Due to the delays in nVidia's gtx400 series DX11 cards hasn't only affected their market price, but also their sales.

As they don't currently have any entry level or mid-range DX11 cards, they are starting to lose market share.

AMD overtook nVidia for the first time, with 24,5% market share, compared to nVidia's 19,8%. In the first quarter of this year, Mercury Research reported nVidia with 29,6%, well ahead of AMD.

Neither come close to the graphics chip market leader, Intel, which has nearly 55% market share (54,9%).

What surprises me it that AMD aren't beating them by a larger margin.

It would interesting to know how rigged the graphics card market is?

onboard GPU's …

I was thinking more of huge discounts if you take our motherboards and processors so that the graphics are practically free. No company can compete with that.

None of this is helped by the lack of a good reason to upgrade your graphics card...even a two year old GPU can handle the dumbed-down console ports appearing on the PC. The only thing that is putting up a challenge at the moment is Metro 2033.

Now I've just found out at S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 is going to be multi-platform, it is pretty much game over. The last good PC franchise has gone.

TBH I am opting for a console because of the constant issues of will my computer handle the graphics. Not an issue for me with two new iMacs but I am only planning on getting Civilisation 5 in the next couple of years, and that does not push the graphics too hard. It was a problem when I had a PC.

A majority of users don't need a good graphics card. Gamers account for between 5 and 10% of the market. The rest can get by with Intel onbaord graphics - they are powerful enough for hd video or a 3D desktop. Business machines that require a dedicated graphic card often need the professional level FireGL or Quadro cards from AMD or nVidia.

The Intel chipsets also have the advantage of being very economical. AMD are starting to develop chips which are more economical, but they are still trailing a long way behind Intel in efficirncy, whilst nVidia chips are hugely inefficient, in comparisson at the moment.

It hasn't been helped with AMD only providing chipset graphics for their own processors (what a surprise) and the associated chipsets not being popular, nVidia having suffered from driver and compatibility problems in the past, so that Intel have captured a large share of the market.

At my current place of work, we have 60 SiS graphics, 10 Intel, 1 AMD and no nVidia.

Yes I would accept that fact. Plus for businesses the vast majority of users will not need any extra graphics capability at all. So Intel could easily gets its market share from the business sector alone.