But D.P., that's not the argument. Again, the argument is AMD shouldn't because they can't. How do you propose AMD regain marketshare and mindshare if they charge the same money for an inferior product? You yourself and others have said repeatedly that AMD producing cards at many-year old performance levels is a joke, and charging Nvidia money for it doubly so. The cost of 7nm is irrelevant without context. Yes, as a process it is expensive, but economy of scale, yields, size of the dies and percentage of usable dies from the wafers can all mitigate that initial cost.
Why do you think the latest leak has such a granular approach to SKUs? AMD could almost literally be using every die that comes off a wafer and slap it onto one or two common PCBs and make a SKU out of it. Getting 70% utilisation out of a wafer makes each wafer cheaper in the long run than, say, 40% utilisation.
Wishful thinking is perfectly fine, and if AMD do indeed charge what we all consider to be stupid prices then Navi will fail, nobody will buy it and AMD are all out of excuses. I sure as hell won't buy a RX3080 if it performs and costs the same as a RTX 2070, because RT and DLSS for all its woes would be a deal-clincher.
You are asking two thing: 1) what should AMD do, 2) Yields and pricing.
Answer 2) first as it is simpler. Everything you say applies equally to Nvidia. There is a reason Nvidia have SKUs from Titan->2080ti->2080->2070->2060 and why there may well be things like a 2070Ti, and why there were 2 chip binning for some of these SKUs. The problem AMD faces is 7nm is 2-to3x more expensive than 16/12nm, and yields are lower. AMD's problems are compounded because they do have a smaller market share so have less volume discounts, and the 7nm process is much more in demand with mobile SoCs, while TSMC has spare 12nm capacity.
For the first question, I don't have the answers. If I did I would be earning 500k a year as a C-level in AMD. The problem is AMD catastrophically cut R&D and this has a delayed and compounded effect that is hard to come back from. I mentioned this way back at 290x release that progress will totally stagnate, which is exactly what happened. Nothing but a serious of minor tweaks and node-bumps, with more rebranding than you can count on your fingers (there is news Polaris will; be rebranded again with 600 series cards!).
What is clear is if their GPU division is not profitable then it will die. Gaining market share but loosing billions is not sustainable. AMD have tried this, but with lackluster products their market share continued to decline and their profits evaporated. Which is why a few years ago they public stated they can no longer be considered a budget brand and would have to compete with nvidia at a high performance and high profit market position.
The problem is AMD's lack of year-on-year R&D has meant their GPU products are several generations behind. This is forcing AMD to use a more expensive 7nm process, and forced them to wait another year before they could do anything to compete with nvidia, and despite that all they can achieve is performance parity.
Lastly, just like Nvidia and every company, th only thing AMD cares about is profits. Selling at tiny margins to gain a small amount of market share is not sustainable, that is what got AMD in top so much trouble to begin with.
IMO, AMD should be looking at selling off their GPU division but with somekind of cross-licensing in place so APU can be made. The GPU division needs a serious injection of cash to come back. Ryzen is doing well but AMD need to service debt and increase CPU R&D.