JPR - AMD GPUs Up Double Digits, Intel Up, Nvidia Down (AMD Mobile Skyrocket 30%)

[Mand]

Combining discrete graphics and integrated graphics into one number never makes sense to me.

 

[NTMBK]

Combining discrete graphics and integrated graphics into one number never makes sense to me.

The whole ranking is a bit weird to be honest. It includes Intel and AMD's SoCs, but not NVidia's- despite the fact that Windows and ARM tablets are competing in the same market. To be honest the overall headline number is pretty useless, and breaking it down into segments is the only way to make sense of it.

 

[f1sherman]

Combining discrete graphics and integrated graphics into one number never makes sense to me.

Great numbers for AMD, bad numbers for NV.
Yet lousy financial quarter for AMD and great for NVIDIA is what's bugging me... a little.

Somewhat explainable by AMD's previous quarter lousy market share, and this being just a rebound.
Also other businesses, CPU, lower margins etc; but AMD didn't post great GPU financial results either.

 

[Stuka87]

No, iGPUs are not marching. nVidia's GPU business is bigger than AMD's CPU business - revenue and margins.

uhh...

You do realize Intel makes iGPU's as well? And that their performance has been jumping up to nearly match what AMD's iGPU's can do? Which means nVidia will soon have zero low end market share. No OEM is going to put in a discrete card when the iGPU matches its performance.

AMD and Intel will effectively squeeze out nVidia on the low end, and will slow start to on the mid range as well. Especially with GPU's being stuck on 28nm.

 

[MrK6]

uhh...

You do realize Intel makes iGPU's as well? And that their performance has been jumping up to nearly match what AMD's iGPU's can do? Which means nVidia will soon have zero low end market share. No OEM is going to put in a discrete card when the iGPU matches its performance.

AMD and Intel will effectively squeeze out nVidia on the low end, and will slow start to on the mid range as well. Especially with GPU's being stuck on 28nm.

Exactly. This has been the case for years, anyone who said otherwise is an idiot.

Infraction issued for personal attack.
-- stahlhart

 

[tviceman]

So quickly translated:

IGPs keep marching on while eroding discrete volume.

Discrete graphics FO' LIFE.

 

[sontin]

uhh...

You do realize Intel makes iGPU's as well? And that their performance has been jumping up to nearly match what AMD's iGPU's can do? Which means nVidia will soon have zero low end market share. No OEM is going to put in a discrete card when the iGPU matches its performance.

AMD and Intel will effectively squeeze out nVidia on the low end, and will slow start to on the mid range as well. Especially with GPU's being stuck on 28nm.

nVidia's Q2 was their best in history.

AMD's CPU business hit a nearly all-time low.

Which is the company selling iGPUs in the x86 market?:hmm:

 

[Mand]

So, something that could help explain the numbers, because right now I don't see how they add up:

Does this also include Xbox One and PS4 sales as AMD GPUs?

 

[ShintaiDK]

So, something that could help explain the numbers, because right now I don't see how they add up:

Does this also include Xbox One and PS4 sales as AMD GPUs?

In short, it only applies to PC sales.

So no Baytrail (tablet or all?) CPUs, no Tegra, no console APUs etc.

 

[ocre]

No, iGPUs are not marching. nVidia's GPU business is bigger than AMD's CPU business - revenue and margins.

Nvidia is not bigger than AMD (in the PC market). They may make more profits, sure. These results show clearly that AMD as a whole sells more graphics chips in the PC market than nvidia. Amd igp, apu, and dgpu is higher in volume than nvidia dgpus.

Now this is kind of important because its very clear once you throw in Intel, who only sells igps. The igp market is likely 3 fold larger. And yr over yr, Q over Q, Intel is gaining. Igp is marching.

There is simply no way for dgpu to catch up now since nearly every system with a dgpu also gets a count in the igp per Jon peddie methods. So even gaming laptops and desktops which use dgpu as primary video will most likely have an igp and Jon peddie counts both of these in their overall graphics report. Anytime there is a boom in PC sales, or an increase the dgpu stands to loose.....unless every single PC in the boom is gaming/dgpu oriented but in this unlikely case the dgpu can only hold on to its market share. Those systems count as an igp as well. So its a loosing battle.

It kinda skews the appearance. Right now over 30% of PCs are using dgpu, this is a large portion and in the history of the PC, its very very respectable. But the Jon peddie report kind of buries that. Its because just about every dgpu system also counts another igp in the overall graphics market.

So dgpu is still very popular as well as PC gaming. But igps are marching and there is noi thing that can slow this down..
Unless Intel and and stop embedding graphics on their CPUs. Any time their is an uptick in PCs, Igps have no choice but to march on.

As for gaming, dgpus are still highly preferred. But the days of crap dgpus just for video output, they are gone. Igps have made them obsolete

 

[blackened23]

So, something that could help explain the numbers, because right now I don't see how they add up:

Does this also include Xbox One and PS4 sales as AMD GPUs?

JPR releases all graphics share first and usually a week later will release discrete graphics share. NV had a record setting Q2 but I don't know how that plays out for discrete share. AMD's Q2 was in the red by 55 million. I don't know. AMD sells integrated graphics and nvidia obviously doesn't, so they're bound to have lower share overall when APUs and iGPU are included. I don't think any gamer sees intel with 67% market share and pays attention to that.

Just wait a week and JPR will release discrete GPU only graphics share with all integrated graphics excluded. As of Q1, NV was 66% with AMD at 34%. I don't know what the current would be, as JPR has not released discrete only share - they will have fancy charts and all that nonsense detailing market share with APUs and iGPU excluded. So your question will be answered then. And no, does not include XB1 / PS4 sales. I wouldn't think, but if it did, that would explain things. That would be stupid if they did include them. But I really don't think JPR would include that. I mean.....that would be very stupid.

 

[sontin]

Nvidia is not bigger than AMD (in the PC market). They may make more profits, sure. These results show clearly that AMD as a whole sells more graphics chips in the PC market than nvidia. Amd igp, apu, and dgpu is higher in volume than nvidia dgpus.

That is not true at all.
Without the console deals nVidia's GPU business is nearly as big as AMD's whole GPU and CPU business.

 

[ams23]

This thread headline is a little misleading, because on a Year-to-year basis, the only company that gained market share was Intel, while the company that lost the most market share was AMD!

According to Jon Peddie Research:

Year-to-year this quarter AMD’s overall PC shipments decreased 22%, Intel increased 4.2%, Nvidia decreased 12.7%, and others essentially went away.

Market share for this quarter last year vs. this year:
Amd: 21.9% --> 17.9%
Intel: 61.7% --> 67.3%
NVIDIA: 16.2% --> 14.7%

 

[Rezist]

I feel pretty soon that discrete GPU's in laptops will only be in the 1200$+ segment.

 

[Enigmoid]

I feel pretty soon that discrete GPU's in laptops will only be in the 1200$+ segment.

Possibly. Though the questions remains: So what? If an igp can provide sufficient performance do you need a dgpu?

 

[RussianSensation]

Market share for this quarter last year vs. this year:
Amd: 21.9% --> 17.9%
Intel: 61.7% --> 67.3%
NVIDIA: 16.2% --> 14.7%

Right so for every R9 290X and GTX780Ti system sold, someone hypothetically buys an i5/i7 to pair them with. All of a sudden Intel gains 2 "GPU" sales while AMD only 1 and NV only 1. However, since the Intel's IGP won't be used for games by this gamer, Intel should have gained 0% market share. In other words, looking at overall market share for AMD/NV/Intel incorrectly skews the statistics in favour of Intel. Using this method, fast forward and AMD and NV will have 1% market share while Intel will have 99%. Just because my desktop and my laptop have Intel graphics doesn't mean I'll ever use them for games, yet my 2 systems gave Intel market share that shouldn't count. Or for example double counting AMD's market share from the A8-7850K APU + R9 270 when the gamer will ONLY use the 270 for games. That's why I only look at discrete GPU sales.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It doesnt change the numbers anyway in the terms of the trend. Its quite clear what happens and its not in favour of discrete GPUs.

 

[AtenRa]

Like it or not this is graphics chip shipments and suppliers’ market share for 2014 2Q. It is not about gaming GPUs. So Intel sold the most graphics chips no matter if not all of them are being used or not.

 

[positivedoppler]

AMD said in their Q2 numbers that the GPU business was down from Q1. So i guess they are selling these mobile parts for nearly no profit and with a very low ASP.

Both AMD and Nvidia sold far less discrete GPUs mainly due to the hangover of an excessive Q1 coin mining sales. There was a build up of inventory during the 2nd quarter and a whole bunch of AMD cards were hitting the used market as miners were dumping their cards.

There were a few articles on this but basically OEMs approached AMD and Nvidia to lower their price and both refused and allowed sales of dgpu to drop. Probably a good business decision in the long run. End result was AMD missed a highly hyped Q2 earning while Nvidia with a more diverse portfolio was more immune.

 

[AtenRa]

It doesnt change the numbers anyway in the terms of the trend. Its quite clear what happens and its not in favour of discrete GPUs.

Lets take Haswell, all those Celerons and Pentiums with low end HD Intel graphics. In one two years lots of them will need to upgrade their GPUs.
Guess what, they will use a sub $100 dGPU. Even todays sub $100 GPUs are way faster than those Intel HD graphics not to mention 20-16nm FF entry level dGPUs in two years time.

 

[positivedoppler]

It doesnt change the numbers anyway in the terms of the trend. Its quite clear what happens and its not in favour of discrete GPUs.

I wouldn't say that just yet. You'll have to let impact of used miner cards subside before you can confidently make that call.

I believe there will still be an increasing demand for discrete GPUs. Things like 4k and possibly virtual reality can fuel consumer demand. What might put a stop to this whole thing though is if AMD and Nvidia can't put a cork on this power escalation. 100 to 200 to 300 and now 500 watts is not an acceptable mass consumer solution unless startrek like hologram rooms because the next big thing.

 

[ocre]

That is not true at all.
Without the console deals nVidia's GPU business is nearly as big as AMD's whole GPU and CPU business.

So nvidia gpu is nearly as big or is it bigger like u just claimed 2 post ago. So u are saying you were correct last timw by changing you stance this tine?
Haha, funny so funny

This report that just came out says clearly AMD sells more chips that have graphics than nvidia. Its there in front of you yet your trying to deny it?

When you add up all their apus, dgpus, and igps AMD shipped about 18% of all graphic chips in the pc market. Nvidia was less than 15%.

 

[gdansk]

nVidia's Q2 was their best in history.

AMD's CPU business hit a nearly all-time low.

Which is the company selling iGPUs in the x86 market?:hmm:

Does not AMD separate APU sales into separate category, such that CPU are simply units without an integrated graphics (ie opteron, fx).

 

[TrulyUncouth]

That is not true at all.
Without the console deals nVidia's GPU business is nearly as big as AMD's whole GPU and CPU business.

I think you should define what you mean by "big" for your statement to have meaning.

Ocre gave some clear cut statements that appear to be true, then you tried to refute it by giving a vague and seemingly unrelated rebuttal.

I think a few things all the doomsayers about dGPU's are overlooking is that we are currently in a stagnant GPU market with most people assuming a new generation and new node are over due plus the huge GPU demands of VR. Once a new gen or especially a new node release I think we'll see a massive reversal of these numbers. Throw on top of that the people upgrading to get into the first wave of VR and dGPU's could be selling like hotcakes relatively soon.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Lets take Haswell, all those Celerons and Pentiums with low end HD Intel graphics. In one two years lots of them will need to upgrade their GPUs.
Guess what, they will use a sub $100 dGPU. Even todays sub $100 GPUs are way faster than those Intel HD graphics not to mention 20-16nm FF entry level dGPUs in two years time.

If that was true, we would see the cycle complete long ago due to Clarkdale. It simply didnt happen and dGPU keeps losing. And a 100$ dGPU? You do know thats more than any Celeron or Pentium cost?