JPR: PC graphics shipments "disappointing" in 2010

[Matthew DeCarlo]

GPU makers didn't have a very merry Christmas according to market stats gathered by Jon Peddie Research. The firm reports that PC graphics shipments were down 7.8% on-year in the fourth quarter of 2010, highlighting unusually low seasonal demand. Overall growth for 2010 was 4.3%, which JPR described as unimpressive and disappointing considering the year's healthy beginning.

Manufacturers shipped some 133 million graphics chips in the fourth quarter, with Intel representing a majority 52.5% of the market. It's worth noting that CPUs with integrated graphics such as Intel's Clarksdale, Sandy Bridge and Atom processors are included in that figure. Despite its majority presence, Intel's shipments fell 7.3% sequentially, while year-over-year growth clocked in at 2.9%.

Meanwhile, AMD's GPU shipments grew 2.3% on-quarter and 11.2% on-year with a market share of 24.2%. The company recently reported that graphics products accounted for 26% of the company's total sales, which is up 8.7% sequentially and 0.7% from last year. Nvidia claimed 22.5% of the pie, moving 4.1% more GPUs than the previous quarter -- though shipments fell 15.1% from 2009.

Analysts predicted a slow-down in PC sales for the second half of last year, but some suggest that tablets -- namely the iPad -- dented low-end PC sales. That could explain the lower-than-expected graphics shipments. JPR believes 2011 will be a strong year for the GPU market as DirectX 11 graphics cards reach widespread adoption and Sandy Bridge along with Fusion chips hit full stride.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/42260-jpr-pc-graphics-shipments-disappointing-in-2010.html

 

[Kibaruk]

If you consider no card is THE ONE and no one in their right minds will spend more than $200 once a couple years on a video card (Cause spending $200 more on a new one for 5% improved performance is just insane, at least in my book).

Also the games out there are as I recall a generation behind computer specs. No game will make you buy a new video card for it to work.

 

[SilverCider]

Also the games out there are as I recall a generation behind computer specs. No game will make you buy a new video card for it to work.

I have to agree with you there! There are too many popular games that are simply not put out to make the most of the current PC hardware. Yes most of the games have better graphics than their console siblings but because these games have optimisations for consoles they run (or did at some stage) particularly well on GPUs that a are a few generations old, take the 8800GT for example!
I think the Intel figures are a little misleading, many of the so called GPUs on die of the past CPU are probably not even used, unless they are their laptop variants

 

[63Jax]

maybe it would've been better to account just the discrete graphics to have a better idea about the situation. intel's graphics can barely be named GRAPHICS...

 

[TomSEA]

"Overall growth for 2010 was 4.3%...."

I love how (regardless of product), if sales don't meet PROJECTIONS, then it's considered "disappointing." There isn't a business I know of that wouldn't love an annual growth rate of 4.3%.

 

[yRaz]

Kibaruk said:
If you consider no card is THE ONE and no one in their right minds will spend more than $200 once a couple years on a video card (Cause spending $200 more on a new one for 5% improved performance is just insane, at least in my book).

Also the games out there are as I recall a generation behind computer specs. No game will make you buy a new video card for it to work.

crysis...

 

[gwailo247]

With all the new cards that came out in 2010, and with so many people waiting for either a specific ATI or NVIDIA card, I wouldn't be surprised if people bought what they wanted when it came out. You can't expect people to buy more than one GPU per year.

 

[captaincranky]

"Overall growth for 2010 was 4.3%...."

I love how (regardless of product), if sales don't meet PROJECTIONS, then it's considered "disappointing." There isn't a business I know of that wouldn't love an annual growth rate of 4.3%.

True dat, but 4.3% annual growth doesn't align itself with the average suit's paranoid delusions of grandeur. And that doesn't align itself well with the BS story that he (or she), told the suit he's looking up the corporate ladder to, for a continuation of his livelihood. Beside, if an industry has one stellar year, then they feel entitled to the same results, ad infinitum

The simple fact is, the every facet of modern business, feels it is entitled to the consumer's entire available disposable income. Probable even the consumer's money they need for rent also.

 

[Wagan8r]

Kibaruk said:
If you consider no card is THE ONE and no one in their right minds will spend more than $200 once a couple years on a video card (Cause spending $200 more on a new one for 5% improved performance is just insane, at least in my book).

Also the games out there are as I recall a generation behind computer specs. No game will make you buy a new video card for it to work.

You're right, except for the fact that you're not. First off, plenty of people in their right minds will spend $200 every couple of years on a video card. Secondly, if you're spending that kind of money and only getting 5% increase in performance, you're clearly NOT in your right mind cause you paid 2-3 times as much as you should have for such a low end card. I'll give you an example. I purchased a GTX 260 for $180 about a year and a half ago, and plan on buying a GTX 560 Ti when they reach about $200-230, giving me an over 100% performance increase. Thirdly, you are clearly coming from a console perspective saying that no PC game needs a video card upgrade. The following do if you want to play them at max settings, i.e. better than console settings.

- Crysis/Warhead
- Battlefield: Bad Company 2
- ARMA II/OA
- Dirt 2 (DX11)
- S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat (DX11)
- Metro 2033 (DX11)
- Aliens vs. Predator (DX11)
- Just Cause 2
- F1 2010 (DX11)

There are many more that use DX10, which are also better than console versions, which would require an upgrade if you don't have a DX10 card. The list is too long to name.

 

[red1776]

- Crysis/Warhead
- Battlefield: Bad Company 2
- ARMA II/OA
- Dirt 2 (DX11)
- S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat (DX11)
- Metro 2033 (DX11)
- Aliens vs. Predator (DX11)
- Just Cause 2
- F1 2010 (DX11)

There are many more that use DX10, which are also better than console versions, which would require an upgrade if you don't have a DX10 card. The list is too long to name.

I would add Lost Planet 2 (DX11)
and I just picked up Dead Space 2, Its demanding at max settings, although I think It needs a driver update.

 

[Guest]

The fact that the GPUs are all made on the same underlying process as last year is a big part of sales not being all that brilliant. People will only buy new graphics cards if the performance goes up, and alas without a change in the transistor size that isn't going to happen. Sure NVidia and ATI got about 20% in tweaking their existing designs at the same power envelope but if they don't have a 32nm next year sales will drop a lot.

 

[emmzo]

I think most sales go to games that are fun to play regardless of eye-candy and obviously developers won`t spend time and effort to create sharp graphics, but only decent, unless, of course is a shooter and visual demands are part of the package, so... is it fair to spend a load of money on the next best video card just to get to play 3 or 4 demanding shooter games maxed out, which the usual player spends less then let`s say 20 hours a month and probably not every month? And then 4-5 months later , look : the new best whatever that you can have the extra features, 3 more FPS and other minor enhancements for less money. I`m leaving out the part where poor coding also influences purchase. The end result, after being in this arms race for a while is that I found myself playing more flash games than anything else. Same goes for gaming procs so this news is not surprising.at all as far as I`m concerned.

 

[hitech0101]

Why bother spending money on expensive cards when your current card plays games decently.

 

[Kibaruk]

You're right, except for the fact that you're not. First off, plenty of people in their right minds will spend $200 every couple of years on a video card. Secondly, if you're spending that kind of money and only getting 5% increase in performance, you're clearly NOT in your right mind cause you paid 2-3 times as much as you should have for such a low end card. I'll give you an example. I purchased a GTX 260 for $180 about a year and a half ago, and plan on buying a GTX 560 Ti when they reach about $200-230, giving me an over 100% performance increase. Thirdly, you are clearly coming from a console perspective saying that no PC game needs a video card upgrade. The following do if you want to play them at max settings, i.e. better than console settings.

- Crysis/Warhead
- Battlefield: Bad Company 2
- ARMA II/OA
- Dirt 2 (DX11)
- S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat (DX11)
- Metro 2033 (DX11)
- Aliens vs. Predator (DX11)
- Just Cause 2
- F1 2010 (DX11)

There are many more that use DX10, which are also better than console versions, which would require an upgrade if you don't have a DX10 card. The list is too long to name.

Wagan8r, I beg you to read again, pretty please.

I didnt say no one was changing their cards every couple of years, everyone does... I said no one would do that MORE than every couple of years, meaning no one will buy a card 1-3 months later to get a 5% increase in performance... do you get it now?

EDIT: I have also played every one of those games on max settings (but Metro 2011 on DX11) with my 6850 without issues (And my friends have done it to on a 5770 which was released over a year ago on max settings too), you should add to that list Global Agenda.

 

[princeton]

Wagan8r, I beg you to read again, pretty please.

I didnt say no one was changing their cards every couple of years, everyone does... I said no one would do that MORE than every couple of years, meaning no one will buy a card 1-3 months later to get a 5% increase in performance... do you get it now?

EDIT: I have also played every one of those games on max settings (but Metro 2011 on DX11) with my 6850 without issues (And my friends have done it to on a 5770 which was released over a year ago on max settings too), you should add to that list Global Agenda.

A 5770 won't max those games. Resolution is one of the most important factors when it comes to "maxing" out a game. and a 5770 won't run it at 1920x1080 and probably not 1650x1080 either.

 

[Kibaruk]

Ok... consider you have a 19" screen how much is max for that? Taking a side note, maybe not everyone needs to play everything maxed out and after all enthusiasts are just a small % compared to the big picture here taken. So its not that hard either and not everyone will buy something to play everything maxed at all times.

 

[red1776]

The term "maxed" gets heavily abused and parsed. A 5770 is far...very far from maxing any in that list with the exception of Dirt 2. Here is a amped up GTX 580 FPS in some of them actually maxed (or reasonably close) and it gets down there frame rate wise on maxed settings on many of them.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_580_Amp_Edition/14.html F1 2010 63
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_580_Amp_Edition/6.html AVP 43
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_580_Amp_Edition/11.html Crysis 39
http://www.guru3d.com/article/powercolor-radeon-5770-single-slot-quad-crossfirex-review/8 BC2 28
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=27053&page=11 Just cause 28
And The 5770 will not get close to maxed out STALKER,Metro 2033, either. The 6850 will not play many of them if they are actually maxed out. (unless under 30FPS is acceptable)

Ok... consider you have a 19" screen how much is max for that?

That depends on the resolution of the monitor.Its all about the pixel count.

 

[Kibaruk]

So here comes another thing... what is acceptable, what is maxed at its best, what is maxed for a normal user, and what is the rule?

There is none for neither of those but one (The 2nd one has a real answer, yes), but my point is still valid since you wont change a video card (Spend over $200) to just play one of those games on your huge HD at full resolution on max settings (In which more than a couple would need 2 or more video cards to run at the really maximum settings above 60 fps).

My question is still there, who in their right mind would spend $500 (GTX 580, or $1000 in both) every couple of months to get a boost on a few % of performance? that was my only question and only point in my first comment here.

I know most of us will buy one that improves performance drastically once every year or every couple of years, I also said that and repeat it so you dont get it wrong. How could they wonder the card sales are low?

 

[red1776]

Hey look, Im not trying to bust your balls here, just attempting to answer your questions about 'normal' and enthusiast' users.

So here comes another thing... what is acceptable, what is maxed at its best, what is maxed for a normal user, and what is the rule?

There is no 'rule'. STALKER COP is a good example of 'non' maxed 'maxed'. You set the 'overall quality' to 'Ultra' but dont go into advanced settings and move all of the sliders to the right (DOF, HDAO, veg detail, View distance, AA, AF, etc. All the things that bring your VGA to its Knees.

There is none for neither of those but one (The 2nd one has a real answer, yes), but my point is still valid since you wont change a video card (Spend over $200) to just play one of those games on your huge HD at full resolution on max settings (In which more than a couple would need 2 or more video cards to run at the really maximum settings above 60 fps).

Well thats kind of where the 'normal user and the enthusiast part ways. i for one do just what you described. I am running 4 x Asus EAHCu HD 5850's.( the high end spendy ones) The 3rd card is not a great return on investment, and the the 4th is terrible...but it will run Crysis at 100FPS. We do dumb things like that.

I know most of us will buy one that improves performance drastically once every year or every couple of years, I also said that and repeat it so you don't get it wrong. How could they wonder the card sales are low?

I don't know if its the economy, but they know their target audience. And your numbers are incorrect. The AMD 6000 series, and the Nvidia 500 series represented a 20% boost in performance over the previous gen, not

a few %

while doing it more efficiently. That is a a big gain in performance for less electricity.
I agree though that 4.3% growth in this economy is something they probably should not be complaining about. and their might be some "new product fatigue" from the proximity of the 5000 to the 6000, and the 400 to the 500.

 

[Kibaruk]

That kind of satisfy me, specially the last part that I was trying to aim at, the "new product fatigue". Although I still feel that pc components are a generation ahead gaming requirements.

 

[red1776]

That kind of satisfy me, specially the last part that I was trying to aim at, the "new product fatigue". Although I still feel that pc components are a generation ahead gaming requirements.

I dont know, The software code guys are aware that the 2+Teraflop GPU is out there, and of 2 TB HDD's so it doesn't exactly demand that they code in an especially optimized manner.
so you end up with the likes of Metro 2033 that will take all the GPU you can squeeze out of your budget and into your machine. Ever hear the phrase "any job will immediately expand to fit the time allotted"? I think that is how the software market works (see EA games and Adobe)

 

[gwailo247]

Ever hear the phrase "any job will immediately expand to fit the time allotted"? I think that is how the software market works (see EA games and Adobe)

Nice Parkinson's Law reference. =)

 

[captaincranky]

When "terraflop meets "cow flop".......

I dont know, The software code guys are aware that the 2+Teraflop GPU is out there, and of 2 TB HDD's so it doesn't exactly demand that they code in an especially optimized manner.
so you end up with the likes of Metro 2033 that will take all the GPU you can squeeze out of your budget and into your machine. Ever hear the phrase "any job will immediately expand to fit the time allotted"? I think that is how the software market works (see EA games and Adobe).

Nice Parkinson's Law reference. =)

Parkinson's law + Peter principle = recipe for disaster.

Or in the more concrete sense, "when work expands to fill the time allotted, who better to fill the time created, but a complete incompetent"?