While PCs continue to slide, workstations remain on upward trajectory in Q2’17

The workstation market continues to outpace both its sibling PC-based markets as well as the overall economy — and by a significant margin. Where Gartner reported that worldwide PC shipments declined 4.3 percent year over year (YoY) in the second quarter of 2017, workstation vendors experienced 8.9% growth in units (YoY). All told, the industry shipped around 1.2 million units, consisting of approximately two thirds desksides and one third mobiles. 

Bullish numbers provide more evidence of the different characteristics of the workstation market leading to the contrast in the relative markets’ fortunes. Where mainstream PC buyers are increasingly reaching “good enough” levels of computing with current PCs or alternative devices, lengthening replacement cycles, buyers of workstations continue to value generation-to-generation incremental improvements in features and improvements, with expectations of increasing productivity. 

Providing the most comprehensive look at the workstation market available, the JPR Workstation Report Market Quarterly for Q2’17 delves into breadth and depth across all slices of the workstation and professional GPU market, including:

  • Complete breakdown of traditional workstation market by units and revenue, and across product classes (mobile/entry/mid/high), platforms (mobile/entry/mid/high) and geography
  • Workstation market forecast
  • Complete breakdown of workstation GPU market by units and revenue, and across product classes
  • Breakdown of workstation market by vertical
  • Analysis and sizing of the impact of Apple platforms versus Windows/Linux workstations
  • Analysis and sizing of the impact of emerging workstation virtualization (in its multiple forms)
  • Analysis and sizing the impact of Intel's CPU-integrated graphics
  • Navigating this report                                                                                                                   
  • Methodology                                                                                                                                 
    • Some – but not all - white-box coverage
  •           While PCs continue to slide, workstation remain on upward trajectory           
    • Workstation ASPs and revenue
    • Workstation shares by machine class
    • Mobiles growing slowly and steadily, but desksides still rule the workstation market
  • Workstation market by vertical                                                                                                
  • Dell assumes global market leadership.., at least for one quarter                                                 
    • Vendor penetration by market segment
  • Apple's Mac Pro and MacBook Pro                                                                                       
    • Estimating Mac Pro shipments                                                                                           
    • Estimating MacBook Pro shipments
  • Virtual workstations                                                                                                               
  • Today, Intel stands virtually alone as CPU supplier to the workstation industry                  
    • Intel pushes Xeon into both single-socket desktops and mobile workstations
    • AMD's traveled a winding road in workstations, one that had led to an absence in CPUs
    • A future for AMD in workstations possible with Zen
    • Single versus multi-socket CPU
  • Windows dominates, with Linux holding minority share                                                      
  • Tier 1 distribution of workstations by geography                                                                  
    • Mobile vs  deskside distribution by global geo
    • Dell maintains US gap over HP in Q2'17                                                             
    • Dell nudges out HP in APexJ in Q2'17
    • Little change in vendors' positions in EMEA in Q2'17
    • Dell has flipped leadership ROW
  • EMEA breakdowns by sub-region
    • Mobile vs  deskside: EMEA sub-region breakdown
  • Tier 1 APexJ breakdown by sub-region
    • China has been the engine behind APexJ growth, with Lenovo the primary beneficiary
    • Mobile vs  desksides: APexJ sub-region breakdown
  • Full-year calendar 2016 results for workstations                                                                       
  • Recent growth spurt in discrete professional GPUs moderates in Q2'17
    • Discrete workstation GPU ASPs
    • The AMD/Nvidia stalemate breaks in Q2'17, as Nvidia surges 
  • Professional graphics hardware market breakdown by product class
    • High-end and mid-range contribute around two thirds of GPU add-in card revenue
    • Nvidia’s hold on 2D, entry and mobile segments remain steady
  • Full-year calendar 2016 results for discrete workstation GPUs                                                 
  • Integrated vs  discrete GPUs in workstations                                                                          
  • Outlook on the workstation market                                                                                            
  • Appendix A: Workstation vendor shares per EMEA sub-region                                               

Tables
Table 1 Total workstation market revenue (in $M)                                                                          
Table 2 Typical characteristics of desktop workstation classes in Q2’17                                        
Table 3 Workstation unit sales by vertical/application                                                                    
Table 4 History of workstation unit share by vendor                                                                       
Table 5 History of workstation unit share by vendor (Tier 1 only)                                                  
Table 6 Historical share of Windows and Linux in x86 based workstations (Apple platforms not included)                                                                                                                          
Table 7 Total workstations shipped by year (units and revenue)                                                   
Table 8 Yearly workstation ASPs (in dollars)                                                                                
Table 9 Growth (loss) of Tier 1 vendors’ units                                                                              
Table 10 Worldwide shipments of discrete workstation GPUs (K units, including mobiles)        
Table 11 Worldwide quarterly revenue of professional graphics add-in cards ($M, no mobiles) Table 12 Professional discrete (mobile and add-in card) GPU market share history by vendor (units)                                                                                                                                      
Table 13 Professional graphics add-in card (no mobiles) revenue history by vendor                    
Table 14 Professional graphics hardware classes and price bands                                                 
Table 15 Discrete professional GPU units shipped, yearly totals                                                  
Table 16 Discrete professional GPU units shipped, yearly growth by segment                            
Table 17 Discrete professional GPU add-in card ASPs (no mobiles), yearly                                
Table 18 Discrete professional GPU add-in card ASPs (no mobiles), yearly                          

 

 Figures
Figure 2 Workstation ASPs over time                                                                                              
Figure 3 History of overall workstation unit distribution, by class                                                  
Figure 4 Deskside workstations currently outsell mobiles 2:1                                                         
Figure 5 Workstation unit sales by vertical/application                                                                   
Figure 6 HP and Dell vie for leadership in the workstation market                                                 
Figure 7 Shares of mobile workstation units, by vendor                                                                
Figure 8 Shares of Entry class workstation units, by vendor                                                         
Figure 9 Shares of Mid-range workstation units, by vendor                                                          
Figure 10 Estimated shipments of deskside Mac Pros and Mac Book Pros                                   
Figure 11 Estimated share of Apple when Mac Pro included in deskside workstation market     
Figure 11 Estimated share of Apple when MacBook Pro included in mobile workstation market                                                                                                                                  
Figure 12 Where virtual workstations fit in the SBC (server-based computing) landscape          
Figure 13 Number of virtual workstations "shipped" in 2016, relative to traditional client side (estimated)                                                                                                                        
Figure 14 Intel shipments into Tier 1 workstation market by processor                                        
Figure 15 The rise and fall of Opteron in the workstation platform                                               
Figure 16 Share of dual-capable (though not necessarily dual-populated) workstations as a percentage of all deskbound systems                                                                              
Figure 17 While the share of 2S-capable workstations is in decline, the 2nd CPU attach rate is relatively stable                                                                                                                
Figure 18 Geographic distribution (by unit shipments) over time                                                 
Figure 19 Geographic distribution of Mobile workstation sales, by region (unit share)                 
Figure 20 Geographic distribution of deskside workstation sales, by region (unit share)             
Figure 21 Unit growth, by platform and region (average of four previous quarters' 5-year CAGR)                                                                                                                              
Figure 22 Tier 1 vendor shares of U S  over time                                                                          
Figure 23 Tier 1 vendor shares of EMEA over time                                                                      
Figure 24 Tier 1 vendor shares of Asia/Pac (excluding Japan) over time                                      
Figure 25 Tier 1 vendor shares of Japan region time                                                                     
Figure 26 Tier 1 vendor shares of Rest of World (ROW) region over time                                   
Figure 27 EMEA breakdown by sub-region                                                                                  
Figure 28 Geographic distribution of mobile workstation sales, by EMEA sub-region (unit share)                                                                                                                                
Figure 29 Geographic distribution of deskside workstation sales, by EMEA sub-region (unit share)                                                                                                                                      
Figure 30 Unit growth, by platform and EMEA sub-region (average of four previous quarters' 5- year CAGR)                                                                                                                    
Figure 31 Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan) breakdown by sub-region (Tier 1 shipments only)     Figure 32 China sub-region, Tier 1 unit share by vendor                                             
Figure 33 India sub-region, Tier 1 unit share by vendor                                                                
Figure 34 Rest of APexJ sub-region, Tier 1 unit share by vendor                                                 
Figure 35 Geographic distribution of Mobile workstation sales, by APexJ sub-region (unit share)                                                                                                                                  
Figure 36 Geographic distribution of Deskside workstation sales, by APexJ sub-region (unit share)                                                                                                                                      
Figure 37 APexJ workstation unit growth by sub-region and platform (average of past four quarters’ 4-year CAGR)                                                                                                         
Figure 38 Overall yearly workstation unit share by vendor                                                           
Figure 39 Worldwide shipments of discrete workstation GPUs (K units, including mobiles)      
Figure 40 Professional graphics card ASPs, by vendor over time                                                 
Figure 41 History of overall professional GPU product mix (units, all segments)                        
Figure 42 Professional graphics add-in card revenue (normalized to retail levels, no mobiles)    49 Figure 43 Vendor unit share history: mid-range 3D add-in card segment       
Figure 44 Vendor shares of combined High/Ultra-high professional segment over time              
Figure 45 Vendor unit share history: mobile professional graphics segment                                
Figure 46 Vendor unit share history: Entry 3D add-in card segment                                             
Figure 47 Vendor unit share history: professional 2D add-in card segment                                  
Figure 48 AMD's mix of FirePro GPU products over time                                                            
Figure 49 Nvidia's mix of Quadro GPU products over time                                                          
Figure 50 Penetration of CPU-integrated graphics as primary workstation GPU                          
Figure 51 Intel's position as supplier of primary workstation GPU, in 2016                                 
Figure 52 Workstation market forecast 2017 - 2019 (units)                                                          
Figure 53 Workstation market revenue forecast 2016 - 2018 ($)                                                   
Figure 54 Germany sub-region, breakout by vendor                                                                      
Figure 55 UK/Ireland sub-region, breakout by vendor                                                                  
Figure 56 Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) sub-region, breakout by vendor                             
Figure 57 Nordics (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden) sub-region, breakout by vendor          
Figure 58 Alps (Switzerland, Austria) sub-region, breakout by vendor                                        

{prod_page}

Gaming Consoles poised to explode in 2017

Jon Peddie Research (JPR), the industry's research and consulting firm for graphics and multimedia, today revealed the TV-gaming market saw a slight dip in 2016 from 2015, but is poised to make a dramatic jump in 2017.

Shipments are expected show a startling 77% growth in 2017

The introduction of a 4K PS4, a new Xbox-one (Scorpion), and the take up of the recently released Nintendo Switch promise to make 2017 the best year for gaming consoles in three years. Included in the mix are ARM-based devices like Nvidia’s Shield and Micro controllers from China.

2016 was a disappointment 

The enhanced PS4, and VR capability didn’t give the kick Sony and others had hoped for, nor did the slimed down Xbox-one. Nintendo’s Switch arrived late, but demonstrated a pent-up demand by getting off to a good start adding 2.7 million units to the market in Q1’17.

Shipments to the end of 2017 shows Sony leading in installed base market share

Visual Processors and CNN—the next generation supercomputer

VPUs are at the crossroads of image-processing, convolutional neural nets (CNN), machine intelligence, and the emerging augmented reality market. More than just an image processing algorithm co-processor, and more like a powerful subsystem that can take multiple streams of highspeed pixel data and feed a GPU for display, while simultaneously doing data analysis and extraction.

Figure 1: VPUs are at the center of advanced image processing, CNNs, and augmented reality

 

The VPU is a relatively new device, in fact only one company is making a complete standalone VPU core—Verisilicon, but others are on the way. Cadence has three processor cores, the P5 and P6 which are being used in classic VPU roles, and we expect them to also produce a CNN optimized VPU. which can be used in classic VPU roles, and we expect them to also produce a CNN optimized VPU. Wave Computing’s Coarse Grained Reconfigurable Array, and Google’s Tensor Processing Unit represent new approaches to neural network training and inferencing respectively. For cloud-based deep learning applications those two are at the top of the class and featured in this edition of the VPU report. 

Other VPU capable devices like Ceva’s XM4, Inuitive’s NU 4000, and the VPU capable processors Intel has acquired recently from Movidus, Silicon Hive, Nervana, and its own remarkably capable Gen9 GPUs are among the 38 companies we have identified that are making VPU capable processors using GPUs, DSPs, and dedicated engines. Thirty-eight companies, with industry giants like Intel, TI, Nvidia, AMD, and Qualcomm, to name a few, don’t get into a market and invest millions of dollars in R&D and acquisitions unless they see a big return. Therefore, no semiconductor, system builder, or software tool, or application developer can afford to ignore this emerging, maybe even explosive, market.

JPR’s quarterly VPU report will give you the in-depth information you need to access opportunities, suppliers, and competitors.

The applications for VPUs ranges from super-smart prosumer cameras to automobile license readers at bridges and gateways, to airport security and nozzle monitoring of a satellite launching rocket. With high-resolution cameras being employed in every aspect of our lives, making autonomous vehicles of all types possible, drone surveillance and crop assessment affordable and reliable, and face recognition at ATMs a new normal in our lives, the demand for high-performance front-end processing of the myriad of image-processing functions has never been greater.

JPR’s new quarterly VPU service analyzes the suppliers, the technology, the processors, and the market opportunities. We have identified 20 suppliers of VPU, and eight IP suppliers, plus ten start up that haven’t produced any silicon yet.. As robust as the market is, there will be consolidation through either failures or acquisitions, and we think there will be just a half dozen suppliers, three major companies, and three niche players by 2020.

Where will your supplier, or your company, or your competitor be in 2020?  JPR’s VPU report can help you assess those opportunities and threats.

The (tech) world is catching up to fiction

We need a new category—SciFi is no longer applicable

When I was a kid I read the comics (OK, I still do). We read them because we didn’t have TV, hadn’t even heard of it. Our phones were plugged into the wall and had a big round dial with holes in it. Try to imagine that as the norm, and then as a young impressionable kid, picking up a colorful, exciting comic book and seeing a hawk-nosed detective in a rain coat looking at video on his watch. OMG-what an incredible thing. 


Remember, no TV yet, so how in the world could those images get on that watch!?! Today lots of people have the equivalent of a Dick Tracy watch. And no doubt, the bold imagination of Chester Gould influenced some of the designers of today’s devices. A few tinkerers (sorry, we call them “makers” now don’t we?) built replicas of Detective Tracy’s watch, and there have been various toys that imitated the idea (but didn’t work—the tech wasn’t there yet in 1990). And strangely enough, no manufacturer is offering such a style device, I’d think it would sell like crazy—hell, people bought pet rocks for crying out loud. 


There have been other marvelous futurist ideas portrayed in comics, paperback books, and magazines (anyone remember Omni?). And many of those ideas have come to life. There are constant comparisons to the tech of Star Trek. But these ideas, and the stories that contain them are labeled science fiction. We even have a TV channel dedicated to them (with some pretty crappy stuff on, but filling a channel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week can be challenging, so give them a break). 
But should the marvels that become products be called “Science” fiction? Sure, science has been used to create them, and maybe even craft them, but they aren’t science devices. They don’t do science like a gas chromatograph or a The Large Hadron Collider does. 


Rather, the mindstretching ideas presented in movies, books and magazine, and games should be called product fiction, or maybe even product planning. But the word product is too colorless, too humdrum, prosaic. 
What if we called it tech-fi? Visualize this tweeted conversation. 


I also think there should be a review/ collection of the stuff imagined in magazine, games, comics, movies, and TV, and an annual award for the best (jury selected). There should be categories (health, weapons, communications, tele-transport, propulsion systems, etc.), and then the best of the best. Not talking about Academy, Emmy, or Ellie Awards, that’s just for movies, TV, and magazines. We need something that embraces all of the media associated with Tech-Fi. Here are some examples (games, comics, weapons, and movies, and if you’re interested in some classic Sci-Fi podcasts, check this.) 


I worry about the youth of today and what is stimulating their imaginations. Other than some (OK, a lot) of Sci Fi movies, mostly about space, which seem to carry the same tired clichés; there hasn’t been much novelty in the media lately. The comic books of today seem to stuck in super hero land, there are four (that I know of) Sci Fi magazine, Fantasy & Science Fiction (which you can get on your phone or Kindle) and it has almost no illustrations, Shimmer, Uncanny, and Strange Horizons (free, but make a donation) there’s a few magazines like Popular Science, and Wired that show today’s stuff and some laboratory stuff that might be real stuff one day (BTW— you can get all the back issue of Omni on-line, for free—highly recommended). Also, there’s new version of Amazing Stories coming to TV. 


But what is grabbing our imaginations today that will inspire some kid who in 20 or 30 years will actually build the thing? What is the source of the make believe? Do kids today even do make believe, and pretend to be the characters they see in the movies or (if they do) read about? When I was a kid we pretended we had ray guns, and would make cardboard versions of what we thought one might look like. There’s an unrealized Tech-Fi item—the closest thing we have to it is a Taser. 
Maybe we should stay with the term Sci-Fi, It may be more inspiring, more mind expanding, more fantastic. OK, we’ll keep Sci-Fi—what have you seen lately that’s inspired you? 

  • TV evolves: TV watchers change their habbits, Apple changes TV
  • CAD/CAM shifts; Siemens & AM
  • PC updates: Workstation processors outstrip Moore's Law, MSI's new laptop, Z VR Backpack 
  • Multi-monitor update 
  • VR/AR Watch: Headsets a-go-go, Lightstream's recipe-based VR 
  • News Watch: Khronos democratizes, Imagination, Adobe updates OCR 
  • MTTL: Rzyen & Vega do the live up to the hype 

Regular Features

  • Page 2: Customers rule 
  • Insider: Autodrive 
  • It's all about the pixel 

Worldwide PC Gaming Hardware Market Report Series

Download Full reports (Purchase required)

Download Table of Contents

Comprised of pre and DIY built gaming computers, upgrades, and accessories such as input devices and audio/communication systems, the market exceeded $30 billion in 2016 and is forecast to grow at a 6% CAGR through 2019.
 
Due of an entrenched PC gaming culture, large population, and a lack of significant console traction, the Asia Pacific Region leads the world in both growth and market size with a forecasted 7% CAGR to 2019 from a TAM of almost $11.3 billion in 2016. However, North America and Western Europe both individually lead Asia Pacific for High-End hardware, albeit at lower growth rates of 5.78% and 6.63% vs. 9.61% respectively. The western appetite for PC gaming systems costing thousands of dollars is strong.

Ted Pollak, Senior Game Industry Analyst for JPR said “Global consumers continue to embrace the PC platform for video games due to multiple factors. The desktop ergonomic is popular because the display distance offers increased detail when using HD and UHD monitors. Additionally there is superior control with mouse and keyboard control interfaces. This has been validated with eSports overwhelmingly being played on PCs. Additionally, product designers have given PC gamers thousands of options for complete customization from a functionally and aesthetic perspective. Examples of this include dedicated driving and flight systems, multi-display setups, super-powerful graphics boards, and a wide selection of gaming notebooks ranging from desktop substitutes to innovative “thin and light” offerings. Liquid cooling, lighting, solid state drives, genre specific gaming mice, mechanical keyboards, notebook graphics amplifiers, and Xbox accessory compatibility offer gamers more choices than they have ever had.”

JPR has renamed the three segments of hardware it tracks to Entry-Level, Mid-Range, and High-End (from Mainstream, Performance, and Enthusiast). Jon Peddie, President of JPR said “We know that gamers with lower budgets are just as passionate about gaming as those with more resources and are enthusiasts in the purest sense of the word, so we decided to transition to a more descriptive terminology. Nvidia and AMD are not ignoring these customers either and offerings like the GTX 1050 bring powerful graphics processing for around $120. We are also very excited about the prospects for the AMD Ryzen CPU platform and think it will be adopted at all three hardware tiers. Of course Intel CPUs currently offer superior power and value for gamers of every budget level, and their integrated graphics now rival game consoles.”

 


Part of the phenomena JPR observes is that the ranks of PC gamers are growing in the Mid and High-End where ASPs are high. Also that the average PC sale is increasingly motivated by the video game use model which is important to understand in a stagnant or declining overall PC market. As basic computing functions become more entrenched with mobile devices, the PC ultimately becomes a power user’s tool. Whether for gaming, photo and video editing, content creation, etc.  


The report contains the following content:

  • After-Market add-in board (AIB): Discussion and estimates of after-market graphics cards sales as upgrades and for home builds
  • System Configured PCs: Discussion and estimates of PC sales influenced by gaming from companies that either sell pre-configured or custom configured builds. Estimates are broken into notebooks and desktop segments.
  • Accessories and DIY: Discussion and estimates of accessory sales and the Do-It-Yourself (DYI) builds
  • Charts, graphics, tables and more. Included with this report is an Excel workbook. It contains the data we used to create the charts in this report. The workbook has the charts and supplemental information broken out by platform.

 

Pricing and Availability
The Worldwide PC Gaming Hardware Market report series by Jon Peddie Research which covers 33 countries, notebooks, desktops, DIY, and accessories, comes in three versions: Enthusiast, Performance, and Mainstream, with each version selling for $7,500 and the set of three for $15,000. In addition, with the set is a summary report of the Total PC Gaming Hardware Market worldwide.

Mobile Devices and the GPUs inside

The market for portable devices (mobile devices that we can carry including notebooks) continues to soar in spite of economic difficulties and general uncertainty. Although personal devices are not necessarily replacing the PC, they are outselling the PC. All of these devices have a graphics processor (GPU) integrated in the device’s system on a chip (SoC) application processor.

JPR has just released a new market study, Mobile Devices and the GPUs Inside, and found that Qualcomm has over 42% of the total market for personal mobile devices, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Except for the four propriety (vertically integrated) suppliers, of the more than four dozen SoC suppliers, characterized as “Others” in Figure 1, Imagination Technologies is the overwhelmingly largest supplier of GPU IP. However, ARM and Vivante have shown tremendous growth year to year. (see table 1).

Other SoC suppliers that buy GPU IP are Allwiner, Freescale, Huawei, MediaTek, Rockchip, Wonder Media/VIA and others. These companies have participated in the feature phone market, and some of them have recently entered the smartphone, tablet, and handheld game machine segment.

One area that is fueling the growth of portable SoCs is the exploding tablet market in China, which is contributing significantly to the astounding growth that ARM and Vivante are experiencing. As a result of this tablet surge in China, dramatic changes are expected during the next 12 months. Last year Apple and Samsung introduced 7-inch tablets. This year, Microsoft brought out its Surface pro2 tablet, and Amazon introduced its 7-inhc tablet. The question is will the larger “phablet” phones obsolete 7-inch tablets?.

The market for SoCs with GPUs grew 32% from the first half of 2013 to the first half of 2014, with market shifts occurring as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Market share changes for portable devices from 1H’13 to 1H’14

As a result of the turbulence in the market, we expect market shares to shift dramatically through 2015.

There is also market consolidation. In 2013 there were over four dozen semiconductor suppliers  producing application processors, today there are a little over three dozen. All of those companies fall into one of two categories: vertically integrated, or IP buyers. AMD, Intel, Nvidia, and Qualcomm are the vertically integrated companies with their own GPU and CPU designs; all of the other companies buy GPU IP from one of four IP suppliers (ARM, DMP, Imagination Technologies, or Vivante). The exceptions to this tidy categorization are Samsung, which has an internal GPU design as well as purchasing IP from ARM and Imagination Technologies.

The leading high-volume suppliers of application processors (i.e., SoCs) are Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, and MediaTek. ARM supplies GPU IP for some of Samsung’s mobile phones, while Imagination Technologies’ GPU IP is used in Apple, MediaTek, and some of Samsung’s mobile phones and tablets.

The upcoming SoC suppliers with impressive design wins to their credit are Intel (proprietary GPU) and Nvidia (proprietary GPU). Qualcomm however, is the giant in the industry.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Figures ...................................................................................................................... vii
Table of Tables .......................................................................................................................... x

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 11

  • Market slowdown ..................................................................................................................... 11
  • Larger screens need more GPU power .................................................................................... 11
  • Tablets as gifts ......................................................................................................................... 12
  • Market share shifts ................................................................................................................... 12
  • Superphones challenge small tablets ....................................................................................... 12
  • Mobile GPUs performance ...................................................................................................... 12

Definitions & Methodology ........................................................................................... 12

  • Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 12
  • Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 14
  • Primary research for this study ................................................................................................ 14
  • Secondary Research for This Study ......................................................................................... 14

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 15

  • Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 15
  • Market Opportunities .................................................................................................... 16
  • Platforms ...................................................................................................................................... 17
  • Semiconductors ............................................................................................................................ 18
  • SoC Suppliers ........................................................................................................................... 18
  • Integrated SoC suppliers ...................................................................................................... 18
  • Other SoC suppliers ............................................................................................................. 19
  • IP suppliers........................................................................................................................... 19
  • How Many GPUs? ....................................................................................................................... 19

Market Shares ................................................................................................................ 22

  • Personal Platform ......................................................................................................................... 23
  • Integrated SoC Suppliers to Personal Platforms ...................................................................... 23
  • Others ....................................................................................................................................... 24
  • GPU IP ..................................................................................................................................... 25
  • GPUs in Mobile Devices in the Near Future ............................................................................... 27
  • Modeling from the PC ............................................................................................................. 28
  • Scalability and R&D Investment ............................................................................................. 29
  • Development Cycle .................................................................................................................. 29
  • Qualcomm, ........................................................................................................................... 29
  • Intel ...................................................................................................................................... 30
  • Nvidia ................................................................................................................................... 30
  • ARM, ................................................................................................................................... 30
  • Imagination Technologies .................................................................................................... 30
  • Vivante ................................................................................................................................. 30
  • Licensing .................................................................................................................................. 30
  • Performance Issues, Trends, and Opportunities....................................................................... 31

GPU Suppliers ............................................................................................................... 31

  • Commercial GPU Architectures .................................................................................................. 31
  • SoC Suppliers .............................................................................................................................. 32
  • Integrated SoC suppliers .......................................................................................................... 32
  • IP Suppliers .............................................................................................................................. 32
  • Integrated SoC Suppliers ............................................................................................................. 32
  • AMD ........................................................................................................................................ 33
  • AMD Mullins processor ...................................................................................................... 36
  • AMD Beema processor ........................................................................................................ 37
  • AMD’s GPU ........................................................................................................................ 38
  • AMD’s ISP........................................................................................................................... 39
  • AMD’s DSP ......................................................................................................................... 39
  • AMD’s video ....................................................................................................................... 40
  • Discovery tablet ................................................................................................................... 42
  • Project Skybridge ................................................................................................................. 43
  • Summary .............................................................................................................................. 43
  • AMD SWOT ........................................................................................................................ 44
  • Strengths .............................................................................................................................. 44
  • Weakness ............................................................................................................................. 44
  • Opportunities........................................................................................................................ 44
  • Threats.................................................................................................................................. 44
  • Apple ........................................................................................................................................ 44
  • Apple A6 processor.............................................................................................................. 45
  • Apple A7 processor.............................................................................................................. 46
  • Apple A8 processor.............................................................................................................. 47
  • Apple’s GPU ........................................................................................................................ 48
  • Apple ISP ............................................................................................................................. 48
  • Apple DSP ........................................................................................................................... 48
  • Apple video .......................................................................................................................... 48
  • Apple OS .............................................................................................................................. 49
  • Summary .............................................................................................................................. 49
  • Apple SWOT ....................................................................................................................... 49
  • Strengths .............................................................................................................................. 49
  • Weakness ............................................................................................................................. 49
  • Opportunities........................................................................................................................ 50
  • Threats.................................................................................................................................. 50
  • Intel .......................................................................................................................................... 50
  • Broadwell Core M processor ............................................................................................... 54
  • SoFIA ................................................................................................................................... 55
  • Intel’s GPU .......................................................................................................................... 55
  • Intel’s ISP............................................................................................................................. 56
  • Intel’s DSP ........................................................................................................................... 57
  • Intel’s video ......................................................................................................................... 57
  • Summary .............................................................................................................................. 58
  • Intel SWOT .......................................................................................................................... 58
  • Strengths .............................................................................................................................. 58
  • Weakness ............................................................................................................................. 58
  • Opportunities........................................................................................................................ 58
  • Threats.................................................................................................................................. 58
  • Nvidia ....................................................................................................................................... 58
  • Tegra introduced .................................................................................................................. 59
  • The roadmaps ....................................................................................................................... 59
  • Nvidia’s Tegra K1................................................................................................................ 63
  • Nvidia’s Tegra K1 CPU ....................................................................................................... 64
  • Nvidia’s GPU ....................................................................................................................... 65
  • Nvidia’s ISP ......................................................................................................................... 68
  • Nvidia’s Chimera 2 .............................................................................................................. 69
  • Nvidia’s DSP ....................................................................................................................... 71
  • Nvidia’s Video ..................................................................................................................... 71
  • Tegra in Google project Tango ............................................................................................ 71
  • Nvidia's Denver .................................................................................................................... 72
  • Summary .............................................................................................................................. 75
  • Intel SWOT .......................................................................................................................... 75
  • Strengths .............................................................................................................................. 75
  • Weakness ............................................................................................................................. 75
  • Opportunities........................................................................................................................ 75
  • Threats.................................................................................................................................. 76
  • Qualcomm ................................................................................................................................ 76
  • In-house development .......................................................................................................... 78
  • Snapdragon GPU ................................................................................................................. 82
  • Snapdragon Display Engine ................................................................................................. 83
  • Snapdragon ISP .................................................................................................................... 84
  • Snapdragon DSP .................................................................................................................. 84
  • Snapdragon Video ................................................................................................................ 85
  • Snapdragon 200 series ......................................................................................................... 86
  • Summary .............................................................................................................................. 86
  • Qualcomm SWOT ............................................................................................................... 87
  • Strengths .............................................................................................................................. 87
  • Weakness ............................................................................................................................. 87
  • Opportunities........................................................................................................................ 87
  • Threats.................................................................................................................................. 87
  • SoCs, nonproprietary ................................................................................................................... 87
  • MediaTek ................................................................................................................................. 88
  • Samsung Electronics ................................................................................................................ 92
  • Via Technologies WonderMedia ............................................................................................. 93
  • VTI’s ISP ............................................................................................................................. 95
  • VTI HDR ............................................................................................................................. 95
  • Reference design .................................................................................................................. 96
  • Summary .............................................................................................................................. 96
  • Chinese Suppliers ..................................................................................................................... 97
  • Actions Semiconductor ........................................................................................................ 97
  • Allwinner ............................................................................................................................. 98
  • HiSilicon .............................................................................................................................. 99
  • Rockchip .............................................................................................................................. 99
  • Spreadtrum ......................................................................................................................... 101
  • Other SoC suppliers ................................................................................................................... 102
  • Broadcom ............................................................................................................................... 103
  • Marvell ................................................................................................................................... 103
  • Motorola ................................................................................................................................. 105
  • STMicroelectronics ................................................................................................................ 106
  • Texas Instruments .................................................................................................................. 106
  • IP Suppliers ................................................................................................................................ 106
  • ARM ...................................................................................................................................... 107
  • ARM’s GPUs ..................................................................................................................... 107
  • Mali graphics IP core shipments are on course to be more than 600 million units in
  • 2014.ARM’s ISP ................................................................................................................ 113
  • ARM’s DSP ....................................................................................................................... 114
  • ARM’s video ...................................................................................................................... 114
  • Summary ............................................................................................................................ 116
  • ARM SWOT ...................................................................................................................... 118
  • Strengths ............................................................................................................................ 118
  • Weakness ........................................................................................................................... 118
  • Opportunities...................................................................................................................... 118
  • Threats................................................................................................................................ 118
  • DMP ....................................................................................................................................... 118
  • Summary ............................................................................................................................ 121
  • Imagination Technologies ...................................................................................................... 121
  • Imagination’s GPU - PowerVR ......................................................................................... 122
  • PowerVR Series7, .........................................................................................................................128
  • 1.1.1.1.1 Imagination Technologies’ ray tracing.......................................................................130
  • Ray tracing and GPU functions ......................................................................................... 133
  • Imagination Technologies’ video – PowerVR VPUs ........................................................ 135
  • Imagination Technologies’ ISP –PowerVR Raptor ........................................................... 137
  • MIPS, Imagination’s CPU ................................................................................................. 140
  • Imagination Technologies’ DSP ........................................................................................ 142
  • Imagination’s SoC platform ............................................................................................... 143
  • Summary ............................................................................................................................ 143
  • Imagination SWOT ............................................................................................................ 144
  • Strengths ............................................................................................................................ 144
  • Weakness ........................................................................................................................... 144
  • Opportunities...................................................................................................................... 144
  • Threats................................................................................................................................ 144
  • Nvidia’s “Core” business ....................................................................................................... 144
  • Nvidia’s move into the IP core market .............................................................................. 145
  • Leveraging Investment....................................................................................................... 145
  • Siliconarts ray tracing processor ............................................................................................ 146
  • Results ................................................................................................................................ 150
  • Roadmap ............................................................................................................................ 153
  • Synopsys ................................................................................................................................ 154
  • Takumi ................................................................................................................................... 154
  • Vivante ................................................................................................................................... 155
  • Vivante SWOT ....................................................................................................................... 158
  • Strengths ............................................................................................................................ 158
  • Weakness ........................................................................................................................... 158
  • Opportunities...................................................................................................................... 158
  • Threats................................................................................................................................ 158

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 159
Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 160

  • SAM, TAM, and PAM .............................................................................................................. 160
  • The impact of the API ................................................................................................................ 161
  • Khronos .................................................................................................................................. 162
  • Who is/was first?................................................................................................................ 163
  • APIs and Google .................................................................................................................... 164

Operating Systems ...................................................................................................... 165

  • Android ...................................................................................................................................... 166
  • Apple .......................................................................................................................................... 166
  • Windows .................................................................................................................................... 166
  • Other OSs ................................................................................................................................... 167
  • Motivations for Using an Alternative OS .............................................................................. 167
  • China OS and HTC ................................................................................................................ 168
  • Mozilla Firefox Mobile Operating System ............................................................................ 168
  • Baidu ...................................................................................................................................... 169
  • Sailfish ................................................................................................................................... 169
  • Tizen ...................................................................................................................................... 169
  • Ubuntu .................................................................................................................................... 169
  • Which Tablet OS? .................................................................................................................. 170
  • Best of both worlds ............................................................................................................ 170
  • APIs’ Current and Future Developments and Needs ................................................................. 170
  • What is HTML5? ....................................................................................................................... 171
  • WebGL ....................................................................................................................................... 171
  • Why Has This Come Up? ...................................................................................................... 172
  • Confusion in the Industry as We Start this Hardening Process ............................................. 173
  • What Do We Think? .............................................................................................................. 174
  • Codec Developments ................................................................................................................. 175
  • Heterogeneous Processing and GP-Compute ............................................................................ 176
  • OpenCL .................................................................................................................................. 176
  • Renderscript ........................................................................................................................... 176
  • Nvidia’s CUDA ..................................................................................................................... 176
  • High-Quality Cinema-like Images ......................................................................................... 177
  • Computational Photography .................................................................................................. 178
  • Computer Vision .................................................................................................................... 181

Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 182
Index ............................................................................................................................. 183

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Total potential available market for embedded GPUs 2011 to 2018 (Source: JPR) ........ 11
Figure 2: Mobile devices is a broad term......................................................................................... 13
Figure 3: Comparison of shipments of tablets vs. portable PCs ...................................................... 17
Figure 4: Total GPUs shipped in various platforms over time (Source: JPR) ................................. 19
Figure 5: Total GPUs used in personal devices (Source: JPR) ........................................................ 21
Figure 6: Total Embedded GPUs, all platforms (Source: JPR) ....................................................... 22
Figure 7: SoC Personal platform suppliers who design and manufacture their own SoCs (Source:
JPR) .................................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 8: Total Personal Platforms SoC Suppliers .......................................................................... 24
Figure 9: History of SoC suppliers .................................................................................................. 25
Figure 10: GPU IP suppliers to personal platforms (Source: JPR) .................................................. 26
Figure 11: Market share of Personal systems SoC suppliers for 1h 2013 ....................................... 27
Figure 12: AMD’s 2013-2014 Mobility Roadmap (Source: AMD) ................................................ 35
Figure 13: AMD’s Mullins chip layout (Source AMD) .................................................................. 37
Figure 14: AMD’s Graphics Core Next GPU architecture in their APUs (Source AMD) .............. 39
Figure 15: AMD uses a Tensilica DSP for their audio engine (Source AMD) ............................... 40
Figure 16: AMD’s video engine (Source AMD) ............................................................................. 41
Figure 17: AMD’s discovery reference tablet (Source AMD) ........................................................ 42
Figure 18: Gaming on an AMD tablet (Source AMD) .................................................................... 43
Figure 19: The A6 uses three Imagination Technologies GPUs (Source Chipworks) .................... 45
Figure 20: The Apple A7 has four GPU cores and a 64-bit CPU (source Ifixit) ............................. 47
Figure 21: Silvermont introduces a new architecture, while Airmont will take that architecture and
bring it down to 14 nm in 2014 (Source: Intel) ............................................................................... 52
Figure 22: Intel’s smartphone roadmap (Source: Intel) ................................................................... 53
Figure 23: Intel’s ultra-thin 7.2mm (0.28 in) Llama Mountain reference design tablet/2-in-1 using
Intel's Core M' processor.................................................................................................................. 54
Figure 24: Intel’s Broadwell integrated graphics block diagram (Source: Intel) ............................ 56

Figure 25: Nvidia’s February 2011 roadmap (Source: Nvidia) ....................................................... 61
Figure 26: Nvidia’s 2013 Tegra roadmap (Source: Nvidia) ............................................................ 62
Figure 27: Tegra K1 high-level block diagram (Source: Nvidia) .................................................... 64
Figure 28: Tegra K1's Cortex A-15 performance/Watt, compared to Tegra 4's Cortex A-15
(Source: Nvidia) ............................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 29: Tegra K1 uses Kepler, unifying Nvidia's GPU lines (Source: Nvidia) .......................... 66
Figure 30: Nvidia-run GFXBench 3.0 results for Tegra K1, versus 2013 competition (Source:
Nvidia) ............................................................................................................................................. 68
Figure 31: Chimera 2 = CPU+GPU+dual ISPs+CSI, creating a high-performance handheld imageprocessing
engine (Source: Nvidia) ................................................................................................. 69
Figure 32: Chimera 2 Camera Sensor Interface (CSI) (Source: Nvidia) ......................................... 70
Figure 33: Chimera 2 computational photography architecture (Source: Nvidia) .......................... 71
Figure 34: Epic’s faceless ARM 64-bit Google L OS based Unreal 4 game engine demo for
mobile (Epic). .................................................................................................................................. 72
Figure 35: Compared to a 32-bit Tegra K1 and other processors, the Tegra K1-64 performs pretty
well (Source Nvidia) ........................................................................................................................ 73
Figure 36: Nvidia’s Denver CPU core, block diagram (Source Nvidia) ......................................... 74
Figure 37: Adreno GPU performance (Source: Qualcomm) ........................................................... 78
Figure 38: Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 SoC (Source: Qualcomm) ................................................. 80
Figure 39: Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 810 (Source Qualcomm) ....................................................... 81
Figure 40 Adreno 420 Block Diagram (Source: Qualcomm) .......................................................... 83
Figure 41: Qualcomm’s ISP resolution across product ranges (Source Qualcomm) ...................... 84
Figure 42: Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Hexagon DSP (Source Qualcomm) ...................................... 85
Figure 43: MediaTek MT6595 octa-core SoC (Source MediaTek) ................................................. 89
Figure 44: VTI’s WonderMedia WM8980 SoC (Source3: VTI) ..................................................... 94
Figure 45: Apical’s ISP IP block (Source Apical) ........................................................................... 95
Figure 46: Apical’s Display management IP block (Source Apical) ............................................... 96
Figure 47: Rockchip RK3188 floor plan showing some of the major functional blocks .............. 100
Figure 48: Marvell’s Baseband SoC (Source Marvell) .................................................................. 104
Figure 49: Marvell’s Armada 1500 PRO Quad-core 4K Ultra HD SoC targets at Smart TVs and
STBs (Source: Marvell) ................................................................................................................. 105
Figure 50: ARM’s Mali GPU roadmap (Source: ARM) .............................................................. 108
Figure 51: ARM’s Mali T658 IP GPU (Source ARM).................................................................. 109
Figure 52: ARM’s High-end Mali GPU roadmap (Source ARM) ................................................ 110
Figure 53: ARM’s Mali T760 IP GPU (Source ARM).................................................................. 111
Figure 54: ARM’s Mali market penetration (Source ARM) ......................................................... 111
Figure 55: ARM’s Mali T860 16-core GPU (source ARM) .......................................................... 113
Figure 56: ARM’s ISP solution using GPU-compute (Source ARM) ........................................... 114
Figure 57: ARM’s Mali V500 video engine (Source ARM) ......................................................... 115
Figure 58: The Mali-V550, the Mali-DP550, and the software stack ........................................... 116
Figure 59: ARM sees volume of shipments going up as the size of the chips comes down (Source:
ARM) ............................................................................................................................................. 117
Figure 60: DMP’s expanded product line (Source: DMP .............................................................. 119
Figure 61: DMP IP roadmap (Source: DMP) ................................................................................ 120

Figure 62: Imagination Technologies’ GPU roadmap (Source: Imagination Technologies) ........ 123
Figure 63: Imagination Technologies’ PowerVR Rouge series GPU (Source: Imagination
Technologies) ................................................................................................................................. 124
Figure 64: Imagination Technologies product map (Source: Imagination Technologies) ............ 126
Figure 65: Power vs. performance (source: Imagination Technologies) ....................................... 127
Figure 66: Imagination Technologies partner’s shipments since 1999 (source: Imagination
Technologies) ................................................................................................................................. 128
Figure 67: Imagination thinks it can challenge last gen consoles and current entry-level PCs
(Imagination Technologies) ........................................................................................................... 129
Figure 68: Imagination’s Visualizer basic intersection testing ray tracing engine ........................ 132
Figure 69: PowerVR GR6500 Block Diagram .............................................................................. 134
Figure 70: Imagination Technologies’ video decode IP blocks (Source Imagination Technologies)
........................................................................................................................................................ 136
Figure 71: Imagination Technologies’ video encode IP blocks (Source Imagination Technologies)
........................................................................................................................................................ 136
Figure 72: ‘Raptor’ completes the PowerVR Multimedia portfolio (source: Imagination
Technologies) ................................................................................................................................. 138
Figure 73: Imagination Technologies acquisition of MIPS was a complex deal to keep patents out
the hands of trolls ........................................................................................................................... 141
Figure 74: Imagination’s latest MIPS IP cores based on Imagination’s aggressive roadmap
(source: Imagination Technologies) .............................................................................................. 142
Figure 75: Imagination Technologies’ IP SoC (Source Imagination Technologies) ..................... 143
Figure 76: The scalability of Nvidia’s Kepler core (Source: Nvidia) ............................................ 146
Figure 77: Basic architecture of Siliconarts RayCore processor (Siliconarts) .............................. 147
Figure 78: The overall architecture of the ray-tracing unit (Siliconarts ........................................ 149
Figure 79: Three static test scenes for Whitted ray tracing : Kitchen, Room with moving light, and
Living room rendered at interactive frame rates on FPGA prototype (Siliconarts) ...................... 150
Figure 80: Sample images from two static test scenes: Conference (courtesy of Anat Grynberg and
Greg Ward) and Sibenik (courtesy of Marko Dabrovic). These images were rendered with ambient
occlusion. ....................................................................................................................................... 151
Figure 81: FPGA performance results for Whitted ray tracing at 800x480 (Siliconarts) .............. 151
Figure 82: FPGA performance results for Whitted ray tracing at 1600x960 (Siliconarts) ............ 152
Figure 83 Takumi product map (Source: Takumi) ........................................................................ 155
Figure 84: The market growth of the personal mobile device is incredible .................................. 159
Figure 85: Conceptualization of PAM/TAM/SAM and SOM (Courtesy RAK Associates) ......... 161
Figure 86: Khronos’ OpenGL ES 3.1 pipeline (Source: Khronos) ................................................ 163
Figure 87: A new API every five years ......................................................................................... 171
Figure 88: Video codec compression efficiency has increased only threefold .............................. 175
Figure 89: OpenSubdiv is platform agnostic and uses OpenCL .................................................... 177
Figure 90: Augmented reality showing us stuff that’s not there .................................................... 178
Figure 91: Morton Heilig created a simulator called Sensorama with visuals, sound, vibration, and
smell back in 1956 ........................................................................................................................ 179
Figure 92: Ivan Sutherland testing an AR headset in 1968 ........................................................... 180
Figure 93: A typical computer vision algorithm pipeline .............................................................. 182

Table of Tables

Table 1: Other SoC suppliers ........................................................................................................... 25
Table 2: Design origin of processors in SoC by integrated suppliers .............................................. 33
Table 3: AMD’s A/E-Series Mullins APUs..................................................................................... 37
Table 4: AMD’s A/E-Series Beema APUs ...................................................................................... 38
Table 5: AMD’s video coding engine (VCE) .................................................................................. 41
Table 6: AMD’s unified video decoder (UVD) ............................................................................... 42
Table 7: Apple’s SoCs ..................................................................................................................... 45
Table 8: Tegra K1's top-level specs (Source: Nvidia) ..................................................................... 63
Table 9: Nvidia compares Tegra K1's raw specs to previous generation consoles (Source: Nvidia)
.......................................................................................................................................................... 67
Table 10: Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 series SoCs ......................................................................... 79
Table 11: Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 series SoCs ......................................................................... 81
Table 12: MediaTek’s smartphone SoCs ......................................................................................... 90
Table 13: MediaTek’s tablet SoCs ................................................................................................... 91
Table 14: Samsung’s SoCs .............................................................................................................. 93
Table 15: VTI WonderMedia SoCs (Source: Wikipedia) ................................................................ 94
Table 16: Actions Semiconductor’s SoCs ....................................................................................... 97
Table 17: Allwinner Technologies SoCs ......................................................................................... 98
Table 18: HiSilion’s SoCs ............................................................................................................... 99
Table 19: Rockchip’s SoCs ............................................................................................................ 100
Table 20: Spreadtrum’ s 2G smartphone SoCs .............................................................................. 101
Table 21: Spreadtrum’ s 3G smartphone SoCs .............................................................................. 101
Table 22: Spreadtrum’ s 3G tablet SoCs ........................................................................................ 101
Table 23: Smaller SoC suppliers .................................................................................................... 103
Table 24: ARM’s PAM (Source: ARM) ........................................................................................ 117
Table 25: Imagination Technologies’ Rogue processor features (Source: Imagination
Technologies) ................................................................................................................................. 125
Table 26: Comparison of Series 6XT to series 7XT ...................................................................... 129
Table 27: Vivante’s GPU product line ........................................................................................... 156

Overall GPU shipments increased 7.2% from last quarter, AMD increased 8% Nvidia increased 10%

Year-to-year total GPU shipments increased 6.4%, desktop graphics increased 5%, notebooks increased 7%.

This is the latest report from Jon Peddie Research on the GPUs used in PCs. It is reporting on the results of Q2'17 GPU shipments world-wide.

Up to now, the GPU and PC market had been showing a return to what has been normal seasonality. That pattern is typically flat to down in Q1, a significant drop in Q2 as OEMs and the channel deplete inventory before the summer months. A restocking with the latest products in Q3 in anticipation of the holiday season, and mild increase to flat change in Q4. All, of that subject to an overall decline in the PC market since the great recession of ’07 and the influx of tablets and smartphones. However, this year, Q2 dGPU shipments were completely out of synch, and remarkably high, as shown in the following chart.

Figure 1: Quarter-to-quarter shipments of discrete GPUs

As the chart shows, this is the first time in over 20 years that Q2 has seen an increase in shipments, and never one this dramatic.

The big difference is the impact Bitcoin, Ethereum and other coin miners are having on the market.

Why Ethereum? There was a similar uptick in GPU sales for Bitcoin and Litcoin mining 2013. It drove up sales of GPUs and especially AMD GPUs because of AMD’s GCN architecture favored mining. Low cost application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) were then employed to do the job and that boom went bust, much to the relief of gamers looking for better deals on GPUs. Bitcoin miners who had built large GPU structures for mining, dumped their AIBs on eBay, cannibalizing the GPU market for a couple of quarters. Due to the architecture of Ethereum, that won’t happen.

Ethereum uses a different hashing algorithm to Bitcoin, which makes it incompatible with the special hashing hardware, ASICs, developed for Bitcoin mining. Ethereum’s algorithm is known as Ethash. It’s a memory-hard algorithm; meaning it’s designed to resist the development of Ethereum-mining ASICs. Instead, Ethash is deliberately best-suited to GPU-mining.

As long as Bitcoin process keep going up, new people will be attracted to the mining market. It will eventually flatten out because the ROI just won’t be there. At that point AIB sales for mining will roll off, and we may even see some dumping by the marginal players/miners. And there still is the social issue of what kinds of transactions the miners are verifying.

Overall GPU shipments increased 7.2% from last quarter, AMD increased 8% Nvidia increased 10% and Intel, increased 6%.

Year-to-year total GPU shipments increased 6.4%, desktop graphics increased 5%, notebooks increased 7%.

After years of incursion into the discrete GPU market, it appears the discrete GPUs (dGPU) are gaining market share over iGPUs. The long-term CAGR has been positive, while iGPUs have been negative.

However, some of the increase in dGPU sales has to be attributed to the blockchain mining demand for GPUs. The continued decline in the overall PC market shows up in the integrated GPU shipment numbers.

Figure 2: Overall GPU shipments quarter to quarter were up AMD and Nvidia saw share gain

Quick highlights

  • AMD’s overall unit shipments increased 7.81% quarter-to-quarter, Intel’s total shipments increased 6.31% from last quarter, and Nvidia’s increased 10.42%.
  • The attach rate of GPUs (includes integrated and discrete GPUs) to PCs for the quarter was 146% which was up 9.57% from last quarter.
  • Discrete GPUs were in 35.38% of PCs, which is up 4.02%.
  • The overall PC market increase 0.12% quarter-to-quarter, and decrease -3.98% year-to-year.
  • Desktop graphics add-in boards (AIBs) that use discrete GPUs increased 30.88% from last quarter.
  • Q2'17 saw a decrease in tablet shipments from last quarter.

GPUs are traditionally a leading indicator of the market, since a GPU goes into every system before it is shipped, and most of the PC vendors are guiding cautiously for Q4’14. The Gaming PC segment, where higher-end GPUs are used, was a bright spot in the market in the quarter.

The report contains the following content:

  • Worldwide GPU and PC Shipment Volume, 1994 to 2020.
  • Detailed worldwide GPU Shipment Volume, 1Q 2001 to 2Q 2016, and forecast to 2020.
  • Major suppliers: Detailed market share data-on the shipments of AMD, Intel, Nvidia, and others.
  • Financial results for the leading suppliers: Analysis of the quarterly results of the leading GPU suppliers
  • Market Forecasts: You will also be able to download a detailed spreadsheet and supporting charts that project the supplier’s shipments over the period 2001 to 2018. Projections are split into platforms and GPU type.
  • GPUs: History, Status, and Analysis.
  • Financial History from for the last nine quarter: Based on historic SEC filings, you can see current and historical sales and profit results of the leading suppliers. 
  • A Vision of the future: Building upon a solid foundation of facts, data and sober analysis, this section pulls together all of the report's findings and paints a vivid picture of where the PC graphics market is headed. 
  • Charts, graphics, tables and more: Included with this report is an Excel workbook. It contains the data we used to create the charts in this report. The workbook has the charts and supplemental information.

JPR also publishes a series of reports on the PC Gaming Hardware Market, which covers the total market including system and accessories, and looks at 31 countries. More information can be found here: www.jonpeddie.com/publications/pc_gaming_hardware_market_report/

The quarter in general

  • AMD’s shipments of desktop heterogeneous GPU/CPUs, i.e., APUs, for desktops decreased -22.2% from the previous quarter. AMD's APU shipments were down -18.8% in notebooks. Desktop discrete GPUs decreased -34.6% from last quarter, and notebook discrete shipments decreased -16.0%. AMD’s total PC graphics shipments decreased -24.8% from the previous quarter.
  • Intel’s desktop processor embedded graphics (EPGs) shipments decreased from last quarter by -10.5% and notebook processors decreased by -8.0%, and total PC graphics shipments decreased -13.9% from last quarter.
  • Nvidia’s desktop discrete GPU shipments were down -27.8% from last quarter; and the company’s notebook discrete GPU shipments decreased -23.0%, and total PC graphics shipments decreased -25.6% from last quarter.

Total discrete GPUs (desktop and notebook) shipments for the industry decreased -25.5% from the last quarter, and decreased -6.0% from last year. Sales of discrete GPUs fluctuate due to a variety of factors (timing, memory pricing, etc.), new product introductions, and the influence of integrated graphics. Overall, the CAGR from 2014 to 2017 is now -9%.

Ninety nine percent of Intel’s non-server processors have graphics, and over 66% of AMD’s non-server processors contain integrated graphics; AMD still ships integrated graphics chipsets (IGPs).

For those who wish to understand the PC market, an understanding of the highly complex technology and ecosystem that has been built around the GPU is essential to understanding the market’s future directions.
Graphics chips (GPUs) and chips with graphics (IGPs, APUs, and EPGs) GPUs shipments are a leading indicator for the PC market. At least one and often two GPUs are present in every PC shipped. It can take the form of a discrete chip, a GPU integrated in the chipset or embedded in the CPU. The average has grown from 1.2 GPUs per PC in 2001 to 1.36 GPUs per PC.

This detailed 80-page report will provide you with all the data, analysis and insight you need to clearly understand where this technology is today and where it's headed.
Our findings include discrete and integrated graphics (CPU and chipset) for Desktops, Notebooks (and Netbooks). It does not include iPad and Android-based tablets, or ARM-based Servers, or x86-based servers. It does include x86-based tablets, Chromebooks, and embedded systems.

{prod_page}

Digital Content Creation Software Market: all-new 2007 edition

This report provides an overview of the digital content creation (DCC) software market for applications running on PC based computer platforms or UNIX workstations. Digital content creation software enables the creation or modification of digital content, such as animation, graphics, images or video, as part of the production process before presentation in its final medium.

Digital content is visual material stored in a binary format represented by one of the following data classifications:

• Time-based material stored as pixels per time interval or samples per time interval, such as animation, film, or video stored as frames per second (fps).

• Raster-based material stored as fixed pixels, such as images, pictures and photographs, in a variety of formats including bitmap, jpeg or targa files.

• Rendered-based material stored as a mathematical equation or numerical dataset, such as 2D and 3D designs, models and objects or spatial audio, in the form of vectors or a scene graph.

This report covers DCC software in the following segments (in alphabetical order):

• 3D Modeling and Animation

• Digital Video Editing & Compositing

• DVD Authoring

• Dynamic/Interactive Content Authoring

• Graphics and Image Editing

The PC based computer platforms include: Workstation, Performance, Mainstream, and Value PC. For a detailed definition of these segments, please refer to Jon Peddie's Market Watch for PC-based graphics shipments and market activity.

Potential end users for DCC software applications fall into two primary groups:

Professional—The professional group includes end users or facilities that derive primary income directly from using a DCC software application, such as a professional animator, post-production facility or audio recording studio. Also included here are the semi-professionals. These individual end users or facilities also derive income as a result of their use of a DCC software application or are part of a support organization, such as a wedding videographer who works on weekends or a video communication services group in a large corporation.

Consumer—Two classes of users exist in the consumer group. The first type of customer is the prosumer who uses a combination of professional grade and entry level tools, but does not derive any significant income from using a DCC software application, such as a group of local musicians, video enthusiast or public cable access programming. The second customer is the true consumer or home user. These individuals use less expensive entry-level DCC applications for personal enjoyment, such as creating home video of their child's sporting event or retouching family photos taken with a digital camera. By definition, the true consumer or home user derives no income from the DCC applications. Applications for consumers typical cost less than $100 at the point of purchase and anything higher is generally considered too expensive.

{prod_page}

2015 CAD Report

The CAD market returns to growth; reaches $8 billion in 2014

A giant software industry once dismissed as mature sprouts green shoots

Jon Peddie Research (JPR), the industry's research and consulting firm for graphics and multimedia, announced the completion of the CAD market study with historical data and forecasts.

JPR’s CAD Report tracks suppliers of CAD software and related products and has done so for over 15 years.

The news is encouraging and consistent with economic trends. The field of CAD has grown to encompass many disciplines, industries, and capabilities; the report concentrates on the tools used to produce CAD drawings and models. From that point of view we offer market share data for the major companies, geographic breakdowns, an estimate of users, and forecasts for the future.

Jon Peddie Research estimates the CAD software market to be an $8 billion market with 5.15M annual users. We expect the market to grow to $8.7 billion in 2017 at a CAGR of 4%.

The CAD market has been marked by a modest growth rate for decades, but that doesn’t mean the industry is not changing. We have seen significant changes in the years following the recession in 2009. As is typical in all recessions the industry has become more efficient, it has tightened in terms of employment, and it is poised for growth in the coming years.

As the advantages of a digital workflow are extended to the field and to the shop floor the numbers of people accessing CAD data are growing. New access to training and software is helping the CAD workforce move to more efficient methods and advance their skills. The long, long awaited transition to 3D is picking up speed and the gap between 2D and 3D workflows is growing more pronounced in some industries.

As the advantages of a digital workflow are extended to the field and to the shop floor the numbers of people accessing CAD data are growing. New access to training and software is helping the CAD workforce move to more efficient methods and advance their skills. The long, long awaited transition to 3D is picking up speed and the gap between 2D and 3D workflows is growing more pronounced in some industries.

This report is intended to provide a broad overview of the major CAD markets and the dynamics within those markets.

The CAD 2015 report is available now for $6,000. Contact Kathleen Maher (kathleen@jonpeddie) or call 415-435-9368 for more information.

Pricing and Availability

Jon Peddie Research's Worldwide CAD Market Report is available now in electronic copy editions and sells for $6.000. For information about purchasing the CAD Report, please call 415/435-9368 or visit the Jon Peddie Research website at www.jonpeddie.com.

JPR also publishes a series of reports on the workstation Hardware Market, which covers system and accessories and looks at 10 regions. More information can be found here: http://www.jonpeddie.com/publications/workstation_report/

Table of Contents

  • Executive Summary
  • Introduction
    • A summary of findings
    • Trends 2014
  • CAD Market Overview
    • Opportunity and Danger
    • 3D: Shifts in emphasis
    • 2D: The Contenders
    • Transforming AEC
      • Opportunities abound for BIM
      • Construction
      • Cloud enabled BIM
    • The metrology revolution
  • A closer look at individual markets
    • Manufacturing/Mechanical CAD
      • MFG world outlook
    • AEC, Architecture, Engineering, and Construction
      • The construction opportunity
      • And then there’s Asia
      • Conclusion
    • Process, Power, and Marine
      • Trends in PP&M
      • Marine
    • GIS
    • Platfroms
      • The MAC market
        • Mac3D
    • Digital Reality: Real World Capture:
      • First Steps
      • Sketching and drawing
  • CAD User profiles
    • The users: 2D, 3D, and both
      • Geographies
  • Forecasts
    • Summary
  • Index
  • Definitions & Methodology
    • Methodology
      • Information Sources
      • Primary research for this report
      • Secondary research for this report
    • Glossary

Table of Figures

  • Figure 1: Revenues for the CAD software market from 2009 to 2014. We expect to see growth continue.
  • Figure 2: The CAD industry has seen new competitors arrive, but the traditional leaders have held their position. In 2014 companies are exploiting their core competencies and looking for niches. 
  • Figure 3: A breakdown of the major segments considered in this report. In this chart the segments are apportioned according to revenue. 
  • Figure 4: The advantage is increasingly going to large companies, but we’re also seeing new opportunities emerge for young companies. 
  • Figure 5: When looked at by revenue it’s clear that 2D CAD is not a growing business. However, 2D does not go away, drafting and drawings are required for most CAD markets, but the price for the software is coming down.
  • Figure 6: The CAD leaders: Autodesk, Dassault Systèmes, PTC, and Siemens PLM have a disproportionate percentage of market share compared to their smaller competitors.
  • Figure 7: In terms of sheer numbers, the majority of CAD users can be classified as 2D users, but 3D programs cost more and require a different expertise. People who work solely in 2D CAD are now classified as drafters with a much lower rate of pay. Those who use 3D are modelers; they are often people holding professional degrees. 3D has grown in the CAD market. In 2014 CAD revenues are split 24:76 between 2D and 3D. We have seen new entrants on the scene with a strong focus on 2D hoping to take market share from Autodesk. 
  • Figure 8: The industry has learned that 2D is an essential tool for communicating design information. It’s used in conjunction with 3D information —sometimes it’s converted, more often it is not but 2D information lives alongside 3D information. 
  • Figure 9: BIM has wider penetration in Europe compared to the U.S. European requirements have encouraged the use of BIM, but the U.S. is becoming an enthusiastic market as more workers have access to BIM data and the advantages of more efficient information sharing and collaboration are realized. In addition, owners in many industries are starting to ask for BIM as part of the project.
  • Figure 11: Open BIM
  • Figure 12: This diagram of Conventional vs. BIM 5D communication was found in a presentation from Consolidated Construction Company CCC. The conventional model has members communicating in an ad hoc manner and there is no assurance everyone is getting the whole story or even the same story. BIM starts with a central model, which everyone uses to communicate. The term of 5D BIM describes 3D CAD plus schedule (4D) and cost related information (5D). (Source: Zuhair Hadad, Use of BIM, http://www.ccc.me/) 
  • Figure 13: The companies with CAD and BIM tools stand to gain as countries adapt BIM standards. In this look at market share we are comparing the CAD companies BIM tools. The universe of BIM tools is much larger than these companies. Today, the traditional CAD companies in AEC are almost obliged to have BIM capabilities and they are enthusiastic about the opportunity. 
  • Figure 14: Autodesk hopes to offer as many tools as possible to keep users working with Autodesk products. Competitors Bentley Systems, Trimble, Hexagon, Nemetschek and others have similar ambitions but some are more enthusiastic collaborators. (Source: Autodesk) .
  • Figure 15: Excel Engineering demonstrates scanned imagery combined with 3D model in Revit (Source: Excel Engineering) 
  • Figure 16: The market share among leading mechanical CAD providers. The Mechanical market is the largest segment of CAD. The market is lopsided with a few strong leaders and numerous smaller competitors.
  • Figure 17: A comparative look at CAD software revenues from the leading companies based on estimates and company-disclosed data. It reveals the profound effect of recession on the market segment and also the relative slow growth of design software. 
  • Figure 18: Good news and bad news: The above chart is a focused look at influential world-wide economies via the OECD’s Condensed Leading Indicators (CLI). The CLI is a compilation of factors the OECD has found to have an effect on the economy. The OECD is tracking turning points thus the big four European leaders are due for an upturn (blue), North America (NAFTA, maroon) is holding steady and Asia (green) is back on the upswing thanks to China, and Russia (red) is a decided wild card with everything going on hold in the face of low oil prices, sanctions, and war. (Source: OECD) 
  • Figure 19: The companies serving the manufacturing market are looking for ways to expand their product lines into the life cycle of products. (Source: JPR)
  • Figure 20: The AEC industry has suffered badly as a result of the recession and was especially hard hit by the real estate speculation in Europe. Building projects are picking up in the U.S. The picture of the AEC CAD market is looking much more positive as companies adopt new workflows. 
  • Figure 21: The major markets of AEC. 
  • Figure 22: A comparison of the AEC companies shows a trend of growth since the 2009 drop. Trimble’s business includes hardware as well as software so its revenues are significantly higher, but also interesting, the company has been building its construction software business. As we discussed in the BIM section, AEC is going to continue to trend up. 
  • Figure 23: Room for growth: Europe is just now gaining ground lost in their long ongoing recession. EU-28 and EA-19 Construction output, 2000-2014, monthly data, seasonally and working day adjusted (2010=100), Source: Eurostat (sts_copr_a). The EU 28 includes the entire member states of the European Union, and the EA 19 are those countries in the Euro Area (EA) that have adopted the Euro currency. 
  • Figure 24: US Construction figures from U.S. Census data. There is still room for US construction to grow but there is a great deal of confidence at US construction companies.
  • Figure 25: Process and power maket share
  • Figure 26: In the U.S., the sources of power are distributed. (Source: The US Energy Information Administration) 
  • Figure 27: The US EIA (Energy Information Administration) expects energy demands to rise dramatically in India and China. The other emerging economies are catching up while the 34 OECD partners (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) levels off. The OECD countries include the US, Europe, Nordic countries, Australia, etc. and account for 63% of the world’s GDC. 
  • Figure 28: Market shares in global shipbuilding – CGT stands for Compensated Gross Tons. This is a market that travels according to costs. (Source: Ecorys report on shipbuilding in Europe) 
  • Figure 29: The companies leading the GIS industry are ESRI, Hexagon, and GE Energy (Smallworld).
  • Figure 30: We believe the majority of CAD users are using Windows 7 and they are debating whether to use Windows 8 or wait for Windows 9. Microsoft is putting a great deal of effort in to transitioning users to Windows 8 before 9 and that will help nudge some CAD users. 
  • Figure 31: The market for CAD software on the Mac is small. The products in this chart have native Mac CAD products. Those users who want CAD on the Mac primarily use virtualization techniques like Bootcamp and use Windows-based software on Mac machines. Programs built forthe Mac have modest revenues but their user base is dedicated.
  • Figure 32: A comparison of salaries shows CAD drafters to be relatively low paid compared to Professional Engineers, and Architects. 
  • Figure 33: A look at the number of respondents to polls suggests that for many people, the job of CAD drafter is a stepping-stone. The majority of respondents have not been in the job for a long time. They may be ready to move up in their profession or to move on to another type of work. 
  • Figure 34: The 2D CAD market 
  • Figure 35: We believe the 2D market share has shifted in favor of low cost and free CAD tools. Autodesk still holds a majority of market share in 2D, but end users are showing a willingness to change. Graebert claims over 7 million users of its core drafting engine but we put the estimate of committed, active users at much less. 
  • Figure 36: By the numbers, the ratio between 2D and 3D users; however it’s a little misleading since 2D drafting tools are basic tools owned by many. 
  • Figure 37: With the advent of subscriptions and cloud-based tools, there is more access to 3D CAD but we do not believe the number of skilled 3D CAD professionals changes a great deal. 
  • Figure 38: The CAD market has returned to growth and vendors are optimistic about 2015 and beyond. However, the largest growth is coming as a result of new packaging options such as subscriptions and low cost or free products.
  • Figure 39: Strong representation by European CAD companies has changed the picture of worldwide CAD revenues. 
  • Figure 40: To get a larger view of the world market for CAD we broke out the regions by country using our own segmentation, world economic data, as well as company information where available. (Source: Jon Peddie Research) 
  • Figure 41: There have been some interesting shifts over the past six years or so. The Americas have remained stable, losing a little of their percentage to China and Asia but Europe has had rolling economic setbacks and China’s economy is at cooling off. In our forecasts, we had expected Latin America to continue its growth but instead the region is working through some headwinds.

Table of Tables

  • Table 1: A general breakdown of the market concentrations for the major CAD companies
  • Table 2: The ODA companies
  • Table 3: CAD programs and suppliers for the Mac.
  • Table 4: List of CAD programs 

CAD in the Cloud

Jon Peddie Research (JPR) and Business Advantage Group (BA) today announced the availability of their co-created report on CAD in the Cloud (CiC) to present a 2017 view of trends in this market. The report is based on a custom designed survey, fielded worldwide, together with other insights and additional industry data. Content details of the report are available here.

CAD/CAM/CAE users are at the early stages of cloud-based workflows. Software vendors are confident of the benefits of leveraging the cloud and are developing products for their customers. However, there is a mismatch in definitions and expectations between customers and vendors, causing an adoption delay but we are seeing customer attitudes change very quickly from entrenched positions to acceptance.

The report is intended for the following in the CAD/CAM/CAE/PLM and PDM sectors:

  • Product, Development and Marketing Managers of Software and Hardware Vendors and System Integrators 
  • User organisations – Design, Engineering and CAD Managers and executives
  • Research professionals and analysts

Read this report to understand the current thinking of:

  • professional engineers, designers, architects and managers
  • design/engineeringdecision makers
  • by industry, geography, company size, decision making authority and in some areas software usage.  

For these groups, the report includes insights into areas such as:  

  • current and future usage plans for CAD in the Cloud
  • which companies users perceive as the leading CAD in the Cloud vendors
  • perceived importance of CAD in the Cloud
  • benefit perception vs. reality of CAD in the Cloud
  • perceived enablers and inhibitors of CAD in the Cloud
  • evolving management and infrastructure approaches to CAD in the Cloud
  • hardware considerations for CAD in the Cloud
  • and other insights into CAD in the Cloud 

For example, in this Figure 14 below, we see current usage and plans for evaluation and implementation in the next 12 months and beyond. 

Figure 17 below shows how those implementing and planning to implement CiC, broken down by Manufactuirg, AEC and Other sectors, are pretty evenly distributed, with the manufacturing vertical coming out slightly ahead.

We believe there is some more work that can be done to change attitudes towards CAD in the Cloud. At many sites, it is a top-down process as company executives opt for the predictability of subscriptions and cloud based provisioning.

Similarly there are differences by geography. Current usage and consideration is similar across regions, but APAC is significantly more likely than EMEA or Americas to be currently in a phase of implementation. In general, EMEA seems more reluctant to evaluate CiC than North America or APAC. EMEA companies (44%) for example are most likely to have basic awareness of CiC with no further investigation or consideration having taken place compared to Americas 27% and APAC 24%.

Many vendors have not spelled out their commitment to cloud based work-flows even though they may have more quietly let it be known to long term customers, major accounts, and to analysts. We also looked at attitudes of Autodesk users compared to non-Autodesk users and we have found Autodesk users to be more open to the cloud. Autodesk communicated with its customers about the advantages of CAD in the cloud. It has rolled out various cloud-based benefits to its customers on maintenance and now subscription plans. 

The report is available for purchase online via the JPR store or via Purchase Order to Jon Peddie Research or Business Advantage. The cost of a site license for the report varies by size of organization:   

  • Single User or small firm (up to 10 people), US$4,999
  • Department or small firm (10 to 100 people), US$6,500
  • Large firm/site license, US$10,000

US, Americas & APA

For enquiries or further detail please contact any of the following:

US, Americas & APAC: Bill Gordon, Email: bill.gordon@business-advantage.com or +1 650 558 8870

UK & EMEA: Chris Turner, CEO/Managing Director, Email: chris.turner@business-advantage.com or +44 (0)1689 873636

Worldwide: Kathleen Maher kathleen@jonpeddie.com or +1 415 435 9368

Add-in board market increased in Q2’17 from last quarter, and AMD gained market share

Over $3.6 billion dollars of AIBs shipped in the quarter.

The add-in graphics board market was outstanding in Q2'17, increasing 30.9% sequentially, and increased 34.9% year-to-year. explained Jon Peddie, president of the industry’s research consulting firm Jon Peddie Research.

The market shares for the desktop discrete GPU suppliers shifted in the quarter too.

AIBs using discrete GPUs are found in desktop PCs, workstations, servers, rendering and mining farms, and other devices such as scientific instruments. They are sold directly to customers as aftermarket products, or are factory installed by OEMs. In all cases, AIBs represent the higher end of the graphics industry with their discrete chips and private, often large, high-speed memory, as compared to the integrated GPUs in CPUs that share slower system memory.

The GPU and PC market had been showing a return to normal seasonality. That pattern is typically flat to down in Q1, a significant drop in Q2 as OEMs and the channel deplete inventory before the summer months. A restocking with the latest products in Q3 in anticipation of the holiday season, and mild increase to flat change in Q4. All, of that subject to an overall decline in the PC market since the great recession of ’07 and the influx of tablets and smartphones. However, this year, Q2 AIB shipments were completely out of synch, and remarkably high, as shown in the following chart.

As the chart shows, this is the first time in over 9 years that Q2 has seen an increase in shipments, and never one this dramatic. 

The big difference is the impact cryptocurrency mining (especially Ethereum) is having on the market. 

People are sending bitcoins to each other over the bitcoin network all the time, but unless someone keeps a record of all these transactions, no-one would be able to keep track of who had paid what. The bitcoin network deals with this by collecting all of the transactions made during a set period into a list, called a block. It’s the miners’ job to confirm those transactions, and write them into a general ledger. They are paid for this work in like currency.

Ethereum designed to resist the development of Ethereum-mining ASICs.

Ethereum uses a different hashing algorithm to Bitcoin, which makes it incompatible with the special hashing hardware (ASICs) developed for Bitcoin mining. Ethereum’s algorithm is known as Ethash. It’s a memory-hard algorithm; meaning it’s designed to resist the development of Ethereum-mining ASICs. Instead, Ethash is deliberately best-suited to GPU-mining.

The PC add-in board (AIB) market now has just two chip (GPU) suppliers which also build and sell AIBs. The primary suppliers of GPUs are AMD and Nvidia. There are 48 AIB suppliers, the AIB OEM customers of the GPU suppliers, which they call “partners.”

Lots of AIB suppliers, smaller shipments. In addition to privately branded AIBs offered worldwide, about a dozen PC suppliers offer AIBs as part of a system, and/or as an option, and some that offer AIBs as separate aftermarket products. We have been tracking AIB shipments quarterly since 1987—the volume of those boards peaked in 1999, reaching 114 million units, in 2015, 44 million shipped.

Since the introduction of the PC, which was 1981 believe it or not, we estimate that 2.1 billion AIBs will have been shipped by the end of this year. And the inflation adjusted value $1.02 TRILLION dollars!!

The news for the quarter was encouraging and seasonally understandable, quarter-to-quarter, the AIB market increased 30.9% (compared to the desktop PC market, which decreased 18.2%).

AIB shipments during the quarter increased from the last quarter 30.9%, which is which is above the ten-year average of -9.8%. On a year-to-year basis, we found that total AIB shipments during the quarter rose 34.9%, which is greater than desktop PCs, which fell 30.0%.

Ethereum mining is the game changer this quarter. In spite of the overall PC churn, somewhat due to tablets and embedded graphics, the Ethereum mining and PC gaming momentum continues to build and is the bright spot in the AIB market.

The gaming PC (system) market is as vibrant as the stand alone AIB market. All OEMs are investing in Gaming space because demand for Gaming PCs is robust. Intel also validated this on their earnings call., and the recent announcement of a new Enthusiast CPU. However, it won’t show in the overall market numbers, because like gaming GPUs, the gaming PCs are dwarfed by the general-purpose machines.

This edition of Jon Peddie Research’s Add-in Board Quarterly Report covers the market activity of PC-based graphics for Q4'16.

This detailed 97-page report will provide you with all the data, analysis and insight you need to clearly understand where this technology is today and where it's headed.

The report contains the following content:

  • Worldwide AIB Shipment forecast by segment, 2015 to 2021.
  • Attach rate of AIBs from 2001.
  • Detailed worldwide AIB Shipment Volume, by segment, and forecast to 2021.
  • Major suppliers: Detailed market share data-on the shipments of AMD, Nvidia, and others.
  • Market share history from Q1 2004. 
  • Percentage of shipments by region, from 2015 to 2021.
  • Market value of AIBs, and pricing trends
  • A Vision of the future: Building upon a solid foundation of facts, data and sober analysis, this section pulls together all of the report's findings and paints a vivid picture of where the PC graphics market is headed. 
  • Memory load and forecast.

This research finds that global GPU market demand in Q2'16 decreased from last quarter, and decreased from last year, to 83.32 million units. In recent years, as the gaming ecosystem is shaping up, software and hardware developers, information service providers, and even governments have been attempting to unearth market opportunities coming from this new arena. However, global PC shipment volume is forecast to fall further.

2017 Multi-Monitor Market Study Usage and Trends

 

This report covers the results of a survey of end users about their use of or interest in employing multiple displays for the purpose of gaining productivity in their work, or entertainment. 
This is the third such survey we’ve conducted, the first in 2002, then again in 2012. 

We found that the usage of multiple monitors has steadily increased over time, based on our survey data. 

In all our surveys, we asked the respondents to give us their estimate of actual, or expected improvement in productivity. In 2002, the average expectation of productivity improvement due to the use of multiple monitors was 46%. Productivity expectation in 2012 dropped a bit to 42%, and in our recent 2017 survey it stayed the same at 42% average expected productivity. 

Users of multiple monitors have an average expected productivity of 42% 

Multiple displays give you a resolution multiplier: you simply cannot get the same resolution on one big screen as you can with two or more. Two monitors are often less than the price of one big one and provide more resolution.  
Having one of the monitors in portrait mode adds to productivity by eliminating the need to scroll. 

Unlike previous survey, the respondents know their computers are capable of supporting multiple displays.  

The more you can see, the more you can do. Jon Peddie, 1998

The goal for this report was to identify the means of using multiple displays, some of the applications that benefit from multiple display use, and the productivity improvement, if any, realized from the use of multiple displays.

For inquiries or further detail please contact Robert Dow at robert@jonpeddie.com 415.435.9368