I could understand the yields issue if we were talking big dies. ~300²mm though?
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 $$.
I could understand the yields issue if we were talking big dies. ~300²mm though?
28nm early, Kepler GK104 was also a small die. 3 SKUs.
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.
Spot on :thumbsup:
Also people dealing in mm2 demands got absolutely no clue how things work. By that flawed logic GP107 and Polaris 11 should cost 5$ or so.
It's not spot on, far from it. I understand the arguments about investment and capital costs, but here's the final thing that matters: profit margins.
It's going up. When companies have growing profit margins, that comes at the expense of consumers having a worse deal.
It's going up. When companies have growing profit margins, that comes at the expense of consumers having a worse deal.
Exactly..i dont know why people still defending NV prices.They must have shares in NV.
Wrong. AMDs margins for example have been going up, yet they are as far as ever from making money. Why do you think that is?
And lets look at the segment. Lower volume, higher design cost, higher R&D cost. Now what does this tell you about the pressure on margins?
not true
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/ADVANCED_MICRO_DEVICES_(AMD)/Data/Gross_Margin
Look at 10y chart
Wrong. AMDs margins for example have been going up, yet they are as far as ever from making money. Why do you think that is?
And lets look at the segment. Lower volume, higher design cost, higher R&D cost. Now what does this tell you about the pressure on margins?
What does have AMD to do with this?
The point is, Nvidia´s profits are raising year after year despite supposed increased costs and shrinking market. If they sell less and the costs to produce are higher than before, how are they earning more?
Because people move up in SKUs(record GTX sales) and HPC sales increase.
They just started construction on a new building, that cost money too.
AMD is a show of what their margins do to their finance. At 40% or so they have to sell buildings and so on.
I assume you like to be paid for your job as well.
Nvidias latest margins was 56.5%. Even if they just discounted all products by 15%, they would be losing money and have nothing to invest with into new segments, buyouts or anything else. And remember, 15% isn't on the product you buy, it would be much less there.
2011 January : 40nm - GF114 (GTX560Ti) - 332mm2 - MSRP $249
2011 May : 40nm - GF114 (GTX560) - 332mm2 - MSRP $199
Q2 2011 (Fiscal 2012) : NVIDIA Margins at 51.7%
2014 September : 28nm - GM204 (GTX 980) - 398mm2 - MSRP $549
2014 September : 28nm - GM204 (GTX 970) - 398mm2 - MSRP $329
Q4 2014 (Fiscal 2015) : NVIDIA Margins at 55.9%
They simple selling at double the price for the same silicon area over 40nm. That means WE Gamers pay DOUBLE for the performance provided at the 300-400mm2.
So you say double the price on the end product only increased NVidias margins by ~4%. Thank you for proving my point
Exactly..i dont know why people still defending NV prices.They must have shares in NV.
Still why they defending it?we all know its overpriced.Its bad for us all.So why the hell someone want defend high prices?ROFL. In business you don't sell your product at the fairest price, you sell it for what the consumer is willing to pay. It's known as Capitalism.
Still why they defending it?we all know its overpriced.Its bad for us all.So why the hell someone want defend high prices?
You know better than that, this ~4% increase in Margins is for the entire company, not for the GM204 alone.
If they would sell the same amount of GM204 in 2014 as they sold GF114 in 2011, their Margins and especially their Revenue would skyrocket. But because volume sales of GTX980 is not the same as GTX 560Ti, NVIDIA gains in 2014 are lower than the price increase.
As you know GTX 970 ($332) sold way more than GTX 980, so that made margins increase less than if you would sell the same volume but with GTX980 at $549.
I agree that price should be based on performance and not mm2.
So you say double the price on the end product only increased NVidias margins by ~4%. Thank you for proving my point
You do not see that cut down GM204 has 329$ price tag, with supposedly 50% margin, and GTX 980 which is full die, for which you have to pay exactly the same amount of cash as the cut down version, and costs over 200$ more?
Still why they defending it?we all know its overpriced.Its bad for us all.So why the hell someone want defend high prices?