in sli or the 6990.
 
That sounds about right, Nvidia hasn't been doing well lately. Drivers that break cards, power hungry beasts that heat your room, loud as hell... in contrast AMD/ATi has really been stepping their game up. And intel...well those cpus are just too fast, haha. AMD cpus haven't had anything on Intel for awhile if I recall.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Did you guys check the link posted on the previous page? Nvidia was 60% while amd was 40%. Amd sold less...
Click to expand...

That's probably why AMD begged them to put SLI on their chipsets. Crossfire isn't doing well according to Steam.
 
J Macker said:
Interesting. But, nVidia also saw year-to year "growth" at -6.2%

while AMD is +12.6%

I'm surprised that so many folks still buy nVidia because of the "name". 2 of my coworkers are nVidia fanboys. I built machines for another 3 with Radeons.
Click to expand...

You're only looking at the year over year for the same period. Q4 2009 is a period where NVIDIA was late with Fermi and AMD was already out with Cypress. So obviously there would be an increase from AMD and a decrease for NVIDIA.

Looking at the numbers from Q4 2010 and Q3 2010, NVIDIA increased their share, while AMD lost it. So despite the fact that both AMD and NVIDIA had new products at about the same time (GF110 for NVIDIA and Cayman for AMD), NVIDIA increased its market share and AMD lost it.

And that is why AMD fights by lowering their prices (it's not really because they want to). If they don't, they'll keep losing market share.
 
Yet nVidia still holds 59.11% of the graphics cards according to steam as well as Intel with 72.37 of CPU's.

Me personally i'll stick with nVidia. 560 GTX Ti is still a beast and the 580 GTX is still the top single card.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Did you guys check the link posted on the previous page? Nvidia was 60% while amd was 40%. Amd sold less...
Click to expand...

This isn't about nVidia selling more than AMD, it is about the shift in market share. There is a difference.

Example, though pulling numbers from me arse: HP has been #1 in printer sales for decades. Lets say in 1990, HP has 92% of the market share, Canon 5%, Epson 2%, and Lexmark 1%. Then in 1998 HP has 60%, Lexmark 25%, Canon 15%, and Epson left the business, thus 0%. HP still sold more than anyone else, but they lost market share. Significant enough that HP looked at the business, made changes and now have 66% market share while Canon climbed to 24% and Lexmark dropped to 10%.
 
zoobaby said:
This isn't about nVidia selling more than AMD, it is about the shift in market share. There is a difference.

Example, though pulling numbers from me arse: HP has been #1 in printer sales for decades. Lets say in 1990, HP has 92% of the market share, Canon 5%, Epson 2%, and Lexmark 1%. Then in 1998 HP has 60%, Lexmark 25%, Canon 15%, and Epson left the business, thus 0%. HP still sold more than anyone else, but they lost market share. Significant enough that HP looked at the business, made changes and now have 66% market share while Canon climbed to 24% and Lexmark dropped to 10%.
Click to expand...

The thing is, if you read through this thread it seems people are thinking AMD is selling more than Nvidia. That is why I pointed this out.
 
WBurchnall said:
I think it's because before nVidia had the 'top-dog' going for it. Everyone, used to know the baddest, meanest cards were made by nVidia and you wanted to buy the card from the BEST company. Now though, the ATI is kicking nVidia's ass in both price and performance everywhere in the market up to and including as HardOCP's review showed Tri-CF vs Tri-SLI.

How does one compete against THAT kind of dominance? nVidia: keep our prices high and expect people to buy our products out of brand loyalty and reputation; and hope they are on top come the next-generation.

Marketing can cover up an inferior product only so long. Easier said than done when there aren't standard benchmarks or games to compare products directly against eachother. IE IPad 2 versus other tablets, its a bit subjective because the software, os, features, hardware are all different.

With two video cards, all that really matters are the numbers produced at given resolutions/settings. If Card A produces higher fps and allows more graphical fidelity, it's lost. There's no real difference in features except 'PhysX' which is a gimmick supported by few games at best. It's harder for marketing companies to say 'look at this hand gesture!'. Its amazzzzinggg!
Click to expand...

Engineering, Engineering, Engineering, and a vision of where you are going.

Both companies can do the engineering part, but company vision & management can kill off even great products. AMD's graphics division were dead on for the last few years with their scheduling of their products, I mean dead on (that's how they could gain market share against a firmly anchored competitor). Nvidia, seem to have a potentially great product, but badly scheduled, targeted, and executed. Badly enough even their marketing is having trouble it seems.

AtkinS said:
do not forget cuda, that seems to be shorter lived cause people doesnt like being locked.
opencl is getting more support over cuda, no matter how much slower it is, atleast then they don't need to code twice or 3 times.
and amd is putting in marketing force, and you start to see amd sponsoring things, doing more marketing.
I just hope they don't end up being ignorant and live on marketing.

They sure didnt during amd's cpu golden age, they pressed on hard as ever.
Click to expand...

Well, cuda is/was a closed standard. As a non-nvidia hired programmer, would you invest hundreds of hours to learn a closed standard (subject to 1 company's whims & politics) such as cuda, or an open standard like OpenGL supported by multiple companies in the industry to make a living?

Having to make a living off of this is quite different from being a fanboy...


Squall_Rinoa89 said:
Yet nVidia still holds 59.11% of the graphics cards according to steam as well as Intel with 72.37 of CPU's.

Me personally i'll stick with nVidia. 560 GTX Ti is still a beast and the 580 GTX is still the top single card.
Click to expand...

LOL... All that being said, marketing still seems to work for some. :p
 
Yakk said:
Engineering, Engineering, Engineering, and a vision of where you are going.

Both companies can do the engineering part, but company vision & management can kill off even great products. AMD's graphics division were dead on for the last few years with their scheduling of their products, I mean dead on (that's how they could gain market share against a firmly anchored competitor). Nvidia, seem to have a potentially great product, but badly scheduled, targeted, and executed. Badly enough even their marketing is having trouble it seems.



Well, cuda is/was a closed standard. As a non-nvidia hired programmer, would you invest hundreds of hours to learn a closed standard (subject to 1 company's whims & politics) such as cuda, or an open standard like OpenGL supported by multiple companies in the industry to make a living?

Having to make a living off of this is quite different from being a fanboy...




LOL... All that being said, marketing still seems to work for some. :p
Click to expand...

Paid $62 for it stepping up.
 
pxc said:
It's only going to slide further now. SB/IB will kill entry level discrete GPUs on Intel platforms and Llano will do the same on AMD platforms. And it seems that nvidia is giving up on chipsets.
Click to expand...

To a degree they have, although they recently licensed out use of SLi to AMD chipsets, if they don't pull their thumb out their arse, they will wind up like 3DFX...they already have the overpricing bit down to a T.

I'm even thinking about going back to ATi due to the awesome prices Vs performance, something nVidia has lost sight of since 2009.
 
Outamyhead said:
To a degree they have, although they recently licensed out use of SLi to AMD chipsets, if they don't pull their thumb out their arse, they will wind up like 3DFX...they already have the overpricing bit down to a T.

I'm even thinking about going back to ATi due to the awesome prices Vs performance, something nVidia has lost sight of since 2009.
Click to expand...
maybe nVidia absorbed a bit more of 3dfx then we initially thought :p

anyhow, I'll be like usual... buying top end cards for the heck of it :(
 
Yakk said:
Engineering, Engineering, Engineering, and a vision of where you are going.
Click to expand...
Is that why NVIDIA is selling more video cards? Is it the faster chip, the better drivers? Better bang for the buck?

Well, cuda is/was a closed standard. As a non-nvidia hired programmer, would you invest hundreds of hours to learn a closed standard (subject to 1 company's whims & politics) such as cuda, or an open standard like OpenGL supported by multiple companies in the industry to make a living?

Having to make a living off of this is quite different from being a fanboy...
Click to expand...
It's funny that you slipped up and said OpenGL instead of OpenCL. Because more people use the closed standard DirectX than OpenGL.
 
PRIME1 said:
It's funny that you slipped up and said OpenGL instead of OpenCL. Because more people use the closed standard DirectX than OpenGL.
Click to expand...
It's a closed standard, but it's platform-agnostic; there's an entire world of difference.
 
fattypants said:
It's a closed standard, but it's platform-agnostic; there's an entire world of difference.
Click to expand...

it's not platform agnostic... nVidia and AMD must goto MS to work out whats on the next DX specification. And then they develop their next GPU based on that specification. This has caused strife before, when MS and nVidia went at it over the original xbox GPU/chipset.

DirectX mandates the same feature set out of each GPU at the very least, and that's why HW caps and extension support don't exist on DirectX (specfically, Direct3D - the most well known part of DirectX), anymore. OpenCL, well... vendors have to make their own extensions to support additional features or wait for Kronos to make their own. Even though OpenCL is an open standard, like directX is, it's not open source/design. AMD still had to adhere to the core OpenCL framework while writing their own extensions. nVidia wasn't free to just use CUDA and call it "OpenCL." This is part of why AMD is pushing OpenCL, since it allows them to exploit Cayman's GPGPU functionality (specifically, mulihost kernals/threads on the GPU), something that the platform agnostic DirectX does not support - since that feature was not supported on nVidia's GPUs, nor was it written into the DirectCompute11's design plan. There is some flexibility, specifically on the driver/software side, however, the HW requirements are rather exacting for DirectX.

As such OpenCL is not "platform agnostic," it merely has the illusion of being so, which each GPU designer supporting a varying amount of extensions. DirectX is platform agnostic - from both a HW and software developer POV. What DirectX 10.1 supports.. is supported across the board. What OpenCL sopports... well... better which extensions are supported for each OpenCL verison on a GPU :p
 
Back in the end of 2009 AMD did surprise Nvidia with Evergreen lineup, but failed to capitalize, and judging from the latest market share results things are back to normal.

Looks like Cayman and Antiles did not help AMD in removing its aura of eternal victim and underdog. Quite contrary - one more quarter like this and and AMD is back to 1/3 of a desktop discrete GPU market.

Market leader Nvidia increased its share by 3.6% from Q3, while AMD's market share declined -5.2% for the same period. On a year-to-year basis AMD increased its market share by 12.6% while Nvidia lost 6.2% of market share.

http://jonpeddie.com/publications/add-in-board-report/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top