Steam says that users in Linux have a overwhelming majority of AMD and Intel GPUs [1]:

- number 1 GPU is AMD VANGOGH Steam Deck APU with 42.05% by itself;

- top 10 Nvidia GPUs have only 9.54%;

- top 10 "not Steam Deck APU, not Nvidia" GPUs are 26.64% of the market, so almost outnumber them 2.8-to-1;

[1] https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=linux

The majority of graphics cards are Intel.

This comment baffles me, both AMD and Intel have CPUs with onboard graphics and those without. You even noted the integrated graphics a sentence later.

If anything, this is more evidence that AMD is following the Intel playbook by having that integrated CPU/ GPU architecture plan.

and thats the consumer market, which lets say is 30% of the B2B enterprise market, which is probably even higher % nvidia

I totally agree with you except for maybe one small thing - if anything I'd say they've outmaneuvered the competition for graphics chips. Their market share for PC graphics hardware is about 70%. By tying the graphics hardware to the CPU, and making it good enough for everybody but hardcore gamers, they've relegated AMD and nVidia to fight over the other 30%. (And I'm honestly shocked that AMD and nVidia have that much of the market. The truckloads and truckloads of PCs bought by corporate buyers generally do not have discrete GPUs...)

http://jonpeddie.com/publications/market_watch/

Now, you can certainly point out that they have 70% of a declining market. Which is true. And you can also say that Intel has little traction in graphics hardware outside the PC space, which is also true. And that is why I agree with you and your point still stands, so please take my post as a semi-interesting footnote and not an argument.

I haven't seen any sings of Intel trying to push their GPU's into ATI/NVidia's niche market (gamers).

NVidia and ATI (now AMD) GPU's have always had their strongest consumer base among gamers [1]. Intel GPU's have never been in the same class as their contemporary NVidia/ATI cards on any measure -- triangles per second, texture bandwidth, gigaflops. Intel also generally uses shared-memory architecture, which means their memory bandwidth is limited and contends with the CPU.

Intel's GPU's are focused on being a low-cost, low-power, on-board graphics solution. As long as they can run a 3D UI and play HD video, they're not going to push the performance envelope any more, for the good and simple reason that they don't want to incur additional manufacturing cost, chip area, design complexity and power consumption for features that are irrelevant to non-gamers.

[1] By "gamers," I really mean anyone who's running applications that require a powerful GPU.

Oh? According to http://www.top500.org/list/2015/11/ (aka "the Top 500 supercomputer list") ... I counted three with AMD GPUs and 70 with NVidia. So...?

Which product? It can't possibly be their GPUs you mean because that would be hilariously wrong. That is like saying a Lamborghini is a better car than a VW because it has a higher top speed.

To me -and to many many buyers- AMD is the superior product. To most Intel has the best product by far (business laptop, Chromebook, etc.)

I guess you and I have different definitions of what an 'underdog' means. Intel ships more CPUs (and GPUs) overall than AMD, and Nvidia does more discrete GPUs (at least in PCs):

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

I'm not sure how valuable and relevant console sales are, since manufacturers make pennies on each unit. It makes sense that AMD, being the more "discount" brand, would be in more consoles than Intel. Except the first Xbox, has Intel ever been in a console?

AMD has turned around with Ryzen, and by some accounts is selling better lately, but Intel has had bigger numbers for a decade.

I don't think there is an Intel GPU here?

Uhm, no. Nvidia GPUs are not the vast majority. Unless you are gamer and talking about other gamers, then it might be right, but otherwise, Intel is the wast majority and Intel has had Wayland working fine since forever now.

Intel is not alone in this, either. My AMD Vega64 was running Wayland fine since I bought it in 2017. So if your Nvidia has a problem, ask the people you paid your money to, when they want to solve it.

Intel makes (albeit recently) the Arc series of dedicated GPUs.

I’m not a graphics programmer so it’s not quite clear how the logic units compare between nVidia, AMD, and Intel, but this link suggests thousands of shading units/cores.

https://wccftech.com/intel-arc-a770-a750-a580-graphics-cards...

I did. My laptop has i3-6157u CPU, I chose it due to the Intel Iris GPU there.

If I would be looking for a new one today, for similar reasons I would have picked an AMD APU.

Only 17% of Steam users have an Intel card. Not sure how you came to that conclusion :)

Let's see the most successful games of the year:

- Battlefield 1, needs at least GeForce GTX 660 / Radeon 7850 with 2GB of VRAM. Will not start on Intel. - Call of Duty: Inifinite Warfare. Same requirement. - Overwatch, actually runs on Intel HD 4400. Needs at least 660/7950 to run well

etc. :)

Where did you get that data? Nvidia doesn't even have that kind of market share (Intel absolutely rules there).

They really don't? You're trying quite hard to conflate casual gaming with console and PC markets, but they obviously have very little overlap. Games that release for Nvidia and AMD systems almost never turn around and port themselves to Apple or Snapdragon platforms. I'd imagine the people calling themselves gamers aren't referring to their Candy Crush streak on iPhone.

> something like a Max processor is much more powerful than required to run the average game coming out.

...well, yeah. And then the laptop 4080 is some 2 times faster than that: https://browser.geekbench.com/opencl-benchmarks

FWIW, I find the latest graphics units from Intel, e.g. HD 4600, rather okay. Even graphically nontrivial things like Crusader Kings II or KSP run decently, although usually far from the highest possible settings. But on the other hand, the drivers are rock-solid, delivered directly in Debian without any fiddling around as was/is necessary for the Nvidia drivers and I don’t need my own powerplant just to run a computer :)

This hasn't been true for quite a while in many games. Modern engines often do utilize 6-8 cores (they have to to get it to work well on the anemic CPUs in ps4/xb1). Assassin's creed, for instance, struggles to push 60 fps on Ryzen 1700X[1]. Of course, one can always drop settings to slightly above console quality and enjoy 60 fps. But, the idea that GPUs are almost always the bottleneck in games is just a myth.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG9Bsv-d8HM&feature=youtu.be...

Wat

This is like extremely incorrect.

Its Nvidia.

Yikes, your technoblabble at the start seemed like smart people talk but the meat and potatoes is off base.