How many GPUs do AMD actually sell?

1 : Anonymous2021/10/02 15:27 ID: pzxahr

Everyone always goes on about "market share" compared with Nvidia, because it's always been really low, but for as long as I remember AMD graphics cards have always been expensive and difficult to get hold of. The 290X was constantly sold out, the Fury X was hard to get hold of, Vega and now Navi are all in the same boat, but despite these apparently consistently stellar sales figures AMD's market share is consistently in the 14-16% range? It doesn't make any sense. I can't shake the feeling that AMD is constantly behind Nvidia in terms of market share purely because Nvidia produce orders of magnitude more cards than AMD.

2 : Anonymous2021/10/02 16:37 ID: hf457t1

According to the latest JPR summary the total 2Q21 GPU sales were ~120M and we sold about 17% of that (NVidia 15%, Intel the rest) so maybe 20M/quarter or 80M/year from AMD.

Most of those would have been integrated dGPUs - IIRC total dGPU sales were on the order of 11M for 2Q21 with ~2.2M of those from AMD, or ~9M per year.

So yes, more than two 🙂

It's tough to draw good patterns from the last several years because for most of that mining was a big factor and AMD cards had better mining performance for the dollar and for the watt, which drove prices up to what miners were willing to pay and killed availability.

Right now we are all supply-limited so definitely could sell more cards if we could get the wafers (and our board partners could get the other components) to make them.

ID: hf461r1

I think if AMD has been affected by miners for an unbroken 8 years and AMD are still not adjusting for this that in itself is a failing.

ID: hf4ge98

If it had been 8 unbroken years or anything like that then I might agree but that is not what happens.

During a mining boom the miners buy more cards than our board partners can make then in the subsequent bust they dump all those cards on the market, prices crash, and our sales drop significantly.

If anyone builds enough capacity and inventory to keep up with a mining boom they run a real risk of going out of business during the next bust.

At the risk of stating the obvious it's not just AMD affected by mining - this just happens to be an AMD forum... and it has historically been the same fabs and board partners that have the capacity limits for both NVidia and AMD.

3 : Anonymous2021/10/02 16:35 ID: hf44vg3

I believe they also produce all the gpus in the ps5s and xbox series x/s. So that takes away from units being distributed as pc gpus.

ID: hf5i117

sony and microsoft would need those SOCS even if amd wouldnt have designed them so that production wouold be taken away all the same.

4 : Anonymous2021/10/02 15:51 ID: hf3yr6t

I'm gonna be real with you, it's at least two.

ID: hf45poj

you could say even three! There's an RX 470 on my pc.

5 : Anonymous2021/10/02 16:21 ID: hf42v01

dont forget about the cards that goes to virtualization servers, services like stadia are soaking a lot of hardware production and most of them use amd

ID: hf45ljc

I guess, but I’m also omitting the cards Nvidia sell to enterprise

ID: hf5kim4

Pretty sure nvidia is far outselling amd in enterprise and data centers. Their data center segment revenue is almost in par with "gaming" now, which is huge to say the least, even with higher prices for enterprise cards

6 : Anonymous2021/10/02 18:43 ID: hf4mx64

Nvidia produce orders of magnitude more cards than AMD.

CPU company produces less GPU's than GPU company? Shocker.

7 : Anonymous2021/10/02 15:59 ID: hf3zvjm

Over at RadeonGPUs you can see weekly sales figures from Mindfactory.

8 : Anonymous2021/10/02 16:33 ID: hf44k3h

I can't shake the feeling that AMD is constantly behind Nvidia in terms of market share purely because Nvidia produce orders of magnitude more cards than AMD.

AMD decides how many wafers to order. If they thought they could make more profit selling more GPUs, they'd order more wafers. Nvidia doesn't have any particular advantage in terms of production capacity.

ID: hf45txa

I’m sure, but they’ve had a solid 8 years of shortage so I’m not sure I agree with their assessment if so

ID: hf48p0k

They haven't had a solid 8 years of shortage, or really anything close to that. Your memory is of a few cards you wanted, because those cards were the best things AMD made over a decade. Cards you're forgetting:

5700XT was easy to get at MSRP within a couple weeks of launch. Radeon VII was easy to get below MSRP. Only miners wanted this card. RX 580 was massively overproduced, leading to stacks of $200 580s. To this day, gamers are still crying about how they aren't getting a $200 upgrade over the 580, like AMD ever intended to sell that part so cheap.

Buyers who want enthusiast tier performance from an AMD card are rare birds. Nvidia buyers tend to be less price sensitive and more willing to buy the top card. What AMD does is make a halo product, usually in quite small volumes, so they can look competitive with Nvidia. Then they focus on undercutting Nvidia pricing on midrange and entry level cards. So, while you're wondering why 290Xs are so hard to find, AMD is moving millions of units of the 280X and 270X.

ID: hf49qq3

It is not 8 years of shortage. Mining goes in waves, and AMD can only guess if their increased production will be needed some 6+ months in advance. When last mining boom ended a few years ago, there was a serious mass of GPUs in the channel (GPU chips already sold by AMD), but not enough consumer demand for new cards that would use them. That made it hard for AMD to sell any new GPU production for a few quarters.

9 : Anonymous2021/10/02 16:38 ID: hf45api

Fury X was hard to get hold of, Vega and now Navi are all in the same boat,

Fury and Vega entered the market already being not only late but much inferior to the competition, so they had no reason to "flood the market" with these cards that probably didn't have great margins to begin with.

RDNA was truly a victim of the word of mouth that spread due to the multiple instability issues that plagued for the first year of its lifetime; People in this sub would love to point fingers to people's systems, old/bad drivers, memory timings, PSUs, and whatever other excuse under the sun they can, but when the "issues" disappear by switching an RX 5700XT with a 2070 Super, it doesn't matter if the problem was not completely AMD's fault, because the perception is that the "crappy AMD GPU" doesn't work and switching to Nvidia fixed it.

RDNA2 has just been completely cockblocked by Zen 3 CPUs (higher margins) and Console APUs (contracts that need to be fulfilled). It had a GOOD chance of taking over and flooding the market during these trying times, but AMD decided to prioritize revenue over GPU market share (wisely, I might add).

If you want to see AMD steal some actual market share, they need to get feature parity (no, FSR is not enough and RT performance needs to be better) and they need to actually commit to volume production; Drivers are mostly there in terms of quality and cadence, unlike the RDNA days, so I think that nobody is fuzzing over that anymore.

Intel is poised to steal a lot of market from both Nvidia and AMD if they can pull off enough volume production AND passable enough drivers to be considered working without major issues; They have XeSS on the pipeline (XMX version, not the DP4a fallback), so they just need to secure good game partnerships early on to implement it on the game engines themselves like nvidia did, use their pockets to promote some existing games patching it in, and not tank RT performance completely when enabled.

ID: hf467kt

Vega and Fury X weren’t really worse than the 1070/1080 and 980 Ti respectively. People just hated vega because they wanted a 1080 Ti competitor and it wasn’t that.

ID: hf489fy

Vega was over a year late, not particularly price competitive, and with many of the promised features still broken or not implemented to this day. I don't know how else you can categorize that other than a massive failure.

Fury X wasn't quite at base 980 Ti level consistently enough to be considered at that level of performance thanks to the middling GCN drivers at that time, was marketed as an "overclocker's dream" (as opposed to the 980 Ti that actually overclocked like crazy), the price was most definitely not enticing to any but the more fervent fans, and custom designs good enough to fix the issues of the stock cooler were comparatively late to market.

Don't forget that this is when streaming was taking off in a big way and both Maxwell and Pascal improved upon their encoders relative to Kepler (even if they weren't nearly as good as turing) as opposed to GCN.

10 : Anonymous2021/10/02 19:01 ID: hf4pcap

Yeah I've always seen that too. They are usually marked up or sold by scalpers/third party sellers. I've almost never seen them at MSRP, and a lot of the time the MSRP is also a bit of a premium compared to an equivalent Nvidia card.

11 : Anonymous2021/10/02 20:06 ID: hf4yaw4

What’s fascinating from this response is that the logical conclusion is that you all think that AMD ARE making plenty of gpus, but no one is buying them because Nvidia are that much better… not a response I expected from this subreddit if I’m honest.

ID: hf5639j

You're really reading strange things into this.

What's fascinating though it that you posted from one handle then make replies from another.


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x