57% of gamers are running on AMD Radeon graphics (Jon Peddie Research Publication)

http://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/57-per-cent-gamers-on-radeon

AMD have reacted to the reports of Nvidia’s massive growth in the last year by hitting back with some stats of their own. When you combine all the gamers running x86 systems - that’s PC and console combined - then well over half of them are running on machines with Radeon graphics at their heart

http://gfxspeak.com/2016/11/16/balance-power-gaming/

Last AMD card I owned was a ATI 4870.

I have the 290X served me brilliantly so far and still is fantastic

lol stats involving consoles.

my trusty old 5850 is going strong. cracking card. im waiting for vega before building my next PC. its a shame AMD dont have a direct competitor to the 1080 at the moment.

LOL.

Yea, provide stats with a section that really has no choice what gfx is running in their system.

Once again, Good work AMD.

Inb4 Nvidia shills.

The stats are skewed. But given that nvidia has 43%, that's big if the stats includes consoles.

EDIT: I made a mistake. That's a low 20%. But still, my point stands about the stats being skewed.

Heh you can't blame the consoles for having AMD cards.

MY trusty r290.. still running and running games like a boss.

lawl

I just brought a 480 a few weeks ago

Radeon 9800 Pro for me. It is the only Radeon card I ever owned. I had to RMA it once and the replacement had issues too. I never bought Radeon again. Never had hardware problems with Nvidia and I have owned many cards from them.

My two 4850's packed up on me, but got both exchanged... 5870 is still going in another machine... I bit hit and miss, with Nvidia I admit I haven't had any issues in the past, owned a GeForce 2 mx, a GeForce 4 ti 4800, GeForce 6800 GT and 8800 GTX, I just buy the card that offers the best price to performance, no brand loyalty. Got the r9 290x for great value over a year and a half ago so went with it over the GTX 970

> Consoles have AMD cards
> Consoles are massively underpowered

Make of that what you will

Now to me, that means you've bought a really, really old ass card that was a massive power hog and ran really hot.

lol sure man.

I brought a card that will give me close to scorpio performance. Mostly for Mass Effect 3 really. I don't even play PC that much but the pro was such a let down i decided to upgrade my media server into a gaming PC since I don't need a media server anymore lol. probably won't use it much after scorpio anyway

I bought a GTX 1070 which will give me better than Scorpio performance

I see Microsoft is sharing their PR services... The percentage include console sales? This has to be the PR spin of the year front runner.

the only gamers that buy amd for gaming are the ones who play nothing else but CSGO, dota and LoL.

43%er

AMD's profits really don't show this at all, they're doing more wrong than I thought.

Also, how do they know this? There are no actual figures available for the number of PC's being used for gaming and MS don't tell anyone how many consoles they've sold.

And an enormous portion of that stat doesn't have the ability to choose or change their GPU...

AMD didn't dismiss Jon Peddie Research Publication.

AMD desktop PC CPU needs to better contribute to the company's bottom line.

The main reason for using AMD CPUs are with IGPs while pure AMD CPU solution has been run down i.e. stuck at Piledriver while PC APUs has Steamroller and Excavator updates.

AMD's TSMC 16 nm FinFET fab allocation are all allocated towards Xbox One S, PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro, and zero for AMD PC GPUs. Note the one of many reasons why there's no high end PC Radeons with TSMC FinFET process technology.

All Global Foundry's full Polaris 11 with 16 CU was allocated to laptops e.g. Apple. PC RX-460 has cut-down version.

NVIDIA didn't match AMD's lower priced game console SoC.

NVIDIA Kepler has aged worst than AMD's GCN 1.1

NVIDIA Kepler has inferior Direct3D12 hardware feature set than GCN 1.0/1.1. Repeating NVIDIA RSX aging design problem.

ARM Cortex A15 is inferior to AMD Jaguar.

ARM Cortex A57 is still inferior to AMD Jaguar.

The main reason for SoC(System On Chip) is reduce cost e.g. labor cost to insert a GPU card. Would you insert 20 million GPU cards into a slot for free?

My youngest kid's PC has a 2 GB R9 380. My eldest kid has a 4 GB R9 290x. I have a 4 GB GTX 770.

Including consoles will skew the numbers, especially since console gamers arent given a choice.

Its still amazing to see this and know that Nvidia still leads the market.

PC gamers prefer the more versatile and powerful Nvidia cards.

This is like saying including PC, the Xbox One is the best selling video game console because of Windows.

This has bugged me all day...

Wasn't the PS3's GPU Nvidia based? Funny they completely ruled that out and only included AMD/ATI based consoles in their research.

"...we looked at the installed base of the latest consoles (Microsoft Xbox-One, Nintendo Wii and Wii U, and the Sony PS4" is crap as the only way to get 155 million AMD/ATI GPU console install base in 2010 is to included the X360 and probably the Gamecube. And yet they exclude the PS3.

"For the past seven years, the three major vendors installed base of GPUs for PC gaming declined slowly following the PC’s decline." - And after that quote from this "research" article this is just what I thought BS.

Presented table is for machines with X86 CPU NOT with PowerPC CPU. PS4 and XBO game consoles are like Apple's Mactel PCs but with a full garden wall.

Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U and PS3 uses PowerPC based CPUs which is not X86 based CPU.

NVIDIA wasn't willing to play ball with Sony's price quotation from AMD. AMD's 2-for-1 deal would have defeated NVIDIA's GPU + ARM CPU or NVIDIA's GPU + IBM CPU deals.

I can tell that joke was lost on you.

RX-480's 5.8 TFLOPS is mostly memory bandwidth bound by 250 GB/s i.e. it needs Async compute for Async memory access away from Sync compute's memory access hence reducing AMD's memory access bound issues.

As for RX-480, any overclock editions will be bounded by effective memory bandwidth.

For reference RX-480

((((256 bit x 8000Mhz) / 8) / 1024) x Polaris's 77.6 percent memory bandwidth efficiency) x Polaris's delta memory compression booster 1.36X = 263.84 GB/s

--

Scorpio's "more than 320 GB/s memory bandwidth" claim.

((((384 bit x GDDR5-6900 Mhz) / 8) / 1024) x Polaris's 77.6 percent memory bandwidth efficiency) x Polaris's delta memory compression booster 1.36X = 341 .34 GB/s

PS;

((384 bit x GDDR5-6900 Mhz) / 8) / 1024) = 323 GB/s physical memory bandwidth.

((384 bit x GDDR5-7000 Mhz) / 8) / 1024) = 328 GB/s physical memory bandwidth.

Comparison.

The memory bandwidth gap between Fury X and R9-290 = 1.266X (random textures)

With Fury X, it's memory compression is inferior to NVIDIA's Maxwell. 980 Ti's 5.6 TFLOPS has Fury X's level effective memory bandwidth i.e. it's TFLOPS is less memory bandwidth bound.

The FLOPS gap between Fury X and R9-290 = 1.48X

The frame rate gap between R9-290X and Fury X is 1.19X.

Random texture memory bandwidth gap's 1.266X factor is closer to frame rate gap's 1.19X.FLOPS gap between R9-290X (5.8 TFLOPS)and Fury X (8.6 TFLOPS) plays very little part with frame rate gap.

With 980 Ti (5.63 TFLOPS), it's superior memory compression enables it to match Fury X's results.

Conclusion: When there's enough FLOPS for a particular workload, effective memory bandwidth is better prediction method for higher grade GPUs.

-------------------

Example of near brain dead Xbox One ports running PC GPUs.

Frame rate difference between 980 Ti and R9-290X is 1.31X with Forza 6 Apex

Effective memory bandwidth between 980 Ti and R9-290X is 1.38X

Forza 6 Apex is another example for effective memory bandwidth influencing the frame rate result.

Scorpio is like a factory over clocked R9-390X GPU solution + updated hardware features.

@ronvalencia: I didn't dismiss the JPR research, I asked how they got the information. It's a valid question when two thirds of their source information is not readily available.

>Consoles are a price:performance machine

>If they had Nvidia they'd be even more underpowered

I'm just saying that AMD hasn't competed with Nvidia in the high end market for a loooong time.

And frankly, that's a shame.

@ronvalencia said:

@arunsunk said:

Wasn't the PS3's GPU Nvidia based? Funny they completely ruled that out and only included AMD/ATI based consoles in their research.

"...we looked at the installed base of the latest consoles (Microsoft Xbox-One, Nintendo Wii and Wii U, and the Sony PS4" is crap as the only way to get 155 million AMD/ATI GPU console install base in 2010 is to included the X360 and probably the Gamecube. And yet they exclude the PS3.

"For the past seven years, the three major vendors installed base of GPUs for PC gaming declined slowly following the PC’s decline." - And after that quote from this "research" article this is just what I thought BS.

Presented table is for machines with X86 CPU NOT with PowerPC CPU. PS4 and XBO game consoles are like Apple's Mactel PCs but with a full garden wall.

Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U and PS3 uses PowerPC based CPUs which is not X86 based CPU.

So again how can there be 155 million x86 consoles in 2010 with AMD/ATI gpus when consoles were not x86 until current gen unless they are including all AMD/PowerPC based console systems? Please explain to me how this 'research' article is not full of shit.

They specifically mention the Wii and Wii U as modern consoles in the list of the install base they are using. How can they specifically list PowerPC based systems and omit a Nvidia based console because it is not x86 based?

This researcher is so piss poor that they included the Wii and WiiU as x86 consoles and omit Nvidia based console because it is not x86 based?

@arunsunk said:

@ronvalencia said:

@arunsunk said:

Wasn't the PS3's GPU Nvidia based? Funny they completely ruled that out and only included AMD/ATI based consoles in their research.

"...we looked at the installed base of the latest consoles (Microsoft Xbox-One, Nintendo Wii and Wii U, and the Sony PS4" is crap as the only way to get 155 million AMD/ATI GPU console install base in 2010 is to included the X360 and probably the Gamecube. And yet they exclude the PS3.

"For the past seven years, the three major vendors installed base of GPUs for PC gaming declined slowly following the PC’s decline." - And after that quote from this "research" article this is just what I thought BS.

Presented table is for machines with X86 CPU NOT with PowerPC CPU. PS4 and XBO game consoles are like Apple's Mactel PCs but with a full garden wall.

Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U and PS3 uses PowerPC based CPUs which is not X86 based CPU.

So again how can there be 155 million x86 consoles in 2010 with AMD/ATI gpus when consoles were not x86 until current gen unless they are including all AMD/PowerPC based console systems? Please explain to me how this 'research' article is not full of shit.

They specifically mention the Wii and Wii U as modern consoles in the list of the install base they are using. How can they specifically list PowerPC based systems and omit a Nvidia based console because it is not x86 based?

This researcher is so piss poor that they included the Wii and WiiU as x86 consoles and omit Nvidia based console because it is not x86 based?

Table 2 does NOT have X86 label which includes Wii, Wii U, Xbox 360. Ignore this table.

Table 3 includes IGP + X86 CPU and GPU + X86 CPU combination.

@ronvalencia:

Table 3 is just Table 2 + Table 1 added together so why should Table 2 be ignored? (101.81(T1_AMD)+307.08(T2)=408.89(T3)

Table 2 is the shipment data for consoles which they gathered from company financial reports to get the installed base of gaming consoles.

Table 3 claims to be the cumulative install based of x86 machines but as it is just T1+T2 added together that is utter BS as T2 included non-x86 machines.

Unless you have another explanation for the 307 million increase from PC x86 GPU numbers to achieve Table 3's 2016 AMD numbers, Table 2 is entirely relevant.

To patch NVIDIA RSX's aging design, PS3's games has used IBM SPEs for vertex/branch/pixel shader raster rendering boost which is not NVIDIA IP. PS3's rendering hardware is not 100 percent NVIDIA IP.

From https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1460125/

------------------------

"I could go on for pages listing the types of things the spu's are used for to make up for the machines aging gpu, which may be 7 series NVidia but that's basically a tweaked 6 series NVidia for the most part. But I'll just type a few off the top of my head:"

1) Two ppu/vmx units

There are three ppu/vmx units on the 360, and just one on the PS3. So any load on the 360's remaining two ppu/vmx units must be moved to spu.

2) Vertex culling

You can look back a few years at my first post talking about this, but it's common knowledge now that you need to move as much vertex load as possible to spu otherwise it won't keep pace with the 360.

3) Vertex texture sampling

You can texture sample in vertex shaders on 360 just fine, but it's unusably slow on PS3. Most multi platform games simply won't use this feature on 360 to make keeping parity easier, but if a dev does make use of it then you will have no choice but to move all such functionality to spu.

4) Shader patching

Changing variables in shader programs is cake on the 360. Not so on the PS3 because they are embedded into the shader programs. So you have to use spu's to patch your shader programs.

5) Branching

You never want a lot of branching in general, but when you do really need it the 360 handles it fine, PS3 does not. If you are stuck needing branching in shaders then you will want to move all such functionality to spu.

6) Shader inputs

You can pass plenty of inputs to shaders on 360, but do it on PS3 and your game will grind to a halt. You will want to move all such functionality to spu to minimize the amount of inputs needed on the shader programs.

7) MSAA alternatives

Msaa runs full speed on 360 gpu needing just cpu tiling calculations. Msaa on PS3 gpu is very slow. You will want to move msaa to spu as soon as you can.

8. Post processing

360 is unified architecture meaning post process steps can often be slotted into gpu idle time. This is not as easily doable on PS3, so you will want to move as much post process to spu as possible.

9) Load balancing

360 gpu load balances itself just fine since it's unified. If the load on a given frame shifts to heavy vertex or heavy pixel load then you don't care. Not so on PS3 where such load shifts will cause frame drops. You will want to shift as much load as possible to spu to minimize your peak load on the gpu.

10) Half floats

You can use full floats just fine on the 360 gpu. On the PS3 gpu they cause performance slowdowns. If you really need/have to use shaders with many full floats then you will want to move such functionality over to the spu's.

11) Shader array indexing

You can index into arrays in shaders on the 360 gpu no problem. You can't do that on PS3. If you absolutely need this functionality then you will have to either rework your shaders or move it all to spu.

Etc, etc, etc...

@ronvalencia: You know the more I've read into what's been posted this thread, the more I think this is complete nonsense and some kind of AMD biased PR stunt. The figures are way too cherry picked for them to be accurate or true.

• There were no X86 based consoles pre 2012 (The Wii, Xbox 360 and PS3 were proprietary)
• It also concludes that every single console and GPU sold since 2010 is still in use
• There is nothing to show where they got all their numbers from, especially for PC's used for gaming and number of Xbox One's sold to date.

It's really just a pile of BS (to quote @arunsunk) with numbers that have been extrapolated from old data and the missing data has been, shall we call it, 'estimated'.

@ronvalencia: Sorry about such a late reply but I have been rather busy.

I was going to point out some things about your last post but it seems pointless now as the article is no long available from the link provided. So it may have indeed been a farce or at the very least a extremely flawed piece of research having been removed.

@GarGx1: As the link no longer brings up the article it may indeed have been a PR stunt.

• PS3's graphics capability is not 100 % percent NVIDIA. 5 SPEs has shader power similar to 7800 GTX.
• X360's graphics capability has less patching from CPU.

It's easy to remove PowerPC game consoles from 2013/2014/2015/2016 columns. Using 2016 data, AMD has about 214.37 million with X86 CPUs.

For NV vs AMD GPUs, 144 million + 214 million = 358 million

214 / 358 = 59.7 percent.

Let's use those figures and break it down a bit more and extrapolate the X86 based consoles from it.

AMD PC GPU's = 101 million (according the data you posted)

PS4's sold to date ~45 - 50 million

Xbox One's sold to date (let's be super generous here) ~30 - 35 million

Wii U is still a power PC based system and is not X86. So from that we're short by around ~35 - 45 million units or are we using the normal JPR data collection process by including everything from AMD but removing Nvidia products (and of course the typical analyst tool. If you can't find it, make it up)

Jon Peddie Research (JPR) data for GPUs is focused exclusively on the PC market, which was the traditional one for GPUs before the advent of the use of GPUs in the data center. Thus JPR's results only include discrete GPUs that are present in graphics cards (called by them add-in boards), as well as discrete GPUs present in notebook systems. Also counted are processors, such as AMD's APUs and many Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) processors for mobile applications that include on-board graphics processing.

This increases the count of AMD's GPU shipments, relative to Nvidia. But not counted are Nvidia's shipments of GPUs for high performance computing and deep learning applications in the data center. Also not counted are Nvidia's shipments of Tegra processors, which also include on-board GPUs.

Source

If we've learned anything since 2007, it's that market share statistics can almost be ignored wholesale next to profit share statistics. I'd be more interested in seeing how each company is doing relative to their share of the market.

Be nice to see it broken out by platform, too (console vs PC, really).

Hardware sales PC v Consoles (combined totals)

Discrete GPU breakdown (AMD/Nvidia split)

The GPU industry saw a 35.6% increase in discrete GPU shipments which will be reported by Jon Peddie Research on a later date. NVIDIA and AMD remain the dominant forces in the discrete graphics market. Previous quarter, NVIDIA had a market share of 70.0% while AMD had a market share of 29.9%. With NVIDIA’s successful quarter, we are expecting NVIDIA to gain quite a bit market share from AMD.

Source (Accuracy may be questionable)

Combining consoles with this makes it rather uninteresting.