^^information minister for denmark
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5...ministe.th.jpg
Printable View
^^information minister for denmark
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5...ministe.th.jpg
Just to make sure that we all agree ... Only 8% of the people claim to play with their PC. Out of this, only 7% of those claim to play a 3D shooter 1st or 3rd person game... you are down to less than 1% of the PC market.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
Intel Graphics was NEVER designed to target this 1%, and I am very clear about it, if you want to play games , get a Discreet card, a 9400 is 48$ at Frys right now ... , but the rest of the people, the 99% don't really need more, as long as Windows is windows, and MAC OS is mac OS.
I am myself convinced that we will need more horse power on the GPU side, like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M3WrdDy_Dg , but there is along road before we get there. at the end of this interview, i tried to explain what I am talking about here http://www.bootdaily.com/index.php?o...1328&Itemid=51
Just remember, 99% of the people don't need much horse power yet, and we are working on making GFX horse power mainstream, it just take time. I hope this help you to understand the big picture.
Francois :up:
i think the biggest problem is what data in this is actually relevant. to me market share should be the total $s spent on graphics cards, and where they went. but even then some issues can come up if you buy a motherboard with built in graphics, then put in a pcie card, does it count at 2? or what about people who go Xfire/sli instead of buying an X2 card, does that count as 2 vs 1.
too many unknown factors to call this a good article, or any decent analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
this is a very difficult task ... each side will not agree, this is why you have to take the data in a very unemotional way.
Apparently it wasn't designed to run Vista Home Premium either. I'm sure you remember. You know, the case where you couldn't provide a solution capable of providing a premium experience, so you just coerced with MS to lower the standards. So while the other vendors worked, spent R&D, valuable resources and time providing a GPU that would, all Intel had to do was......nothing. You could have provided a GPU powered by hamsters and thanks to the monopoly, would have sold them. So don't even try to defend Intel's GPU decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
As I said, we promissed to increase the processing power by 10X in a very short time frame. You are speaking of the low end of the stack, and try to generalize it. Good marketing trick from a competitor point of view, but not really true. Other IGFx were already in production and had no issues. We saw how useful was the uneccessary layer of Vista ... design to sell GPUs without real user benetif (My personal opinion )Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
You can always go back in the product stack and find something that does not work on the new OS ... Like well, Intel sucks because the Pentium 1 does not run vista. Duh!
You got to be smarter than this and understand both side of the argument, otherwise, you just get manipulated by Marketing.
Let's elevate the debate, stop fanboynism.
Nice spin, Dr. I thought you claimed that's where 95% of hardware is sold? The fact of the matter is, your IGP's sold in that space were not close to competitive, and incapable of providing expected performance guaranteed by the Home Premium logo. And therefore used your market dominance to lower the bar so you wouldn't have to. And now you are playing on the bad press of Vista and using that as reasoning for not providing a competent solution. Typical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I won't even get into your statement about promising 10X processing power in a very short time. lol
of coarse intel would love to see number of units sold, cause each one is worth 5$. but market share is simple, the market should be measured in dollars, not people. dollars translates to profit margins and trends, units sold translates to manipulation of data. a person who buys 4x 4830s or 2x 4890s, may be the same in dollar market share, but clearly not the same in units sold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
a simple update to the data would be the average cost per unit, then you can do both. this isnt extreme, its common sense when it comes to organization of data. any data that isnt organized, or backed up by sound theories, is just advertising, which is what this looks like.
sorry if i find the article a joke
I run a small business troubleshooting/repairing hundreds of personal PC's and laptops a year in my local area. By far, most of my work involves cleaning viruses/spyware/malware, software recovery, OS (re)installs, etc.
But the hardware problems I do encounter, usually involves hard drives, media drives, memory, cooling fans, and occasionally PSU's, motherboards, network cards, discrete GPU's, and very rarely CPU's.
You know how many client complaints/problems I have encountered with IGPU's in the last eight years?
AFAIR, a big fat 0.
You know, sometimes guys, it's a good thing to step out of our little enthusiast PC world and realize there really are people out there who buy and use new technology for more than playing Crysis.
Well, if it was as simple as dollars, so be it. but it is not ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
for example, you got to concidere the brand equity, and what goes with it, if a person decide to buy a certain brand of GFX, it is mostlikely based on a "brand decision". The number of units sold indicate the preference of the people in the store, as you pointed out, it does not point to profite.
The only way to look at this accurately, is to spend time with some financial analyst, some branding people, and some marketing trend people.
By yourselve, it is very hard to see the big picture. I am trying to give you the direction, because I am getting a lot of email asking me how did i get my job. I am an enginneer, and I plan to stay this, in the mean time, I am fasinate to see how my coworker take a pragmatic approch to this, and how they maximize the product. Killing a fly with a hammer cost money, and this is what matters when you want to sell a computer to every citizen of this planete.
again, I am not claiming to have the 100% truth on this one, I am just trying to give you one side of it.
i think this article is giving the big miss direction. based on what im reading, the trends are showing that people are still buying PCs, but going for smaller and cheaper options pre built in computers. and that gamers have no reason to be upgrading since technology is about the same as it was 4 months ago and newer games work just fine. so demand for extreme isnt there, and new products with smaller GPUs are coming out. so given what the data shows, i think the article went in the wrong direction.
V_rr, he's just too fun to bug. Say something one sentence, get back an essay with half relevant(at best) information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
On a more serious note, this information still spells bad news for AMD. Less integrated graphics sold obvious means, less chipsets sold which means less desktops sold. AMD has yet to gain marketshare with Phenom II release in a very important sector, the mainstream CPU sector.
What is especially troubling is AMD is at it's most competitive with Phenom II out and it being directly competitive with the q series instead of the typical being blown out of the water. Also in addition, AMD has much better integrated graphics at this point in time. How could they lose 5%(which is being bolstered by higher discrete chipsets too) which is huge, in a quarter that had AMD only lineup was the disastrous phenom I and the archaic athlon x2 technology, to now where they have the phenom II and its x2, x3 and x4 variants. The only explanation I can think of that explains this, is people just have lost confidence in AMD as a brand, especially in the mobile sector where AMD has been stagnents techwise. With the shift of higher notebook sales compared to desktops, this is a huge oversight on AMD part.
Considering that there was not much of a drop in graphics for NV is also startling considering intels likely grew from primarily higher netbook sales, which meant NV likely kept the marketshare it already had in the desktop area and notebook area(probably a shift of more notebook with the apple deal).
What AMD going to do with core i5 coming out, which likely has a graphic solution which is much better and more than adequate for basic tasks.
People can pump their chest all they want on the graphic arena, but first and foremost, AMD to become profitable as a whole has to make money on their CPU and chipset business.
One of the major issues here where the oems, intel did not force Acer, Hp, Dell and so on to use old and slow IGP's in their PCs and slap on "works fine with vista stickers".Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Not necessarily a 'brand decision; as much as a price decision for the bulk of customers. Very few people are aware of the horrible IGP in most Intel based notebooks. Some try to run Vista Aero or a game made in the last 6 years and then wonder why it doesn't work properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Now as far as 'necessary features', the customer dictates what is and isn't necessary.
In the case of Intel IGPs, price is necessary for the consumer at the cost of other features.
IGPs actually run alot of games. And they also run Aero fine. Specially the 3 and 4 series IGP are good for the lowend gamer. Not even to talk about AMDs IGP solutions. People play WoW, EvE, Warhammer etc. And having something like a nForce 6150 aint better. Its worse than Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
Personally I would rather see IGPs win with AMDs APU and Intels Clarkdale than discrete faulty and powerhungry cards.
Poor coding from game developers help to push the need for graphic cards(Plus some money on the side from nVidia and AMD). Look today, with a few expections. A 100$ or sub 100$ card can run all games besides the most bloated in 1920*1200 with 4xAA. Its a horror story for the GPU makers.
Just drop running the most crappy games like Crysis and useless things like 16xAA or more. And you sudden got a massively lower demand.
My own 8800GT can run 2 game clients in 1900*1100 windowed with HDR on, max everything on 2 screens. And still having the 8800GT downclocked to less than half of the default speeds and still with much more than I need.
Everybody who uses PCs for work* ?Quote:
Originally Posted by tenebre
*Obviously not graphic intensive work.
i know how you feel, i still use my 2900xt, and when i play WoW, everything is maxed out cept AA at 1920x1200, and i run it in windowed mode which uses the 2D underclocked settings. in 3d mode i can see up too 3x the framerate, but it most situations im vsync capped anyway, so theres no point. and any new game i play just fine, there is very little desire to spend a good chunk of cash to get that extra bit of AA and AF out of a game. these past few months have not been about huge technological jumps in graphics quality, they have been about better solutions for low power mobile and home personal media pcs. i think we can blame dx10 for most of that. im thinking the market share of Q1 2010 is gonna be seeing the exact opposite when dx11 is hitting hard and everyone bought their 300$ mini pc this/last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
shintai, are you really telling consumers what games they can play? and how they can play it?Quote:
Originally Posted by shintai
last time i checked, nvidia & ati exsist to fill a demand not met by the consumers AMD platform or intel platform... clarkdale & upcoming larrabee are a response to increased competition in these markets. consumers make the demands, not the sellers.
Nope. Im just saying that 99.x% of all users dont need the graphics performance that others are trying to push on them. So its the exact opposite. AMD/nVidia want to tell consumers what they should get. Not what they need in terms of GPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chruschef
Consumers dont always make a demand with their own will. Something called marketing made sure of that.
True dat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
And then you have companies like Intel labelling "Vista Compatible" on everything when it clearly isn't.
Vista worked fine. Its only a discussion about the useless aero bling bling. Now changed in Windows 7 aswell.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
Wow's engine is beyond ancient. Even the IGP in my dad's dell machine runs it acceptably (WC3 engine).Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
i can agree with that..Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
but, intel in that case should drive their own marketing campaigns for more marketshare.
:confused: consumers choose whether or not to buy a product, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by shintai
that would indicate free will on their part.... but, they also choose whether or not to believe everything they read(marketing), and that's a cultural problem -- not a hardware. don't get me wrong though, false or misleading marketing is terrible, but not an easy problem to solve to the consumers misfortune. :(
i think B.E.E.F. is very referring to intel based processors sold labeled with their "vista ready" when they didn't actually meet those requirements.
Awh comone stop spewing bs there... a down clocked 8800 gt has hardly enough power to run Farcry2 in 1280x1024 4xaa with everything enabled... hell even a 9800gtx+ strugels in most recent games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
You can always pick new beefed up benchmark games to set a requirement. The fact still stands that the wast majority of people can play fine on very low solutions. Also new games. There is a reason Farcry2 and others are sued as benchmark games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Not even to mention this logo in the game:
http://farcry.uk.ubi.com/theme/images/logo_nvidia.png
I think you mean IGPs and not processors. Plus those IGPs run Vista fine. And its not Intel but OEMs that is to blame for the missing aero bling bling. But lets make something clear. They run Vista perfectly fine!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chruschef