The all market GPU numbers seem a little strange. Are those from shipped products that have a GPU in it (ie every laptop with an intel cpu in the past five years) or is it shipped products that use a GPU as their primary driver (ie an intel laptop with an nvidia dPGU would be a point for nvidia)?
A laptop with discreet graphics would count as 1 Intel + 1 AMD/NVIDIA which is explained by the attach rate portion and the attach rate value being over 100%.
That's what my perception was as well. I think it would be more telling to see of the computers that have an integrated GPU how many also have dedicated GPUs that supersede the non-optional integrated.
> Intel, which has all of zero discrete graphics cards for sale, commands an amazing 67.34% of the total GPU market.
That's only because anti-trust bodies were asleep while Intel once again used anti-competitive Microsoft-style bundling tactics, to make the competition redundant for the majority of users. It's the goold ol' "why would I download another browser when I've got IE" question that helped IE gain 90 percent market share. Intel used the same trick, but with its GPU. And as it became more powerful, it kept displacing a larger portion of PCs and notebooks's discrete GPUs.
integrated graphics are no where NEAR the level of "bundling" things in. WTF are you talking about? Integrated memory controllers and on-die cache too bundled for you too? All CPU makers are beginning to include GPUs with their chips. It makes a large amount of sense.
How could anti-trust bodies intervene? Force Intel to unbundle the GPU portion of thier SoC? Intel was anti-competitive in the late 90s / early 2000s when the Athlon 64 was simply better (when AlienWare sold their best PCs with Athlon in them) than the Pentium 4, but AMD wasn't able to go through the 20% market share ceilling. It was normal, Intel made you price A if you bought 70% of your chips from them or price B if you bought over 80%, price B being lower than price A. The extra 10% CPU were at negative price!!! I doubt this is the case today. AMD just plainly suck. (From a guy who built its first Intel/Nvidia machine ever last year).
One way would be to force Intel to offer CPUs for sale that don't have integrated graphics (which they do), and require that such CPUs be less expensive (perhaps by an amount that is proportional to die size) than equivalent CPUs that have integrated graphics, thus allowing computer builders to decide if they want integrated graphics or save the money and use it toward an add in board. (In practice, Intel could simply sell CPUs with nonworking GPUs, instead of discarding them, as they do presently. In fact, doing so would even improve their bottom line.) I'm not saying this should happen, just that it would be one way to further level the playing field.
Every consumer CPU manufacturer now offers chips with integrated graphics, memory controllers and everything else that used to be on the chipset northbridge. This is not specifically Intel's fault. They didn't even do it first, many ARM vendors had integrated designs years before Intel.
The origonal Jon Peddie data does not show discreet GPU marketshare seperately, which is quite annoying. Good work from Brett to present the data in a more useful format.
Jon Peddie always has two articles on Graphics. One on overall including integrated graphics and one solely on discrete graphics. They are always released a few weeks apart.
So 67.34% of PC users are not into playing heavy graphic games. Anandtech and others like Tomshardware take note and please shift you focus with this majority to integrated graphics. The majority wants cheaper, simpler, less power consuming, fail safe (so non mechanical cooling) hardware, So for example in your tests don't try to weight in any heavy graphic games on cheap but popular hardware: the makers didn't create if for that and most users don't want to do that. Your reviewers should not write publicly for themselves (game fanatics) but for their biggest audience. Most commenters here are also from the same elite technical/ game fanatic but that is the same minority market..
So what you're saying is Anand should only write review for the minority of it's audience...
They do write some piece on lower performance market and I do agree the market is going in that direction. But their must not forget who come here and click on the ads.
Uhhh, I think your assumption goes too far there. Most laptops use integrated graphics, and by intel, by design. It makes sense too, because budget laptops no longer need to bundle a low discrete GPU and needlessly increase BOM if intel's iGPU can handle it. The majority of laptops with discrete graphics cards comes at ~$1000+, and face it, that's out of the price range for a lot of people.
Anecdotally, I would say people who buy budget laptops buy it for price/performance, and accept the fact they can't play graphic intense games. They don't buy one to play graphic intensive games, or to purposely play low graphic games
I should mention the market is catered to mobile (laptops/tablets) as desktop PC sales decline YoY. I think as we aged, we have realized OEM desktop computers cannot compete for price/performance, so desktop users have turned to building their own and not going for OEM builds
I also think anandtech's majority of readers are computer enthusiasts, therefore we want the current data that they've historically given us. Majority of market does not translate to majority of anandtech readers. Quantifying that would also be a pain
67% might use Integrated graphics, but 67% of Anandtech readers don't. The website has always catered to its audience, which is presumably anybody from moderately techie to big tinkerers. I imagine plenty of the people here ARE game fanatics.
Anyways, they have excellent coverage on both the performance and power perspective of things when it comes to new CPUs (for example). Anandtech has pretty much some of the most full featured reviews when it comes to new devices; what more could you actually want?
"but by the market share it appears that people are choosing CPU power and efficiency over GPU power for most devices."
Actually having been a retail employee in the past, who's sold PC's etc, it's quite the opposite. People for the most part don't know a damn thing about the hardware in the system. Other than, from commercials they see on TV, which of course we still do the Intel inside thing. Then they go, I want the one with the thing from the TV commercial. Since AMD doesn't counter advertise on tv, people don't know who they are. Hell, for the most part they don't advertise at all, outside of PC magazines. It for the most part, doesn't have a damn thing to do with efficiency or cpu power or igpu power.
The average person doesn't know that AMD powers all 3 current gen consoles. Now, if current gen consoles were factored in, I wonder how much that would change the numbers, since they're all effectively small form factor pc's now.
Now, on the AMD v Nvidia front. Again, that comes down to advertising. Every other game you play almost for years, has had Nvidia the way it's meant to be played advertising either on the box, or at the intro of the game. Add on to that, BS spread by people about driver stability, which I can say hasn't been an issue at least since the hd2000 series, since I've owned ati/amd cards since then. During the alternating times, even when AMD/ATI has had a superior product for a long stretch, they still didn't gain much of any market share. The reality with that is, people who've been around long enough, have seen Nvidia on the front end more. Those of us who were around during the Nvidia v 3dfx days for example. Are going to go with the brand that they're most use to, whether they perform better or not.
What? AMD Q2 2013 shows 5.32 Million, Q2 2014 shows 4.36 Million. Which is 82% of 5.32 Million. So AMD is down 18%, not .1%. Very confused, and frankly angry at your lack of math ability.
The greater than normal drop in AIBs when the PC market actually grew can most likely be attributed to an upswing in business PC sales which seems to be bringing the PC market back for the time being.
It might also be because AMD and Nvidia are still stuck on 28nm and have been releasing a lot of rebadged cards. If you bought a card last year, what is there to upgrade to this year?
Understand that the vast majority of Nvidia's "discrete" card sales are extreme low-end like GT 610, GT 620, GT 630. These are actually slower than AMD's integrated graphics.
It would be interesting to see how things rack and stack at the mid-range and high-end of the GPU market. I don't believe AMD even offers as many lower-end GPUs as Nvidia does, so it's natural that Nvidia is going to dominate in that market. A quick glance at the sub-$75 category on Newegg has Nvidia with twice as many offerings as AMD (and AMD's numbers are probably skewed by merchants offering extremely old ATI cards).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
Back to Article
willis936 - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
The all market GPU numbers seem a little strange. Are those from shipped products that have a GPU in it (ie every laptop with an intel cpu in the past five years) or is it shipped products that use a GPU as their primary driver (ie an intel laptop with an nvidia dPGU would be a point for nvidia)?anandreader106 - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
If you click on the source, it says "Total Market Share This Quarter". I'd assume that means they are strictly speaking in terms of Q2 2014 shipments.anandreader106 - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
Seriously how many people have to scream for an edit button? I misunderstood your question willis936.The source doesn't say if a laptop shipped with discreet graphics counts as 1 point Intel and/or 1 point Nvidia/AMD.
Brett Howse - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
A laptop with discreet graphics would count as 1 Intel + 1 AMD/NVIDIA which is explained by the attach rate portion and the attach rate value being over 100%.willis936 - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
That's what my perception was as well. I think it would be more telling to see of the computers that have an integrated GPU how many also have dedicated GPUs that supersede the non-optional integrated.Krysto - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
> Intel, which has all of zero discrete graphics cards for sale, commands an amazing 67.34% of the total GPU market.That's only because anti-trust bodies were asleep while Intel once again used anti-competitive Microsoft-style bundling tactics, to make the competition redundant for the majority of users. It's the goold ol' "why would I download another browser when I've got IE" question that helped IE gain 90 percent market share. Intel used the same trick, but with its GPU. And as it became more powerful, it kept displacing a larger portion of PCs and notebooks's discrete GPUs.
colinstu - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
integrated graphics are no where NEAR the level of "bundling" things in. WTF are you talking about? Integrated memory controllers and on-die cache too bundled for you too? All CPU makers are beginning to include GPUs with their chips. It makes a large amount of sense.Da W - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
How could anti-trust bodies intervene? Force Intel to unbundle the GPU portion of thier SoC?Intel was anti-competitive in the late 90s / early 2000s when the Athlon 64 was simply better (when AlienWare sold their best PCs with Athlon in them) than the Pentium 4, but AMD wasn't able to go through the 20% market share ceilling. It was normal, Intel made you price A if you bought 70% of your chips from them or price B if you bought over 80%, price B being lower than price A. The extra 10% CPU were at negative price!!!
I doubt this is the case today. AMD just plainly suck. (From a guy who built its first Intel/Nvidia machine ever last year).
Ktracho - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
One way would be to force Intel to offer CPUs for sale that don't have integrated graphics (which they do), and require that such CPUs be less expensive (perhaps by an amount that is proportional to die size) than equivalent CPUs that have integrated graphics, thus allowing computer builders to decide if they want integrated graphics or save the money and use it toward an add in board. (In practice, Intel could simply sell CPUs with nonworking GPUs, instead of discarding them, as they do presently. In fact, doing so would even improve their bottom line.) I'm not saying this should happen, just that it would be one way to further level the playing field.Flunk - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
Every consumer CPU manufacturer now offers chips with integrated graphics, memory controllers and everything else that used to be on the chipset northbridge. This is not specifically Intel's fault. They didn't even do it first, many ARM vendors had integrated designs years before Intel.dylan522p - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
All of my wutlefty2 - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
The origonal Jon Peddie data does not show discreet GPU marketshare seperately, which is quite annoying. Good work from Brett to present the data in a more useful format.HighTech4US - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
Jon Peddie always has two articles on Graphics. One on overall including integrated graphics and one solely on discrete graphics. They are always released a few weeks apart.GPU shipments (MarketWatch) Q2 2014 - Charts and Images
http://jonpeddie.com/news/comments/gpu-shipments-m...
Add-in board market down in Q2, Nvidia holds market share lead
http://jonpeddie.com/publications/add-in-board-rep...
lefty2 - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
Except that neither shows discreet GPU marketshare trendslefty2 - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
No, ... my bad. now I see itAntonyIndia - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
So 67.34% of PC users are not into playing heavy graphic games. Anandtech and others like Tomshardware take note and please shift you focus with this majority to integrated graphics.The majority wants cheaper, simpler, less power consuming, fail safe (so non mechanical cooling) hardware,
So for example in your tests don't try to weight in any heavy graphic games on cheap but popular hardware: the makers didn't create if for that and most users don't want to do that.
Your reviewers should not write publicly for themselves (game fanatics) but for their biggest audience. Most commenters here are also from the same elite technical/ game fanatic but that is the same minority market..
PsychoPif - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
So what you're saying is Anand should only write review for the minority of it's audience...They do write some piece on lower performance market and I do agree the market is going in that direction. But their must not forget who come here and click on the ads.
Sushisamurai - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
Uhhh, I think your assumption goes too far there. Most laptops use integrated graphics, and by intel, by design. It makes sense too, because budget laptops no longer need to bundle a low discrete GPU and needlessly increase BOM if intel's iGPU can handle it. The majority of laptops with discrete graphics cards comes at ~$1000+, and face it, that's out of the price range for a lot of people.Anecdotally, I would say people who buy budget laptops buy it for price/performance, and accept the fact they can't play graphic intense games. They don't buy one to play graphic intensive games, or to purposely play low graphic games
Sushisamurai - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
I should mention the market is catered to mobile (laptops/tablets) as desktop PC sales decline YoY. I think as we aged, we have realized OEM desktop computers cannot compete for price/performance, so desktop users have turned to building their own and not going for OEM buildsSushisamurai - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
I also think anandtech's majority of readers are computer enthusiasts, therefore we want the current data that they've historically given us. Majority of market does not translate to majority of anandtech readers. Quantifying that would also be a painDrumsticks - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
67% might use Integrated graphics, but 67% of Anandtech readers don't. The website has always catered to its audience, which is presumably anybody from moderately techie to big tinkerers. I imagine plenty of the people here ARE game fanatics.Anyways, they have excellent coverage on both the performance and power perspective of things when it comes to new CPUs (for example). Anandtech has pretty much some of the most full featured reviews when it comes to new devices; what more could you actually want?
A5 - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
Yeah, if you want iGPU coverage, that's what PC Magazine is for. Anandtech is an enthusiast site with a specific market.Janooo - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
"NVIDIA is a 2:1 seller of discrete graphics over the only other rival AMD"It's closer to 3:2 than to 2:1
mpokwsths - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
Didn't know Matrox was still producing graphics cards...cicatriz63 - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
They are still used quite a bit in servers.A5 - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
Well, ~10K units is probably coming from their inventory.The real question is how S3 is getting any sales.
Mathos - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
"but by the market share it appears that people are choosing CPU power and efficiency over GPU power for most devices."Actually having been a retail employee in the past, who's sold PC's etc, it's quite the opposite. People for the most part don't know a damn thing about the hardware in the system. Other than, from commercials they see on TV, which of course we still do the Intel inside thing. Then they go, I want the one with the thing from the TV commercial. Since AMD doesn't counter advertise on tv, people don't know who they are. Hell, for the most part they don't advertise at all, outside of PC magazines. It for the most part, doesn't have a damn thing to do with efficiency or cpu power or igpu power.
The average person doesn't know that AMD powers all 3 current gen consoles. Now, if current gen consoles were factored in, I wonder how much that would change the numbers, since they're all effectively small form factor pc's now.
Now, on the AMD v Nvidia front. Again, that comes down to advertising. Every other game you play almost for years, has had Nvidia the way it's meant to be played advertising either on the box, or at the intro of the game. Add on to that, BS spread by people about driver stability, which I can say hasn't been an issue at least since the hd2000 series, since I've owned ati/amd cards since then. During the alternating times, even when AMD/ATI has had a superior product for a long stretch, they still didn't gain much of any market share. The reality with that is, people who've been around long enough, have seen Nvidia on the front end more. Those of us who were around during the Nvidia v 3dfx days for example. Are going to go with the brand that they're most use to, whether they perform better or not.
Hrel - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
Q2 2014 vs Q2 2013 -0.1%What? AMD Q2 2013 shows 5.32 Million, Q2 2014 shows 4.36 Million. Which is 82% of 5.32 Million. So AMD is down 18%, not .1%. Very confused, and frankly angry at your lack of math ability.
Nvidia also went down, not up, WTF are you doing?
Brett Howse - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
I apologize the numbers I had used for the percentages were from the wrong quarter. All fixed now thanks for letting me know.Mr Perfect - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
It might also be because AMD and Nvidia are still stuck on 28nm and have been releasing a lot of rebadged cards. If you bought a card last year, what is there to upgrade to this year?
siliconwars - Friday, September 5, 2014 - link
Understand that the vast majority of Nvidia's "discrete" card sales are extreme low-end like GT 610, GT 620, GT 630. These are actually slower than AMD's integrated graphics.lazymangaka - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link
It would be interesting to see how things rack and stack at the mid-range and high-end of the GPU market. I don't believe AMD even offers as many lower-end GPUs as Nvidia does, so it's natural that Nvidia is going to dominate in that market. A quick glance at the sub-$75 category on Newegg has Nvidia with twice as many offerings as AMD (and AMD's numbers are probably skewed by merchants offering extremely old ATI cards).