Intel might be catching up to AMD's discrete GPU market share

[Daniel Sims]

The big picture: Fourth-quarter 2022 financials were dour for multiple tech industry sectors, but new data indicates that Intel's entry into the dedicated graphics card space hasn't failed. However, what the numbers mean depends on how much you trust Intel's reporting and how you see the overall market.

Correction (March 5): Our original story based on JPR's report, indicated Intel was capturing as much as 9% of the discrete GPU market with their Arc offerings, but this number was mistakenly inflated and it's likely closer to ~6%, which is still a solid effort from Intel.

According to Jon Peddie, out of 13 million discrete GPUs sold in the last quarter -- for both desktops and laptops -- Nvidia provided the bulk of it at 85% market share, AMD shipped 9% and Intel 6%. As noted in the story, these figures are not coming from actual unit sales, but are estimates calculated from revenue breakdowns and financial reporting. On the original report and analysis, JPR mistakenly included 60,000 Ponte Vecchio data center GPUs chips in Intel's share, which inflated their numbers.

The original story follows below:

Jon Peddie Research's Q4 2022 report (via Tom's Hardware) for the discrete GPU market indicates Intel has achieved a market share similar to AMD, though Nvidia still dominates. If the numbers are trustworthy, they suggest a successful freshman effort from Team Blue.

Team Green is still the undisputed master of dedicated GPUs, with 82 percent of the market last quarter. However, mere months after launching the Arc Alchemist graphics cards, Intel appears in the report with a nine percent market share – the same as AMD. Compared to the same quarter in 2021, Team Blue ate half of Team Red's market, but Nvidia increased its dominance.

However, research group head Jon Peddie takes Intel's numbers with a grain of salt. The nine percent market share comes from the company's estimates and ASPs, which Peddie considers soft data. AMD could still have had higher unit sales than Intel last quarter. Although only a handful of AMD cards appear on recent Steam hardware surveys, no Arc Alchemist cards have yet emerged.

Total Q4 2022 dedicated GPU sales, which include desktops, laptops, and embedded computers, reached 13 million units – a roughly 50 percent plummet from the 26 million GPUs sold in Q4 2021. That fall is steeper than the year-on-year declines in other sectors like CPUs and total GPUs (which includes integrated graphics, where Intel still dominates with a 72 percent market share).

Declining PC shipments dragged down the graphics card market last year despite product launches from all three vendors. Customers criticized Nvidia's high-end GeForce RTX 4000 series GPUs for their shockingly high prices. Meanwhile, AMD only managed to get its flagship Radeon RX 7000 cards out the door right before the end of the year, so their impact barely registers on Q4 2022 charts. Both companies are set to launch more mainstream entries in their latest GPU series this year.

Even if Team Blue hasn't caught up to AMD yet, the company confirmed that is a near-term target. On a recent podcast, Intel Fellow Tom Petersen acknowledged that they can't touch Nvidia as they are now, but hope to start a real competition with AMD. Petersen also mentioned Intel's upcoming follow-up GPU series – Arc Battlemage – saying the company wants to grow its market share by increasing value for mainstream models. The latest rumors indicate Battlemage may launch sometime in 2024.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97784-intel-might-catching-up-amd-discrete-gpu-market.html

 

[KofeViR]

AMD needs to lower GPU prices for sure or Nvidia will eat more and more.

AMD is the cheaper choice. They won't sell anything without good performance per dollar. As in much better than Nvidia.

 

[Uncle Al]

Back and forth, back and forth, the rivalry continues and we, the consumer ultimately benefit .......

 

[neeyik]

AMD needs to lower GPU prices for sure or Nvidia will eat more and more.

It can't afford to. The operating margin in its Gaming sector is just 14% and while the PS5/Xbox SoC accounts for a significant portion of that sector's revenue, AMD doesn't want to be in a situation where the margin doesn't even break double figures.

 

[Superconductor]

TS "might be" LOL

 

[Beerfloat]

AMD number 3 soon?

It seems implausible but I could see it. The RDNA* era so far has been about fairly uninspiring 'me too' efforts that are lacking in innovation. There are few features that would make customers want to actively seek out their cards over those from Nvidia.

DisplayPort 2.1 support is one, though the level of performance does not really require it, and some model sporting more VRAM might be another. But then their GPUs need it more.

I reckon 'cheaper and almost the same features two years later' only goes so far. Intel can do that.

The toxic AMD fandom is another problem.

 

[wiak]

Kinda funny people go to intel for their stable drivers

 

[KofeViR]

It can't afford to. The operating margin in its Gaming sector is just 14% and while the PS5/Xbox SoC accounts for a significant portion of that sector's revenue, AMD doesn't want to be in a situation where the margin doesn't even break double figures.

Then they will loose the desktop GPU market. Nvidia keeps gaining and gaining marketshare and 7900 series are way too expensive to be able to compete, especially in Europe where 7900 XTX is pretty much the same price as RTX 4080. 7900XT is like 10% more expensive than 4070 Ti. Most people WON'T buy AMD unless it gets them alot more performance for the money.

I am considering 7900XTX but price makes me consider going 4080. Almost identical.

Intel might be a bigger threat for Nvidia, especially if they makes their GPUs themself instead of using TSMC, might actually be doable once they start using Intel 4 node which should be comparable to TSMC 4-5 nm.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

Intel should just shut up and work, despite being a gigantic company they are not doing well and continually failing in many points.

Intel GPUs only exist because AMD allows it through its IP license, so no... less arrogance, intel. it helps.

 

[wiyosaya]

Intel should just shut up and work, despite being a gigantic company they are not doing well and continually failing in many points.

Intel GPUs only exist because AMD allows it through its IP license, so no... less arrogance, intel. it helps.

And my comment to this thread - Of course Intel would say they are catching up to AMD. That does not make it true, however.

 

[AndreV]

Intel should just shut up and work, despite being a gigantic company they are not doing well and continually failing in many points.

Intel GPUs only exist because AMD allows it through its IP license, so no... less arrogance, intel. it helps.

Intel should just shut up and work, despite being a gigantic company they are not doing well and continually failing in many points.

Intel GPUs only exist because AMD allows it through its IP license, so no... less arrogance, intel. it helps.

So I remember correctly that AMD helped Intel build its GPU's. Thats what I've remember reading some year ago but meanwhile nobody mentioned it again - no comment and no article, so I began to wonder, but you reconfirmed it.

 

[Julnor]

If Intel can surpass AMD on drivers they'll obviously end up surpassing AMD at some point for GPU marketshare. That's not going to be easy but it's possible. Nvidia is just way too far ahead on driver and software stack, but the industry sorely needs competition and AMD has proven they aren't capable of it. At least Ryzen gave us another choice in the CPU sector, but the motherboard pricing is insane.

Part of me just wants China to make knockoff choices that are like 90% as good for 60% of the price and then break in like 3 years.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I've heard A LOT of people debunking the "nVidia has over 80% of the market", enough to give it credence because I can't disagree that if it were true, AMD would've stopped producing Radeons long ago. You can't invest in R&D with less than 20% of the market and still remain competitive for as long as they have.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

So I remember correctly that AMD helped Intel build its GPU's. Thats what I've remember reading some year ago but meanwhile nobody mentioned it again - no comment and no article, so I began to wonder, but you reconfirmed it.

The fact is that nobody can create a competitive GPU for PC without touching some Nvidia or AMD IP, so Intel had a billion-dollar agreement with Nvidia to avoid lawsuits, and when the validity of the agreement ended, they closed a similar agreement with AMD. In other words, AMD itself earns more than Intel with these GPUs.

 

[GoldenGoat]

Good job Intel. Keep it up.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

It can't afford to. The operating margin in its Gaming sector is just 14% and while the PS5/Xbox SoC accounts for a significant portion of that sector's revenue, AMD doesn't want to be in a situation where the margin doesn't even break double figures.

If AMD is only getting a 14% margin with their Nvidia tier gouging then they are royally screwing up. Guess that whole "holding back inventory" plan didn't work too well.

I've heard A LOT of people debunking the "nVidia has over 80% of the market", enough to give it credence because I can't disagree that if it were true, AMD would've stopped producing Radeons long ago. You can't invest in R&D with less than 20% of the market and still remain competitive for as long as they have.

Debunking with what numbers? Steam survey isn't helping you out and neither is JPR.

 

[dirtyferret]

I've heard A LOT of people debunking the "nVidia has over 80% of the market", enough to give it credence because I can't disagree that if it were true, AMD would've stopped producing Radeons long ago. You can't invest in R&D with less than 20% of the market and still remain competitive for as long as they have.

Not sure what you mean by "debunking" as every financial report from gartner, JPR, or other places like statista and STEAM have Nvidia at 70%+ dedicated GPU market share quarter after quarter. That said, Intel still rules all GPU shipments at 60%+ market share each quarter with their integrated graphics.

You may be reading too many AMD fan boy theories who are feeling butt hurt because they can't separate the difference between market share and performance. Wait until these fan boys find out McDonalds hamburgers don't taste the best even though they have dominating market share among fast food restaurants.

 

[KofeViR]

Intel should just shut up and work, despite being a gigantic company they are not doing well and continually failing in many points.

Intel GPUs only exist because AMD allows it through its IP license, so no... less arrogance, intel. it helps.

FYI, Intel is the biggest GPU supplier in the world. Most people are using an Intel GPU in their laptops and many even uses it in a desktop pc.

When it comes to dedicated GPUs they own just as little as AMD now. Intel and AMD shares like 15-20% and Nvidia owns the rest.

Intel also dominates the enterprise laptop market + enterprise in general (servers)

Home/gaming desktop market is a niche market really, however Intel owns most of this as well

So, where is Intel not doing well?

Just because AMD is not pure garbage anymore, it does not mean Intel is in trouble. Their finances are fine. They are doing wel and improving in pretty much all areas, after they replaced alot of staff that has been sleeping (mostly because of zero competition)

Without TSMC, AMD would not be able to deliver either. AMD relies 100% on TSMC, and TSMC knows this, which is why AMD parts took at price hike - TSMC wants more and more

 

[Puiu]

"Numbers based on financial estimates" - hard to make correct market estimates based on this.

 

[Axeia]

NVIDIA fans are very headstrong, I've noticed a lot of sentiment I'd paraphrase as
"AMD needs to release their new cards so that the NVIDIA prices drop"
or basically - no intention to buy AMD in the first place. This is a big problem because as we can see from the numbers AMD isn't even competing with NVIDIA anymore, it's competing with Intel now.

I'm not sure where this pro-NVIDIA movement comes from other than people shouting on forums that AMDs drivers are bad (which they aren't). I usually just advice people both an AMD and NVIDIA card (unless they need CUDA) and let them pick themselves. I might start directing them to AMD a bit more directly because I don't like where this market is going.

AMD isn't free of blame themselves though, the RX 6500 XT showed they can be just as bad as NVIDIA when it comes to exploiting the market. And their more recent high prices aren't helping either although they're definitely coming to terms that it isn't sustainable faster than NVIDIA is.

C'mon AMD try to be the peoples champion one more time, 6700 XT performance levels for RX 6500 XT prices on the RX 7500 please. That would allow them to massively win back market and mindshare which is what they desperately need, profits on the product would be slim but the goodwill it creates would be huge.

 

[KofeViR]

It's the perfect moment for AMD (and Intel) to take market share in the GPU space but I guess they are paying so much for production that they simply can't lower prices that much, yet

AMD said 7700 and 7800 series are going to cost way less, but lets see

AMD needs to release 7800 XT soon, at least

 

[HardReset]

AMD isn't free of blame themselves though, the RX 6500 XT showed they can be just as bad as NVIDIA when it comes to exploiting the market.

And that was why? It has bee explained countless times that 6500XT was supposed to be only mobile GPU but since market had huge shortage of GPUs, AMD decided it to be much better than nothing. Techspot bashed 6500XT until few weeks later they had to admit there is nothing better available for same price.

I really cannot figure out what AMD did "wrong" with 6500XT.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

And that was why? It has bee explained countless times that 6500XT was supposed to be only mobile GPU but since market had huge shortage of GPUs, AMD decided it to be much better than nothing. Techspot bashed 6500XT until few weeks later they had to admit there is nothing better available for same price.

I really cannot figure out what AMD did "wrong" with 6500XT.

Inflation makes people complain about everything even without understanding the reality, analyzing the cost of production, development and support via software in the long term it is very difficult to produce cheap low-end GPUs and make a profit. AMD has to sell a few million GPUs just to pay the design cost.

In my view, AMD could further alleviate production costs if it could adopt a chipplet strategy similar to the CPU line where one piece (CCD) is developed and used from entry-level to high-end. For example, AMD would develop a low-end base GPU with 32CUs then put two chips together and have a Mid-end product (64CUs), and 4x32CUs for the High-end.

 

[neeyik]

Techspot bashed 6500XT until few weeks later they had to admit there is nothing better available for same price.

Those two points aren't mutually exclusive -- one can criticize a product as being awful, even if the competition offers nothing in the same price category. Take a look at this monstrosity:

Radeon™ RX 6500 XT GAMING OC 4G Key Features | Graphics Card - GIGABYTE Global

Discover AORUS premium graphics cards, ft. WINDFORCE cooling, RGB lighting, PCB protection, and VR friendly features for the best gaming and VR experience!

www.gigabyte.com

That's a dual-slot, 11.1" long card with nothing more than a 3% overclock. Sure, one can buy it on Amazon for $162 but nothing about that appeals. Gigabyte's Eagle version of the 6500 XT isn't overclocked but at least the card is a lot shorter -- it's around $190 on Amazon, though.

For the price and size, one may as well go with an RX 580, which are $120 on Amazon. Sure it won't be quite as fast as the 6500 XT in the latest games, but neither will it be that far off, and it's 26% cheaper.

I really cannot figure out what AMD did "wrong" with 6500XT.

Arguably, it did nothing wrong -- at the time, there was scope for a product in the market and it filled it.

However, they could have used the dregs of die bins for the Navi 23 to furnish that model. AMD could have disabled an entire Shader Engine and half the L3 cache (halving the number of memory controllers at the same time) to have a "Navi 24" die. It still would have been a better choice -- no complaints about the PCIe bus, no complaints over the number of video outputs, and no complaints of the lack of an encoder.

Given that there's no chip shortage now and AMD doesn't have any RNDA 3 models in this sector yet, it could easily update the RX 6500 XT with castrated Navi 23 dies to address matters.

In my view, AMD could further alleviate production costs if it could adopt a chipplet strategy similar to the CPU line where one piece (CCD) is developed and used from entry-level to high-end. For example, AMD would develop a low-end base GPU with 32CUs then put two chips together and have a Mid-end product (64CUs), and 4x32CUs for the High-end.

That wouldn't work particularly well for graphics cards, though. The internal bandwidth requirements are far in excess of what Infinity Fabric can offer, even at the budget edge of the GPU spectrum.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

Those two points aren't mutually exclusive -- one can criticize a product as being awful, even if the competition offers nothing in the same price category. Take a look at this monstrosity:

Radeon™ RX 6500 XT GAMING OC 4G Key Features | Graphics Card - GIGABYTE Global

Discover AORUS premium graphics cards, ft. WINDFORCE cooling, RGB lighting, PCB protection, and VR friendly features for the best gaming and VR experience!

www.gigabyte.com

That's a dual-slot, 11.1" long card with nothing more than a 3% overclock. Sure, one can buy it on Amazon for $162 but nothing about that appeals. Gigabyte's Eagle version of the 6500 XT isn't overclocked but at least the card is a lot shorter -- it's around $190 on Amazon, though.

For the price and size, one may as well go with an RX 580, which are $120 on Amazon. Sure it won't be quite as fast as the 6500 XT in the latest games, but neither will it be that far off, and it's 26% cheaper.


Arguably, it did nothing wrong -- at the time, there was scope for a product in the market and it filled it.

However, they could have used the dregs of die bins for the Navi 23 to furnish that model. AMD could have disabled an entire Shader Engine and half the L3 cache (halving the number of memory controllers at the same time) to have a "Navi 24" die. It still would have been a better choice -- no complaints about the PCIe bus, no complaints over the number of video outputs, and no complaints of the lack of an encoder.

Given that there's no chip shortage now and AMD doesn't have any RNDA 3 models in this sector yet, it could easily update the RX 6500 XT with castrated Navi 23 dies to address matters.


That wouldn't work particularly well for graphics cards, though. The internal bandwidth requirements are far in excess of what Infinity Fabric can offer, even at the budget edge of the GPU spectrum.

"bandwidth here between the MCDs and GCD is 5.3TB/s"

That's not enough? I thought AMD already had a GPU for servers(instinct) with multiple GDCs linked together, even though it hasn't been released yet