This means that even though the foundries can achieve improved cost/transistor, cost/mm^2 is actually on the rise. Intel estimates that in going from 22nm (single patterning) -> 14nm (double patterning) led to a 30% increase in wafer cost. That's NOT small.
If we assume something similar for TSMC in going from 28nm to 16nm, then this means that the cost of 300mm^2 of silicon in 16FF+ is about that of ~390mm^2 of TSMC 28nm silicon, assuming normalized yields. TSMC 16nm yields are said to be crazy good right now, so let's assume similar yields.
In addition, the performance/transistor has gone way up, so while some people will sit there and gnash their teeth about how they're not getting the "right amount of silicon die area" it's ultimately delivered performance/$ that matters.
If 300mm^2 of 16FF+ silicon gives you way better performance than 600mm^2 of 28nm silicon, and it is being sold to you for the same price as the 600mm^2 part, then why complain? Why whine that your "rights" as "we the gamers" are being trampled upon by evil, greedy NVIDIA?
If Gpus and wafers are more expensive why NV make most money in history since they doubled prices with kepler and maybe even tripled with pascal?and people like you still defending them..WowI find it frustrating that many of the people in here who are claiming that NVIDIA is "ripping off we the gamers" seem to be arguing from false premises.
First of all, using die size to compare whether one chip is a worthy successor to another is ridiculous. In this day and age, in order to move to new nodes, the capital intensity goes substantially up due to the need for double patterning.
This means that even though the foundries can achieve improved cost/transistor, cost/mm^2 is actually on the rise. Intel estimates that in going from 22nm (single patterning) -> 14nm (double patterning) led to a 30% increase in wafer cost. That's NOT small.
If we assume something similar for TSMC in going from 28nm to 16nm, then this means that the cost of 300mm^2 of silicon in 16FF+ is about that of ~390mm^2 of TSMC 28nm silicon, assuming normalized yields. TSMC 16nm yields are said to be crazy good right now, so let's assume similar yields.
In addition, the performance/transistor has gone way up, so while some people will sit there and gnash their teeth about how they're not getting the "right amount of silicon die area" it's ultimately delivered performance/$ that matters.
If 300mm^2 of 16FF+ silicon gives you way better performance than 600mm^2 of 28nm silicon, and it is being sold to you for the same price as the 600mm^2 part, then why complain? Why whine that your "rights" as "we the gamers" are being trampled upon by evil, greedy NVIDIA?
If you don't like it, buy an AMD alternative. And, I guess if AMD does the same thing (and they appear to be doing just that), the best I can suggest is to use the "free" Intel/AMD iGPU on your CPU of choice.
If that is true, we should see Nvidia struggling to keep up profits from the GeForce line. Are margins slowly sinking or still going up?I find it frustrating that many of the people in here who are claiming that NVIDIA is "ripping off we the gamers" seem to be arguing from false premises.
First of all, using die size to compare whether one chip is a worthy successor to another is ridiculous. In this day and age, in order to move to new nodes, the capital intensity goes substantially up due to the need for double patterning.
Exactly, and it seems to me some people choose to spend their $$$ on even more performance, just like some people choose to skip a CPU gen.In addition, the performance/transistor has gone way up, so while some people will sit there and gnash their teeth about how they're not getting the "right amount of silicon die area" it's ultimately delivered performance/$ that matters.
What's next for the following process jump, 150mm^2 high end parts? At this rate the iGPU just needs to wait for the dGPU to catch down in sizeIf 300mm^2 of 16FF+ silicon gives you way better performance than 600mm^2 of 28nm silicon, and it is being sold to you for the same price as the 600mm^2 part, then why complain?
I find it frustrating that many of the people in here who are claiming that NVIDIA is "ripping off we the gamers" seem to be arguing from false premises.
First of all, using die size to compare whether one chip is a worthy successor to another is ridiculous. In this day and age, in order to move to new nodes, the capital intensity goes substantially up due to the need for double patterning.
This means that even though the foundries can achieve improved cost/transistor, cost/mm^2 is actually on the rise. Intel estimates that in going from 22nm (single patterning) -> 14nm (double patterning) led to a 30% increase in wafer cost. That's NOT small.
If we assume something similar for TSMC in going from 28nm to 16nm, then this means that the cost of 300mm^2 of silicon in 16FF+ is about that of ~390mm^2 of TSMC 28nm silicon, assuming normalized yields. TSMC 16nm yields are said to be crazy good right now, so let's assume similar yields.
In addition, the performance/transistor has gone way up, so while some people will sit there and gnash their teeth about how they're not getting the "right amount of silicon die area" it's ultimately delivered performance/$ that matters.
If 300mm^2 of 16FF+ silicon gives you way better performance than 600mm^2 of 28nm silicon, and it is being sold to you for the same price as the 600mm^2 part, then why complain? Why whine that your "rights" as "we the gamers" are being trampled upon by evil, greedy NVIDIA?
If you don't like it, buy an AMD alternative. And, I guess if AMD does the same thing (and they appear to be doing just that), the best I can suggest is to use the "free" Intel/AMD iGPU on your CPU of choice.
Inflation? What inflation? :sneaky:OFC i understand inflation is a thing and costs rise, so i can live with the fact, what was 500 EUROs 5 years ago, is 650 now.
That's not the same as price inflation, which is inofficially ~9%.
Gross margin for fiscal year 2016 was a record 56.1%, up 60 basis points from the previous year,
Our overall gross margin was 55.5% , 54.9% and 52.0% for fiscal years 2015 , 2014 and 2013 , respectively
Our gross margin was 52.0%, 51.4% and 39.8% for fiscal years 2013 , 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Our gross margin was 35.4%, 34.3% and 45.6% for fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively
Arachnotronic, if new node costs that much then why Nvidia is making more money with every single year since 2009?
Please do tell how prices go up by 9% while currency purchasing power stays the same.That's not the same as price inflation, which is inofficially ~9%.
Of course higher prices are a part of the reason. But that's not the only reason. Tegra automotive, Geforce GRID, and Tesla sales are both high and very high margin. All of that coupled with a massive market share increase and a migration of core gamers to higher end GPU's is the reasons why. If AMD starts to claw back market share at a substantial rate, expect Nvidia to initiate a price war. But Tesla and Tegra automotive margins are shielded from gamer GPU sales and thus will still keep margins high.
Please do tell how prices go up by 9% while currency purchasing power stays the same.
http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-pascal-rumors-point-to-three-gp104-gpus-in-june/
^ 3 GP104 SKUS.
Recall the 680, 670 and 660Ti.
The rumor suggest the non-cut GP104 will take the flagship moniker like the 980Ti, while the cut gets the 980 replacement and 2nd cut gets 970 replacement monikers.
This makes sense as a new node may not be as great yielding, so full dies are a rarity and will go for a nice premium $$.
Volta will bring Improved Async
Is it confirmed that we are not getting it now?
Software running on the P100 can be preempted on instruction boundaries, rather than at the end of a draw call. This means a thread can immediately give way to a higher priority thread, rather than waiting to the end of a potentially lengthy draw operation. This extra latency – the waiting for a call to end – can really mess up very time-sensitive applications, such as virtual reality headsets. A 5ms delay could lead to a missed Vsync and a visible glitch in the real-time rendering, which drives some people nuts.
By getting down to the instruction level, this latency penalty should evaporate, which is good news for VR gamers. Per-instruction preemption means programmers can also single step through GPU code to iron out bugs.
This years releases really are looking to be less than exciting :'(. The bright side is that a lot of us who bought 980ti's last year probably won't be upgrading until 2017 with Vega/GP102(if it exists). More money for other hobbies this year at least
Thank you and alcoholbob for the extra info. Although I'm still tempted by the subject, I'll mute myself to avoid the OT.The core inflation rate is 1-2%, but is being puffed up by food and energy inflation that is growing at a faster rate and not factored into the consumer price index due to the governments flawed measure of inflation. Food, rent and energy are more expensive.