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

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

Pantalaimon

Senior member
Feb 6, 2006
341
40
91
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.

ATI press release says they have shipped 25 million DX11 chips since launch, which according to them is 90% market share in DX11. That would mean NVIDIA has shipped about 2,8 million. This was in mid October.

According to Q3 shipment numbers, NVDIA shipped 16.7 million chips in Q3 (desktop + mobile) vs ATI's 16.95 . So even if NVIDIA had shipped all their DX11 chips during Q3 to get that 2,8 million (which they did not unless you think NVIDIA didn't ship any DX11 chips during Q2), it would still means that Fermi is quite behind the HD5XXX series during Q3 in shipped units.
 

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
Guys just remember that units sold =/= money in the bank.
Nvidias chips are twice as big as their competitors in some cases in certain price ranges.

Selling chips that are 50%-100% bigger means your profits overall will be less by the near same amounts. Nvidia would probably need to outsell amd by 50%-100% to make more profit, because of the size differnce.

amd grafics are what are keeping amd afloat atm... where its selling cpus are costing it \.\.
 

Gloomy

Golden Member
Oct 12, 2010
1,469
21
81
Those guys said:
Unfortunately, Nvidia is in its quiet period at the moment and it cannot answer any market or financial performance-related questions even briefly.

:hmm:

Nvidia is menstruating. That explains the mood swings and everything. We're getting the cold shoulder guys. D:
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Matt Skynner (AMD): "We have had very good demand for our Radeon HD 5700-series and 5800-series, we could not supply all of that. [So there is deferred demand], but I am not sure all of the growth is that. [...] Our share went touch-down in desktops. Perhaps, Nvidia gained some share with the GeForce GTX 460."

AMD did an amazing job. He clearly acknowledged why they launched HD68xx series so fast - to combat the 460.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,361
136
vidms.jpg
 

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
Wow Amd has almost 6% of their sales in the 300$+ price range vs Nvidias 2.7%.
Nvidia has more in the 200-300$ price range though but not by huge amounts.

Also whats even better is that when you look at the 100-200$ price range probably the most important one AMD has more there too.

In short AMD grafics departments should be makeing more $$$ than Nvidia.


67% of nvidias sales are under 100$... wow they sell alot of old/cheap low level entry cards (probably not a pricerange where you can easly make much profits).
 

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,650
218
106

This is a much more interesting table. Thanks.

You can clearly see the GTX460 impact on both the $100-200 and $200-300 (especially this one) but we can also the large majority of NVIDIA sales isn't Fermis.

Nearly all the difference between NVIDIA and AMD in units shipped is from the $0-100 market.

This also show the potential market GPU+CPU packages can have if they reach 5570-5670 performance levels.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
This is a much more interesting table. Thanks.

You can clearly see the GTX460 impact on both the $100-200 and $200-300 (especially this one) but we can also the large majority of NVIDIA sales isn't Fermis.

Nearly all the difference between NVIDIA and AMD in units shipped is from the $0-100 market.

This also show the potential market GPU+CPU packages can have if they reach 5570-5670 performance levels.
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

I would say the majority of those laptop cards which helped give AMD the SLIGHT overall edge,are in the 0-100 dollar range also, which might disappear .
 
Last edited:

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
Notty22, they wont disapear, they ll be inside the APU (CPU+GPU)... which will just mean that AMD will make more money selling them because of how cheap that way is vs haveing a intire discreat card made.

Im assumeing they ll be cheaper than the competitors equal performance discrete cards when you look at performance. I also suspect they ll still net more profits than the discrete cards they compete against.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
Notty22, they wont disapear, they ll be inside the APU (CPU+GPU)... which will just mean that AMD will make more money selling them because of how cheap that way is vs haveing a intire discreat card made.

Im assumeing they ll be cheaper than the competitors equal performance discrete cards when you look at performance. I also suspect they ll still net more profits than the discrete cards they compete against.
You are guessing without proof on all your posts, you did see AMD's last quarter profit report ?
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/10/18/good-news-bad-news-for-nvidia.aspx
I'm not predicting doom or happy days for either. Both companies and the way meaningful #'s are totaled and analyzed will be changing.
 

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,650
218
106
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

I would say the majority of those laptop cards which helped give AMD the SLIGHT overall edge,are in the 0-100 dollar range also, which might disappear .

So from those 16.7 million units NVIDIA shipped around 13 million are in risk of disappearing.

AMD lower end cards too, but AMD will at least have a CPU+GPU package there.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
So from those 16.7 million units NVIDIA shipped around 13 million are in risk of disappearing.

AMD lower end cards too, but AMD will at least have a CPU+GPU package there.

NV is doing a better job with technologies for laptops though, like Optimus(?) or whatever the power saving one is. As opposed to AMD who don't seem to have pushed theirs forward all that much (despite having the platform sell opportunity).
Since they support Intel CPU/GPU combos, that gives OEMs more ability to offer products which have an NV GPU alongside the built in GPU, and they can use that as a selling point. Intel has the much larger mobile marketshare in terms of CPUs.

I was quite surprised to see NV's integrated chipsets still being around 10% of the market.
mercury_integrated_gfx_mkt_q3_2010.png

There's still their 10% left to drop completely, and AMD's to go up in desktop and mobile.
 

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
You are guessing without proof on all your posts, you did see AMD's last quarter profit report ?
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/10/18/good-news-bad-news-for-nvidia.aspx
I'm not predicting doom or happy days for either. Both companies and the way meaningful #'s are totaled and analyzed will be changing.

Guy that wrote that is clearly biased <.< He makes it sound like nvidias shyt dont smell... even when their doing worse than amd this quarter.


I just wanted to add that (this quarter):

1) AMD grafics make money... their cpus are costing them money.
2) Amd loses -43 million vs Nvidia -141 million. Why does nvidia look better?
3) Sandybridge/Fusion chips will eat market share, Nvidia cant make cpus. Why does its future look any brighter than the others?


Fusion/sandy bridge chips ---> nvidia wont sell as many mobile gfx cards.
Fusion/sandy bridge chips ---> nvidia low end gfx chips wont sell as much.

alot of nvidias sold cards are in the 0-100$ price range... exactly where fusion/sandy bridge chips will steal market share.

Nvidias Tegra mobile processors is LOSEING MONEY currently. (not competitive enough)
Nvidias GFX discrete cards are LOSEING MONEY currently. (dont have size/performance crown)
Nvidias Proffessional cards are MAKEING money, but not enough to cover the other 2.

To me AMDs future looks better than nvidias by a good bit.
AMD just has to get CPUs makeing money again.
 
Last edited:

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,650
218
106
NV is doing a better job with technologies for laptops though, like Optimus(?) or whatever the power saving one is. As opposed to AMD who don't seem to have pushed theirs forward all that much (despite having the platform sell opportunity).
Since they support Intel CPU/GPU combos, that gives OEMs more ability to offer products which have an NV GPU alongside the built in GPU, and they can use that as a selling point. Intel has the much larger mobile marketshare in terms of CPUs.

Well that is true, but on discrete for laptops AMD has been getting some ground, no doubt due to their lower power consumption DX11 parts.

I guess this will all depend on how good Llano/Ontario/Zacate will be and how good will the Intel SB based solutions be.

Maybe NVIDIA can pull a rabbit and still carve a spot for mobile and lower-end desktop, maybe the CPU+GPU package will be limited by memory bandwidth and not able to progress.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Well that is true, but on discrete for laptops AMD has been getting some ground, no doubt due to their lower power consumption DX11 parts.

I guess this will all depend on how good Llano/Ontario/Zacate will be and how good will the Intel SB based solutions be.

Maybe NVIDIA can pull a rabbit and still carve a spot for mobile and lower-end desktop, maybe the CPU+GPU package will be limited by memory bandwidth and not able to progress.

Bobcat. Zacate.
 
Last edited:

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
Reguardless of nvidia claiming to "step it up" in the mobile front.. cost/performance its impossible for a discrete mobile grafics card to compete in price with a fusion chip.

Nvidia would have to aim higher in performance then.. but that ll mean bigger watt usage.

Zacate uses like 18watt under full load, for cpu+gpu.
Id like to see Nvidia make a gpu that uses like 10watts but beats the zacate. If they pull that off... my hats off to them. Even then, theres no way that product could cost less than a tiny bit of extra mm^2 for a on-die gpu along the cpu.

First gen fusions chips wont be bandwidth limited (25 gb/s - 30 gb/s from dual channel DDR3)... 2nd gen will probably have eDram on the cpus extra bandwidth, along with some GDDR5 side ported :)

5 years from now... maybe ~60&#37; of every pc uses a fusion like chip.. and only 40% ever buy a discrete gfx card. GFX market will shrink over time to fusion like chips, simply because its more energy effecient and MUCH more cost effecient.

I expect over time we ll see amd/intel fusion chips slowly eat more and more of nvidia market share in sold gfx cards.
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
You can clearly see the GTX460 impact on both the $100-200 and $200-300 (especially this one) but we can also the large majority of NVIDIA sales isn't Fermis.

Of course it isn't Fermis. I don't think anyone ever said Fermi is the highest volume product they sell.

But we know that $200-300 & $300+ market was almost 100&#37; Fermi from NV vs. almost 100% Cypress/Juniper from AMD in Q3.

Therefore, on the high end you have AMD with 747,000 total desktop discrete units vs. 911,000 for NV. This means Fermi outsold AMD in the $200+ range in Q3. This is what I said earlier in this thread that Fermi is easily competitive with Cypress/Barts on the desktop. The only reason they only have 10% DX11 market share is because they had no products to sell >$150 for 6 months. With GTX560/570/580 to launch within the next 3 months, AMD isn't going to have the same headstart they enjoyed last time. So it will be interesting to revisit market share numbers for desktop in Q1/Q2 2011.
 
Last edited:

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
AMD fanboys should stop making the "AMD has 90&#37; DX11 market share" sound like it's all that. What exactly does 90% DX11 market share enable AMD to do to slow down NV? Wow look, 90% dominance, and AMD is still financially weaker than NV. Wow, 90% huh?
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
AMD fanboys should stop making the "AMD has 90&#37; DX11 market share" sound like it's all that. What exactly does 90% DX11 market share enable AMD to do to slow down NV? Wow look, 90% dominance, and AMD is still financially weaker than NV. Wow, 90% huh?

the DX11 is a tiny percentage of the overall market share. recall that for the longest time AMD's DX11 hardware was competing with nVidia's DX10 hardware.
it is like saying "nvidia has 100% of the physX market share"
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
AMD fanboys should stop making the "AMD has 90&#37; DX11 market share" sound like it's all that. What exactly does 90% DX11 market share enable AMD to do to slow down NV? Wow look, 90% dominance, and AMD is still financially weaker than NV. Wow, 90% huh?

Consider what would have happened had NV shipped on time. They probably would be competitive in DX11 marketshare and thus be in a far better position to push stuff like extreme tessellation. They would be slowed down because of cross-platform issues (consoles = DX9), but still, it could have meant faster adoption of DX11 stuff. NV developer relations are much better than AMD developer relations.

Instead, Fermi was very late, and even when it came out it was at the ultra-high end, which is a tiny fraction of the market. It took till July for NV to really gain solid traction in DX11 marketshare.

So gamedevs were pretty much forced to develop with the quirks of Evergreen in mind, including its tessellation limitations. Coupled with consoles slowing everything past DX9 down, this probably means no mandatory heavy tessellation in games for a long time. DX9 is still the big market, and DX11 is still just extra IQ/features tacked onto the DX9 framework.

I really, really hope AMD gets its tessellation act together so that DX11 adoption isn't slowed down even more than it is.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
DX9 is still the big market, and DX11 is still just extra IQ/features tacked onto the DX9 framework.

what happened to DX10? DX10 has been out for a long time now, and all the while AMD's DX11 hardware was competing with nvidia DX10 hardware... tesselation might not be a must have, but DX10 was launched concurrently by nVidia and MS, with Windows Vista going into RTM the same day nvidia released the 8800GTX (first DX10 card), November 8, 2006.
 

Scali

Banned
Dec 3, 2004
2,495
0
0
what happened to DX10? DX10 has been out for a long time now, and all the while AMD's DX11 hardware was competing with nvidia DX10 hardware... tesselation might not be a must have, but DX10 was launched concurrently by nVidia and MS, with Windows Vista going into RTM the same day nvidia released the 8800GTX (first DX10 card), November 8, 2006.

Vista, that's what happened to DX10.
Vista wasn't exactly a popular OS, especially not with gamers (initially there was quite a performance gap with DX9 games on XP and Vista, and DX10 games were few and far between, offering very little over the DX9 version anyway, at a significant framerate hit).

So as a result of the low adoption rate of Vista, the adoption rate of DX10 was pretty low as well, and DX9 remained the main gaming API, even though more and more gamers may have been usign DX10+ cards to play these games in XP/DX9.

However, Vista was not entirely in vain, since it gave Microsoft, nVidia/AMD and the game developers plenty of time to iron out the bugs of the new API and driver model, and optimize things. Today, Vista matches XP pretty well in performance, and games run just fine in DX10 as well.
Without Vista/DX10, Windows 7/DX11 wouldn't have been such a success.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Fair enough, it would slow adoption... but Vista SP2, aka windows 7, solved the issues and was out since 2009 (I Would say SP1 solved the critical issues and was the time to upgrade, but some people insisted not to still... which is odd, winXP RTM was much more worse and wasn't usable until SP2, and win2k until SP4, and win98 until second edition, and win95 was never worth anything)...

Anyways, as you said, gamers were buying those higher end DX10 cards and using them in DX9 mode, so just a quick upgrade to win7 and their DX10 cards now have DX10 capability...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients
and windows 7 + windows vista together almost equal XP marketshare.

IIRC they have long surpassed XP in more gaming centric surveys such as steam.
 
Last edited:

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
AMD fanboys should stop making the "AMD has 90&#37; DX11 market share" sound like it's all that. What exactly does 90% DX11 market share enable AMD to do to slow down NV? Wow look, 90% dominance, and AMD is still financially weaker than NV. Wow, 90% huh?

You did not read this tread! <.<

1) BOTH amd and nvidia lost money this quarter, nvidia lost 3-4x more money than amd did. Amd is loseing a tiny bit of money, but not because of its grafics cards, but instead because of its cpu's.

2) overall Amd still sold more units than nvidia this quarter... and the price break down in segments show amd is selling overall more expensive units than nvidia (who sells most in the 0-100$ range).

3) future prospects look bad for nvidia, because APUs and nvidia not haveing a 86x license so it can compete. Nvidia isnt makeing money on the mobile market and are faceing competition their loseing too.


so AMD loses -43million, Nvidia loses -141 million.
Why does "AMD is still financially weaker than NV" from your point of view?
(non of them made any money this quarter but lost money instead, Nvidia lost alot more)

also GPU die sizes have never been as bad as they are now for nvidia.
6870 is TINY compaired to a 470 that it can exchange blows with = as long as nvidia is selling 470s at same price as the 6870s it ll be makeing less money or loseing money selling them.
 
Last edited: