Mercury Research Report for Q3...

[pelly]

Hey guys,

I was wondering if anyone had access to the full Mercury Research Report for Q3. I saw some of the info over at nV News, though I would like to understand things in a bit more depth...

If you have access to this report, please email me and I'll see what I can do for you in return...

Thanks ahead of time...

Pelly
pelly@amdmb.com

Former editor of HardOCP

 

[jjayb]

Here's an Interesting highlight from the report "which Nvidia dominates" that they didn't include on the front page of NVnews:

In quarter 3 Nvidia's market share increased:

- to 100% for dx9 cards that are practically unusable in dx9 applications.




Oh, this is the report that Pelly was referring to:

http://www.nvnews.net/#1067386469

 

[pelly]

LoL...

Now you can see why I wanted to see the entire report...

 

[fallguy]

Link to where they claimed the 5800U best card of 2002, when it wasnt out in 2002?

edit, that was Microprocessor Report, not Mercury.

 

[Dave Baumann]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20031029073519.html

 

[cthellis42]

Overall about what could be expected. Still wish for a better breakdown, as there could be errors with the Mercury Research we can't tell (for instance what do they qualify as ATi's "value" DX9 cards? Are they slipping 9200 sales in there?) without seeing more.

Anyone want to spend $10k to find out?

 

[MrBond]

Looks like it's more of the same of what we already know. 5900 helped nvidia out, but all those cruddy 5200s are artificially inflating nvidia's overall numbers. The performance segment numbers are the ones that they should really be concerned about, since that's where ATI's winning "hearts and minds," to steal a phrase from our public servants

 

[Dave Baumann]

It is interesting that Mercury should choose to start reporting figures by DX revisions now - they don't appear to have done anything like this before; convenient for NVIDIA that they have since they can put out the type of statement that they did at NVNEWs.

 

[Hanners]

It is interesting that Mercury should choose to start reporting figures by DX revisions now - they don't appear to have done anything like this before; convenient for NVIDIA that they have since they can put out the type of statement that they did at NVNEWs.

Well, isn't hoe these things usually work is that a company hands over a wad of cash to Mercury Research and basically outline what they want to show, then Mercury come up with the numbers? I imagine nVidia specifically asked to segment it by DirectX revision to provoke the best numbers from the ensuing research.

 

[cthellis42]

Conveniently omitting "pesky" tidbits like In general, ATI is very strong in mobile and high-performance markets these days. This may ignite future design wins as well as market increases eventually. and Given that the company did not manage to outperform ATI?s powerful RADEON-series in terms of sales, we may conclude that enthusiasts still prefer ATI?s VPUs to NVIDIA products. Therefore, we may anticipate strengthening of ATI?s positions in mainstream and value segments as well eventually. and NVIDIA also added two points in sequence, but did not manage to achieve 28% level of the first quarter 2003 with the Q3?s 21%. (talking about mobile stand-alone) of course.

Regaining ground in this report was, of course, expected, as they had no high-end player at ALL with the 5800's poor reception and quick demise, so we finally got to see the 5900 in action, and they picked up ground with the 5600 as well. But what was the percentage before then? ATi holding 97% of the $300+ cards, as well as dominance in the 9500/9600's sector? Obviously it's a no-brainer that they couldn't possibly hold the same kind of numbers throughout.

Say, any idea if they have separate figures for ACTUAL "stand-alone" purchase numbers, excluding OEM's from the picture, to tell what gets sold over the counter all by themselves?

 

[Dave Baumann]

I don't think you'll ever get that type of breakdown. An analyst sent these figures to me for ATI, but I don't have others (although you can interpret them from the market share percentages:

The market grew 13% from Q2, to 55.7 million units. ATI did a total of 12 million, with 6.2 million discrete desktop, 0.1 million integrated desktop, 3.9 million discrete mobile and 1.8 million integrated mobile. Growth in all areas, with the strongest growth in discretes on both sides.

 

[nelg]

Anyone care to speculate how this information will effect game development? Do you think that Dev's will do as Gabe Newelll suggested and treat the nV 3x as DX8.1 chips and forego using a sperate path ?

 

[thatdude90210]

Someone did a breakdown of the numbers at the ATYT yahoo messageboard, looks pretty informative:

The whole Q3 markshare picture
by: quadrilleus


If one is willing to sit down for 30 minutes and fuse together the various reports (in particular, the numbers reported in xbitlabs and by tdwaterhouse were most helpful) on marketshare that have been floating around, you can piece together the major overview of this mercury report. I constructed a 5 part market segmentation in my model – desktop discrete and integrated; mobile discreet and integrated, and professional discrete. In order of segment market size (by units – not margins) we then have for Q3…

Desktop Integrated
- Overall market size is 25.6m units (up 17.4% from Q2). This growth rate is the second best
- Market shares are Intel – 67%, Nvidia – 17%, SiS 13%, Via – 3%, ATI – 0.1% The winner here is Intel, the losers are everyone not named Nvidia and ATI, but especially Via. ATI has not sold its 9100IGP yet, hence its .1% must be AMD products

Desktop Discrete
- Overall market size is 19.4m units (up 6.5% from Q2). This growth rate is the second slowest
- Market shares are Nvidia – 62%, Sis 3%, Matrox – 3%, ATI – 32% The winner here is ATI, the loser are Nvidia but also the smaller ones
- Of interest: xbitlabs quotes that in the DX8.1 sub segment, ATI has an 80% share with its 9200 series. In the DX9.0 cost effective segment, Nvidia has 72% market share while ATI has only 27%. The situation is reversed for DX9.0 performance where ATI has 68% share and Nvidia has 32% (up from ~10% in the previous quarter, but not able to take a commanding market share)…the latter balance is optimistic for ATI that as parts migrate downward it will grab more of the mainstream share

Mobile Integrated
- Overall market size is 4.6m units (up 26.5% from Q2). This is the fastest growth segment!!
- Market shares are Intel – 45%, Nvidia – 0%, SiS - 5%, Via – 11%, ATI – 39% The winner here is Intel, the loser is ATI (unit volumes grew, but not fast enough to keep up with the overall market growth rate)
- After all is said and done, this is the most exciting market segment and underlines that fact that mobile is going down the same route that desktop has

Mobile Discrete
- Overall market size is 5.5m units (up 3.9% from Q2). This is the slowest growth segment!! In fact, all growth came from integrated units
- Market shares are Intel – 0%, Nvidia – 21%, SiS - 6%, Via – 1%, ATI – 71%, Silicon Motion – 1% The winner here is ATI (especially since it is already at an upper boundary and further gains are difficult) and Nvidia, at the expense of the smaller players

Professional
- no shares here, but backing out units its market is about 0.6m in Q3


So what are the lessons:
- desktop overall grew nearly the same rate as mobile (12.5% vs 15.9%)
- in this back to school quarter, cheap laptops and cheap desktops were sources of growth
- ATI had strong growth in discrete desktop, but it had better get that 9100 IGP into the market to maintain strong market share growth
- ATI has a great stronghold in mobile, but competition from Intel on the integrated side requires a stiff response

Hope that clarifies all the questions about marketshare…