Discrete GPU marketshare numbers from JPR

[thilanliyan]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...e-market-for-discrete-graphics-solutions-from

Not sure where the original link is.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

So the vast majority of AMDs overall market share come from boards with integrated GPUs?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Odly enough does this fall close inline with Steam survey...depsite the whines about "sample size".

Thanks for the link, uselfull in future debates.

 

[railven]

Building a budget PC for someone who asked, I'm finding more bang from the AMD APUs frankly.

And whatever relations they have, Microcenter is offering Sonic Generations and Dirt 3 with the purchase of ANY A-series. That's a no brainer for someone who just wants a dirt cheap PC that can play "kids" games.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

So the vast majority of AMDs overall market share come from boards with integrated GPUs?

Yes. In a big part because of Llano and older/discounted notebooks with the HD 4250.

 

[RussianSensation]

But AMD's small die strategy is so much superior.
But AMD's cards' performance/watt is a critical factor for consumers who buy new GPUs
But AMD's cards' performance/mm2 is so important to consumers; how can most GPU buyers not care to pop their GPU heatsinks and compare efficiency in terms of performance/die size?
But NV's cards are overpriced in every price range. AMD has clearly been winning for 3 generation in a row.
But only NV fanboys care for PhysX, 3D Surround, native ambient occlusion and CUDA

AMD and NV both make fine cards. And yet, every new generation we have seen the points presented above many times on our forum. These arguments should be buried since they don't reflect reality. NV has been winning market share since Fermi, and making $ doing that too.

Contrary to popular belief, the small die strategy and leading performance/watt should have seen NV lose market share dramatically if the end consumer cared so much about those metrics. Clearly then some other factors are more important to consumers.

 

[Lonbjerg]

But AMD's small die strategy is so much superior
But AMD's cards' performance/watt matters so much when consumers buy a new GPUs
But AMD's cards' performance/mm2 is so important to consumers, what GPU buyer doesn't pop his/her GPU heatsink open to measure die size to brag how small it is?
But NV's cards are overpriced in every price range. AMD has clearly been winning for 3 generation in a row.
But only NV fanboys care for PhysX, 3D Surround, native ambient occlusion and CUDA

AMD and NV both make fine cards. And yet, every new generation we have seen the points presented above many times on our forum. These arguments should be buried since they don't reflect reality. NV has been winning market share since Fermi, and making $ doing that too.

Contrary to popular belief, small die strategy and leading performance/watt should have seen NV lose market share dramatically if the end consumer cared so much.

I beg to differ..that is only the view of a small but very vocal and fierce group...that makes far more noise than their numbers justify

 

[railven]

But AMD's small die strategy is so much superior
But AMD's cards' performance/watt matters so much when consumers buy a new GPUs
But AMD's cards' performance/mm2 is so important to consumers, what GPU buyer doesn't pop his/her GPU heatsink open to measure die size to brag how small it is?
But NV's cards are overpriced in every price range. AMD has clearly been winning for 3 generation in a row.
But only NV fanboys care for PhysX, 3D Surround, native ambient occlusion and CUDA

AMD and NV both make fine cards. And yet, every new generation we have seen the points presented above many times on our forum. These arguments should be buried since they don't reflect reality. NV has been winning market share since Fermi, and making $ doing that too.

Contrary to popular belief, small die strategy and leading performance/watt should have seen NV lose market share dramatically if the end consumer cared so much.

Welp, this thread is going to go down the crapper now. Checking out before the flame wars. GL guys!

For the record: perf/watt matters to me

 

[blackened23]

But AMD's small die strategy is so much superior.
But AMD's cards' performance/watt is a critical factor for consumers who buy new GPUs
But AMD's cards' performance/mm2 is so important to consumers; how can most GPU buyers not care to pop their GPU heatsinks and compare efficiency in terms of performance/die size?
But NV's cards are overpriced in every price range. AMD has clearly been winning for 3 generation in a row.
But only NV fanboys care for PhysX, 3D Surround, native ambient occlusion and CUDA

AMD and NV both make fine cards. And yet, every new generation we have seen the points presented above many times on our forum. These arguments should be buried since they don't reflect reality. NV has been winning market share since Fermi, and making $ doing that too.

Contrary to popular belief, the small die strategy and leading performance/watt should have seen NV lose market share dramatically if the end consumer cared so much about those metrics. Clearly then some other factors are more important to consumers.

Enthusiasts like us don't care about those metrics, PC builders and "normal" customers do. This is why AMD had far more contracts with PC builders such as dell, apple, among others - AMD killed nvidia in this respect. Dell doesn't want to put a PSU in a XPS system that is a large form factor or greater than 400W - AMD allows them to do this, many NV cards do not. Discrete AIBs is also the only market which nvidia can sell to, they are locked out of the x86 market and cannot develop APUs or iGPUs. So they have to branch out with tegra 3 or die - because discrete sales are going down and going down fast (just like PC sales) So far their GPU business is doing well, and it had damn well better because discrete sales and new PC sales are a sinking boat right now.

 

[SirPauly]

And how exactly is AMD going to garner share away from nVidia? By raising prices 50 percent?

 

[OCGuy]

Any now Intel is going to catch them as far as integrated goes. Really not a great time for AMD.

@Russian - You hit the nail on the head.

 

[railven]

And how exactly is AMD going to garner share away from nVidia? By raising prices 50 percent?

Same way they did with the HD 58xx launch.

Doesn't mean they'll keep it, which is evident.

Go Premiums!

 

[GaiaHunter]

OMG!!!

AMD lost market share on discrete GPUs when basically they replaced all their bottom end for APUs?

What a surprise!!!

 

[boxleitnerb]

Well, there is an explanation for it: brand recognition. Geforce is still a stronger brand than Radeon. The reasons behind that may be ancient or not valid or whatever, but I think this is the reason that Nvidia is doing so well.

 

[RussianSensation]

For the record: perf/watt matters to me

It is important, but not as dramatic in the way it is often presented. At any opportunity, instead of discussing features that a gamer may want in a game or if a particular game performs better on one brand or another, the discussion bypasses straight to performance/watt. Is performance per watt more important than PhysX, 3D surround, SSAA support in older games, native Ambient occlusion? Maybe, but we ought to ask first. A lot of gamers buy new GPUs to improve their visual gaming experience and the market forces are showing that while performance/watt matters, it might not be that important.

I think we should revisit the big picture. If someone asks us what videocard is better for them and they play Alan Wake and Serious Sam 3 all day, we shouldn't hesitate to recommend AMD cards even if in "overall" performance there could be some other better NV card for the $. If someone plays BF3 with MSAA 5 hours/day, we shouldn't hesitate to recommend Fermi cards even if there is some other AMD card that's better "overall". Instead, often everything resorts to arguments and measurements of performance/watt, die sizes and other metrics are brought into discussions that aren't helping people buy hardware that ensures the best gameplay experience for their needs.

If die sizes and performance/watt were as important as claimed on AT's forums, how is NV still winning market share? AMD has been leading in both of those metrics since at least September 2009.

 

[blackened23]

And how exactly is AMD going to garner share away from nVidia? By raising prices 50 percent?

I don't think they care, discrete GPUs is a dying market. Just look at the overall sales figures for the entire market, dell PC sales were down 40% this year in the EU and discrete sales sucked.

That is why both companies branched out, the writing is on the wall. Discrete sales will be irrelevant in a few years.

 

[tviceman]

This confirms what people either already knew or were in denial about. AMD has crappy marketing and Nvidia has built very strong brand recognition. If Nvidia is able to execute 28nm better than how the fared on 40nm, then I think they can hit >65% market share in quarterly reports.

 

[SirPauly]

Same way they did with the HD 58xx launch.

The MSRP for the HD4870 was 299 dollars - the MSRP for the 5870 was 379. -- the MSRP for the 6970 was 369 -- the MSRP for the HD 7970 was 549.

If one just uses street pricing for the HD 4890 is more spin than substance.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I beg to differ..that is only the view of a small but very vocal and fierce group...that makes far more noise than their numbers justify

It matters to SMART consumers, which are less than 10% of the population.

So yes, to people that are intelligent, it matters. Simply because something is more popular doesn't make it better.

 

[SirPauly]

Well, there is an explanation for it: brand recognition. Geforce is still a stronger brand than Radeon. The reasons behind that may be ancient or not valid or whatever, but I think this is the reason that Nvidia is doing so well.

And what does this brand mean to some? To me it translates into their pro-active nature.

 

[railven]

It is important, but not as dramatic in the way as it is often presented. At any opportunity, instead of discussing features that a gamer may want in a game or if a particular game performs better on one brand or another, the discussion bypasses straight to performance/watt. Performance per watt is more important than PhysX, 3D surround, SSAA support in older games, native Ambient occlusion? People buy games to improve their visual gaming experience and the market forces are showing that while performance/watt matters, it might not be that important.

I buy parts to play games. As far as I know, I have all those features in my Rig and I didn't have to pay for a GeForce card.

I only care about Perf/Watt due to heat and electricity tiers in my neck of the woods.

The MSRP for the HD4870 was 299 dollars - the MSRP for the 5870 was 379. -- the MSRP for the 6970 was 369 -- the MSRP for the HD 7970 was 549.

If one just uses street pricing for the HD 4890 is more spin than substance.

Nice edit, and how is that spin? HD 5870 replaced HD 4890? Oh wait, not according to you. At least you set the goalposts this time first

I'd personally use the MSRP for the HD 4890 - since, you know HD 5870 did replace it

 

[boxleitnerb]

And what does this brand mean to some? To me it translates into their pro-active nature.

That if a normal guy that doesn't know much about computers or graphics cards goes into a shop he usually buys (or wants to buy) a Geforce. It is the first thing that comes to mind when someone mentions the term "graphics card" to him. He himself probably doesn't know anything or very very little, but some friends told him and their friends told them etc. and it goes on like this until you reach us "freaks" that promote Nvidias features and pro-active nature and what not in the forums. Or that complain about ATIs drivers from years ago. Or complain about Crossfire (which may not even be relevant to the guy).

 

[Grooveriding]

It is important, but not as dramatic in the way as it is often presented. At any opportunity, instead of discussing features that a gamer may want in a game or if a particular game performs better on one brand or another, the discussion bypasses straight to performance/watt. Performance per watt is more important than PhysX, 3D surround, SSAA support in older games, native Ambient occlusion? People buy games to improve their visual gaming experience and the market forces are showing that while performance/watt matters, it might not be that important.

I think we revisit the big picture. If someone asks us what videocard is better for them and they play Alan Wake and Serious Sam 3 all day, we should recommend AMD cards. If someone plays BF3 with MSAA, we shouldn't hesitate to recommend Fermi cards. Instead, often everything resorts to arguments and measurements of performance/watt, die sizes and other metrics are brought into discussions that aren't helping people buy hardware that ensures the best gameplay experience for their needs.

Numbers speak for themselves, but the reasons they are what they are is subjective and going to rely on opinion not much fact. I think the second bold is of course most accurate, recommendations based on what is appropriate for what someone is looking for, not your brand preference.

I found it interesting that only 3,000,000 out of the 68,000,000 discrete cards sold were priced at $300 and above. I knew that bracket was the minority, but didn't know the arguably high end (I tend to think $450+ is a high end card) only accounts for about 4% of the market. That's a whole lot of GTX 550s/560s and 6850s/6870s and way down the line to HTPC cards.

edit: I also noticed these numbers include workstation cards ? We know nvidia dominates there, so that gives them a nice edge, but in relation to $300+ cards, that makes it even muddier with those cards costing in excess of $1000+ and having nothing to do with gamers and what they are putting in their system. I'd like the numbers for $150-$600 cards only, to get an idea of how popular PC gaming still is. I think that price bracket would almost entirely encompass gamers.

It makes even more sense to me seeing $500 7970s now, considering the $300+ price point cards are only 4% of the market. Wish I knew what $500+ cards account for... 2% ? 1%?

Pricing such a small segment of the market lower isn't really smart, it looks like that is a segment of buyers that will buy $500 cards regardless - and paying less would just be a welcomed bonus, but not necessary to get them to open their wallets.

 

[-Slacker-]

This isn't surprising. AMD/ATI can only compete with nvidia on equal footing if they have far superior products in some respect i.e. the insanely cheap 4000 series, or the 6 months ahead of the competitor 5000 series. I'm starting to believe that the way the 7000 series has been priced is a mistake on AMD's part. It's fairly obvious that they can't/shouldn't price their gpus even close to the way nvidia does. They have a much weaker brand recognition.

Here's a perfect example: How many times have you heard asking for a video card recommendation, but would point out that they wouldn't consider AMD/ATI products? How many times have you seen people ask for AMD/ATI-only recommendations? Exactly.

cue to the cynical replies with half a dozen rolleyes emoticons saying I only have anecdotal evidence or some crap

 

[BallaTheFeared]

This thread...

Also it's good to know I'm in the 90% bracket.