-
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
- Thread starter DragonQ
- Start date
You also have to include the massively increased die costs. 7nm cost around 4x the price of 16/14/12nm models for a due of the same size. The dies on 16nm were around $100 or more for the big chips, given R7 will be a bit smaller then easy to see each die might come in at $250-300 a time.
Indeed. Some posters have selective memory.I take it we are just ignoring Mike Rayfield now then.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/wccftech.com/exclusive-mike-rayfield-amd-retires/amp/
But I guess the manager of the entire Radeon group did not know about bulk purchases
Dp quoting click bait bs, oh what a shocker. Wccftech that bastion of total truth.
Funny how when that site is quoted people usually laugh it off but when it suits an agenda they're all of a sudden legit.
Caporegime
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.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
Soldato
Reviews today....
Soldato
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!
So now AMD release 7nm it cost more? LOL
Maybe I been lied to for years!
Dp quoting click bait bs, oh what a shocker. Wccftech that bastion of total truth.
Why would wccftech make up news piece about a GPU that at the time AMD said wouldn't release for consumers and literally no one thought we would see? With a quoted price and performance nearly spot on reality weeks before AMD announced anything.
When the whole time the article has nothing to do with R7 pricing but about the SVG being let go?
Soldato
If the die was literally identical in design, just "shrank" then I guess the die would be cheaper, but Vega 20 has a lot more "stuff" added to it so it's a bigger die, relatively speaking. Plus, a mature process will be cheaper, but right now TSMC's 7nm is (essentially) new so I should imagine there will be some level of additional overhead as they dial the kit in, probably recouping development costs through markup too.
Reducing the size reduces costs if the production cost per mm^2 stays the same.
However, 7mm costs 4x as much for the same die size. The vega20 chip might something like 35% smaller on 7nm, but production costs are 4x higher for equal area.
I've posted multiple independent sources from industry analysts pointing out this fact.
Thanks why Nvidia is not using 7nm, it is too expensive u til the process is mature enough that yields are extremely high
It would k my be cheaper if the costs of 7nm were the same as 14nm. They aren't, 7nm is far higher
Soldato
Why would a company like AMD use something that cost much more? Its not like they have money to throw away. People keep saying this about HBM memory! The truth is AMD isn't stupid and if they was paying over the price for the return rate do you honestly think they would be pushing HBM and 7nm??
What for?
The truth is like Greg said no one on here knows what AMD is paying! For all we know they might have some killer bulk deals lol
Sure you can read info from the internet but that doesn't mean AMD is also paying them prices.
Again AMD is the leading company in computer tech, they the only company that sells CPU and GPUs if you think for one min they dont get crazy deals.... The only sector AMD is playing catch up in is the PC graphics sector and do you really think AMD would release GPUs that they simply just loose money on? FURY X would have been the last HBM card if that was the case! We now have VEGA and VEGA 7 coming.
/These are my facts for you.
Soldato
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.
Because they have no choice. No one else provides a cheaper 7nm process. If AMD wants to make a 7nm GPU then at this time costs are far higher than 12nm. If AMD stuck to 12nm then they would have the same vega10 performance
You are completely missing the point that AMD never intended to release vega20 for consumers. They publicly stated this. Then something happened, likely Navi is delayed so they thought they harvest failed MI60 dies and make a limited batch of perhaps as fee as 5K R7s
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.
Caporegime
If this was the case then AMD would have had better price/performance during Vega 64 and 56's launch.
I think this is close to the mark.
If is a fact that these are failed MI60s, since there are only 60CUs. There is likely a similar issue that limits use in MI50, perhaps these are just poor asics, higher leakage and won't boost so high.
So then the cost somewhat redundant if they were destined for the trash, but that doesn't mean they cost $700 or so to produce.
The issue is either AMD only sells the hips that fail to meet MI60 and Mi50, so supply might be be very limited, or AMD make a small loss or at best non-profit and try and sell a few more.
As to why, well everyone complains that people buy Nvidia without even considering AMD. Given AMD hasn't competed at the high end in years is part of the reason. If AMD wants to get the marketing image of Nvidia, they'll have to compete and sell high end products, even if direct profit is low.
Nvidia football Titans in order to make millions, they are sold as part of a marketing campaign,
If they make smaller dies, yes, the process size tends to reduce the cost. Imagine you have a 7nm wafer going for $10,000. And a 12nm wafer going for $6,000. If the dies are the same size on both wafers, the 7nm dies will be more expensive but will also have more transistors, which means more performance and higher value which can be offset by the customers.
I don't think there will be enough to go around on launch Amd never said 7nm Vega wasn't coming for gamers, they left it open ended that 7nm was coming but they didn't specify what it would be. It could have been Navi or Vega, it ended up being Vega with Navi to follow.
And if wccftech were so "spot on" with their alleged prices and performance weeks before amd announced anything why were most of the tech press surprised at the announcement? Wccf quoted $750 to build in their little bs article about Mike Rayfield. And suddenly that number is fact, from a site that's literally the weekly world news of tech sites.