• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD nearly bought Nvidia

I'd like to see NVIDIA bought out by intel though. IT will be good for us. we'll see better IGPs on Intel's processors thanks to the technology transfer (a tremendous body of GPU research) that Intel would acquire. And NVIDIA GPUs will have the benefit of Intel's state-of-the-art semiconductor fabs... Which to be perfectly honest, NVIDIA really needs. In a given generation, their GPUs are usually designed to push the limits of the processes they're fabricated on. Having Intel's microelectronics technology combined with NVIDIA's GPU technology will bring about a golden age of PC gaming graphics.
 
xsistor said:
I'd like to see NVIDIA bought out by intel though. IT will be good for us. we'll see better IGPs on Intel's processors thanks to the technology transfer (a tremendous body of GPU research) that Intel would acquire. And NVIDIA GPUs will have the benefit of Intel's state-of-the-art semiconductor fabs... Which to be perfectly honest, NVIDIA really needs. In a given generation, their GPUs are usually designed to push the limits of the processes they're fabricated on. Having Intel's microelectronics technology combined with NVIDIA's GPU technology will bring about a golden age of PC gaming graphics.
Click to expand...

Interesting point, but would we see Intel offseting their hypothetical losses in CPUs with inflated pricing in GPUs? Overall, these big near monopolies are scary, break them all up I say:p
 
dave_beast said:
Nvidia maybe bigger than AMD, but at least AMD released Tahiti on time, unlike Kepler which was planned for 2011 (lol)
Click to expand...

OK ill bite.

oh you mean just like AMD missed 2011 then, paper launch with availibility 9th january.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Thread should get entertaining if it just gets into a load of facts about who missed what launch dates...

Are they not about as bad as each other for delayed products?
 
DrBombcrater said:
NVidia's whole Tegra line contributes less than 10% of their revenue and makes basically no money at all.
Click to expand...

I make it 15% already, and they are projecting on selling 0.8bn - 1bn of Tegra 3 alone in the next year... I'm fairly sure they wouldn't plan on selling a billion dollars worth of something that their is no margin in
 
andybird123 said:
I make it 15% already, and they are projecting on selling 0.8bn - 1bn of Tegra 3 alone in the next year... I'm fairly sure they wouldn't plan on selling a billion dollars worth of something that their is no margin in
Click to expand...

They've revised that down from 1 billion to 500million in a short space of time, not many people are interested in an expensive high power Tegra 3 when 28nm dual cores will offer essentially the same performance a few months later with significantly lower power usage.

Tegra 1, 2 and 3 have so far missed every single sales target possible and are fighting in a market where all the leaders make their own chips for their own tablets. I mean, a 5th lower power core not only adds stages to production which increases production time, increases costs and increases die size... and still has the problem that a single 28nm core would be a likely better option anyway.

It wouldn't be disimilar to AMD adding another module to Bulldozer that increased production time, cost and die size, and complexity while reducing yields... just to lower idle power marginally against a 22nm Intel chip.... rather than move to a lower process node. If there was no new node months later its not a horrifically poor move, when every one of your competitors will be on the new node within months, its a very very very bad choice.

ANyway, when R&D spending is through the roof and you spend a particularly high amount on something like Tegra 3 that will be obsolete within a few months, slashing expected sales in half is not even slightly positive.
 
tommybhoy said:
Possible, but it never happened of course.

'Fast forward to today and AMD owns the second largest share of the total graphics chip market with 24.8 percent, behind Intel at 59.1 percent and ahead of Nvidia at 15.7 percent'

Sits back and watches it kick off!
Click to expand...
Is that really true now with PowerVR being so big? I would like to see some updated numbers, just how many units do AMD and Nvidia sell? With mobiles now out shipping desktops and 80%+ of mobiles being PowerVR I do not see how AMD can be 2nd second largest share.

EDIT: I agree with drunkenmaster, Tegra has done badly, Tegra 2 sales have been cut massively and Tegra 3 was obsolete pretty much from day 1 so I fail to see how it can sell well. Last time I looked Tegra market share had fallen under 1%.
 
Last edited:
We agree :o

:p Yup, Tegra 3 won't get anywhere, a 5 core chip with die size, yield and power to boot with likely noticeably lower performance than a dual core chip on a lower process(I don't know the size comparison between dual core 40nm and dual core 28nm ARM chips though), who on earth would go Tegra 3 over a newer dual core, well, anyone nvidia can offer the chips to at a cheaper price, which in a ridiculously low margin market...... could well end up being another loss making product for Nvidia.

PowerVR chips are sold in huge numbers, but the numbers compare PC graphics, nothing ARM/phone/tablet stuff, also they are sold as part of other chips. Not sure how powervr work, licence + fee per chip sold, flat fee, who knows, they aren't particularly relevant(for the time being) in the markets being compared with Nvidia/AMD/Intel market comparisons.
 
AMD Grabbed GPU Market Share from Nvidia, Intel in Q4

There are several interesting takeaways from the latest graphics chip shipments and suppliers' market share data from Jon Peddie Research (JPR). The first one is that Intel continues to dominate the field with a demanding 59.1 percent share of the market, down from 60.4 percent sequentially but up from 52.5 percent one year prior. Intel's dominance is a testament to the concept of integrated graphics, which is an area NVIDIA ditched to focus on discrete graphics.

The second thing that's interesting is that AMD was the only major GPU player to increase its graphics chip market share sequentially. AMD ended the quarter with a 24.8 percent share, up from 23 percent in Q3. NVIDIA, meanwhile, dropped less than half a percentage point from 16.1 percent in Q3 to 15.7 percent in Q4.


Overall, JPR says Q4 graphics shipments dropped 10.4 percent over last quarter, which is about par for the course based on seasonality demand since the economic crash of 2008 (prior to then, Q4 was a seasonally up quarter, JPR says). For the entire year, however, GPU shipments are up 8.9 percent.

JPR says discrete GPU shipments declined 12 from last quarter and were down nearly 3.5 percent compared to last year. That doesn't bode well for NVIDIA's strategy of focusing solely on discrete GPUs, though JPR doesn't take into account handhelds (mobile phones, for example), x86 Servers, ARM-based tablets, Smartbooks, or ARM-based Servers, some of which are served by NVIDIA's Tegra line.
Click here to find out more!
Click to expand...

http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Grabbed-GPU-Market-Share-from-Nvidia-Intel-in-Q4/
 
andybird123 said:
I make it 15% already, and they are projecting on selling 0.8bn - 1bn of Tegra 3 alone in the next year... I'm fairly sure they wouldn't plan on selling a billion dollars worth of something that their is no margin in
Click to expand...
There's no margin in for NVidia, but that was never the real point of Tegra. The whole project is an act of desperation, NV management can see where the discrete GPU market is going. They know in 3-4 years there won't be enough sales to keep more than one manufacturer in business and AMD has the killer advantage of getting most of their GPU R&D as a freebie from Fusion APU development.

There was never more than a slim chance Tegra would turn in to a real money-making product line. Repackaging off-the-shelf ARM designed cores pretty much guarantees they'll always be at a performance disadvantage to companies like Qualcomm that design their own cores. But it serves an invaluable decoy to keep investors and analysts happy for a while as NV searches for something to replace their dying GPU business. This is why they keep on putting out sales projections that always prove to be wildly optimistic - 'jam tomorrow' is the message they want everyone to hear.

They may or may not find that replacement line of business. But either way their decision not to agree to the AMD takeover doomed NV as we know it. They may ultimately end up having to sell out, whether to AMD, Intel or someone else, or become a shell company living off patent licensing revenue.
 
DrBombcrater said:
They may or may not find that replacement line of business. But either way their decision not to agree to the AMD takeover doomed NV as we know it. They may ultimately end up having to sell out, whether to AMD, Intel or someone else, or become a shell company living off patent licensing revenue.
Click to expand...

Thats not really likely to happen. Their professional markets alone i.e. workstation, compute, etc. are growing pretty decently.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom