But who is to guard the guards themselves? - Juvenal
|
|
|
Intel increases its GPU lead over AMD and Nvidia
CHIPMAKER Intel has recorded 5.6 per cent growth in GPU market share thanks to its Sandy Bridge Core i5 processors.
Intel has long been the GPU market share king, but industry analysts Jon Peddie Research (JPR) has reported that the firm now ships 60.4 per cent of all GPUs, an increase of 5.6 per cent from the previous quarter and a 5.3 per cent rise from the same time last year. Both AMD and Nvidia experienced quarterly market share drops to 23 per cent and 16.1 per cent market shares, respectively, though AMD's market share remained flat from the same time last year.
JPR cites AMD's and Intel's CPUs with GPU cores as a massive growth area for the firms, with AMD's Fusion processors seeing 58.4 per cent quarterly sales growth in both desktop and laptop chips. Intel's GPU-laden processors also saw 23.6 per cent growth.
Nvidia's seemingly lacklustre figures, showing a quarterly and annual drop of five per cent, is largely put down to the firm's decision to exit the integrated graphics market, concentrating on its line of Tegra system-on-chip processors. Given that the firm has managed to secure a fair number of design wins with its Tegra 2 chip, the firm is unlikely to be worried about integrated graphics sales.
Intel's so-called 'extreme' GPUs might be something of a joke among gamers and hardware enthusiasts but the firm manages to shift a high volume of graphics processors first through its chipsets and now through its processors such as the Core i5. JPR cites that nearly every computer now has two GPUs, a discrete chip from the likes of AMD or Nvidia mated with the on-chip or integrated GPU found on the CPU.
In other important news JPR reports that one-time market leader Matrox sold enough GPUs to register on its radar. In the previous quarter the firm registered 0.0 per cent market share, but this quarter bounced back to post a miraculous 0.04 per cent. We doubt that AMD, Intel and Nvidia will be worrying too much. µ
Share this:
Share
One of the reasons I used Intel's integrated graphics for years is that it was actually supported by X11 (GNU/Linux's and UNIX's GUI subsystem) without using proprietary blobs. However, after AMD bought ATI and started publishing specs, I have started moving to AMD/ATI graphics for the better performance with Free Software.
Now, don't get me wrong. I still use and recommend Intel graphics for general workstation duty and am glad to do so. Unlike nVidious, Intel supports FOSS, and their integrated video is indeed "good enough" for most applications. But I also like AMD graphics.
Since Intel controls, what is it, 80% of the CPU market, it will also sell roughly 80% of the graphics chipsets. I don't mind that so much, since I can always add my AMD graphics board later.
And yes, I do build all my PC's. :-) Takes about half an hour with modern parts.
I expect this analyst to be confused... with discrete and integrated GPU`s as sales of both completely different.
This article is really misleading as AMD actually gained laptop market share over Intel even with production issues at GF.
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/24686-amd-gains-processor-share-sort-of
Just like Microsoft back in the day - doesn't have to be "good", just "good enough".
Where the job at hand for 99% of sales doesn't need whizzy 3d or billions of texels.
I prefer AMD IG for the main reason that Intel's linux support (Xorg) is pretty flakey even with a dedicated linux project, but for most users this isn't an issue and it simply comes down to what the OEMs bundle.
Flame away
Apparently most the comment here is suffering from "little" pen*s syndrome.
OK.. lets look at the number here. How much Intel made money during all these years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year
Geez.. where's Nvidiot, AMDiot, ATIdiot located???
Intel makes 11.8 B$ just in Q1 2011. Well.. how much your "oh so good", "oh so superior" companies made??
Bwahahahahaha...!!!
Don't live under the rock for too long!
Idiots..
How many money do intel earns from the GPU market?, that is the real question, not what number of "wnanabee integrated GPUs" they sell.
Why don't intel charge extra to "unlock" the GPU part?
Oh, I know they wouldn't buy it. :)
Surely you jest.
Even back in the Voodoo2/3 days, while Matrox's G200 and G400 were excellent, they were not substantially better than ATI Rage 128, Nvidia's TNT(2), or 3dfx Voodoo 2/3.
Amd should stop the cross licensing agreement with intel. then where will intel be? nowhere.
this article is buyed by Intel for sure !!!
Hmm... Intel market leader in GPU...
I live to hear also this aberation...
I buy Intel CPU or max thread performance, not for the silly "gpu".
I wish they would that space for increased L3 cache. (eg)
My *real* GPU will be Radeon, again.
Michael G: Decades? Really? LOL
Integrated graphics will never be as good as dedicated Discrete can be, but I think it silly to say that Intel's IGP being shipped today with Sandy Bridge isn't as good as discrete graphics shipped back in 1991 before the first Pentium was king and was running at about 200MHz. It's still silly compared to 2001 discrete.
Anandtech did a pretty good review of Sandy Bridge graphics last year and it was said to be competitive with low-end discrete graphics for the first time. Ivy Bridge in early 2012 on 22nm is expected to bring a significant boost over that and include support for DirectX 11.
That hardly sounds like "decades behind"
Intel IGPs are crap, even the lowest priced discrete offerings from the big two blow Intel's stuff out of the water.
Anyone who knows about how a computer works knows that onboard is and always will be less efficient than an external graphics card. Internal processors have to share their resources with the primary CPU's and greatly degrade performance.
The only real graphics card companies out there are Nvidia and ATI. They are decades ahead of Intel's GPU's in terms of performance. Yes I said decades...
http://www.nvidia.com/page/fx_5700.html
The problem is that most people don't have a computer background and are ignorant to what their computer should be able to do. Instead they buy cheaply pre-made cookie cutter system like those from Dell instead of building a computer of their own with quality parts. It's their loss but they don't even care that they are paying premium price for low quality.
No one but a fool would buy Intel CPUs for the IG performance. They are so far behind AMD it's laughable. AMD really nailed Intel with their APUs. Now Intel is hoping that in a few years their IGP will be capable of actually viewing video or games.
So no Intel did not actually increase their lead in GPUs at all. They sold some CPUs with IG that anyone with a clue would add a discrete graphics card to so that you can actually use the CPU.
You can't make a direct correlation between Intel GPU market share and the others. Intel GPU is forced into every machine due to unfair bundling practices with the CPU (which is why Intel had to pay nVidia a handsome reward after they muscled them out of the chipset space). What I'd like to see is real numbers on machines that only ship with an Intel GPU vs those that ship with a discrete GPU. OEMs these days are often opting for the the best of both worlds thanks to technology like nVidia's Optimus that allows the GPU switching for low power draw when browsing and the bump up for full on DX11 gaming.
Intel achieved this level of market penetration by integrating its substandard (well, relatively speaking) graphics core with CPU, or in effect force fed the consumers its crap. Technical merit (or utterly lacking thereof) has absolutely nothing to do with its current market share.
"Intel has long been the GPU market share king"
lol ok and how many video cards on a separate printed circuit board did intel chip in say the last five years?
Then give the same statistic for Nvidia and Ati/AMD.