this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)

Hardware

48 readers
5 users here now

A place for quality hardware news, reviews, and intelligent discussion.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

they should understand that they don't have a product as good as RTX and focus to provide decent low price GPUs with a lot of RAM in the 200-400$ range.

It's easy to explain from a business point of view. The reason AMD doesn't want to compete in the $200-$400 range is because there is barely any profit there. GPUs are huge dies with a lot of memory. They're significantly more expensive than CPUs to manufacture per unit. Therefore, AMD would rather spend all of the TSMC wafers on Epyc chips than $200-$400 GPUs.

Take for example, Navi 32 (7800XT), has 28 billion transistors and sells for $500. That $500 has to include expensive GPDDR RAM, a board, capacitors, and a heatsink.

Conversely, a 64 core Zen2 Epyc has 40 billion transistors and sold for $5000+. No GPDDR RAM needed. No heatsink fan. No board. No capacitors. Just the chip. $5000.

So you tell me what AMD should prioritize making.

Lastly, if AMD starts a price war at the $200 - $400 range, Nvidia will respond with something $250 - $450 but slightly faster. Nvidia isn't just going to let AMD take that market without any resistance.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It's easy to explain from a business point of view.

Yeah but ain't the customer part of the market model?

Coz there are ZERO chance in hell that I can spend 800 for a GPU, even if I get that it makes more sense for the manufacturer.

So you tell me what AMD should prioritize making.

The GPU that me and 90% of the people can buy, a ~250-300$ GPU, pretty please with 12-15GB of RAM as it is cheap.