ATI/nVidia sales data

[Anonymous]

http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20030214/valentine-06.html

Strange conclusion, ATI is killing nVidia and his conclusion is the opposite.

 

[RussSchultz]

So, according to the sales data, where is ATI "killing" nVIDIA? No, really.

 

[Anonymous]

The last months. Killing compared to previous months. The trend is pretty clear.

 

[RussSchultz]

Really?

Going back exactly 4 months (the most generous to ATI), they're only 2719 "units" ahead. Ok, one month (not a very good trend), its more like 5k units, but 2 months its -4k, 3 months its 1.5k units ahead.

I dont see a "killing".

 

[Doomtrooper]

Ummm I think the trend is more important to look at Russ or the amount of change as the months progressed. Aug: NV 18,000 Units ATI: 8,900 Units to Dec :ATI: 36,807 Units

      Dec-02 Nov-02 Oct-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 Jul-02 Total 
NVIDIA 31,168 30,349 13,990 21,058 18,009 17,751 132,325 
   ATI 36,807 21,347 18,857 22,273 8,992 8,168 116,444

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I agree more with Doom than I do with Russ and Crusher, with respect to the message that Tom's hardware is giving.

Being the performance leader doesn't translate into being the market leader. Uhm, gosh, did I just say something original? Bloody obvious, if you ask me.

That means, NVIDIA, for all its faults right now, is a reflection of where the market is going. They could come out with a new graphics card that makes as much sound as a snoring humming bird, and dissipates as much heat as Magee's soul, and is a hundred per cent faster than anything ATI does, and it still wouldn't change the shape of the market that much.

Omid is obviously correct that simply "being the performance leader" is not the same as "being the market leader."

However, his implication that nVidia's failure to compete in the high end wouldn't change the state of the market much, is insane.

As Doom said...look at the trends.

Is it not obvious to anyone that ATI ate severly into nVidia's market share since the R300 core introduction? ATI is not "killing" nVidia in units sold, but at the same time ATI's R-300 certainly DID have a MAJOR impact on the market direction.

And I would daresay, that the impact will last longer than when the FX is finally released. nVidia lost considerable mind-share with gamers, and from what we've been hearing, OEMs, due to the FX debacle. They can get it back, but it will take at least until the FX follow-up to try and attempt that.

 

[John Reynolds]

To me what's of more interest is how slow the curve of that trend is to swing in ATi's favor, sales-wise, if you consider how they have Nvidia trumped at every price point. What will this 'trend' do once NV30-based products start shipping?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That all depends

1) on how many actually ship.

2) What ATI has to counter, and how fast...

 

[RussSchultz]

And none of that has to do with 'killing'.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And none of that has to do with 'killing'.

And it has everything to do with the article's conclusion being completely whacko.

 

[Crusher]

The first problem is that Tom's little chart isn't labeled. What do those numbers represent? Units sold? Dollars? What's the scale, 1,000:1? 10,000:1? Without knowing what the figures represent, about the only way you can compare them is with percentages.

ATI is 18% ahead of NVIDIA in the month of December.
NVIDIA is 42% ahead of ATI in November.
For the two month combined holiday season, NVIDIA is ahead by over 5%.
For the 6 month period, NVIDIA is ahead.

If you look at the trends, as you say, this shows ATI finally released products people want to buy, thus bringing them up to the same level as NVIDIA. Both companies saw sales decline in October, and both companies have seen increasing sales since then. This is the trend, and no aspect of it depicts ATI "killing" NVIDIA.

Now you claim the article's conclusion is inaccurate. What was their conclusion? Exactly what part of the article do you disagree with?

NVIDIA is not the performance leader, but it is still outselling ATI in the mid-range, the sweet spot of the market.

Do you disagree with the statement that NVIDIA is not the performance leader? Do you disagree wtih the statement that NVIDIA is outselling ATI in the mid-range market? Or do you disagree that the mid-range is the sweet spot of the market?

NVIDIA outsold ATI, despite not having a high-end performer to compete.

They did for the 6 month period shown in the chart, which is what this article was focusing on. Or did you somehow miss that part?

Being the performance leader doesn't translate into being the market leader.

Again, this is in line with what their chart is showing. If you pick a different set of values to base your observations on, it might look differently. If that's your beef, then don't complain that their conclusions are invalid, because they aren't for their data set. You should be complaining that they used a misleading data set that's favorable to NVIDIA.

ATI is going to be able to claw more market share away from NVIDIA by doing a better job with its board partners, particularly on chip pricing and marketing support.

I think everyone will agree that marketing has been NVIDIA's strong point for a long time, and ATI's has been rather poor in comparison. Using the word "more" implies that ATI has already gained market share on NVIDIA, which they have.

ATI will catch up, but it is not about being the performance leader.

I have a hard time believing you disagree with the first part, as none of you seem to think ATI won't catch up to NVIDIA. The second part is their opinion, and yours may differ. You can argue that being the performance leader helps sell more mid and low end products, which will help them catch up.

While you can argue a couple of their points to the contrary, I see nothing that indicates their opinions as being "whacko".

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Now you claim the article's conclusion is inaccurate. What was their conclusion?

Probably the one sentence in their article that I quoted, and the one you didn't? Geezus....

That means, NVIDIA, for all its faults right now, is a reflection of where the market is going. They could come out with a new graphics card that makes as much sound as a snoring humming bird, and dissipates as much heat as Magee's soul, and is a hundred per cent faster than anything ATI does, and it still wouldn't change the shape of the market that much.

THAT, I disagree with. Read a couple posts up for the explanation...

And when he says "That Means", I read that as "In conclusion...."

 

[antlers]

Isn't the chart unit sales?

NVidia is going to look better in unit sales since they are so firmly entrenched in the low-end market and none of the new ATI products really target that.

I think ATI muffed the introduction of the 9000 to some extent though. It was supposed to replace the 8500, but was a poorer performer in most ways, and since it was new it was priced higher initially.

To really tell how ATI and NVidia are doing competitively, you'd have to look at dollar volume also(you can tell a little of that from revenue, but that gives dollars from other markets as well), and you might compare to the same period in previous years.

 

[RussSchultz]

You could pay JonPeddie for their report!

 

[Crusher]

Interpreting a single statement ("that means") and concluding an entire line of reasoning ("in conclusion") were completely different concepts in my english classes, maybe your school tought it differently.

You say it's insane for him to imply that NVIDIA's failre to compete in the high end market won't change the state of the market that much. His reasning is that ATI has done this, and while it might have allowed ATI to gain some ground, NVIDIA is still the market leader. If dominating the high end market dictated who would be on top, ATI would have climbed all over NVIDIA 6 months ago, and would have a much larger market share at this time. Indeed, looking at the available products from each company, it appears ATI should be the market leader. Unfortunately products alone do not a great company make, and the market share doesn't shift a large ammount over the course of a single product cycle, and certainly not with just the release of a dominating high-end graphics card. Is this what you disagree with?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Alright...between you and Evildues, I'm pretty much just tired of playing semantic games for the day....

 

[demalion]

You say it's insane for him to imply that NVIDIA's failre to compete in the high end market won't change the state of the market that much. His reasning is that ATI has done this, and while it might have allowed ATI to gain some ground, NVIDIA is still the market leader. If dominating the high end market dictated who would be on top, ATI would have climbed all over NVIDIA 6 months ago, and would have a much larger market share at this time. Indeed, looking at the available products from each company, it appears ATI should be the market leader. Unfortunately products alone do not a great company make, and the market share doesn't shift a large ammount over the course of a single product cycle, and certainly not with just the release of a dominating high-end graphics card. Is this what you disagree with?

Crusher, did you lose track of Joe's statements? Did you see how he was agreeing with some statements in the article, then specified exactly what implication he took issue with? Let me cover your two points of dispute with Joe:

• Joe's problem with "ATI will catch up, but it is not about being the performance leader." (yes, I know you quoted it, but you seem to have forgotten what the statement said and didn't say).
  Reading your text, you should have a problem with it as well. It certainly is not just about that, as has been said, and as Joe clearly stated, but it is also not about other things to the exclusion of that.
  Since it is not about other things to the exclusion of that, and the numbers for ATI have increased by a rather large degree for the data in question, it certainly does seem fair to consider an opinion that "ATI will catch up, but it is not about being the performance leader" whacko.
  It is like criticizing someone for saying it is whacko to say "it is not about having a faster car"when talking about who will be leading the race because the faster car started behind and has only just now begun to catch up. Of course other factors will have an impact, but ignoring that particular factor outright is downright, yes I'll say it, "whacko".
  I bolded the difference between your statement and what the article stated. Notice how you had to say that to defend the stance? Notice how that sentiment is absent in the article? Notice how Joe was focusing on it for exactly that reason, and clearly stated so?
• Joe's problem with "That means, NVIDIA, for all its faults right now, is a reflection of where the market is going. They could come out with a new graphics card that makes as much sound as a snoring humming bird, and dissipates as much heat as Magee's soul, and is a hundred per cent faster than anything ATI does, and it still wouldn't change the shape of the market that much." is because it based on exactly the flawed reasoning as the above. Beginning your response with a completely nonsensical argument about english class , and ended it by adding the justification and reasoning the article lacked and Joe was criticizing, doesn't change that.

There is an opportunity here to also discuss the rather amazing idea that something can't be a conclusion because it begins with a single statement, and to point out that "that means" is exactly the type of statement to begin a conclusion, and that english classes generally tell you that meaning is determined by interpreting statements, but I'm not sure what profit there would be in pointing out the obvious if you are that dedicated to disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. I would, however, be interested in what you think the article's conclusion about the meaning of that data was, without the luxury of adding comments and clarifications that are in no way reflected in the contents of the article.

 

[gkar1]

The sheep cannot be taught reason. They simply follow the herd.
Its pointless to try and explain them the evident market trend
Let next quarter's numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Crusher]

Without the Radeon 9000, 9500, and 9500 Pro, would ATI's sales increased nearly as dramatically? I don't think so, and I think that's the point the article was making. High end sales do not affect the overall market enough to make large changes in how much of the market share a company controls. Of course it has some impact, but it's just not enough to significantly change the market on it's own. I'll quote their comments again:


Observation 1: NVIDIA is not the performance leader, but it is still outselling ATI in the mid-range

Observation 2: NVIDIA outsold ATI, despite not having a high-end performer to compete.

Analysis 1: Being the performance leader doesn't translate into being the market leader.

Analysis 2: That means, NVIDIA ... could come out with a new graphics card that ... is a hundred per cent faster than anything ATI does, and it still wouldn't change the shape of the market that much.

 

[Ichneumon]

Analysis 2: That means, NVIDIA ... could come out with a new graphics card that ... is a hundred per cent faster than anything ATI does, and it still wouldn't change the shape of the market that much.

In that same quarter being the point. The current quarter we're in is likely to start showing the real market trends from Nvidia's missed generation... Particlularly since the 9500s didn't come out until very recently (and still can be hard to find sometimes).