• 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.

Nvidia now at 90% market share.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Not surprised:
1.)AMD launches everything too late
2.)Utter obsession with clearing out old inventory first,so it leads to 1.)
3.)The pricing is too close to Nvidia
4.)Software is late and because of 3.) they are perceived as behind in software
5.)They don't even produce enough volume for OEMs which is where most sales are
6.)They can't produce enough volume for OEMs,because of 1.) so they don't get any OEM wins
7.)Over reliant on DIY sales,but because of 1.) and 3.) people just wait until they are forced to drop prices
8.)DIY purchasers are better informed,so would rather have a newer design,so older designs only sell at a deep discount
9.)AMD over compensates for lower pricing by doing 1.) and 3.) for new releases
Click to expand...

Are you talking about AMD or Intel here? Are you sure?
 
If NVIDIA want the rest of the market share, they just need to add 50% VRAM at every tier for the same price. AMD/Intel would be obilterated...

Imagine this was the Ampere release:

4060 12GB
4070 16GB
4080 24GB
4090 32GB

Same with the Ti/Super variants.

If there was no AI boom, they would probably do it
 
hyperseven said:
Nvidia-90-GPU-Market-Share.jpg


Well done Nvidia at reaching 90%.

overclock3d.net

Nvidia achieves the highest GPU market share of its history - OC3D

Nvidia has dominated the competition with 90% GPU market share in Q3 2024, outselling the competition 9:1.
overclock3d.net overclock3d.net
Click to expand...

90% monopoly is not any grounds for a "well done" we're being shafted at the lack of competition
 
subbytna said:
90% monopoly is not any grounds for a "well done" we're being shafted at the lack of competition
Click to expand...

I hate it but can’t begrudge nvidia for doing so. Any company in any sector in their position would be doing the exactly the same thing.

Us consumers either need to start sending a message by not purchasing their products or, we need AMD and Intel to start competing and offering a real, price value alternative.

All I see happening is:

Entry Range: Intel
Midrange: AMD
High End: Nvidia
 
Last edited:
Coolasmoo said:
Wonder how things would have evolved if ATi didn't sell up
Click to expand...
humbug said:
Nvidia on their own.
Click to expand...
Could have been different, at that time, just like Ati-NV were struggling.

AMD almost bought NV instead, they were buying one or the other and went Ati.

But Jensen pulled it around and then some and swept everything to the kerb to be where they are now.
 
The thing with ATI is they did undercut Nvidia in the way many think AMD should, yes it did gain them marketshare but at very low margins, what that meant was ATI sold a lot of GPU's but they didn't actually make enough money to keep up with Nvidia in R&D.

Nvidia aren't stupid, they saw that coming and simply sat and watched with popcorn, sure enough with in a few generations ATI had 40% marketshare but no money, AMD bailed them out to the tune of $5.9 Bn, the first post bailout AMD GPU was the HD 4000 series, a very good GPU, one of the best under ATI branding, as was the HD 5000 series, so its not as if AMD didn't keep trying.

Here's the problem, if people are only willing to buy your product at a price that doesn't leave you enough profit then you're not long term viable, AMD already knows this so they are not going to chase marketshare at the expense of revenue, Intel understand this too which is why the B580 is equivalent to the RTX 4060 and the same price.

If you have a brand hierarchy at the consumer level to such an extent it causes that ^^^^ there is no competition.
 
Last edited:
Look.... lets say you get to 50% marketshare by undercutting Nvidia by 30%, great so now you need to put the prices up a little to start earning money off the back of that, as soon as you start doing that your marketshare falls again, people are only buying them because they are cheap.

RDNA 4 will be the last RDNA generation, after than they are going back to a unified workstation / consumer architecture, if consumers don't buy them no problem, they can be sold as workstation cards, this is an area AMD are growing in, people who use workstation cards don't have the same brand hang-ups we do, they only care what the GPU can actually do and AMD's workstation cards are very good.
 
Last edited:
You see this... this was a real RDNA 4 GPU, but they wouldn't have been able to sell it for anything less than RTX ##90 series money and no one buys AMD GPU's at that money no matter how good it is, so they scrapped it.


pJytwl1.jpeg
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Look.... lets say you get to 50% marketshare by undercutting Nvidia by 30%, great so now you need to put the prices up a little to start earning money off the back of that, as soon as you start doing that your marketshare falls again, people are only buying them because they are cheap.

RDNA 4 will be the last RDNA generation, after than they are going back to a unified workstation / consumer architecture, if consumers don't buy them no problem, they can be sold as workstation cards, this is an area AMD are growing in, people who use workstation cards don't have the same brand hang-ups we do, they only care what the GPU can actually do and AMD's workstation cards are very good.
Click to expand...
I disagree, though. If you get up to 50% marketshare, suddenly you've got games devs spending more time optimising for your hardware. So your performance gap might not be so much any longer, and you're able to compete on your own merits.
 
All of the consoles use AMD don't they? Probably because Nvidia can't offer a CPU.

Is that factored in?
 
Last edited:

Nvidia now at 90% market share.​

Click to expand...

But what is AMD market share in the game console market ?

Am Guessing this 90% Nvidia market share doesn't include all the AMD GPU's that are fitted in game consoles

Don't both the PS5 & Xbox series X used an AMD GPU
 
Last edited:
blueacid said:
I disagree, though. If you get up to 50% marketshare, suddenly you've got games devs spending more time optimising for your hardware. So your performance gap might not be so much any longer, and you're able to compete on your own merits.
Click to expand...
You don't even need 50% even 20-30% will make developers notice but on the current trajectory AMD will essentially be wiped out of discrete GPU market.

humbug said:
Look.... lets say you get to 50% marketshare by undercutting Nvidia by 30%, great so now you need to put the prices up a little to start earning money off the back of that, as soon as you start doing that your marketshare falls again, people are only buying them because they are cheap.

RDNA 4 will be the last RDNA generation, after than they are going back to a unified workstation / consumer architecture, if consumers don't buy them no problem, they can be sold as workstation cards, this is an area AMD are growing in, people who use workstation cards don't have the same brand hang-ups we do, they only care what the GPU can actually do and AMD's workstation cards are very good.
Click to expand...
What a great way to make people buy your new product. Just tell them that it might be the last and that they'll be stuck with an abandoned product. Classic move from the marketing geniuses at AMD :rolleyes: People stopped buying AMD because they failed to deliver again and again and again. Consumers don't have a grudge against AMD.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom