Probably not a ton of margin on Intel's graphics cards but they are profitable if you do some back of the envelope maths.
5nm 300nm wafer probably costs around 20k, each die is 272mm so at best you'll get 220 good dies but assuming some defects you may end up with about 172 serviceable B580 chips. $20,000/172 is around $100 each, add packing, memory, cooler, PCB and distribution costs there's not a ton of margin in it for Intel. They can still rescue some of the broken dies for B570's and $20k is on the high side.
Intel's biggest problem in GPU's is actually manufacturing, they sell everything they produce and AIB's are crying out for more stock but given Intel is such a small player on the GPU front lead times for extra wafers and capacity at AIB factories is something like 6 months (taken from a recent Gamers Nexus video on the matter).
You're forgetting AIB profits and retailer profits.
The chip is $100, how much do you think the cooler is? the shroud, the fans? the PCB with all of its components, aside from the memory IC's quite a few of the other components on the PCB are also multiple $ a piece, add all of that up and on top of that leave enough room for AIB's and retailers to get a worthwhile profit margin, what do you think that is? 0.003%?
We aren't done yet.... these things are not free to develop, you have to pay designers, engineers to R&D the GPU, licencing, tooling, machinery costs..... you have to recoup all of those costs in the margins of the product because if you don't eventually you will run out of money to do anything, this applies to AIB's and Intel.
Its too easy to look at it on a surface level and say this GPU costs $150 to make so they can sell it for $200, that's enough... for who and what?
Its the same thinking that enables Youtubers to tell millions AMD GPU's should be 40% cheaper than Nvidia and say that with a straight face, its dilution born out of ignorance, its people with no critical thinking skills. Do you know how Nvidia read that? "We should be 40% more expensive than AMD"
--------------------
So with all of that said what Intel are trying to do by selling at a loss is build up a user or even fan base, while this is a sound idea it is IMO a bit short sighted, a bit flawed, you see the problem is the reason that despite selling cheap and all the good will from tech tubers over the last couple of years Intel are still at 0% market share.
Its the gigantic green elephant in the room, if people are not buying Nvidia cards they are doing it because the alternative is cheap, or all they can afford, the moment you gain some market share and start pushing the prices up to levels where you are now turning a profit that market share you built disappears the next day, why? Because now there is no reason to buy your card over Nvidia.
What AMD are doing, having realised this years ago, is trying to make a compelling product, a small discount vs Nvidia for an equally good GPU, that doesn't win you any friends in the tech press which makes it that much harder but falling behind because you don't have the money for R&D... that in the long term is far worse, AMD already made that mistake and are correcting it. AMD's reputation for quality Gaming is growing. Don't believe me? People are buying RX 9070 XT's for near the price of a 5070 Ti, more so than they bough cheap Vaga 64's and Radeon 7's that cost a lot of money to make relative to what they sold them for, AMD lost money on every Radeon 7 they sold, doing that gained them nothing.... the problem Intel now have.
Nvidia have a reputation that is incredibly difficult to dent, which you have to do if you want to compete, you have to make people want your product for its merits more than its price, AMD are doing it, bit by bit.
That is what i meant by.
You think AMD are not even trying to challenge Nvidia, they are, just not in the way you think they should.
If you're **** at your job, but you're cheap, surprise surprise you still don't get much business, if any... 0% market share.