Nvidia Threatens to Become A Monopoly

[SickBeast]

The iPad Air 2 does threaten laptops. My parents just bought one instead of a laptop. For $500 it's hard to beat, and it does pretty much everything a laptop can do. It's really simple to use for my parents who are older. Good luck getting a retina display on a laptop for $500. Same goes for something as portable. People don't buy laptops or computers any more. Everyone I know is into phones and tablets.

[RolloTheGreat]

So has nvidia with Titan.  That doesn't mean that every consumer that wants an intel or nvidia chip pays $1000 or anything remotely close to it and yet they still get unbeatable performance.  There is nothing on the market from intel/nvidia's competitors capable of touching 970 or i5 let alone anything higher.

GStanford, how can this be with the terrible monopolies going on?! Those parts you mention cost $200-$300. and yet are better than all of the competing parts?

Maybe some of teh intarwebz finance gurus need to explain to NVIDIA and intel how this monopoly stuff works?

This is another thing people forget:

http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/product/lifecycle/

Which part of the curve are personal computers on? Maturity at best, decline at worst. They've gone through their boom period where everyone was eagerly buying them and the ads were all over tv.

The company with the monopoly on VCR production can't sell them for the $500 they used to, and PC parts are somewhat the same. While we all still need X86 pc as work devices, the market has been eroded by installed user base and incursions by other types of devices for those who mainly want web, lite gaming, and non office apps.

[Picao84]

SickBeast, it's not him. What he said went over your head. You didn't understand the concept, and in your frustration, lashed out at Rollo. Why did you do that instead of taking the time (proper discourse) to sort out the understanding?
There are issues for certain. They may just not be Rollo's. Sorry.

Lalalala. Keysplayr, are you here to discuss the issue at hand or to play Rollo's bodyguard? Because so far that is 90% of what you did on this thread. Is this now the nVIDIA version of Anandtech Forums?

Anyone that knows Economy 101 knows that a monopoly is bad for consumers. Rollo is arguing otherwise just for the sake of arguing. He is not even making sense himself, since he accused Sickbeast of "Your position is indefensible because all you have are guesses.". What he himself is doing is also guesses. He is GUESSING that nVIDIA having a monopoly will not change the status quo and accusing anyone else that has a different opinion of not knowing what they are speaking about! Even when he is presented with a FACT: nVIDIA launched the GTX280 at $650, thinking that AMD would not have nothing to counter. That was already Monopoly mentality at work. We have seen it! Its not a guess! He knowingly ignores that just to make his oppinion the last!

And still, Keyplayr, you see me and SickBeast as going personal and Rollo not? Stop the hypocrisy. You are just destroying ABT.. again.

Plus Rollo, while the CPU market might as well reached a point of "good enough", the GPU market is a totally different story. So you putting Intel and nVIDIA in the same basket does not make any sense. You like to think you are the eloquent here but sorry, you are just the clown. Some people wanted you back here because "eh he is fun", not because "eh, he is an interesting guy with good views". But you already know that, don't you? You just enjoy it. Congratulations in ruining yet another forum. How is the count going? 25? 50? Have fun.

[SickBeast]

Pwn3d

[RolloTheGreat]

So, nobody has any answer to apparent contradiction of the OP:

People used to say the same thing about intel CPUs and AMD CPUs. (We must support AMD or intel will rob us)

Yet prices of CPUs have only dropped, and CPUs have only gotten better, since intel re-established dominance in 2006. intel have raised their market share from 74% to 90%+ in that time, and no sane person has any reason to buy a current AMD CPU.

Yet intel offers a wide range of products from $100-$300 that offer better performance than anything else on the planet, during times when a tank of gas or a decent dinner for two has often cost $100..

Even Nvidia, the subject of the thread, released their GTX970 at $329 when they knew it was better than every AMD GPU on the planet. (some of which cost much more- so Nvidia did not price based on performance/value- they priced where they thought they would sell product fast)

The only conclusion I can draw is some people want to encourage people to buy inferior AMD parts. Given what happened when intel established virtual monopoly in the CPU market, and my knowledge of business/economics (hold BS-Business), I'm personally not very worried about what happens to AMD in the GPU market.

[Picao84]

So, nobody has any answer to apparent contradiction of the OP:

People used to say the same thing about intel CPUs and AMD CPUs. (We must support AMD or intel will rob us)

Yet prices of CPUs have only dropped, and CPUs have only gotten better, since intel re-established dominance in 2006. intel have raised their market share from 74% to 90%+ in that time, and no sane person has any reason to buy a current AMD CPU.

Yet intel offers a wide range of products from $100-$300 that offer better performance than anything else on the planet, during times when a tank of gas or a decent dinner for two has often cost $100..

Even Nvidia, the subject of the thread, released their GTX970 at $329 when they knew it was better than every AMD GPU on the planet. (some of which cost much more- so Nvidia did not price based on performance/value- they priced where they thought they would sell product fast)

The only conclusion I can draw is some people want to encourage people to buy inferior AMD parts. Given what happened when intel established virtual monopoly in the CPU market, and my knowledge of business/economics (hold BS-Business), I'm personally not very worried about what happens to AMD in the GPU market.

Last things I say on this thread:
1) You keep trying to compare what is not comparable (Intel is facing indirect competition from ARM because of the trends changing from PC/Laptops to Tablets/Phones; none of that is happening with nVIDIA.. mobile gaming is casual at best). For someone who hold a BS-Business, your so-called analyses are pretty poor, since you try to mix companies, from different sectors, in different contexts, in the same bag. Plus you keep ignoring facts that do not agree with your theory.
2) For someone who holds a BS-Business its very strange for me to have to explain what a "spinoff" is, since you read it as what ATI did, selling its mobile unit to Qualcomm (on the thread about Tegra)
3) Good try to turn this thread into nVIDIA vs AMD bullshit. My Core i5 4590 + my GTX750Ti sitting here next to me do not agree. Again, if you hold a BS-Business, you should know there are other ways to deal with a monopoly, which do not involve helping the underdog. The underdog is the underdog for a reason: it could not compete and throwing money at it would not help either.
4) Lets see in two years, when AMD is probably no more, how will nVIDIA act, if not "threatened" by any other company, shall we?

[SteelCrysis]

Monopolies can be bad, not will. Nice try.

[RolloTheGreat]

Picao84 has made up his mind that all monopolies are evil and hurt consumers, who are we to argue with him?

Intel and nvidia are defacto monopolies right now and I'm certainly not hurting.

There doesn't seem much point in noting otherwise, to be sure.

[SickBeast]

Please don't note otherwise. Please.

[RolloTheGreat]

Please don't note otherwise. Please.

(sound of breathing in tin can)

[SickBeast]

Just out of curiousity, do you and Keysplayr ever disagree? You were clearly wrong in this thread and yet he backed you up and trolled me.

[RolloTheGreat]

Just out of curiousity, do you and Keysplayr ever disagree?  You were clearly wrong in this thread and yet he backed you up and trolled me.

You mean you were clearly right in your guesses about the future?

Did I pull a Rip Van Winkle and it's a few years later, your guesses and speculation were right?

I'm with Gstanford, if we're living in the post AMD monopoly days:

[SickBeast]

All I will give you is that things are not absolutely terrible. Things could be much worse. You guys are correct in stating that Intel has not really raised prices and performance has generally gone up. I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic. I just think that if AMD were able to offer better high performance parts it would force Intel to give us more for less. I don't see why you are arguing that point. Monopolies are bad for consumers. Why are you getting in a festive mood about it? It really makes me wonder about you, Rollo.

[SickBeast]

I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic.

Feel free to design and manufacture your own CPU that does better.  Hint - ripping out the iGPU and replacing it with 4 more cores software will barely use won't get you there - it will worsen performance for some cases like video encoding that can utilize QuickSync.

Ok, then how about making their low end CPUs unlocked quad cores...

Again, with proper competition, that is what we would have by now.

[RolloTheGreat]

I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic.

Feel free to design and manufacture your own CPU that does better.  Hint - ripping out the iGPU and replacing it with 4 more cores software will barely use won't get you there - it will worsen performance for some cases like video encoding that can utilize QuickSync.

Reposted for obvious truth.

AMD was horribly, tragically wrong about "moar corez" being the path forward. For most things computer gaming related, IPC >>> cores in a big way.

Observe the beat down a 3GHz 4 core 2500K gives AMDs 8 core, 5GHz, 8b Watt monstrosity:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/har...-5ghz.html

[SickBeast]

I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic.

Feel free to design and manufacture your own CPU that does better.  Hint - ripping out the iGPU and replacing it with 4 more cores software will barely use won't get you there - it will worsen performance for some cases like video encoding that can utilize QuickSync.

Reposted for obvious truth.

AMD was horribly, tragically wrong about "moar corez" being the path forward. For most things computer gaming related, IPC >>> cores in a big way.

Observe the beat down a 3GHz 4 core 2500K gives AMDs 8 core, 5GHz, 8b Watt monstrosity:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/har...-5ghz.html

I'm not saying more cores just for the sake of it. Of course more IPC would be better, it just seems as though they have really hit the wall. If they get 10% more each year they are doing well.

I just think that it would be great for us to have affordable 6 and 8 core Intel CPUs. With proper competition from AMD we would have this. It would instantly double how much computing power we have in our rigs.

Do you not agree that quad core entry level processors would be amazing?

---

I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic.

Feel free to design and manufacture your own CPU that does better.  Hint - ripping out the iGPU and replacing it with 4 more cores software will barely use won't get you there - it will worsen performance for some cases like video encoding that can utilize QuickSync.

Ok, then how about making their low end CPUs unlocked quad cores...

Again, with proper competition, that is what we would have by now.

Budget products are always stripped back no matter what industry you are in or there would be no reason for consumers to consider purchasing the middle and highend products.

KIA should start rebadging Mercedes Benz vehicles and sell them at current KIA price points too......  

Yes, well, we have been stuck with crappy dual core entry level CPUs for years and years now. IMO it's about time that we had quad cores at the entry level with the enthusiast parts having 8 cores or maybe even more.

[SickBeast]

Well, the good news is that nVidia is soon going to challenge Intel in terms of CPU performance. At least one monopoly has a chance of shaking up another one. What would be really interesting is if Intel creates a high end GPU. Then both problems would be solved. Both scenarios are quite possible as well.

[RolloTheGreat]

Speaking as someone who spent several years with a high end unlocked intel hex core, I can tell you 6/8 cores is pretty meaningless in gaming.

[SickBeast]

I doubt Denver is going to have much impact on the desktop unless nvidia uses it the way they originally intended to - as an x86 emulator.

Well it seems as though nVidia is starting to port many PC games over to Android. Once their CPU is good enough they will be able to use their discreet GPUs to create an Android gaming platform that can compete with PCs. Denver is already pretty close to Intel in terms of IPC. They just need to improve it more, add more cores, and ramp up the clockspeed. I say in 2 years they are going to put up a really good fight.

---

Speaking as someone who spent several years with a high end unlocked intel hex core, I can tell you 6/8 cores is pretty meaningless in gaming.

Fair enough. 4 unlocked cores sure would be nice in the low end setups, though.

[RolloTheGreat]

Fair enough.  4 unlocked cores sure would be nice in the low end setups, though.

$200 is pretty reasonable for unlocked quad, IMHO.

NVIDIA competing with intel is a long way off. Enterprise will never embrace Android, and intel chips are cheap enough they don't need to ditch Windows.

[ocre]

Last things I say on this thread:
1) You keep trying to compare what is not comparable (Intel is facing indirect competition from ARM because of the trends changing from PC/Laptops to Tablets/Phones; none of that is happening with nVIDIA.. mobile gaming is casual at best). For someone who hold a BS-Business, your so-called analyses are pretty poor, since you try to mix companies, from different sectors, in different contexts, in the same bag. Plus you keep ignoring facts that do not agree with your theory.
2) For someone who holds a BS-Business its very strange for me to have to explain what a "spinoff" is, since you read it as what ATI did, selling its mobile unit to Qualcomm (on the thread about Tegra)
3) Good try to turn this thread into nVIDIA vs AMD bullshit. My Core i5 4590 + my GTX750Ti sitting here next to me do not agree. Again, if you hold a BS-Business, you should know there are other ways to deal with a monopoly, which do not involve helping the underdog. The underdog is the underdog for a reason: it could not compete and throwing money at it would not help either.
4) Lets see in two years, when AMD is probably no more, how will nVIDIA act, if not "threatened" by any other company, shall we?

Intel is facing indirect competition? Is that your reasoning their prices havent skyrocketed?
So in that case, Nvidia would is competing with the consoles just as well! What about intel? They actually are by far the largest PC graphics solution.....sure you can ignore that, but hopefully you can soon see that this is still very very relevant. But lets move on


You have to realize-
It is not all about market share, thats all in your head. Intel is not worried about marketshare anymore, they are absolutely have to sale chips.

Nvidia has to sale chips. They cannot get to 80% market share and be done. They cant get to 90% and win the golden monopoly award.
They actually still have to sell chips. They have to bring in money. And because they are a publicly traded compnay, there is great pressure to improve in this area.

Nvidia cannot survive on the golden monopoly award. They actually have to continue to make money, every quarter after quarter. And to do this,
1) They have new HW to sale. If there is no new HW, no sale
2) it has to have meaningful improvements, if not no sale
3) they have to have products reasonably priced, if not people will not buy them

These are just a few simple glaring issues that you havent thought about. Nvidia having the monopoly in discrete PC graphics will not make them invincible. They will need to continue to sale GPUs and will even be pressured to increase the rate at which they sale them. You cannot just stop.
There are so many other outlets for gaming, PC is but one. Nvidia has to offer compelling reasons or people will not continue to buy their cards. Nvidia has to offer better and better cards at different price points or they will loose volume in sales. There is no shake up, no one forcing anyone to buy GPUs. If they do not offer performance increases, no one will buy their cards. Since the majority of GPU sales are in the 300$ and less bracket, Nvidia cannot abandon this segment. If they do, they loose big time. They cant throw away 85% of their business, 85% of the volume. There is no way they can raise prices enough on the elite products to justify the volume loss. There is just no way.

You cant say that things will be soo terrible in an Nvidia monopoly because PC discrete graphics cards are not a necessity. No one is forced to buy them. There are plenty of outlets for gaming and their lagest bulk of sales comes from cards priced 300 or less.
You also dont realize that nvidia already commands 76% market share. When intel had 20%, people considered them a monopoly. Nvidia is already targeting their own user base for sales, look at the maxwell presentation and they marketed it as the route that 600 series users should take. They already understand that the bulk of sales are not from customers they can steal from AMD, they marketed the GM204 (gtx 980, 970) as the route gtx 600 series owners should take. You must also realize that the bulk of Q4's 76% market share was from nvidia GPU owners in the first place. It just doesnt work like you think. Winning the imagined monopoly trophy doesnt give nvidia magic powers and endless cash. They still have to earn sales, just like they always have had to.

I say all this but dont think i want AMD to go out of business. But at the same time, i think sickbeast brings up a great point in the dual core entry CPUs from intel. See, intel could have very well moved to quads long ago. But they already have completely embarrassed AMD CPUs at the same or similar price points. I dont think intel is in a hurry to completely run AMD out of business. Intel dual cores offer AMD some slim chance in the low end. Just as nvidia pricing the 980 at 550. Think of the total devastation had nvidia priced the 980 at 299. Pricing the gm204 where they did already had devastating results. Completely hammering AMD down without even pricing them aggressive. See, I just dont think that Nvidia is has been trying to wipe AMD off the map. I know for sure that intel isnt. If they were, they would have been much more aggressive. And this leads me to my last suggestion.......
AMD, aka "the competition" is not driving innovation right now. They are not forcing intel to make better CPUs but might actually be having the reverse effect. intel is careful and mindful, not trying to prevent any chance of AMD selling chips. The gm204 was priced against the competitors product but had not AMD been around, nvidia would still have to try to move as much volume as they could. The small improvements made were only amplified when you compared the gm204 to hawaii, just as intel dual cores only look okay when you compare them to AMDs budget line. You cannot say that AMD helped neither of these to become cheaper. No way.

If there was no 290x selling for 550-600 when the gtx980 launched, what would things be like? It might actually be the reverse, and that AMDs lack of progress is having a negative effect. If you cant go that far, you have to at least see that recently, the competition (AMD) is not driving the innovation. Nvidia released the GM204 because they needed to make money. They were able to snag up millions of sales and advertized to people with 600 series GPUs. This was their main focus, their slides, their charts. They sold maxwell and presented it as the option for 600 series owners. Because to nvidia, the bulk of current nvidia customers is much more appealing to them than the shrinking marketshare AMD has left.

Think about it.

[RolloTheGreat]

Great post ocre!

It would be hilarious if Nvidia and/or intel were sending AMD hints or employees to try to help them make little advances.

"C'mon you knuckleheads! We've got TONS of good stuff we want to release, but if we put you out of business the government will break us up like the phone company! Can't you guys do ANYTHING!?"

People forget "AMD" never really did much of anything.

They bought NexGen after 486 days and publicly admitted they couldn't compete with intel:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-21/b...-maker-amd

We never felt that we could compete with intel alone

And they bought ATi to compete against Nvidia when ATi was basically going broke competing against Nvidia.

AMD is like an investor trying to take on the market leaders with the market followers.

(although I was a NexGen fan back in the day, and they did indeed put the smack down on intel for a couple years)

---

Look at what is popular with kids now for gaming- Minecraft, Clash of Clans, app games.

Tablets, phones, and chromebooks may not seem like "comparable goods" to middle aged or older gamers who spent their lives chasing resolution, AA levels, and polygon fill rates, but to the people who are 25 and younger a lot of the gaming they do has nothing to do with spending a $1000+ on a gaming pc.

An intel IGP running games at 10X7 medium detail becomes a competitor to NVIDIA if they price their products at a level people won't pay.

Some people think the fact that a small number of people will pay over $600 for a video card means everyone will if AMD assumes room temp and Nvidia sets that price.

Hardly.

The market for gaming that doesn't cost a lot of money has always been much, much larger and there is plenty of competition there. If intel and Nvidia say "All gaming hardware costs twice as much now, AMD is gone." they will find out quickly that high res doesn't mean quite as much as they thought it did.