Revenue is kind of a useless metric considering there are many companies that have a huge revenue but barely any profit to show for it. Even though AMD is going to sell more cards over the next few months, Nvidia is going to make more money. Even without the FE markup, they'd take in more per card but with the FE pricing it's not even going to be close.
Revenue is kind of a useless metric considering there are many companies that have a huge revenue but barely any profit to show for it. Even though AMD is going to sell more cards over the next few months, Nvidia is going to make more money. Even without the FE markup, they'd take in more per card but with the FE pricing it's not even going to be close.
Revenue is kind of a useless metric considering there are many companies that have a huge revenue but barely any profit to show for it. Even though AMD is going to sell more cards over the next few months, Nvidia is going to make more money. Even without the FE markup, they'd take in more per card but with the FE pricing it's not even going to be close.
All I meant was 2.5X unit sales means equal revenue. What would have to be the sale ratio for equal profit? 5:1, 7:1, 9:1? I'm not so certain it's a clear nvidia win. It might be close.Revenue is kind of a useless metric considering there are many companies that have a huge revenue but barely any profit to show for it. Even though AMD is going to sell more cards over the next few months, Nvidia is going to make more money. Even without the FE markup, they'd take in more per card but with the FE pricing it's not even going to be close.
you assume right? what is the cost structure of amds small die polaris chips?
How do you figure? Do you know the gross margins for either card? Do you know the sales numbers for each?
because that is the only thing they can come up with atm against amd. as if amd selling 480 at 200$ msrp is bad for us gamers.Why the obsession with Nvidia profits?
It's just a matter of simple math. Given a die size you can figure how many you can get per wafer. Given the relative size of Polaris 10 and GP104, Nvidia would make approximately as much profit at $300 per die as AMD would make at $200, although in reality it wouldn't be quite as good due to lower expected yields for the bigger NV die. There's a lot of other factors involved, but it's a rough approximation.
However, Nvidia isn't selling for $300, but for $450+ (you can't buy a 1070 at MSRP so why bother counting it?) so AMD would have to outsell Nvidia by far more than 2.5:1 to match their gains. The 1080 is selling for ~$700 right now. Even if AMD has 10 times as much stock, I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia still ended up with a greater profit because of what they can charge for their cards.
It's the same thing with Apple who sells phones and computers at much higher prices compared to the rest of the market. They don't sell anywhere near as many phones/notebooks as the rest of the market, but they pull in the vast majority of the profit because their net from every sale is much larger than the competition.
Nvidia isn't selling for $300, but for $450+ (you can't buy a 1070 at MSRP so why bother counting it?)
Yea I just looked at that one seems like the only custom one right now. It would go nice with my mobo color.They're starting to fall, here's one at $399 US:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16814125875
Whoops, I think it's already gone.
because that is the only thing they can come up with atm against amd. as if amd selling 480 at 200$ msrp is bad for us gamers.
We have no idea what it costs to make something at TSMC vs GloFlo, R&D spent, and a crap load of other information, so it is impossible to guess how much profit is being made.It's just a matter of simple math. Given a die size you can figure how many you can get per wafer. Given the relative size of Polaris 10 and GP104, Nvidia would make approximately as much profit at $300 per die as AMD would make at $200, although in reality it wouldn't be quite as good due to lower expected yields for the bigger NV die. There's a lot of other factors involved, but it's a rough approximation.
It's just a matter of simple math. Given a die size you can figure how many you can get per wafer.
It's just a matter of simple math. Given a die size you can figure how many you can get per wafer. Given the relative size of Polaris 10 and GP104, Nvidia would make approximately as much profit at $300 per die as AMD would make at $200, although in reality it wouldn't be quite as good due to lower expected yields for the bigger NV die. There's a lot of other factors involved, but it's a rough approximation.
However, Nvidia isn't selling for $300, but for $450+ (you can't buy a 1070 at MSRP so why bother counting it?) so AMD would have to outsell Nvidia by far more than 2.5:1 to match their gains. The 1080 is selling for ~$700 right now. Even if AMD has 10 times as much stock, I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia still ended up with a greater profit because of what they can charge for their cards.
It's the same thing with Apple who sells phones and computers at much higher prices compared to the rest of the market. They don't sell anywhere near as many phones/notebooks as the rest of the market, but they pull in the vast majority of the profit because their net from every sale is much larger than the competition.
Nvidia has huge R&D costs this generation. We know of at least 6 chips - GP100/2/4/6/7/8. It takes a lot of money to design and tape out a GPU die, especially on this brand new Finfet process. They are integrating three different memory standards, two of which are brand new - G5X and HBM2. Granted, they have some pretty high margin products in Tesla P100 and 1080 FE, but they are going to need it.
AMD, on the other hand, have a very streamlined approach. Just two dies, and both are pretty small. P11 is similarly sized to SoCs, for which 14LPP is already pretty mature. Moreover, they will be re-using this tech for the console wins. PS4 Neo is 36 CU as well, it almost seems like a copy-paste of P10. I bet millions of P11s have been snapped up by the likes of Apple and Dell to go into their laptops. P11 simply has no competition and won't till at least the end of the year.
All of this means that desktop gaming GPUs are going to be much more affordable. AMD can afford to make less profit per unit because there's far less R&D costs to recover. And going for a high volume market, even that is spread over a large quantity - so each GPU has a much lower R&D cost attached.
Both companies need a full range of cards. nVidia isn't going to forgo the 1060 because the 1080 has higher margins. The 1060 will make less money on a per card basis, but it will do far higher volume and they hope it will help develop a loyal customer base. Look at the automobile industry, why does Ford keep making a low margin Fiesta when they have a high margin Expedition? The Fiesta sells in high volumes and develops brand loyalty, while the market for $50k+ SUV's is relatively limited albeit far more profitable on a per unit basis.
Well the equivalent in the US would be F150 probably.. but car analogies suck anyways.You must not be in the US, right? No offense, but in the US, I dont think Fiesta contributes very much to Ford's profits *or* brand loyalty.
Back on topic, if the 480 delivers the performance/price that is anticipated, it is an interesting question as to whether they are pursuing the right strategy with the very aggressive pricing, or if they are simply losing revenue and remaining the "bargain brand". No argument that it is good for consumers however.
And a good deal faster than then
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=38194909
That is some freaking impressive results result if its a reference card but do we know that?
You must not be in the US, right? No offense, but in the US, I dont think Fiesta contributes very much to Ford's profits *or* brand loyalty.
Back on topic, if the 480 delivers the performance/price that is anticipated, it is an interesting question as to whether they are pursuing the right strategy with the very aggressive pricing, or if they are simply losing revenue and remaining the "bargain brand". No argument that it is good for consumers however.