Report: AMD’s fortunes rise as more graphics cards move in Q3 2016

With the amount of buzz generated by the launches of Pascal and Polaris graphics cards over the past year, one might be left wondering whether prospective buyers would walk the walk. Wonder no further, then. The latest graphics card market report from Jon Peddie Research sheds some light on the behaviors of graphics-card buyers, and AMD's bet on Polaris seems to have paid off. Since the third quarter of last year, the red team has clawed back 10.3% of market share from Nvidia.

AMD still has a long way to go to reach parity with Nvidia's share of graphics add-in board shipments, though. The green team still holds a dominant position in the market, even as its share fell from 81.1% to 70.9%. Since good ol' S3 barely even registers in JPR's radar, AMD's gains have moved its position from 18.8% to 29.1% of the total market.

As a whole, the graphics card industry has enjoyed a 9.2% year-on-year increase in shipments, confirming that gamers are responding to the release of graphics cards fabricated on next-gen process tech. JPR says as much, saying that "PC gaming momentum continues to build," and that market demand for gaming PCs is "robust." The firm also notes that the 38.2% sequential increase in quarterly graphics card shipments is well above the ten-year average of 14.3% for this time of year.

Having said that, the overall picture for desktop PCs isn't quite as rosy. That segment of the market is continuing its downward spiral. JPR says the market for desktops as a whole has suffered a 17.1% year-on-year drop in shipments. JPR adds that it expects the "global PC shipment volume […] to fall further."

Comments closed
    • tipoo
    • 3 years ago

    “As a whole, the graphics card industry has enjoyed a 9.2% year-on-year increase in shipments, ”

    This is important and something I feel like the “PC shipments declining, zomg!” crowd misses – shipments of complete systems are falling because a 5 year old 2500K can still handle games, while gaming /components/, like dedicated GPUs, are on the upswing.

    It’s not looking grim at all from that lens, it’s a great ass time to be a PC gamer.

      • DoomGuy64
      • 3 years ago

      They’ve been repeating that message far to long to be considered credible. The real reason is probably more along the lines of tricking gamers into switching to a more monetizable platform, like consoles. It’s one thing if the users themselves think the platform is dying, and another when a journalist who has a conflict of interest writes an article about it. Gamergate already showed that most game journalists are ethically compromised and collude to write anti-gamer articles.

      PC gaming will live as long as the users want it to, and that isn’t going to stop just because some journalist writes a propaganda piece.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    Gaining market share is nice, but I wonder how much AMD really earned. The firm doesn’t know how to make a profit. Probably a penny for every ten graphics chips sold.

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 3 years ago

    I would like to see an updated review with current drivers comparing the RX480 and GTX1060, among other similarly performing cards

    • Dysthymia
    • 3 years ago

    If the rumor about the 8 core/16 thread Zen CPU being priced at $300 is true, I bet we’ll see a bump in PC shipment volume.

      • kmm
      • 3 years ago

      You mean from AMD or for the market? I don’t doubt that AMD can get some market share back from their almost-might-as-well-be-zero, but I’m pretty skeptical of the other.

        • Amiga500+
        • 3 years ago

        I need to update my home Thuban (Phenom II x6).

        I’m waiting to see how Zen shapes before making a decision either way*.

        *If Zen is good enough, I buy AMD. If Zen is bad, hopefully it pulls Intel’s prices down a little bit and I buy Intel.

        Obviously a total straw man argument, but I’d like to think I’m not the only one thinking the same….

        But yeah, I guess a few people in the same boat is hardly going to be noticeable in the grand scheme of things (if it is, I guess the PC market is much smaller than we’d realised!!)

          • Veerappan
          • 3 years ago

          You and me both.

          My current desktop is a x6 1055t, Radeon 7850, 16GB DDR3 on an AM3 board, and a 120gb SSD paired with 750gb spinner (and a 4 TB redundant NAS for household media).

          I really, really hope Zen is worth my money, because I’m upgrading this winter/spring either way. I’d like to have a Zen/Vega system (until Nvidia has an open-source linux driver that they actually back for desktop chips, my money’s going to AMD), but I at least need something that makes some sort of internal/convoluted sense.

          Given that my main system bottleneck at home is compilation speed of large projects, I can take a per-core IPC hit if it’s made up in thread count.

      • just brew it!
      • 3 years ago

      If the rumored pricing is true, I bet it doesn’t out-perform Intel’s current quad-core offerings by a significant margin in typical consumer applications. If they really had an Intel-killer on their hands, the top-end chips would be going for at least $500.

    • rudimentary_lathe
    • 3 years ago

    NVDA and AMD stock prices have gone through the roof over the last half year or so. If all this volume is a one time thing due to pent-up demand from people waiting for the new process nodes, the market may be ahead of itself. NVDA in particular is trading at sky high valuations right now, though they are coming off an outstanding quarter.

    • tviceman
    • 3 years ago

    AMD’s market share was bottomed out at 20%. I don’t really see how could it have gotten any lower without bankruptcy announcements. 30% market share now is a a big improvement, but at the same time it has not come at the expense of Nvidia’s bottom dollar.

    Market share doesn’t really mean squat for any company if profit doesn’t follow. Luckily for AMD, investors are seeing a very bright tunnel at the end of the current road.

    • the
    • 3 years ago

    I wonder if the [url=http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/servers/media-and-graphics/visual-compute-accelerator.html<]Intel VCA-100[/url<] are included. Kinda random and weird but it is a discrete card Intel sells for graphics.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      It’s not included and while that device is mounted in a PCIe 16 card in order to slot into servers, it’s not acting like a traditional GPU at all. Instead, it’s acting as an independent computer that happens to have an I/O connection through PCIe.

      Apparently these things are gaining popularity in server-farm level media encoding, and I can certainly see why a solution like that would be ideal for certain types of workload. However, they aren’t discrete GPUs, and this report does not include IGPs at all.

        • the
        • 3 years ago

        Oh I know. It is more of a tongue and check remark about Intel’s lack of a true discrete GPU.

        Not sure I’d dive all the way in but I would be curious to see how well a Gen9 discrete GPU would perform from their state-of-the-art dabs with all the Intel extras like HMC/HBM. Since Intel owns their own fabs, they could put forth larger dies for roughly the same cost as nVidia/AMD (no TSMC middle men).

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    This is for desktop cards only though.

    We all know that the mobile sector is vastly more important than the desktop sector and AMD’s Polaris came in as a huge disappointment in the critical performance/Watt, thanks in no small part to the poor performance of GloFo compared to TSMC.

    I haven’t even seen a product available with mobile Polaris yet but based on the RX460 it’s going to be over 75W which puts it in the same power-draw ballpark as the 1050Ti (which will rip it a new one) and the 970M (which will comfortably beat it, despite being on the last process node and being at least two years older)

    Here’s hoping that AMD’s move to Samsung’s 14nm sorts out the performance efficiency before it’s too late!

      • UberGerbil
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]We all know that the mobile sector is vastly more important than the desktop sector [/quote<]Certainly, in general. But how much more important is it for [i<]gaming[/i<]? Laptop gaming would seem to be growing, and undoubtedly there's a segment of desktop gamers who'd gladly switch to laptops if they could get the performance they crave, but how large is that segment? My impression is that the serious gamers, the ones who constitute the meat of the >$250 GPU market, aren't all that likely to walk away from their big screens and bulky boxes any time soon. And even if there's been a drift from ATX to mATX to lan-party cubes and smaller boxen in general, it's not a transformative leap to mobile. In the PC world, gaming is really the last holdout against the mobile form factor. Now, at the "casual gamer" level, and the people who can only justify one system (for budget or other reasons) it's certainly true that mobile GPUs are eating into things, though they in turn are also being nibbled at by Intel's iGPUs (and at the very bottom of the market, AMD's APUs). I concede in the long-term, whether it's "wearables" or VR or whatever, the mobile segment and the perf/watt it requires will ultimately win out. I'm just questioning how live-or-die it is for the current GPU generation.

        • Voldenuit
        • 3 years ago

        I’d have thought it would be the pro gamers that are more interested in quality mobile parts than casual gamers.

        These are people who travel all the time to train, practice and to tournaments. They run their games at low detail settings to improve performance and get rid of visual distractions.

      • Ryhadar
      • 3 years ago

      They’re in all of the new 15 inch Macbook Pros at least. Not sure about any other design wins myself.

      • Topinio
      • 3 years ago

      “I haven’t even seen a product available with mobile Polaris yet”

      [url<]http://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/[/url<] [url<]http://creators.radeon.com/radeon-pro/[/url<] all Polaris 11 @35 W parts.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        Ooooh, none of those count as gaming machines, but what clockspeed does full Polaris 11 need to run at 35W?

        Desktop RX460 isn’t even a fully enabled die and yet that’s rated at 75W TDP, more for the custom cards with factory overclocks, hence the 6-pin.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 3 years ago

      GPUs in laptops are a niche market, and will stay so while developers keep producing games that only run well on GPUs consuming several times as much power as everything else in the laptop put together.

      And if we do see more developers taking the lead of android and working at lower power levels it’s hard to see how nVidia will ever compete with integrated graphics (I suppose HBM may offer some hope).

    • Firestarter
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]Having said that, the overall picture for desktop PCs isn't quite as rosy. That segment of the market is continuing its downward spiral. [/quote<] I'd happily buy a new AMD card but the current ones aren't enough of an upgrade from my damn near 5 year old card to bother. And Nvidia is nothing if not persistent in not wanting my money. Maybe Vega will do it for me

      • K-L-Waster
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]And Nvidia is nothing if not persistent in not wanting my money.[/quote<] In what way? (Just curious.)

        • tay
        • 3 years ago

        FreeSync is my guess. I can’t see why anyone would buy AMD otherwise. It’s certainly kept me on the fence. *FLAME RETARDANT SUIT ON*

          • muxr
          • 3 years ago

          rx470 is probably the best sub $200 card on the market. FreeSync or no FreeSync.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 3 years ago

            So is the 480.

            DX12? Check.
            Vulkan? Check.
            Freesync? Check.
            Crossfire? Check.
            Copious amounts of ram? Check.
            Better drivers? Check.

            Specs that are factually accurate? Check.
            [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/10540/the-geforce-gtx-1060-founders-edition-asus-strix-review/15[/url<] Nvidia is exclusively catering to the high end market with the 1070, VR, and Gsync. Of course any reasonable person in the mid-range market is going to switch over to AMD. Is Vega going to make a bigger difference than Polaris? Probably not. Nvidia has a walled garden lock on the High end market, so it's not going to matter nearly as much as a good mid-range card. AMD was right to release Polaris first. Besides, Polaris is already in the good enough performance class that you don't need something faster, aside from running 4k or VR.

        • Firestarter
        • 3 years ago

        Freesync. G-Sync is a dead end the way I see it, even Nvidia won’t use it when they don’t have to. They’ll happily rebrand VESA adaptive sync as G-Sync when it suits them, like they already do in laptops

      • Klimax
      • 3 years ago

      That’ll be near eternal wait…

    • CScottG
    • 3 years ago

    “JPR says the market for desktops as a whole has suffered a 17.1% year-on-year drop in shipments. JPR adds that it expects the “global PC shipment volume […] to fall further.”

    -this is so much bu!!sh!t. The doom & gloom decline of the PC (..which has been happening for what? ..over 10 years now? 15?)

    A huge portion of the PC market is based solely on component sales, NOT pre-built – and that portion of the market is probably growing, especially in conjunction with new video card sales. Pre-built is just being spread among multiple different markets: tablets, premium phones, consoles, etc. – so its market shows a decline.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 3 years ago

      Have you looked for non-GPU focused cases lately?

      If the number of half height MicroATX and single slot mini-ITX cases released per year isn’t in single digits it’s not far off. The mainstream component market is fading as quickly as the pre-built.

    • Demetri
    • 3 years ago

    I think they’re serious about moving Polaris silicon. Some pretty good deals to be had on the 480…

    Single fan model for $170 (straight up, no rebate) + free copy of Civ VI:

    [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131706[/url<] Or $180 for a dual fan version, also with Civ VI: [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131708[/url<]

      • rudimentary_lathe
      • 3 years ago

      The Civ VI deal is a nice one, but it’s worth noting those two links are to 4 GB cards. The 8 GB cards are arguably a better investment, but they’re still selling for MSRP or above.

        • JagaDiesel
        • 3 years ago

        Investment value depends upon their costs… you may have been right (arguably) about 8GB vs. 4GB at launch, but if 4GB RX 480’s are now $170-$180 (and perhaps more importantly – much more widely available), they represent a tremendous value.

        the 8GB versions, btw, are coming down just a touch off their MSRPs (see link for a $230 8GB [url<]https://www.dealzon.com/deals/radeon-price),[/url<] but at the moment I think the 4GB RX 480s are pretty solid deals - Demetri's links might represent the best price-performance card on the market right now.

    • brucethemoose
    • 3 years ago

    Yet my AMD stock is down 3% today :/

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      Stock basically never follows news like this. It’s all about expected results vs actual ones. Expected to sell considerably more cards, actually sold considerably more cards. Ho-hum.

        • UberGerbil
        • 3 years ago

        Exactly: “buy the rumor, sell the news.” Stock prices react more to guidance (ie the future) than results (ie the past). Results just confirm whether the guidance was correct, which is why you get big movements when the results are significantly different (positive or negative) than what was expected. And as you said, that wasn’t the case here. If you bought AMD anticipating these results, now is the time to lock in those gains. The early-adopters, who are the least price-sensitive, are already accounted for; consumers aren’t going to be upgrading their video cards to this generation forever (and especially at premium prices).

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      With regard to stocks, news commonly have the opposite effect of what the wider public would expect. Markets are never shaped by news, it just accelerates whatever’s been waiting to happen.

      • tsk
      • 3 years ago

      Sell your stocks, you don’t know what you’re doing.

        • brucethemoose
        • 3 years ago

        I only got a little bit in AMD, and it’s WAY up since I bought it. I doubt I’ll get a net loss unless AMD folds (which, unfortunately, is not entirely out of the question).

      • muxr
      • 3 years ago

      up by 10% for 3 days in a row.. it’s gotta pull back and consolidate every once in awhile.. no stock goes up continuously.

        • brucethemoose
        • 3 years ago

        Except Nvidia these past few months 😛

      • Chz
      • 3 years ago

      “Yet my AMD stock is down 3% today”

      Because AMD has been selling rather a lot of R470s and 480s at a modest profit.

      And Nvidia has been selling fewer, but still quite a lot of, 1070s and 1080s with a frankly ludicrous profit margin.

        • Prestige Worldwide
        • 3 years ago

        And Nvidia will have their chips in every Tesla sold going forward, and making huge ground in deep learning, scientific computing, etc. They are diversifying into several very profitable sectors in a very effective way, and their stock is reaping rewards as a result.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 3 years ago

        Actually that’s not what the numbers say. The numbers say NVidia shipped ~70% of all graphics cards shipped in the quarter and AMD shipped ~29% — the measure is units shipped, not $ value.

        AMD is selling more than they used to, but Nvidia is still selling more cards.

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    Can’t take these numbers seriously.
    No Matrox.

      • Concupiscence
      • 3 years ago

      I’d complain that S3/VIA’s unrepresented too, but since they were effectively sold to HTC they’re out. SiS/Trident’s XGI dissolved back in 2010. Everybody else is gone except Intel, and for all the progress they’ve made they are *resolutely* uninterested in making discrete GPUs for the wider market. Compared to what it was like 20 years ago it almost feels lonely.

      • beck2448
      • 3 years ago

      Just read the quarterlies of both companies. AMD’s REVENUE share actually went down as Nvidia made 100% of the profits of Dgpu with a huge jump in revenue, Nvidia also owns the performance notebook category which actually grew last quarter.

        • muxr
        • 3 years ago

        AMD had a one time WSA agreement renegotiation fee of $370M, which impacted their revenues. But it was a positive development because they can now dual source fabs from Samsung as well and that fee also includes the future access to 7nm FinFet nodes.

        Their earnings are actually up by quite a bit, in green for the first time in a long time at 0.03 pt a share. Zen and Vega aren’t even here yet. Also they paid down half of their debt.

          • beck2448
          • 3 years ago

          Computer and graphics actually lost about 60-65 million. Consoles bailed them out. Selling products at a loss is unsustainable.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This