• 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.

** The AMD Navi Thread **

Satchfanuk said:
Nvidia make something like 60 - 90 margin on their products and yet here we are calling out AMD as greedy for trying to make 40% (if they are even getting that).

The 7nm process is vastly more expensive than the 12nm used by Nvidia. That is the sole reason Nvidia still use the 12nm node, so they can make enormous profits at the expense of their customers.

AMD made the decision to go 7nm and are selling their products at the going rate, which is set by the market leader.

If you don't like the price, don't buy, it's really that simple. However, look at Nvidia. Everyone complained about their prices but still went out and bought their cards regardless.

AMD should get to sell competing performance for comparable prices. That's about all there is to say. They aren't in the business of making martyrs of themselves. They want to make money.
Click to expand...

Very interested to have a read on these margin's, got a link?
 
Participant said:
People keep going on about blower-style coolers but why do manufacturers keep using them in OEM-spec cards? Is it really cost, or is it to cater for all installations and reduce the risk of overheating problems in ITX cases etc.?
Click to expand...

My take on this is to allow board partners to make their own coolers. If AMD and Nvidia just released a be all cooler what would happen to the likes of MSI, ASUS etc or even first party AIO like Sapphire for AMD
 
Illuminist said:
Profit margin source?
Click to expand...

It was in a YouTube video I watched this morning but I can't remember who it was. A quick look on some financial websites though and you can see up until recently their margins at 60-65% overall. This is obviously for their whole product portfolio so the 60 - 90 range is quite believable since some products will make way more than others.
 
Minusorange said:
They're biggest because AMD is their only competitor, it's not exactly a competition especially for Nvidia, they basically have a monopoly as we can all quite easily see from their overpricing of hardware

The point is that AMD used to be able to compete with Nvida AND Intel, they weren't always the best but the price made up for the slight hit in performance, now they seem just focused on beating Intel while allowing Nvidia to gouge prices on the high end market, no idea why AMD aren't pushing out high end cards when they've proven they're capable in the past
Click to expand...

Was this back when AMD & Ati were different entities?
 
RavenXXX2 said:
AMD are making huge margins on navi, it might be 7 nm but it's only 251 mm compared to 445 mm of the 2070.
Click to expand...

Can somebody please explain why the die size should make a difference other than it being smaller? surely a smaller size presents its own challenges in the R&D dept?
 
RavenXXX2 said:
AMD are making huge margins on navi, it might be 7 nm but it's only 251 mm compared to 445 mm of the 2070.
Click to expand...

What if 2 out of 3 chips fail due to yield issues with the new 7nm process, how does that make it cheaper? Also, how much is a 12nm wafer compared to a 7nm wafer?

Size doesn't tell the whole story when it comes to prices across different manufacturing nodes.
 
Chrisc said:
Can somebody please explain why the die size should make a difference other than it being smaller? surely a smaller size presents its own challenges in the R&D dept?
Click to expand...

More die's per wafer, therefore more GPU's to sell, therefore more potential return. However this is offset somewhat by the fab cost of 7nm compared to 12nm, and that 7nm isn't as mature so potentially more failed dies.
 
HeX said:
More die's per wafer, therefore more GPU's to sell, therefore more potential return. However this is offset somewhat by the fab cost of 7nm compared to 12nm, and that 7nm isn't as mature so potentially more failed dies.
Click to expand...

Not to mention higher failure rate due to new process yields being lower than on a more mature process like 12nm.

*Ah, did you add that last bit or did I not read the whole sentence :)
 
HeX said:
More die's per wafer, therefore more GPU's to sell, therefore more potential return. However this is offset somewhat by the fab cost of 7nm compared to 12nm, and that 7nm isn't as mature so potentially more failed dies.
Click to expand...

i just cant get my head around the argument that people seem to think if its smaller it must be cheaper? seems very narrow minded, unless they know something i dont? i mean like hard facts stating the overall cost of the R&D/Production = cheaper? i just dont see it.

Cheers for replying though.
 
Sargatanas2511 said:
Of course they had a choice but they are not a charity. They release a product comparable to something that is actually selling for £480, why on earth should they sell their version for £300?
Click to expand...


It is coming nearly 1 year later, has less featres, and offers was price-performance than existing AMD cards. Let alone the fact that it seems Nvidia will steamroll over Navi with faster and cheaper super cards.
 
Chrisc said:
i just cant get my head around the argument that people seem to think if its smaller it must be cheaper? seems very narrow minded, unless they know something i dont? i mean like hard facts stating the overall cost of the R&D/Production = cheaper? i just dont see it.

Cheers for replying though.
Click to expand...
It's not cheaper directly, it's down to the amount of usable "stuff" from a wafer.

Take a sheet of A4 paper. That paper costs £10 a sheet. Chop it into 4 pieces and each piece costs you £2.50. Now, take another A4 sheet that costs £20 and chop it into 10 pieces, each piece costs £2. Then if you sell these pieces you create for £10 each, you'll get back £40 total for the first sheet (£30 profit) but £100 total for the 2nd sheet (£80 profit).

So although the 2nd A4 sheet cost twice as much, the amount of pieces you get out of it are cheaper per unit and have a higher profit margin.
 
LePhuronn said:
It's not cheaper directly, it's down to the amount of usable "stuff" from a wafer.

Take a sheet of A4 paper. That paper costs £10 a sheet. Chop it into 4 pieces and each piece costs you £2.50. Now, take another A4 sheet that costs £20 and chop it into 10 pieces, each piece costs £2. So although the 2nd A4 sheet cost you twice as much, the amount of pieces you get out of it are cheaper per unit.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, cheers. Still a bit meh to just assume its cheaper to produce though as some people claim.
 
D.P. said:
It is coming nearly 1 year later, has less featres, and offers was price-performance than existing AMD cards. Let alone the fact that it seems Nvidia will steamroll over Navi with faster and cheaper super cards.
Click to expand...

If GeForce Super comes out and it is what is rumoured then AMD will have to react of course but we still have no confirmation of what this will actually be. Ray Tracing is not really a viable feature at this level as the cards are not quick enough to make use of it as well though coming later I do agree with and that's why they are ~15% cheaper at launch going by current prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom