View Full Version : Nvidia still sells 35% TNT2s
The recent Conference Call gave some interresting details on Nvidia's sales.
Most of their sales are, Geforce2 followed by TNT2 and Xbox.
Here are some numbers they mentioned in the CC:
1. Geforce2 (51% of all units)
2. TNT2 (35% of all units, 15% of all revenues)
3. Xbox
4. Geforce3
Xbox accounted for 17% (revenues IIRC). Apple and Mobile are both less than 10%. NVidia's mobile market share is at 7%, desktop at 66% and overall at 38% (including integrated). The average margain is around 36%.
Kristof
15-Feb-2002, 11:55
Is there alink to an online recording ?
http://www.nvidia.com/ir/
What shocked me was that they said they want to keep the Geforce2MX in the low end for one year, and the Geforce4MX in the mainstream also for one year. Geforce4Ti was said to be exchanged by the NV30 in 6 months.
Could you imagine having a DX7 NV17 in the mainstream one year from now when DX9 will be several months old? Maybe he confused something here..?
Probably they'd just like to still have the NV17 in the mainstream one year from now because it will be the biggest cashcow for them. So much for the "graphic technology leader" pushing advancements/progress.
Also interesting: they stay with AMD Athlon/nForce platform and have no plans for Intel P4 motherboards in the next years (at least thats what they say..).
Johnny Rotten
15-Feb-2002, 17:02
Could you imagine having a DX7 NV17 in the mainstream one year from now when DX9 will be several months old? Maybe he confused something here..?
Not that suprising really. Look at the TNT line, still more than a third of their sales 3 years later. ATI is still riding the Rage train, and I dont expect them to move to an all R200/R300 line next year. :smile:
Kristof
15-Feb-2002, 17:19
There is nothing shocking about it, its all about silicon cost. Just remember that pixel and vertex shaders add a lot of registers to a chip. A register is storgae on chip and translates directly to extra silicon space needed, extra silicon space translates to extra cost...
It is all ECONOMICS :smile:
Geforce3 (3 products) obviously accounts for less than 10% of their units sold in Q4.
Could you imagine having a DX7 NV17 in the mainstream one year from now when DX9 will be several months old? Maybe he confused something here..?
Not that suprising really. Look at the TNT line, still more than a third of their sales 3 years later. ATI is still riding the Rage train, and I dont expect them to move to an all R200/R300 line next year. :smile:
We are not talking about *low end* here. ATI will not have an all R200 line, but R200 will be in the *mainstream* soon! Just look at ATI's latest presentation, they'll use the R8500LE against Geforce4MX.
Edit: *low end* / *mainstream*
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nexus on 2002-02-15 18:44 ]</font>
On 2002-02-15 18:19, Kristof wrote:
It is all ECONOMICS :smile:
Just say it is all about money making. :wink:
I know how costly a DX8 design is. But how comes that ATI can sell the DX8.1 R8500LE(LE)'s so cheap (in near future) and Nvidia can not? Not because they wouldn't be able to do so but because they can make much more money with selling DX7 NV17 than with a cheap DX8 card. They are milking the cash cow in my eyes.
Actually, it's about what people do with computers. Here's a guess, but I imagine it will be born out statistically: I would say that less than 15% of households with computers use them for 3D applications at all, and less than 8-10% are serious gamers requiring high-end 3D.
I know lots of folks who think a "computer game" is solitaire or freecell. I know even more who don't even consider using a computer for entertainment, aside from web browsing.
So "mainstream" is actually not 3D at all.
On 2002-02-15 18:50, flf wrote:
So "mainstream" is actually not 3D at all.
Should I call it "3D mainstream"? :smile:
nVidia's market segments in 6 months:
integrated/low end: nForce, Geforce2MX
mainstream/mid end: Geforce4MX
high end: Geforce4Ti/NV30?
ATI's market segments in 6 months:
integrated/low end: A3/A4, R7xxx
mainstream/mid end: R8500(LE)
high end: R8700?/R8800, maybe R300
See what I mean?
I don't see it. GeForce 4 MX 440 is alreay available in Taiwan at about NT$4,500 (~ US$130). The Radeon 8500LE is almost twice the price here (~ NT$8,000). So I think in 6 months GeForce 4 MX will get into "low end" by your standard, not "mainstream".
On 2002-02-15 19:16, pcchen wrote:
I don't see it. GeForce 4 MX 440 is alreay available in Taiwan at about NT$4,500 (~ US$130). The Radeon 8500LE is almost twice the price here (~ NT$8,000). So I think in 6 months GeForce 4 MX will get into "low end" by your standard, not "mainstream".
"Official" pricing:
Geforce4MX460 $199
Geforce4MX440 $149
R8500LE 128MB $199
You can already order an Guillemot/Hercules Prophet R8500LE 64MB DDR, DVI TV-out for 196 Euro (142 US$ exclusive tax) in Europe.
[edited typo]
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nexus on 2002-02-15 19:51 ]</font>
MSRP is irrelevant. As I said before, GeForce 4 MX 440 is already selling at a price lower than the MSRP, and is available now. I believe Radeon 8500 LE 128MB is not available on street yet.
Geforce4 MX is priced against R7500, another DX7 card.
And as I said before R8500LE can be bought for $142. Not really almost twice as much as $130 for your Geforce4MX440. Wait and see, R8500LE's will become cheaper..
BTW, which card would you buy for the above prices? :wink:
On 2002-02-15 20:04, ram wrote:
Geforce4 MX is priced against R7500, another DX7 card.
Geforce4MX420 and 440 are priced against R7500, but not 460.
Geforce4MX460's competitor will be R8500LE and to a certain extent (when it will be available) Geforce4 Ti4200.
Pricewatch tells me that Geforce4 Mx 440 is already at 103 USD, and as Gf4 Mx 460 is not shipping yet, you cannot compare street prices against recommended selling prices.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ram on 2002-02-15 20:21 ]</font>
Such comparison is not really fair, since these prices are not in the same geographic area. On pricewatch, there are GF4 MX 440 listed at lower than US$110, and Hercules' Radeon 8500LE at US$165, both are without shipping. I think this could be a better comparison.
Althornin
15-Feb-2002, 19:20
Not suprising.
I work as a network admin/hardware software tech at a community college, and whoever makes the purchasing decisions did this:
Brand new machines from Dell, 1.7GHZ p4's, 512mb ram, SB Live, 40gb HD, and to cap it all off..."ATI Rage 128 Ultra" video card...upper management doesnt understand video cards yet....these machines are used in some classes that could benefit from a better vid card, like 3D rendering classes,etc. Fooking lame!
I've even seen a P4 computer with TNT2 M64. Great, isn't it? :smile:
Dave Baumann
15-Feb-2002, 19:42
Geforce4MX460 $199
Geforce4MX440 $149
R8500LE 128MB $199
No. 'Officially' Ti 4200 will come in at the $199 price point, Mx 460 is cheaper:
http://216.12.218.25/domain/www.beyond3d.com/articles/gf4launch/index7.php
Joe DeFuria
15-Feb-2002, 19:49
Basically, unless the street price of the 460 MX comes down considerably from the $179 MSRP...that's the most ill conceived card in nVidia's line up....
Kristof:
There is nothing shocking about it, its all about silicon cost. Just remember that pixel and vertex shaders add a lot of registers to a chip. A register is storgae on chip and translates directly to extra silicon space needed, extra silicon space translates to extra cost...
It is all ECONOMICS
Kristof is right.
Probably GF4MX has only 60% of the die area (silicon space) of GF3 Ti200 and much better yields, then it will be much less expensive to build and much, much more profit.
Today the GF3 Ti200 is as low as $132, probably Nvidia will not make much money with current GF3 under $100 then they need to replace it with some money maker chip.
Low cost DX8/DX9 will probably need .13 micron process (smaller die better yields).
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pascal on 2002-02-15 21:24 ]</font>
Kristof
15-Feb-2002, 21:01
Low cost DX8/DX9 will probably need .13 micron process (smaller die better yields).
Better yield comes with time, definitely not with upgrades to lower micron processes. A smaller micron gives you potentially higher clockspeeds (mainly due to lower voltage needed and thus less heat) but most importantly it gives you more functionality on the same or smaller silicon space. In the end the cost is the silicon wafer, the more chips you can cram on one single waffer the more money you can make.
Now if ATI or NVIDIA or somebody else undercuts prices then it means either :
- They make less profit per chip
- They are cutting some functionality out (and reduce die space)
- They are on a more advanced process (lower micron than competitor "with" high yield)
Galilee
15-Feb-2002, 21:50
On 2002-02-15 19:01, Nexus wrote:
On 2002-02-15 18:50, flf wrote:
So "mainstream" is actually not 3D at all.
Should I call it "3D mainstream"? :smile:
nVidia's market segments in 6 months:
integrated/low end: nForce, Geforce2MX
mainstream/mid end: Geforce4MX
high end: Geforce4Ti/NV30?
ATI's market segments in 6 months:
integrated/low end: A3/A4, R7xxx
mainstream/mid end: R8500(LE)
high end: R8700?/R8800, maybe R300
See what I mean?
Well, you could argue that GF3 Ti200 is mainstream/mid end from NVIDIA. They are cheaper than R8500 here in Norway. (And they are dx8 cards). Even when GF4 comes I am pretty sure people will continue to buy Ti200 cards. They are faster and got more features than GF4-MX. But then again GF4-MX is cheaper.
John Reynolds
16-Feb-2002, 00:08
Well, you could argue that GF3 Ti200 is mainstream/mid end from NVIDIA. They are cheaper than R8500 here in Norway. (And they are dx8 cards). Even when GF4 comes I am pretty sure people will continue to buy Ti200 cards. They are faster and got more features than GF4-MX. But then again GF4-MX is cheaper.
Unless of course Nvidia cancels production of the chips, which I would hate to see.
Y'all are making assumptions on a R8800 which I hope you know what happens when you assume something .
Volenti
16-Feb-2002, 02:05
On the issue of silicon wafers, how much does a silicon wafer cost?
400-1000$ for 300mm prime wafers, depending on the quality (smaller processes need better quality). Reclaimed ("raw") 300mm wafers cost just 20-40$.
[Last number is wrong, its for old 200mm wafers. Reclaimed 300mm wafers are more expensive, from 50-100$]
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nexus on 2002-02-16 03:40 ]</font>
On 2002-02-16 01:36, ben6 wrote:
Y'all are making assumptions on a R8800 which I hope you know what happens when you assume something .
You want to tell us something..?
Unless of course Nvidia cancels production of the chips, which I would hate to see.
Haven't read the GF4 launch articles? nVidia will phase out its existing product line, except Geforce2MX. No more GF3 Ti200.
Even when GF4 comes I am pretty sure people will continue to buy Ti200 cards.
As long as they are in stock.. else they have to wait for nVidia to release GF4 Ti4200. Lets hope its coming soon.
Nexus, I don't think it's appropiate, given the source of the R8800 rumors and what my source said , to comment really . I'll have to leave it at that.
Kristof:
Better yield comes with time, definitely not with upgrades to lower micron processes. A smaller micron gives you potentially higher clockspeeds (mainly due to lower voltage needed and thus less heat) but most importantly it gives you more functionality on the same or smaller silicon space. In the end the cost is the silicon wafer, the more chips you can cram on one single waffer the more money you can make.
What I was saying is that a .13 micron GF3 Ti200 potentially has better yields than a .15 micron GF3 Ti200. Same transistors -> smaller chip -> better yields :smile:
Nexus:
As long as they are in stock.. else they have to wait for nVidia to release GF4 Ti4200. Lets hope its coming soon.
It will not be soon because they dont want to charge $200 for something they are selling for $130 now (GF3 Ti200). First they have to make GF3 Ti200 dissapear.
LeStoffer
16-Feb-2002, 08:50
On 2002-02-16 04:15, ben6 wrote:
Nexus, I don't think it's appropiate, given the source of the R8800 rumors and what my source said , to comment really . I'll have to leave it at that.
I'm wondering about this card too. We know that it'll come out soon, but will it just be a speed bumped 8500 or did ATI tweak it some (like a nVidia refresh part)?
Someone called "david" over at the rage3d forum claims to have access to ATI somehow. He wrote this recently:
HEH, yall wait to to see how this rv250 preforms my jaw is still on the floor,I need a puddy scraper to remove it.Only 1 month left to r8800 . Next card in my box for sure.
He also claims that the card will be clocked at 350 MHz core/mem.
An other piece:
Yes the r250 core is alittle different, kinda refined i guess you would say. and blieve it or not i use 6025`s drivers but they have support for the r250 thats all nothing new or different about the drivers. But damn it is fast
It could all very well be pure BS of course. But at least I'll hold off buying a new card this spring until I know how 8800 compares to GF4 ti4600.
Regards, LeStoffer
On 2002-02-16 09:20, pascal wrote:
What I was saying is that a .13 micron GF3 Ti200 potentially has better yields than a .15 micron GF3 Ti200. Same transistors -> smaller chip -> better yields :smile:
Depends on what "yield" means for you. For you it is:
Number of functional chips on the wafer.
But in the semiconductor industry it means:
Percentage of functional chips on the wafer compared to non-functional.
Lets say 0.15 process is already very reliable because its running for one year. Lets assume that with it you can put 150 chips on the wafer and 140 of it are functional.
On the other side, lets say 0.13 process is quite unreliable because its running just for 1 month. Lets assume that with it you can put 220 chips on the wafer but only 160 of it are functional.
Which process has better yields now? :smile:
(Note: I just put some numbers out of the air to make good examples, they mustn't be real life like and mathematically correct :smile:)
Dave Baumann
16-Feb-2002, 14:40
How would you factor clock speed into those definitions of yield?
LeStoffer
16-Feb-2002, 14:41
On 2002-02-16 15:29, Nexus wrote:
Which process has better yields now? :smile:
Something that we tend to forget is the fact that it cost huge amounts of money to make a "plant" for a new process in the first place.
It really takes a lot of production on that new process before all the money invested is paid back. So it's not at all fair just to say: "Hey great, at smaller process, the chips will cost less now!". I don't know how TSMC gets paid, but I guess that companies like nVidida has to pay more for using the .13 process than .18 process. There's one more reason that the TNT-line is not made om .15 AFAIK.
Regards, LeStoffer
On 2002-02-16 15:40, DaveBaumann wrote:
How would you factor clock speed into those definitions of yield?
Well, if you define "functional" and "non-functional" with certain clock speed ranges you have factored clock speed into the definition. A Geforce4 chip from TSMC may work at 120MHz, but for Nvidia its non-functional because they have no need for it. Just like the number of non-functional chips decreases when a process matures, the number of higher clockable chips increases. In my example I used a black/white view of things, in real life the transistion is fluent. You can draw those nice curves of how many chips can clock how fast. Normally ~80% of all functional chips are within 10% clock speed range (IIRC). Maybe this percentages are wider with modern GPU transistor monsters.
Something that we tend to forget is the fact that it cost huge amounts of money to make a "plant" for a new process in the first place.
You are right with the rest of your post, but I think you have to make it clear that a smaller process doesn't need a new fab. :smile: Normally just new equipment, but even thats not for every process because for example AMD uses the same equipment on its 0.18 and 0.13 process whereas Intel got new equipment with this transition. Intel on the other side will probably use the same equipment on 0.13 and its future 0.09 process whereas AMD will get new equipment going from 0.13 to 0.09.
Nexus:
Which process has better yields now?
OK, I am saying the same level of process maturity :rollseyes:
PCChen/Hotball:
In taiwan, at the time when MX440 was NT4500
the 8500LEs from odd brands can be had around NT6200 to NT6700
anyways the price is about 1.5X currently other than in Europe.
Hmm... I saw an Ennyah Radeon 8500LE with D-sub, DVI and S-Video output sells for about NT$7,000. But I am not sure about its output signal quality... :smile:
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.