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
view the rest of the comments
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 - $450 but slightly faster. Nvidia isn't just going to let AMD take that market without any resistance.
Yeah but ain't the customer part of the market model?
Coz there are ZERO chance in hell that I can spend 800 for a GPU, even if I get that it makes more sense for the manufacturer.
The GPU that me and 90% of the people can buy, a ~250-300$ GPU, pretty please with 12-15GB of RAM as it is cheap.