Not surprising: nVidia Market share declining

[Joe DeFuria]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11054

Haven't seen the actual Mecury research report myself yet...

Intel as well as ATI were winners. ATI gained 1.6% to hold 21 per cent of the total graphics chip market, Intel gained five per cent and held 32%, while Nvidia lost market share by 4.5% to 27%.

[jb]

Its not too supprising. ATI has had the better part for the low/mid/high for some time now (what I mean is the GF4 mx vrs the 9000 varients). It takes a long time for these things to change. However now that ATI is short in the low end I would expect the next Q to stay level as nV FX5200 seems to be selling very well.

[Joe DeFuria]

However now that ATI is short in the low end I would expect the next Q to stay level as nV FX5200 seems to be selling very well.

That depends on what chips the FX5200 is replacing.

If the FX5200 is replacing old GeForce4MX shipments, then that doesn't impact marketshare that much.

nVidia has had pretty good hold on the low end ever since the GeForce2 MX. The low end market share is for nVidia to lose. I suspect that the GeForcefX 5200 sales are helping to maintain nVidia marketshare in the low-end...not increase it.

[Seiko]

However now that ATI is short in the low end I would expect the next Q to stay level as nV FX5200 seems to be selling very well.

That depends on what chips the FX5200 is replacing.

If the FX5200 is replacing old GeForce4MX shipments, then that doesn't impact marketshare that much.

nVidia has had pretty good hold on the low end ever since the GeForce2 MX. The low end market share is for nVidia to lose. I suspect that the GeForcefX 5200 sales are helping to maintain nVidia marketshare in the low-end...not increase it.

ATI have done themselves no favours in the low end by releasing the old 8500 DX8 derivitive. Sure it may have saved them a few pennies and allowed them to shift old/revamped 8500 cores but I honestly think it was their biggest blunder last year. If ATI had released a genuine low end DX9 part they would have completely dominated. Unfortunately they didn't and the good old OEMs have proved themselves again by opting for ticks in the box as opposed to the actual performance hence the 5200s have done very well indeed compared with the 9000s!

Ah well, may be ATI is starting at the top and working its way down?

[Dave Baumann]

You'll see 9600's working their way down soon.

[digitalwanderer]

You'll see 9600's working their way down soon.
"And then, and then Pinky we'll take over the ENTIRE WORLD!!!"

-Brain, The

[Joe DeFuria]

If ATI had released a genuine low end DX9 part they would have completely dominated. Unfortunately they didn't and the good old OEMs have proved themselves again by opting for ticks in the box as opposed to the actual performance hence the 5200s have done very well indeed compared with the 9000s!

Seiko,

Did you listen to the ATI presentation at yesterday's conference?



Pay close attention to the part where ATI says they are committed to keeping margins up. This is the primary difference between ATI and nVidia IMO.

nVidia is more willing to trade margins for market share, and ATI is more willing to preserve margins and sacrifice some market share.

http://www.vcall.com/CoLocated.asp?ID=84495

You can make a case for either approach, of course. The thing is, ATI is managing to keep margins up while not losing, and in fact gaining market share. At the same time, nVidia is losing market share. It's tough to say that ATI is picking the wrong balance when things are going in that direction.

Ah well, may be ATI is starting at the top and working its way down?

This is, in fact, exactly the mantra that ATI has been preaching for the past year or two. On the call, you'll hear reference to DX9 technology making its way into lower cost segments "soon."

[Seiko]

If ATI had released a genuine low end DX9 part they would have completely dominated. Unfortunately they didn't and the good old OEMs have proved themselves again by opting for ticks in the box as opposed to the actual performance hence the 5200s have done very well indeed compared with the 9000s!

Seiko,

Did you listen to the ATI presentation at yesterday's conference?



Pay close attention to the part where ATI says they are committed to keeping margins up. This is the primary difference between ATI and nVidia IMO.

nVidia is more willing to trade margins for market share, and ATI is more willing to preserve margins and sacrifice some market share.

http://www.vcall.com/CoLocated.asp?ID=84495

You can make a case for either approach, of course. The thing is, ATI is managing to keep margins up while not losing, and in fact gaining market share. At the same time, nVidia is losing market share. It's tough to say that ATI is picking the wrong balance when things are going in that direction.

Ah well, may be ATI is starting at the top and working its way down?

This is, in fact, exactly the mantra that ATI has been preaching for the past year or two. On the call, you'll hear reference to DX9 technology making its way into lower cost segments "soon."

Hi Joe,

I have to admit that I haven't listened to the call however irrespective of ATIs direction I'm still not convinced it’s as simple as saying it's all about margins when talking on these forums or in this context. Sure as a share holder you'd perhaps not fault them now but in the long term low/mid range parts are what keep a company alive. Until ATI genuinely control a much larger slice of what is after all the lion’s share of the market space I'd hardly say they're safe or even destined to remain in profit? As Dave mentions they may in the future be able to drop the 9600 into a lower bracket but I'd then think NVIDIA will have had a chance to respond. If as I've said many times NVIDIA’s cards are comparable then I suspect most NVIDIA users simply won’t jump ship.
This is really my whole problem as I honestly believe it will take a huge gap in performance/features between a IHVs similar priced card to get a long time supporter to switch sides. I'd even suggest that this may include OEMs too as they will have obviously had time to create long standing relations.
When ATI launched the R300 they took the community by storm and again IMHO could have really capitalized on that moment to yank NVIDIA users/OEMs to their side if they’d have launched a budget DX9 card. Now as the two IHVs portfolios realign in terms of performance/features and standards the opportunity for ATI to yank those existing NVIDIA users away starts to fade. It has been a year after all and ATI still fail to make any real in roads in this segment?

Ok, so I'm probably living in cloud cookoo land and there was no feasible way ATI could drop a DX9 card into the low end in that time frame but I’d hate to see ATI squander their chance. I know how I am when it comes to card selection. It took 3DFX to go out business before I had to look to another IHV. Now I firmly believe ATI offer the best cards and know it’ll take a huge failure in ATIs range or leap in NVIDIA’s range to get me to change. As I don’t believe I’m too different to other potential customers and with 60% of the market being NVIDIA users ATI need something big to make them change their mind. Unfortunately I still don’t see anything big enough below the R300/R350?

[Jima13]

You'll see 9600's working their way down soon.

I'd like to see how the 9600np fits in> http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/geforcefx-5200/index.x?pg=13

have there been any reviews comparing the vanilla FX5200 and the 9600np? since it's the likely candidate to be pushed <$100 :?:

[Joe DeFuria]

Hi Seiko,

...I'm still not convinced it’s as simple as saying it's all about margins when talking on these forums or in this context.

It's all about striking some balance between margins and market share. ATI, at this time anyway, is tilted more towards margins, and nvidia is tilted more toward market share.

Either way you go, you have risks.

I can certainly appreciate the point of view of tilting more toward market share. But it doesn't come without it's own trade-offs.

Until ATI genuinely control a much larger slice of what is after all the lion’s share of the market space I'd hardly say they're safe or even destined to remain in profit?

NO company is safe or destined to remain in profit. I can say of nVidia, if they keep reducing margins in order to battle a downward trend in market share....they will not remain profitable either.

As Dave mentions they may in the future be able to drop the 9600 into a lower bracket but I'd then think NVIDIA will have had a chance to respond.

Such is the nature of competition! :)

If as I've said many times NVIDIA’s cards are comparable then I suspect most NVIDIA users simply won’t jump ship.

Patience, Sekio, patience. :) If ATI just lowers prices to reduces margins and profits...that's less money to spend on R&D.

When ATI launched the R300 they took the community by storm and again IMHO could have really capitalized on that moment to yank NVIDIA users/OEMs to their side if they’d have launched a budget DX9 card.

At what cost though? Obviously, having a better product helps with more sales, but I just don't see you considering the downside risks: more development cost, lower margins, etc.

Ok, so I'm probably living in cloud cookoo land and there was no feasible way ATI could drop a DX9 card into the low end in that time frame but I’d hate to see ATI squander their chance.

I understand where you are coming from. You just have to realize that these companies have finite resources, and they have to prioritize projects according to their overall plan.

I just can't fault ATI's plan at the moment...they're increasing margins and market share simultaneously...they win the Microsoft contract, they're getting their hands in all different kinds of devices and markets. In short...they are poised for decent growth.

I am simply less interested in the quick destruction of nVidia, than I am in ATI managing and executing a sound plan for growth. :)

[Entropy]

As Dave mentions they may in the future be able to drop the 9600 into a lower bracket but I'd then think NVIDIA will have had a chance to respond.

Actually, Dave is quoting from the conference call, where it was stated that the 9600 will move down into the mainstream.
Personally, this is quite gratifying - it would create a bit of a product vacuum to the R360, which I hope will be filled with a decent performing 0.13um midrange part with modest power draw. :)

Entropy

[ZoinKs!]

Actually, Dave is quoting from the conference call, where it was stated that the 9600 will move down into the mainstream. Personally, this is quite gratifying - it would create a bit of a product vacuum to the R360, which I hope will be filled with a decent performing 0.13um midrange part with modest power draw. :)
I've read posts from people who've spoken with ati saying we can soon expect a card with performance equal to the 9700pro but retailing for $200. :D

My guess is it'll be the "pro" variant of the rv360. Relatively low power so no extra power cables, .13 process, basically a faster 9600pro. Maybe a new feature or two... this is all guesses, though. :(

[Dave Baumann]

.13 process,

heh.

[micron]

Actually, Dave is quoting from the conference call, where it was stated that the 9600 will move down into the mainstream.
I'm sure it will....
With decreased clock speeds and crapola memory. ATi's past cards tell the story.
I dont think I need to give anyone an example of what I'm talking about.

[just me]

While I agree the 5200 has no DX9 competition (the 9600 series is a competitor for the 5600's), the 8500/9100 decision was good on many sides, IMO.

1. ATi got rid of inventory & associated costs.
2. The chip was/is in demand & is still a good 'mainstream' performer due to the lack of DX9 apps available.
3. ATi got to see which 'partners' could produce quality products. (Bear in mind ATi was producing the majority of the cards last year & has now concentrated on chips & flash memory & the 'PCPartners' are the card makers. :wink: )
4. ~$75 8500/9100's have taken away $100+ GF4 Ti/MX sales for those not willing to go DX9 yet.

Acquaintance bought a new Dell recently w/a 2.4 P4. Came w/a 128mb 5200. ATi does need a card in that 'niche' or they'll have to show the worth of a $ 9600 in a 5200 retail comp, IMO. Trying to use the 9600's to cover 5200/5600's is a stretch in the price/performance ratio. Kudos to ATi if they can afford to do it tho'. 8)

.02, [/url]

[digitalwanderer]

.13 process,

heh.
They're not gonna pull a .11 on us, are they? I thought that was just nV?

[jjayb]

I'm sure it will....
With decreased clock speeds and crapola memory. ATi's past cards tell the story.
I dont think I need to give anyone an example of what I'm talking about.


And that will still put it well ahead of the gffx5200.

[micron]

4. ~$75 8500/9100's have taken away $100+ GF4 Ti/MX sales for those not willing to go DX9 yet.
Show me a store I can walk into and purchase an 8500 for $75 dollars. 9100's are still more then a hundred bucks in store.
250/230 with .4ns memory!....thats what happens when ATi cards move into the lower end segment :wink:

[micron]

I'm sure it will....
With decreased clock speeds and crapola memory. ATi's past cards tell the story.
I dont think I need to give anyone an example of what I'm talking about.


And that will still put it well ahead of the gffx5200.
No it wont.....
And dont forget the GeForce4's.

[Fred da Roza]

.13 process,

heh.

.15 at UMC?

[ZoinKs!]

I have a hard time believing that ati will bring out new a performance mainstream part at .15; that seems like a step backwards. Especially since they've gotten good yields with rv350. On the other hand, .15 at umc should be cheap. But they'd probably have power and heat issues.

It makes sense for ati to eventually move to a smaller process with a relatively simple mainstream part. But it seems too soon for that.

I'm assuming the $200 r9700pro equivalent chip is the rv360. I also assume the rv360 is a respin or refresh of rv350. Are these assumptions correct? If not, what parts are wrong? :?:

[PatrickL]

Hum RV360? i knew of course for R360 but we will get a RV part too for the mainstream segment ?

[WaltC]

IMO "DX9" when applied to the 5200 is little more than a marketing bullet, and ought to be treated as such. The 5200 is a pretty rotten "DX9" part, very nearly as rotten a DX9 part as ATi's low-end DX8 parts could be said to be "DX9" parts (simply because they'll include DX9-compatible drivers.)

I mean, nVidia's high-end nv35 is a fairly poor "DX9" part when contrasted to R350, and the 5200 is just much worse.

To me the phrase "low-end DX9" is an oxymoron of sorts....;)

[ZoinKs!]

Yeah, the rv360 is supposed to be a faster, cheaper, bug fixed respin of rv350. So there shouldn't be much new about it. But there was also some talk (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=131855) of an rv380 somewhere further down the line.

[WaltC]

I have a hard time believing that ati will bring out new a performance mainstream part at .15; that seems like a step backwards. Especially since they've gotten good yields with rv350. On the other hand, .15 at umc should be cheap. But they'd probably have power and heat issues.

It makes sense for ati to eventually move to a smaller process with a relatively simple mainstream part. But it seems too soon for that.

I'm assuming the $200 r9700pro equivalent chip is the rv360. I also assume the rv360 is a respin or refresh of rv350. Are these assumptions correct? If not, what parts are wrong? :?:

nVidia's had plenty of heat and power issues with its .13 micron chips for the last year--not to mention yield issues. I think it's more important to look at processes in terms of economics as opposed to power consumption, heat, and performance. It could well be that a .13 micron R350--right now--might provide considerably lower yields, run hotter and consume more power than at .15 microns. I think that by and large the generally assumed benefits for die shrinks were apparent for .25 to .18 and then for .18 to .15. Things get dicier going to .13, and even more problematic going to .09, because of physical engineering/manufacturing barriers of a type not a problem at the larger processes.

I think ATi is looking at moving to .13 completely when the economics get right, and that performance, heat, and power consumption are less the concern than the economics of it at the moment. Much depends on the architecture and the circuit design, and so while RV350 is doable economically at .13, R350 isn't. Yet.

Meanwhile, comparisons between R350 and nv35 are positive proof that a process does not a vpu make...;)

[Fred da Roza]

I have a hard time believing that ati will bring out new a performance mainstream part at .15; that seems like a step backwards. Especially since they've gotten good yields with rv350. On the other hand, .15 at umc should be cheap. But they'd probably have power and heat issues.

It makes sense for ati to eventually move to a smaller process with a relatively simple mainstream part. But it seems too soon for that.

I'm assuming the $200 r9700pro equivalent chip is the rv360. I also assume the rv360 is a respin or refresh of rv350. Are these assumptions correct? If not, what parts are wrong? :?:

I assume your definition of performance mainstream is 5200. I can't imagine a 9600 manufactured at .13 being offered at 5200 prices at this time. DaveB did say soon. The 5200 is manufactured at .15 and nobody said it was a step backwards.

Why would a .15, 9600 have power and heat issues. The .13, 9600 seems to have a lot of headroom and a .15, 9600 wouldn't have to clock as high. It only has to beat a 5200. Since NV34 is manufactured at .15, at TSMC to boot, I would assume .15 is still quite a bit cheaper than .13 per chip, and that's what counts.

[ZoinKs!]

The market can be roughly divided up something like this: value, mainstream, performance, enthusiast. "Performance mainstream" is about $150-200 range, the same place the 9600pro is right now. The 5200 is a value or mainstream card.

I'm assuming ati's next performance mainstream product will be based on rv360, which is just a fast, economical rv350. If this is the case, it'd have to be .13, but DaveB has implied it might not. So that's got me curious... Anything other than .13 for that market segment is a surprise.

Which is fine with me. I like surprises. :lol:

[just me]

The .13, 9600 seems to have a lot of headroom and a .15, 9600 wouldn't have to clock as high. It only has to beat a 5200.

Au contrare, IMO. :wink:

It has to be comparable to a 5200nu price & beat the performance of the 5200's & be w/in -10%max of a 5600nu. The 9600Pro has to compete w/the 5600Ultra in price/performance. The 5600nu is in the 9600np class, not the 9600Pro class afterall. 8)

.02,

[Fred da Roza]

The market can be roughly divided up something like this: value, mainstream, performance, enthusiast. "Performance mainstream" is about $150-200 range, the same place the 9600pro is right now. The 5200 is a value or mainstream card.

I'm assuming ati's next performance mainstream product will be based on rv360, which is just a fast, economical rv350. If this is the case, it'd have to be .13, but DaveB has implied it might not. So that's got me curious... Anything other than .13 for that market segment is a surprise.

Which is fine with me. I like surprises. :lol:

In another thread Joe DeFuria wrote:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7417

Just some blurbs from the conference presentation above:

ATI stated:

We do intend going forward to have a multiple-foundry strategy as we have now. We will probably not take part of the high end graphics and send it somewhere else (like apparently our competitor).

DaveB has already said:

You'll see 9600's working their way down soon.

So what part will ATI have UMC manufacture?

[Dave Baumann]

I think people are confusing the path RV350 will take with the path RV360 will take.

[Joe DeFuria]

I think people are confusing the path RV350 will take with the path RV360 will take.

I think Dave is purposely trying to confuse people on the RV350 and RV360. ;)

[NocturnDragon]

I think people are confusing the path RV350 will take with the path RV360 will take.

Rv350 take the current place of Rv280
and
Rv360 take the current place of Rv350?

[kemosabe]

Deleted and reposted hereunder...

[kemosabe]

I think people are confusing the path RV350 will take with the path RV360 will take.

Rv350 take the current place of Rv280
and
Rv360 take the current place of Rv350?

That sure sounds like the reasoning Dave is trying to impart.

RV280 goes to the integrated segment.

RV350 design fabbed on 0.15u (at UMC?) to reduce costs and offer a compelling yet cheap alternative to the 5200.

RV360/Pro on 0.13u at TSMC with higher clocks (and a few tweaks) to offer 9500 Pro+ level performance in the lucrative $200-$250 segment and lessen the gap with the upcoming 9900 Pro. Will the 9800 non-Pro survive this shakeup?

[Fred da Roza]

I think people are confusing the path RV350 will take with the path RV360 will take.

Rv350 take the current place of Rv280
and
Rv360 take the current place of Rv350?

That sure sounds like the reasoning Dave is trying to impart.

RV280 goes to the integrated segment.

RV350 design fabbed on 0.15u (at UMC?) to reduce costs and offer a compelling yet cheap alternative to the 5200.

RV360/Pro on 0.13u at TSMC with higher clocks (and a few tweaks) to offer 9500 Pro+ level performance in the lucrative $200-$250 segment and lessen the gap with the upcoming 9900 Pro. Will the 9800 non-Pro survive this shakeup?


I agree. .15 at UMC seems to make a lot of sense from a cost perspective but it's completely a guess.

A simple respin of the 9600 Pro at .13 (RV360) seems a bit odd to me. Why just tweak something that can overclock the way it does already. Is something being added back in (like Hierarchical Z)? That would make more sense to me since ATI says they are getting good yields and apparently can push RV350 clock rates higher without respinning the chip. That’s complete speculation of course.

[Entropy]

I agree. .15 at UMC seems to make a lot of sense from a cost perspective but it's completely a guess.

A simple respin of the 9600 Pro at .13 (RV360) seems a bit odd to me. Why just tweak something that can overclock the way it does already. Is something being added back in (like Hierarchical Z)? That would make more sense to me since ATI says they are getting good yields and apparently can push RV350 clock rates higher without respinning the chip. That’s complete speculation of course.

Making a respin for nothing but increases in clock would seem pretty pointless. Binning would serve the same purpose without mucking about with a production line that appears to work just fine.

So as you say, a new chip would seem to imply new functionality. HierZ, other memory related improvements, improvements to the performance of stencil operations, AA performance improvements ... the list of possibilities is long indeed. A pity of sorts that rumour mongering and wild speculation is so sadly lacking in the midrange. "Somewhat faster GPU clock" doesn't really excite, and doesn't seem to make all that much sense either.

Entropy

[Fred da Roza]

Making a respin for nothing but increases in clock would seem pretty pointless. Binning would serve the same purpose without mucking about with a production line that appears to work just fine.

So as you say, a new chip would seem to imply new functionality. HierZ, other memory related improvements, improvements to the performance of stencil operations, AA performance improvements ... the list of possibilities is long indeed. A pity of sorts that rumour mongering and wild speculation is so sadly lacking in the midrange. "Somewhat faster GPU clock" doesn't really excite, and doesn't seem to make all that much sense either.

Entropy

Adding new functionality would truly distinguish it from the 9600 non-pro (instead of just artificially lowering the clock). Coupled with some memory related improvement (faster memory, a 256-bit memory bus…) and you have a reason to buy a 9600 Pro at a premium over a 9600. Ultimately ATI could have 3 variants of the "9600" (RV360, .13 RV350 and .15 RV350) covering the $100 to $250 segment of the market which would compete against the 5600 Ultra, 5600 and 5200 Ultra, respectively.

[kemosabe]

Making a respin for nothing but increases in clock would seem pretty pointless. Binning would serve the same purpose without mucking about with a production line that appears to work just fine.

So as you say, a new chip would seem to imply new functionality. HierZ, other memory related improvements, improvements to the performance of stencil operations, AA performance improvements ... the list of possibilities is long indeed. A pity of sorts that rumour mongering and wild speculation is so sadly lacking in the midrange. "Somewhat faster GPU clock" doesn't really excite, and doesn't seem to make all that much sense either.

Entropy

Adding new functionality would truly distinguish it from the 9600 non-pro (instead of just artificially lowering the clock). Coupled with some memory related improvement (faster memory, a 256-bit memory bus…) and you have a reason to buy a 9600 Pro at a premium over a 9600. Ultimately ATI could have 3 variants of the "9600" (RV360, .13 RV350 and .15 RV350) covering the $100 to $250 segment of the market which would compete against the 5600 Ultra, 5600 and 5200 Ultra, respectively.

I would speculate that there would be a 0.15u RV350 (64 and 128 Mb) under $100 for low end/OEM and that the 0.13u RV360/Pro will replace the 0.13u RV350/Pro in the mainstream/performance segments ($100-$200). If the 9800 non-Pro survives, it would cover the $250-$300 range and the 9900/Pro would sit at the top.

0.15u RV350 = Radeon 9400? (if slower than the current 9600 non-Pro - otherwise?)
0.13u RV360 = ??? (no clue what they're gonna call this one)

[digitalwanderer]

Oh man, if they can get some of that R(v)3xx down to the sub-$100 bracket it'll be game over for nVidia for market dominance in ALL categories! :shock:

[Fred da Roza]

I would speculate that there would be a 0.15u RV350 (64 and 128 Mb) under $100 for low end/OEM and that the 0.13u RV360/Pro will replace the 0.13u RV350/Pro in the mainstream/performance segments ($100-$200). If the 9800 non-Pro survives, it would cover the $250-$300 range and the 9900/Pro would sit at the top.

0.15u RV350 = Radeon 9400? (if slower than the current 9600 non-Pro - otherwise?)
0.13u RV360 = ??? (no clue what they're gonna call this one)

Was thinking thats how it would plays out myself. How cheap is .15 at UMC compared to .13 at TSMC. Would ATI still have decent margins offering a .15 RV350 in the $100 - $150 range. If it carried a slight ($10-$20) premium over a 5200 Ultra I would expect it could still sell, provided it was clearly better. As Dave said I guess we will find out soon.

Oh man, if they can get some of that R(v)3xx down to the sub-$100 bracket it'll be game over for nVidia for market dominance in ALL categories! :shock:

Do you think they have to? Can the 9000/9200 cover the sub $100. Isn't nVidia still pushing the GeForce 4 in that space. Just because nVidia is offering ultra low performing 5200 doesn't mean ATI has to follow. How do the 5200 non-ultras compare against the 9000/9200 variants?

[digitalwanderer]

Do you think they have to? Can the 9000/9200 cover the sub $100. Isn't nVidia still pushing the GeForce 4 in that space. Just because nVidia is offering ultra low performing 5200 doesn't mean ATI has to follow. How do the 5200 non-ultras compare against the 9000/9200 variants?
I'm afraid I can't fairly answer that question, I'm horribly biased against the 8500 and all derivatives there of no matter what their number. :)

No, I don't think they HAVE to dominate the entire market...but I do think it would be a great thing to be able to bring the 9700 technology into a sub-$100 card just because I think it's such an amazing bit-o-technology and it would allow a lot more people to try the new ATi. :)

[RussSchultz]

5200's are taking up the shelf space that the GF4 used to.

[Fred da Roza]

5200's are taking up the shelf space that the GF4 used to.

With Ultras under $100?

[RussSchultz]

5200's are taking up the shelf space that the GF4 used to.

With Ultras under $100?

Likely not. Best Buy/Fry's/Compusa, etc sell everything at list price.

But what does that matter? The 5200's appear to be replacing the GF4MX on the retail shelf.

[kemosabe]

Was thinking thats how it would plays out myself. How cheap is .15 at UMC compared to .13 at TSMC. Would ATI still have decent margins offering a .15 RV350 in the $100 - $150 range. If it carried a slight ($10-$20) premium over a 5200 Ultra I would expect it could still sell, provided it was clearly better. As Dave said I guess we will find out soon.

I recall reading a DigiTimes story some time ago about ATI's decision to have RV280 fabbed at UMC, and it was claimed that their 0.15u process was up to 20% cheaper than TSMC's, but I've read nothing reliable about 0.15u vs. 0.13u costs.


Do you think they have to? Can the 9000/9200 cover the sub $100. Isn't nVidia still pushing the GeForce 4 in that space. Just because nVidia is offering ultra low performing 5200 doesn't mean ATI has to follow. How do the 5200 non-ultras compare against the 9000/9200 variants?

Not sure whether they have to, but if you look at the big OEM configurations, the GF4MX slots are largely going to the FX 5200 (major exception being the Presario line which uses the 9200 more), suggesting that NVDA is succeeding in its DX9 marketing campaign. I believe that ATI will be able pick up some of those current discrete low-end slots with the RS300 chipset (e.g. see this blurb mid-page about a rumoured white box design win: http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=4924555B-23CF-4931-B43B-A1CA1867920A ), just like Intel stole lots of discrete low-end share with their integrated stuff over the last few years. Nevertheless, from what Orton said at the last CC, I doubt ATI will go into the fall without a sub-$100 standalone DX9 part. Unless I misunderstood what I've read on this board, the RV350 has a very cheap PCB design and should be easy to sell in volume under $100 if yields are as strong as the 0.13u version.

Edit: Here is the DigiTimes story from last December: http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2002/12/13&pages=04&seq=28

[Fred da Roza]

5200's are taking up the shelf space that the GF4 used to.

With Ultras under $100?

Likely not. Best Buy/Fry's/Compusa, etc sell everything at list price.

But what does that matter? The 5200's appear to be replacing the GF4MX on the retail shelf.

I just check some prices at New Egg and Compusa. The standard 9600 is about the same price as 5200 Ultras (which surprised me). So theoretically a .15 9600 would have to compete with a standard 5200. If it clearly performs better it should be able to carry a slight premium. So no I don't think it should be priced as low as a standard 5200.

[Entropy]

But what does that matter? The 5200's appear to be replacing the GF4MX on the retail shelf.

On Dells shelf however, they would seem not to:http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article2.asp?datePublish=2003/08/15&pages=04&seq=15

The GF4MX has remarkable tenacity. DX7 forever! Small wonder though, it is good at what it does.

Entropy

[Fred da Roza]

I recall reading a DigiTimes story some time ago about ATI's decision to have RV280 fabbed at UMC, and it was claimed that their 0.15u process was up to 20% cheaper than TSMC's, but I've read nothing reliable about 0.15u vs. 0.13u costs.


Not sure whether they have to, but if you look at the big OEM configurations, the GF4MX slots are largely going to the FX 5200 (major exception being the Presario line which uses the 9200 more), suggesting that NVDA is succeeding in its DX9 marketing campaign. I believe that ATI will be able pick up some of those current discrete low-end slots with the RS300 chipset (e.g. see this blurb mid-page about a rumoured white box design win: http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=4924555B-23CF-4931-B43B-A1CA1867920A ), just like Intel stole lots of discrete low-end share with their integrated stuff over the last few years. Nevertheless, from what Orton said at the last CC, I doubt ATI will go into the fall without a sub-$100 standalone DX9 part. Unless I misunderstood what I've read on this board, the RV350 has a very cheap PCB design and should be easy to sell in volume under $100 if yields are as strong as the 0.13u version.

Edit: Here is the DigiTimes story from last December: http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2002/12/13&pages=04&seq=28

After reading that article, if a .15 9600 is manufactured, I'm convinced it will be at UMC.

Even if it's 20% cheaper than TSMC, can a .15 9600 compete cost wise against a 5200? A selling price in the ball park should be good enough provided it's clearly better.

[kemosabe]

I recall reading a DigiTimes story some time ago about ATI's decision to have RV280 fabbed at UMC, and it was claimed that their 0.15u process was up to 20% cheaper than TSMC's, but I've read nothing reliable about 0.15u vs. 0.13u costs.


Not sure whether they have to, but if you look at the big OEM configurations, the GF4MX slots are largely going to the FX 5200 (major exception being the Presario line which uses the 9200 more), suggesting that NVDA is succeeding in its DX9 marketing campaign. I believe that ATI will be able pick up some of those current discrete low-end slots with the RS300 chipset (e.g. see this blurb mid-page about a rumoured white box design win: http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=4924555B-23CF-4931-B43B-A1CA1867920A ), just like Intel stole lots of discrete low-end share with their integrated stuff over the last few years. Nevertheless, from what Orton said at the last CC, I doubt ATI will go into the fall without a sub-$100 standalone DX9 part. Unless I misunderstood what I've read on this board, the RV350 has a very cheap PCB design and should be easy to sell in volume under $100 if yields are as strong as the 0.13u version.

Edit: Here is the DigiTimes story from last December: http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2002/12/13&pages=04&seq=28

After reading that article, if a .15 9600 is manufactured, I'm convinced it will be at UMC.

Even if it's 20% cheaper than TSMC, can a .15 9600 compete cost wise against a 5200? A selling price in the ball park should be good enough provided it's clearly better.

Don't see why ATI couldn't make it competitive, and it should outperform the 5200 (especially with DX9 pixel/vertex shaders) unless the clocks are ridiculously low. I presume they'll try to put the squeeze on Nvidia on both ends (cheap DX8.1 RS300 against legacy DX7 GF2/4MX, and 0.15u RV350 at least equivalent/marginally faster than the 5200 at a similar or slightly higher price point). Idle speculation, but the truth shouldn't be too far off.

[kemosabe]

I propose we continue the speculation on this thread: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7479