Does Nvidia choose not to compete on price?

[Ferzerp]

If anything I'd say that graph goes against your intended purpose. While I don't place much faith in the Steam Hardware Survey, there's at least a trend there from Feb 2011 to July 2012 that can be followed. It looks like AMD might have lost a few percentage points (from 38-39% to 35-36%) due to the increase in Intel and other GPU products (and is that better detection or an actual market shift?). However, NVIDIA seems to have gone from a 58-60% share down to 46%.

In general I think the market is getting more dynamic due to the increased competition, so things are bound to get shaken up.

I don't really agree. It's a good cross section of gaming, it *will* have the mix of both discrete and igpu in it, but only those which people game with. The loss for nvidia and amd in the past few months all seem to have come at the expense of intel, which we know are 100% igpu scores. However, I suspect that part of that is because of the way virtu reports which gpu is being used (correct me if I'm wrong).

Once we strip out the intel data we have nvidia (discrete, used for gaming) and amd (both discrete and igpu, but only used for gaming). It shows a few things. There are more nvidia cards surveyed than both ingtegrated and discrete amd gpus. Also, AMD is losing share, suggesting that if their igpu strategy is working at all, it is only at the expense of their own discrete parts.

You can discount the steam hardware survey all you want, but it is a very good indicator for the exact market thay nvidia targets (those that game). If you doubt the sample size, I just have to give you this link.... http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ That's concurrent, not total.

 

[Anarchist420]

NV driver reputation (fair or not), Adaptive VSync, GPU Boost, developer relations/TWIMTBP, CUDA, PhysX, the fact that Kepler cards are shorter and less power hungry so they work with smaller cases and PSUs, etc. And some people prefer NV and look down on AMD. All of those factors and more allow NV to charge more.

Agreed for the most part. Nv's dev relations and their general rasterizatiom quality are better too. AMD over-gammas blue and their depth calculations look terrible compared to those of nvidia. If their trilinear mapping levels/texture LOD calculation looks as good on the 7990, then I may buy a 7990 after I buy an nv dx11.1 gpu, because nvidia's DP performance wouldn't allow for playable frame rates in games that will use it in the future and because AMD has Gaming Evolved which will sponsor the next tomb raider... I would be switching between drivers but windows allows that and it isn't really a PITA to me.

That said, I don't buy nvidia based upon brand recoginition at all, its just that they haven't over gammed blue, their mipmapping at least used to be better, and they had better dev relations plus the fact that just cause 2 only has water simulation on nv GPUs and physx makes a difference for some games that use it.

 

[Gunbuster]

Nvidia is marketing better.

Just look at the latest game pack in promotion. NV has Borderlands 2 while AMD is promoting Nexiuz on facebook (didn't I see that for $5 last week on steam?)

 

[bunnyfubbles]

people were asking the same thing of AMD for far too long after nVidia released the 680 and 670 when the 7900s continued on with their $549 and $449 MSRPs

its only now, after the 660Ti release, that we're finally seeing AMD coming out with some serious price cuts that finally start to put pressure on nVidia

as soon as AMD starts to reap the reward of their current superior price/performance advantage and nVidia sales start to decline, I'm sure we'll see the same from nVidia. It took a while but we might finally have the beginnings of our price war.

 

[MrK6]

I don't really agree. It's a good cross section of gaming, it *will* have the mix of both discrete and igpu in it, but only those which people game with. The loss for nvidia and amd in the past few months all seem to have come at the expense of intel, which we know are 100% igpu scores. However, I suspect that part of that is because of the way virtu reports which gpu is being used (correct me if I'm wrong).

You have to be more specific in your interpretation and presentation of the data if you want to make a valid point. As I already stated, it's clear that NVIDIA lost over 5x more marketshare compared to AMD over the last ~18 months. Virtu simply does not have the market interpretation to account for that loss, nor would it report NVIDIA cards "unfairly" compared to AMD. The point is that NVIDIA proportionally lost a lot more marketshare than AMD over this time period. The exact implications of this and how it reflects market trends are difficult to interpret because of the vague way the SHS is reported (again, one of the many reasons I don't think it's a good resource to reference). However, at the very least, you can assume methods remained consistent and can that somewhat validates the trend (although again, it's an assumption). In either case, none of it agrees with what you stated.

Once we strip out the intel data we have nvidia (discrete, used for gaming) and amd (both discrete and igpu, but only used for gaming). It shows a few things. There are more nvidia cards surveyed than both ingtegrated and discrete amd gpus. Also, AMD is losing share, suggesting that if their igpu strategy is working at all, it is only at the expense of their own discrete parts.

This is a completely unfounded assumption. Again, NVIDIA lost over 5x the marketshare AMD did over this period. It's true NVIDIA has pulled out of the iGPU market, but their losses would only be registered on Steam as they are replaced by new Intel and AMD iGPU's. It's possible that could account for their dramatic loss of marketshare. I'm not sure how AMD's loss of ~2% marketshare is definite evidence in your opinion that their iGPU strategy isn't working, but NVIDIA's loss of ~14% marketshare is not noteworthy. Please comment on this.

You can discount the steam hardware survey all you want, but it is a very good indicator for the exact market thay nvidia targets (those that game). If you doubt the sample size, I just have to give you this link.... http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ That's concurrent, not total.

Where does it say anywhere there what the sample size is for the SHS? Linking to daily Steam user statistics shows Steam usage, nowhere is there stating how many of them are being polled for the hardware survey. Again, a lot of your points are based on gross assumptions without appreciation for the data or how statistics function in general.

 

[96Firebird]

Again, NVIDIA lost over 5x the marketshare AMD did over this period.

Marketshare of what? Can't say discrete GPUs, as AMD's numbers are bundled with iGPU. I guess you can say display GPU, but that really adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I would really like to know how Nvidia is supply constrained, but AMD is not. AMD sells TSMC minted products across the spectrum, from CPU's to GPU's low to high end.

The only thing I can think of is AMD has a better handle on process tech than Nvidia.

 

[96Firebird]

AMD sells TSMC minted products across the spectrum, from CPU's to GPU's low to high end.

You don't think that has anything to do with it?

TSMC has to ask themselves, which customer do we keep happy? The one who produces a vast spectrum of chips, or the company that only needs so many a year?

 

[chimaxi83]

You don't think that has anything to do with it?

TSMC has to ask themselves, which customer do we keep happy? The one who produces a vast spectrum of chips, or the company that only needs so many a year?

Yea, as long as it's not Nvidia's own fault, right?

 

[96Firebird]

Yea, as long as it's not Nvidia's own fault, right?

If that's what you got out of my post, I feel sorry for you... :\

 

[MrK6]

Marketshare of what? Can't say discrete GPUs, as AMD's numbers are bundled with iGPU. I guess you can say display GPU, but that really adds nothing to the discussion.

On what grounds does it add nothing to the discussion? Products they had sold were replaced by their competitors products; that's bad for a company, no matter what, and goes against the points Ferzerp was attempting to make.

 

[96Firebird]

The OP was about how Nvidia cards are priced higher than AMD cards at similar performance brackets. I fail to see how AMD's iGPU statistics relate. I guess you could say the iGPUs have brought down demand for Nvidia's cards, but that would then tell us they need to decrease their prices to make up for decrease in demand. No? I don't see that happening, something must be wrong here... :hmm:

 

[Ferzerp]

Where does it say anywhere there what the sample size is for the SHS? Linking to daily Steam user statistics shows Steam usage, nowhere is there stating how many of them are being polled for the hardware survey. Again, a lot of your points are based on gross assumptions without appreciation for the data or how statistics function in general.

That's a gross assumption without any appreciation for my knowledge of how data and statistics function in general.

You are welcome to provide a source that gives what you feel is a better sample set, but I can't really fathom one that is more representative of the discrete gaming card market than a survey of steam users.

Are you sure you just don't like the data and so you're attacking me?

 

[exar333]

Do we have to have threads like this every time either company has an obvious edge value wise? Nvidia's gtx460 had much better value than anything AMD had around it price wise when it was released, and Nvidia's gtx680 AND gtx670 had much better value than anything AMD had around it price was when they released.

It took AMD eight weeks to respond to gtx680 (and gtx670's) launch, and while they are historically slow to react (and were again), they probably wanted to wait out consumer reaction before adjusting prices. Since then they have been aggressively adjusting prices, but again it's probably in the face of slowing sales vs. Nvidia's lineup. JHH has said in their last two conference calls 28nm wafers continue to be supply constrained. If they're supply constrained, why in the world would they lower prices?

Prices will come down when supply exceeds sales.

This. We could have had this thread when the GTX 670 came out a few months ago. Gets old seeing these threads recycled over and over again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[SirPauly]

On what grounds does it add nothing to the discussion? Products they had sold were replaced by their competitors products; that's bad for a company, no matter what, and goes against the points Ferzerp was attempting to make.

Pretty tough to compete with x86 integrated considering nVidia doesn't have an x86 license, one may imagine. Products they had sold; the revenue is being replaced by growth with mobile discrete -- and mobile device revenue, one may imagine.

 

[tviceman]

Products they had sold were replaced by their competitors products

That is one way of spinning it. Another angle to look at the same situation is to say Nvidia withdrew from iGPU, entered the mobile space, and is outselling AMD in that segment infinity to none.

 

[blackened23]

That is one way of spinning it. Another angle to look at the same situation is to say Nvidia withdrew from iGPU, entered the mobile space, and is outselling AMD in that segment infinity to none.

Are you referring to discrete mobile GPUs or tegra 3? Discrete mobile GPUs aren't big sellers. Nearly 95% of ultrabooks sold only have HD4000, with the exclusion of the 15 inch 2012 MBP/ rMBP which obviously includes the GTX 650m. That is why nvidias sales went up so sharply, the 2011 MBP had AMD hardware. Trust me - most people don't buy ultrabooks with discrete graphics. The only ultrabook that i'm aware of that has kepler discrete graphics is an acer ultrabook - and acer is junk IMHO. (Note: I am talking about _ULTRABOOKS_ and not laptops)

Although i'm not sure if you're referring to tegra 3 or kepler here. Aside from the rMBP discrete mobile graphics sell very little - however, the Apple contract (with retina MBP) is huge for nvidia at this time. That alone made their discrete mobile share go up a ton. Outside of the rMBP nearly every ultrabook on the planet does not have discrete graphics, and there are only 2 ultrabooks on the planet with discrete graphics (excluding the 15" MBP/rMBP)

Now as far as the Tegra 3 goes, nvidia made the right bet there in 2007 when they started development on Tegra. Too bad AMD didn't do anything similar.

 

[tviceman]

Are you referring to discrete mobile GPUs or tegra 3? Discrete mobile GPUs aren't big sellers. Nearly 95% of ultrabooks sold only have HD4000, with the exclusion of the 15 inch 2012 MBP/ rMBP which obviously includes the GTX 650m. That is why nvidias sales went up so sharply, the 2011 MBP had AMD hardware. Trust me - most people don't buy ultrabooks with discrete graphics. The only ultrabook that i'm aware of that has kepler discrete graphics is an acer ultrabook - and acer is junk IMHO. (Note: I am talking about _ULTRABOOKS_ and not laptops)

Although i'm not sure if you're referring to tegra 3 or kepler here. Aside from the rMBP discrete mobile graphics sell very little - however, the Apple contract (with retina MBP) is huge for nvidia at this time. That alone made their discrete mobile share go up a ton. Outside of the rMBP nearly every ultrabook on the planet does not have discrete graphics, and there are only 2 ultrabooks on the planet with discrete graphics (excluding the 15" MBP/rMBP)

Now as far as the Tegra 3 goes, nvidia made the right bet there in 2007 when they started development on Tegra. Too bad AMD didn't do anything similar.

Yes I was refering to Tegra. Mrk6 thought since Nvidia no longer competes in the iGPU space, but still thinks it relevant to factor that in when comparing Nvidia and AMD sales, I figured it would be just as relevant to count phone and tablet gpu's also - a market segment AMD has no products in.

 

[Silverforce11]

It is weird based solely on anandtheman's attemped trolling comment. That one flew over your head.

Who's to know when you didn't actually quote him.

 

[MrK6]

That's a gross assumption without any appreciation for my knowledge of how data and statistics function in general.

You are welcome to provide a source that gives what you feel is a better sample set, but I can't really fathom one that is more representative of the discrete gaming card market than a survey of steam users.

Are you sure you just don't like the data and so you're attacking me?

You provided that reference, the SHS, to back up your opinion. It doesn't, as I have shown. Therefore, that burden lies on you, not me.

That is one way of spinning it. Another angle to look at the same situation is to say Nvidia withdrew from iGPU, entered the mobile space, and is outselling AMD in that segment infinity to none.

There's no spin, that's exactly what happened. It's unfortunate you're so upset about it.

 

[Ferzerp]

You provided that reference, the SHS, to back up your opinion. It doesn't, as I have shown. Therefore, that burden lies on you, not me.

It's a strange, strange world where "nuh uh" constitutes "showing" anything.

I guess I'll respond in kind.

Uh huh.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I have no idea why it is considered thread crapping to bring up overall marketshare. The question is, why does Nvidia chose to not compete on price. The answer to that is obviously, they do. And the volume Nvidia moves in ALL sectors directly affects the price of desktop cards. If Nvidia only sold high end discrete and nothing else, they would not be able to get ROI sufficient to bankroll R&D for the next generation of GPU, the volume for them would not be there.

What Nvidia sells, top to bottom, in other worlds overall volume aka marketshare, affects the prices we pay for the desktop stuff. If you don't think so, do you think Nvidia's desktop prices would be different (not to mention the product itself) if Nvidia has 1% overall marketshare? What if they had 100%? Naturally what the market will bear has a large influence as well, but to say that Nvidia's share of GPU shipments in total has nothing to do with how they set desktop graphics prices is incorrect.

 

[tviceman]

Who's to know when you didn't actually quote him.

I did quote him http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33867429&postcount=42 it just keeps flying over your head.

 

[tviceman]

There's no spin, that's exactly what happened. It's unfortunate you're so upset about it.

Me mad bro? Nah I'm not bothered, and you're right. The marketshare shift has been so bad for Nvidia that AMD made a whopping seven dollars profit in the past year, while Nvidia had to stick to a paltry $700 million profit. And AMD's ever increasing presence in the mobile space is threatening Nvidia's only chance at survival.

 

[Silverforce11]

Do we have to have threads like this every time either company has an obvious edge value wise? Nvidia's gtx460 had much better value than anything AMD had around it price wise when it was released, and Nvidia's gtx680 AND gtx670 had much better value than anything AMD had around it price was when they released.

It took AMD eight weeks to respond to gtx680 (and gtx670's) launch, and while they are historically slow to react (and were again), they probably wanted to wait out consumer reaction before adjusting prices. Since then they have been aggressively adjusting prices, but again it's probably in the face of slowing sales vs. Nvidia's lineup. JHH has said in their last two conference calls 28nm wafers continue to be supply constrained. If they're supply constrained, why in the world would they lower prices?

Prices will come down when supply exceeds sales.

HI. Is this directed at Anandtheman? If it is, please excuse my response earlier. If it isn't, then you seem to have a problem with me personally.. in the future, please feel free to take it to PM rather than thread crap.