Joe DeFuria
Legend
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11054
Haven't seen the actual Mecury research report myself yet...
Haven't seen the actual Mecury research report myself yet...
Not surprising: nVidia Market share declining
- Thread starter Joe DeFuria
- Start date
Its not too supprising. ATI has had the better part for the low/mid/high for some time now (what I mean is the GF4 mx vrs the 9000 varients). It takes a long time for these things to change. However now that ATI is short in the low end I would expect the next Q to stay level as nV FX5200 seems to be selling very well.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
jb said:
That depends on what chips the FX5200 is replacing.
If the FX5200 is replacing old GeForce4MX shipments, then that doesn't impact marketshare that much.
nVidia has had pretty good hold on the low end ever since the GeForce2 MX. The low end market share is for nVidia to lose. I suspect that the GeForcefX 5200 sales are helping to maintain nVidia marketshare in the low-end...not increase it.
Joe DeFuria said:
ATI have done themselves no favours in the low end by releasing the old 8500 DX8 derivitive. Sure it may have saved them a few pennies and allowed them to shift old/revamped 8500 cores but I honestly think it was their biggest blunder last year. If ATI had released a genuine low end DX9 part they would have completely dominated. Unfortunately they didn't and the good old OEMs have proved themselves again by opting for ticks in the box as opposed to the actual performance hence the 5200s have done very well indeed compared with the 9000s!
Ah well, may be ATI is starting at the top and working its way down?
You'll see 9600's working their way down soon.
"And then, and then Pinky we'll take over the ENTIRE WORLD!!!"DaveBaumann said:
-Brain, The
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Seiko said:
Seiko,
Did you listen to the ATI presentation at yesterday's conference?
Pay close attention to the part where ATI says they are committed to keeping margins up. This is the primary difference between ATI and nVidia IMO.
nVidia is more willing to trade margins for market share, and ATI is more willing to preserve margins and sacrifice some market share.
http://www.vcall.com/CoLocated.asp?ID=84495
You can make a case for either approach, of course. The thing is, ATI is managing to keep margins up while not losing, and in fact gaining market share. At the same time, nVidia is losing market share. It's tough to say that ATI is picking the wrong balance when things are going in that direction.
This is, in fact, exactly the mantra that ATI has been preaching for the past year or two. On the call, you'll hear reference to DX9 technology making its way into lower cost segments "soon."
Joe DeFuria said:
Hi Joe,
I have to admit that I haven't listened to the call however irrespective of ATIs direction I'm still not convinced it’s as simple as saying it's all about margins when talking on these forums or in this context. Sure as a share holder you'd perhaps not fault them now but in the long term low/mid range parts are what keep a company alive. Until ATI genuinely control a much larger slice of what is after all the lion’s share of the market space I'd hardly say they're safe or even destined to remain in profit? As Dave mentions they may in the future be able to drop the 9600 into a lower bracket but I'd then think NVIDIA will have had a chance to respond. If as I've said many times NVIDIA’s cards are comparable then I suspect most NVIDIA users simply won’t jump ship.
This is really my whole problem as I honestly believe it will take a huge gap in performance/features between a IHVs similar priced card to get a long time supporter to switch sides. I'd even suggest that this may include OEMs too as they will have obviously had time to create long standing relations.
When ATI launched the R300 they took the community by storm and again IMHO could have really capitalized on that moment to yank NVIDIA users/OEMs to their side if they’d have launched a budget DX9 card. Now as the two IHVs portfolios realign in terms of performance/features and standards the opportunity for ATI to yank those existing NVIDIA users away starts to fade. It has been a year after all and ATI still fail to make any real in roads in this segment?
Ok, so I'm probably living in cloud cookoo land and there was no feasible way ATI could drop a DX9 card into the low end in that time frame but I’d hate to see ATI squander their chance. I know how I am when it comes to card selection. It took 3DFX to go out business before I had to look to another IHV. Now I firmly believe ATI offer the best cards and know it’ll take a huge failure in ATIs range or leap in NVIDIA’s range to get me to change. As I don’t believe I’m too different to other potential customers and with 60% of the market being NVIDIA users ATI need something big to make them change their mind. Unfortunately I still don’t see anything big enough below the R300/R350?
comparison?
I'd like to see how the 9600np fits in> http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/geforcefx-5200/index.x?pg=13
have there been any reviews comparing the vanilla FX5200 and the 9600np? since it's the likely candidate to be pushed <$100
DaveBaumann said:
I'd like to see how the 9600np fits in> http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/geforcefx-5200/index.x?pg=13
have there been any reviews comparing the vanilla FX5200 and the 9600np? since it's the likely candidate to be pushed <$100
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Hi Seiko,
It's all about striking some balance between margins and market share. ATI, at this time anyway, is tilted more towards margins, and nvidia is tilted more toward market share.
Either way you go, you have risks.
I can certainly appreciate the point of view of tilting more toward market share. But it doesn't come without it's own trade-offs.
NO company is safe or destined to remain in profit. I can say of nVidia, if they keep reducing margins in order to battle a downward trend in market share....they will not remain profitable either.
Such is the nature of competition!
Patience, Sekio, patience. If ATI just lowers prices to reduces margins and profits...that's less money to spend on R&D.
At what cost though? Obviously, having a better product helps with more sales, but I just don't see you considering the downside risks: more development cost, lower margins, etc.
I understand where you are coming from. You just have to realize that these companies have finite resources, and they have to prioritize projects according to their overall plan.
I just can't fault ATI's plan at the moment...they're increasing margins and market share simultaneously...they win the Microsoft contract, they're getting their hands in all different kinds of devices and markets. In short...they are poised for decent growth.
I am simply less interested in the quick destruction of nVidia, than I am in ATI managing and executing a sound plan for growth.
It's all about striking some balance between margins and market share. ATI, at this time anyway, is tilted more towards margins, and nvidia is tilted more toward market share.
Either way you go, you have risks.
I can certainly appreciate the point of view of tilting more toward market share. But it doesn't come without it's own trade-offs.
NO company is safe or destined to remain in profit. I can say of nVidia, if they keep reducing margins in order to battle a downward trend in market share....they will not remain profitable either.
Such is the nature of competition!
Patience, Sekio, patience.
If ATI just lowers prices to reduces margins and profits...that's less money to spend on R&D.At what cost though? Obviously, having a better product helps with more sales, but I just don't see you considering the downside risks: more development cost, lower margins, etc.
I understand where you are coming from. You just have to realize that these companies have finite resources, and they have to prioritize projects according to their overall plan.
I just can't fault ATI's plan at the moment...they're increasing margins and market share simultaneously...they win the Microsoft contract, they're getting their hands in all different kinds of devices and markets. In short...they are poised for decent growth.
I am simply less interested in the quick destruction of nVidia, than I am in ATI managing and executing a sound plan for growth.
Seiko said:
Actually, Dave is quoting from the conference call, where it was stated that the 9600 will move down into the mainstream.
Personally, this is quite gratifying - it would create a bit of a product vacuum to the R360, which I hope will be filled with a decent performing 0.13um midrange part with modest power draw.
Entropy
I've read posts from people who've spoken with ati saying we can soon expect a card with performance equal to the 9700pro but retailing for $200.Entropy said:Actually, Dave is quoting from the conference call, where it was stated that the 9600 will move down into the mainstream. Personally, this is quite gratifying - it would create a bit of a product vacuum to the R360, which I hope will be filled with a decent performing 0.13um midrange part with modest power draw.
My guess is it'll be the "pro" variant of the rv360. Relatively low power so no extra power cables, .13 process, basically a faster 9600pro. Maybe a new feature or two... this is all guesses, though.
heh.
While I agree the 5200 has no DX9 competition (the 9600 series is a competitor for the 5600's), the 8500/9100 decision was good on many sides, IMO.
1. ATi got rid of inventory & associated costs.
2. The chip was/is in demand & is still a good 'mainstream' performer due to the lack of DX9 apps available.
3. ATi got to see which 'partners' could produce quality products. (Bear in mind ATi was producing the majority of the cards last year & has now concentrated on chips & flash memory & the 'PCPartners' are the card makers. )
4. ~$75 8500/9100's have taken away $100+ GF4 Ti/MX sales for those not willing to go DX9 yet.
Acquaintance bought a new Dell recently w/a 2.4 P4. Came w/a 128mb 5200. ATi does need a card in that 'niche' or they'll have to show the worth of a $ 9600 in a 5200 retail comp, IMO. Trying to use the 9600's to cover 5200/5600's is a stretch in the price/performance ratio. Kudos to ATi if they can afford to do it tho'. 8)
.02, [/url]
1. ATi got rid of inventory & associated costs.
2. The chip was/is in demand & is still a good 'mainstream' performer due to the lack of DX9 apps available.
3. ATi got to see which 'partners' could produce quality products. (Bear in mind ATi was producing the majority of the cards last year & has now concentrated on chips & flash memory & the 'PCPartners' are the card makers.
)4. ~$75 8500/9100's have taken away $100+ GF4 Ti/MX sales for those not willing to go DX9 yet.
Acquaintance bought a new Dell recently w/a 2.4 P4. Came w/a 128mb 5200. ATi does need a card in that 'niche' or they'll have to show the worth of a $ 9600 in a 5200 retail comp, IMO. Trying to use the 9600's to cover 5200/5600's is a stretch in the price/performance ratio. Kudos to ATi if they can afford to do it tho'. 8)
.02, [/url]
They're not gonna pull a .11 on us, are they? I thought that was just nV?DaveBaumann said:
Fred da Roza
Newcomer
DaveBaumann said:
.15 at UMC?