Situation of decreasing dGPU caused by improving iGPUs or relative lack of CPU at X price point?

[cbn]

Regarding the current dGPU market situation where the total number of cards sold is decreasing but the price per card is increasing, I do wonder how much of that is due to improving iGPUs vs. relative lack of CPU processing power at X price point.

For example, taking at look at the following Intel processors (which make up a large part of the Windows Installation base):

Intel Sandy Bridge Core i3 2100 (3.1 Ghz, $117 to $120, Q1 2011)

http://ark.intel.com/products/53422/Intel-Core-i3-2100-Processor-3M-Cache-3_10-GHz

Intel Skylake Core i3 6100 (3.7 Ghz, $117, Q3 2015)

http://ark.intel.com/products/90729/Intel-Core-i3-6100-Processor-3M-Cache-3_70-GHz

We can see that clockspeed increased 600 Mhz over the span of 4.5 years. During this time IPC increased 25% according to Anandtech:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/23

Sandy Bridge, Your Time Is Up.

A large number of users invested into Intel based platforms during the Core 2 Quad, Nehalem and Sandy Bridge releases. Sandy Bridge was notable because it inferred a large performance gain at stock speeds, and with a good processor anyone could reach 4.7 GHz and even higher using a good high end cooler. With that, Intel has had a problem enticing these users to upgrade because their performance has been constantly matched by Ivy Bridge, Haswell and Broadwell – for every 5% IPC increase from the CPU, an average 200 MHz was lost on the good overclock and they would have to find a good overclocking CPU again. There was no great reason, apart from chipset functionality to upgrade.

That changes with Skylake.

From a clock-to-clock performance perspective, Skylake gives an average ~25% better performance in CPU based benchmarks

Combining the jump in clockspeed of 600 Mhz (3.1 Ghz to 3.7 Ghz) with the 25% increase in IPC the $117 tier of Core i3 has increased single thread only 50% in the span of those 4.5 years.

Meanwhile GPU performance (across all price points) has increased much more than 50% in the same time span.

Therefore it definitely seems to me we have a situation where the GPU compute power at X price point is outpacing the lower CPU compute power at X price point. The result of this would most likely result in a decrease in dGPU sales as the pool of CPUs necessary to feed the newest generation of dGPUs shrinks every year.

With that mentioned, I will admit the Intel iGPUs have improved during that time but the the Skylake i3 iGPU is still relatively weak. In fact, according the following Anandtech review where the Skylake GT2 iGPU was compared to R7 240 (320 GCN 1.0 Stream processors) I estimate the performance around the level of 256 GCN 1.0 Stream processors:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/...ation/14?_ga=1.188674016.970056802.1474319632

 

[DaveSimmons]

My own opinion:

A decade ago most buyers wanted a dGPU because intel iGPU was terrible. So even low-end Dell PCs came with a $30-50 dGPU.

Five years ago, intel iGPUs were actually decent. I have an i3-3100 music jukebox and used it to play Torchlight and Half-Life 2 while my GTX 560ti was being RMA'd for a bad fan. I don't think I've ever had a "driver has restarted" error on that box in the 4+ years I've used it daily.

Now there's almost no need for a dGPU if you don't game, use CAD software or use GPU-accelerated plugins for Adobe or for video transcoding. dGPU is now a niche.

So I don't see declining dGPU sales as being caused by slow intel CPU growth, I see it as their iGPU being "good enough" for 90% of users.

 

[ConsoleLover]

At a certain point GTX 400 and HD 4000 series there was no point in buying newer gpu's for at least 3-4 years as most games had the same Console ported graphics, so with resolutions staying at 720p and same graphics there was no point to buy dgpu if you had the 400 or 4000 series. Even before those series we had great gpu's in the 200 Nvidia series and AMD's 2000 series.

Then games started getting better, but we were stuck at 28nm, so increases in performance gen over gen was smaller and smaller, so less incentive to purchase. Also I think prices have steadily risen, from the GTX 6000 series back in the day(after FX 5000), x1000 AMD series, top flagships after the first initial months were around $300 to $350. These days a high end card will set you back at least $650, up to $1000.

No wonder less and less people are buying Dgpu's, diminishing performance gains, increasing prices, huge popularity of last gen consoles with ps3 and xbox360 having sold a combined of almost 200 million units, wii sold 130 million units, etc...

 

[Rifter]

At a certain point GTX 400 and HD 4000 series there was no point in buying newer gpu's for at least 3-4 years as most games had the same Console ported graphics, so with resolutions staying at 720p and same graphics there was no point to buy dgpu if you had the 400 or 4000 series.

I agree with this, and i milked it for every second i could, i was using SLI GTX 460 till last month lol.

 

[VirtualLarry]

i was using SLI GTX 460 till last month lol.

GTX460 had to be the Sandy Bridge 2500K of video cards. Great value at release, highly overclockable, and has stood the test of time.

Sadly, both are now fairly obsolete, if you want to play newer games.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Not yet for the 2500K (or my 2500 non-K) -- a 6700K is only around 20% faster at stock, not like the 200+% increase in GPU performance since then.

I lose a few FPS on my GTX 980ti but at 1900x1200 the 2500 is still fine for this year.

 

[cbn]

My own opinion:

A decade ago most buyers wanted a dGPU because intel iGPU was terrible. So even low-end Dell PCs came with a $30-50 dGPU.

Five years ago, intel iGPUs were actually decent. I have an i3-3100 music jukebox and used it to play Torchlight and Half-Life 2 while my GTX 560ti was being RMA'd for a bad fan. I don't think I've ever had a "driver has restarted" error on that box in the 4+ years I've used it daily.

Yes, I agree by the time the i3-2100 came around the Intel iGPU was pretty decent for basic usage (re: it had enough EUs (6) for non-gamers and H.264 was also present)....so by this time much of the low end dGPU market was already gone.

What I am referring to is the period between i3-2100 (Q1, 2011) and i3-6100 (Q3 2015).

Granted i3-6100 has H.265 (not terribly useful for most people just yet) but it is still a very weak iGPU, and perhaps the only level of dGPU it really replaces is the R7 240 and the GT730 DDR3. With this noted, the R7 240 and Gt 730 DDR3 offer a poorer than normal performance per dollar so I suspect even if the Intel iGPU had not improved going from Q1 2011 to Q3 2015 sales of this entry level of dGPU would still have been relatively low.

Meanwhile during the same time period (i3 2100, Q1 2011 to i3 6100, Q3 2015) at the mid level for Nvidia we went from the GTX 460 to the GTX 960. That is huge improvement in dGPU performance....and due to this large improvement (at the mid level and upwards for graphics) the need for CPU has also shifted upward.

 

[cbn]

No wonder less and less people are buying Dgpu's, diminishing performance gains, increasing prices, huge popularity of last gen consoles with ps3 and xbox360 having sold a combined of almost 200 million units, wii sold 130 million units, etc...

What comes first the chicken or the egg?

With investment in iGPU rather than increasing CPU at the mainstream desktop level PC gaming effectively becomes more elitist (ie, the group of mainstream users with the appropriate CPU to feed the increasingly powerful dGPU is getting smaller). This, in turn, reduces the amount of New release dGPU able to be used .....and lower amounts of mid level (and greater) dGPU able to be sold means ASP would have to increase to compensate.

So while increasing iGPU is part of the reduction of dGPU market, I think the relative lack of CPU at X retail price level has a much stronger effect.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Perhaps this issue, is why Intel was crowing about their increased sales at the higher-end of their CPUs, namely the 6700K being one of the best-selling Skylake mainstream SKUs.