-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Nvidia posts loss this past financial quarter
Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
evolucion8
Platinum Member
See the steam survey and do the calculations yourself, Steam is not entirely subjective, but gives you a much more accurate vision of it instead of the pulled of the air numbers that you state.
Wreckage
Banned
So in other words you don't have any proof relating to last quarter. That's what I thought.
Also my numbers are from here
http://img.neoseeker.com/v_ima...rticleid=10596&image=1
evolucion8
Platinum Member
nVidia pulled those numbers, I would believe it if the numbers would come from a reliable company, nVidia also counted the cards that they dumped from overstock. Pretty much the same market strategy from the GTX 275 debut which from the 53 slides, 8 were related to the GTX 275, 34 related to PhysX and CUDA and the remaining 11 from DX11 and miscelaneous stuff, only you could buy that from nVidia.
ShadowOfMyself
Diamond Member
The whole marketshare argument is crap, Nvidia is doing well because theyre alot more popular in general, and that comes from waaaay back, with their RivaTNT and Geforce 256
The only reason ATI is even what it is now is because of the R300, but unfortunately they couldnt keep it up, sort of like AMD... Despite having the best CPU for a long time, Intel still remained far more popular
If you ask people randomly about video cards Im pretty sure 30% of them wont even know ATI exists... Their marketing was always bad, and AMD isnt much better, while Nvidia is a PR machine
So, I dont think you can relate number of cards sold to how good a product is, and that is why you see people recommending 48xx cards in tech forums, and yet the sales show a different figure
The only reason ATI is even what it is now is because of the R300, but unfortunately they couldnt keep it up, sort of like AMD... Despite having the best CPU for a long time, Intel still remained far more popular
If you ask people randomly about video cards Im pretty sure 30% of them wont even know ATI exists... Their marketing was always bad, and AMD isnt much better, while Nvidia is a PR machine
So, I dont think you can relate number of cards sold to how good a product is, and that is why you see people recommending 48xx cards in tech forums, and yet the sales show a different figure
Actually in 2005 ATI had 26% of the overall market and NV had 16% (with Intel having most of it. This is total shipments), and it was 56% ATI vs 41% NV in discrete cards. 4 years ago the market was almost opposite to what it is today, and no doubt it will continue to swing between the players. This isn't the CPU market at all.
(http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/v...y/20050728052358.html)
taltamir
Lifer
people were recommending 48xx compared to the GTX2xx the day it was released at half the price... nvidia quickly slashed prices, to date every time i or a friend had to make a purchase, the equivalent nvidia card was a lot cheaper... as in, a GTX260 for 50+$ less than a 4850.
one of my friends actually insisted on buying at frys, who wanted 300$ for the 4850 and 220 fort he GTX260 (At the time he could have gotten the GTX260 for 180 online).
one of my friends actually insisted on buying at frys, who wanted 300$ for the 4850 and 220 fort he GTX260 (At the time he could have gotten the GTX260 for 180 online).
akugami
Diamond Member
You know, I started this thread because I found it interesting that nVidia had such a poor quarter considering their market dominance. Of course the usual suspects derailed the thread. I don't need to mention any names but everyone knows who they are. Anyways, it seems like there was a bit of an air of desperation by nVidia.
Ignoring the costs of the stock option buy, it's extremely surprising that nVidia even lost money. nVidia certainly didn't want to lose many millions in order to gain a paltry market share percentage increase. I think that nVidia ovestimated their GT200 GPU's and underestimated how competitive ATI would be. Perhaps nVidia over contracted the amount of GPU's from the fabs and needed to do a bit of dumping. I certainly doubt we'll know.
One thing is for sure, ATI has gained a good deal of mind share, though that hasn't shown up in market share. Yet. If ATI is competitive on the same level at the mid and lower ranges then nVidia has a true fight on its hand again. While a process shrink to 40nm certainly helps nVidia cut costs, it also benefits ATI as well. Keeping in mind that CPU's and GPU's are planned years ahead of time and one can reasonably state that nVidia's new GPU is going to be a huge (if powerful) GPU while ATI will continue the lean but adequate route they took with the 4xx0 series. ATI doesn't want the single card crown, they want to be the "Value per $" winner. Especially among the lower and mid range GPU's where the most video cards are sold.
I think nVidia may have a very very tough fight ahead of it so long as ATI doesn't make a huge blunder in the short term, basically within the next year. In the long term of three years and further, and if they can stem the bleeding as they've done and even turn a profit (huge if's), they can be competitive once again but at the expense of nVidia in more ways than one. As I
posted here, I believe the future of ATI and Intel are multi-core CPU/GPU's that will take away most of nVidia's strengths in the GPGPU segment. They'll be taking away nVidia's discrete GPU business by essentially shrinking the discrete GPU business. ATI still requires a sound discrete GPU solution for this to work.
The strategy is sound. ATI might not gain market share percentage wise but they can generate more revenues by stealing from their own discrete GPU business as well as nVidia's share of the discrete GPU market. Intel also will steal some market share with their own CPU/GPU. The biggest loser potentially could be nVidia. Imagine a CPU/GPU hybrid chip on a 25nm or 32nm process that has a four core CPU as well as a four core GPU that is equal to today's top end CPU's and GPU's.
OEM's would also love the one stop shop for parts which will result in savings related to inventory management and training/hiring workers to work on custom ordered PC's.
A thought did occur to me on what is nVidia's likely response to a CPU/GPU threat besides the obvious ones of pushing CUDA and PhysX on the industry. They could build their own CPU/GPU. It's not as outlandish as it sounds. nVidia already sees the writing on the wall. Hence the failed nVidia and VIA merger, even if it is just rumors, where there's smoke there's fire. The nVidia & Via merger talks are making the rounds once again this year. Failing that, they have already licensed technology from Transmeta and likely cna make an x86 emulated CPU. Doesn't have to be great or beat AMD & Intel's CPU's. Just good enough for browsing and office related tasks as well as moderate gaming. A strong GPU coupled with a Transmeta styled CPU in a multi-core chip is certainly intriguing.
The problem with that is that AMD and Intel aren't likely to license their CPU sockets just so nVidia can compete with them (AMD & Intel). nVidia would have an insanely tough time convincing OEM's to adopt yet another motherboard standard for use in systems. Either way, things are set to look really interesting in the CPU as well as GPU markets in the next couple of years.
Ignoring the costs of the stock option buy, it's extremely surprising that nVidia even lost money. nVidia certainly didn't want to lose many millions in order to gain a paltry market share percentage increase. I think that nVidia ovestimated their GT200 GPU's and underestimated how competitive ATI would be. Perhaps nVidia over contracted the amount of GPU's from the fabs and needed to do a bit of dumping. I certainly doubt we'll know.
One thing is for sure, ATI has gained a good deal of mind share, though that hasn't shown up in market share. Yet. If ATI is competitive on the same level at the mid and lower ranges then nVidia has a true fight on its hand again. While a process shrink to 40nm certainly helps nVidia cut costs, it also benefits ATI as well. Keeping in mind that CPU's and GPU's are planned years ahead of time and one can reasonably state that nVidia's new GPU is going to be a huge (if powerful) GPU while ATI will continue the lean but adequate route they took with the 4xx0 series. ATI doesn't want the single card crown, they want to be the "Value per $" winner. Especially among the lower and mid range GPU's where the most video cards are sold.
I think nVidia may have a very very tough fight ahead of it so long as ATI doesn't make a huge blunder in the short term, basically within the next year. In the long term of three years and further, and if they can stem the bleeding as they've done and even turn a profit (huge if's), they can be competitive once again but at the expense of nVidia in more ways than one. As I
posted here, I believe the future of ATI and Intel are multi-core CPU/GPU's that will take away most of nVidia's strengths in the GPGPU segment. They'll be taking away nVidia's discrete GPU business by essentially shrinking the discrete GPU business. ATI still requires a sound discrete GPU solution for this to work.
The strategy is sound. ATI might not gain market share percentage wise but they can generate more revenues by stealing from their own discrete GPU business as well as nVidia's share of the discrete GPU market. Intel also will steal some market share with their own CPU/GPU. The biggest loser potentially could be nVidia. Imagine a CPU/GPU hybrid chip on a 25nm or 32nm process that has a four core CPU as well as a four core GPU that is equal to today's top end CPU's and GPU's.
OEM's would also love the one stop shop for parts which will result in savings related to inventory management and training/hiring workers to work on custom ordered PC's.
A thought did occur to me on what is nVidia's likely response to a CPU/GPU threat besides the obvious ones of pushing CUDA and PhysX on the industry. They could build their own CPU/GPU. It's not as outlandish as it sounds. nVidia already sees the writing on the wall. Hence the failed nVidia and VIA merger, even if it is just rumors, where there's smoke there's fire. The nVidia & Via merger talks are making the rounds once again this year. Failing that, they have already licensed technology from Transmeta and likely cna make an x86 emulated CPU. Doesn't have to be great or beat AMD & Intel's CPU's. Just good enough for browsing and office related tasks as well as moderate gaming. A strong GPU coupled with a Transmeta styled CPU in a multi-core chip is certainly intriguing.
The problem with that is that AMD and Intel aren't likely to license their CPU sockets just so nVidia can compete with them (AMD & Intel). nVidia would have an insanely tough time convincing OEM's to adopt yet another motherboard standard for use in systems. Either way, things are set to look really interesting in the CPU as well as GPU markets in the next couple of years.
ShadowOfMyself
Diamond Member
Thats interesting, I had no idea ATI was that popular back then... I was talking from experience, it wasnt until I became interested in GFX cards that I knew of ATI existing, it was mostly 3dfx vs Nvidia
AMD's graphics division may be seeing contracting marketshare but at least they are making profits on whatever marketshare they do have. This fact is relevant, as you say.
Via would have to buy NV in order for the x86 license to be preserved from the M&A action. If NV bought Via, or its CPU sub-division, then the x86 license ends and NV is no closer to having the license it would need to field an x86 compatible part.
SlowSpyder
Lifer
Wreckage, I don't think anyone doesn't believe that when you look at total overall shipments, Nvidia has shipped more. But what has that gotten them? They've lost tens of millions of dollars if you ignore the stock buy back. Hundreds of millions if you don't. Two quarters ago Nvidia dropped 60% revenue vs. the prior quarter. If I remember right that's the kind of drop AMD saw upon the release of C2D. That's pretty telling about a competitors products.
Nvidia has money to take some loses while holding their market share, if that's what it takes. But they need to come up with an answer, so far, while yet early, it looks like AMD's small but 'fast enough' die approach is going to keep them nipping at Nvidia's heels and quite possibly overtake them eventually. AMD was a blip on the radar for the enthusiast market the last couple years, now they are just as competitive.
You like to ignore the Steam data. In reality, the Steam data should be MORE telling than overall shipped cards. When you look at overall shipped cards, that counts OEM's, PC's in which many people will never game. The Steam data is from actual gamers, it shows what they are using. That data shows that Nvidia's newest generation of cards are not very big with gamers currently.
Wreckage
Banned
AMD's graphic revenue dropped something like 22% just this last quarter, while NVIDIA's went up. Let's not forget that AMD lost $460 million last quarter. Spin it how you like they are in trouble. The money they wasted on ATI will most likely kill them. The gamble on losing the performance crown did not pay off.
If this trend continues, they will quickly run out of both marketshare and revenue.
That 60% drop for NVIDIA was after a record $1 billion+ in revenue. That's about half of the value of AMD right now.
SlowSpyder
Lifer
Yea, Nvidia's revenue went up from the prior quarter, the quarter they were 60% down. I think it pretty much had to go up since it was so far down the quarter before. So they went from a $1 billion quarter to 60% down... what do you think would cause such a down turn? A very good competitive part from AMD maybe?
AMD's graphics division made a small profit regardless of revenue. Their cards are cheaper to produce, so even with less overall revenue they can still turn a profit.
You keep bringing up AMD as a whole to try and make Nvidia seem to be in a better light than they really are, but actually it's doing the opposite. Everything you continue saying negitive about AMD's financials and how bad they're doing now applies to Nvidia just the same. No one is agruing that AMD isn't doing pretty piss poor as a company these days. Lately Nvidia is right there with them.
Wreckage
Banned
It has gotten them so far ahead of ATI that they are like Intel to AMD now.
AMD lost $460 just last quarter. They have lost something like $4billion on ATI
Except AMD has lost far more revenue. Especially with such a small slice of the market and with the money they spent developing the 4xxx series and are not seeing much of a return on.
But it was not a competitive part, it failed to gain them any significant marketshare. In fact last quarter they lost and may be at their lowest point ever.
A small profit against their companies $460 million loss. That's like saying you found a dollar on the street but you dropped your wallet in the sewer trying to pick it up.
AMD is a whole.
Actually NVIDIA is doing just fine. They have a ton of money in the bank. Even in this economy they were able to do a stock buy back. I know it upsets you (clearly), but you need to just accept it and move on.
SlowSpyder
Lifer
I'm not upset at all about anything. I want AMD, Nvidia, and Intel to stay in business and do well. I don't think any of us want there to be only a single company making enthusiast part GPU's or CPU's.
Every chance you get to lay into AMD when they have a bad quarter, you take. Now Nvidia is losing money for a couple quarters in a row and you are defending them and trying to make things seem better than they are for Nvidia. Just as AMD's overall product line up isn't making them money, neither is Nvidia's.
If Physx was half as successful as you say, or the 48x0 cards were anywhere near the failure you claim they are than we'd be talking about how Nvidia managed to make a profit in this economy.
Every chance you get to lay into AMD when they have a bad quarter, you take. Now Nvidia is losing money for a couple quarters in a row and you are defending them and trying to make things seem better than they are for Nvidia. Just as AMD's overall product line up isn't making them money, neither is Nvidia's.
If Physx was half as successful as you say, or the 48x0 cards were anywhere near the failure you claim they are than we'd be talking about how Nvidia managed to make a profit in this economy.
SirPauly
Diamond Member
I don't know if this has been posted but don't thinK it has but this is the actual transcript of the conference call to give some insight were nVidia feels where there may be growth potential:
http://seekingalpha.com/articl...rnings-call-transcript
http://seekingalpha.com/articl...rnings-call-transcript
evolucion8
Platinum Member
Please, get out of that bubble, the HD 4x000 series is the reason why nVidia droped the prices of the GTX series, and created the GTX 260+, GTX 295 and GTX 275 loll, thanks to the HD 4x000 series, it' s why ATi kept hold of it's market share margins, another HD 2900 series and ATi wouldn't be even in the market, so stop the lying, baiting and trolling. Even Keysplayr which is a member of the nVidia's focus group told you that.
SirPauly
Diamond Member
There is little doubt that the reason for the price-drops was the intense competition from the Rv-770 over-all but the key for these decisions from AMD's point-of-view was to take much needed market share away from nVidia while still maintaining acceptable margins over-all to me.
It seemed to work and AMD/ATI did take market share away and many figured there may be more momentum there with future quarters but if anything AMD/ATI has lost market share -- even with one of their greatest designs offered to the consumer in some minds.
What is the cause of this really?
ATI/AMD has an outstanding price/performance value and yet still can't garner market share.
It seemed to work and AMD/ATI did take market share away and many figured there may be more momentum there with future quarters but if anything AMD/ATI has lost market share -- even with one of their greatest designs offered to the consumer in some minds.
What is the cause of this really?
ATI/AMD has an outstanding price/performance value and yet still can't garner market share.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
