The decline is larger than I expected - AMD down by 6.8% and Nvidia down by 7.6% (Intel iGPUs don't really count IMO). These are also quarter-by-quarter numbers, which is well after the mining crash, although part of it is probably due to the hangover (oversupply of mid-range GPUs). I think these figures reflect the overall situation in the GPU market. There aren't many compelling upgrade options from either company so no reason to upgrade - AMD continues selling Polaris and Vega and Nvidia has yet to release a mainstream Turing GPU. As the report states, this will continue for some time.

I think people are just pissed off they can't get a 1080ti anymore. These new cards all suck, except the 1660ti which is basically borderline OK for a new gen card. It's acceptable. It would have been great at $250, but AMD left the building, so...

Majority of people are playing at 1080p or even 720p resolutions(maybe not 720 so much), with that you really can get away with anything 770 and above on the Nvidia side, or most GCN based cards on the AMD side. On top of that, pricing for hardware now and adaptation of newer standards is really slow. Just about 10 years ago, you could buy an 8800 GT for $250 and play games with that for a good few years, buying a 5 year old card that was $250 now wouldn't get you too far...

I dont see prices ever returning to normal and even though the 20 series isn't that great or much of an improvement from the last generation people would buy them if the prices weren't so ludicrous. I hope their greed hurts them because they deserve it at this point.

in the time frame when rtx first launched until now .. there hasnt been much demanding titles that 10 series cards from nvidia or amd rx series that would require an upgrade to a newer gpu. Shadow of the tomb raider, battlefield v, metro exodus, FF15 etc... sure they had dlss support and dxr but they are not enough to drive gpu sales.. The pricing of the rtx cards doesnt help boost the sales either ...

I'm giving Nvidia the benefit of the doubt that introducing new tech is indeed expensive, and RTX is new tech. Still too expensive for me, and my tri 980ti still do fine.

If prices were the only problem, AMD would not have gone down 6.8% as it has cheap graphics cards. At this point the market is stagnant, there is nothing from AMD and Nvidia that is really worth investing compared to the last 2~3 years. Most are waiting for Nvidia and AMD to make serious progress with 7nm cards.

hardly shocking and to battle this they will increase prices I bet. in e 3- 4 years when, IF i make new pc i wonder what prices will be. I already weary prices and if they keep going up I will just stick to consoles

Undying:

Pc gaming is on the rise? Hah.

Considering that the gpu sales do not reflect pc gaming market in the least I'd say yeah it is on the rise. Games sold is a better thing to look at.

Ryu5uzaku:

Considering that the gpu sales do not reflect pc gaming market in the least I'd say yeah it is on the rise. Games sold is a better thing to look at.

Agree. We have had GPU stagnation for 3 years, excluding the extremely high priced RTX series, so the GPU sales are less connected to gaming than in years past.

I think if they brought the prices for video cards back down from the moon they might start selling again, with that said I think that retailers don't want to bring them back down because they liked the amount of money they made with the inflated price + selling to miners, now that miners aren't buying bulk anymore only the intended consumer is left and most of them aren't interested in the new inflated price brackets.

I got a used 1060 off ebay for$110 ....great 1080p card can't afford 4k stuff 🙁

That doesn't surprise me. And it has nothing to do with the PC market "dying" as so many people like to say. The problem is with both cpu's and gpu's. 20 years ago you had to upgrade every year or two because things were advancing so rapidly, you had twice the power every year. The last 10 years have been stagnant. My old core 2 duo still does what the majority of people use computers for. My 7-8 year old i7-930 still runs even new games just fine with a 980Ti. There really has been no compelling reason to upgrade except for bragging rights or a few of the programs that use more cores on the cpu side. For the gpu side, it's basically the same. High res like 4k needs something more than a 980Ti, but then again it needs more than even the newest gpus can do, and not everybody is upgrading to 4k monitors yet. And if you are an average gamer that isn't very sensitive to framerates you don't even need anything that powerful. We really need to go back to speed of progress we had in the '90s so that we have to upgrade. 😀

Here in the US the RTX 2080 ti was released with a price of $1200 now due to import duties this high price has rose another $100 to $150 also new egg and others have started to charge local sales tax with adds another $115 to $130 depending where you live. I own a RTX 2080 ti and I have to say the card is not worth the price it should retailed for half.

There are hundreds of thousands of GPUs being sold used that were mining over the last 2+ years. That right there will slow down the purchasing of new retail GPUs siginificantly.

Margalus:

That doesn't surprise me. And it has nothing to do with the PC market "dying" as so many people like to say. The problem is with both cpu's and gpu's. 20 years ago you had to upgrade every year or two because things were advancing so rapidly, you had twice the power every year. The last 10 years have been stagnant. My old core 2 duo still does what the majority of people use computers for. My 7-8 year old i7-930 still runs even new games just fine with a 980Ti. There really has been no compelling reason to upgrade except for bragging rights or a few of the programs that use more cores on the cpu side. For the gpu side, it's basically the same. High res like 4k needs something more than a 980Ti, but then again it needs more than even the newest gpus can do, and not everybody is upgrading to 4k monitors yet. And if you are an average gamer that isn't very sensitive to framerates you don't even need anything that powerful. We really need to go back to speed of progress we had in the '90s so that we have to upgrade. 😀

I like what you wrote here. I was getting into PC gaming during those golden years and I feel absurdly privileged to have experienced such an amazing era of technological development, especially something so closely related to personal entertainment like PC gaming hardware. We are among the fortunate few and we may be spoiled by that. Even if hardware advanced today like it used to, it still wouldn't have the noticeable impact on our daily use of the machine like it did back then. Basic use of the PC got faster with each new CPU in addition to games running faster as well. It improved the whole thing. My dad got me a CPU upgrade from a 486 66mhz to a 133mhz version. It was the difference between Duke Nukem being a laggy mess VS being smooth and playable. No modern CPU is so slow that any game you play will be a laggy mess. It is always playable. If you have something higher performance such as an overclocked CPU, then forget it. Nothing will actualy lag on that chip for probably another decade. People these days see 60fps and they say, "That CPU sucks because it doesn't get a steady 144+". What the hell is this kind of talk? Voodoo graphics cards used to advertise "3D Gaming at 60 FPS!" right on the side of the box. Now people see 60FPS minimums and think the CPU or GPU sucks. The good old days are gone. For anything similar to the 1990's to happen again, we need a new technological paradigm to emerge from which rapid progress can yet again be anticipated and enjoyed.

Indeed. Those days of rapidly advancing graphics and hardware 90s/00s seem like a distant past now. We get incremental increases, but nothing earth shattering now. Since about 2008/2009, we've seen diminishing returns across the board as far as advancements of tech and hardware. That's when the iPhone was getting popular, wasn't it? I'm going to posthumously blame Steve Jobs for this.

The most worrying matter is that technology stopped advancing with large steps in this section. We have little gaps with immeasurable costs. As a result, consumers are paying more for less, year by year. We need better material from a software prism and more efficient/effective programmers/developers. PC hardware should be declining with those little improvements. Only nolifers or wealth morons are investing tons of money on a declining market. Mobile phones are still only keep showing large fluctuations despite their 5 to 10 months life cycle. Technology ought to show evolution or starts dying.

warlord:

The most worrying matter is that technology stopped advancing with large steps in this section. We have little gaps with immeasurable costs. As a result, consumers are paying more for less, year by year. We need better material from a software prism and more efficient/effective programmers/developers. PC hardware should be declining with those little improvements. Only nolifers or wealth morons are investing tons of money on a declining market. Mobile phones are still only keep showing large fluctuations despite their 5 to 10 months life cycle. Technology ought to show evolution or starts dying.

That's not true. Consumers are paying the same for only slight performance improvements, outside of the 2080Ti. A 2080 costs the same as a 1080Ti and offers similar performance, same for the 2070/1080, and the 2060/1070Ti. The 1660Ti is actually a price drop when compared to the 1070 whose performance it matches. The difference lies in the fact that there is no $200 card yet, which traditionally is the sweet spot for most gamers. We can no doubt expect a cut down 1660 (with slightly above 1060 performance) to fill that gap shortly once part binning yields enough silicon to fill that role. The fact is, there's no difference in the market now than one year ago as far as price/performance goes. The fact of the matter is, there's not a lot of market for high end video cards. Market saturation of the 4k gaming market where a 2080 or higher is needed is near zero, and the vast majority of gamers are playing at 1080p/60. For them, even a 1660Ti is overkill, and in the most popular games even a 1060 was delivering over 60fps consistently. Even Apex Legends (which is much more demanding than Fortnite) doesn't need more that a 1060/RX580 to get above 100fps at 1080. There's no significant market for higher end cards, so there's no incentive to drive prices down - basic supply and demand. As for phones, you need to keep things in perspective. They are getting more powerful every year, but even this year's top-end iPad SOC (which is about 50% faster than any phones) is still competing with sub-$50 PC CPUs in terms of processing power - and that's with PC performance having basically stagnated in that space for a decade. Even with that, there's nothing that a phone or iPad that can do that needs anywhere near that much power - there's just no software that really takes advantage of it. The "large fluctuations" you talk about are little more that bragging rights that have little to no actual benefit to the platforms they support. In the end, what drives that market is hype, and that engine needs to keep running even if it doesn't actually mean anything.

illrigger:

As for phones, you need to keep things in perspective. They are getting more powerful every year, but even this year's top-end iPad SOC (which is about 50% faster than any phones) is still competing with sub-$50 PC CPUs in terms of processing power - and that's with PC performance having basically stagnated in that space for a decade. Even with that, there's nothing that a phone or iPad that can do that needs anywhere near that much power - there's just no software that really takes advantage of it. The "large fluctuations" you talk about are little more that bragging rights that have little to no actual benefit to the platforms they support. In the end, what drives that market is hype, and that engine needs to keep running even if it doesn't actually mean anything.

I dunno, I think it depends on the app. Playing Fallout Shelter on my Galaxy S8+ is very different from my 2400G (using the iGPU) - slow and sluggish on the former and fast and fluid on the latter. The game is basically the same on both (they can both load the exact same save file), and when I'm at home I prefer to play on my PC since it's so much faster. It's one of the reason why I disregard those Geekbench scores that show mobile SOCs rivaling desktop CPUs - from what I've seen, it's not even close. I think it's been mentioned before, but we won't see major improvements in GPUs until at least 7 nm, and even then we may need to wait for it to mature a bit. GPU die sizes are already rather ridiculous (at least for Nvidia GPUs) and trying to cram more transistors on the current process is an uphill battle. We all complain about RTX pricing but I don't think it's necessarily greed that they're priced so high - Nvidia need to price them as such to maintain margins. The same can be said about smartphones. Despite the absurd price tag on the latest iPhone (and the latest high-end Android phones), Apple's profit margins are actually less than they were before. Companies aren't necessarily increasing prices just because of greed, but because they need to compensate for rising costs. With the difficulties of creating smaller nodes, I think we can expect a general slowdown in the years to come. One promising alternative approach is to use chiplets like AMD is doing with Zen 2, but that isn't a perfect solution either. In this respect, it's sad how technologies like SLI have fallen by the wayside (perhaps DX12 can resurrect multi GPUs, but devs need to get on-board).