NVIDIA AIB GPU Market Share Rises to 88% in Q1 24

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
12,871
Points
113
NVIDIA continues to hold a dominant market share in the AIB GPU market, according to a new research report from leading analyst firm Jon Peddie Research (JPR) that shows how the company behind GeForce graphics for gamers and some of today's biggest AI innovations now represents 88% of the market—an 8% increase versus the previous quarter.

See full article...
 
But but AMD is is better with shaders, no one wants RTX, FSR is just as good as DLSS... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
AMD, is either incapable or unwilling.
I often think its about unwillingness, but, I must be wrong.
I guess the crap strategy of cutting Nvidia in price by a bit is all they can do to sustain the dgpu division. They should consider killing dgpu completely and go with powerful and super powerful all in one cpu/gpu.
Nvidia might roll them over on that too ,just with ARM, not x86.
 
You gotta make the GPUs to be competitive. I think it's a matter of unwilling as well.

Both nVidia and AMD sells pretty much every GPU they make. And Intel, I imagine does, as well.

AMD is obviously content where it is - they have limited fab allocation that they purchase - fab production is a limited asset for everyone. They choose to allocate that production time to their entire lineup - CPUs, APUs, Custom Market SOCs, GPUs, etc. So they could make more GPUs, they could attack market share. It's a long way to the top, but it isn't impossible over time with aggressive marketing and strategy. But why would you turn a current high margin product into a low margin high volume item that eats into the allocation of your more profitable segments? What sense does that make?

If i were a betting man - I would bet that AMD produces and sells just enough GPUs to offset the R&D for that. And uses that R&D in their other product lines (GCN in PS5, Vega forever in APUs, whatever they are doing with AI now) -- so it basically is free R&D/tech for their other product lines. I wouldn't be surprised at nVidia doing it much the same way. And in that manner, the GPU market is artificially supply constrained - both sides are only making enough to offset R&D, and then using that R&D in other, more profitable market lines. Which is brilliant, if you are thinking of it as an investor. It's soul-crushing if you think of it as a consumer.

I hate the position, because it means less actual competition. You could almost say it's market fixing, but I won't go quite that far. AMD is just happy to get nVidia-like margins on what they are currently producing and doesn't see the need to get into a bloody price war over it.

For both nVidia and AMD (and Intel, not that it's quite a three-horse race yet), neither company has GPUs as the core of their market any longer. For AMD it never was, they just happened to pounce on buying ATI when they saw an opportunity to get into the market, but it was never the dominant part of AMD's revenue. We, as gaming enthusiasts, just wish it were. nVidia is happy to have this position, as they primarily use it to pump their stock prices, but consumer sales aren't driving anything over there any longer - it was just 6% of nVidia's total revenue.
 
Last edited:
f i were a betting man - I would bet that AMD produces and sells just enough GPUs to offset the R&D for that.

I rhink that AMD lacks the resources to invest heavily in GPU R&D and mainly focuses on their CPU division and also the limited fab allocation might be working against them, it's a catch 22 they can't sell more GPU's to allow for more R&D and the lack of R&D is what makes their products less performant/missing features and as a result less desirable hurting sales and adoption.

But the current AI trend could persuade them to make an effort as there is tons of revenue there and improvements there can trickle down to consumer grade hardware, I doubt AMD wants to give up on the console market and needs at least some decent advances there if they want to keep that business.
 
I rhink that AMD lacks the resources to invest heavily in GPU R&D and mainly focuses on their CPU division and also the limited fab allocation might be working against them, it's a catch 22 they can't sell more GPU's to allow for more R&D and the lack of R&D is what makes their products less performant/missing features and as a result less desirable hurting sales and adoption.
Agreed. I think the PC gaming community expected bigger things when AMD bought ATI. They seem to treat their GPU market like it's an afterthought.
 
Agreed. I think the PC gaming community expected bigger things when AMD bought ATI. They seem to treat their GPU market like it's an afterthought.
Thats it really. I get it, they are quite strong with custom silicon stuff, and that has a permanent future, but even then, they should still be more agressivve with gpus.
I get the factory allocation issue, didn't really think about this and its true, however couldn't they be aggressive in using older process? I think they can. I haven't kept with the nm and whatever else but I assume allocations arent the same at different levels.
Nvidia really goes insane with their products, and their price sure, but regardless.
Necessity should be pushing AMD to do new things, aggressive things, they really aren't, they don't seems bothered or worried, its weird to me.
 
Agreed. I think the PC gaming community expected bigger things when AMD bought ATI. They seem to treat their GPU market like it's an afterthought.
I was actually one of those who did NOT want AMD to buy ATI. And my opinion hasn't changed after all these years.
 
I was actually one of those who did NOT want AMD to buy ATI. And my opinion hasn't changed after all these years.
I totally understand that. I really liked the ATI cards I had back in the day. I bought one after AMD took over and ended up returning it. I think they should have left ATI alone.
 
I was actually one of those who did NOT want AMD to buy ATI. And my opinion hasn't changed after all these years.

you probably didn't want nvidia to buy 3dfx either right? ;);)

Anyway, IIRC ATI was not in a very good financial position and gladly took on AMDs offer.

To think that nvidia almost went bankrupt once and was supposedly in talks for an intel buyout. Today it's the 2nd most valuable company in the world, they could buy both intel and AMD and keep the change.

Also, its kind of funny that ATI bought ART-X and basically became the foundation of its next gen products from then on, while nvidia bought 3dfx and pretty much nothing from its tech came into later cards, except for the now extinct SLI and that's just in name.
 
you probably didn't want nvidia to buy 3dfx either right?
Ironically I had no problem with that! I was on a GeForce 2 Pro at the time. It was sad, but we kinda saw it coming. 3dfx was just having a hard time, and aside from AA they couldn't really get a handle on their tech anymore. But I DID have a problem with Creative Labs buying Aureal and then doing to them what nVidia did to 3dfx. That one really hit me hard.

its kind of funny that ATI bought ART-X
First time I heard about that was when Gamecube was coming out, cuz it uses an ArtX GPU, and has an ATi sticker on it.
 
Ironically I had no problem with that! I was on a GeForce 2 Pro at the time. It was sad, but we kinda saw it coming. 3dfx was just having a hard time, and aside from AA they couldn't really get a handle on their tech anymore. But I DID have a problem with Creative Labs buying Aureal and then doing to them what nVidia did to 3dfx. That one really hit me hard.


First time I heard about that was when Gamecube was coming out, cuz it uses an ArtX GPU, and has an ATi sticker on it.
Hey also had a Geforce 2Pro back then.

Some people say 3dfx could have survived if they hanged on a little bit longer. They had a lawsuit on nvidia for patent infrigment with a potential win. Which is actually the reason nvidia ended up buying them.
 
Become a Patron!
Back
Top