Nvidia reaches historic 92% GPU market share, leaves AMD and Intel far behind

[johnwinter87]

Market share is one thing — mindshare is another. Nvidia's lead feels less about actual product value lately and more about momentum, branding, and enterprise demand. Still wild to see them hit 92%, though.

 

[ruddevil]

That % will only get higher. Gamers on the fence like me, who's still rendering on a 7-year-old RX 580 8GB, are currently in the moment-of-truth phase. Newer games no longer run (Doom: The Dark Ages) while AMD's recent offerings have been priced over the top relative to their performance (especially when measured as fps per watt). After almost 2 decades, it looks like I will be switching back to the green team.

 

[Mihai S]

So math isn’t your strong suit then?

Regardless of your wordplay to make “millions” only 2 million, 92% means 92%… if you give AMD 750,000 sales then nvidia sold 8,625,000.

You could have delivered your rebuttal in a classier fashion, mate. No need to call people stupid. As consumers, we are all on the same team here.

 

[waclark]

For me, what I care about is my ability to buy a new in box graphics card from an authorized retailer. That was not easy to do in Q1'2025 which makes me wonder how the revenue numbers were historically large. I also feel like there were weeks when the 9070xt was easier to get than the 5070ti+ cards so not sure how it ends up at 92% vs. 8%.

Doesn't that kind of explain it though? If they are hard to get it means they are selling. If they are easy to get, they are not selling as well. I do get your point, if you can't get it, you buy something else.

 

[Squid Surprise]

You could have delivered your rebuttal in a classier fashion, mate. No need to call people stupid. As consumers, we are all on the same team here.

True… but this was more fun… if you don’t have a thick skin on the internet, you might want to stop using it

 

[SRB]

Yeah right. AMD abandoned high end GPUs around 2010 when buyers made clear they prefer Nvidia despite AMD being much better. So why situation would be different at this time? Basically AMD decided that CPU buyers are much more intelligent than GPU buyers and decided to bet on CPUs. In other words, if AMD has better CPU than Intel has, sales will be up. However having better GPU than Nvidia has means basically nothing.

Not really, If you really look at what Nvidia has done, it has little to do with "incredible hardware that no one on the planet can get close to". The fact of the matter is that Nvidia has used the money it rakes is to keep making bigger and badder monolithic chips. They use their size and clout much like Apple to beat up suppliers for lower prices in exchange for volume in order to make the chips borderline affordable.

What Nvidia had done was mentioned earlier.....unlike AMD and Intel, Nvidia saw the value in software and has put in the time and effort to build an Apple like software/hardware ecosystem, that is not only protected by patents, but more importantly, the software copyrights to Cuda, DLSS, etc. which creates far more vendor lock in than the hardware ever would.

AMD is way late to the software game, and there is no easy way to break into AI interface/control software without stepping on CUDA one way or another. At least not so far. Intel left all their software up to Microsoft for the most part, which leaves them where their at while Microsoft is hell bent to switch to ARM so they can get their piece of the hardware pie.

Regardless, this leaves gamers and AI companies paying Nvidia's ransom to get and stay in the game.

 

[SRB]

That % will only get higher. Gamers on the fence like me, who's still rendering on a 7-year-old RX 580 8GB, are currently in the moment-of-truth phase. Newer games no longer run (Doom: The Dark Ages) while AMD's recent offerings have been priced over the top relative to their performance (especially when measured as fps per watt). After almost 2 decades, it looks like I will be switching back to the green team.

Out of sheer curiosity, do you really care about performanc per watt? Sure, I look at the power draw specs like everyone else, but unless your talking about something outrageously higher (FX-9590, 14900K) that winds up being a space heater, that spec is fairly low on my list.

More to the point, all things being equal, more or less, performance per doller outweighs most other considerations. If I save $200, I'm not going to worry if the cheaper one gets 90fps vs 102fps.

 

[brucek]

Doesn't that kind of explain it though? If they are hard to get it means they are selling. If they are easy to get, they are not selling as well. I do get your point, if you can't get it, you buy something else.

Certainly plausible without any other information. But the industry news at this time was the launch volumes were historic lows, that the 5090 may have shipped in total 4 or at most 5 digit quantity globally, that the 5080 was maybe only a few times better, etc. Of course I have no direct information and maybe some of that was disinformation intended to create purchase panic. The mainstream models were not yet launched.

I still suspect part of the disconnect is that my perception of "sold in Q1" could be very different from Nvidia's accounting "revenue recognized in Q1", either forwards or backwards from my sense. I.e., did Nvidia maybe provide 3 million switch 2 GPUs for Nintendo's preperatory manufacturing in this quarter and book the revenue for it? Were large amounts of GPUs for not yet built or maybe even not yet launched models already sold to AIB partners and recognized even though they were not on the shelf?

 

[Mihai S]

True… but this was more fun… if you don’t have a thick skin on the internet, you might want to stop using it

Nope… thin skin or not, it’s still on us to treat others with respect.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Nope… thin skin or not, it’s still on us to treat others with respect.

Respect is earned, not given… and when online, that’s doubly true.

 

[Mihai S]

Respect is earned, not given… and when online, that’s doubly true.

Bro, you can spin that buzzword BS all you want…

 

[Squid Surprise]

Bro, you can spin that buzzword BS all you want…

I will like a record baby!

 

[ruddevil]

Out of sheer curiosity, do you really care about performanc per watt? Sure, I look at the power draw specs like everyone else, but unless your talking about something outrageously higher (FX-9590, 14900K) that winds up being a space heater, that spec is fairly low on my list.

More to the point, all things being equal, more or less, performance per doller outweighs most other considerations. If I save $200, I'm not going to worry if the cheaper one gets 90fps vs 102fps.

I have an ITX build and I don't plan on rebuilding an entire system just to fit in a new GPU. I recently replaced the CPU from 1st gen Ryzen with the 4th gen and upgraded the RAM size+frequency. Now the next step is to upgrade the GPU. I need to fit that new GPU within the existing power limit (both wattage and heat). I have checked that the 9060 XT 16GB would fit in, just barely. However, with a price difference of only $60 the RTX 5060 Ti 16GB offers more performance with less power and heat, so more headroom there. I still want to go AMD way as I never had any issue with their products. RTX 4060 tempted me, but I said I'd give one more release to see what AMD can come up with. I'll probably wait for another month before deciding.