Astounding Year-to-Year Growth in PC Graphics

[scooterlibby]

GTS 250 beats a 5750? What? Maybe if cherry picking and looking at launch drivers.

Anything new shows the 5750 is clearly ahead with AA. And let's not even consider how much more of a % gain the 5750 can get from overclocking than a GTS 250 can. Oh I'll cede that the GTX 260 is generally a tiny bit faster than a 5770, but the 250 cannot match a 5750.

Newer drivers. Just compare the 5750 to 250. Generally the 5750 is slightly faster, besides a few exceptions of course.

http://techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_5670_1_GB/5.html
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_5670_1_GB/5.html

Mainly at higher res, the 5750 starts to walk away. I hope I don't have to prove to you that a 5750 will overclock higher.

Wait what does this have to do with VGA market share?

 

[crisium]

Wait what does this have to do with VGA market share?

A 5770 is generally slower than a GTX260 and the 5750 is slower than a GTS250
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/17747/1

It's okay I forgive you.

 

[akugami]

How many GPU accelerated PhysX games exist? Less than 10 games, how many DirectX 11 games are here already and in development? More than 20, not bad considering that PhysX has been in the market for more than 3 years and DirectX11 less than 4 months.

The only thing I would change is to say that DX11 has been in the hands of developers longer than 4 months. I might be wrong but I believe that the final version of the development tools for DX11 was released in August '09.

There should be no question that DX11 will be more widely adopted than GPU accelerated PhysX in three. Granted there are many games that use software PhysX but if we're doing that then Havok has an equally impressive list compared to PhysX.

LOL so you use "in development" for DX11 to boost the numbers.

Only 2 available, one a patch.

Is that any different from your many previous posts with iPhone and console games to boost numbers for PhysX? Especially when you were talking up the virtues of GPU accelerated PhysX? No.

And it hasn't stopped you from listing GPU PhysX games and not label it seperately as a "patched" GPU PhysX game. I mean, Batman gets hyped to heck and back for GPU PhysX. Let's put a separate category for it and not call it a real GPU PhysX game. It's a game that was patched to allow GPU PhysX. If we were to do that, the list of GPU PhysX games would probably drop to zero.



But all this has nothing to do with GPU market share.

Fact is AMD has lately stopped sucking on the high end and are competitive once again. They actually have strong high end products and don't have to rely purely on pricing to move video cards. Their market share and revenues of the past two years shows positive signs and hopefully the bleeding has stopped so we can have two healthy competitors.

There are also developments in the PC market from both Intel and AMD that would drop nVidia's integrated GPU sales down to minuscule levels. Yes, I'm talking about the on die GPU's which the OP's linked article calls CIG's or CPU-Integrated Graphics. That has got to have nVidia very worried. The article even notes that "...we will see a rapid decline in shipments of traditional chip-set graphics or IGPs (integrated graphics processors)."

But don't take this to mean that nVidia is done for. They are still a very strong GPU company. It's just that their market share may shrink drastically due to integrated GPU sales being pretty much gone. Assuming they retain their discrete GPU share, they should still be healthy. nVidia also has Tegra and I'm a firm believer that the ARM based devices have the chance to be as big as the x86 systems are now.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

/in

Lol funny seeing the OP derail his own thread

/out

 

[GaiaHunter]

I don't understand why -- nVidia lost more over-all share than AMD but gained in discrete marketshare according to JPR. The reason why this may be surprising to some is based on ATI's new 5XXX line of GPU's but it's obvious that volume was the reason -- not the quality of product.

They say NVIDIA picked up overall share and then the overall share numbers of NVIDIA are lower now than in the previous quarter - that is what doesn't compute.

And even though they lost market share their revenues and income were quite higher.

 

[Shilohen]

They say NVIDIA picked up overall share and then the overall share numbers of NVIDIA are lower now than in the previous quarter - that is what doesn't compute.

And even though they lost market share their revenues and income were quite higher.

It's computable if the market share loss in the IGP field was so heavy that it completely erased their discrete card gain and more.

As for AMD, they did have supply issues and the full line was not out yet. Current quarter should show better number as the mainstream market card will be out and in stock. Fermi won't be there in quantity till next quarter. So, for now, we can say the low 58xx supply didn't help AMD gain discrete GPU market shares, nor the 57xx, but we cannot talk much about the whole 5xxx family.

 

[GaiaHunter]

It's computable if the market share loss in the IGP field was so heavy that it completely erased their discrete card gain and more.

As for AMD, they did have supply issues and the full line was not out yet. Current quarter should show better number as the mainstream market card will be out and in stock. Fermi won't be there in quantity till next quarter. So, for now, we can say the low 58xx supply didn't help AMD gain discrete GPU market shares, nor the 57xx, but we cannot talk much about the whole 5xxx family.

OVERALL! OVERALL!

I'm not saying they didn't get more discrete!

THE ARTICLE SAYS OVERALL INCREASE! BUT SHOWS OVERALL DECREASE NUMBERS!

OVERALL ISN'T DISCRETE OK?

From the article:

Nvidia picked up a little share overall.

See? Overall!

And then goes:

Nvidia’s increases came primarily in desktop discretes, while slipping in desktop and notebook integrated.

See?

I'm not saying that NVIDIA didn't get more discrete market share! I'm saying the article says they got more OVERALL (OVERALL ISN'T DISCRETE) AND THE NUMBERS SHOW LESS OVERALL MARKET SHARE! (25.3%->24.3% Market share from 3Q09 to 4Q09 and Yearly decrease from 30.6% ->24.3%)

So EITHER ITS MORE OVERALL OR LESS OVERALL - CAN'T be both at the same time.

 

[v8envy]

They say NVIDIA picked up overall share and then the overall share numbers of NVIDIA are lower now than in the previous quarter - that is what doesn't compute.

And even though they lost market share their revenues and income were quite higher.

This makes sense if market share is in terms of units shipped, not revenues. Intel can grow market share relative to AMD and NV with integrated graphics, but if NV and AMD sell add-on parts (higher ASP but drastically fewer of them compared to the sea of integrated) they can still grow their revenue and income.

An example of this would be a user buying a machine with an i3 AND a gaming capable GPUs in the same quarter. Previously that user may not have opted for an integrated graphics chip at all, but now they don't get that choice.

 

[GaiaHunter]

This makes sense if market share is in terms of units shipped, not revenues. Intel can grow market share relative to AMD and NV with integrated graphics, but if NV and AMD sell add-on parts (higher ASP but drastically fewer of them compared to the sea of integrated) they can still grow their revenue and income.

An example of this would be a user buying a machine with an i3 AND a gaming capable GPUs in the same quarter. Previously that user may not have opted for an integrated graphics chip at all, but now they don't get that choice.

Their tables show market share in units - they don't even have NVIDIA revenue numbers for the quarter- and growth in number of units too, not revenue.

I don't see why would they then analyse in terms of revenue.

 

[SirPauly]

They say NVIDIA picked up overall share and then the overall share numbers of NVIDIA are lower now than in the previous quarter - that is what doesn't compute.

And even though they lost market share their revenues and income were quite higher.

I read that as the context of picking up a little share when it came to mobile and desktop discrete with most of their share gain coming from desktop discrete. But, there is wiggle room based on not clear wording.

 

[Shilohen]

So EITHER ITS MORE OVERALL OR LESS OVERALL - CAN'T be both at the same time.

True, at least in common logic.

If you don't believe in irrational numbers then you must accept the fact that a number can be both odd and even, so maybe you can be more and less at the same time?

Another option might be that nVidia numbers are like quantum state and cannot really be determined without observing it, thus altering it. So, while not measured, it's both more and less and, once measured, it's either more or less, but since the measure modified its state, maybe it was still the other value in its original state so it still have both state? :hmm:

Ok, I digress, I see your point, the article's author must simply have had a brain fart.


Regards

 

[GaiaHunter]

Ok, I digress, I see your point, the article's author must simply have had a brain fart.


Regards

I was just getting pissed cause it didn't really mattered and people kept picking at that shit and I just really started with that to get into the conversation where my point was that AMD seemed to have been selling more expensive parts to go up in revenues by 40% while losing discrete market share on both notebooks and desktops.

Sorry if I sounded aggressive.