• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Radeon VII

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,267
Location
Ireland
There is no such concept because the product is extremely niche.
There are no bulk quantities discounts - forget it. Those are niche components and their quantity is extremely far away from mass quantities.

You can change your spiel all you want, but the fact remains all your waffle is nothing but guesstimates and bull from a site that will post anything to get views.
 
Permabanned
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Posts
9,221
Location
Knowhere
Consider this: at a time when AMD have finally found some financial stability and starting to regain technological and performance leadership, do you think they are desperate enough to lose money on Vega 20 packages just to achieve some superficial PR win and some kind of parity with Nvidia?

I would only say "yes" if many factors fell into alignment.

Personally, I think Radeon 7 is powered by a Vega 20 package that didn't meet the requirements in testing to be a MI50, more than likely power draw is too high. So that package is scheduled to be discarded, and AMD take the financial hit. It's only by virtue of Turing's raster performance being underwhelming and astronomical prices that a window has opened up for AMD to repurpose those trash-destined MI50 packages as a gaming card and recoup some kind of money from it; gaming cards can afford to have their power draw and TDP ramped up, so AMD did just that (clocks too), slapped it onto a PCB that was already designed, mated it with a cooler that was already designed, and lo the Radeon 7 was born.

If Turing saw significant raster gains over Pascal, I don't think AMD would have bothered with Radeon 7 because they still couldn't compete
If RTX cards were couple hundred bucks cheaper, I don't think AMD would have bothered with Radeon 7 because they couldn't match prices

Of course we'll never know what AMD's thought process is regarding Radeon 7, but for me it makes no sense to give up thousands of dollars per sale of MI50 cards to divert their Vega packages to create a Radeon 7 as an actual, proper and planned graphics card. The end result is Rayfield's "unfeasible" has actually come into existence, but I believe it's from aligning circumstance, not by design.


I don't really see how the first bit relates to what I said, It's only a theory, It could be because AMD are making MI50 modules faster than they can sell MI50 cards so rather than end up with a backlog it'd make sense to repurpose some, but as you said we'll never know why.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
Shankly1985 said:
I thought reducing process size also reduces the cost? hasn't this always been the case? Isn't it one of the points of making smaller processors?

So now AMD release 7nm it cost more? LOL

Maybe I been lied to for years!

Nope. Costs increase and have done for a while now. smaller processes cost more. packing more transistors into a package costs more. Developing ever increasingly more complex designs costs more.

There was a time moving to a smaller node was cheaper, yes. But that's long been and gone. This is one of the reasons it's such a huge advantage to develop smaller cores, ie zen, and not enormous monolithic cores like the Tu102 (2080ti) and i expect that will be even more important when moving to 5 and 3nm.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
29 Jun 2016
Posts
2,149
Location
Up Norf
You are wrong.
Question: When the MI50 / MI60 cards that are sold for $8,000 to $10,000, how much would you expect the production cost to be? Don't say $400 because you will be as much fake as the ones who you accuse of being fake.

The BOM is clear and it is:

16 GB HBM2 = $320
Packaging = $100
Cooler and PCB = $75
The rest of the cost is split between TSMC 7nm manufacturing cost and AMD's engineering bill to make the card.

Just accept it and stay quiet :D

You're leaving out the years of R&D, salaries, etc. . not just the physical purchase price of each individual part.
 
Associate
Joined
29 Jun 2016
Posts
2,149
Location
Up Norf
Mate, you have no idea how much it costs to make, the same as me and all the others on this forum. You are stating sites as fact, when in reality, they are spewing made up stuff also. AMD would be stupid to make a GPU and sell at a loss. That just beggars belief.

Correct, The amount of people who believe their own BS on this forum is laughable.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
You can change your spiel all you want, but the fact remains all your waffle is nothing but guesstimates and bull from a site that will post anything to get views.

It is double confirmed. As you can see first techpowerup and then two weeks later the others :D

You're leaving out the years of R&D, salaries, etc. . not just the physical purchase price of each individual part.

That's AMD's engineering bill to make the card.

That'll be stupid when you can get decent 2080's for under £700.

2080 is not good. And is an inferior product overall with cheaper materials.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,267
Location
Ireland
It is double confirmed. As you can see first techpowerup and then two weeks later the others :D

As I said, you can ramble all you want, the fact is you're doing nothing but guessing and taking rumours at face value.

Amd know how much the card costs to manufacture, you don't. And that's all there is to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom