Rebranding works, AMD loses graphics marketshare in Q1 2009

http://techreport.com/r.x/2009_4_28_...ments_q109.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/2009_4_28_...share_q109.gif

Quote:

---

Nvidia and Intel were "big winners" in the graphics market last quarter. According to Jon Peddie Research's latest round of estimates, worldwide graphics processor shipments grew between the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of this year—a trend-breaking phenomenon.

JPI says global GPU shipments have fallen by 4.31% on average between the fourth and first quarters of every year since 2001. This year, however, they went up a cool 3.29%. The research firm says that's because the distribution channel "stopped ordering GPUs and depleted inventory in anticipation of a long drawn out worldwide recession" in Q3 and Q4. Those distributors had to start building up stocks again in Q1, however.

---

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16825

EDIT: Bugger at title!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

EDIT: Bugger at title!

---

I thought it was on purpose as it fits the renaming scheme :rofl:

^^ Haha :rofl:

Looks to me that Intel was the only company that came out on top when compared to 2008. :D

All the integrated parts muddy up the numbers, but it does look kind of depressing for poor 'ole ati.

Integrated GPU from ati are not selling so much, this is the big problem.

mostly from the green team price drops:shrug:

Of course re branding works. How many stupid people do you think is on this planet? I would think at least 90% if not more. They are simply appealing to the market share and it seems like they hit it. If they want to quadruple their sales overnight just slap a crucifix on it and call it 'Jebus Power'.:up:

Sad really...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hurleybird

All the integrated parts muddy up the numbers,

---

Exactly, doing a comparison with discrete cards and the numbers look a lot better for AMD/ATi, since they actually increased a couple of points in marketshare.

well i could have told you this, why do you think they do it in the first place? Thats why its our responsibility to help where we can to keep people from buying rebranded products.

Only Shintai could write some title like that, manipulating the original title.
Nvidia sell more IGP's? We already knew that. Where does it state that rebranding works?
Or better where does it state add-in board numbers? It doesn't. Manipulation works some times.

Nvidia is the bigg winner? Just: Lol
Market share:
Q1 2008 -> Intel -> 42.7%
Q1 2009 -> Intel -> 49.7%
+7%

Q1 2008 -> AMD -> 18.6%
Q1 2009 -> AMD -> 17.1%
-1.5%

Q1 2008 -> Nvidia -> 32.7%
Q1 2009 -> Nvidia -> 31.1%
-1.6%

Real conclusion: Q1 2009 was flooded with IGP's by Intel compared to the year ago. Intel comand almost 50% of all the market only with crap IGP's.
Sintai conclusion: Rebranding works, AMD loses graphics marketshare in Q1 2009

So, where is the discrete graphic's market share results?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

So, where is the discrete graphic's market share results?

---

It isn't. Since Q3 2008 it is absent. And if you read carefully this are projections about global share.

What I see here is a market demanding huge amounts of IGP. Discrete market is deep in down.
And since Nvidia get the Apple deal, the market share only grow, and what Nvidia sells most to Apple is IGP´s. I remember read that only in Q4 Apple deal gave to Nvidia 200M on IGP sales and still Nvidia marked a huge loss because the huge drop on discrete market and loss on AMD IGP market.

And the most important part is absent in the first post:

Quote:

---

Intel's gains become especially clear with the data presented this way. The world's biggest chipmaker has been slowly eating away at the market shares of not just Nvidia and AMD, but also smaller GPU vendors like Via and Matrox. Of course, we should take care to point out that Intel doesn't actually sell any discrete GPUs—those 37.2 million shipments are all integrated graphics chipsets.

Looking ahead, JPR expects the PC market—and GPU shipments in particular—to see an upturn in the third and fourth quarters of this year. New product launches, back-to-school and holiday-season rushes, pent-up demand, worldwide stimulus programs, and the release of both Windows 7 and Mac OS X 10.6 should all help boost up the GPU market, JPR says.

---

IGP Intel in Q1 = Nvidia IGP + Nvidia Discrete + AMD IGP + AMD Discrete

It's up to us - the #informed# guys - to change that..

There are, however, some factors to be mentioned:

1 - In the medium/high-end discrete market, nVidia stood competitive by lowering the price of their twice-as-big GPUs. Although they may have kept marketshare, their profits went down the road.
2 - Every Apple laptop and mid-end desktop (90% of their sales?) now has a nVidia GPU. Macbook Pros even have two nVidia GPUs.
3 - nVidia owns pretty much every mid-end "gamer" branded laptop with the less-than-mediocre G96M (9600M GT, 9700M GT etc). Here's hoping RV740 will change that.. but if the RV730 didn't (and it had already a lot better performance for the same power consumption), I don't really see this happening. Arrghh I get so sick of seeing those overpriced Asus G series with their crappy G96 GPUs..
4 - I think the rebranding schemes will make nVidia pay in the long run (as in the +3rd quarter results). This quarter the ignorant people are buying their rebranded graphics cards. The following quarters they'll remember how their latest nVidia GPU didn't bring any performance improvements over the previous one.

who in their :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing right mind would buy an Intel IGP?
FUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

nvidia 9400 owns.
every laptop should have it, not just the apple ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenebre

who in their :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing right mind would buy an Intel IGP?
FUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

---

Everyone who bought a netbook so far..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenebre

who in their :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing right mind would buy an Intel IGP?
FUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

---

all the people buying netbooks :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenebre

who in their :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing right mind would buy an Intel IGP?
FUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

---

You prolly didn't see a good laptop with it then, there are many which have no need for any better graphic and the Intel IGP works great for them.
It's a moot point to fight over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v_rr

It isn't. Since Q3 2008 it is absent. And if you read carefully this are projections about global share.

What I see here is a market demanding huge amounts of IGP. Discrete market is deep in down.
And since Nvidia get the Apple deal, the market share only grow, and what Nvidia sells most to Apple is IGP´s. I remember read that only in Q4 Apple deal gave to Nvidia 200M on IGP sales and still Nvidia marked a huge loss because the huge drop on discrete market and loss on AMD IGP market.

And the most important part is absent in the first post:


IGP Intel in Q1 = Nvidia IGP + Nvidia Discrete + AMD IGP + AMD Discrete

---

Indeed it is absence since Q3 2008. I find that rather odd for them to have done this. This is the prime time you want to know how well companies have been weathering the storm IMO. And, with the release the HD4800 series we don't know how they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenebre

who in their right mind would buy an Intel IGP?
FUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

---

Not only all the netbooks, but each and every Intel chipset motherboard with IGP graphics built in.....all the Intel-based mATX boards pretty much carry that, and a host of full sized ATX boards do, too.

And just go into Best Buy, Fry's, MicroCenter....anywhere selling low-to-around mid range computer systems. Most, if not all, are using IGP graphics as their standard output, with some close to mid-range units having a discrete graphics card as an option. And if the computer is an Intel cpu computer, I'll bet it has an Intel-based chipset motherboard....computer manufacturers just want a no-muss no-fuss solution and an Intel cpu and Intel chipset motherboard fits that bill quite well. (Not to mention Intel probably cuts a deal with a cpu/mb combo for OEM's, sorta like what Fry's and Newegg do.)

Just because the IGP graphics are never used doesn't mean the sale of the graphics chipset doesn't count.

With numbers like this, including IGPs where is the line drawn, if at all?
Small GPUs in other mobile devices? Console sales?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

With numbers like this, including IGPs where is the line drawn, if at all?
Small GPUs in other mobile devices? Console sales?

---

I really don't think consoles are in those results.
AMD's results, with worldwide Wii and X360 sales, would skyrocket.

Misleading title.

If this was a breakdown based on mainstream discrete GPUs, the title would make sense. But here, it's evident someone who favors Nvidia wishes to have a 0.1% increase in market share represent a victory for their recent marketing blunders.

Perkam

Rebranding works?

Nah..

In my opinion it was people buying cheaper pcs than before, so they got integrated intel gpus instead of a real gpu. The bitter truth is, dedicated graphicscards only have a tiny marketshare to start with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenebre

who in their :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing right mind would buy an Intel IGP?
FUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

---

Me for one. Didn't have a choice with my notebook.

: (

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

nvidia 9400 owns.
every laptop should have it, not just the apple ones.

---

it doesn't pwn in power consuption.... but you're right, it does provide the best graphics for any igp right now. that is probably what is keeping nvidia afloat right now because the margins on thier gt200 based discrete products are so low.

obviously is the big increase...as well, you have to look at overall sales across the board which are down, in a downturned economy, people will buy cheaper laptops/desktops with igps, instead of spending the xtra like we do to have beasts :P

nvidia sold more, so what?
nvidia's shareholders couldn't gives a rat's *** if they sold more -- nvidia hase terrible profit margins, if you could call them profit margins, due to poor processes.
a company can't continue if they aren't producing cash, selling products at net loss doesn't work... anyone remember when nvidia's card-partners(EVGA, XFX, etc) were complaining if they cut the prices much more they wouldn't be making any money on them.

units sold dropped from ~95million in q1 2008 to ~74million in q1 2009... interesting... thats quite a decline... 20% pretty much

i dont think nvidia gained market share by rebranding their parts, its much more likely that dropping the prices on their gt200 and g92 parts made this possible, especially the 260.

what we dont see in this report is what segments each of them is serving and how much money they make with it, and thats what matters a whole lot more than market share... im looking forward to segment and profit results, unfortunately intel doesnt share any infos about their graphics division afaik...

intel may have 50% of the market but thats igp, which is basically 2d graphics and they are not exactly making a lot of money with those...

Thread title sucks and is misleading, good job shintai :down:

No sense fussing boys. Just wait for discrete numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

No sense fussing boys. Just wait for discrete numbers.

---

That's the problem. Where is that information?

Wait for the official report. The stuff Shintai posted is based on projections.

These ARE discrete numbers ... :rofl: and TITLE is great trap for Atiboys and working!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OBR

These ARE discrete numbers ... :rofl: and TITLE is great trap for Atiboys and working!

---

Really? So intel has claimed an almost 50% market share in discrete GPUs for Larrabee before they have even started production, or better yet before any performance numbers are revealed? Amazing!:clap:

hahah obr is joking frodin :D

CUDA CUDA CUDA !!!!

Just kidding ... seams it is not helping ...
My advise, Focus on the core business: GAMES.

Francois

Good that Apple didn't listen to your advice and incorporated GF9400 instead of yours GMA "graphics"...

Anyone who counts Intel as graphics vendor is plain stupid. Isn't it odd that biggest chipset maker also sels the most "GPU's" ?
Considering they push their stuff along their chipsets. If ATI was doing that, their share would be just as inflated as Intel's.
I'll start counting Intel as something that counts when i see a working end product based on Larrabee. Until then, Intel doesn't exist in the GFX market for me.

shintai and OBR are Intel and nvidia noobs :down::down:

only bad and mistake thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

Thread title sucks and is misleading, good job shintai :down:

---

What's the big deal about the thread title? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OBR

These ARE discrete numbers ... :rofl: and TITLE is great trap for Atiboys and working!

---

Are discrete numbers? Someone needs new glasses ;):yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

What's the big deal about the thread title?

---

The title is information manipulation at it's best. Not more not less then that :)

Jon Peddie Research: graphics market is on the rebound. Intel leads the way

Quote:

---

According to JPR's Market Watch, the entire market, encompassing add-in boards and integrated GPUs, had a hard time of it. Comparing Q1 2009 to Q1 2008 we see that shipments are down from an estimated 94.88m to 74.87m - a 21.1 per cent drop. In Q1 2008 Intel had a 10-point lead over NVIDIA, with AMD/ATI firmly in third place.

The three big players took a whopping 94 per cent of the market. Bear in mind the table shows quantity rather than revenue, and NVIDIA/ATI's discrete cards can cost up to £400 a pop. Intel does extremely well in the integrated-GPU market, of course, with the majority of business PCs' graphics provided by the chip giant.

Look at the same quarter for 2009 and whilst volume shipments for the trifecta are down, Intel's minor drop enables it to grab almost 50 per cent of the market share - up from 42.7 per cent - at the expense of everyone else, according to JPR. One possible explanation of Intel's volume-related resilience may lie with the company's bundling of motherboard (and graphics) for its Atom processors, found in the majority of netbooks shipping today.

A 20 per cent-plus year-on-year drop may cause sales staff sleepless nights, but there appears to be hope on the horizon. Q1 2009 shipments were higher than Q4 2008. That's surprising because the latter packs in the holiday season. It's the first time in nine years that the first quarter has beaten shipments for the previous year's Q4.

JPR expects the overall shipments to pick-up in Q3 and Q4 of 2009, driven by new architectures, pent-up demand, depleted inventories, and arrival of new operating systems from Microsoft and Apple.

---

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=18231

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

CUDA CUDA CUDA !!!!

Just kidding ... seams it is not helping ...
My advise, Focus on the core business: GAMES.

Francois

---

Hey! Shouldn't you be busy making Larabee! :p::cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v_rr

Only Shintai could write some title like that, manipulating the original title.
Nvidia sell more IGP's? We already knew that. Where does it state that rebranding works?
Or better where does it state add-in board numbers? It doesn't. Manipulation works some times.

Nvidia is the bigg winner? Just: Lol
Market share:
Q1 2008 -> Intel -> 42.7%
Q1 2009 -> Intel -> 49.7%
+7%

Q1 2008 -> AMD -> 18.6%
Q1 2009 -> AMD -> 17.1%
-1.5%

Q1 2008 -> Nvidia -> 32.7%
Q1 2009 -> Nvidia -> 31.1%
-1.6%

Real conclusion: Q1 2009 was flooded with IGP's by Intel compared to the year ago. Intel comand almost 50% of all the market only with crap IGP's.
Sintai conclusion: Rebranding works, AMD loses graphics marketshare in Q1 2009

---

Agree. Ati has some great products out right now and makes the best graphics solutions today IMHO. Only a matter of time before more people start using and loving the ATi cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v_rr

The title is information manipulation at it's best. Not more not less then that :)

Jon Peddie Research: graphics market is on the rebound. Intel leads the way

---

Wow, talk about getting your panties all twisted into a knot over nothing.

With all the talk that occurs on this forum about Nvidia's rebranding efforts, I thought it was quite funny that Shintai managed to tie that talk into the results that Peddie Research shows.

I am actually amazed at how Nvidia's marketshare has held up so well under the circumstances, I know myself I have written them off for the time being as a graphics card choice, much in the same way I never considered the Phenom I as a viable option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

CUDA CUDA CUDA !!!!

Just kidding ... seams it is not helping ...
My advise, Focus on the core business: GAMES.

Francois

---

Right... God forbid they actually try to compete with Intel :p: :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

Hey! Shouldn't you be busy making Larabee! :p::cool:

---

that too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

Wow, talk about getting your panties all twisted into a knot over nothing.

With all the talk that occurs on this forum about Nvidia's rebranding efforts, I thought it was quite funny that Shintai managed to tie that talk into the results that Peddie Research shows.

I am actually amazed at how Nvidia's marketshare has held up so well under the circumstances, I know myself I have written them off for the time being as a graphics card choice, much in the same way I never considered the Phenom I as a viable option.

---

If it comes to fanboyism no joke can be obviose enough, to be not perceived as atttack against the other company. :rofl:

Hehehehehe :p:

^^information minister for denmark
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5...ministe.th.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

Anyone who counts Intel as graphics vendor is plain stupid. Isn't it odd that biggest chipset maker also sels the most "GPU's" ?
Considering they push their stuff along their chipsets. If ATI was doing that, their share would be just as inflated as Intel's.
I'll start counting Intel as something that counts when i see a working end product based on Larrabee. Until then, Intel doesn't exist in the GFX market for me.

---

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.

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

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

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.

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:

---

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 flippin_waffles

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.

---

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 )
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.

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 where 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 )
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.
I won't even get into your statement about promising 10X processing power in a very short time. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

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.

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

---

Well, if it was as simple as dollars, so be it. but it is not ...
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Hehehehehe :p:

---

V_rr, he's just too fun to bug. Say something one sentence, get back an essay with half relevant(at best) information.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

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.

---

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 Drwho?

Well, if it was as simple as dollars, so be it. but it is not ...
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.

---

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.



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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.

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. They try to run Vista Aero or a game made in the last 6 years and then wonder why it doesn't work properly.



Now as far as 'necessary features', the customer dictates what is and isn't necessary.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenebre

who in their :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing right mind would buy an Intel IGP?
FUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

---

Everybody who uses PCs for work* ?


*Obviously not graphic intensive work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

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.

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.

---

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

Just drop running the most crappy games like Crysis and useless things like 16xAA or more. And you sudden got a massively lower demand.

---

shintai, are you really telling consumers what games they can play? and how they can play it?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chruschef

shintai, are you really telling consumers what games they can play? and how they can play it?

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.

Consumers dont always make a demand with their own will. Something called marketing made sure of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Consumers dont always make a demand with their own will. Something called marketing made sure of that.

---

True dat.

And then you have companies like Intel labelling "Vista Compatible" on everything when it clearly isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.

True dat.

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 Manicdan

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.

---

Wow's engine is beyond ancient. Even the IGP in my dad's dell machine runs it acceptably (WC3 engine).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

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.

---

i can agree with that..
but, intel in that case should drive their own marketing campaigns for more marketshare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shintai

Consumers dont always make a demand with their own will. Something called marketing made sure of that.

---

:confused: consumers choose whether or not to buy a product, yes?
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

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.

---

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 Hornet331

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.

---

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.

Not even to mention this logo in the game:
http://farcry.uk.ubi.com/theme/images/logo_nvidia.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chruschef

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.

---

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 Shintai

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!

---

But not HD content except 780/790G and Nvidia ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v_rr

But not HD content except 780/790G and Nvidia ones.

---

Yes they do. Unless you want to go back and use some ancient. Try match the timelines aswell. You use a 1½ year old chipset. that matches to what with Intel? Yes plays HD fine for all of them. And even then, most if not all got CPU power to do HD anyway.

Even G35 is older than 780. Runs Full HD perfectly.

You are way too desperate these days. And its fun joking with you :)

You need to move it down to the Atom series before US15/GN40. But again, I´m sure they all got bluray drives or 25mbit+ for streaming HD on their 1920*1080 screens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Yes they do. Unless you want to go back and use some ancient. Try match the timelines aswell. You use a 1½ year old chipset. that matches to what with Intel? Yes plays HD fine for all of them. And even then, most if not all got CPU power to do HD anyway.

Even G35 is older than 780. Runs Full HD perfectly.

---

You are so exigent with AMD but with Intel every crap rules.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...testbedAMD.jpg
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...stbedIntel.jpg

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17595.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17596.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17597.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17598.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17599.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17600.png

--
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17601.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17602.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17603.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17604.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17605.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17606.png

With Quad-Core + G35 CPU utilization goes up to 40%.

With an ancient core 2 duo they can go up to 90%:
Image Quality HD HQV:
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...Q/hdhqv-sm.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/7...3841/16610.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/7...3841/16611.png
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3258&p=4

So we have a bunch of crap performance and crap image quality for your superb G35

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

You are way too desperate these days. And its fun joking with you :)

---

:eek:
You get the bike.... (get a life also)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

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!

---

The fault is shared between Intel and Microsoft. Intel because they wanted to get rid of old inventory with scrupulous practices, and Microsoft for supporting them,

They don't run Vista fine. If they did, they would run Aero. A major component that makes Vista, Vista. It's the first thing you see, and the most noticeable difference from its predecessor for the end user.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v_rr

You are so exigent with AMD but with Intel every crap rules.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...testbedAMD.jpg
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...stbedIntel.jpg

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17595.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...3802/17596.png

So we have a bunch of crap performance and crap image quality for your superb G35


:eek:
You get the bike.... (get a life also)

---

This is the perfect example of useless marketing ... who care about the CPU utilization while playing a blueray ???? when you do, 99.99999% of the people don t do anything else ....

This is a new fashion ... CPU utilization being low is a good thing? since when?

That is bad marketing, from a final consumer point of view, it does not make any difference, except that you tried for take some $ out their pockets for something useless ...

When you play blue ray, you rarely do anything else, and if you do ... well, Get a Core i7, that will accelerate more than getting anything else.

:shrug: you got to see through all the cheap marketing of the gpu vendors ...
CPU utilization is not always important ... Especially in video playback.

Frankly, I agree with you. While Intel IGP's are "bad," it doesn't really matter if it's 40% or 20% CPU usage in that scenario.

Unfortunately, as long as you work for Intel you'll never be right in some people's minds.

Not saying Intel IGP's are great btw, just that they perform fine for their target market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

This is the perfect example of useless marketing ... who care about the CPU utilization while playing a blueray ???? when you do, 99.99999% of the people don t do anything else ....

This is a new fashion ... CPU utilization being low is a good thing? since when?

That is bad marketing, from a final consumer point of view, it does not make any difference, except that you tried for take some $ out their pockets for something useless ...

When you play blue ray, you rarely do anything else, and if you do ... well, Get a Core i7, that will accelerate more than getting anything else.

:shrug: you got to see through all the cheap marketing of the gpu vendors ...
CPU utilization is not always important ... Especially in video playback.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

This is the perfect example of useless marketing ... who care about the CPU utilization while playing a blueray ???? when you do, 99.99999% of the people don t do anything else ....

This is a new fashion ... CPU utilization being low is a good thing? since when?

That is bad marketing, from a final consumer point of view, it does not make any difference, except that you tried for take some $ out their pockets for something useless ...

When you play blue ray, you rarely do anything else, and if you do ... well, Get a Core i7, that will accelerate more than getting anything else.

:shrug: you got to see through all the cheap marketing of the gpu vendors ...
CPU utilization is not always important ... Especially in video playback.

---

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...Q/hdhqv-sm.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...Q/hdhqv-sm.png

---

So, higher score is better or worse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

This is the perfect example of useless marketing ... who care about the CPU utilization while playing a blueray ???? when you do, 99.99999% of the people don t do anything else ....

This is a new fashion ... CPU utilization being low is a good thing? since when?

That is bad marketing, from a final consumer point of view, it does not make any difference, except that you tried for take some $ out their pockets for something useless ...

When you play blue ray, you rarely do anything else, and if you do ... well, Get a Core i7, that will accelerate more than getting anything else.

:shrug: you got to see through all the cheap marketing of the gpu vendors ...
CPU utilization is not always important ... Especially in video playback.

---

I guess you could turn that argument around and claim that most gaming CPU benchmarks are useless marketing - because from a final consumer point of view what difference is there between a game running @ 60 fps and 150 fps?

Maybe someone should call these marketing malpractices? oh wait someone already did

PS:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

[B]This is a new fashion ... CPU utilization being low is a good thing? since when?

---

Are you thereby insinuating that the G35 is better at HD decoding than the G45 - because it keeps the CPU churning?

Whats the big deal if a cpu handles some or all of the decode, does it matter???

yes, cause more stressful video will not be able to run properly if they are cpu dependant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highoctane

Whats the big deal if a cpu handles some or all of the decode, does it matter???

---

Depends on how powerful the CPU is. Not everyone owns a E8xxx series to handle the high stress from the IGP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

nvidia 9400 owns.
every laptop should have it, not just the apple ones.

---

I prefer the nVidia 9600m GT 256mb in my Dell XPS m1530 over the 9400. :)



As for the "slight" change in market share over the past year... I believe that slight difference had more to do with the economic recession and the fact that Americans tend to stick with products made by American companies during tough times.


... or you can blame it on Obama for scaring Canada when he announced he wanted to re-negotiate NAFTA. (i forget if that was before or after he promised he wouldn't alter NAFTA.)

I have to agree with Francois.

Some people need to step out of their high-end enthusiast benchmarking bubble for a few. The Intel IGPs aren't great, but it's enough for the targetted market and that is what really matters.

The customers that buys this hardly don't even know the difference between AMD and Intel, they just want a computer that can do *this* and *that* thus the seller gives them a point in the right direction.

In the end, they didn't buy a Intel or AMD platform, they baught a "HP" or "Fujitsu-Siemens" or "Dell" :rolleyes:

Point is, the avarage Joe doesn't give a damn if he's CPU is being utilized to 100% when playing HD-quality movies, as long as it's working properly. In which the G35 and G45 can complete its task. Yes AMD/Nvidia gives a "better" solution to HD, and also to games at lower settings, but for this market it simply doesn't matter.

Also GPUs... Everyone aren't pumping max resolution, max settings 8xAA/AF, when the little kid with a computer notices the game simply doesn't run at absolute max settings, he will simply lower it too meet hes demands. So everyone doesn't need GTX295/HD4870X2 in Quad-mode to be satisfied.

Yeah I am a fullbreed AMD fanboy there you have it Francois :ROTF:

man o man, the turns some of these threads take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...Q/hdhqv-sm.png

---

I love this tests... especial when you play both videos next to each other, you don't notice the slightests difference. :ROTF:

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.

---

eh, so every new game is a benchmark game then....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

This is the perfect example of useless marketing ... who care about the CPU utilization while playing a blueray ???? when you do, 99.99999% of the people don t do anything else ....

This is a new fashion ... CPU utilization being low is a good thing? since when?

That is bad marketing, from a final consumer point of view, it does not make any difference, except that you tried for take some $ out their pockets for something useless ...

When you play blue ray, you rarely do anything else, and if you do ... well, Get a Core i7, that will accelerate more than getting anything else.

:shrug: you got to see through all the cheap marketing of the gpu vendors ...
CPU utilization is not always important ... Especially in video playback.

---

true, but you don't need a i7 to run blue ray... that's what i call waste of money :D, well I7 still is a waste of money unless you want the e-penis thing or desperate to get a new system.

but then again what about power consumption? And to go a bit further why the Intel IGP share is so high, all those laptops and there battery time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

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!

---

oh dear oh dear, I think your all blue vision is getting worse day by day.

you can blame an OEM for merging crappy solutions
you can blame a HW provider for releasing crappy hardware
you can blame a SW provider to set to high specifications (or lets just say not able to code good enough so you do require these specifications)

you just made the statement that due to the bad merging decisions from a company the hw provider is the one that has the gap, yes intel cpu with intel gpu.

the reduced specifications on the well known OS works in 2 ways.
1) the crappy hw provider is not to be blamed for there bad design.
2) the SW provider can sell a lot more if they reduce the minimum specifications to a level of the most sold IGP.

I wonder what your response will be if we bring up the Atom design and the responsibilities there. That is the only reason for the increased intel market share, not for example the g45 that finally got a bit better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

I love this tests... especial when you play both videos next to each other, you don't notice the slightests difference. :ROTF:

---

did you ever test any image quality? We have a testing team here at work that consists of 10 people doing nothing then testing image display quality there sure is a difference between all these gpu's and it is very strong if you have a decent screen to view it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v_rr

But not HD content except 780/790G and Nvidia ones.

---

So it could play HD by your own numbers. Thanks!

Priceless! :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.

Depends on how powerful the CPU is. Not everyone owns a E8xxx series to handle the high stress from the IGP.

---

Even a 1.6Ghz Atom with 945 chipset can run HD movies without problems. People here at work that got them as extra toy gadgets do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

This is the perfect example of useless marketing ... who care about the CPU utilization while playing a blueray ???? when you do, 99.99999% of the people don t do anything else ....

---

You missed the point.
The CPU utilization matters when you're using a low-end CPU, like the Atom, Nano or Athlon Neo.
A 20% utilization in HD video playback, in one of those tests using a quadcore, means an Atom will not be able playback the HD content.
(And it doesn't really matter if it's Blu-Ray or not, it matters if it's H264)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

You missed the point.
The CPU utilization matters when you're using a low-end CPU, like the Atom, Nano or Athlon Neo.
A 30% utilization in HD video playback, in one of those tests using a quadcore, means an Atom will not be able playback the HD content.
(And it doesn't really matter if it's Blu-Ray or not, it matter if it's H264)

---

But the Atoms DO play it.

I think you are blinded by other CPU utilization. Just because a 2½Ghz quad uses 50% CPU doesnt mean a 2½Ghz dualcore will use 100% and so on. Specially not when your loading media is an optical mixed with Java.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

So it could play HD by your own numbers. Thanks!

Priceless! :ROTF:



Even a 1.6Ghz Atom with 945 chipset can run HD movies without problems. People here at work that got them as extra toy gadgets do that.

---

care to prove your statement with some real data?

all i saw in a review is this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...t,1981-12.html

ooooorrrrr this:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3509&p=2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

But the Atoms DO play it.

---

No, they don't.
My Eeepc standing next to me won't play h264 @ 720p without loads of lost frames and sound sinchronization problems, let alone 1080p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

care to prove your statement with some real data?

all i saw in a review is this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...t,1981-12.html

ooooorrrrr this:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3509&p=2

---

Just a shame they both used the same. Reading ftw. Extra filters will always add extra load.

Come again kid.

Quote:

---

We tested the DVD output with PowerDVD 8 from Cyberlink. The DVD player calculates intermediate images which makes the output smoother, but also puts greater load on the CPU

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Just a shame they both used the same. Reading ftw. Extra filters will always add extra load.

Come again kid.

---

yeah a real shame you can't trust reviews anymore. Now who's the "kid" inhere, the only thing you are good at is reading and posting about it (we already know you lack showing :D ), now i do wonder how you actually read articles.

from anandtech:
Intel’s US15 chipset (codenamed Poulsbo) supports full hardware MPEG-2, VC-1 and H.264 decode acceleration. It’s necessary because Atom is too slow to decode high bitrate video encoded in these formats. Without this hardware decode acceleration, Atom wouldn’t be able to playback Blu-ray or HD video.

Most desktops, notebooks and netbooks based on Atom don’t use the US15 chipset; they use 945G and 945G lacks this hardware decode acceleration support

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Just a shame they both used the same. Reading ftw. Extra filters will always add extra load.

Come again kid.

---

Shifting the topic from HD playback to DVD playback... You just made that up out of pressure, didn't you?

Keep trying though, maybe someday you'll get it.