[Anandtech] Discrete Q2 GPU Marketshare - AMD rises to 30%

[Final8ty]

Yeah that was kind of my point in creating this thread, just to show that AMD is starting to pick up a little steam towards becoming a better competitor. I don't understand the reasoning behind some posters doing everything they can to disprove the numbers shown here, what incentive is there for that?

Hard to keep a topic positive here lately.

Because some peoples tribal mindset prevents them seeing anything positive, even if what would please them the most would ultimately be detrimental for everyone including themselves when prices would be even higher than they are now.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Because some peoples tribal mindset prevents them seeing anything positive, even if what would please them the most would ultimately be detrimental for everyone including themselves when prices would be even higher than they are now.

I recommend you to read this post, instead of trying to project something on others.
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...-amd-rises-to-30.2486040/page-6#post-38473959

 

[Final8ty]

That post has nothing to do with my comment.

If AMD gained market share then they have gained market share, i could not care less about the why, AMD getting closer to NV for whatever reason is better for everyone.

 

[Zanovar]

That post has nothing to do with my comment.

If AMD gained market share then they have gained market share, i could not care less about the why, AMD getting closer to NV for whatever reason is better for everyone.

Indeed.i truly dont understand the thought process of some people.it is quite bizarre.

 

[Final8ty]

Indeed.i truly dont understand the thought process of some people.it is quite bizarre.

Its similar to supporting your local football team, you dislike the other team regardless of how bad or good they are doing, there is some logic to that.

But these companies are not our local anything so its more about image by association of brand, NV is the bigger and most popular i have got to be part of that at any cost. NV marketing appeals to that thought process AMDs does not.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Its similar to supporting your local football team, you dislike the other team regardless of how bad or good they are doing, there is some logic to that.

But these companies are not our local anything so its more about image by association of brand, NV is the bigger and most popular i have got to be part of that at any cost. NV marketing appeals to that thought process AMDs does not.

Is that why you bought an FX-9590?


Flamebaiting is not allowed
Markfw900

 

[Final8ty]

Is that why you bought an FX-9590?

No.

 

[zinfamous]

Hit the nail on the head. How about Mr Zinfamous present better data then, since he has so much noise to make?

lol, I'm not here to create the data or bother with your non sequitors and strawmen.


Personal attacks are not allowed
Markfw900

 

[Arachnotronic]

Hit the nail on the head. How about Mr Zinfamous present better data then, since he has so much noise to make?

The best data is in AMD's and NVIDIA's financial results.

 

[IEC]

Doing my best to keep the competition alive. Here's my latest batch of cards:

 

[guachi]

Just a theory but I think besides Ether mining being responsible for selling a shedload of Radeons (and which RTG was not ready for despite the warnings), I think Freesync is also major factor driving the sales of new cards.

Freesync is the ultimate reason I bought a 480. Not only is Freesync cheaper there are far more monitors available. It's too bad that it'll be months until Vega comes out and AMD has something current to compete with the 1070 or 1080.

You can get a Freesync monitor for as little as $140.

The 1060 is probably pounding the 470+480 in sales but I can't see why. You'll have a far better gaming experience with a 470//480 + a Freesync monitor (and if your monitor is old or a fairly basic 1080/60Hz, treat yourself to a monitor upgrade when you get a new card!) than you ever will with a 1060.

 

[Bacon1]

Doing my best to keep the competition alive. Here's my latest batch of cards:

And there are 7 sales of which maybe 1 will ever show up on steam #s which is why they are worthless for sales, but worthwhile for general gaming usage for devs.

 

[Pariah]

If AMD gained market share then they have gained market share, i could not care less about the why, AMD getting closer to NV for whatever reason is better for everyone.

I really don't understand how someone can look at these numbers and believe AMD is somehow in a better position than they have been in recent quarters. Well... this one number is bigger and bigger is always better so screw everything else, AMD is on the way back!

AMD's market share gain this past quarter is meaningless. As I have already posted, and you readily admitted to voluntarily ignoring, AMD didn't see any meaningful increase is sales volume. Now couple that with their financial results in q1 and q2:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10509/amd-releases-q2-fy-2016-financial-results

Scroll to the bottom to find the computing and graphics results:

__________Q1____Q2
revenue: 460m 435m
income_: -70m -81m

Despite this market share gain in Q2 that we are being told to view through rose colored glasses, AMD generated less revenue and had a higher operating loss in Q2 vs Q1. Yes, I understand that these numbers lump CPU and GPU numbers together, but let's not pretend like GPU's were pulling a solid profit in Q1, and CPU's alone lost $80-90 million.

AMD's market share gains only matter if they are a result of taking away customers from NVidia and they make more money. Nvidia didn't ship 2.6 million fewer gpu's in q2 because the market collapsed. The decision to replace the whole top end of their product stack left them in a position unable to meet demand with the new process. Here is where AMD's strategy to "dominate" the mainstream will prove to be a failure. Despite Nvidia's production shortages, AMD had nothing to offer as an alternative. No one pissed off that they couldn't find a 1080/1070 any where near MSRP was going to settle for a 480 instead. So despite a substantial market of enthusiasts sitting around with a fist full of cash and no card to spend it on, AMD didn't switch any of these customers to their side as demonstrated by their disappointing 100,000 gpu increase.

This scenario is not looking like it's going to get any better for AMD any time soon. Vega is not expected to launch until some time in Q2 2017. That gives NVidia up to 3 more quarters to get there production up to market demand. So, all those customers without cards are waiting to give Nvidia their money and market share back as they know AMD is 6 months+ out from having anything remotely competitive.

So, with facts and actual analysis, not speculation and wishful thinking because you like AMD, please tell us how this short term market gain by AMD is actually benefiting us.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

ITT: AT detectives working overtime to discredit peer-reviewed scientific research.

 

[AtenRa]

So, with facts and actual analysis, not speculation and wishful thinking because you like AMD, please tell us how this short term market gain by AMD is actually benefiting us.

GTX 980 4GB MSRP = $549
RX 480 8GB MSRP = $249

then NVIDIA responds with
GTX 1060 6GB MSRP = $249 (Non Founder BS)

GTX 970 3.5+0.5 GB MSRP = $329
RX 480 4GB MSRP = $199

Then NVIDIA responds with

GTX 1060 3GB MSRP $199

That only happened because AMD focused on the $100-300 (RX 460-470-480) segment and NVIDIA had to respond.

Also, if you dont know how much CPUs contributed to the loss, it is pointless to quote the entire CPU + GPU revenue and losses.
And,
AMD could have made the same as NVIDIA and replaced all $200-400 GPUs (R9 380/X and R9 390/X) in Q2 with Polaris 10 (RX 480 4GB and 8GB) but didnt lost market share and instead increased it by 100K units vs Q1 ??

Lets wait and see the Q3 results when both will have higher volumes of 14/16nm products to ship and then we can see if AMD strategy to attack the $100-300 market payed off.

 

[Phynaz]

I'm not going through the various forums of users showing how it inaccurately reports iGPUs as users' dGPU, how it ignores multi GPU configurations, how the voluntary nature is not an actual statistical random sample--I did this at length in the other thread in response to Shintai's refusal to honestly address the very same criticisms. The fact is that it is broken and actually doesn't report hardware accurately. Here, let me bold this again, because every one of you is completely dismissing the criticism and inventing an argument that no one is making:

The steam survey does not accurately report hardware that is in users systems on a consistent basis.

This criticism is completely brand-agnostic. If you don't like me pointing out these flaws, then you have some issue or agenda to mischaracterize the actual criticism that everyone makes. I don't get this, because a flawed tool is a flawed tool. It is unacceptable to be making any argument with this other than the select demographics that it seems to accurately report. The fact of the matter is that if it can't accurately track some hardware, it can't accurately track all hardware. On top of this, members here are trying to report this broken tool as a way to show actual sales data--at the same time these people un-ironically criticize AMD for selling units because of mining.

This type of cognitive dissonance baffles me, especially from a population of forum members that would expect to be exposed to a higher level of data analysis and at least some experience with scientific methods. Again, computer engineering is way out of my wheel house (I don't know what a freaking transistor actually does, lol), but I know when a broken tool is a broken tool, and I know why such a flawed analysis is unacceptable when trying to present that tool as valid data.

Why you guys can't get this--it is really simple, and couldn't be more unbiased--is beyond me. I just don't know what motivates the half of you to insist that these weak and flawed arguments are not only valid...but somehow relevant to this discussion.

You didn't answer the question.

I'll assume that's because you can't.

 

[Madpacket]

And there are 7 sales of which maybe 1 will ever show up on steam #s which is why they are worthless for sales, but worthwhile for general gaming usage for devs.

You can add another 34 Rx480's cards that have never been touched by Steam. And I'm sure many other miners are in the same boat. Steam metrics are awful because they're inconsistent and inaccurate. Bad data is worse than no data period.

Wait until next quarterly results from AMD for the numbers. For now you can spin it anyway you want but marketshare is more important than the ASP as it determines who optimizes games for your cards. The consoles have helped tremendously with GCN optimization but if RTG can claw back more marketshare this will make game studios focus even more on optimizations.

 

[kraatus77]

All this forum crying and fight won't change the fact they gain market share. which was their goal. now you can use steam's useless data which doesn't even count those mining cards but thankfully not even nvidia/amd/intel trust/care/calculate market share from it. they all trust jpr and jpr's study which isn't random or selective as steam's, shows AMD gaining.

But it's nice to see people in denial, the same people who cried crocodile tears saying they want Amd to compete.

 

[zinfamous]

You didn't answer the question.

I'll assume that's because you can't.

I did answer the question already--but you're half right on that post because I was day-cationed.

 

[Leyawiin]

GTX 980 4GB MSRP = $549
RX 480 8GB MSRP = $249

then NVIDIA responds with
GTX 1060 6GB MSRP = $249 (Non Founder BS)

GTX 970 3.5+0.5 GB MSRP = $329
RX 480 4GB MSRP = $199

Then NVIDIA responds with

GTX 1060 3GB MSRP $199

That only happened because AMD focused on the $100-300 (RX 460-470-480) segment and NVIDIA had to respond.

Also, if you dont know how much CPUs contributed to the loss, it is pointless to quote the entire CPU + GPU revenue and losses.
And,
AMD could have made the same as NVIDIA and replaced all $200-400 GPUs (R9 380/X and R9 390/X) in Q2 with Polaris 10 (RX 480 4GB and 8GB) but didnt lost market share and instead increased it by 100K units vs Q1 ??

Lets wait and see the Q3 results when both will have higher volumes of 14/16nm products to ship and then we can see if AMD strategy to attack the $100-300 market payed off.

R9 Fury X/Fury/Nano = $649/$549/$649
GTX 1070 = $449

Then AMD responds with.... ?

 

[tajoh111]

GTX 980 4GB MSRP = $549
RX 480 8GB MSRP = $249

then NVIDIA responds with
GTX 1060 6GB MSRP = $249 (Non Founder BS)

GTX 970 3.5+0.5 GB MSRP = $329
RX 480 4GB MSRP = $199

Then NVIDIA responds with

GTX 1060 3GB MSRP $199

That only happened because AMD focused on the $100-300 (RX 460-470-480) segment and NVIDIA had to respond.

Also, if you dont know how much CPUs contributed to the loss, it is pointless to quote the entire CPU + GPU revenue and losses.
And,
AMD could have made the same as NVIDIA and replaced all $200-400 GPUs (R9 380/X and R9 390/X) in Q2 with Polaris 10 (RX 480 4GB and 8GB) but didnt lost market share and instead increased it by 100K units vs Q1 ??

Lets wait and see the Q3 results when both will have higher volumes of 14/16nm products to ship and then we can see if AMD strategy to attack the $100-300 market payed off.

Your logic is flawed.

Cards take months upon months to develop and Nvidia can't just drop and materialize a GPU out of thin air to create a counter for AMD's products. These cards were already in development before the rx480 release.

Additionally, using the original MSRP of the gtx 980 and the 970 is flawed because 1080 and 1070 cards were already depressing gtx 980 and 970 pricing long before the launch of the rx480.

Gtx 980/970s could be found for 300/250 while the gtx 980 ti could be found for 400 dollars.

Taking into consideration the none founders edition pricing of the 1070, the gtx 1060 would have been priced at 249 dollars regardless of the AMD actions.

If anything, 1070 pricing forced AMD to price their cards at 239/199. The rx480 performance along with the brand value of AMD, forced AMD to price their cards this low. The fact that the PCB is way overbuilt for the typical 239 board and the fact that AMD had to cut out basically all the games to make the rx480 price possible shows Nvidia forced AMD to cut rx480 pricing prior to launch.

The compressed and bad product segmentation shows this as well. Having 6 products all priced between 239 and 109 is bad business. Add in the terrible price to performance of AMD rx460 lineup which doesn't have a low enough price relative to the rx 470 and rx 480 and it was more likely AMD that reacted to Nvidia's products.

Similarly, because AMD announced the abandonment of the upper tier cards, Nvidia created founders edition cards with BS pricing to capitalize on the monopoly at the high end.

 

[Madpacket]

R9 Fury X/Fury/Nano = $649/$549/$649
GTX 1070 = $449

Then AMD responds with.... ?

Price drops...

Fury and Fury X's are going for a litle less (X) or much less money (Sapphire Fury) than the 1070's. The market has corrected itself as expected.

Radeon Fury Price Drops https://imgur.com/a/Op8Ft

Fury X isn't much slower overall to a 1070 (I own both cards) and has superior quieter water cooling. The only potential issue is having 4GB HBM but that's debatable.

 

[Pariah]

GTX 980 4GB MSRP = $549
RX 480 8GB MSRP = $249

then NVIDIA responds with
GTX 1060 6GB MSRP = $249 (Non Founder BS)

GTX 970 3.5+0.5 GB MSRP = $329
RX 480 4GB MSRP = $199

Then NVIDIA responds with

GTX 1060 3GB MSRP $199

That only happened because AMD focused on the $100-300 (RX 460-470-480) segment and NVIDIA had to respond.

Also, if you dont know how much CPUs contributed to the loss, it is pointless to quote the entire CPU + GPU revenue and losses.

Lets wait and see the Q3 results when both will have higher volumes of 14/16nm products to ship and then we can see if AMD strategy to attack the $100-300 market payed off.

Though I commend you for attempting to put together a reasoned response, it ended up answering a question I didn't ask. I specifically asked how the market share "gain" that AMD saw in q2 is benefitting any of us and you responded with AMD released a card which forced Nvidia to respond with a competing product.

I'm not really sure why you started off by quoting the msrp of the gtx 980 and 970. How they compared to the RX 480 was irrelevant when Nvidia had officially EOL'd them with the releases of their replacements the 1070 and 1080 which predated the release of the 480.

As someone already mentioned, the 1060 is based on different GPU than the 1070/1080. Nvidia didn't just crank it out and have cards built and shipped in the month between the release of the 480 and 1060. If anything it looks like AMD adjusted their 480 launch very late in response to either what they heard Nvidia was doing or they realized they couldn't hit the $199 price mark they felt was necessary to make a big marketing splash. How else can you explain the first batch of 4GB 480's actually being 8GB cards as well as the $199 MSRP being BS? Only a very small batch of cards on launch day were available at that price, never to be seen again. Even now, months after release, the cheapest 4GB 480's on newegg are $230. It certainly doesn't look like that was a product AMD had any intention of releasing. The cheapest 8GB is $260, which you incorrectly listed at an MSRP of $250, it's actually $239. Ironic when Nvidia's response, according to you, is actually selling at MSRP. There are 3 3GB 1060's at $200 and 4 6GB in stock at $250.

AMD could have made the same as NVIDIA and replaced all $200-400 GPUs (R9 380/X and R9 390/X) in Q2 with Polaris 10 (RX 480 4GB and 8GB) but didnt lost market share and instead increased it by 100K units vs Q1 ??

Nvidia discontinued the production of Maxwell GPU's with the release of Pascal. AMD did not discontinue the production of any GPU's with the release of Polaris. They couldn't discontinue any, where would they get their GPU's for the RX 780 and 790 in a few years? Also, Nvidia shipped 9.2 million GPU's in Q1 compared to AMD's 2.7 million. The 2 companies weren't exactly trying to maintain the same production levels through this transition. Apples to oranges comparison.

 

[AtenRa]

AMD was specifically talking about mainstream low priced VR ready cards since December 2015 and you are seriously implying AMD released the RX 480 at $200/239 because of NVIDIA GTX 1070/1080 prices ?? Is this a joke or what ??

Thank god we had NVIDIA releasing the GTX 1080 FE end of May at $699 and then GTX 1070 FE 10th of June at $449 and forced AMD to release at the end of June the RX 480 4GB at $199 and 8GB at $239.

 

[kraatus77]

AMD was specifically talking about mainstream low priced VR ready cards since December 2015 and you are seriously implying AMD released the RX 480 at $200/239 because of NVIDIA GTX 1070/1080 prices ?? Is this a joke or what ??

Thank god we had NVIDIA releasing the GTX 1080 FE end of May at $699 and then GTX 1070 FE 10th of June at $449 and forced AMD to release at the end of June the RX 480 4GB at $199 and 8GB at $239.

Also, if anyone expects 480 to perform anywhere near 1070 while having 1/3rd of rop performance. is delusional. the card was designed to replace 380/x which costed 200-240$ at their launch while having half vram. nothing to do with 1070's pricing.