[JPR] The balance of power in gaming

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

antihelten

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,764
274
126
Ahh yes you are correct, one (total Desktop + APUs) is in the start of the article and has a decline -4% Y to Y and the other (Desktop + Laptop dGPUs only) is in the end of the article and has an increase of 10.1% Y to Y.

But I was only talking about Desktop dGPUs the entire time (Mercury).
Unfortunately JPR doesn't report the individual growth rates for discrete desktop and discrete notebook in their press release, although with combined growth rates of 35.6% and 10.1%, I would expect both of them to have grown.

Mercury also reported that discrete desktop and discrete notebook GPUs were both up year on year. Their press release unfortunately doesn't contain any numbers except for the discrete desktop quarter on quarter growth which was nearly 40% (compare this to the 35.6% combined desktop and notebook growth JPR reported). Furthermore Mercury reports that the discrete desktop market has been growing year on year for the last 3 quarters in a row.

Based on both the numbers from JPR and Mercury, it's safe to say that the discrete desktop market has not been in a decline as of recently.
 

Pariah

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2000
7,357
20
81
You seem to ignore that Im only talking about DESKTOP and you always take TOTAL GPU numbers.
I have explained several times that im only using DESKTOP results and you are still using Total Marketshare
Oh ok, so when you said the following you meant just the desktop results:

Ehm have a look again at the numbers,

AMD gained Total marketshare from 12.3% in Q2 to 12.6% in Q3 while NVIDIA remained at the same 16.1%.
So what did you mean with this next line if you meant just the desktop results above?

AMD gained 2.7% in Desktop marketshare
If total market is code for desktop to you, what is desktop code for here?

DESKTOP Y to Y shipments DID declined (i was correct in the first place after all), AMD managed to gained share no matter if NVIDIA shipped higher Volume.

There is no agenda here, try not to get it personal and read more carefully. Also when im wrong i dont have any problem acknowledge it and re-evaluate what i said. (same as Q2)
No, I don't. As someone already pointed out, you changed what you said to make yourself correct. So, feel free to apologize for the comment about my reading. Your constant shifting about what you claim your point is is so difficult to follow, you're even confusing yourself and preventing any sort of intelligent discussion from taking place.
 

ocre

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2008
1,594
7
76
Nvidia holding on to the majority market share during Fermi/Evergreen says everything you need to know about the average graphics card buyer.
Yeah, people wait 14 months after the 5870 until Nvidia released an unbroken card. That tells you everything you need to know about the average graphics card buyer.
I guess, unless one was there....

I cant speak for the world, but from where I was the 5800 series launched with all the hype and excitement you could ever hope for. It made a splash, everyone was talking about them. But almost as soon as it launched, with glowing reviews which were jaw dropping with so much of the hype built around the mrp.
The glow was entwined with the phenomenal launch price.

But immediately, the demand out paced the supply, making prices and availability issues.
There wasnt massive supplies and this had limited the initial start. People were not only willing to wait for nvidia, as it seems to be always insisted, I believe most people waiting were waiting for availability and prices to come back down. These significant issues are forgotten but they absolutely played a role in holding back the 5800 series from soaring to the heights it was fully capable of.

The phenomenal pricing was a huge part of the hype, even through the chip was impressive, the amazing price was used as a major selling point. Reviewers raved about it and this was the high water mark for AMDs small die strategy. The way amd set out to market and push their products was very different from how ATI done it. Perception is everything in a marketplace.

Its not marketing, which many are convinced. Marketing is a tool used to try to mold perception. Its effectiveness depends on a lot of factors. Perception of a product is not at all the exact sum of a particular marketing campaign. It just doesnt work like that. Even brand new products with no market presence, when the only info available is marketing propaganda, the perception of such a product does not equal what their ad or commercial says. Most people are naturally skeptical of product claims. Even fresh new products that have a clean slate have a hard time gaining traction and it's not because the competition just has better marketing. Its not so simple.

Over time perception builds and while marketing is the most powerful tool for a company in trying to form an image, it is not so simple. A product with a clean slate earns its perception over time while a product that has been out will struggle dearly in trying to change its stripes.

AND bought ATI and they were trying to change its image. The small die strategy was one that had started to take root, but in this campaign was the double edge sword. The promoting of smaller and less expensive kind of set the stage. At the high point of the 5800 series hype, amd officially announced the AMD branding would replace the ATI on their gpus. And they were creating an image that perhaps wasn't exactly what they wanted.

The 5800 series hype was huge but absolutely attached to the stunning prices. When supply constraints pushed prices up, people were much more willing to wait. Besides the fact that supply constructed how many could even be sold, value and price was a big part of the way these cards were presented. So, inflated prices caused pause more so than it wouldve had AMD and reviewers done things differently.

Everyone knew that Nvidia had some large die beast coming down the pipe. And fermi was promoted as something revolutionary.
That marketing helped in the anticipating but the inflated prices on gpus promoted as the most amazing value surely contributed just as much. The small die idea was great for the company but something that probably should have been marketed differently. Cause most people expected then that amd gpus should be smaller, less powerful, and cheaper. So while they wanted to promote value, it meant a lot of other things as it formed in image.

There were then great things nvidia had going for it with fermi. The overclocking was truly amazing for chips in that time. When the 460 came out, it really changed the game. It was exciting just for that reason. And gpu overclocking has been a huge thing ever since. It became a mainstream idea.
So...its interesting looking back. The singular reasonings...they entertain me. Things were way more complex
 

ocre

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2008
1,594
7
76
whooaa!!!

the post above was for an entirely different thread. One that had a chart of AMD and Nvidia marketshare going all the way back to 2002 or something. thats strange, where is that thread? weird.....

i remember typing it on my phone (which took awhile) and then having some trouble with my log in.... and somehow it posted here?????
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY