Typical marketing slide, the bottom is 100% and the top 101% of the cost.
I agree the costs of R&D, and fabs themselves go up, but considering that you can get smaller chip etc. I take a marketing slide with an ocean of salt.
That wasn't a "marketing" slide, it was supposed to be a presentation to TSMC, basically. NV also wasn't thrilled that someone leaked it.
Look at the cost curve crossover slide (it's a different slide):
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...y-with-tsmc-claims-22nm-essentially-worthless
It's out of date and maybe 20nm is going better than expected, but Apple is also rumored to be taking a HUGE chunk of TSMC 20nm and Qualcomm and other non-GPU makers want their share, too, so I doubt 20nm wafers come cheap.
Anandtech has also commented that node sizes going down typically doesn't do a whole lot in terms of profit at first, since wafer costs go up to offset whatever you would have saved:
http://www.anandtech.com/print/2937/
"The problem is with any new process, the cost per wafer goes up. It’s a new process, most likely more complex, and thus the wafer cost is higher. If the wafer costs are 50% higher, then you need to fit at least 50% more die on each wafer in order to break even with your costs on the old process. In reality you actually need to fit more than 50% die per wafer on the new process because yields usually suck at the start. But if you follow the foundry’s guidelines to guarantee yield, you won’t even be close to breaking even.
The end result is you get zero benefit from moving to the new process. That’s not an option for anyone looking to actually use Moore’s Law to their advantage. Definitely not for a GPU company.
The solution is to have some very smart people in your company that can take these design rules and hints the foundry provides, and figure out which ones can be ignored, and ways to work around the others."