Astounding Year-to-Year Growth in PC Graphics

[Wreckage]

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...d=news_view&newsId=20100126005746&newsLang=en

Intel is still king of the integrated and NVIDIA gained markshare on the desktop. Strong numbers overall.

 

[lifeblood]

I'm sorry, I guess I'm reading it wrong but that's not what I'm seeing. Nvidia has lost overall marketshare (24.3% this year vs 30.6% last year) while Intel and AMD have both increased overall marketshare.

It does appear that Intel, ATI, & Nvidia have all increased the total number of units shipped, or am I reading that wrong?

Maybe I'm being a fanboy, but the Intel numbers really annoy me. They have traditionally shipped crap integrated GPU's and get away with it because they currently have they better CPU. I know it's capitalism, but it still is annoying.

 

[nitromullet]

I'm sorry, I guess I'm reading it wrong but that's not what I'm seeing. Nvidia has lost overall marketshare (24.3% this year vs 30.6% last year) while Intel and AMD have both increased overall marketshare.

It does appear that Intel, ATI, & Nvidia have all increased the total number of units shipped, or am I reading that wrong?

I'm reading it the same way.

Maybe I'm being a fanboy, but the Intel numbers really annoy me. They have traditionally shipped crap integrated GPU's and get away with it because they currently have they better CPU. I know it's capitalism, but it still is annoying.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people who have Intel IGP don't even know what type of gpu they have and never miss any of the features it doesn't offer.

 

[Wreckage]

I'm sorry, I guess I'm reading it wrong but that's not what I'm seeing.

I was referring to the 4Q numbers. It seems that NVIDIA actually gained marketshare on AMD, despite the 5xxx series.

 

[Meghan54]

Maybe I'm being a fanboy, but the Intel numbers really annoy me. They have traditionally shipped crap integrated GPU's and get away with it because they currently have they better CPU. I know it's capitalism, but it still is annoying.

Why does it annoy you? Do you lose money to Intel's gpu sales? Probably not and is more likely the ever present childish "Hate Intel" fervor that seems so prevalent on hardware forums.

Think about this....the vast majority of computer users are not power users but instead like your grandmother....all the pc needs to do is boot up and work. Graphics is probably not even on their radar as a consideration in buying or using computers.

Discrete graphics cards, esp. the upper end ones, are such a niche product, you're going to have a long frustrating life if you keep focusing on things that don't matter....like how many integrated gpus Intel sells.

 

[Meghan54]

I was referring to the 4Q numbers. It seems that NVIDIA actually gained marketshare on AMD, despite the 5xxx series.

Sorry, I don't even see that.

Latest quarter....nvidia at 24.3%, AMD at 19.9%.
Previous quarter.....nvidia at 25.3% and AMD at 20.1%.

So to me, it looks like both nvidia and AMD lost market share but nvidia lost more than AMD----AMD lost 0.2% while nvidia lost 1%.

So how did nvidia eat into AMD again? (Pssst.....nvidia was listed as having a 10.2% of unit growth qtr-to-qtr while AMD had a 13.6% unit growth qtr-to-qtr. And AMD showed a year-to-year growth of 91.5%, compared to nivida's y-to-y growth of 47.3%. Looks to me AMD is the one growing faster.)

 

[Voo]

I was referring to the 4Q numbers. It seems that NVIDIA actually gained marketshare on AMD, despite the 5xxx series.

I still don't get it:

Q4 09: 24.3%
Q3 09: 25.3%
Q4 08: 30.6%

Where did they gain market share? Seems more like both ATI and Nvidia lost market share to Intel in the last quarter and compared to last year Intel won a quite large bulk from Nvidia, while Ati is more or less constant.

 

[happy medium]

I was referring to the 4Q numbers. It seems that NVIDIA actually gained marketshare on AMD, despite the 5xxx series.

I see what your saying.
All that fluff about how the 57/5800 series was selling so great and was gaining market share was mostly guessing it seems.

Numbers don't lie.

 

[Lonyo]

AMD gained in the notebook integrated segment, but lost some market share in discrete in both the desktop and notebook segments due to constraints in 40nm supply. Nvidia picked up a little share overall. Nvidia’s increases came primarily in desktop discretes, while slipping in desktop and notebook integrated.

Read the article instead of looking at the charts.

 

[iCyborg]

I could understand that desktop discretes increased, but overall numbers decreased (at least mathematically, it seems hard to believe that 5xxx is losing ground to nVidia...).
But the text above is still confusing as they also say "Nvidia picked up a little share overall."
What numbers are they looking at??

 

[SlowSpyder]

I see what your saying.
All that fluff about how the 57/5800 series was selling so great and was gaining market share was mostly guessing it seems.

Numbers don't lie.

While AMD may not have really changed how market share is divided with the 57xx/58xx cards, I have to think the average selling price has gone up for them. If you can keep idential market share but introduce parts that sell for more money and presumably more profit, that'd still be a very good thing I'd think.

 

[Lonyo]

I see what your saying.
All that fluff about how the 57/5800 series was selling so great and was gaining market share was mostly guessing it seems.

Numbers don't lie.

Numbers might not lie, but there's more to graphics cards than those priced $150 and above...
This says nothing about the composition of the share by market segment.
Certainly AMD don't seem to have done much to NV overall, but it still doesn't answer the question of HD5xxx vs NV.

40% revenue increase on 13.6% unit growth certainly hints at an increase in ASPs, which means that the HD5xxx likely made up a good proportion of their revenue.
Since NV hasn't reported its quarterly figures yet, a comparison can't be made, but revenue growth well above unit growth suggests that they did fairly well in the high end.

 

[v8envy]

Must admit, I only browsed the tables. Is this market share by revenue, units shipped or some normalized combination of the above? Desktop only or desktop + mobile?

Look for Intel's shipped GPU numbers to skyrocket, since every i3 now comes with an intel GPU whether you want it or not. I can see why they're hesitant to offer an i3 without the craptastic GPU. By the time LRB hits Intel will be able to show several hundred % growth in GPU market share, at least on slides.

 

[Lonyo]

Must admit, I only browsed the tables. Is this market share by revenue, units shipped or some normalized combination of the above? Desktop only or desktop + mobile?

Look for Intel's shipped GPU numbers to skyrocket, since every i3 now comes with an intel GPU whether you want it or not. I can see why they're hesitant to offer an i3 without the craptastic GPU. By the time LRB hits Intel will be able to show several hundred % growth in GPU market share, at least on slides.

Units shipped of IGP+discrete+on-die.
So if it's graphics, and it's in a personal computer, it's one unit, hence the massive Intel share.

Clarkdale counts as one unit.
A 780G motherboard is a unit.
A GT240 is a unit.

Also Intel's numbers won't skyrocket. Clarkdale numbers will replace their IGP numbers, so it will balance out.

http://jonpeddie.com/publications/integrated-graphics-processor-report/

 

[iCyborg]

What's the vertical axis on that graph?

 

[Wreckage]

Must admit, I only browsed the tables. Is this market share by revenue, units shipped or some normalized combination of the above? Desktop only or desktop + mobile?

All GPUs I believe (desktop, mobile, intergrated).

Look for Intel's shipped GPU numbers to skyrocket, since every i3 now comes with an intel GPU whether you want it or not. I can see why they're hesitant to offer an i3 without the craptastic GPU. By the time LRB hits Intel will be able to show several hundred % growth in GPU market share, at least on slides.

I'm only really interested in the discrete numbers (video cards). As these will have a more direct baring on the PC gaming market.

Either way it does seem that the economy has not hit computer geeks as hard as the rest. :biggrin:

 

[v8envy]

Either way it does seem that the economy has not hit computer geeks as hard as the rest. :biggrin:

Wouldn't go that far. Computer gaming is a very inexpensive hobby compared to many other entertainment choices.

I could say precisely the opposite -- the increase in leisure time combined with lower disposable income has driven this growth.

 

[faxon]

yea thats because we budget $$ aside for spending on high end discrete hardware that most consumers would otherwise spend on fancy food and other electronics. combine that with the fact that tech advancement has seemingly sped up a bit in the recession and you end up with enthusiasts using their upgrade budgets more often and during a time when the market was otherwise in a slump

 

[Lonyo]

What's the vertical axis on that graph?

I would assume it's graphics units sold in millions (on a quarterly basis).

 

[lifeblood]

Why does it annoy you? Do you lose money to Intel's gpu sales? Probably not and is more likely the ever present childish "Hate Intel" fervor that seems so prevalent on hardware forums.

If I am to believe Anandtech and other tech sites like it, the Intel GPU's do hurt me as a gamer. Many game companies program for the lowest common denominator, which is Intel graphics. Many features are left out because Intel graphics cannot support them. If Intel made better graphics, games would be overall better.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

If I am to believe Anandtech and other tech sites like it, the consoles do hurt me as a gamer. Many game companies program for the lowest common denominator, which are consoles. Many features are left out because consoles cannot support them. If consoles had better graphics, games would be overall better.

fixed

 

[Wreckage]

If I am to believe Anandtech and other tech sites like it, the Intel GPU's do hurt me as a gamer. Many game companies program for the lowest common denominator, which is Intel graphics. Many features are left out because Intel graphics cannot support them. If Intel made better graphics, games would be overall better.

Very few games are designed with Intel graphics in mind. If you read the system requirements for just about every graphic intense PC game, it will not even mention Intel. It will say NVIDIA or ATI xxxx or higher.

 

[PingviN]

If I am to believe Anandtech and other tech sites like it, the Intel GPU's do hurt me as a gamer. Many game companies program for the lowest common denominator, which is Intel graphics. Many features are left out because Intel graphics cannot support them. If Intel made better graphics, games would be overall better.

Intels integrated GPUs are merely there for showing a pretty picture on the screen. If you have an office, you don't need an IGP capable of gaming, decoding HD videos or any other fancy stuff. The Intel IGP can handle basic graphics, which is enough for enterprises - who buys a big bunch of computers. I'm not saying I like it, but AMD and (especially) Nvidia can't compete here since companies that use Intel will keep on using Intel as "Intel works" and AMD and Nvidia can't really break that trend. Even if AMD was to produce a superior CPU, Intel would still be king.

 

[ronnn]

Numbers don't lie.

You must know different accountants than myself. Will have to see a better breakdown and bottom line myself.

 

[Zstream]

Except, AMD will take the 0.1% from Matrox (eye infinity). SiS will eventually fall off in the next year or so. If Via starts to make a decent netbook CPU we could see larger increases in shipments Via/s3.