AMD powers 83pc of the Global VR System market says JPR

[scaryjim]

... unless this report can be independently verified ..

It could, by someone who was willing to purchase a copy of the report (I'm pretty sure JPR would happily sell one), and AFAIK so far no-one has actually put out an article using the real report that effectively refutes AMDs figures: probably because AMD used the actual figures reported by JPR.

Let's face it - JPR are a big name corporate research body. If AMD were misinterpreting or misusing their figures to any significant extent, don't you think they'd have mentioned it themselves by now? If the figures are inaccurate and a third party gets a copy of the report and proves that it trashes JPR's reputation.

So actually, I think we do know that AMD's 83% of total addressable market is accurate. What we don't know if how JPR/AMD are defining "total addressable market". It's clearly not how the gaming press want to define it, but then <whisper>the world is bigger than just computer gaming</whisper>...

[DanceswithUnix]

<whisper>the world is bigger than just computer gaming</whisper>...

Now you're really scaring me, say it isn't so Jim!

[Corky34]

@scaryjim, IMHO You're doing the same as the people you've derided for saying what AMD claimed is rubbish though, fact is what AMD have claimed hasn't been independently verified so what they're claiming as the TAM could be anything, is there even a market for VR outside of development models yet?

Like i said you're free to make up your own mind on how valid AMD's claims are but personally I'm going to take it as the normal spin that most marketing & PR departments throw out there now and then, i get that you and plenty of others are rooting for AMD but to give them a free ride isn't doing them any favors, their products need to speak for themselves and not be dependent on spin from marketing & PR because spin eventually gets found out for what it is, of course that's just my opinion.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Going on the Steam hardware survey that 80/20 split it fairly accurate, either way unless this report can be independently verified all we have to go one are best guesses and what little nuggets AMD may have cherry picked from it, as you yourself said shouting "rubbish" is simply people doing their own interpretation just as AMD have, to take either opinion as facts is wrong IMO, this claim from AMD has no more validity than the people saying it's not true.

Your the one terrified and desperate to prove otherwise for some reason.

You have zero facts to go against what I have said. You sound almost like Rollo who did exactly the same thing. We know the familar tactics be played.

JPR has said 9 million enthusiast class GPUs shipped in the last two years - prove otherwise. Of those 9 million GPUs - only Maxwell chips on the Nvidia side are considered vr capable and the AMD chips according to HTC and OR - prove otherwise (look at minimum system requirements - only Maxwell V2 cards above the GTX970 and R9 290/390 series and Fury cards qualify).

36 million PS4s have been shipped - prove otherwise.

That's 45 million vr capable game PCs and consoles. Even if 100% of those PCs had a Nvidia card that is 80% of the adressable market.

JPR is not AMD - it's an independent market rearch company which Nvidia also quote. I see your rarely doubting any figures which are pro - Nvidia which again Rollo did. He used to get into maximum FUD mode very close to launches.

Two people have told you now.

So stop trolling and promoting FUD.

It could, by someone who was willing to purchase a copy of the report (I'm pretty sure JPR would happily sell one), and AFAIK so far no-one has actually put out an article using the real report that effectively refutes AMDs figures: probably because AMD used the actual figures reported by JPR.

Let's face it - JPR are a big name corporate research body. If AMD were misinterpreting or misusing their figures to any significant extent, don't you think they'd have mentioned it themselves by now? If the figures are inaccurate and a third party gets a copy of the report and proves that it trashes JPR's reputation.

So actually, I think we do know that AMD's 83% of total addressable market is accurate. What we don't know if how JPR/AMD are defining "total addressable market". It's clearly not how the gaming press want to define it, but then <whisper>the world is bigger than just computer gaming</whisper>...

He is now trying to backtrack since in his efforts to try and thread thrash this thread he forget to see that AMD actually quoted JPR. So instead of him whining at AMD he should be at JPR - but he seems hellbent at pointing at AMD. Never seen him say anything about the fact BOTH Intel and Nvidia quote JPR too! Oh wait!

There is a reason Intel,AMD and Nvidia do tend to quote JPR.

Plus I like how in a desperate effort to appear not to backtrack he is just throwing out feeble counter arguments. Its like with the Steam Hardware survey - that is market research but he is quite willing to accept that without question,without knowing the sampling methodology,exact sample number or any sort of selection biases it entails,but at the same time is quite dismissive of what JPR says. Then he quotes another market research company which has less favourable figures but believes it without questioning their logic or figures.

I wonder why?? We all know the reason.

Its no point answering back at him,as you might have realised we are both repeating the same thing again and again now.


PS: Corky34 - don't bother replying to me. You are on purpose trying to get the thread derailed to pointless bickering,and I have been on this forum enough to see familar tactics. Plus you are now boring me!

[scaryjim]

@scaryjim, IMHO You're doing the same as the people you've derided for saying what AMD claimed is rubbish though, fact is what AMD have claimed hasn't been independently verified so what they're claiming as the TAM could be anything, is there even a market for VR outside of development models yet? ....

Actually, I'm doing nothing of the sort. AMD are using figures provided by a commercial research company, they've provided a publication date, so they've provided everything that an interested party needs to get (or at least attempt to get) the real figures. They've not made it easy, but why should they; last time I checked marketing events weren't subject to comprehensive peer review processes. Their data IS checkable. I haven't heard any reports of anyone trying to get the data off JPR and being refused. All I'm saying "show me the actual evidence for your refutal of AMD's figures and we can talk". So far, no one has shown any actual evidence. AMD have quoted the company who provided their research and the date it was published. They've not gone out of their way to hide the source of their claims. They're bound to have picked a definition of "addressable VR market" that makes them look good, because this was, after all, a marketing event. Just because they've chosen a particular definition doesn't make it wrong.

AMD have listed the non-gaming markets they are exploring with VR; I've quoted that list in an earlier reply. They're already working with a number of companies in those areas, some of which CAT has mentioned too.

The point is that VR is an emerging technology, and AMD are claiming they are in the best position to exploit it. They've listed where they got the data to support that claim, if anyone wants to go and check it - I suspect JPR didn't publish many reports detailing addressed VR market on 11th March this year. It's down to the people who are trying to refute that claim to provide their own evidence that actually stands up, and so far no-one has. They've just whinged that they don't believe AMD, and they've inaccurately quoted desktop graphics share and unilaterally disqualified most of the VR gaming market to back up their assumption. All I've done is suggested that perhaps the research company that published the figures AMD are using actually know what they're doing and have a pretty good handle on the VR market. I don't think those two stances are even vaguely equivalent.

[Corky34]

Your the one terrified and desperate to prove otherwise for some reason.

And you seem to be totally missing what i said because you, for some reason, feel you need to defend AMD's position, as you seem to have lost your objectivity and seem to be getting rather emotive let me reiterate, "you're free to make up your own mind on how valid AMD's claims are but personally I'm going to take it as the normal spin that most marketing & PR departments throw out there now and then"

Despite your claim that I'm trying to get the thread derailed I'm simply pointing out that IMO this claim by AMD is nothing more than a PR stunt, it's you that seems to be derailing the thread in an attempt to turn a press release into hard facts.

AMD are using figures provided by a commercial research company, they've provided a publication date, so they've provided everything that an interested party needs to get (or at least attempt to get) the real figures.

And until an interested third-party gives their opinion on the actual report it remains nothing more than a possibly biased opinion of that report, something that some people fail to understand, you say "show me the actual evidence for your refutal of AMD's figures and we can talk" but at no point have i refuted AMD figures, all I've said is that until they can be independently verified that IMO people should take their claim with a large pinch of salt.

[scaryjim]

... at no point have i refuted AMD figures ...

You've spent a fair amount of time and effort supporting other people who have though.

JPR are independent - they're not an owned subsidiary of AMD's. They may have been commissioned to report on a particular sector, but they will have done so relatively impartially, otherwise - as I said before - they risk trashing their whole reputation, which would be a really quick way to go out of business. So the figures don't need "taking with a pinch of salt" at all - they're independently researched figures.

That said, I'm entirely up for a debate on what the VR market actually is. The definition of addressable market is completely up for debate. But that's not what we've had so far. We've had people desperately trying - and failing - to prove AMD's 83% figure wrong. That's the wrong debate.

[Corky34]

You've spent a fair amount of time and effort supporting other people who have though.

Have I? Perhaps you'd like to point me in the right direction then because having re-read this entire thread i can't find a single example of anyone, let alone me, trying to prove AMD's figures are wrong, quiet the contrary in fact, people have been trying to prove their figures are accurate despite it being pointed out that statistics can be used to prove almost anything.

JPR are independent - they're not an owned subsidiary of AMD's. They may have been commissioned to report on a particular sector, but they will have done so relatively impartially, otherwise - as I said before - they risk trashing their whole reputation, which would be a really quick way to go out of business. So the figures don't need "taking with a pinch of salt" at all - they're independently researched figures.

Again you seem to be ignoring what's been said, no one is saying JPR aren't independent, no one is saying the figures are wrong, no one is casting doubt on anyone or anything other than the *potential* that AMD *may* have cherry picked statistics from a report that best portrayed what ever narrative best suited them.

That said, I'm entirely up for a debate on what the VR market actually is. The definition of addressable market is completely up for debate. But that's not what we've had so far. We've had people desperately trying - and failing - to prove AMD's 83% figure wrong. That's the wrong debate.

Maybe we haven't had that debate so far because people have been so busy attacking other forum goers for simply saying that they think AMD may have put a misleading spin on a report, or that the 83% figure lacks context.

[scaryjim]

Have I? Perhaps you'd like to point me in the right direction then because having re-read this entire thread i can't find a single example of anyone, let alone me, trying to prove AMD's figures are wrong ...

Happy to:

... Personally i like this interpretation of what AMD are claiming, it seems fairly well balanced and objective to me but what do it know.

And to grab the key conclusion of that article ... you know, the one you personally like and think is balanced and objective:

Considering these points, AMD’s footprint in the total addressable market for VR is likely closer to 50%

That looks like a fairly direct refutal of AMD claiming 83% of total addressable market to me.

[Corky34]

Sorry but why on earth do you think me posting a link to a research analysts *opinion* on what AMD claimed is my own personally opinion?

Since when has posting a link meant the person posting it agreed with every single word contained within it, I mean i even said it *seems* and what did i know, you even said yourself that we didn't know what JPR classed as the TAM, if anything that article just goes to show how without the original report the figure of 83% is all but irrelevant, and how is posting a single link even considered to be me spending a fair amount of time and effort supporting other people?

To me this seems more like a witch hunt against someone for daring to question *HOW* AMD came to this 83% figure.

[scaryjim]

... how is posting a single link even considered to be me spending a fair amount of time and effort supporting other people? ....

Sorry, but claiming you find an article balanced and objective implies quite a high level of support for the article. When that article is clearly aimed at refuting AMD's claim, to the point of magicking its own market share figure out of thin air as an alternative, that comes across quite strongly as supporting the refutation of AMD's figures.

The fact that you continue to argue with me about whether it's acceptable to attempt to refute AMD's figure comes across quite strongly as supporting the people who are busy trying to refute AMD's figure.

This thread has been full of people, and links, claiming that it's nonsense that AMD have 83% share of the VR market. I think one or two vocal people suggesting that perhaps JPR know what they're talking about and the figure might actually be right isn't a bad thing...

[Corky34]

Sorry, but claiming you find an article balanced and objective implies quite a high level of support for the article. When that article is clearly aimed at refuting AMD's claim, to the point of magicking its own market share figure out of thin air as an alternative, that comes across quite strongly as supporting the refutation of AMD's figures.

No, saying i find an article balanced and objective means i find an article balanced and objective and as I've repeatedly said without the original JPR report it's no more balanced and objective than AMD's claim, without looking at the original JPR report, something that even AMD's own press report fails to provide a link too, it's impossible to either dispute or verify any claims.

The fact that you continue to argue with me about whether it's acceptable to attempt to refute AMD's figure comes across quite strongly as supporting the people who are busy trying to refute AMD's figure.

I'm not refuting AMD's claims, how many times do you want me to say that? I'm simply saying, as I've done throughout this thread, that without looking at the original JPR report that AMD's claim is no more valid than any other.

This thread has been full of people, and links, claiming that it's nonsense that AMD have 83% share of the VR market. I think one or two vocal people suggesting that perhaps JPR know what they're talking about and the figure might actually be right isn't a bad thing...

No it hasn't, it's been full of people saying statistics can, and are, regularly manipulated to better reflect the narrative that someone wants to portray, it's been full of people questioning what the 83% covers, it's been full of people saying they would like to know how JPR arrive at this figure.

Look it's obvious you want to argue with anyone that calls this magical figure of 83% into question, even going as far as to argue with yourself when you basically agreed with my questioning of this claim when you said What we don't know is how JPR/AMD are defining "total addressable market", like i said at the very start of this witch hunt...

Obviously you're free to make up your own mind on how valid AMD's claims are but personally, and going on past experience of AMD's claims, I'm going to take their claim with a mountain of salt, it wouldn't be the first time that a company, person, or politician (are they people? ) has interpreted a report or statistics to better serve their needs.

[scaryjim]

... I'm not refuting AMD's claims, how many times do you want me to say that? I'm simply saying, as I've done throughout this thread, that without looking at the original JPR report that AMD's claim is no more valid than any other. ...

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. AMD's claim references a reputable source for their data. Their claim is checkable. Everyone else is simply speculating. I don't get why you can't see there's a difference there.

Yes, AMD's claim is going to be based on a favourable definition of the VR market, but it's backed up by data from a reputable source. So articles, liked the one you linked, saying "Well, this is rubbish and AMD's share is more like 50%" are just nonsense. Using phrases like "mountain of salt" are ... well, hyperbolic. I can get expressing doubt over the definition used, but "mountain of salt" is an extreme experssion of doubt. It's the kind you'd use when the figures don't have a source at all. Not when the figures come from a reputable research company.

Maybe at heart we agree about the key point here; that JPR's definition of the VR market is one that favours AMD. But I cannot understand the need to try to then pull apart those figures with blind speculation (and no, maybe you haven't been doing that directly, but others have, and you've been citing their work). Maybe I'm just heartily sick of the shoddy nature of modern journalism and the sheep-like tendencies of so many people to parrot back what they read on the internet as if it were fact.

Questioning the 83% figure is just dumb. It's referenced, it's defensible, the figures come from a reputable source. AMD have 83% of the hardware in whatever has been defined as the addressable market. And I believe we agree on that point.

Questioning the definition of VR Market is at least more rational, but the only argument that really works there is a) limiting VR to just gaming, and b) dismissing the PS4 as "not powerful enough". a) is short-sighted, and b) is rampant speculation (hardware locked platforms are subject to much greater optimisation).

Ultimately, the only reason for questioning AMD's figure is if you want to define the VR market exclusively as high-end gaming PCs. If that's where you want to go, be my guest. I think I'll stick with the more inclusive definition that it seems most likely AMD are using.

[Corky34]

Using phrases like "mountain of salt" are ... well, hyperbolic. I can get expressing doubt over the definition used, but "mountain of salt" is an extreme experssion of doubt. It's the kind you'd use when the figures don't have a source at all. Not when the figures come from a reputable research company.

As I've stated many times it's my personally opinion, one that's similarly shared by at least four other people in this thread alone, I've said you're free to make up your own mind, i don't understand why others aren't allowed to do the same, after all without the original report that's all anyone can do, form an opinion on the limited available information AMD have chosen to release.

[scaryjim]

... without the original report that's all anyone can do, form an opinion on the limited available information AMD have chosen to release.

Whilst AMD haven't published the exact figures, there's quite a lot of information out there:

hexus:

if you look at the JPR survey data, the VR-capable devices in the figures include the millions of next-gen consoles with AMD processors.

A VR system is defined by AMD and JPR as an "X86 computing platform and headset".

abiresearch:

In this case, total addressable market for AMD includes game consoles and PC

fudzilla:

AMD includes PlayStation VR in this "total addressable market" for dedicated VR Head Mounted Displays number. This was confirmed by several graphics technology insiders.

So I don't think it's really in question what AMD/JPR mean by the market.

We have the figures for PS4 total sales - just over 35 million last I checked. JPR provide the enthusiast AIB sales: 6 million in 2015, 3 million in 2014. We don't know exactly how much of the PC market AMD are counting, but then we also don't know if they're including the XBox One in there either.

Of course they don't just mean gaming:

hexus quoting Raja Koduri:

VR i-Cafés in China, new Oculus Rift and HTC Vive headsets, and a wide variety of content partners in gaming, entertainment, education, science, medicine, journalism and several other exciting fields.

but I think it's reasonable to assume that many of those markets will be covered by the enthusiast grade AIB figures quoted above, and those that aren't - the Carrizo based VR headset announced earlier this week, for instance - will be low enough volume to not make a significant impact.

CAT and I have both run the figures for the combined PS4 and enthusiast GPU markets, and it gives a very reasonable indication that 83% is the right ball park (if you assume a 20% enthusiast share for AMD it's almost spot on). The figures that are available, based on the information that is available, completely support AMD's assertions.

So, given that, what is your opinion?

[Corky34]

So, given that, what is your opinion?

Like it matters, it seems if it doesn't agree with yours it's a wrong opinion.