We might quickly get lost in interesting theories here. But let's return back to basics (KISS principle, Occam's razor, etc.): They have a pool of good IP, now including a viable CPU core, too, they have access to two current and one or two future not so crappy processes with at least a little flexibility in capacity w/o a fixed cost burden as in the past, they have Infinity Fabric, experience with interposers and HBM1/2, they look at adding PIM and FPGAs to the mix, the software stack is getting better, and whatever I forgot to list. Intel has a different mix, a mindshare advantage, and lots of production capacity in an environment of shareholder expectations being used to Intel's current numbers. That could mean they have to be careful with cutting prices.
We might also have to adjust our estimated volume. It's difficult to find useful numbers, so let's try with these:
In Q1'14 AMD sold
17M GPUs with
4.36M being dGPUs. This leaves about 13M APUs (they probably sold some chipsets with iGPU, too) in a first quarter. Given that 28nm APUs are uarch, power, and mem bandwith constrained, and sold in combination with not so fast CPU cores, the prospects of Zen cores, 14LPP, faster uarch and DDR4 memory, on a nicely upgradable socket for DT at least, should be good to sell at least 10M per quarter again, or 40M per year (seasonality removed). This means, if sold for only one year, roughly $4 per chip would suffice to recover the R&D investment incl. risk. Add $30 per packaged good die, and some margin to offset other costs, $45 should be a good ballpark estimate. This would define where AMD could begin to earn money, aside from sold chipsets. How would Intel's numbers change, if they'd lower prices of similarly performing to <$100?