Gamers use more Nvidia & Intel..

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by CSE, Apr 25, 2005.

  1. CSE

    CSE Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. CSE

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:59:43 +1200, CSE wrote:

    > http://www.m3dzone.com/comments.php?shownews=9384&catid=2


    Think about it. If the overall market share of Intel is around 85-90%, but
    with gamers it is just 52%, doesn't that tell you something?

    ie that gamers are 3-4X more likely to choose AMD than the average
    user.

    Doesn't that indicate to you that AMD is a popular choice for those users
    that care about performance?

    Being that Intels market share is mostly due to production capacity,
    history, marketing dollars and a cosy relationship with certain
    manufacturers - those that choose AMD actually have to go out of their way
    to choose them. They are better informed about what choices they have.

    So if the overall market shares were a neutral 50/50 and that gamers were
    still 3-4X more likely to choose AMD, you'd be able to extrapolate AMD's
    market share with gamers to be approx 85%.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Apr 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. AD. wrote:
    > Being that Intels market share is mostly due to production capacity,
    > history, marketing dollars and a cosy relationship with certain
    > manufacturers - those that choose AMD actually have to go out of their way
    > to choose them. They are better informed about what choices they have.


    heh, I agree, but my next PC's probably going to be a Pentium M dual
    core or similar.
    Synaptic testing, Apr 26, 2005
    #3
  4. CSE

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:40:56 +1200, Synaptic testing wrote:

    > AD. wrote:
    >> Being that Intels market share is mostly due to production capacity,
    >> history, marketing dollars and a cosy relationship with certain
    >> manufacturers - those that choose AMD actually have to go out of their
    >> way to choose them. They are better informed about what choices they
    >> have.

    >
    > heh, I agree, but my next PC's probably going to be a Pentium M dual
    > core or similar.


    I couldn't fault you for that choice :)

    The Pentium Ms are very nice chips, but I suspect you might still be
    paying a premium for them - at least until the P4 arch is well and truly
    obsoleted. The P4 years have shown that superior technology wasn't one of
    the factors responsible for maintaining Intels market share (whereas
    earlier that had been a debatable point with some merit).

    <tongue in cheek>
    PS - if you had chosen a P4 based dual core chip, I'd be biting my tongue
    and trying hard not to call you a knuckle dragging moron ;)
    </tongue in cheek>

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Apr 26, 2005
    #4
  5. CSE

    GraB Guest

    On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:41:16 +1200, "AD." <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:40:56 +1200, Synaptic testing wrote:
    >
    >> AD. wrote:
    >>> Being that Intels market share is mostly due to production capacity,
    >>> history, marketing dollars and a cosy relationship with certain
    >>> manufacturers - those that choose AMD actually have to go out of their
    >>> way to choose them. They are better informed about what choices they
    >>> have.

    >>
    >> heh, I agree, but my next PC's probably going to be a Pentium M dual
    >> core or similar.

    >
    >I couldn't fault you for that choice :)
    >
    >The Pentium Ms are very nice chips, but I suspect you might still be
    >paying a premium for them - at least until the P4 arch is well and truly
    >obsoleted. The P4 years have shown that superior technology wasn't one of
    >the factors responsible for maintaining Intels market share (whereas
    >earlier that had been a debatable point with some merit).
    >

    Its all them cheap Dells.
    GraB, Apr 26, 2005
    #5
  6. CSE

    David Preece Guest

    David Preece, Apr 26, 2005
    #6
  7. CSE

    MarkH Guest

    "AD." <> wrote in
    news:p:

    > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:59:43 +1200, CSE wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.m3dzone.com/comments.php?shownews=9384&catid=2

    >
    > Think about it. If the overall market share of Intel is around 85-90%,
    > but with gamers it is just 52%, doesn't that tell you something?
    >
    > ie that gamers are 3-4X more likely to choose AMD than the average
    > user.
    >
    > Doesn't that indicate to you that AMD is a popular choice for those
    > users that care about performance?
    >
    > Being that Intels market share is mostly due to production capacity,
    > history, marketing dollars and a cosy relationship with certain
    > manufacturers - those that choose AMD actually have to go out of their
    > way to choose them. They are better informed about what choices they
    > have.
    >
    > So if the overall market shares were a neutral 50/50 and that gamers
    > were still 3-4X more likely to choose AMD, you'd be able to
    > extrapolate AMD's market share with gamers to be approx 85%.


    But also many computers that are playing Valve's games are not gaming
    computers and many were not bought by gamers.

    How many 12 year old boys have gone out and bought a hot AMD Athlon 64
    system? How many just load the game on dad's computer and play when they
    can?

    If you spec up a computer for gaming then you are quite likely to get an
    Athlon system, probably more likely than choosing a P4 system.

    Video card is a little tricky, maybe at the price of a 6600 you would go
    with Nvidia, but for top end you might decide that the Radeon is a better
    performer for the money. As long as you don't buy a piece of shit like a
    FX5200, both cheap AND nasty.



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-Apr-05)
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Apr 26, 2005
    #7
  8. CSE

    MarkH Guest

    MarkH <> wrote in
    news:Ehpbe.1110952$:

    > Video card is a little tricky, maybe at the price of a 6600 you would
    > go with Nvidia, but for top end you might decide that the Radeon is a
    > better performer for the money. As long as you don't buy a piece of
    > shit like a FX5200, both cheap AND nasty.


    I have been reading up on a bit more detail from the link Roger posted.

    The 4 most popular video cards are:
    ATI Radeon 9800 Series 10.71 %
    ATI Radeon 9600 Series 10.17 %
    NVidia GeForce4 MX Series 8.40 %
    NVidia GeForce FX 5200 Series 8.33 %

    If you were to suggest that more people used Nvidia because they were
    better than the figures here prove you wrong. Those that use Nvidia do it
    because that is what is in the PC they have available to use.



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-Apr-05)
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Apr 26, 2005
    #8
  9. AD. wrote:
    >>>Being that Intels market share is mostly due to production capacity,
    >>>history, marketing dollars and a cosy relationship with certain
    >>>manufacturers - those that choose AMD actually have to go out of their
    >>>way to choose them. They are better informed about what choices they
    >>>have.


    >>heh, I agree, but my next PC's probably going to be a Pentium M dual
    >>core or similar.


    > I couldn't fault you for that choice :)


    > <tongue in cheek>
    > PS - if you had chosen a P4 based dual core chip, I'd be biting my tongue
    > and trying hard not to call you a knuckle dragging moron ;)
    > </tongue in cheek>


    it seems I was using the wrong account yesterday... oops.

    I don't see dual core to be much for the masses, it'll be handy for
    things that truly support multiple threads, but I don't see it as a
    "great step" that many of the tech sites see it as.

    I had a dual CPU desktop, and yeah it was great, rouge processes just
    choked up one processor, and you could kill it happily as the OS would
    just chug along on the other, but other than that, which I don't see
    home users even noticing let alone taking advantage of, I dont see what
    the big deal is.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 26, 2005
    #9
  10. In article <rKqbe.1117597$>, MarkH <> wrote:
    >MarkH <> wrote in
    >news:Ehpbe.1110952$:
    >
    >> Video card is a little tricky, maybe at the price of a 6600 you would
    >> go with Nvidia, but for top end you might decide that the Radeon is a
    >> better performer for the money. As long as you don't buy a piece of
    >> shit like a FX5200, both cheap AND nasty.

    >
    >I have been reading up on a bit more detail from the link Roger posted.
    >
    >The 4 most popular video cards are:
    >ATI Radeon 9800 Series 10.71 %
    >ATI Radeon 9600 Series 10.17 %
    >NVidia GeForce4 MX Series 8.40 %
    >NVidia GeForce FX 5200 Series 8.33 %
    >
    >If you were to suggest that more people used Nvidia because they were
    >better than the figures here prove you wrong. Those that use Nvidia do it
    >because that is what is in the PC they have available to use.


    Um ... are they the same (or very similar) price ? Perhaps bang for the $
    might be at work ?

    Bruce


    -------------------------------------
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
    - George Bernard Shaw
    Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
    - Ambrose Bierce

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Apr 26, 2005
    #10
  11. In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
    >Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>>I have been reading up on a bit more detail from the link Roger posted.
    >>>The 4 most popular video cards are:
    >>>ATI Radeon 9800 Series 10.71 %
    >>>ATI Radeon 9600 Series 10.17 %
    >>>NVidia GeForce4 MX Series 8.40 %
    >>>NVidia GeForce FX 5200 Series 8.33 %
    >>>
    >>>If you were to suggest that more people used Nvidia because they were
    >>>better than the figures here prove you wrong. Those that use Nvidia do it
    >>>because that is what is in the PC they have available to use.

    >
    >> Um ... are they the same (or very similar) price ? Perhaps bang for the $
    >> might be at work ?

    >
    >The ATi Radeon 9800 and 9600 came with a free copy of the game, and ATI
    >gave Valve a heap of cash to help "optomise" the game to play better on
    >ATis hardware.


    Ah ... "valve" is a game. Thanks :)

    >The GF4 MX isn't so bad, I had one, and it will "play" most games... not
    >pretty, and not at high resolution, but it works, and the FX5200 is not
    >as bad as most say, it was and always will be a budget card.


    Bruce


    -------------------------------------
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
    - George Bernard Shaw
    Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
    - Ambrose Bierce

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Apr 26, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
    >Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>>>>If you were to suggest that more people used Nvidia because they were
    >>>>>better than the figures here prove you wrong. Those that use Nvidia do it
    >>>>>because that is what is in the PC they have available to use.

    >
    >>>>Um ... are they the same (or very similar) price ? Perhaps bang for the $
    >>>>might be at work ?

    >
    >>>The ATi Radeon 9800 and 9600 came with a free copy of the game, and ATI
    >>>gave Valve a heap of cash to help "optomise" the game to play better on
    >>>ATis hardware.

    >
    >> Ah ... "valve" is a game. Thanks :)

    >
    >errr, Valve is a game company.


    Right ... ok ... thanks ... <mutter... young whipersnapper game companies
    ... mutter>


    Bruce


    -------------------------------------
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
    - George Bernard Shaw
    Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
    - Ambrose Bierce

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Apr 26, 2005
    #12
  13. Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>I have been reading up on a bit more detail from the link Roger posted.
    >>
    >>The 4 most popular video cards are:
    >>ATI Radeon 9800 Series 10.71 %
    >>ATI Radeon 9600 Series 10.17 %
    >>NVidia GeForce4 MX Series 8.40 %
    >>NVidia GeForce FX 5200 Series 8.33 %
    >>
    >>If you were to suggest that more people used Nvidia because they were
    >>better than the figures here prove you wrong. Those that use Nvidia do it
    >>because that is what is in the PC they have available to use.


    > Um ... are they the same (or very similar) price ? Perhaps bang for the $
    > might be at work ?


    The ATi Radeon 9800 and 9600 came with a free copy of the game, and ATI
    gave Valve a heap of cash to help "optomise" the game to play better on
    ATis hardware.

    The GF4 MX isn't so bad, I had one, and it will "play" most games... not
    pretty, and not at high resolution, but it works, and the FX5200 is not
    as bad as most say, it was and always will be a budget card.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 26, 2005
    #13
  14. Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>>>If you were to suggest that more people used Nvidia because they were
    >>>>better than the figures here prove you wrong. Those that use Nvidia do it
    >>>>because that is what is in the PC they have available to use.


    >>>Um ... are they the same (or very similar) price ? Perhaps bang for the $
    >>>might be at work ?


    >>The ATi Radeon 9800 and 9600 came with a free copy of the game, and ATI
    >>gave Valve a heap of cash to help "optomise" the game to play better on
    >>ATis hardware.


    > Ah ... "valve" is a game. Thanks :)


    errr, Valve is a game company.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 26, 2005
    #14
  15. CSE

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:07:16 +0000, MarkH wrote:

    > But also many computers that are playing Valve's games are not gaming
    > computers and many were not bought by gamers.
    >
    > How many 12 year old boys have gone out and bought a hot AMD Athlon 64
    > system? How many just load the game on dad's computer and play when they
    > can?
    >
    > If you spec up a computer for gaming then you are quite likely to get an
    > Athlon system, probably more likely than choosing a P4 system.


    Exactly. That's what I was alluding to in my speculation of what the
    gamers breakdown would be if the split for non gamers was 50/50.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Apr 26, 2005
    #15
  16. CSE

    AD. Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:48:43 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > I don't see dual core to be much for the masses, it'll be handy for things
    > that truly support multiple threads, but I don't see it as a "great step"
    > that many of the tech sites see it as.
    >
    > I had a dual CPU desktop, and yeah it was great, rouge processes just
    > choked up one processor, and you could kill it happily as the OS would
    > just chug along on the other, but other than that, which I don't see home
    > users even noticing let alone taking advantage of, I dont see what the big
    > deal is.


    The average user that is lucky to run more than one app at a time won't
    notice much, but I'm looking forward to one day having them.

    It's not just for killing *rouge* (hehe) processes, but the general
    smoothness and responsiveness you get while switching apps. And also for
    me the ability to do web development without both the server and the
    client bogging each other down when running on the same machine -
    especially when the server is something gruntier like JBoss or Zope etc.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Apr 26, 2005
    #16
  17. CSE

    gimp Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > The GF4 MX isn't so bad, I had one, and it will "play" most games... not
    > pretty, and not at high resolution, but it works,


    heh, the day other i went back to an old system with a GF4-MX and loaded
    Joint Operations on, even at 640 x 480, minimum settings, less than
    5fps. i think i've been spoilt by a 6600GT :)
    gimp, Apr 26, 2005
    #17
  18. AD. wrote:
    > It's not just for killing *rouge* (hehe) processes, but the general
    > smoothness and responsiveness you get while switching apps. And also for
    > me the ability to do web development without both the server and the
    > client bogging each other down when running on the same machine -
    > especially when the server is something gruntier like JBoss or Zope etc.


    rouge... oops. glad you know what I meant.

    Wouldn't it be cheaper to have two machines than one dual? I know it
    used to be.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 27, 2005
    #18
  19. CSE

    AD. Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:20:10 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > AD. wrote:
    >> It's not just for killing *rouge* (hehe) processes, but the general
    >> smoothness and responsiveness you get while switching apps. And also for
    >> me the ability to do web development without both the server and the
    >> client bogging each other down when running on the same machine -
    >> especially when the server is something gruntier like JBoss or Zope etc.

    >
    > rouge... oops. glad you know what I meant.
    >
    > Wouldn't it be cheaper to have two machines than one dual? I know it used
    > to be.


    Once dual core cpus are mainstream it won't be much more expensive. It's
    also a case of two machines taking up space and more noise, heat etc.

    Also two machines doesn't help with the switching apps bit. I like
    multi-tasking responsiveness better than flat out single threaded grunt
    (I'm not a gamer). I tend to have a lot of stuff running at once.

    I wonder how far away dual core chips in laptops are? ;)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Apr 27, 2005
    #19
  20. AD. wrote:
    > I wonder how far away dual core chips in laptops are? ;)


    I saw an article that said that IBM/Lenovo are selling Workstation
    Opteron Lappys, although no pricing was shown... I wonder why.

    I don't think that it would help battery life much :/
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 27, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Network of Gamers - Madison, WI, USA

    Silverstrand, Jul 21, 2005, in forum: Gaming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,503
    unholy
    Jul 22, 2005
  2. Paul Lynch

    OT: Gamers Film

    Paul Lynch, Dec 6, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    541
    Paul Lynch
    Dec 6, 2003
  3. Blinky the Shark

    PS2 Gamers -- Any USB Headset With Voice Command Games?

    Blinky the Shark, Sep 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,112
    Blinky the Shark
    Sep 13, 2004
  4. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    836
    Silverstrand
    Jun 1, 2006
  5. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    734
    Silverstrand
    Nov 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page