Nvidia claims top spot in graphics chips market

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: bgeh
if ATi can keep it up, then nVIDIA will slowly but surely lose more and more marketshare

You mean if ATI can keep from going bankrupt because their mainstream video cards are too expensive compared to mainstream Nvidia video cards. (Atleast as far as the UK market is concerned!)

huh? I don't know how prices are over there, but here they crush nvidia in every price bracket(pretty much)

 

[nRollo]

right, because i compared it to sars and terrorism in my post, didn't i? why don't you overreact some more?

I wasn't overreating, I was laughing. It struck me as funny to read

The problem is that most people who don't follow this stuff closely still think nvidia is top of the line" because what people think is a top of the line video card really doesn't matter at all unless you make video cards.

If you don't care about video cards then why post such diatribes in these forums?

I am using rhetoric like Dionisodorous again?

 

[Keysplayr]

We all need a hobby, dont we..........

 

[beatle]

I'm surprised nobody has brought this up, but ATI isn't even #2. They're #3. INTEL is #2??? Are they really producing that many graphics chips? I don't remember hearing much about intel graphics since the I740.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Blastman

Althought the numbers seem a bit surprising, one obvious question is how they calculated market share. If you look simply at volume, then all the GF2MX and GF4MX currently being sold will still make up the bulk of current sales.

Good point. We don?t know if market share was calculated by # cards sold or by $ worth of cards. Also, OEM contract sales from a company like dell could be a huge factor here too ? an area where NV has been doing very well. I suspect things will get worse for NV this year because their new FX line has not exactly been warmly received.

In most industries, market research and market share is conducted based on gross sales. For instance, when you hear of the "11 billion dollar Gaming Industry", they're talking about retail paid. This is done b/c the information is reliable, unbiased, and a true reflection of revenue from a 3rd party that doesn't take into account profit margins or cost adjustments. The information is gathered from sales figures which are tracked by retailers and then compiled by these research firms, and is also why they are always historical (usually quarterly).

Someone brought up the point that lower priced cards make up the majority of this figure, but it only emphasizes the point that the mid to high-end market is rather insignifcant when compared to the number of PCs out there. If it takes 2 or 3 value/integrated parts to equal the price of a high-end part you have a nearly 3:1 ratio of value to high-end parts. When you see figures saying only 10% of computers have a mid to high-end AIB or GPU, but the over-$100 GPU market accounts for ~20% of the total GPU market (again, in revenue), that's a reflection of the relative number of value/integrated to over-$100 cards on the market. This is also why sales of a high-end part like the R300 or NV30 have little to no effect on market share. Cutting a slightly larger piece of a very small piece of pie still leaves you with a very small piece of the pie.

Beatle, Intel's GPU sales are directly attributed to their integrated GPUs for Intel-based systems. Considering Intel overwhelmingly dominates the desktop PC industry, this isn't a huge surprise.

Chiz

 

[FearoftheNight]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
We all need a hobby, dont we..........

Hahahahahahahaha I second that!

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
If nVidia keeps making products like the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra... they're going to loose a lot of their market. What a piece of junk... the only way it keeps up with a Ti4200 is if you crank up the AA and AF... I feel sorry for anyone who bought into the "GeForce FX hype" a 128 MB Ti4200 would have been a far better buy in my opinion.

Same can be said of the GF4 MX. The bottom end of the new lines usually perform about the same as the top end of the old line it seems.
ATi have the 8500 and 9000's about the same.
GF 4 MX and GF3 Ti 500
GFFX 5200 and Ti 4200.

Although in the latter case, the Ti 4200 isn't the top end, it's not all that much slower than, and the GF3's and 8500's are faster than their respective parts in the previous generation.
It's a standard thing it would seem.

Also, that marketshare includes chipsets, which nVidia sell quite a few of on nForce 2 mobo's and the like, although probably not that many.
With people like Dell now using things like their 9700's though, it seems ATi is gaining more popularity, as it always seemed to me Dell's has nVidia cards before then.

And Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: beatle
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up, but ATI isn't even #2. They're #3. INTEL is #2??? Are they really producing that many graphics chips? I don't remember hearing much about intel graphics since the I740.

It's already been brought up. Read above you.

The reason for that is because so many OEMs are willing to utterly rape the graphical performance of their machines by sticking with Intel Extreme(ly Sh|tty) Video. IIRC, the new Compaq P4 3.0C machines are still using the integrated video. :|

- M4H

 

[Shade4ever]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
If nVidia keeps making products like the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra... they're going to loose a lot of their market. What a piece of junk... the only way it keeps up with a Ti4200 is if you crank up the AA and AF... I feel sorry for anyone who bought into the "GeForce FX hype" a 128 MB Ti4200 would have been a far better buy in my opinion.

Same can be said of the GF4 MX. The bottom end of the new lines usually perform about the same as the top end of the old line it seems.
ATi have the 8500 and 9000's about the same.
GF 4 MX and GF3 Ti 500
GFFX 5200 and Ti 4200.

Although in the latter case, the Ti 4200 isn't the top end, it's not all that much slower than, and the GF3's and 8500's are faster than their respective parts in the previous generation.
It's a standard thing it would seem.

Also, that marketshare includes chipsets, which nVidia sell quite a few of on nForce 2 mobo's and the like, although probably not that many.
With people like Dell now using things like their 9700's though, it seems ATi is gaining more popularity, as it always seemed to me Dell's has nVidia cards before then.

And Rome wasn't built in a day.

Eh, I think you're giving them too much credit. I was running a pre-Ti GF3, up until recently...I decided to try out a 256MB 5600 FX, b/c 4x the memory and >50% more core clock speed should make a huge difference, I would think. But it ran at speeds which were, at best, equal to or slightly greater than my GF3. I'm running a 9800Pro now, and aside from the CS glitch, I'm very happy w/ my first ATI card.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: beatle
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up, but ATI isn't even #2. They're #3. INTEL is #2??? Are they really producing that many graphics chips? I don't remember hearing much about intel graphics since the I740.

I used to own a i740 video card, it was supplied with a huge 8mb of memory. Unfortunately the drivers really sucked so I got a Savage4 which offered better performance but even worse drivers.