One issue that seems to be ignored is the mainstream market doesn't place as much value on what is essentially paper performance compared to the the enthuasist market. The issue isn't how much faster a GTX 750ti or whatever is compared to the IGP but whether or not the IGP is good enough by itself. The GPU companies do recognize this, you'll notice how Nvidia had a strong focus with the GTX 950 in terms of conveying the benefits of the GTX 950 for MOBA gaming as opposed to just performance numbers in order to sell it as being worth the step up.
If the broader PC gaming market trends towards lower demanding games that perform adequately on the IGP, see Steam stats popular games as an example, then the IGP is adequate enough and the performance delta between discrete GPUs is not really relevant. This contrasts strongly with the past where there was problems just being able to play even the most basic games on IGPs. Even for non gaming consumer usage in the past IGPs were considered problematic which is why non gamers or professionals may have even bought discrete graphics ards.
Enthuasists on tech sites may consider r9 290 or GTX 970 class performance as a minimum for 1080p gaming and be fixated with 60fps at max settings with high AA but the mainstream market as whole is not all that interested.
This doesn't just apply to IGPs displacing the lower segments but also the lower rate of upgrades. Most people, especially the more price conscious, do not feel the cost of upgrading translates to worthwhile tangible results.
hell, if you are a competitive gamer, you turn all the settings way down to make sure you get high fps. or just to cut down as many factors as possible that can cause you problems when gaming. I know I did that when I played the original cs go back in year 2000.If discounting those feature of the year AAA games that come and go like the wind (which are console ports anyway) but instead talking about games the majority of PC gamers actually play on a long term basis like MOBAs, CSGO, Blizz games etc the IGPs already got the job done sufficiently well. The same crowd are also those who wouldn't give a damn whether the details are set to low instead of high, if is playable then it's already good enough.
I truly think there is a LARGE glut of people holding onto their cards waiting for a massive jump in performance. They haven't seen it, so they're holding on to their current cards rather than buy into a small increase like we enthusiasts would.
Arctic Islands and Pascal should change that and get people excited to upgrade to a brand new super fast chip. I really can't imagine those 2 chips won't be a massive improvement over what we currently have.
Yeah, pretty much. I'm holding onto my old Radeon 6870 until I can get something twice as fast for around $120. We're getting close, but not quite there yet.
What are these numbers you speak of? They sound made up.
All I see is AMD losing market share to NVidia and Gameworks games increasing
In the last 9 months nVidia has shipped more than 25 millions GPUs in the pc market.
Since the release of the next gen consoles they have sold easily more GPUs than Xbox One and PS4 combined.
Pc game sales revenue is on par with console game sales revenue. Companies simply follow the money. No company is that dumb to avoid a market the same size in revenue as the console one. You can argue that some company is resource/budget limited and can't target both markets at once, but no company intentionally refuses PC gaming $$$.Game developers don't care about sold GPUs. They want to sell their games and the PS4 is so biggest gaming platform. Even the Xbox One version of some games outsells the PC version. Most sold games are developed for a GCN based platform.
Pc game sales revenue is on par with console game sales revenue. Companies simply follow the money. No company is that dumb to avoid a market the same size in revenue as the console one. You can argue that some company is resource/budget limited and can't target both markets at once, but no company intentionally refuses PC gaming $$$.
you can get it with a used card I think, or something a little more expensive.
Is this trend limited to video cards, though? I expect to see similar trends in wide variety of PC components markets.
In the last 9 months nVidia has shipped more than 25 millions GPUs in the pc market.
Since the release of the next gen consoles they have sold easily more GPUs than Xbox One and PS4 combined.
DX12 will be supported down to Fermi which includes the GTX460 and GTS450.
Pc game sales revenue is on par with console game sales revenue. Companies simply follow the money. No company is that dumb to avoid a market the same size in revenue as the console one. You can argue that some company is resource/budget limited and can't target both markets at once, but no company intentionally refuses PC gaming $$$.
AMD Retakes Ground in Graphics
AMD has regained lost share at $400 and $200 price points while Nvidia dominates the premium high end.
There will be almost 50M GCN based consoles (XBone and PS4) by the end of 2015. Add all desktop/Laptop GCN based dGPUs and APUs and you are looking at more than 100M based GCN hardware.
Add that XBone and PS4 will continue to sell through 2016 and 2017 by 15-20M per year. Add the new GCN based Consoles starting selling at 2016 that will increase the GCN based hardware. So comparing GCN based Gaming market share in 2016 to Pascal will not even be funny.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/...t-50-percent-of-the-worldwide-console-market/
AMD only loosing shipments the last 2-3 quarters in the DESKTOP dGPU market. Q3 2015 should be stabilize and may see a small increase in Q4 2015.
But developers are coding for Console GCN based hardware, you know, the one that has hardware Async Compute.
Also lots of GE games are going to launch the next months, like Star Wars Battlefront, Deus Ex mankind Divided, Ashes of the Singularity, Hitman etc etc.
For people interested in this talk of marketshare and such.
Data from Q3:
http://www.barrons.com/articles/amds-retakes-ground-in-graphics-1442258359
Fury/X/Nano is simply not out long enough to impact, and it was also sold out everywhere suggesting either demand is too much or supply is crap. I lean towards the crap supply, which won't impact marketshare.
Do you have the full article/numbers? I'm not going to subscribe.