AMD discrete GPU market share eroded to less than 20 per cent

[Corky34]

I guess you didn't even bother to read the article then? Maybe take what CD Projekt *themselves* said?

Err so what your saying is that it's not a fault with Nvida or GameWorks, it's a problem with CD Project Red.

I mean how much proof do you need?

Maybe something more reliable and less sensationalist than WCCFTech.
For starters you and WCCFTech have been highly selective in what was said by CD Project's Marcin Momot...

Many of you have asked us if AMD Radeon GPUs would be able to run NVIDIA’s HairWorks technology – the answer is yes! However, unsatisfactory performance may be experienced as the code of this feature cannot be optimized for AMD products. Radeon users are encouraged to disable NVIDIA HairWorks if the performance is below expectations."

Kind of reads very differently when you take what Marcin Momot said in its entirety doesn't it, instead of taking a quote out of context.

As for PCPer - you just linked an article with Nvidia's side of the story only after claiming I linked one based on AMD's side which actually had both sides discussing it? Then had the gall to call the PCPer one "more rounded"? Do you think we're all stupid or something?

Yea because Nvidia come out of the PCPer article smelling of roses don't they? Ohh wait no they don't "The only conclusion I can come to from all of this is that if you don't like what NVIDIA is doing, that's your right - and you aren't necessarily wrong."

Also I didn't claim you linked to an article based on AMD's side, I claimed you linked to a unreliable source and what someone working for AMD SAID about their competitor.

Erm...what? are these for?

So are you saying that because AMD hardware was in the Xbox 360 and Wii that those negate the 84million odd Nvidia powered PS3's and the discrete GPU market?
At best I would think it's about equal for how many games are developed on hardware by either company.

The above is proof that you are absolutely blind to anything AMD does. If you think that PCPer article is "more rounded" because it gives Nvidia's pov on the game compared to the WCCFTech one which gives AMD's *and* Nvidia's point on the game then frankly, that just says it all about you.

Yea big difference between a sensationalist click bait article and a well structured balanced article, but hey if you want to believe that the WCCFTech article, that selectively quotes what's been said to grind an imagery axe, is actually balanced then that's your folly.

As for being blind to anything AMD does you couldn't be further from the truth, AMD has some very interesting tech in the pipeline and I'm looking forward to ZEN core and Arctic Island, it's just i tend to use more than a single source to form an opinion on something, I tend to research things for myself and form my opinion on ALL available facts, not just quotes taken out of context.

And I'm still waiting for that evidence of Nvidia paying money to devs BTW.

[Jimbo75]

I said it works great on GCN. That's the opposite of being gimped.

Define "great" because this doesn't look great to me -

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/2015...performance/2/

Over at German site Hardwareluxx, they found that turning on HairWorks dropped the frame rate on a GTX 980 from 87.4 FPS down to 62.2 FPS, a performance hit of around 30 percent. The situation was far worse for AMD's R9 290X, which took a gargantuan hit from 75.8 FPS to 29.4 FPS.

[Jimbo75]

Yea because Nvidia come out of the PCPer article smelling of roses don't they? Ohh wait no they don't "The only conclusion I can come to from all of this is that if you don't like what NVIDIA is doing, that's your right - and you aren't necessarily wrong."

So wait, you're claiming that I selectively chose what was said then you go and selectively chose what PCPer said at the end? What about this part?

Fans of AMD will point to G-Sync, GameWorks, CUDA, PhysX, FCAT and even SLI as indications of NVIDIA's negative impact on open PC gaming. I would argue that more users would look at that list and see improvements to PC gaming

Really? Putting GameWorks in with all that other stuff? How *exactly* is GameWorks improving anything when every game tainted by it so far has been wrecked by it?

This is the same PCPer who Nvidia used as a marketing tool for FCAT? The same PCPer who then stopped using FCAT after AMD got XDMA in their hardware, leading to better Crossfire performance vs SLI?

Are you *sure* it's WCCFTech who are the dodgy source here?

Also I didn't claim you linked to an article based on AMD's side, I claimed you linked to a unreliable source and what someone working for AMD SAID about their competitor.

And you linked to a dodgy article on another dodgy Nvidia-biased site - giving Nvidia's side only - and are telling us that this is somehow more reliable information?

So are you saying that because AMD hardware was in the Xbox 360 and Wii that those negate the 84million odd Nvidia powered PS3's and the discrete GPU market?

No what I'm saying is that AMD's hardware in the 360 and Wii, AMD's hardware in the XBONE and PS4, AMD's hardware in PC's is *FAR* more than Nvidia's in PC's and PS3.

At best I would think it's about equal for how many games are developed on hardware by either company.

Why would anyone (at least major developers) develop games for Nvidia hardware when they are far behind (under 1/3rd) in market share? Because you think it makes sense? Ever wondered why you never read about this stuff in the so-called tech press?

And I'm still waiting for that evidence of Nvidia paying money to devs BTW.

http://www.maximumpc.com/nvidia-clos...-ubisoft-2013/

That's the one you heard about, the rest you don't.

[kalniel]

Define "great" because this doesn't look great to me -

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/2015...performance/2/

And did they follow any of AMD's recommended tweaks? I did so and hairworks ends up barely having any impact on my performance at all.

[Jimbo75]

And did they follow any of AMD's recommended tweaks? I did so and hairworks ends up barely having any impact on my performance at all.

This is because AMD cards are built around reasonable levels of tessellation (4x 8x hell even 16x) so you can switch to those and get zero noticable visual impact.

The point of this is, who in the tech press did or didn't follow AMDs recommendations? How many day-one benchmarks are out there with Witcher 3 showing tanking performance on AMD and Kepler compared to Maxwell? That was the state of affairs at the exact time of the game launch.

[kalniel]

The point of this is, who in the tech press did or didn't follow AMDs recommendations? How many day-one benchmarks are out there with Witcher 3 showing tanking performance on AMD and Kepler compared to Maxwell? That was the state of affairs at the exact time of the game launch.

It was. AMD rectified with a driver update eventually so default would cap, but they have been a bit slow on driver updates like this recently. Main advantage AMD have is nVidia doesn't allow that kind of tweaking, hence AMD run the hairworks much better than most nVidia cards.

[Jimbo75]

It was. AMD rectified with a driver update eventually so default would cap, but they have been a bit slow on driver updates like this recently. Main advantage AMD have is nVidia doesn't allow that kind of tweaking, hence AMD run the hairworks much better than most nVidia cards.

Yes but my point is that the damage is done by the intial benchmarks. Nvidia knew exactly what they were doing, why else have hairworks tessellation to max as default at launch? And wasn't the slider option added later? I know that you can override stupid levels of tessellation in CCC but a lot of the supposed tech "press" either don't or don't care. Even if they simply show one benchmark with this it can easily do the rounds right at the time when people are really interested in the game (launch day). It's just pure misinformation which some in the press are all too keen to present.

[shaithis]

Why would anyone (at least major developers) develop games for Nvidia hardware when they are far behind (under 1/3rd) in market share? Because you think it makes sense? Ever wondered why you never read about this stuff in the so-called tech press?

They are not developing specifically for nVidia hardware, they are using a nVidia developed library to accelerate their development time. The knock-on effect is essentially that there is a chance the code will run better on a nVidia card. Most games will let you turn off the nV features anyway if you find they impact performance too much, hence I don't see what the issue is. Just like Physx, buy an nV card if you want the extra candy or don't and run without it. At least with GamesWork you CAN have the effects if your rig is beefy enough. In fact, even if you have a nV card, your not guaranteed to get acceptable performance when turning those features on.

http://www.maximumpc.com/nvidia-clos...-ubisoft-2013/

That's the one you heard about, the rest you don't.

Funny how that article also mentions the BF deal AMD ploughed millions into to try and get an edge with Mantle. I haven't heard you complaining about them doing that! What's the difference? The nVidia deal was also about adding "PC Exclusive effects" - Not "nV-exclusive effects" (unlike AMD and BF4/Mantle!)......and the article even states AMD was going to do it but pulled out in favour of the BF deal.

Your ability to be selective about what you copy/paste is quite something.

[shaithis]

Yes but my point is that the damage is done by the intial benchmarks. Nvidia knew exactly what they were doing, why else have hairworks tessellation to max as default at launch? And wasn't the slider option added later? I know that you can override stupid levels of tessellation in CCC but a lot of the supposed tech "press" either don't or don't care. Even if they simply show one benchmark with this it can easily do the rounds right at the time when people are really interested in the game (launch day). It's just pure misinformation which some in the press are all too keen to present.

How is ANY of this nVidias fault? Unless of course you have some evidence that nVidia were contracted to perform all QA testing for CDP.....

CDP released the game in that state and AMD were slow with a fix. More nefarious work from nVidia though I presume?

[Jimbo75]

They are not developing specifically for nVidia hardware, they are using a nVidia developed library to accelerate their development time. The knock-on effect is essentially that there is a chance the code will run better on a nVidia card. Most games will let you turn off the nV features anyway if you find they impact performance too much, hence I don't see what the issue is. Just like Physx, buy an nV card if you want the extra candy or don't and run without it. At least with GamesWork you CAN have the effects if your rig is beefy enough. In fact, even if you have a nV card, your not guaranteed to get acceptable performance when turning those features on.

So why is it on by default instead of an option that needs to be turned off?

Funny how that article also mentions the BF deal AMD ploughed millions into to try and get an edge with Mantle. I haven't heard you complaining about them doing that! What's the difference? The nVidia deal was also about adding "PC Exclusive effects" - Not "nV-exclusive effects" (unlike AMD and BF4/Mantle!)......and the article even states AMD was going to do it but pulled out in favour of the BF deal.

Your ability to be selective about what you copy/paste is quite something.

When did I say AMD wasn't paying devs (they aren't currently but I didn't claim that at any time)?

Do you want to know what the difference is? AMD doesn't hobble Nvidia, Nvidia uses the money to do just that to AMD. Feel free to check out the BF4 and AC benchmarks for proof of what that money bought.

How is ANY of this nVidias fault? Unless of course you have some evidence that nVidia were contracted to perform all QA testing for CDP.....

CDP released the game in that state and AMD were slow with a fix. More nefarious work from nVidia though I presume?

AMD were "slow" because Nvidia's late "development" trashed theirs and this stuff takes time to fix. Yes, it *is* nefarious for Nvidia to pay millions to CDP in order to do so, and it *is* nefarious of CDP to accept it.

Then again, if you were offered millions from AMD to stop posting nonsense I'm sure you'd take it as well, right?

[kalniel]

Yes but my point is that the damage is done by the intial benchmarks. Nvidia knew exactly what they were doing, why else have hairworks tessellation to max as default at launch? And wasn't the slider option added later? I know that you can override stupid levels of tessellation in CCC but a lot of the supposed tech "press" either don't or don't care. Even if they simply show one benchmark with this it can easily do the rounds right at the time when people are really interested in the game (launch day). It's just pure misinformation which some in the press are all too keen to present.

Didn't nearly all the benchmarks run with hairworks off though by default? Reviewers tend to want fair comparisons so usually disable physX/gameworks etc.

[Corky34]

So wait, you're claiming that I selectively chose what was said then you go and selectively chose what PCPer said at the end? What about this part?

The difference is that I selectively chose what to quote to provide a counter point to your claims that the PCPer article was biased, and I have also provided a link to the article in its entirety. You on the other hand have used an article that deliberately miss-quotes people without providing the full context of what that person actual said.

Really? Putting GameWorks in with all that other stuff? How *exactly* is GameWorks improving anything when every game tainted by it so far has been wrecked by it?

Every game? That seems a little of a stretch even for someone in your frame of mind.

This is the same PCPer who Nvidia used as a marketing tool for FCAT? The same PCPer who then stopped using FCAT after AMD got XDMA in their hardware, leading to better Crossfire performance vs SLI?

Are you *sure* it's WCCFTech who are the dodgy source here?

And you linked to a dodgy article on another dodgy Nvidia-biased site - giving Nvidia's side only - and are telling us that this is somehow more reliable information?

Like I said I'm always willing to form my opinion on ALL available facts, perhaps you would care to provide those facts?

No what I'm saying is that AMD's hardware in the 360 and Wii, AMD's hardware in the XBONE and PS4, AMD's hardware in PC's is *FAR* more than Nvidia's in PC's and PS3.

Sorry, but a break down of sales bears very little relevance to total market shares, what about the 10 years prior to your pretty little chart?

Why would anyone (at least major developers) develop games for Nvidia hardware when they are far behind (under 1/3rd) in market share? Because you think it makes sense? Ever wondered why you never read about this stuff in the so-called tech press?

Your claim that Nvidia hardware is far behind (under 1/3rd) in market share isn't exactly what i would call proved.
Maybe we don't hear about this stuff in the so-called tech press because like most conspiracy theory's it doesn't stand up when more that a cursory examination of the facts are made.

http://www.maximumpc.com/nvidia-clos...-ubisoft-2013/

That's the one you heard about, the rest you don't.

So are we now to take "anonymous industry sources" as statements of facts? I would question if actual money changed hands, and not just, as is normal, sending AMD & Nvidia developers to the game studios to help optimise the game for their particular hardware, just like AMD did with BF4, this blog post from Nvidia seem to indicate that it was an alliance and not a actual cash changing hands.

Tony Key, senior vice president of Sales and Marketing at Ubisoft, believes that “combining NVIDIA’s visual computing expertise and the creativity of our development teams will give customers a stunning experience when choosing an Ubisoft game.” Tony Tamasi, Senior Vice President of Content and Technology at NVIDIA, added that NVIDIA has “worked closely with Ubisoft’s incredibly talented creative team throughout the development process to incorporate our technologies and deliver the most immersive and visually spectacular game worlds imaginable.”

Just like AMD apparently spent as much as $8 million on EA/DICE Battlefield 4 deal.

The part of the deal was to make Battlefield 4 as a part of AMD exclusive bundle, only available to select AMD partners, as well as to make sure that showcases of the game are done on AMD hardware.

This is a big commitment for EA, AMD and Dice, but all sides will benefit from it. AMD will also gave the exclusive right to Dice to play with Mantle, a new AMD API that is set to become a third player in gaming APIs next to OpenGL and DirectX.

[Jimbo75]

Ok Corky, seeing as this is freely available information...

http://www.statista.com/statistics/2...s-by-platform/

Pick whatever time you want, you'll have to go *really* far back to find a time when AMD didn't have the lions share of the market. The big difference this time is that AMD has over half the market with *GCN* alone, which is something that has never been achieved before.

These numbers are coming direct from Ubisoft.

2014/2015

Xbone - 20%
PS4 - 32%
PC - 12% (AMD's share 6%)

So that's half the market, all on one GCN architecture. That's why no dev with a clue is doing it on Nvidia. If you had any idea what was coming with DX12 and VR then you'd maybe understand why Nvidia has been throwing millions at devs and the tech press.

[PuremasterZ]

Nvidia sucks I don't like green because of what they do with their business practices all that ends up is them jeopardizing the market with various dirty tricks which aren't fair and I do agree AMD's line up of gpus is really crappy but Greenland GPUs spell some money to AMD

[Corky34]

Ok Corky, seeing as this is freely available information...

http://www.statista.com/statistics/2...s-by-platform/

Pick whatever time you want, you'll have to go *really* far back to find a time when AMD didn't have the lions share of the market. The big difference this time is that AMD has over half the market with *GCN* alone, which is something that has never been achieved before.

These numbers are coming direct from Ubisoft.

2014/2015

Xbone - 20%
PS4 - 32%
PC - 12% (AMD's share 6%)

So that's half the market, all on one GCN architecture. That's why no dev with a clue is doing it on Nvidia. If you had any idea what was coming with DX12 and VR then you'd maybe understand why Nvidia has been throwing millions at devs and the tech press.

Not wanting to argue but I can't see those figures, there behind a paywall.
But from what I can see those are only talking about UbiSoft's sales fiscal year 2008/09 to 2014/15, by platform, and not total market share of all platforms, maybe I'm just being dense but I still don't see that AMD has 2/3rd overall share of all gaming hardware platforms.

[Jimbo75]

Not wanting to argue but I can't see those figures, there behind a paywall.

Lol I guess it wasn't "freely" available after all

But from what I can see those are only talking about UbiSoft's sales fiscal year 2008/09 to 2014/15, by platform, and not total market share of all platforms, maybe I'm just being dense but I still don't see that AMD has 2/3rd overall share of all gaming hardware platforms.

I haven't had a really close look at the numbers for a while but this won't be far away -

~100 million discrete GPU's sold last year. Let's say 70% for Nvidia over the past year, so 70 million for them and 30 million for AMD.
~40 million XB1 and PS4 sold last year.

So just with that they are equal. What many don't realise though is that the vast, vast majority of "discrete GPUs" sold are extreme low-end garbage like GT 610's and GT 620's. This stuff is slower than AMDs APU graphics. So if you're counting these low-end crap GPUs as "discrete" you really need to be counting AMDs crappy APUs too. Notice the OP doesn't include those or the consoles. Basically speaking you need to pretty much half the PC sales between Nvidia and AMD (let's say 6-4 for Nvidia being generous) and just give all the other stuff to the GCN consoles.

AMD's "effective" market share for current generation hardware must be massive, like almost 10-1 in their favour. There is simply no way any game dev with any kind of clue is developing on Nvidia hardware at that kind of skewed number. It literally makes zero sense to develop a game on Nvidia hardware just to find it's not working as well on consoles which are the main market by far.

Changes don't happen overnight but they are already using stuff like Async Shaders which Nvidia just doesn't have. With DX12 this stuff is really going to matter.