GeForceFX dominates the marketplace

[Malfunction]

Originally posted by Hellbinder
Also, You guys are completely ignoring the statement where the guy says Nvidia last Quarter was FLAT.

Maybe the meaning of "Flat" is unchanged... as in not increasing, nor decreasing?

I dunno... you waste the time on this.. I am done with it. ;)

Peace,

:)

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Hellbinder
Further the marketshare information from Q1 is not *Fanboy BS*. Ati gained 1%, and Nvidia Lost 2%.

Ok, you're going to have to give us a source for this. The only market share reports I've seen this year had NVIDIA gaining market share. I haven't heard of NVIDIA losing any market share yet.

edit: your information is false. http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews/gtnews/TGAM/20030429/RATII

Nvidia Corp. had the biggest share of the overall graphics accelerator market in the first quarter, beating Intel Corp. and ATI Technologies Inc., according to market research firm Mercury Research Inc.

For the sixth successive quarter, Nvidia claimed the top spot, increasing one percentage point to 31 per cent.

Intel maintained its second spot with 29 per cent while ATI grew one percentage point to 19 per cent.


According to that, NVIDIA grew in Q1.

[Richthofen]

not only according to Nvidia but also according to Mercury Research.
I followed every report from them.
Since R300 was launched ATI did not gain even 1% of market share at Nvidia's expense.
All they gained since then was 1 to 2 % over that whole period at the expense of some smaller companies like SIS, VIA and so on.

That is pretty bad if you ask me. As i said. I Haven't seen any semiconductor company gaining so little with such a lead.
As you know there is no lead anymore.

Nvidia is at full acceleration at this time.
DX9 from top to bottom and new products will come very soon.
No R360 one man show in fall. NV36 around the corner.
And of course they will accept lower profits in order to prevent ATI gaining market share.
Well with 1 billion dollars in cash and years with huge profits they can afford that pretty long but won't need it.
It will take only a few quaters until they can increase their prices and margins again.

ATI had a big chance during the last quaters but unfortunatly they did not everything right to profit from it (Radeon9500 and Radeon9200 series)

[Evildeus]

Originally posted by Malfunction
Maybe the meaning of "Flat" is unchanged... as in not increasing, nor decreasing?

Yeah it means unchanged. Saying that the overall market share of Nv is unchanged, but there some variation in the different specific market shares

[jbirney]

Originally posted by Richthofen
That is pretty bad if you ask me. As i said. I Haven't seen any semiconductor company gaining so little with such a lead.
As you know there is no lead anymore.

Well I disagree. Look at ATIs finical records. They go from losing money to their first profitable qrt in a long time!

[Socos]

Originally posted by Hellbinder
I dont think you understand what you are reading. that is DX9 hardware Shipped in Q2. not Dx9 hardware SOLD in Q2. Not to mention a lot of it shipped really LATE.

Further the marketshare information from Q1 is not *Fanboy BS*. Ati gained 1%, and Nvidia Lost 2%.

I would like to remind everyone that the same sources for this information were claiming that ATi had *shipped 1 million R300's* litterally months before it was an actual reality.

All this is really a mute point. I mean if I have learned anything in the last year it is that the big [N] knows how to BS. I am sure they hired all those Ex-Arthur Andersen accountants to cook there books. You really think you can believe earning statements? In the imortal words of [N]'s Haung... They must be smoking something hallucenigenic.:eek:

[Richthofen]

Originally posted by jbirney
Well I disagree. Look at ATIs finical records. They go from losing money to their first profitable qrt in a long time!

yeah but too late.
What was it 12 Mio profits?
In the 3rd 02 it was +8 or something like that.
4th 02 it was -35
1st 03 -1 or 2
2nd 12 Mio.
That are their numbers since the R300 launch.
Still long way until they get even some percentage points back of all that money they lost in the past.

The point is - haven't gained any substantial marketshare is always a bad thing if your are the smaller one.
Once your competitor is back on track and Nvidia definatly is, your future depends on the competitors pricing.
As it was already said. Nvidia is willing to give some profits away and they can afford that.

ATI can't. It does not need much to bring them back in red numbers.

[Hellbinder]

Hmmm.....

I could have sworn that I read that Nvidia had lost 1-2% and Ati had gained 1%.

Oh well..

Still does not change the fact that % of products shipped does not = % of market.

This also just goes to show you that Nvidia can Lie, Cheat, steal, and probably kill people.. and for some reason the masses still think they are the best. Just like they have gotten away with stringing people along for nearly a year inticing them to *wait for the 9700pro killer*.. becuase its obviously going to be better etc etc. Yet even the 5900U is inferior in Dx9 performance and other features. Does it matter? no....

There was a lot of talk that Nvidia was having troubble signing any of the big OEMs over the last year, most of which went with ATI cards. Still.. I think the magority of OEM systems that use add in cards ship with Some flavor of MX card.

At any rate, ATi profits are up, they are gaining some ground, and they still have the bets overall DX9 hardware for sale. i think as more developers begin to endorse ATi the market share will continue to slowly eek towards a closer median.

[Malfunction]

Look at it this way Hellbinder. ATi will have to continue to make great products is all, Win/Win for everyone. Keeps Nvidia on their toes and keeps ATi from making mistakes. ATi doesn't have the capital to make a mistake and rise from it, although maybe they will if they keep producing better performing products instead of repackaging (trend's that suck).

To tell you the truth, I like the AMD/Intel scenario. Keeps innovation alive even in a poor market like we have had, didn't you notice that?

Peace,

:)

[Uttar]

Well, it took nearly 2 years for 3DFX to fully lose brand recognition.

But... Contrarly to nVidia, they didn't have parts which were near in performance to their competition. The V5 5500 got killed by the GF2 GTS.

So, first of all, I estimate that in a position where you are still nearly as good, at least to the customer's eyes, it would take more time to lose your brand recognition. At least 2 years and a half I guess. And when is that, exactly?
That's H1 2005. Eh.

And then there's the NV40, and I'd be very surprised if the NV40 wasn't at least nearly as good as the R420 again. My guess right now is, performance-wise, it'd be a mixed bag. And the NV40 would win hands down feature-wise. Of course, that doesn't even mean anything: because a mixed bag is never really balanced...

For nVidia to seriously get in trouble, they'd need to fail to deliver with the NV40. And to nullify the R3xx advantage, nVidia would have to deliver on time, with performance better than the R420, and it should be available at least 3 months before the R420.
And frankly, that last scenario is not very likely at all...


Uttar

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by reever2
And this is a surprise how? Everybody know BS marketing(*coughdx95200cough*) works wonders
Advertisement without substance does not work. There are two major reasons nVidia's FX line is doing well:

1. Offering a DX9 part to the mainstream (<$100) market.

2. nVidia's history: a long history of stability, reliability, and good performance means quite a lot. ATI is currently trying to live down a history of the exact opposite nature.

[reever2]

Originally posted by Uttar

And then there's the NV40, and I'd be very surprised if the NV40 wasn't at least nearly as good as the R420 again. My guess right now is, performance-wise, it'd be a mixed bag. And the NV40 would win hands down feature-wise. Of course, that doesn't even mean anything: because a mixed bag is never really balanced...


You sure its going to beat it feature wise? It seems to me ATI is going to have a lot more time to just work on special features since the R300 wont need as much as an architectural overhaul to get better, or maybe they are waiting for the R500 beast to pack in the special features?

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by reever2
You sure its going to beat it feature wise? It seems to me ATI is going to have a lot more time to just work on special features since the R300 wont need as much as an architectural overhaul to get better, or maybe they are waiting for the R500 beast to pack in the special features?
Different teams are working on the R400 than worked on the R300, and same with NV40 vs. NV30. These teams will be basing improvements on lessons learned instead of the actual architectures.

Anyway, note that nVidia still has quite a bit more money to throw around. It would be more than a little amazing if nVidia fell short a second time.

[azanon]

Well, it took nearly 2 years for 3DFX to fully lose brand recognition.

But... Contrarly to nVidia, they didn't have parts which were near in performance to their competition. The V5 5500 got killed by the GF2 GTS.

Two years before 3dfx fell, the V3 3000 was out, not the V5 5500, and it was about as good as the competition at that time (it was a little faster than nvidia's alternative TNT2, but only 24-bit color in 3d), and 3dfx was making us big promises for the future at that time. I'd say the analogy is (so far) in-tact.

Azanon

[Nv40]

i think wheter we like others IHV's or not ,WE NEED the competition..
the more the better ,i remember few years ago when my friend bought a P3 500mhz for $850 +S$H (with his tecnnician discount) in a authorized distribrution dealer in US.. in less than a year , another friend was selling me his old P3 500 for only $50 . :D , ( later i remember the P31ghz in the first weeks when it was new the insane cost was beyond $1000 :thumbsup:

its competition the only thing that push lower prices in very short time .without AMD sucessfull ATLon XP's ,INTel will still be selling desktop CPUs beyond $1,000. same with ATI and NVidia.. without AMD incoming 64bits processors we will be paying insane sums of money THousands for something similar. not only competitions keep prices more competitive ,but they also keep substantials improvements in features and performance too.the competiton of R300 lowered the prices of Geforce4's like never in the history.. a gf4ti200 64megs ~$75 .todays latest VIdeo cards cost $500 ,look again the prices when ATI and Nvidia release in 6-8 months their R400 and Nv40. and fx5900ltra and radeon9800pro for ~ $250 and maybe lower. by the way ATI and Nvidia release video cards it looks now that we are in a 3 month cycle :)

[reever2]

But way back when when there were like 4+ competitors in the graphic card market, werent prices even higher than they are now?

[Nv40]

Originally posted by reever2
But way back when when there were like 4+ competitors in the graphic card market, werent prices even higher than they are now?

in the past there were many IHV vendors..something like 50? according to Nvidia CEO, but only ATI/NVidia and 3dx were the real competitors.its not the quantity but the quality of the competition that force prices lower.

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by Socos
All this is really a mute point.

Moot.

[Ruined]

Originally posted by reever2
I dont think devs need yahoo or xbit lab reports to decide to optimize for nvidia, i think nvidia is fully capable of going to the devs themselves ;)

Trying to convince a developer that they should program for your card because it is the most widely used is difficult when numbers prove otherwise. In this case, the numbers prove Nvidia's case, so it gives them more evidence to make their case.

[Ruined]

Originally posted by Chalnoth
2. nVidia's history: a long history of stability, reliability, and good performance means quite a lot. ATI is currently trying to live down a history of the exact opposite nature.

Yep I've been in the PC market for a lonnnnnng time, and one of my main reasons for not buying ATI is bad experience with their older cards. The other is terrible stereographic support.

[Compddd]

but now ATI has kick butt products that are better then the competition. Im tired of all these Gstanfords who would rather eat feces then use ATIs cards.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by reever2
But way back when when there were like 4+ competitors in the graphic card market, werent prices even higher than they are now?

Not really. A Voodoo2 SLI setup was expensive, but we never used to see single cards priced at $500. Not counting the gf2Ultra...but NVIDIA was dominating by then.

[jAkUp]

Originally posted by Malfunction
* jAkUp:
I hope you don't mind the similarity between our sig layouts.:( I really like the way you made yours because it is very easy to read and all the info one could want is present. If you would like me to change mine I will, just trying to make things easier for people to read as you have made yours. :)

Thank you.


lol no problem:D nice specs and sig;)

[ronin_razors]

Cant nvnews get a copy of the mercury report and share the market share data directly?

[ChrisRay]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
Not really. A Voodoo2 SLI setup was expensive, but we never used to see single cards priced at $500. Not counting the gf2Ultra...but NVIDIA was dominating by then.

Voodoo3 3000s were high end for a while and only went for about 175 dollars at the time I can remember.