Nvidia has claiming for a couple of years now that their good results are primarily because their mix has been shifting towards the high-end gaming products.
The Kyle Experience: Texas BBQ *spawn*
- Thread starter xEx
- Start date
-
- Tags
- let off some steam
Well, even if the shift is only a couple of percent per quarter, it will add up over the years.
Per the table of contents links in the following, the graphics segments are defined in terms of the price and usage of the systems (display price included?) they go into:
https://jonpeddie.com/publications/pc_gaming_hardware_market_report
Enthusiast averages ~$2.2-2K for PC/notebook, minimum $1.8K.
Performance bleeds into the lower end of enthusiast or uses the last-gen enthusiast, averages are $1.5K PC, $1.3K notebook, minimum $1K.
Mainstream averages $775 PC, $579 notebook, maximum is $1K.
If one can see Polaris 10 going into a PC that manages to crack $1K, then it can at least get to the lower end of Performance.
https://jonpeddie.com/publications/pc_gaming_hardware_market_report
Enthusiast averages ~$2.2-2K for PC/notebook, minimum $1.8K.
Performance bleeds into the lower end of enthusiast or uses the last-gen enthusiast, averages are $1.5K PC, $1.3K notebook, minimum $1K.
Mainstream averages $775 PC, $579 notebook, maximum is $1K.
If one can see Polaris 10 going into a PC that manages to crack $1K, then it can at least get to the lower end of Performance.
Perhaps part of the explanation is that there were more non-refreshed Performance cards launched during the period.
(If the 0-299, 300-599, 600-> ranges are correct)
Enthusiast: GTX 980 Ti, Titan X, Fury X, Fury Nano (before price drop)
Performance: GTX 980, GTX 970, Fury, Fury Nano (after price drop)
Mainstream: GTX 960, GTX 950
(If the 0-299, 300-599, 600-> ranges are correct)
Enthusiast: GTX 980 Ti, Titan X, Fury X, Fury Nano (before price drop)
Performance: GTX 980, GTX 970, Fury, Fury Nano (after price drop)
Mainstream: GTX 960, GTX 950
Last edited:
I guess that makes sense with integrated graphics getting a bigger share of "CPU" silicon every generation.
Richthofen
Newcomer
The whole TAM thing is a joke anyway. Polaris does not do anything to extend VR install base. It is not the product you will buy when going after VR. In that case you are very likely looking for a graphics card in the 400$ and even way higher price range.That is simply one of those Roy Taylor bullshit messages. AMD should really fire this guy. Marketing wise he is really harming the company more then doing anything good.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Hmmm? RIght now the largest obstacle to mass adoption of VR is it's incredibly high cost of entry. 400+ USD for graphics card, 600+ USD for HMD. By lowering the barrier of entry for graphics cards to 200 USD, it's at least attempting to give it more of a mainstream push. Unfortunately, that's only one half of the equation. HMDs also need to see significant cost reductions before VR has any hope of succeeding.
Regards,
SB
The TAM angle is just that an angle to sell ya cards. Yeah performance cards today should be mid range cards tomorrow, its a normal progression. AMD is giving reasons for people to upgrade, that reason is VR. They are putting a label on something that will happen anyways. Its pretty easy to see that. Hey that is what good marketing/salesmanship does, gives the end user a reason to upgrade even if they don't need it or weren't thinking about it before.
I hear Samsung Gear VR is selling and it certainly isn't powered by some 500W GPU configuration. I tried a demo unit at Best Buy awhile back and it has the VR bullet points covered. In other words, I think the supposed great demands of VR are a false assumption. Probably a perception fueled by the PC vendors who are targeting the big spender enthusiasts with a cunning "you can't have enough power" strategy.
Last edited:
PlanarChaos
Newcomer
Polaris is probably to make a very hard posh in notebooks. Without news of GP106 (yet) and with it sounding like Nvidia is doing a repeat of the GTX 980 for notebooks with the 1080/1070. Based on the best guess I can get from Steam Hardware Survey the sales of notebooks in that range is totaled is about the number of GTX 970 sold. AMD has no market presence here. While Pascal is ahead of Polaris in performance per watt so far AMD is close enough that their pricing could be very lucrative for the boutiques and especially the OEMs which run around with their $1000 950m/960m laptops.
But GP106 could drop tomorrow for all I know.
PlanarChaos
Newcomer
I don't see an edit option, but I took 850m, 860m, 950m, and 970m. I than doubled 860m to count for 960m/965m.
PlanarChaos
Newcomer
I think GP106 is in trouble. GTX 1080 is begging for more memory bandwidth. In terms of performance scaling. I think the post exploring differences has 1070 scaling nearly exactly to it's extra memory bandwidth + shader power. Where 1080 is scaling just over extra memory bandwidth.
Nvidia normal has cut 4" in half for 6". And GDDR5x is probably to expensive for $150-225 card. Hopefully Nvidia surprises with 192b or 256b bus.
Nvidia normal has cut 4" in half for 6". And GDDR5x is probably to expensive for $150-225 card. Hopefully Nvidia surprises with 192b or 256b bus.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
You mean aside from cutting the graphics card's price and power consumption by over 1/3rd compared to the current minimum specs requirement, right out of the box?
I'd not really take that leap yet. While Gear VR does "something", it is somewhat far from what one could get from a full-fat VR experience, and the latter requires quite a bit of compute. If the argument is that the few things that Gear VR provides are good enough, then that's a bit of a different conversation, however I'd argue that the main issue is lack of killer AAA VR experiences now (I think only Elite Dangerous sort of qualifies?). Having said that, I'm not necessarily super rah-rah about VR, and find AR (e.g. HoloLens) more interesting, since it appears to have wider spanning relevance. Just my 2c.
Exactly my feeling as well.
iMacmatician
Regular
As far as I know, that one was a cut down GK104.
According to WCCFTech, there's a Zauba shipping entry for what seems to be a 256-bit GP106. If true, then I think that GP106 won't use GDDR5X, and I have doubts about 8 Gbps GDDR5 as well.
Code:
% of GTX 1080
Speed Bandwidth bandwidth
5.4 Gbps 173 GB/s 54%
6.0 Gbps 192 GB/s 60%
7.0 Gbps 224 GB/s 70%
8.0 Gbps 256 GB/s 80%