Graphics market share not looking good for AMD - down to just 18%?

[Dieinafire]

Amd wouldn't even be missed they haven't done anything in years besides slow fade into nothing. We all would be better off if someone took over that actually put up a fight against Intel and Nvidia.

 

[R-T-B]

Amd wouldn't even be missed they haven't done anything in years besides slow fade into nothing. We all would be better off if someone took over that actually put up a fight against Intel and Nvidia.

If they were to dissapear entirely they would most definitely be missed. The current management style won't be missed though... to the extent that a buyout would probably be a positive thing.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Amd wouldn't even be missed they haven't done anything in years besides slow fade into nothing.

Nothing except lighting a fire under Microsoft in order to get a more versatile graphics API front and centre, moving OpenGL into the 21st century with Vulkan, which will likely find a huge audience once SteamOS and Android get geared up for it, keeping graphics prices somewhat in check by their competitive presence, providing some impetus for adaptive sync monitors, and in all probability, some credit for making DisplayPort a more widely adopted interface in a faster timeframe than it would have been otherwise.

You're either trolling, have Alzheimer's, or are very new to technology in general.

 

[Folterknecht]

Afaik in case someone (e.g. Samsung or god forbid Apple) would buy AMD they wouldnt get the x86 license. According to what I ve read, there is a clause in the Intel-AMD x86 license agreement that prevents that.

That in itself leaves an interesting point to chew on. While the AMDs GPUs are still somewhat competitive the CPUs are just to far behind Intel, who are nowdays also trying their best to make AMDs APUs irrelevant.

The rumored 40% IPC improvement for Zen - even if AMD mamages to execute that, I ve my doubts (just look at the Fury PR stunts) - would bring them roughly to the level of Ivy-Bridge. Is that really good enough in late 2016/ early 2017???

Now where will that leave Intel if AMDs makes the Dodo? The legeslative in the US doesnt like monopolies, that are to obvious.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Can some mod please ban this Anubis Clown?

 

[rtwjunkie]

@Folterknecht why ban? Let him speak freely. A far more fitting option is to allow him to continue to open mouth and insert foot, LOL. Anyway, I've not seen anything from him in a couple pages.

 

[micropage7]

i think the case its like their processor, on processor they face to face with intel and intel hits them at the crown
and on vga card, nvidia just do the same

they should move their point and create their own environment, anything that they have better points than their competitors
i think its better if they just enter low and mid level but offer products that really good and could challenge their competitor than entering all level but the result is bad

personally i want to see AMD try mobile market like tablet and phones, if they have the right chip

 

[AsRock]

According to the NVIDIA slide below, it's very bad news for AMD.

Funny they send this out just around the time of the 950 spam.

 

[the54thvoid]

Nothing except lighting a fire under Microsoft in order to get a more versatile graphics API front and centre, moving OpenGL into the 21st century with Vulkan, which will likely find a huge audience once SteamOS and Android get geared up for it, keeping graphics prices somewhat in check by their competitive presence, providing some impetus for adaptive sync monitors, and in all probability, some credit for making DisplayPort a more widely adopted interface in a faster timeframe than it would have been otherwise.

You're either trolling, have Alzheimer's, or are very new to technology in general.

And to think you get tagged as an Nvidiot sometimes... We ought to save this post as an instant retort to the blazin' crazies.

 

[qubit]

Amd wouldn't even be missed they haven't done anything in years besides slow fade into nothing. We all would be better off if someone took over that actually put up a fight against Intel and Nvidia.

While I agree that they have been fading for years and should be bought out, it's completely wrong to say that they wouldn't be missed. Weak as they are they are still providing some competition to Intel and NVIDIA in particular. Without them, watch Intel and NVIDIA stitch up their customers with overpriced and underperforming products even more.

If AMD simply die then you'll see this for sure and regret making that statement.

 

[R-T-B]

And to think you get tagged as an Nvidiot sometimes... We ought to save this post as an instant retort to the blazin' crazies.

Heck, I got called an nvidiot sometimes, despite owning a R9 290X less than 3 months ago. I feel like screaming "Friendly fire! Friendly fire!"

 

[SonicZap]

While I agree that they have been fading for years and should be bought out, it's completely wrong to say that they wouldn't be missed. Weak as they are they are still providing some competition to Intel and NVIDIA in particular. Without them, watch Intel and NVIDIA stitch up their customers with overpriced and underperforming products even more.

If AMD simply die then you'll see this for sure and regret making that statement.

Intel has already done that for years, Nvidia has tried but it was difficult for them because of AMD. For example, the GTX 780 cost $650 at release, after the release of the R9 290X and R9 290 Nvidia was forced to cut it to $500.

Partially I think that AMD has often went too far into the price war, far enough to hurt themselves long-term. They could've priced the R9 290X and 290 a bit higher and still sold almost as many of them, they would've just gained more profit. I think they recently realized this themselves as well, looking at the not-so-aggressive pricing of the 300 series Radeons.

 

[qubit]

@SonicZap That's a good example with Intel and NVIDIA. Speaking of Intel, you can be sure that those improvements are going to be even more incremental without AMD there to chip away at the low end. This is what I was alluding to with "Weak as they are they are still providing some competition to Intel and NVIDIA in particular".

I don't know about the price war though. They had to compete on price since the performance wasn't there. What I think really hurt them is their awful marketing as others have said on here. This is especially true when they give their underperforming products evocative names such as Bulldozer and Fury, leading people to think that they will be very powerful and then hyping them up before launch, only to see them flop at review time. Looks like some moron over there still hasn't received the memo. That'll be top management, then.

 

[SonicZap]

I don't know about the price war though. They had to compete on price since the performance wasn't there.

It was there with my example, the R9 290X. What wasn't right however, was the stock cooler. Without that abomination Hawaii would've been much, much better received. It was a great way for AMD to shoot itself in the foot, building a great GPU and then making it look bad by saving a few dollars from the cooler.

The history of AMD is full of similar screw-ups.

 

[qubit]

Oh yeah, that cooler was bloody awful. I couldn't believe that that they crippled their product like this. Ridiculous.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

@SonicZap That's a good example with Intel and NVIDIA. Speaking of Intel, you can be sure that those improvements are going to be even more incremental without AMD there to chip away at the low end. This is what I was alluding to with "Weak as they are they are still providing some competition to Intel and NVIDIA in particular".

Intel can't grow if they're just selling the same old stuff; moreover, the lesson of Moore's Law isn't just about transistor account, it is also about economics: by shrinking the process, Intel's profit margins improve. Of course Moore's Law is starting to collapse because process improvements are getting more expensive but, still, margins are margins.

AMD really hasn't had any impact on Intel's decisions since Core 2 and the first generation of Core I#--we're coming up on a decade.

 

[SonicZap]

AMD really hasn't had any impact on Intel's decisions since Core 2 and the first generation of Core I#--we're coming up on a decade.

I'm sure Intel was looking closely at the first Phenom and possibly Phenom II as well, possibly also Bulldozer. After BD they haven't got a single reason to care though.

 

[AsRock]

Heck, I got called an nvidiot sometimes, despite owning a R9 290X less than 3 months ago. I feel like screaming "Friendly fire! Friendly fire!"

Should not matter still, because you have one brand than the other don't make you a fan of that brand.

So if i did not get my 290X back when it was released which would mean i would of had a 980\TI now would make me a nvidia fan.

A lot of people have reasons to what they buy and back then when the 290X was released was memory amount. Like i said if i did not get the 290X i would of had a 980\TI due to the HDMI and memory amount and not a Fury.

 

[BiggieShady]

There is no sense bringing fanboyism into this when balance is so skewed ... we are long past rooting for "our" team anymore, at this point let's just hope game keeps going, I'd hate to see nvidia playing with themselves.

 

[ValenOne]

According to the NVIDIA slide below, it's very bad news for AMD.

Right, so the research has been carried out by apparently independent outfit Mercury Research, but take something like this from a competitor with a pinch of salt. Still, there's no doubt that NVIDIA now has a much bigger market share than AMD, whatever the actual numbers are.

Once again, it's bad news for competition and is the reason why we're seeing grossly overpriced top end cards like the Titan X from NVIDIA.


www.dsogaming.com/news/amdnvidia-market-share-graph-shows-nvidia-conquering-4-out-of-5-pc-gamers-own-an-nvidia-gpu

They don't include fleet PC APU's IGPs and semi-custom OEM customers such as Microsoft's Xbox One and Sony's PS4.

AMD APU's 8 CU IGP has reduce the need for any GPU with less than Radeon HD 7750 (8 CU) level power. Next year's 14 nm AMD APU may impact R9-285 level GPU e.g. using chip area size of FX-8800p APU, one could fit in 32 CUs into the same area space with 14 nm process tech.

To minimize missing in action (MIA) issues during a competitor's upgrade cycle (and users spending $$), AMD should have released R9-390X (or as R9-290 XTX) against 980 non-Ti. R9-390X rivals 980 non-Ti. This is a defensive move to minimize users spending $$$$ on competitor products, by offering alternative product with similar performance.


AMD could have released Fury X later as with NVIDIA's 980 Ti. My MSI R9-290X OC is already at 1040Mhz which is 10Mhz from R9-390X.

AMD doesn't understand there's an amount of users with $$$$ to spend and if these users spent on non-AMD products, they wouldn't be moving to AMD products until the next upgrade cycle with sufficient performance gap. AMD is being mismanaged i.e. poor product re-positioning and poor defensive marketing tactics.

With AMD being MIA at a certain important CPU segment, Intel's mass high performance segment i7-quad core/ 8 threads configuration has stayed for quite some time.

 

[HumanSmoke]

AMD APU's 8 CU IGP has reduce the need for any GPU with less than Radeon HD 7750 (8 CU) level power. Next year's 14 nm AMD APU may impact R9-285 level GPU e.g. using chip area size of FX-8800p APU, one could fit in 32 CUs into the same area space with 14 nm process tech.

Unfortunately, AMD's APUs seem to be cannibalizing their own low end market to a much greater extent than that of Nvidia ( whose entry-level GT 700 series are still quite prevalent in OEM systems). in Q1 2013, AMD shipped 5.32 million discrete graphics cards, two years later (a reasonable timespan which saw APUs gain favour) they shipped 1.69 million. During the same period, Nvidia shipped 9.37 million and 7.7 million respectively, while Intel's own "APUs" are chewing up the entry level that AMD's APUs were supposed to take advantage of.

AMDs APU revolution seems to be the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[ValenOne]

Unfortunately, AMD's APUs seem to be cannibalizing their own low end market to a much greater extent than that of Nvidia ( whose entry-level GT 700 series are still quite prevalent in OEM systems). in Q1 2013, AMD shipped 5.32 million discrete graphics cards, two years later (a reasonable timespan which saw APUs gain favour) they shipped 1.69 million. During the same period, Nvidia shipped 9.37 million and 7.7 million respectively, while Intel's own "APUs" are chewing up the entry level that AMD's APUs were supposed to take advantage of.

AMDs APU revolution seems to be the very definition of a Pyrrhic vistory.

From http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...uarter-amd-slipped-17-nvidia-fell-2020479.htm

AMD: 12.9% (these are just PC APU and PC GPU products not including XBO and PS4)
NV: 14.9%
Intel: 72.2%

AMD's poor PC CPUs are impacting PC APU sales.

Another problem is lack of the supply with the latest A10-8700p/FX-8800p APUs.

Blue Team is winning.

 

[HumanSmoke]

AMD's poor PC CPUs are impacting PC APU sales.

And?
That doesn't actually contradict what I said about AMDs entry level/low-end discrete GPU sales being eroded by their (and Intel's) APU sales to a greater extent than those of its competitor in the same discrete market.

If you're saying that AMD hasn't generated significant APU sales in the last two years to affect the discrete graphics market then you'll have a hard time reconciling how AMD managed to shed 68% of its discrete market (units shipped) while their APU sales increased. Indeed, AMD's desktop APU unit sales increased 25% last quarter, while during the same period discrete sales dropped from 2.54 million to 1.69 million.

 

[yogurt_21]

And?
That doesn't actually contradict what I said about AMDs entry level/low-end discrete GPU sales being eroded by their (and Intel's) APU sales to a greater extent than those of its competitor in the same discrete market.

If you're saying that AMD hasn't generated significant APU sales in the last two years to affect the discrete graphics market then you'll have a hard time reconciling how AMD managed to shed 68% of its discrete market (units shipped) while their APU sales increased. Indeed, AMD's desktop APU unit sales increased 25% last quarter, while during the same period discrete sales dropped from 2.54 million to 1.69 million.

which mirrors what I was saying earlier. The market is simply going SOC. Gamers might soon find themselves paying more and more for discreet solutions, some of which may simply be stripped down versions of professional series gpu's we had to wait a full year from professional series launch for. (a reverse from the current norm)

But Laptops are more and more becoming the goto with desktops being relegated to mini machines will very little room or power for discreet graphics solutions. Or of course you can pay workstation prices. Either way we ar going to see the market shift away from upgrade-able desktops and more towards full replacements. In that scenario I'd go amd apu over intel because I can live with slightly lower cpu performance, but if my games look like a pixelated slide show I'll be pissed.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Anyone getting a strange sense of deja vu?


I can remember a few years back, Intel and MS partnered up to push for the death of the PC. They conjectured that most of the world would be switching over to tablets, so they announced the surface (at the end of the tablet boom) and declared the traditional PC dead. Years later, smart phones had the gaming prowess of tablets. MS bought up a smart phone developer, and announced that windows 8 would be their OS to make touch devices kill the traditional computer. Years later, MS back tracked, and basically has admitted to touch devices not being the only future for computers.


The only difference between these developments, and the future, is that now you've got competent low level offerings (APUs) that don't suck. Even today, these things are trading off CPU power for graphics. In ten years, they'll still be doing the same thing. Until we've got a magical die shrink that, is more than halving linear dimensions, you'll never be able to boost the CPU and GPU at once. When one lags, it creates a market for the other. This is why tablets and other low level devices aren't replacing the traditional PC, they're carving out their own niche markets. You can't undersell the value of the APU, but it isn't valuable enough to replace the traditional PC. The APU is a nice little development which makes a traditional PC capable of doing new things.

Considering how many times the PC was predicted to die, and how many times we've been told that discrete graphics were going to die, what should you trust. Surely we've heard this before, and been through the dance. PCs are dying, PC gaming is dying, AMD is dying, How many times do we hear this crap, before we start taking it all with a huge grain of salt?

 

[BiggieShady]

Surely we've heard this before, and been through the dance. PCs are dying, PC gaming is dying, AMD is dying, How many times do we hear this crap, before we start taking it all with a huge grain of salt?

Indeed. AMD being an IP company without fabs is exceptionally easy to keep afloat by all co-dependent players - Sony and Microsoft need one die shrink on 14nm node for thinner versions of their consoles. Also, owners of majority of AMD shares are swimming in oil money. Logic dictates that AMD should survive, after all it's the only way to make use of dat x86 licence. It seems those money grubbing execs realized that when they were making their deals.