News AMD Overtakes Nvidia in Overall GPU Shipments for the First Time in Five Years

[Admin]

AMD has taken the lead over Nvidia in overall graphics market share for the first time in five years.

AMD Overtakes Nvidia in Overall GPU Shipments for the First Time in Five Years : Read more

 

[bloodroses]

Given that this generation Nvidia cards are either a) way overpriced or b) under performing for its price compared to last generation chips and AMD alternatives, there is no surprise that AMD has overtaken them for shipping. Most people I know are either using the 10xx (or lower) series of Nvidia cards or AMD cards due to value/performance. I even upgraded to a used short length 1060 6gb a few months ago since the price was right and upgraded my aging 7770.

 

[mihen]

This includes IGPUs, I know I bought an integrated chip last month due to the value.

 

[Veradun]

From the news: "The market share data represents cumulative shipments of all types of graphics units, including those present in processors and consoles, both of which are areas that Nvidia doesn't have a significant market presence. "

Nope. It doesn't include consoles since the report is about PC.

"This is the latest report from Jon Peddie Research on the GPUs used in PCs."

 

[Soaptrail]

Nice graph but what happened to the years between 2015 and 2018?

 

[ern88]

Once Intel is on the scene with their dGPU's next year. It will almost be like the old days of GPU competition. When us old Gamers had a choice between ATI, NVIDIA, and 3DFX. The more competition. The better for us consumers

 

[Soaptrail]

Given that this generation Nvidia cards are either a) way overpriced or b) under performing for its price compared to last generation chips and AMD alternatives, there is no surprise that AMD has overtaken them for shipping. Most people I know are either using the 10xx (or lower) series of Nvidia cards or AMD cards due to value/performance. I even upgraded to a used short length 1060 6gb a few months ago since the price was right and upgraded my aging 7770.

I remember buying a GPU for under $200 and Nvidia options under $200 are not great. AMD still has the RX 580 and RX 570, albeit an aged platform, but they still play games at high frame rates for most of us.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

From the news: "The market share data represents cumulative shipments of all types of graphics units, including those present in processors and consoles, both of which are areas that Nvidia doesn't have a significant market presence. "

Nope. It doesn't include consoles since the report is about PC.

"This is the latest report from Jon Peddie Research on the GPUs used in PCs."

Good eye, thanks for the heads-up. Article corrected.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Given that this generation Nvidia cards are either a) way overpriced or b) under performing for its price compared to last generation chips and AMD alternatives, there is no surprise that AMD has overtaken them for shipping. Most people I know are either using the 10xx (or lower) series of Nvidia cards or AMD cards due to value/performance. I even upgraded to a used short length 1060 6gb a few months ago since the price was right and upgraded my aging 7770.

I would bet removing iGPU from the ratings would flip it though. With them considered Intel still ships vastly more than both combined since every mainstream part has an iGPU. I wouldn't mind seeing how many Turing/Pascal units shipped vs Navi/Polaris.

 

[Veradun]

Good eye, thanks for the heads-up. Article corrected.

JPR's headlines on paywalled reports are a bit confusing at times

For reference and perspective you can find a report that includes consoles here:
https://www.jonpeddie.com/images/uploads/The_Balance_of_Power_in_Gaming_2018_-_V4.pdf

(this is at page 26)

 

[Veradun]

I would bet removing iGPU from the ratings would flip it though. With them considered Intel still ships vastly more than both combined since every mainstream part has an iGPU. I wouldn't mind seeing how many Turing/Pascal units shipped vs Navi/Polaris.

I'm looking forward to read from someone willing to get behind that huge paywall and spread this info

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

I would bet removing iGPU from the ratings would flip it though. With them considered Intel still ships vastly more than both combined since every mainstream part has an iGPU. I wouldn't mind seeing how many Turing/Pascal units shipped vs Navi/Polaris.

Sorry I'm a little lost on how things would flip between AMD versus Nvidia if Intel was removed. Overall shipments of graphics units is higher for AMD than for Nvidia. Are you talking about solely Turing/Pascal vs Navi/Polaris?

 

[jimmysmitty]

Sorry I'm a little lost on how things would flip between AMD versus Nvidia if Intel was removed. Overall shipments of graphics units is higher for AMD than for Nvidia. Are you talking about solely Turing/Pascal vs Navi/Polaris?

This report includes all GPUs that means it includes any AMD CPUs with a iGPU as well (minus consoles of course). Removing that would leave dGPUs only. Thats what I would be interested in seeing.

 

[waltc3]

I had to chuckle at some false assumptions obviously held by some folks these days: He who dominates the benchmark "news" pages among tech sites does not automatically sell more GPUs than He who makes the GPUs that don't. nVidia's "ray tracing" isn't "real-time ray tracing" at all--it's not even close, actually. How many tech sites understand what ray-tracing is well enough to explain that to their readers? Very few to none at all, it would seem. It looks like far more GPU customers in the market understand these things than the pundits who write about them!

Apparently, as the GPU market continues to mature, people become increasingly jaded about "new features" that actually are not as advertised at all, and so sparsely represented in games so as to be practically invisible. The number of people who buy $1400 GPUs to play 3d games --$1400 GPUs that well might be outclassed in only a few months and usually always are--is a very, very teeny-tiny percentage of all of those people who buy 3d GPUs at any given time. It's like Apple Macs these days--they sell 5% of the annual PC market globally--and yet manage to get 30% of the publicity, sometimes more. It doesn't help them increase their share, though--which has remained static for decades at an eternal ~5%. Microscopic. Secondly, people shopping for GPUs look for more than mere frame-rate contests--because most people can't tell the difference between a stutter-free 60 fps and a stutter-free 120 fps, and, truthfully, could care less. But the difference between $400 and $1400 is readily apparent to them! Shouldn't have to be said as every bit of this is just common sense.

Also, I find it interesting that as neither nVidia or Intel win any console GPU/CPU contracts (of course, nVidia has no CPU to offer), and haven't for many years, that some want to pretend that AMD's console iGPU sales somehow don't exist--when they are strictly based on last-gen x86 PC architectures shipped in some AMD-powered PCs!... So, OK, why do some even want to count Intel iGPUs which are not competitive as 3d accelerators with much of anything made and shipped by AMD and nVidia? That does not compute at all. Intel should not be portrayed at all, imo, since Intel is currently 100% non-competitive in terms of the global discrete 3d GPU markets. Intel has no presence there--yet some want to rank Intel in the mix as well as if there's no difference between what Intel sells and what AMD and nVidia are selling. Some folks are in dire need of new thinking caps, imo...

 

[jimmysmitty]

I had to chuckle at some false assumptions obviously held by some folks these days: He who dominates the benchmark "news" pages among tech sites does not automatically sell more GPUs than He who makes the GPUs that don't. nVidia's "ray tracing" isn't "real-time ray tracing" at all--it's not even close, actually. How many tech sites understand what ray-tracing is well enough to explain that to their readers? Very few to none at all, it would seem. It looks like far more GPU customers in the market understand these things than the pundits who write about them!

Apparently, as the GPU market continues to mature, people become increasingly jaded about "new features" that actually are not as advertised at all, and so sparsely represented in games so as to be practically invisible. The number of people who buy $1400 GPUs to play 3d games --$1400 GPUs that well might be outclassed in only a few months and usually always are--is a very, very teeny-tiny percentage of all of those people who buy 3d GPUs at any given time. It's like Apple Macs these days--they sell 5% of the annual PC market globally--and yet manage to get 30% of the publicity, sometimes more. It doesn't help them increase their share, though--which has remained static for decades at an eternal ~5%. Microscopic. Secondly, people shopping for GPUs look for more than mere frame-rate contests--because most people can't tell the difference between a stutter-free 60 fps and a stutter-free 120 fps, and, truthfully, could care less. But the difference between $400 and $1400 is readily apparent to them! Shouldn't have to be said as every bit of this is just common sense.

Also, I find it interesting that as neither nVidia or Intel win any console GPU/CPU contracts (of course, nVidia has no CPU to offer), and haven't for many years, that some want to pretend that AMD's console iGPU sales somehow don't exist--when they are strictly based on last-gen x86 PC architectures shipped in some AMD-powered PCs!... So, OK, why do some even want to count Intel iGPUs which are not competitive as 3d accelerators with much of anything made and shipped by AMD and nVidia? That does not compute at all. Intel should not be portrayed at all, imo, since Intel is currently 100% non-competitive in terms of the global discrete 3d GPU markets. Intel has no presence there--yet some want to rank Intel in the mix as well as if there's no difference between what Intel sells and what AMD and nVidia are selling. Some folks are in dire need of new thinking caps, imo...

Why would you consider console sales in PC market share? Intel is portrayed since the majority of PC sales have Intel CPUs which the majority of those have a iGPU and the mass majority of users don't need anything more than that. The enthusiast market is a very small slice of overall sales.

As well I would assume margins in those are very low compared to dGPU sales.

As for performance, while I could care less about 120FPS there are people that swear by it and your opinion does not dismiss theirs.

FYI, you forgot nVidia does have a contract in the console market. After all their Tegra chip is what powers the Nintendo Switch, which is on track to be on par with PS4 sales and I bet it will keep selling well as they have a much larger target audience.

 

[StewartHH]

Why would you consider console sales in PC market share? Intel is portrayed since the majority of PC sales have Intel CPUs which the majority of those have a iGPU and the mass majority of users don't need anything more than that. The enthusiast market is a very small slice of overall sales.

As well I would assume margins in those are very low compared to dGPU sales.

As for performance, while I could care less about 120FPS there are people that swear by it and your opinion does not dismiss theirs.

FYI, you forgot nVidia does have a contract in the console market. After all their Tegra chip is what powers the Nintendo Switch, which is on track to be on par with PS4 sales and I bet it will keep selling well as they have a much larger target audience.

I am curious do these results take account of Notebooks and Tablets?

This is by far Intel's greatest market, but Ice Lake will likely change this and then of course who knows what happen with Xe comes out.

Also AMD does have some Integrated GPU's but the market is extremely small.

Also how are machines with have both dGPU and iGPU taken in account?

 

[jimmysmitty]

I am curious do these results take account of Notebooks and Tablets?

This is by far Intel's greatest market, but Ice Lake will likely change this and then of course who knows what happen with Xe comes out.

Also AMD does have some Integrated GPU's but the market is extremely small.

Also how are machines with have both dGPU and iGPU taken in account?

I assume it does include notebooks as this is PC market not desktop market information. Notebooks are still PCs just a different class.

AMDs iGPU market in notebooks is much larger than desktop.

Intel CPUs, at least higher end desktop, will turn the iGPU off with a dGPU present but it can be enabled in the BIOS/UEFI. I am not sure how they counted this. They might have considered so long as the product shipped it counted.

Most notebooks on the other hand always have both enabled, even with AMD systems, as the iGPU is for 2D work and the dGPU works when 3D work is done. Mainly for power savings.

 

[StewartHH]

Once Intel is on the scene with their dGPU's next year. It will almost be like the old days of GPU competition. When us old Gamers had a choice between ATI, NVIDIA, and 3DFX. The more competition. The better for us consumers

Just got to remember that ATI is part AMD and 3DFX is part of NVidia. But with Intel in dGPU it probably going be Intel CPU's using Intel GPU and AMD CPU';s using AMD. This of course only Intel GPU's are successful

But keep in mind for general users even dGPU are good enough for there needs and with Gen 11 in Ice Lake that is even more of case.

 

[StewartHH]

I assume it does include notebooks as this is PC market not desktop market information. Notebooks are still PCs just a different class.

AMDs iGPU market in notebooks is much larger than desktop.

Intel CPUs, at least higher end desktop, will turn the iGPU off with a dGPU present but it can be enabled in the BIOS/UEFI. I am not sure how they counted this. They might have considered so long as the product shipped it counted.

Most notebooks on the other hand always have both enabled, even with AMD systems, as the iGPU is for 2D work and the dGPU works when 3D work is done. Mainly for power savings.

It hard to actually tell how much is on notebook compare to desktop - typical in the NVidia vs GPU war every things is on desktop. It would be nice to included this information in the statistics. One thing that comes to mind - is some of usage reports are from Amazon , Newegg and they are basically built machines and notebooks are not included.

As far as AMD GPU being larger than the desktop, I seriously doubt that because even though AMD might have made recent gains on NVidia which more likely because of NVidia issues I would believe for dGPU it is a bigger market on desktops and professional workstations.

Also how is hybrid GPU like the i7-8705g which Intel/AMD thing and likely a temporary solution until Xe's come out.

 

[jimmysmitty]

It hard to actually tell how much is on notebook compare to desktop - typical in the NVidia vs GPU war every things is on desktop. It would be nice to included this information in the statistics. One thing that comes to mind - is some of usage reports are from Amazon , Newegg and they are basically built machines and notebooks are not included.

As far as AMD GPU being larger than the desktop, I seriously doubt that because even though AMD might have made recent gains on NVidia which more likely because of NVidia issues I would believe for dGPU it is a bigger market on desktops and professional workstations.

Also how is hybrid GPU like the i7-8705g which Intel/AMD thing and likely a temporary solution until Xe's come out.

No idea but I would assume they count it towards AMD. And I wonder if they even plan to use that anymore at all with Ice Lake being Gen11 which should be much more competitive with AMDs offerings and would be cheaper for Intel to produce than using AMDs chips.

 

[Unolocogringo]

For discrete GPU market share.
Nvidia 77.3%
AMD 22.7%

NVIDIA Loses Some Discrete GPU Market Share to AMD

NVIDIA (NVDA) is feeling competitive pressure in the discrete GPU (graphics processing unit) market from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), which is closing the performance gap.

articles2.marketrealist.com

 

[sykozis]

I had to chuckle at some false assumptions obviously held by some folks these days: He who dominates the benchmark "news" pages among tech sites does not automatically sell more GPUs than He who makes the GPUs that don't. nVidia's "ray tracing" isn't "real-time ray tracing" at all--it's not even close, actually. How many tech sites understand what ray-tracing is well enough to explain that to their readers? Very few to none at all, it would seem. It looks like far more GPU customers in the market understand these things than the pundits who write about them!

Apparently, as the GPU market continues to mature, people become increasingly jaded about "new features" that actually are not as advertised at all, and so sparsely represented in games so as to be practically invisible. The number of people who buy $1400 GPUs to play 3d games --$1400 GPUs that well might be outclassed in only a few months and usually always are--is a very, very teeny-tiny percentage of all of those people who buy 3d GPUs at any given time. It's like Apple Macs these days--they sell 5% of the annual PC market globally--and yet manage to get 30% of the publicity, sometimes more. It doesn't help them increase their share, though--which has remained static for decades at an eternal ~5%. Microscopic. Secondly, people shopping for GPUs look for more than mere frame-rate contests--because most people can't tell the difference between a stutter-free 60 fps and a stutter-free 120 fps, and, truthfully, could care less. But the difference between $400 and $1400 is readily apparent to them! Shouldn't have to be said as every bit of this is just common sense.

Also, I find it interesting that as neither nVidia or Intel win any console GPU/CPU contracts (of course, nVidia has no CPU to offer), and haven't for many years, that some want to pretend that AMD's console iGPU sales somehow don't exist--when they are strictly based on last-gen x86 PC architectures shipped in some AMD-powered PCs!... So, OK, why do some even want to count Intel iGPUs which are not competitive as 3d accelerators with much of anything made and shipped by AMD and nVidia? That does not compute at all. Intel should not be portrayed at all, imo, since Intel is currently 100% non-competitive in terms of the global discrete 3d GPU markets. Intel has no presence there--yet some want to rank Intel in the mix as well as if there's no difference between what Intel sells and what AMD and nVidia are selling. Some folks are in dire need of new thinking caps, imo...

JPR releases data for 2 market segments. The Discrete graphics market...and the total graphics market. Segmenting them in such a way is very misleading as all 3 companies produce graphics processors in 1 form or another.

Intel isn't competitive? Since when? Show me an NVidia product in the same price category that performs as well. Hell, show me an NVidia product below $100 that provides any actual benefit over Intel's iGPU. There is actually no reason to purchase an entry-level discrete graphics card from NVidia or AMD if you have an Intel processor with iGPU.

 

[Unolocogringo]

We should tell the whole story here.
Intel decided that NVIDIA's chip sets with integrated graphics were hurting their chip set sales too much. So they decided to not renew NVIDIA's X86 license .
This pretty much kicked them out of the Integrated market. So now their only choice is Discrete or Arm GPUs

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

This report includes all GPUs that means it includes any AMD CPUs with a iGPU as well (minus consoles of course). Removing that would leave dGPUs only. Thats what I would be interested in seeing.

I see. I would imagine that if we look mainly at Turing/Pascal vs Navi/Polaris, Nvidia would have some sort of lead (probably rather significant). I think if we look at Maxwell though, Nvidia definitely is well ahead of AMD, but comparing Hawaii to Kepler we would have another case where Nvidia would be ahead but not by as much.

At least thats how I think things would work.

 

[StewartHH]

No idea but I would assume they count it towards AMD. And I wonder if they even plan to use that anymore at all with Ice Lake being Gen11 which should be much more competitive with AMDs offerings and would be cheaper for Intel to produce than using AMDs chips.

My thought is that Intel use EMiB in 8705h has a test bed for future integration with say Xe product or possibly other productions. Also it is used for PLA logic arrays.

The odd thing is that AMD could used to the technology to integrated the GPU's into CPU if they decided to accepted technology from Intel. In there it could be used to embedded GPU from NVidia.

But I believe the really exiting technology is with Forores in the Lakefield.