Print 13 comment(s) - last by diego10arg.. on Apr 30 at 9:04 AM

Overall GPU shipments still down significantly year-over-year

John Peddie Research (JPR) has released its latest GPU shipment figures for the first quarter of 2009. The numbers are for the estimated number of graphics shipments and supplier market share. JPR says that these numbers are the leading indicator of the PC market since each PC sold has a GPU of some sort inside, though GPUs are used outside of the PC market as well.

JPR reports that during Q3 and Q4 2008, computer makers stopped buying GPUs in order to deplete inventory levels in preparation for a long recession. However, as inventories depleted the channel began to order GPUs again in Q1 2009. As a result of the renewed orders from the channel, NVIDIA and Intel are up for the quarter.

Whereas the growth rate for GPUs from Q4 2007 to Q1 in 2008 was -5.59%, the growth rate for Q4 2008 to Q1 2009 was 3.29%. When compared on a year-to-year basis the market still doesn't look good with shipments totaling 74.9 million units, a decline of 21.1% from the same quarter last year.

Despite an increase in orders across the category, AMD saw its market share decline during Q1 2009 from 14% in the previous quarter to 12.81% in Q1. A year ago, AMD held 17.67% of the GPU market. While AMD declines, its main rival NVIDIA grew its market share from 22.20% in Q4 2008 to 23.26% in Q1 2009.  Intel still owns the majority of the GPU market and grew its share of the category from 34.59% last quarter to 37.20% in Q1. However, year over year growth is still down for all GPU suppliers across the board.

JPR predicts that by Q3 2009 GPU orders will be back to the normal seasonality, but the market isn’t expected to reach the levels seen in 2008 until 2010. JPR maintains its prediction for an upturn in the PC market in Q3 and Q4. Intel has stated that it believes the computer industry has reached the bottom of the market.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Lies and Statistics
By tallcool1 on 4/29/2009 11:59:15 AM , Rating: 3
Who here really gives a crap about INTEL GPU shipments? Their current offerings are CRAP for anything outside of very basic computing tasks.

I find it hard to believe with AMD's current GPU's offerings, which are great price/performers, that they are losing market share to NVIDIA as this article leads too. (No, I don't care about INTEL GPU shipments or market share.)

RE: Lies and Statistics
By hemmy on 4/29/2009 12:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
NVIDIA seems to have a much more substantial advertising program than AMD/ATI, and has been that way for a long time.

Could have something to do with it, no idea.

RE: Lies and Statistics
By yomamafor1 on 4/29/2009 12:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Except that Intel GPUs is in practically every single Netbook. Yeh sure, AMD's 4800 series is the best bang for the buck, but they only cater to a smaller market.

RE: Lies and Statistics
By MrTeal on 4/29/2009 12:11:48 PM , Rating: 5
Relax. Intel will do it's thing offering basic integrated graphics, that doesn't invalidate the fact that they ship more GPUs than anyone. If you don't like it, just look at the comparative ATI/NVIDIA numbers.

As for the breakdown between those two companies, it's hard to offer a good reason why without the author linking to the actual report, but I would guess it's due to the note/netbook market. AMD might have great value offerings on the desktop, but I consistently see more laptops with NVIDIA GPUs than AMD ones. Given how many laptops are being sold these days, that could definitely swing marketshare to NVIDIA.

RE: Lies and Statistics
By therealnickdanger on 4/29/2009 12:21:44 PM , Rating: 3
I argue that we all should care. Despite being "CRAP", it is more than adequate for ~37% of buyers. I think that says a lot about the market. Most people don't even know what a GPU is, let alone the differences between them. It's sad, but true. Those that are in the know are then split into two broad groups: "don't really care because I'm just going to surf and use Office" and "OMG Crysis b3nchmarkzz". I would wager that most people just buy the cheapest laptop they can afford.

RE: Lies and Statistics
By homerdog on 4/29/2009 8:42:13 PM , Rating: 4
I don't play games on my laptop and the GMA 950 gives me trouble to no end. VGA output to my 1080p LCD maxes out at 1600x1200 (wtf not even 16x9) no matter what I do. Meanwhile my roommate has the exact same laptop (ordered from university) but with an ATI X300 and it defaults right to 1920x1080 no questions asked, so easy a caveman could do it.

Rest assured my next laptop (which won't be long now thanks to the GMA's ineptitude with Windows 7) will not feature an Intel IGP.

RE: Lies and Statistics
By diego10arg on 4/30/2009 9:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
How good that you can choose.
Lot of people like me are running netbooks and we still cannot choose.

ION where are you?!

RE: Lies and Statistics
By GodisanAtheist on 4/29/2009 12:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
Seeing how this is purely GPUs shipped, does it also include gpus shipped to consoles? Or do microsoft and nintendo simply get them from TSMC as they own the designs?

ATI should insist that microsoft/nintendo throw on an ATI sticker on their next xbox/Wii.

RE: Lies and Statistics
By StevoLincolnite on 4/29/2009 1:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure about the Wii, but after the debacle with the Original Xbox and nVidia manufacturing the chips, Microsoft instead got ATI to design the GPU then Microsoft bought the design and gets it manufactured else where, I think ATI also handles refinements to the xbox GPU before giving the designs to Microsoft, eventually we might see the eDRAM die integrated onto the GPU which would be handled by ATI, before selling/giving the design to Microsoft. (Not 100% sure on that agreement they have).

RE: Lies and Statistics
By inperfectdarkness on 4/29/2009 12:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
i'd like to see a chart for integrated vs. standalone GPU's. integrated solutions are a craptacular marketing strategy to make the consumer think that they've got "graphics capabilities"; when really, going from dual to quad core could possibly be made to sufficiently do the same thing.

i don't think i could live with myself if i willingly opted for an integrated solution.

RE: Lies and Statistics
By StevoLincolnite on 4/29/2009 1:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
When I buy a Notebook, I always make sure I get a machine with the best Graphics possible, as the GPU would either be: Impossible/expensive to upgrade unless it had AXIOM/MXM support, even then you have different iterations on MXM due to different power and thermal requirements which will limit upgrade ability.

The CPU, Memory, HDD can usually all be upgraded/overclocked in a notebook hence I'm willing to skimp on those if I am on a budget and get the beefiest GPU and live with slower parts for awhile.

For example in 2004 I bought a notebook with a Mobility Radeon 9700 Pro, but it only came with 256mb of ram and a 1.4ghz Pentium M, I upgraded the memory to 1024mb, and overclocked the processor to 2ghz and it lasted for a good 4 years performance wise.

However my current notebook with an Intel x3100 despite being adequate to my needs, I really wish I got something with a bit more graphics horse power, however I was on a tight budget, newer games run poorly on it, and older games run poorly on it, even Direct X 7 games.

I intend to build a new rig in the next couple of months with a Phenom 2 and a Radeon 4830/4770/4850 which should handle my gaming needs for awhile.

The main issue with Intel IGP's is that there drivers plainly suck, AMD and nVidia are head and heels ahead of intel in that department, and because of the lack of decent drivers on Intels part there IGP performance and compatibility is all over the place, for Instance Doom 3 runs better all at maxed settings than it does on lowest settings.

RE: Lies and Statistics
By GodisanAtheist on 4/29/2009 3:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
Thats one of the reasons I'd really like to see DIY notebooks take off and a form factor standard really emerge in the notebook market.

When shopping for laptops, you tend to find a lot of computers with CPUs that are far too powerful for the GPUs that they're coupled with. As soon as you get to the so called "gaming computers" they're packed with so much ancillary crap that serves little purpose other than driving up the cost that the price leaves a bad taste.

“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki