PC graphics shipments down 0.9% in Q3, AMD slips as Intel and Nvidia gain

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
I am honestly surprised.

What's more surprising are the constant claims that Fermi and NV are doomed on the desktop side. Actual information reveals that the primary reason NV has been losing market share is actually because of the mobile side (but of course neither Fudzilla, nor SemiAccurate, nor AT forum members generally mention the mobile side because they really don't care about mobile gamers).

This chart should pretty much alleviate all doubts that NV is outselling AMD on the desktop, regardless of how much hate there is out for Fermi:

mercurydiscretegfxmktq3.png


NV's Desktop Market Share = 58.8%
NV's Q-over-Quarter Shipments = increased by 28.70%

vs.

AMD's Desktop Market Share = 41%
AMD's Q-over-Quarter Shipments = increased 11.20%

This means NV is increasing shipments over an already larger market share on the desktop in the first place. The only way this is possible is if you are outselling your competitor. :D Bingo --> 11 million desktop units vs. 7.67 (so NV outsold AMD on the desktop by a whooping 44%). So much for "NV is doomed on the desktop" ideology.

The primary reason AMD is doing so well is their astounding 62% foothold in mobile space. Juniper's cooler architecture landed itself really well for the mobile space.

The mobile space comprised of 15 million shipments in Q3 vs. 18.7 million shipments on the desktop. Therefore, it's critical for any videocard manufacturer to remain competitive in both areas. Mobile space, much more so than the desktop space (as many seem to claim here), is where Fermi truly failed. NV was only able to launch its mobile derivatives based on Fermi architecture in September 2010, but these products didn't become available on the market for another 2-3 weeks. So in essence, mobile Fermis aren't even in the chart for the most part --- hence, NV losing a whooping 32.7% of mobile shipments.

I am not saying that AMD didn't take market share away from NV from September 2009 to June 2010 on the desktop. However, based on the latest information, it looks like NV is actually more competitive on the desktop. Now, this is surprising! :biggrin:

Source: Nvidia's Desktop Cards Shipments Skyrocket as Mobile Chips Sales Collapse

P.S. What are the chances that people will start paying attention to official #s before passing off opinions as facts?? Not a chance.
 
Last edited:

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
Surprise, lot of silence with some Nvidia good news !
Thats great for everyone, competition. Exactly where we want them, both cutting prices, innovating to get within striking distance of being #1 vs #2.
 

Madcatatlas

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2010
1,155
0
0
P.S. What are the chances that people will start paying attention to official #s before passing off opinions as facts?? Not a chance.


Jon Peddie Research:


Untitled-11111.jpg


Nvidias growt year over year declined by 16,1% guess who took their piece of the pie?

AMDs growt year over year increased by 11%



Well, so much for your bombastic post.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Well, so much for your bombastic post. .

1. What's the point of citing overall discrete market share when I already showed in the post above it's about 51/49, which is exactly what you provided in your post. There is no dispute here. So why are you regurgitating the same data? We are discussing the claims of whether or not AMD has been outselling NV on the desktop in Q3. How does what you provide explain any of that? Not at all.

2. Your post only implies the fact that Fermi and its derivatives were unavailable for most of the year. So Year-over-Year growth has declined as a result of NV having no competing product on both the desktop, and esp. on the mobile side. This again is not a surprise, considering NV had 33% lower shipments of Mobile parts Q3 alone, with AMD capturing another 5.6% of mobile market share .

Overall market share #s tell us nothing about where exactly AMD has gained market share - which is the whole point of my post (but you seem to have ignored that completely). I never once disputed who has the larger market share overall.

3. My post specifically discusses desktop vs. notebook sales (which is what the debate on our forums has always been - about NV being crushed on the desktop). Sure AMD still has an overall larger market share, but based on Mercury Research data, this is largely as a result of their notebook gains. This is contrary to the claims on AT that NV is uncompetitive on the desktop.

My point clearly related to trying to segregate AMD vs. NV gains on desktop vs. notebook. However, you again turned this into AMD vs. NV discussion, disregarding the main point :hmm:
 
Last edited:

Madcatatlas

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2010
1,155
0
0
1: Its got to do with how one portrayes information RS. Im just posting the above, to clarify one very important point. In your post above, the parts of which you now bold "there is no dispute here" were not highlighted. Your choice of wording is vague at best.

1.5: As a followup to that. You use this statement "So much for "NV is doomed on the desktop" ideology." While the truth is, noone that ive seen has specifically called it desktop. Infact people have been much more severe in their "predictions" and have said "NV is doomed" (end.) So how many times will you reiterate this?




2: It looks like, from reading your post that those are SOLD cards. However, i belive you yourself have been oh so spesific in the past (on both AMD and Nvidia products) to mention some details which people often ignore (in this case the shipment part)
Nvidia has by your numbers sold more desktop parts. And i dont doubt your numbers. Desktop cards however are probably the minority of discreet cards sold. The laptop market outclassed the desktop market a few years ago and keeps doing this, even with the recent downfall (which according to some was due to the Ipad).

3: you reiterate again that the discussion on this forum has been
about NV being crushed on the desktop
. I belive the discussion has been on NV as a producer of graphics and the same for AMD as a producer of graphics and cpus and Intel as a producer of cpus. Nvidia as per your own topic some time ago, make more money on the professional parts? (ofcourse you should correct me here if im wrong)

Question (I asked myself): What is the bread and butter of NV business model?
- The most honest response that came to my mind was: Discrete and integrated graphics of course....and I was wrong.

Analyzing the factors that investors looked at in determining the stock price related to NV forecast (i.e., future) revenue streams (taking into consideration the resultant profits) and cash position reveals the following:

1. Professional Graphics - 31.5%
2. Discrete Graphics - 18.7%
3. Mobile and Game Console Computing Chips - 10.8%
4. Integrated Graphics - 9.8%
5. DRAM Graphics memory - 3.0%
6. Net cash - 26.3%
https://www.trefis.com/company?article=22029#



Looking at those numbers presented in your own graph and comparing them to your analysis list, i guess their mobile/laptop market revenues just went down the toilet.

Couple this with them loosing 16% of their discreet market share total over teh last year and it does infact seem like discreet cards just isnt doing it for Nvidia anymore.



4: this "why you always keep taking things out of context" is just sause i guess. This topic IS about marketshare, and not your percieved "main point of the discussion", whatever that may be.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
4: this "why you always keep taking things out of context" is just sause i guess. This topic IS about marketshare, and not your percieved "main point of the discussion", whatever that may be.

I have no idea what you meant in points #1 -3 and I re-read them twice.

Yes, the topic of the discussion is market share. Last time I remember AT forum member continued to say that Fermi is being crushed by HD5xxx series, correct? Since Fermi was never available in the mobile space, this automatically means they are discussing the desktop space.

So my post regarding desktop vs. notebook sales is there to provide additional information which helps us see where each company has gained/lost market share. Yet again, you keep talking about overall market share, facts which no one is disputing or arguying about.
 

Gloomy

Golden Member
Oct 12, 2010
1,469
21
81
Dell switched over to Nvidia on their obscenely popular XPS laptops.
 

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
Again all this matters not if the company isnt makeing money reguardless of if its amd or nvidia leading the sales. The best way to compair company's is to go look back at the last 4-8 quarters or so. Still I am surprised that nvidia sold more desktop units than amd, I wasnt expecting that.
 

busydude

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2010
8,793
5
76
Still I am surprised that nvidia sold more desktop units than amd, I wasnt expecting that.

The lab I am working in ordered a bunch of dell desktops and guess what the video card was.. ?


ATI 3470.

Most of the OEM's use old tech, I mean who needs new state of the art current gen cards just to run 1(or 2) monitors for productivity, and Nvidia was much better in the previous generations.
 

Gloomy

Golden Member
Oct 12, 2010
1,469
21
81
:hmm:

I've had an inkling that this was the case for some time, but got caught up in the whole Flaming Fermi bandwagon//
 

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
AMD 41% desktop vs Nvidias 58.8%
AMD 61.9% laptops vs Nvidias 38.1%

Total Units sold:
AMD 16.95 million
Nvidia 16.70 million

overall AMD still sold most cards this quarter, even though laptops took a 20% drop in sales, and desktops rose 11%. To me that reads when things go back to normal, the differnce in units sold will benefit AMD more. Also remember this is just marketing research its not 100% accurate.


How much money did Nvidia make 2010-7. (this last quarter)
Net loss of 140,961,000 $ dollars. (-141mil in the bank)

source:
http://financials.morningstar.com/income-statement/is.html?t=NVDA&region=USA&culture=en-US


To be Fair: How much money did AMD make 2010-6 (this last quarter)
net loss of 43,000,000 $ dollars. (-43mil in the bank)

source:
http://financials.morningstar.com/income-statement/is.html?t=AMD&region=USA&culture=en-US


if you look at it anually then AMDs doesnt look fun lmao... while nvidias looks abit better, they had a few good years there from 2006-2008. Nvidia has anually lost money in 2009/2010.
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
The lab I am working in ordered a bunch of dell desktops and guess what the video card was.. ?


ATI 3470.

Most of the OEM's use old tech, I mean who needs new state of the art current gen cards just to run 1(or 2) monitors for productivity, and Nvidia was much better in the previous generations.

Heh all the ultra small form factor desktops I order have Intel chipsets :(
 

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,650
218
106
Yes, the topic of the discussion is market share. Last time I remember AT forum member continued to say that Fermi is being crushed by HD5xxx series, correct? Since Fermi was never available in the mobile space, this automatically means they are discussing the desktop space.

Really?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3740/nvidia-announces-gtx-480m

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3803/avadirect-clevo-w880cu-fermi-gtx-480m

So my post regarding desktop vs. notebook sales is there to provide additional information which helps us see where each company has gained/lost market share. Yet again, you keep talking about overall market share, facts which no one is disputing or arguying about.

I don't know if 5xxx series is trashing Fermi or not, but based on the numbers presented You can't claim it isn't either.

Why?

Because there is no breakdown per prices category and NVIDIA is selling more than just Fermi chips!

And, lets not forget AMD has been discontinuing their 5870/5850 for some period of time now while NV started to ship all the smaller GF10x's.
 
Last edited:

Pantalaimon

Senior member
Feb 6, 2006
341
40
91
Last time I remember AT forum member continued to say that Fermi is being crushed by HD5xxx series, correct?

How do you know that those NVIDIA desktop discretes are not Fermi for the most part? Personally I guess that NVIDIA'a market share, while still large, comprises of the older generation chips much, much more than Fermi chips.
 

artonlangy

Junior Member
Oct 20, 2010
12
0
0
SO are any of these charts broken down by DX11 DX10, etc? I doubt ALL of those sales by nvidia were fermi. Is there any way to see the market penetration of fermi versus cypress and then to break it down by % of total market share?

Fermi could indeed be not selling well and nvidia is still getting by selling the 200 and 300 series cards.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Dell switched over to Nvidia on their obscenely popular XPS laptops.

haha!! I wonder what NV is going to do once Apple dumps them for SB CPUs with better integrated graphics. One of the major reasons Apple decided to keep NV GPUs in their MacBooks is citing lack of OpenCL support and slow performance of current Intel GPUs inside i3/i5s. Eventually Intel will catch up and Apple will take the road of saving more motherboard space to create even thinner laptops. NV is not in a good spot on the mobile front.

How do you know that those NVIDIA desktop discretes are not Fermi for the most part? Personally I guess that NVIDIA'a market share, while still large, comprises of the older generation chips much, much more than Fermi chips.

Of course NV still sells a lot of older cards such as 8400GS/GT220/230/240s, etc. I don't think Fermi is the majority of their desktop shipments by any stretch. You are right on that point. However, NV had all of these ^^ cards for all of this year. However, that lineup didn't allow them to increase shipments?? We only saw them losing market share last quarter on the desktop. Surely there is no way they increased shipments by almost 3x compared to AMD based solely on the sales of GF8/9/GT220-240 series. The increase most likely came from their newer lineup of 450/460. Another logical reason why AMD really wanted to launch HD6850/70 series as soon as possible (they normally launch high end first). AMD wants the $180-250 market.

SO are any of these charts broken down by DX11 DX10, etc? I doubt ALL of those sales by nvidia were fermi. Is there any way to see the market penetration of fermi versus cypress and then to break it down by % of total market share?

Fermi could indeed be not selling well and nvidia is still getting by selling the 200 and 300 series cards.

Of course those sales are not only of Fermi cards!! :) But NV doesn't produce any non-Fermi cards >$130. So it's impossible for 30% increase in shipments to have come only from low end GT200/300 series (GT260/275/280/285 have been discontinued long time ago). Think about it, NV had older GF8/9/GT200/300 series in Q1 & Q2. They were losing market share in both of those quarters. For most of this year, they had no cards >$130 to sell at all on the desktop in the key $80-250 price level. Then GTS450/GTX460 launched in Q3, covering $120-250 price ranges.

I will try to find information which breaks out the sales of Fermi cards specifically. But this may be pretty difficult.
 
Last edited:

jvroig

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,394
1
81
Fermi could indeed be not selling well and nvidia is still getting by selling the 200 and 300 series cards.
There are no low-end Fermi's until very recently, so it is a sure thing that the bulk of the discrete cards being sold are still the previous gen cards (GT 210/220/240)
 

PingviN

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2009
1,848
13
81
This chart should pretty much alleviate all doubts that NV is outselling AMD on the desktop, regardless of how much hate there is out for Fermi:

Yeah, and what is Nvidia selling? Old GPUs. They outsell AMD, yes, but they don't outsell AMD thanks to Fermi, oh no. They stick with old G92 parts and OEM just loves a rebranded bunch of cheap GPUs.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Yeah, and what is Nvidia selling? Old GPUs. They outsell AMD, yes, but they don't outsell AMD thanks to Fermi, oh no. They stick with old G92 parts and OEM just loves a rebranded bunch of cheap GPUs.

Q1/2 NV was losing desktop market share despite having G8/9/GT200 low end chips. NV did not have a single competitive card in Q1/2 from $130 to $300. In Q3 they suddenly ship 30% more desktop graphics chips - which coincides exactly with the GTS450/GTX460 launch timeframe and $80 price drops on GTX470 cards. If Fermi didn't result in this growth, what do you think explains it then? And why does AMD decides to push HD6800 series first instead of HD6900 (this is almost never how they launch a new generation)? AMD has been losing sales to competing NV cards in the $150-250 market in Q3; this is why HD68xx was launched first imo.


Update: I will wait until Edgar has the latest Form 10-Q available for Q3 and we'll see exactly where NV increased its sales. I'll update the thread with the info.

NVIDIA Corporation is scheduled to report Q3-2010 results on Friday, November 12, 2010. So we have about 2 weeks until we get a better explanation.
 
Last edited:

Gloomy

Golden Member
Oct 12, 2010
1,469
21
81
haha!! I wonder what NV is going to do once Apple dumps them for SB CPUs with better integrated graphics. One of the major reasons Apple decided to keep NV GPUs in their MacBooks is citing lack of OpenCL support and slow performance of current Intel GPUs inside i3/i5s. Eventually Intel will catch up and Apple will take the road of saving more motherboard space to create even thinner laptops. NV is not in a good spot on the mobile front.

Well that might not be true. They're really only in the market with high end mobile fermi right now. The low-end and mid-range fermi chips are nonexistent.

I'm a hardcore laptop user, to me certain things are more important than power consumption under load. The laptops I buy tend to not be able to run at 100% on battery anyway, so power consumption is a moot point. What I'm more interested in is power consumption when doing other tasks, like playing blu-ray or 1080p youtube videos, and that's an area where a 5730 really disappointed me... If if Nvidia's mid range fermis are better at it, I'll probably switch.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
things might have gotten better, but last I compared neither nvidia nor AMD's solution was adequate. They might be good for blu ray but struggle with custom files, they get VERY loud and hot and power hungry when doing video acceleration (since they have to come out of idle state)...
I find it plain superior to use the CPU to render video.
 

Pantalaimon

Senior member
Feb 6, 2006
341
40
91
which coincides exactly with the GTS450/GTX460 launch timeframe and $80 price drops on GTX470 cards

Do you really think that the GTS450 helped them much in these results? I believe this card came out around mid September. I doubt it had much an impact yet, and the price drop on the GTX470 only happened this past couple of weeks.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Do you really think that the GTS450 helped them much in these results? I believe this card came out around mid September. I doubt it had much an impact yet, and the price drop on the GTX470 only happened this past couple of weeks.

You are talking about $20 price drop on GTX470 in the last couple of weeks. GTX470 debuted at $349 though. It had "NV rebate subsidies" all summer long. These cards hovered at $230-300 price level for 3-4 months now. So, NV unofficially reduced prices through rebates on those cards.

GTS450 alone didn't help, but together with GTX460 they most likely had an impact. GTS450 launched September 13, 2010. So it's been on sale for more than a month.

They're really only in the market with high end mobile fermi right now. The low-end and mid-range fermi chips are nonexistent.

Gloomy, I agree with you that NV's execution on 400M launch has been mediocre. It was more of a paper launch than anything. I just did a quick search on Newegg for 400M laptops. I got only 11!!! These consist of GT420/425M and GTX460. It has been 2 months since 400M officially launched and still no mainstream availability for GTX470M/480/445/435/415M cards in sight! Horrible execution by NV.
 
Last edited:

Pantalaimon

Senior member
Feb 6, 2006
341
40
91
GTS450 launched September 13, 2010. So it's been on sale for more than a month.

An these figures were for Q3, which ended at the end of September. So the GTS450 had about three weks of sales to contribute to NVDIA's numbers. I'd believe the GTX 460 contributed far more, but before that card came out I think Fermi did not put up much of a fight. Otherwise ATI would not have bragged about having close to 90% market share of DX11 cards. Unless you think they lied.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
An these figures were for Q3, which ended at the end of September. So the GTS450 had about three weks of sales to contribute to NVDIA's numbers. I'd believe the GTX 460 contributed far more, but before that card came out I think Fermi did not put up much of a fight. Otherwise ATI would not have bragged about having close to 90% market share of DX11 cards. Unless you think they lied.

AMD started out with 100% of DX11 market share, since for 6 months they were the only company with DX11 hardware.
And the way percentages work, if nvidia and AMD sell equal amount of cards, nvidia will still be gaining as long as AMD retains more than 50% market share.
Anyways, they bragged about it because it was true, but recall that they said market share, not "percent of cards sold this month". the difference is huge.