Q1 2013 discrete GPU market share?

[RussianSensation]

What is the break down of their Graphic Business?

Discrete, console, and professional?

IIRC, since last quarter/fiscal results, NV no longer breaks out these sub-segments. This unit is now called Graphics or something as NV has combined their discrete GPU and console division, as well as professional graphics. The 2nd unit is mobile products like Tegra. This makes a lot of sense since R&D, etc. is all shared with their Tesla/Quadro lines. My understanding is NV now has 2 main units in the firm instead of 3 reporting units as was in the past since they have combined GeForce with their professional division going forward for reporting purposes.

 

[RussianSensation]

Top left graph. Discrete notebook is a different graph, right next to it.

Yes, that's the point. AMD didn't really lose desktop dGPU market share in the last 9 years. That's my point about making blanket statements that AMD bled market share - that's only for laptops which almost none of us care about. Your insinuation that game bundles cost AMD $100 has no evidence to support that claim. There is no way it costs AMD $30-35 per game to bundle with a videocard. Where are you getting this information from? ASL for desktop AMD videocards went up and market share didn't get affected negatively on the desktop. Therefore, AMD, like NV, was able to raise prices on consumers and maintain desktop market share.

There is absolutely no way AMD's game bundles cost them $100 because that would mean they are selling HD7970GE that's going for $410 with 3 games for only $310 according to you. That would mean lower profitability than HD6970. AMD would not have done this unless it made them more $. They would have instead dropped the price of HD7970GE to $310. The game bundles obviously cost a fraction of the price drop which is why they are doing it instead of a direct price cut.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Yes, that's the point. AMD didn't really lose desktop dGPU market share in the last 9 years. That's my point about making blanket statements that AMD bled market share - that's only for laptops which almost none of us care about. Your insinuation that game bundles cost AMD $100 has no evidence to support that claim. There is no way it costs AMD $30-35 per game to bundle with a videocard. Where are you getting this information from? ASL for desktop AMD videocards went up and market share didn't get affected negatively on the desktop. Therefore, AMD, like NV, was able to raise prices on consumers and maintain desktop market share.

There is absolutely no way AMD's game bundles cost them $100 because that would mean they are selling HD7970GE that's going for $410 with 3 games for only $310 according to you. That would mean lower profitability than HD6970. AMD would not have done this unless it made them more $. They would have instead dropped the price of HD7970GE to $310. The game bundles obviously cost a fraction of the price drop which is why they are doing it instead of a direct price cut.

9 years is a long time. Obviously, market share fluctuates in such a time frame. Remember your statement here?

AMD is able to charge more $ for HD7000 series without losing market share compared to HD4000-6000 cards.

And that is not true since the assumption that AMD charges more than before, is wrong. Even if we calculate the bundles at $50 instead of $100 AMD is still not really charging more than for HD5000-6000.

 

[Olikan]

As has been stated ad-naseum on the forums, AMD's GPU market share losses came almost predominantly from their poor mobile execution on HD7000 series, which they explained as them not having enough $ to execute on those design wins.

link?
i was under impression that it was nvidia's optimus that ate amd's market share

 

[SirPauly]

IIRC, since last quarter/fiscal results, NV no longer breaks out these sub-segments. This unit is now called Graphics or something as NV has combined their discrete GPU and console division, as well as professional graphics. The 2nd unit is mobile products like Tegra. This makes a lot of sense since R&D, etc. is all shared with their Tesla/Quadro lines. My understanding is NV now has 2 main units in the firm instead of 3 reporting units as was in the past since they have combined GeForce with their professional division going forward for reporting purposes.

The context was AMD's graphics business -- this is what they call it and from my understanding, this encompasses Radeon Discrete, workstation and console royalties!

Total income of the Graphics business was 16 million last quarter -- how much did workstation, which has bigger margins, a record revenue quarter, contribute here from an income point-of-view?

 

[blastingcap]

That's my point about making blanket statements that AMD bled market share - that's only for laptops which almost none of us care about.

I don't disagree with you but found that sentence kind of funny for reasons bolded.

 

[SirPauly]

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2010/07...rete_graphics_crown_from_nvidia/#.UZPqQbWG2Dk

In the lucrative Desktop discrete market, AMD gained 11 points in the year, standing at 44.5% market share.

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtrader...losses-wells-sees-hope-in-cost-cuts-consoles/

AMD’s market share in desktop computers in the quarter decline from 40.7% in Q2 to 35.7%

They also have been losing share from a high of 44.5 as well.

 

[wand3r3r]

For the first time in four years, AMD has taken control of the discrete graphics market from Nvidia, with 51.1% market share, up 10.4 points from Q2 2009. In that same period, Nvidia lost 10.4 points.

I guess people are seeing the game bundles or the superior $/performance. (especially ghz and 7950)

 

[blastingcap]

I guess people are seeing the game bundles or the superior $/performance. (especially ghz and 7950)

Huh? Did you see the timeframe of that?

 

[ICDP]

AMD could sell higher with no 28nm competition! I'm curious if Radeon is actually making profit when their Graphic Business also is workstation, where they're hitting record territories, and revenue from consoles?

This higher price discussion from AMD doesn't make any sense based on they have been lowering their prices virtually with every Kepler launch and only can be sustained when there was no nVidia competition.

The point is that even with those price cuts HD 7970 is still selling for more than the HD 6970 introduction price. Here in the UK the HD 6970 was released at £270, HD 7960 is still over £300. Had AMD released HD 7970 for £270 they would have lost a massive amount of money for only a small gain in market share.

HD 5870 had the market to itself for over 6 months and AMD still only managed to reach ~45% market share. It didn't make financial sense for AMD to release HD 79x0 at such a low price.

 

[exar333]

link?
i was under impression that it was nvidia's optimus that ate amd's market share

Yes, and the Enduro bug that AMD refused to acknowledge forever and still was never fixed for many users. That was a huge black-eye for AMD on the mobile market.

Saying it was strictly a lack of $$$ would be WAY over-simplifying the issue.

 

[SirPauly]

The point is that even with those price cuts HD 7970 is still selling for more than the HD 6970 introduction price. Here in the UK the HD 6970 was released at £270, HD 7960 is still over £300. Had AMD released HD 7970 for £270 they would have lost a massive amount of money for only a small gain in market share.

HD 5870 had the market to itself in 1st half 2010 and AMD still only managed to reach ~45% market share. It didn't make financial sense for AMD to release HD 79x0 at such a low price.

Only managed? There was a dramatic shift in discrete desktop for AMD and did take over-all discrete leadership.

It doesn't make any sense to really discuss AMD's high pricing now and for some time based on price drops and incredible bundles. What is the point of raising AMD launched the HD 7970 for 549? It was obvious, they desired more revenue and higher margins at that time based on market pricing and no 28nm competition. Good for AMD and gamers that desired the latest-and-greatest!

However, my constructive nit-pick was 28nm offered a more evolutionary and incremental price/performance on a substantial and significant node and arch -- such strong defense for premiums -- as if the years of AMD's sweet spot, smaller die strategy never existed.

Thankfully with strong 28nm competition, price/performance was back in discussions over premiums.

 

[SirPauly]

I guess people are seeing the game bundles or the superior $/performance. (especially ghz and 7950)

That was a pivotal time in Discrete -- 2010 ---AMD had momentum --- had discrete share leadership -- nVidia offered the late GTX 4XX series, which didn't dominate and performance/watt limitations.

WTF happened?

 

[AnandThenMan]

WTF happened?

Did you buy an AMD card in 2010? Or in the last 5 years? Or did you wait to buy an Nvidia card because that's all you buy regardless of how good or bad the product is? That's what happened, there are a lot of Nvidia loyalists out there.

 

[SirPauly]

No, but I sure thought about the 58xx series, bringing SGSSAA and EyeFinity -- two features that improved gaming experiences and very, very welcomed. Did go as far as trying out a 5850 first hand but didn't like the mip-map transitions with higher frequency textures so I passed.

Glad I waited, stronger tessellation, DirectX 10+ SGSSAA and Transparency, and transparency wasn't locked to the multi-sampling setting anymore, nice transitions with filtering while moving and continue to have PhysX and 3d stereo.

They're not the same.

 

[Siberian]

I guess people are seeing the game bundles or the superior $/performance. (especially ghz and 7950)

That's from 2010. So despite game bundles and price cuts they are bleeding marketshare. Most likely due to stuttering issues that they still have not fixed. You get what you pay for.

 

[bononos]

That's from 2010. So despite game bundles and price cuts they are bleeding marketshare. Most likely due to stuttering issues that they still have not fixed. You get what you pay for.

Thats not true if you look at the graph. There was a -5% change from 2Q10 to 3Q10 then fairly steady until 3Q12 where there was another -5% which puts them back to where things were at 2004 where its been roughly back and forth with Nvidia having 60% market share. Where AMD steadily bled market share was in the discrete laptop sector (not the discrete desktop market).

Nvidia had as bad or worse stuttering in the 5xx range, so the issue is a relatively minor one and probably imperceptible when looking at market share numbers.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Ok so what how many dGPU's are there?

2 million, 2 billion? What's 5%?

I have no perspective, which is why I ask.

 

[blastingcap]

Are these numbers market share by revenue or by units shipped?

 

[ICDP]

Only managed? There was a dramatic shift in discrete desktop for AMD and did take over-all discrete leadership.

It doesn't make any sense to really discuss AMD's high pricing now and for some time based on price drops and incredible bundles. What is the point of raising AMD launched the HD 7970 for 549? It was obvious, they desired more revenue and higher margins at that time based on market pricing and no 28nm competition. Good for AMD and gamers that desired the latest-and-greatest!

However, my constructive nit-pick was 28nm offered a more evolutionary and incremental price/performance on a substantial and significant node and arch -- such strong defense for premiums -- as if the years of AMD's sweet spot, smaller die strategy never existed.

Thankfully with strong 28nm competition, price/performance was back in discussions over premiums.

If a company has 45% market share and 1 million units were sold in the market at a price of $300, 450,000 units sold. Gross total = $135,000,000

If the market share was only 35% (350,000 sold) and the unit price was 450$, = 350,000 units sold worth $157,500,000

That's only an example but it gives a very basic understanding of how selling HD 7970 at $550 and 35% market share was more profitable than selling HD 5870 at $350 and 45% market share. Even with the HD 79x0 range price cuts they are still selling for more than HD 5870 (and HD 6970) release day prices.

It's not rocket science, AMD could not sustain such low prices for their GPUs because even with 50% market share they were not making a sustainable profit.

 

[wand3r3r]

Huh? Did you see the timeframe of that?

Wow, thanks missed the date on the article. Sheesh old...

I found the article surprising but didn't notice the date. Waste of time...

 

[Imouto]

Strange that JPR and IDC haven't published figures for a while.

 

[ICDP]

No, but I sure thought about the 58xx series, bringing SGSSAA and EyeFinity -- two features that improved gaming experiences and very, very welcomed. Did go as far as trying out a 5850 first hand but didn't like the mip-map transitions with higher frequency textures so I passed.

Glad I waited, stronger tessellation, DirectX 10+ SGSSAA and Transparency, and transparency wasn't locked to the multi-sampling setting anymore, nice transitions with filtering while moving and continue to have PhysX and 3d stereo.

They're not the same.

You have just demonstrated the problem AMD face. You say you are glad you waited but were happy to have no DX11 features at all for the 7-8 months it took for Fermi to be released. Why should AMD waste money trying to entice people like yourself (who is fairly open minded) let alone the real die hard Nvidia fans? It was a lost cause and the fact that Nvidia had no viable competition compared to the very attractively priced HD 5870 for so long yet AMD only achieved a 10% market share swing speaks volumes.

• HD 5870
• DX11
• Eyefinity
• ~ 35% faster than GTX285
• Great price
• No competetion for 7-8 months.
• Only helped swing market share 10% (if even that)

No wonder AMD decided it was a poinltess strategy to release cards like the 4870/4890/5870/6970 at ridiculously low prices. As a consumer I want prices as low as possible and thankfully a HD 7950 can be picked up for a great price right now compared to when it was released. I don't blame AMD for charging what they feel the HD 7970 was worth. After all if the GTX580 1.5GB was worth £380 here in the UK on release the HD 7970 was more than worth the £420 it was released at.

 

[NIGELG]

Only managed? There was a dramatic shift in discrete desktop for AMD and did take over-all discrete leadership.

It doesn't make any sense to really discuss AMD's high pricing now and for some time based on price drops and incredible bundles. What is the point of raising AMD launched the HD 7970 for 549? It was obvious, they desired more revenue and higher margins at that time based on market pricing and no 28nm competition. Good for AMD and gamers that desired the latest-and-greatest!

However, my constructive nit-pick was 28nm offered a more evolutionary and incremental price/performance on a substantial and significant node and arch -- such strong defense for premiums -- as if the years of AMD's sweet spot, smaller die strategy never existed.

Thankfully with strong 28nm competition, price/performance was back in discussions over premiums.

And you defend or justify Titan's price tag yourself....

 

[SirPauly]

If a company has 45% market share and 1 million units were sold in the market at a price of $300, 450,000 units sold. Gross total = $135,000,000

If the market share was only 35% (350,000 sold) and the unit price was 450$, = 350,000 units sold worth $157,500,000

That's only an example but it gives a very basic understanding of how selling HD 7970 at $550 and 35% market share was more profitable than selling HD 5870 at $350 and 45% market share. Even with the HD 79x0 range price cuts they are still selling for more than HD 5870 (and HD 6970) release day prices.

It's not rocket science, AMD could not sustain such low prices for their GPUs because even with 50% market share they were not making a sustainable profit.

They had past impressive quarters, too.