Aapje
Golden Member
- Mar 21, 2022
- 1,525
- 2,103
- 106
Indeed. Both the stores and AIBs are not getting big margins. It's Nvidia and AMD that gobble up most of the profit.Around 10% is "normal" in this business, I agree.
Indeed. Both the stores and AIBs are not getting big margins. It's Nvidia and AMD that gobble up most of the profit.Around 10% is "normal" in this business, I agree.
AMD isn't losing any money even at that price. It's just that no one else is going to be making (much) money either.
The Navi 23 die itself costs about $25 to manufacture, add another $25 for the memory and it's about $50 in total for the silicon.
Even if AMD passes that along for $75 that leaves an additional $125 for the PCB and cooling solution, neither of which are significant for Navi 23. Suppose the AIB manufacturers spend $75 on that and sell the product to a retailer for $175 (again taking $25 for themselves over cost) That means the retailer can offer it at $200 to make their own $25 profit on the sale.
It wasn't all that long ago that AMD was selling cards with similarly sized Polaris dies for $229 on down. That was when 8 GB of VRAM required twice as many modules since you couldn't get a 2 GB chip. The cards also had a higher TDP so would require a stronger cooling solution and components to drive more power.
These low end cards are not expensive to manufacture. The higher prices are everyone trying to cling to the insane prices they could charge during the mining boom. Yeah it sucks to go back to earning only $25 for something you could easily get $50 if not $100 for only a few years ago, but now that the miners have stopped buying, there's no one left who's willing to pay double MSRP so it's back to thin margins for everyone involved.
The gaming division of AMD was profitable only due to very healthy console sales last couple of quarters. dGPU portion was most certainly under water.Can you source that claim?
It's a lot easier to pay for that if they actually sell a decent number of cards...I think you forgot the cost of the entire design team, hardware and software.
Because they barely compete with their older stuff and is embarrassing and tarnishing their entire brand? I have to imagine they could do better by offering cheaper prices for OEMs to put them in laptops or All-in-Ones or something.
Yes, we get they aren't going to just abandon a market segment entirely and would put out a new product just for the features set spec sheet, but at this price its bad. There's also a huge disparity between $200 and the $270 MSRP. $225 or $230 would make a big difference in how this is viewed.
It wasn't all that long ago that AMD was selling cards with similarly sized Polaris dies for $229 on down. That was when 8 GB of VRAM required twice as many modules since you couldn't get a 2 GB chip. The cards also had a higher TDP so would require a stronger cooling solution and components to drive more power.
It's a lot easier to pay for that if they actually sell a decent number of cards...
Of course it is not selling bucketloads at $200, because it is not actually sold for that price.The 6600 XT is surely raking in the big bucks for AMD, selling bucketloads at $200.
Oh wait! It is not.
Except that inflation is much lower in Asia, where these cards are actually made. Also, inflation is a measurement of the average price increase of consumer products. It doesn't mean that every product becomes this much more expensive. Some products have a bigger price increase than inflation and some less.BTW, $229 in 2017 = $286 today, after inflation.
I never said that it would sell by bucketloads at $30 less. I said that it won't sell at this price and will sell much better at $250 and way better still at $230. If they really want to sell a lot, the price should go to $200 or below.
If they are not losing money by selling the 6600 for around $200, then they are certainly not going to lose money by selling the 7600 at $230 or $200.And lose money on each sale. But, hey, they will make it up in volume, right?
If they are not losing money by selling the 6600 for around $200, then they are certainly not going to lose money at $230 or $200.
Except that inflation is much lower in Asia, where these cards are actually made. Also, inflation is a measurement of the average price increase of consumer products. It doesn't mean that every product becomes this much more expensive. Some products have a bigger price increase than inflation and some less.
There are very good reasons to assume that the actual costs of making these cards is relatively inflation-insensitive, especially for the 7600, which is made on an 'old' process node. The costs associated with buying the machines were made before the inflation increase. The costs to manufacture on a node gradually go down as the process gets older. So even if there are some costs increases due to inflation, you'd expect at least part of this to get compensated by the costs going down of N6 over time. Especially since N6 that is used to make the 7600, is a cost-optimized variant of the more expensive N7, that is used for the 6600 cards. And with occupancy of N6 being problematic, you'd expect TSMC to offer relatively good prices on this node. So everything points to the 6700-chip being cheaper to make than the 6600-chip. So even if the assembly of the card is a bit more expensive due to inflation, you'd expect this to be cancelled out in full or in part by cheaper component prices.
Who says they aren't losing money selling the 6600 at $200? As I've said multiple times though, it's unclear as to who is taking the hit.
So then the only remaining difference is a 204 mm2 die instead of 107 mm2. Based on leaks about wafer prices, which a chip-expert who knows the actual prices (under NDA) recently said are way too high, we can calculate that a 204 mm2 chip on N6 won't cost more than $30-35. So if a 107 mm2 then costs about half, that, you can assume at most a $20 difference for the chip.
Don't know Witeken, according to his Twitter he got banned for being under 13. Somehow I don't think that he has the credibility of a retired chip designer.If you're talking about the Semiwiki guy, I got bad news for ya. He's basically the TSMC witeken.
If you're trying to argue that the R&D costs for AMD wouldn't change much even without N33 in the mix... I am not sure that's a valid argument as without N33, AMD wouldn't need to backport RDNA3 to N6, nor would they have to make monolithic RDNa3. All of which are costs borne solely from having N33 in the lineup.You guys do realize that the engineering costs for the drivers and even the hardware are spread across the entire line of cards and not just a single one right? And it's not like they start over with drivers. They use the same drivers as they did for previous generations and just make changes to them. The majority of engineering was already paid for when the 7900 XTX & XT were launched.
Don't know Witeken, according to his Twitter he got banned for being under 13.
This doesn't sound sensible at all.
What you want for N32 is the same thing AMD did with N33, and we know from reviews It's a flop. Basically, only a port of N22 to 6nm using RDNA3 architecture.
There is no point for such GPU when we already have N22.
.
5nm N32 with 60CU, 64MB IC, 256bit 16GB GDDR6 sounds much better to me than 6nm version with 40CU, 96MB IC, 192bit 12GB GDDR6.
You guys do realize that the engineering costs for the drivers and even the hardware are spread across the entire line of cards and not just a single one right? And it's not like they start over with drivers. They use the same drivers as they did for previous generations and just make changes to them. The majority of engineering was already paid for when the 7900 XTX & XT were launched.
That's not what I am talking about. My 2012 AMD 7950 with 3GB of vram had a 384-bit bus. Others have pointed the RX480 had a 256bit bus. That is the pipe, aka. width of a bus to transmit data. . . .
I think you forgot the cost of the entire design team, hardware and software.
I literally said the cost of engineering and drivers was spread across the entire line of cards. But the majority of that cost is recouped from the sale of the top tier products as they are higher margin items.No, it wasn't already paid for. Each RDNA card, including every 7600 gets allocated portion the driver development, portion of the common RDNA3 development particular Navi 33 die development and cost of its masks, cost of the corporate overhead.
People who are figuring out the cost of 7600 by using the wafer / die cost calculator and think they know the cost of the card are smoking crack.