4 ms·

This is pure and utter bullshit. Their core market is by far gaming, as this PDF (that I found via NVidia IR) shows: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMD

This is pure and utter bullshit. Their core market is by far gaming, as this PDF (that I found via NVidia IR) shows: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-1XAJD4/3411688990x0x917045/7D7AA043-67F6-4D04-A178-B87C3BAA2F0B/Rev_by_Mkt_Qtrly_Trend_Q317.pdf http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-1XAJD4/341168899... Also: The level of their gross profit margin indicates that they are in fact a monopolist: http://marketrealist.com/2016/11/driving-nvidias-profit-margins-new-highs/ http://marketrealist.com/2016/11/driving-nvidias-profit-marg... (These are not the financials of company operating in a healthy, 20-year old industry - they are the financials of a company that after operates without meaningful opposition in a 20 year old business.)

cs702 10y ago
Not quite the right conclusion. Many of Nvidia's "gaming" cards (e.g., higher-end GTX cards) are in fact used NOT for gaming but for deep learning by numerous AI researchers, developers, and startups with small budgets who buy them through retail channels.
- johansch 10y ago
  That's indeed possible. But really, if you were to guesstimate the ratio of GPU usage between these items sold to consumers that end up being used by: a) AI/startups b) gamers what would you guess? My guess is somewhere between 1:50 and and 1:500.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    The difference is that AI/startup users may buy hundreds of GPUs at once.
    - bonzini 10y ago
      I think he is already including that in his 1:50 or 1:500 ratio.
      - johansch 10y ago
        Indeed.
  - protomok 10y ago
    Revenue growth is far more interesting to tech investors than revenue over the last few years. Deep learning has a massive potential for revenue growth and total revenue will likely eclipse gaming within the next 10 years. Imagine a world where every car has semi-autonomous technology, the average security camera is doing object detection, localization, more sophisticated language translation, smart drones, etc. The potential for deep learning is undeniable and Nvidia (currently) is leading this race.
    - Eliezer 10y ago
      Except that you mainly need the massive compute for the training, not the commodity execution of the network!
      - petra 10y ago
        Any idea what kind of compute a self-driving car(with a trained network) will need ?
        dharma1 10y ago
        Depends massively on what the software is doing, there is still no standardisation on what a self-driving car means. Nvidia is pushing PX2 but I have a feeling they are too expensive for most cars - don't know the exact price but "a few thousand dollars" was quoted for the Teslas that use them. Some specs - http://wccftech.com/nvidia-drive-px2-pascal-gtc-2016/ http://wccftech.com/nvidia-drive-px2-pascal-gtc-2016/ At the same time Qualcomm is pushing their much less performant chips for self-driving cars, but at a much lower price point (hundreds of dollars)
        nl 10y ago
        Something pretty close to this: http://www.nvidia.com/object/drive-px.html http://www.nvidia.com/object/drive-px.html (I believe they are currently recommending the 4 GPU version shown on at the bottom of that page under "DRIVE PX 2 FOR FULLY AUTONOMOUS DRIVING") The key here isn't that this isn't a full power desktop GPU, but it will run inference on a CUDA-compatible kernel. That give NVidia a complete end-to-end modelling, training and driving platform. No one else has that.
peller 10y ago
OK, by revenue, sure. But calling it "pure and utter bullshit" is probably going a little far, don't you think? (Where is the line item for "AI"? Datacenter and Auto? Not to mention many "gaming" cards are more than sufficient for "AI" if you don't need 64bit FP.) Intel has been hammering at the GPU screw for more than a decade and by all rights, they still haven't figured out how to use a screwdriver (to use Huang's characterization of Intel's approach). Nvidia, meanwhile, has built a massively parallel beast that's still decent at gaming. But make no mistake; their engineering priorities are set on general parallel computation. Gaming performance is in many ways a similar problem, and thus benefits, but it would be a mistake to think games still come first for their engineers.
networked 10y ago
What is with their gaming and datacenter revenue being expected to grow 60% in Q3 FY17?
nl 10y ago
Their data centre revenue is 20% of their gaming revenue. That's a significant business.
- fuck_google 10y ago
  Is that all HPC or does that 20 % also include cloud gaming?
- ksec 10y ago
  Exactly, and there are ample rooms to grow. Compared to Gaming.
sbov 10y ago
I see datacenter revenue estimated to go from 7% to 15% in 2 years. If deep learning continues to grow datacenter revenue will likely exceed gaming revenue. Depending upon competition and long term growth gaming revenue could become just a footnote.
antman 10y ago
I think they also count Titans as a gaming item, and server vendors dont offer them. So all the people doing DL with Titans probably are in the gaming category.
- touristtam 10y ago
  Or any number crunching application?
sien 10y ago
Nvidia isn't a monopolist. They have two big competitors in AMD and Intel. Intel ship about 2/3 of the graphics chips for laptops and desktops. Nvidia have more than half of the remainder. That isn't a monopoly. In the discrete GPU space AMD are also there and ship almost half as many unit as Nvidia. That's no monopoly. The graphics systems for the current consoles are shipped by AMD aren't they? Nvidia is a profitable company. Calling them a monopolist because they are profitable is unwarranted. * Edited to fix grammar.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dogma1138 10y ago
  AMD ships primarily low and mid range cards, NVIDIA has an effective "monopoly" in the enthusiast market share which has the highest profit margins by far. That said AMD hasn't managed to ship a 350-400$+ card that's worth spending money on compared to the competition since probably the 7950...
  - hueving 10y ago
    That's a ridiculous definition of a monopoly. Using that methodology, you can claim any company has a monopoly that happens to have the best performing thing at the time. Nobody is claiming Tesla has a monopoly on electric cars because they make the best. And nobody should claim Nvidia has a monopoly on GPUs since they are on top.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      I didn't claim they had a monopoly, I said they had an "effective monopoly" in only one, albit very critical market segment, in which they ship over 75% of the hardware.
  - boxerab 10y ago
    Regarding the effective monopoly on high end, this will change next month with release of Vega card.

cs702 10y ago

Not quite the right conclusion. Many of Nvidia's "gaming" cards (e.g., higher-end GTX cards) are in fact used NOT for gaming but for deep learning by numerous AI researchers, developers, and startups with small budgets who buy them through retail channels.

johansch 10y ago
That's indeed possible. But really, if you were to guesstimate the ratio of GPU usage between these items sold to consumers that end up being used by: a) AI/startups b) gamers what would you guess? My guess is somewhere between 1:50 and and 1:500.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  The difference is that AI/startup users may buy hundreds of GPUs at once.
  - bonzini 10y ago
    I think he is already including that in his 1:50 or 1:500 ratio.
    - johansch 10y ago
      Indeed.
- protomok 10y ago
  Revenue growth is far more interesting to tech investors than revenue over the last few years. Deep learning has a massive potential for revenue growth and total revenue will likely eclipse gaming within the next 10 years. Imagine a world where every car has semi-autonomous technology, the average security camera is doing object detection, localization, more sophisticated language translation, smart drones, etc. The potential for deep learning is undeniable and Nvidia (currently) is leading this race.
  - Eliezer 10y ago
    Except that you mainly need the massive compute for the training, not the commodity execution of the network!
    - petra 10y ago
      Any idea what kind of compute a self-driving car(with a trained network) will need ?
      - dharma1 10y ago
        Depends massively on what the software is doing, there is still no standardisation on what a self-driving car means. Nvidia is pushing PX2 but I have a feeling they are too expensive for most cars - don't know the exact price but "a few thousand dollars" was quoted for the Teslas that use them. Some specs - http://wccftech.com/nvidia-drive-px2-pascal-gtc-2016/ http://wccftech.com/nvidia-drive-px2-pascal-gtc-2016/ At the same time Qualcomm is pushing their much less performant chips for self-driving cars, but at a much lower price point (hundreds of dollars)
      - nl 10y ago
        Something pretty close to this: http://www.nvidia.com/object/drive-px.html http://www.nvidia.com/object/drive-px.html (I believe they are currently recommending the 4 GPU version shown on at the bottom of that page under "DRIVE PX 2 FOR FULLY AUTONOMOUS DRIVING") The key here isn't that this isn't a full power desktop GPU, but it will run inference on a CUDA-compatible kernel. That give NVidia a complete end-to-end modelling, training and driving platform. No one else has that.

peller 10y ago

OK, by revenue, sure. But calling it "pure and utter bullshit" is probably going a little far, don't you think? (Where is the line item for "AI"? Datacenter and Auto? Not to mention many "gaming" cards are more than sufficient for "AI" if you don't need 64bit FP.) Intel has been hammering at the GPU screw for more than a decade and by all rights, they still haven't figured out how to use a screwdriver (to use Huang's characterization of Intel's approach). Nvidia, meanwhile, has built a massively parallel beast that's still decent at gaming. But make no mistake; their engineering priorities are set on general parallel computation. Gaming performance is in many ways a similar problem, and thus benefits, but it would be a mistake to think games still come first for their engineers.

networked 10y ago

What is with their gaming and datacenter revenue being expected to grow 60% in Q3 FY17?

nl 10y ago

Their data centre revenue is 20% of their gaming revenue. That's a significant business.

fuck_google 10y ago
Is that all HPC or does that 20 % also include cloud gaming?
ksec 10y ago
Exactly, and there are ample rooms to grow. Compared to Gaming.

sbov 10y ago

I see datacenter revenue estimated to go from 7% to 15% in 2 years. If deep learning continues to grow datacenter revenue will likely exceed gaming revenue. Depending upon competition and long term growth gaming revenue could become just a footnote.

antman 10y ago

I think they also count Titans as a gaming item, and server vendors dont offer them. So all the people doing DL with Titans probably are in the gaming category.

touristtam 10y ago
Or any number crunching application?

sien 10y ago

Nvidia isn't a monopolist. They have two big competitors in AMD and Intel. Intel ship about 2/3 of the graphics chips for laptops and desktops. Nvidia have more than half of the remainder. That isn't a monopoly. In the discrete GPU space AMD are also there and ship almost half as many unit as Nvidia. That's no monopoly. The graphics systems for the current consoles are shipped by AMD aren't they? Nvidia is a profitable company. Calling them a monopolist because they are profitable is unwarranted. * Edited to fix grammar.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dogma1138 10y ago
AMD ships primarily low and mid range cards, NVIDIA has an effective "monopoly" in the enthusiast market share which has the highest profit margins by far. That said AMD hasn't managed to ship a 350-400$+ card that's worth spending money on compared to the competition since probably the 7950...
- hueving 10y ago
  That's a ridiculous definition of a monopoly. Using that methodology, you can claim any company has a monopoly that happens to have the best performing thing at the time. Nobody is claiming Tesla has a monopoly on electric cars because they make the best. And nobody should claim Nvidia has a monopoly on GPUs since they are on top.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    I didn't claim they had a monopoly, I said they had an "effective monopoly" in only one, albit very critical market segment, in which they ship over 75% of the hardware.
- boxerab 10y ago
  Regarding the effective monopoly on high end, this will change next month with release of Vega card.