NVIDIA’s Discrete GPU Market Share Climbed To 72.8% in Q3, AMD’s Share Dropped To 27%

wccftech.com/nvidia-amd-discrete-gpu-market-share-report-q3-2017/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=WozmsD7oKrM
tomshardware.com/forum/277454-33-radeon-5850-tons-brands
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

So the GTX 460 was the beginning of the end.

lol this data obviously doesn't include the millions of AMD GPU's bought for mining. Once the bottom falls out for miners there will be more AMDs than the industry will know how to handle.

Why was Maxwell so popular?

What people fail to realize is that AMD is much more concerned about integrated graphics. Which should become obvious when looking at how vega performs in low voltages (extremely efficiently). Their GPUs are in the xbox and the ps4 which puts them waaaaaaay ahead of nvidia in terms of overall sales.

amd never ramped up for mining this go around, and then the cards were sold off ebay and fucked them. amd allowed that burden to be shifted to nvidia, because the increased up front sales are not worth the cant sell any gpu for 2+ years due to flooded market.

They're pretty damn good cards the 970 released first i believe and it was a beast of a card the 3.5gigs of vram was discovered too late.

>970 3.5 crazy price/perf
>the big performance jump vs Kepler
>AMD Rx 200 to Rx 300 rebrand
>the low perwer draw

considering Vega 56 is the best mining gpu out right now I don't think AMD is bowing out of general compute anytime soon.

the 970 may be a joke now, but it hit a price point that most people fucking want the uncompromising visuals with maxed out frames, for this market segment that means/meant 60fps at launch
over the years, the 290 holds up better if only for 4gb of ram, or the 390 gor 8gb, but the 970 was that sweet spot.
the 1070 overshot the sweet spot which brought it back to the 1060 6gb and the 480 8gb

the sweet spot still hasn't changed, 1080p max fps maxed settings (sans aa or with post aa, nothing demanding) anything higher is premium graphics (1440 or 144fps are the premium range)

They aren't, but they also aren't ramping production to meet demand either.

when the 200 launched you could easily find them in stock for a week, then after a month you could find them in stock again but for nearly double the price, now you can't find any amd in stock outside of the email (buy it from this email exclusive link for msrp) deals.

>970 3.5 crazy price/perf
Same for amd.
>the big performance jump vs Kepler
It was a small jump compared maxwell to pascal. 970 was about equal or better to 780, 1070 was consistently a little better than 980ti. For the 960 it was even smaller.
>AMD Rx 200 to Rx 300 rebrand
Better than no high end at all.
>the low perwer draw
True, same for this generation though. And this didnt help AMD at all against fermi.


The most influential factor here is nvidias marketing (including word of mouth). And we'll all be paying for that drop in AMD sales.

No actual competition on the market, AMD just rebranded R9 200, some of which were already rebrands of HD 7000. Maxwell on the other hand was new and came with much better perf/watt. GTX 980 at the time was the fastest card, GTX 970 looked like an incredible deal, especially before the whole 3.5 debacle became public. When 980Ti came out, it was straight-up a better choice than Fury X, not only did it have more VRAM but it was a very good OC card and as such performed much better.

AMD didn't even give users who already had AMD cards a reason to upgrade. I was one of them at that time and there was no reason at all to move to R9 300 wince I had 290X CF, there were also a few months of absolutely horrid drivers: DX11 overhead, almost no CF support to the point of profiles coming out months after game releases, delays and lies about FreeSync support with CF, some issues with GPU clocks which I don't remember exactly and some other crap too.

The market share drop during Maxwell was fully justified. My own reason for having Pascal now is how shit AMD was during the R9 300 days.

970 and AMD 300 rebrands

>It was a small jump compared maxwell to pascal

look the 780ti vs the 980ti...

>comparing FP64 SKU to pure FP32
?

look every fucking 7xx vs 9xx. That's was a massive perf jump.

>AMD never breaching 50% marketshare against Fermi housefires
But how?

They had a lot of catching up to do. GTX 500 was no longer as terrible and HD 6000 was no longer as amazing.

The GTX 460 was comfy tho

>That's was a massive perf jump.
It was marginal at best.
Perf/watt was better due to TBDR, but who cares about perf/watt?
But Maxlel earned nVidia ~20% marketshare.
Why didn't Evergreen do that for ATi?
700 was mostly rebages anyway.

Maxlel hit straight into AMD's 2nd consecutive generation of rebrands after their latest actually new cards (R9 290 and R9 290X) had a fucking awful release because of their god-awful reference coolers.
>HD 7000 vs GTX 600 - HD 7000 is good
>R9 200 is mostly rebrands other than 290s, GTX 700 is mostly rebrands other than 780s
>R9 300 is fucking completely worthless rebrands, gets absolutely savaged by the new and improved Maxwell

HD 5k was a clear victory over GTX 400, but it was not as clear cut between HD 6k and GTX 500. The situation wasn't actually similar to what happened in the Maxwell time at all.

>The situation wasn't actually similar to what happened in the Maxwell time at all.
Oh, it was even worse, given how hyped Thermi was and how bad the final product ended being.
Kids, don't fuck up node shrinks!

Do you think Nvidia will improve their DX12 performance with the news cards launching next year?

No.
"Improving" DX12 performance requires nVidia to copy and paste GCN's setup of HWS+ACE.
They will never do that.

Also keep in mind that when GTX 460 came out, it wasn't nearly as terrible as GTX 470 and 480, that one actually had a better reception even before GTX 500 came out. NVIDIA had a failure of a product and got their shit straightened out as soon as possible, AMD had good cards in HD 7000, then rebranded them and disappointed with the 290s (though custom models were good, reference were trash and gave them a very bad rep), then disappointed across the board with the completely rebranded 300s.

nah, they will use the brute force

You're making the same fucking excuses again.
AMD was selling like shit despite better products, that's it.
Kids love nVidia.

AMD need to team up with Chinese VGA makers.

This shit is absolutely silly.

Prove me wrong

Is there absolutely anything even wrong with GCN, ever?
And Vega is even better.

Mainshare. Nvidia has a better reputation, or as others would put it, more shills.

The answer is obviously to make more drivers.

youtube.com/watch?v=WozmsD7oKrM

See to your persecution complex.

NVIDIA had a single bad gen with GTX 400 and the recovered, arguably recovered with GTX 460, so they haven't even had an entirely bad gen at all. AMD has constantly had bad gens since R9 200 and hasn't improved. There is no "excuse" since AMD have kept releasing underwhelming products one after the other, for many years in a row, which NVIDIA have NOT done. AMD haven't released a truly good card since the HD 7970 and 7950.

Doesn't this graph you like a cock and balls from below?

What "underwhelming products"?
Competetive on price and perforamance products are "underwhelming"?

AMD sells poorly because of their bad reputation for no drivers and overvolting all their GPUs to hell. Raja was right that AMD almost completely squandered the potential of buying ATI, they're lucky they got the console deals.

>almost completely squandered the potential of buying ATI
Oh yes, retard Ruinz managed to sell fucking Imageon to Qualcomm.
Oh well, it's history now.

Because Nvidia played them good.
Since Fermi was 6 months late, AMD white deviled consumers by raising the $259 5850 price up to the $320 range. When Fermi dropped, Nvidia overpriced the 470 and 480, allowing AMD to keep those prices.
Then they dropped the GTX 460 at $200/230 (768MB/1GB) and shortly thereafter aggressively price warred with the 5770 that had crept up to $180. A couple months after launch you could get a 768MB GTX 460 for $90. (though that didn't last long and they eventually stabilized at around $130/150.)
But they never price warred with the 470/480. They kept those prices high and AMD stuck with them as well. So everyone bought a GTX 460.
If AMD had just dropped the 5850 to launch price it would've at least been in the running. But they refused until it was too late.

meant to reply to

>Because Nvidia played them good.
Another shitty excuse.
>AMD white deviled consumers by raising the $259 5850 price up to the $320 range
That happened due to basically nonexistant 40nm yields.
5870 was also sitting at ~$400-420 range.

>Almost all that gained market share was from miners.

>AMD must always undercut nvidia even when they have better products, nvidia sells well at high prices

So you just admitted it was nvidias reputation.

>HD5000
>mining
?

When the bottom falls out of bitcoin / crypto does that mean the market will be flooded with dirt-cheap used cars, and I'll be able to build a quad SLI system for peanuts or something?

t. don't even game

AMD needs a Ryzen to happen with their GPU's.

That's Vega.
Shame they had no money (and people) to execute it's launch properly.

The 470 was faster than the 5850. AMD priced it slightly under that instead of slightly over the 460. Big mistake.

Vega is fucking trash though.

I guess you could say NVidia's market share is really on fire right now.

>The 470 was faster than the 5850.
Marginally, at significantly higher power, and perf/watt is all that matters amirite?
So you have not even the slightest idea what you're talking about? Besides, learn to read:
>Shame they had no money (and people) to execute it's launch properly.

>What "underwhelming products"?
R9 200 and R9 300, are you even reading?

200 were mostly rebrands (i.e. nobody has a reason to buy one because they have HD 7k), 290 and 290X had a fucking horrible reference models at release, which got them bad reviews and a lingering bad reputation. They also had some driver issues at release, I think this was about the time of the RSODs and GSODs and cursor bugs too. So yes, AMD released disappointing products which were only decent as custom cards. The horrible reference models and bad launch reviews still left their mark. Disappointing, and I'm saying this as somebody who had 2 Sapphire Tri-X 290Xs.

Then R9 300 were rebrands entirely, once again no reason for anyone who owned the older products to buy them. If you bought HD 7900s, there was almost no reason to own anything from the R9 300 series. If you had a 290/290X, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to buy anything from R9 300. Disappointment again, no reason to purchase again unless you had really old shit at this point. NVIDIA meanwhile had a meh series with GTX 700 and released an excellent series with Maxwell.

HD 5k were excellent for mining. You could mine like 50BTC a month with a HD 5800 card in those days.

>Vega

Are you fucking serious?

So competetive products are disappointing?
That's fucking retarded.
GPU market is fucking retarded and should face nuclear holocaust.

More like AMDs negative reputation. You're getting it backwards, people don't WANT AMD, ask the average person about AMD and I guarentee they-'ll say "AMD has no drivers."

Read what is does (or what it *should* do).

>AMD white deviled consumers by raising the $259 5850 price up to the $320 range.

They didn't, it was cryptomining that got picked up and started clearing the stock. I remember mining with my 5850, it made its price back easily.

AMD needs a 1080ti killer.

Why?
Their halo products sell like hot shit, just look at 7970/290x sales.

Because as long as nvidia hold the "top GPU" title with the 1080ti, it creates an impression that nvidia is better overall, whether its true or not doesnt matter, what matters it affects people since people arent logical. So people buy nvidias over amd at other price points also.

There really isn't a difference, their reputations are relative to each other.

You're laughing at your own demise, brainlet gaymur.

AMD had better halo products before.
It did fuckall to sales, really.

You need to be more than merely "competitive" if you want massive and quick market share gains. You need to be straight-up far superior, which AMD never was in those times. I don't remember the exact periods, but there were also some mining crazes during those years, that most certainly didn't help AMD in the desktop market share among gamers.

Rebrands are disappointing anyway, as I have already explained, when they release a rebrand people who own the original product have absolutely 0 incentive or reason to upgrade. They released 2 rebrand gens in a row and never had a clearly superior product over NVIDIA during either. I'm not going to repeat again how this was also the time when AMD had multiple issues with drivers and multiple games ran poorly on release, due to Gameworks too. Muh "competitive" isn't the end of the story.

Not him but I mines with a hd5970.

Simply being cheaper isn't being competitive.
AMD fans have the hardest time understanding that.

So wait, simply competetive products from nVidia are THE BEST THING EVER and that's not the case for AMD?
>Simply being cheaper isn't being competitive.
Offering the same perf at lower pricepoint or better perf at the same pricepoint isn't being competetive?
The fuck.

They have to hold that position for more than just a couple generations here and there.

So you want AMD to waste gorillion in R&D money for silly toys called "GPUs" so maybe in 10 years they will breach 50% marketshare with superior products?
Well that's too silly even for me.

Well thats the business they chose innit?

But AMD's bread and butter are x86 CPUs.

Yeah better to invest millions in APU's which failed miserably and are only used in consoles (no margins) and bargain bin laptops.

>consoles (no margins)
Huge volumes.
>bargain bin laptops.
RR might change that.
And it's still better than desperately trying to pander to manchildren trying to "compete".

Yeah I dont like the idea of an APU for desktop at all especially since usually GPU upgraded are needed more often than CPU for the average user.

>There really isn't a difference, their reputations are relative to each other.
It's really not, most people are neutral or slightly positive to Nvidia but hate AMD. The vast majority of consumers don't buy AMD on principle, that's why their gaming marketshare is so low. To most people Nvidia is the only GPU manufacturer, AMD isn't even an option. It's similar to Intel vs. AMD when Bulldozer was out.

>Yeah I dont like the idea of an APU for desktop
Most non-manchildren don't need dGPU power.

It's kind of funny that your only argument is screaming that everyone who doesn't buy from your favorite company is a manchild. Really telling, since I'm sure if AMD/ATI had the majoritay dGPU marketshare you would be bragging about it. You just come off as an obnoxious fanboy, not even sure why you're in the thread..

Maxwell wasn't simply competitive. GTX 970 had excellent value, at least as good as AMD competitors, while using less power and requiring less cooling and while also generally having a lot of room for OC. Beyond that it also had Gameworks and NVIDIA did not suffer from "game runs like shit at launch" syndrome in that time period. The 3.5 debacle was a thing, but it did not affect many games in practice at low resolution (1080p) where the 970 was at home anyway.

GTX 980 had the high-end all to itself and was a good card, beyond being overpriced. So no, Maxwell was not "simply competitive", it had multiple clear advantages over the competition from AMD, which was generations-old, used more power and required more cooling, didn't OC quite as well and had issues with games day 1. I even had AMD during this entire time period, I know exactly what it was like.

And if AMD releases a better card, it won't sell well because of the reputation, they'll have to sell it at a lower price, and it will cost them more to make than nvidia. The price would be too high to be worth it. Hell, even VEGA wasnt worth it.

The only hope for the GPU market as a whole is that AMD can use infinity fabric on GPUs.

The cost savings from not having a dedicated GPU makes a APU upgrade worth it for the segment they are target at. People who play games like OW and LoL.

The difference makes no difference in practice.

>while using less power and requiring less cooling and while also generally having a lot of room for OC
So, 5850/5870?
You've described them, and they sold tenfold worse compared to 3.5 meme.
Okay, I got it, %something% only matters when nVidia has/is superior in it.

I suppose it depends on APU price points.

Are you mentally impaired, user? HD 5k gained ~10% market share in a quarter, before GTX 460 curbed the enthusiasm since it wasn't shit and was priced aggressively. Maxwell also gained ~10% market share its first quarter, then fucking continued to do so because AMD had no answer. Unlike NVIDIA with GTX 460. Do you see the difference here, or is it still too complicated?

>460
THAT'S NO ANSWER TO $300 SWEET SPOT SKUs LIKE 5850 OR 970 WERE YOU MORON.

They released the $300 GPU at $230 and then cut the price to $180. See how a real company gets market share back?

460 was not a fucking $300 GPU.
>Okay, I got it, %something% only matters when nVidia has/is superior in it.
Good luck, user.

So when are rx 600 and gtx 2000 series dropping?
Is amd going to rebrand the rx 400 series again?
Seriously bored with amd now. We need some fresh fuel for graphics wars

>So when are rx 600 and gtx 2000 series dropping?
H1 2018.
>Is amd going to rebrand the rx 400 series again?
Probably.
>We need some fresh fuel for graphics wars
Cool but AMD does not have exactly tons of money to throw at GPUs.

Of course. But APUs don't need the power supplies, memory* and other support components dedicated GPUs need, so there's savings to be had.

It was compared to the $320 5850. And Nvidia released it at $230.
A $320 GPU doesn't look so good against a $300 one that's selling for $230.

Next AMD GPU's will be low end Vega with GDDR5/6, will probably have same performance as Polaris. Both vega and Volta will probably release in Spring sometime, with Navi late next year. Although knowing AMD Navi will probably be delayed until 2019.

>It was compared to the $320 5850
It wasn't, and 5850 was not $320.
>Okay, I got it, %something% only matters when nVidia has/is superior in it.

But dear retard, haven't AMD themselves said most sales come from the ~$200 segment when they released Polaris? Isn't that the whole reason they decided to hit that segment with Polaris? Why are you surprised that the $200-250 GTX 460 was actually successful in staving off market share loss?

This isn't hard to comprehend at all. NVIDIA fucked up with 470 and 480, then responded with the GTX 460 in order to avoid massively losing marketshare (this worked). AMD fucked up with R9 200/300 against Maxwell, then did absolutely fucking NOTHING and their market share continued to go down the shitter.

Which of those will be better than a vega 64 right now? Or even approaching 1080ti?

Holding out on upgrading from a 970 until i can get. 1080ti for cheaper, or similar performance for cheaper.

Games havent been too good lately so ive sat patiently.

why cant team curry compete???

They tried.
It was pretty pointless.

>most people are neutral or slightly positive to Nvidia but hate AMD
i've been defending amd for like 1.5 years up until vega released. i wouldn't be surprised if i helped a few people see that amd is a viable option over AMD but they completely fuck me over with vegas launch.
the fake launch price, the fake scarcity leading to inflated prices that not even miners wanted to touch. fuck AMD, i'll give them another shot in a year or so but they're not even worth defending when they're so fucking greedy. i see rajas firing as a move in the right direction though.

Literally no one knows dude. Stock 1070 was roughly the same as stock 980Ti, so maybe 1170 will match 1080Ti, with 1180 slightly ahead, maybe not. AMD likely won't have anything to compete with 1080Ti until Navi. Not even sure if they'll refresh 56 and 64.

>viable option over AMD
over nvidia*

>that not even miners wanted to touch.
>he doesnt know

Shit my GTX 660 Ti 3gb is still holding up in the maxed 1080p gaming department for the most part. I "upgraded" to a GTX 770 2gb only to find myself shocked that the 2gb frame buffer actually held the card back so much in certain games that it actually felt worse than gaming on my GTX 660 Ti. Plus the GTX 770 temps were outrageous. The reference 770 was made for looks not cooling performance I'm guessing, just look at the anemic aluminum heatsink.

I must agree with your point about the sweet spot though. 1080p maxed settings with 60 FPS average minimum is perfect for just about anyone and the GTX 1060 6gb is perfect for that.

Yes it was, and yes it was.
tomshardware.com/forum/277454-33-radeon-5850-tons-brands