http://www.jonpeddie.com/special/QuickLookQ403/QuickLook_Q403.zip
Plenty of detail and charts, and this is just a synopsis. Enjoy.
Plenty of detail and charts, and this is just a synopsis. Enjoy.
Jon Peddie's Graphics Market Watch report for Q4/03
- Thread starter kemosabe
- Start date
I was shocked at how much of a hit NV took over the last 1-2 years. And wow, Intel just kicked some serious ass in the integrated market. Good thing I dumped my NV stock a while back. later,
epic
Would somebody please check my parse of this sentence: "ATI outpaced NVIDIA in shipments of enthusiast-class DX9 products during the quarter, but NVIDIA shipped more DX9 parts than any other supplier overall."
The first three times I read that I got pure oxymoron out of it. Then finally I realized they must be relying on "enthusiast-class" to tell us, essentially, "ATI kicked NV's butt at the top-end, but NV kicked ATI's butt at the bottom end, where the volume is." Would that be it?
NV leads ATI 58% to 38% in desktop shipments, which was a surprise to me. It is ATI's dominance in mobile that gives them the slight edge in overall.
"A shift in discrete desktop graphics shipments away from the value and mainstream segments and toward the performance segment." Keep on a-shifting. . .
Rather depressing that a full year after the introduction of DX9 that those parts have only increased from 31% to 37%.
The first three times I read that I got pure oxymoron out of it. Then finally I realized they must be relying on "enthusiast-class" to tell us, essentially, "ATI kicked NV's butt at the top-end, but NV kicked ATI's butt at the bottom end, where the volume is." Would that be it?
NV leads ATI 58% to 38% in desktop shipments, which was a surprise to me. It is ATI's dominance in mobile that gives them the slight edge in overall.
"A shift in discrete desktop graphics shipments away from the value and mainstream segments and toward the performance segment." Keep on a-shifting. . .
Rather depressing that a full year after the introduction of DX9 that those parts have only increased from 31% to 37%.
MrGaribaldi
Regular
geo said:
That is the way I read it (ie. ATI leading in middle to top end with Nvidia selling more DX9 lowend cards)... Not too strange a way of wording it when you look at the lingo used in the rest of the document...
geo said:
Not really, imo, considering how large a part of the market is low-end machines sold to people looking for a cheap solution... When Dell, HP & the like produce cheap boxes for the public, they often use the cheapest GPU available to them... And this does stand for quite a bit of the total market...
On a side note: Did anyone else notice that the .pdf seemed to have some comments that went against the numbers? Or is it just me not thinking clearly?
Pete said:
Exactly.
It is a little disappointing to see the dx8 and dx9 stats lumped together. It would be interesting to see just how many dx9 parts that ATi shipped before nvidia finally released its FX series. Prior to that ATi had a virtual monopoly on the dx9 market. While it might not have been a great deal of volume. The FX 5200 has been nvidias only saving grace in terms of dx9 market share. The problem is though is that it is a horrible product (never mind the horrible margins on it.) with even the mx series of cards outperforming it on many apps that are not dx9. With it they replaced a bad chip (mx series) with a worse one.(fx 5200) The loss of high end sales is really hurting nvidia and if they don't rectify the matter it will simply get worse, particularly if ATi were to finally introduce a better performing low end dx9 part then the 5200. (which I suspect is more then inevitable.) For now though the 5200 is all over the place and taking advantage of unsuspecting consumers looking for a cheap low end dx9 part.
ATi's dx9 sales accounting for 38% of the dx9 market share are all cards with at least half way adequate performance.(not to mention thicker margins.) The vast majority of nvidias dx9 sales are on cards with horrible dx9 performance.(with the exception of recent cards like the 5700 etc.) At least ATi's low end parts are well performing dx8 products with ps1.4 compliancy.(while they are lumping dx8 and dx9 cards together in the same radeon 9xxx family and that is deceptive.) Initially I thought that ATi ought to sell low end dx9 parts to compete for a greater dx9 market share but now I think I can see their logic to some degree. I would hate to be on product phone support for the 5200 series cards.
(eg..Why does my game dx9 game play like a slide show??) I think that PCIe will hurt nvidia initially because they won't have native support. The bridge chip will add some layers of latency, I think, despite nvidia's hype. But what will hurt them more is not having the full benefit of PCIe native support.(IIRC somewhere in the range of 10-15% performance gains over AGP.) The plus side though will be that nvidia can market their old AGP chipsets as though they are PCIe. That is a plus from nvidia's perspective ... not the consumers IMO. In the end though all we can do is wait and see just what the performance disparities will be.
ATi on the other hand I believe (correct me if I am wrong here.) will be looking to have low to mid range as well as high end solutions with native support for PCIe and I think that OEM's will choose that solution over bridge chip AGP solutions. Maybe ATi has been waiting for the implementation of PCIe to introduce a low end dx9 product! I guess it depends on how cheap nvidia can make its low end offerings. I would suggest though that putting a bridge chip on a card with the 5200 would strain margins even further. I think the bridge chip will however help in some way to ensure that inventories of legacy AGP chips in the future after PCIe is put into the mainstream are low.
Sabastian said:I would hate to be on product phone support for the 5200 series cards.
If that's the support calls I'd get, no problem. I can just say "because you're not playing at 640x480."
Really, from a developer POV, I'd rather have fully functioned chips that need to be run at low resolutions than faster chips that add more development work because they support few features. People who complain about developers not using the latest features and at the same time advocate fast chips with few features need to rethink their logic.
I read an interview (can’t find link) 6 months ago where it was said that even though NV was shipping more units overall than ATI, ATI had just surpassed NV in dollar term sales because ATI was dominating the high end market by a large amount (5800 didn’t sell well at all) and was doing very well in the enthusiast market. So even with NV shipping more units in the desktop area ATI could still be outselling them $ wise.
Similar threads
