jonpeddie: nvidia keeps losing market share

[Genx87]

This makes little sense to me because we're reaching the point of diminishing returns when it comes to mobile computing performance.

I just bought an HTC Thunderbolt for the 4G/LTE access, and it's a single core that does fine. Ditto with the Droid Charge.

Imho, a fast single core is enough for web-surfing and watching HD video and play Angry Birds and such. But I suppose a small pool of people will attempt to play demanding video games on tiny little screens. But dual core and lots more video performance doesn't seem necessary right now... maybe a little more performance to encode 1080p video or something, but beyond that, it's overkill. Dual-core with high-performance video seems like unnecessary expense and energy usage at this point. Quad core seems like an even bigger waste of energy.

Energy efficiency is a big reason why ARM beats INTC in the mobile computing space and why INTC is making such a fuss about its energy-efficient 22nm process... they NEED to be much more energy-efficient if they hope for x86 to trickle down to mobile computing devices.

Give me adequate performance at a lower price with better battery life any day. I don't need to or want to play BF3 on my smartphone, thank you very much, especially if it adds expense and lowers battery life.

Edit: For tablets I see perhaps a bit more need for performance, but even then, beyond stuff like encoding/decoding 1080p video, then what? Does anyone seriously think we will see hordes of hardcore games being developed for tablets (especially given Nintendo/Sony probably not wanting to open up their hand-held console businesses and Sony probably not wanting to cannibalize its PSP business)? Does anyone even WANT to play demanding games on tablets and sub-10-inch-screens? There's a big difference between casual games like Angry Birds and demanding games like Crysis 1. You'd need a keyboard and mouse to really use a tablet for hardcore gaming, at which point you might as well get a full-fledged x86 laptop instead. Or just go desktop or console (Xbox 360 w/ Kinect, PS3, Nintendo Wii). That's not to say that ARM might not dominate lower-end mobile computers (netbooks, tablets, smartphones), but I have a hard time seeing ARM compete with INTC/AMD in the full-fledged laptop space.

What you would do and what the market will do are not the same. Hand held gaming devices are going to be replaced by phones and tablets. That is the bottom line and why there is a road map for ultra mobile devices that include 4 cores and beyond. Once upon a time MP3 players were a popular stand alone device. Now they are integrated onto the phone. Once upon a time digital camera's were stand alone. Now they are on the phone. The goal is to make a phone\tablet the end all device for people to use. From multimedia to gaming, to productivity.

Most people are not "hard core" gamers. Most people can get by with Intel integrated graphics on the desktop\laptop.

ARM doesnt need to compete in the desktop\laptop space. The market will continue to move towards tablets and smartphones.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The PC market isn't dying, it's just that nVidia is being pushed out of it.

Microsoft apparently has their back on this point, nVidia will be able to ship their own CPUs and GPUs on Windows systems before too long. Intel has massively overestimated its' market dominance and its' abject failure in the mobile market is going to cost them severely within the next couple of years(it's not just nV, Qual, TI and Sammy can come play too). No, this isn't going to have a major impact on the broader PC market, but particularly for corporations having all of their devices running on code identical platforms can be very handy and save tons of money(Intel could have won this battle easily if they could make a decent SoC).

In terms of these charts, Win8 running on ARM is the only thing that should stop the trend long term(in terms of nV's market erosion) although at that point PowerVR and Qual will be seeing some movement up the charts too, it will get interesting to see where things go when the desktop market has viable ARM competitors.

Dual-core with high-performance video seems like unnecessary expense and energy usage at this point. Quad core seems like an even bigger waste of energy.

So pushing a massive single core 1.5GHZ chip is the way to go? The problem with this line of thought is that Tegra2 bests the TBolt, and the overwhelming majority of other high end smartphones, by quite a bit using battery life as the only criteria. Making multiple cores is by far the most effective way to increase battery life. If you are checking your email, you don't need to have a monster 1.5GHZ SoC all fired up(clock throttling helps, but disabling 50% or 75% of your die altogether helps more).

Give me adequate performance at a lower price with better battery life any day.

And you bought a high end HTC phone? I'm going to have to say you are full of crap.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4240/htc-thunderbolt-review-first-verizon-4g-lte-smartphone/5

You really think battery life is important? The test the TBolt does best on in relative terms, it still loses to the Tegra2 part by 4 hours. Multi core is absolutely the way to go when battery life is of the utmost importance- besides the obvious benefits of disabling cores when not needed, getting your job done faster and getting the screen off, the biggest killer, is the best way to conserve energy.

For the general comments on Tegra2 not being up to par- In the US I still can't buy a phone that is faster then the Tegra2 one I bought in February. In fact, I can't buy one that is remotely close outside of another Tegra2 part. In the tech world, utterly dominating the competition for a quarter without a remotely comparable competitor is normally considered dominant, not inferior. Yes, sometime within the next couple of months we will start to see parts that are comparable come out, of course in that timeframe nV will be shipping Tegra3. I really get confused when they talk about T2 not being up to par.

 

[SirPauly]

Intel has massively overestimated its' market dominance and its' abject failure in the mobile market is going to cost them severely within the next couple of years(it's not just nV, Qual, TI and Sammy can come play too). No, this isn't going to have a major impact on the broader PC market, but particularly for corporations having all of their devices running on code identical platforms can be very handy and save tons of money(Intel could have won this battle easily if they could make a decent SoC).

Maybe not?

Intel redesigns transistors for faster computers

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-intel-redesigns-transistors-faster.html

 

[blastingcap]

You're assuming that prices for a gaming tablet will be close to a non-gaming tablet, and that people will want to use tablets for gaming. The problem is that tablets are already not cheap, and putting even more power into a tablet will drive prices even higher. Most people would not hand a $700 tablet to a 6 year old kid to play video games on.

Your comment about non-hardcore gaming is actually mine. I am saying that a really strong quad core ARM with high powered graphics is overkill right now.

Sorry but I don't drink the ultimate-convergence Kool-Aid where we have the equivalent of a Core i5 2500K in a wristwatch or something. It may happen in a few DECADES but not years. There is SOME convergence, for sure. People check their phones instead of watches, for time now, for instance. But not everything is easily converged.

Take a smartphone camera for instance. Even a cheap compact camera will blow away smartphone picture quality. Smartphones don't have the room for large sensors or lenses. A tablet might, but you can't exactly pocket a tablet, whereas you can pocket compact cameras or smartphones as take-everywhere photographic equipment. I would agree with you on video so long as we are hamstrung to 1080p max (hence the demise of Flips, which I am amazed lasted as long as they did), but if we went up to 4K, you run into similar problems--smartphones don't have room for big sensors or lenses.

Your comment about MP3 players is similarly flawed. Yes, some people will drain their cell phone battery by playing songs on it. But for many of us, MP3s are STILL popular devices. I don't want to jog around with my relatively heavy smartphone when I can use my tiny, rugged Sansa Clip, which is much lighter and has much better battery life, not to mention better audio quality than almost anything else.

As for gaming, see my previous comment. You can play Angry Birds on a tablet or phone, but BF:BC2 or Crysis 1? Fuggedaboudit. Unless you hook up the proper controls, at which point you might as well just buy a console or gaming PC.

Smartphones/tablets will continue to make inroads into casual gaming, but as a freebie rather than the main reason why people buy such devices. Gaming doesn't rank high for most people buying smartphones/tablets. Talking on phone, email, text messages, reading ebooks, PDAs, internet connectivity, and even battery life probably take precedence over gaming, for most people. In fact, I can't think of any friend of mine who bought a smartphone for the primary reason of wanting to play games on it.

Intel has struggled because we've reached the point of "good enough" for most applications other than gaming and highly demanding computer modeling (mathematical/statistical and/or graphical).

ARM - adequate performance, power efficient (important for mobile computing).

INTC - great performance, not as power efficient

If a quad core with four times the performance of a current high-end single core can be as cheap as a single core and as power efficient, fine, but I suspect that for most people, even a current top-end single core is pretty close to "enough." A dual core with 1080p encoding/decoding is pretty much all they'll need until 4K video becomes a reality. They'll buy quad cores anyway so long as they don't lose battery life or have to pay much more for them, relative to single and dual cores. But few would pay a premium for quads, at least until 4K video.

What you would do and what the market will do are not the same. Hand held gaming devices are going to be replaced by phones and tablets. That is the bottom line and why there is a road map for ultra mobile devices that include 4 cores and beyond. Once upon a time MP3 players were a popular stand alone device. Now they are integrated onto the phone. Once upon a time digital camera's were stand alone. Now they are on the phone. The goal is to make a phone\tablet the end all device for people to use. From multimedia to gaming, to productivity.

Most people are not "hard core" gamers. Most people can get by with Intel integrated graphics on the desktop\laptop.

ARM doesnt need to compete in the desktop\laptop space. The market will continue to move towards tablets and smartphones.

 

[blastingcap]

So pushing a massive single core 1.5GHZ chip is the way to go? The problem with this line of thought is that Tegra2 bests the TBolt, and the overwhelming majority of other high end smartphones, by quite a bit using battery life as the only criteria. Making multiple cores is by far the most effective way to increase battery life. If you are checking your email, you don't need to have a monster 1.5GHZ SoC all fired up(clock throttling helps, but disabling 50% or 75% of your die altogether helps more).

I don't have anything against dual cores but at the same process (you can't compare different processes, that's like comparing 40nm video cards to 65nm video cards), are you saying quad cores are MORE power efficient than single cores? I suspect otherwise, but if you are correct, then I stand corrected.

And you bought a high end HTC phone? I'm going to have to say you are full of crap.

I am going to say you are as charismatic as a mod infraction.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4240/htc-thunderbolt-review-first-verizon-4g-lte-smartphone/5

You really think battery life is important? The test the TBolt does best on in relative terms, it still loses to the Tegra2 part by 4 hours. Multi core is absolutely the way to go when battery life is of the utmost importance- besides the obvious benefits of disabling cores when not needed, getting your job done faster and getting the screen off, the biggest killer, is the best way to conserve energy.

I didn't buy the Tbolt for battery life, I bought it because I needed 4G/LTE speeds (which are definitely impressive compared to 3G--I can sometimes break 20/4 Mbps download/upload with sub-50ms latency, though a more typical throughput is 14/3.5) and there was literally no alternative at the time, though now the Droid Charge is out. You can't compare apples and oranges like you have done above. Battery sizes differ, as do processors, UI, Android OS versions, the types and quantities of widgets/apps/processes running, screen sizes and qualities and resolutions and technologies, and 4G sucks more power than 3G. I really hope you did not seriously think that chart proved your point.

 

[argor]

by quite a bit using battery life as the only criteria. Making multiple cores is by far the most effective way to increase battery life. If you are checking your email, you don't need to have a monster 1.5GHZ SoC all fired up(clock throttling helps, but disabling 50% or 75% of your die altogether helps more).

just to add something to this
you can also see this more inn future as many semiconductor company’s start to include fast and slow cores like for example in the omap5 2× Cortex-A15 with 2× Cortex-M4

For the general comments on Tegra2 not being up to par- In the US I still can't buy a phone that is faster then the Tegra2 one I bought in February. In fact, I can't buy one that is remotely close outside of another Tegra2 part. In the tech world, utterly dominating the competition for a quarter without a remotely comparable competitor is normally considered dominant, not inferior. Yes, sometime within the next couple of months we will start to see parts that are comparable come out, of course in that timeframe

are you forgeting the Optimus 3D it has ti omap4430 and is faster than any phone with tegra 2
i think the most of the comments are saying it not upto par in the table space as it has some limitation in the video front and there are more powerful soc available and there is also the apple factor thanks to apple nice grafix leep earlier this year

 

[notty22]

I remember reading this article about this survey, it was surprising.
After people buy tablets, one of the most used aspect /apps is gaming.
I'm getting a Ipad2 myself, the main reason is for the great screen, ebook reader usage, web surfing. Maybe I will try Shift
links to same survey.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383348,00.asp

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34045/Survey_Gaming_Top_Activity_On_Tablets_For_US_Users.php

edit: Surveys can return varied results, I won't contend that.

 

[wahdangun]

My point is that all of the talk of diversity and other growing markets is nothing but a smoke screen. It doesn't explain why nVidia is loosing market share in discrete graphics. It doesn't address the subject of this thread. It's off topic and has derailed the thread. While it all might very well be true and speak to the longevity of nVidia as a company, the thread is (well was) about nVidia loosing market share in discrete gpu's. They are selling less of them, percentage wise, and AMD and Intel are selling more. This was 1st Q of 2011. The excuse that Fermi was late is also a smoke screen. We aren't even in the same generation anymore. This is 6000 series vs. 500 series. Not Fermi vs. Evergreen, where Fermi was a no show for 6mos. If someone would like to take a shot at giving an explanation as to why this happened feel free. It's not because they have signed any contracts to sell Tegra to anyone for portable devices though.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in previous posts. I often tend to be to sarcastic for my own good.

that because normal ppl don't upgrade every 6 month like use, hell there even some ppl that still use 8800gt, they tend to upgrade every 3 years or when there are new directx coming out.

 

[blastingcap]

I remember reading this article about this survey, it was surprising.
After people buy tablets, one of the most used aspect /apps is gaming.
I'm getting a Ipad2 myself, the main reason is for the great screen, ebook reader usage, web surfing. Maybe I will try Shift
links to same survey.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383348,00.asp

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34045/Survey_Gaming_Top_Activity_On_Tablets_For_US_Users.php

edit: Surveys can return varied results, I won't contend that.

I'm not surprised. I did not think I'd game on my phone, but I downloaded Angry Birds anyway. It's not high quality entertainment, but it's something to do when waiting for a friend or something. That said, "playing games" was like dead last in my reasons to get my smartphone. It's more like a freebie thrown in. It doesn't drive sales except at the margin, like as a final tiebreaker between two otherwise equally matched phones.

If I could get a quad-core Tbolt that didn't make my battery life even worse than it is, and all for the same price, sure, I'd go for it even though I didn't need it. But would I pay more for it? No. The ability to game "on the go" is nice, but I'm not willing to pay much for it, and I suspect most people are the same way.

If I had a choice between two tablets, one that could do light gaming like Angry Birds, and another that cost $150 more but could do heavy gaming like the latest racing game, and both could do the basics (web, Google docs, email, etc.) I would buy the first tablet in a heartbeat and spend the $150 on upgrading my PC's video card or buying a Wii or something.

To analogize further: choose one:

(A) HD6850 for $150
(B) HD6850 plus a "free" download of AvP for $165

I'm betting most people would choose (A)

But I could be wrong.

 

[Keysplayr]

I'm not surprised. I did not think I'd game on my phone, but I downloaded Angry Birds anyway. It's not high quality entertainment, but it's something to do when waiting for a friend or something. That said, "playing games" was like dead last in my reasons to get my smartphone. It's more like a freebie thrown in. It doesn't drive sales except at the margin, like as a final tiebreaker between two otherwise equally matched phones.

If I could get a quad-core Tbolt that didn't make my battery life even worse than it is, and all for the same price, sure, I'd go for it even though I didn't need it. But would I pay more for it? No. The ability to game "on the go" is nice, but I'm not willing to pay much for it, and I suspect most people are the same way.

If I had a choice between two tablets, one that could do light gaming like Angry Birds, and another that cost $150 more but could do heavy gaming like the latest racing game, and both could do the basics (web, Google docs, email, etc.) I would buy the first tablet in a heartbeat and spend the $150 on upgrading my PC's video card or buying a Wii or something.

To analogize further: choose one:

(A) HD6850 for $150
(B) HD6850 plus a free download of AvP for $165

I'm betting most people would choose (A)

But I could be wrong.

$15 is free to you?

 

[blastingcap]

$15 is free to you?

I think you're missing the point.

Of course, if there were an option (C) for the same HD6850 plus "free" AvP download for $150, I'd take that option and so would everyone else.

 

[Keysplayr]

I think you're missing the point.

Of course, if there were an option (C) for the same HD6850 plus "free" AvP download for $150, I'd take that option and so would everyone else.

No, I got your point, but AvP in your example costs 15.00. Not free as you indicated.
Yes, Option (C) would indeed be a free download of AvP if option (A) was a 6850 for 150.00.
Of course all would choose C.

 

[blastingcap]

No, I got your point, but AvP in your example costs 15.00. Not free as you indicated.

You're right, but I think most of the time they are advertised as coming with the card, as if free, even though they aren't really. Sort of like "free shipping" with Amazon orders over $25 on most items. I'll put it "free" in quotes to correct it.

 

[3DVagabond]

that because normal ppl don't upgrade every 6 month like use, hell there even some ppl that still use 8800gt, they tend to upgrade every 3 years or when there are new directx coming out.

Most people don't upgrade anything in their computer. Most people buy a new component, or whole PC, when the one they have craps out. That has nothing to do with nVidia's shrinking market share. That effects all the manufacturers equally. That might make the market smaller, overall, but not for one company more so than any other.

It's because they're loosing the battle in the graphics market. People can try and make it unimportant, but it's not. It's their bread and butter core business.

 

[tweakboy]

Could care less.:thumbsdown:


Then don't post. What you did here is called thread-crapping.

Imagine what this thread, and every other one in VC&G, would look like if the hundreds of members who are currently viewing the thread elected to post exactly as you did...

Please don't thread-crap.

Idontcare
Super Mod

 

[BenSkywalker]

Give me adequate performance at a lower price with better battery life any day.

I didn't buy the Tbolt for battery life, I bought it because I needed 4G/LTE speeds

I said you were full of crap when you bought a TBolt while claiming battery life was more important then performance, you backed that assertion up with your follow up statement. Not picking on your decission to go with higher performance, but noone goes looking for a phone with good battery life and buys a high end HTC phone

are you saying quad cores are MORE power efficient than single cores?

If designed properly absolutely. You only use as much power as needed then put the rest of the chip to sleep. You can't put a single core to sleep, you can throttle it, but not shut it off. With multi core chips, you need only leave one core active, while throttled down, and can shut the rest of them off.

are you forgeting the Optimus 3D it has ti omap4430 and is faster than any phone with tegra 2

Where can I buy one? The SGS2 also has a slight performance edge in some situations, but so far I can't buy one in North America. It is May now, and I've been running a T2 phone as my daily since February, in the current cell market that makes the T2 a rather dominant part.

 

[wahdangun]

Most people don't upgrade anything in their computer. Most people buy a new component, or whole PC, when the one they have craps out. That has nothing to do with nVidia's shrinking market share. That effects all the manufacturers equally. That might make the market smaller, overall, but not for one company more so than any other.

It's because they're loosing the battle in the graphics market. People can try and make it unimportant, but it's not. It's their bread and butter core business.

yup you are right too, and since there are 6 month without dx11gpu from nvdia, and 10 month without $150,now the question is what do average joe that like/want to play pc games buy when they go to best buy? I bet they will choose dx 11 pc that have a lots of vram, and with the lowest price. And its look like amd smaller die tactic have been success not only they can bring entire line up in every price segment faster they also make a great and efficient laptop gpu, amd even have bigger market share in that area than nvdia.

 

[wahdangun]

I said you were full of crap when you bought a TBolt while claiming battery life was more important then performance, you backed that assertion up with your follow up statement. Not picking on your decission to go with higher performance, but noone goes looking for a phone with good battery life and buys a high end HTC phone



If designed properly absolutely. You only use as much power as needed then put the rest of the chip to sleep. You can't put a single core to sleep, you can throttle it, but not shut it off. With multi core chips, you need only leave one core active, while throttled down, and can shut the rest of them off.



Where can I buy one? The SGS2 also has a slight performance edge in some situations, but so far I can't buy one in North America. It is May now, and I've been running a T2 phone as my daily since February, in the current cell market that makes the T2 a rather dominant part.

please stop it, this thread is not about tegra, please make another thread if you want.

 

[3DVagabond]

please stop it, this thread is not about tegra, please make another thread if you want.

+1 :thumbsup:

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Didn't they say a few years back that ATI would die off because of its marketshare diminishing.

Things will seasaw back and forth for awhile.

 

[happy medium]

please stop it, this thread is not about tegra, please make another thread if you want.

-1 :thumbsdown:

Nvidia ,Tegra, and market share is what this thread is about. Look at the title.

 

[wahdangun]

-1 :thumbsdown:

Nvidia ,Tegra, and market share is what this thread is about. Look at the title.

this is VnG NOT ABOUT GADGET, PHONE OR TABLET. And this thread ABOUT PC AND LAPTOP GRAPHIC
Please I just want to enjoy the thread, without thread derailing.

if you don't have anything good to post then get off.

btw its really irony isn't it, two years ago amd market share is almost non existent and everyone talking about the doom of amd but now two years later amd have gained market share, its even surpass nvdia in laptop segment, its truely unbelieveable amd can do in 2 years

 

[blastingcap]

two years ago amd market share is almost non existent and everyone talking about the doom of amd but now two years later amd have gained market share, its even surpass nvdia in laptop segment, its truely unbelieveable amd can do in 2 years

By your own logic, AMD could be back in gloom and doom mode in 2 years.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I agree 100%. PC gaming is becoming a wasteland, a select few quality titles the rest hasty console ports. Ugh.

Regarding discreet graphics share, I can honestly see a future where the traditional PC is relegated to the very high end and specialty tasks. Most people will be using some kind of portable device, perhaps seamlessly interconnected to various displays and peripherals.

This could happen, but I still feel the need for a keyboard and the need to use productivity software. If they could make a tablet with a detachable keyboard that could run something equivalent to office, now that would be tempting. Untill that happens though, it still see a need for the traditional PC for actually doing work.

 

[Rayb]

If they could make a tablet with a detachable keyboard that could run something equivalent to office, now that would be tempting. Untill that happens though, it still see a need for the traditional PC for actually doing work.

You don't have to wait any longer if that's all you require.

Asus Transformer + Docking keyboard + Quick Office