-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
NV Super refresh reviews
Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
coercitiv
Diamond Member
The principle isn't stupid. The way price hikes traditionally work is by yielding bigger overall profits even if the number of customers decreases (as per price elasticity). This is perfectly reasonable from the company's PoV, they should always search this optimal point where they extract the most profit. At the same time though, the company must always be mindful of the effects of price changes over their customer base or even the health of the entire market as a whole. (assuming low competition)
Example: F2P games with "micro" transactions are in fact extremely expensive games with pricing tailored to each customer. They are essentially luxury items that extract most of their revenue from a small subset of the market. The companies behind these games give a lot back to their gaming communities because each of these games require a minimum amount of player presence in order for the whales to continue spending. So if you're like me and consider F2P games are toxic, the companies in this market "giving back" is like micro-dosing, but this process is still essential to their continued existence.
Example: farmers learned to rotate their crops in order to ensure the soil can sustain continuous exploitation. Capitalist logic would dictate a farmer should always favor the crop with the best revenue potential, and yet maximizing profits would potentially ruin the business after only a few very successful business cycles.
It makes sense to "give back" when you realize your business is in a symbiosis. People are willing to pay for entertainment, but when one type of entertainment is too expensive, they might look for alternatives. PC gamers can migrate to consoles or mobiles, or completely dump gaming in favor of something else (we're talking about macro trends here, maybe even generational). If PC gaming is at the core of your business revenue, then your business is invested in the success and overall health of the ecosystem. Simply maximizing revenue isn't going to work.
All of this leads us to the real problem: Nvidia is no longer reliant on the PC gaming market. They no longer care about where this market is heading in the long term. Their crop rotation is somewhere else now.
With MLID, that's the way to go. AMD will eventually get with the program or will get out.
Aapje
Golden Member
@coercitiv
Jensen actually seems irrationally competitive, and he seems to forever want to win, even if it doesn't benefit the company as much.
The real issue is the weakness of the competition.
Jensen actually seems irrationally competitive, and he seems to forever want to win, even if it doesn't benefit the company as much.
The real issue is the weakness of the competition.
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
Exactly. Now whether they get squeezed in the datacenter and are forced to look around for less bloody water markets remains to be seen, PCs could maybe matter again to them some day.
In the same way, AMD is also increasingly less dependent on the gaming GPU side of things to make it all work.
To your F2P game analogy above, its in nvidia's best interest to give us "entry level" gaming GPUs that aren't terrible and where the price point is quite approachable. PC gaming needs to be successful enough for enough software to be released to make 4090s enticing. I'd argue that a $200 4060 would be all it would take right now to keep the ground fertile. Again, AMD is the same in my eyes, with a ~7600 class card. But, as integrated GPUs are getting to be powerful enough to "game" they are probably the no-money spending F2P type stand in for the analogy, meaning $200 GPUs are increasingly irrelevant. In that world, Intel and AMD are doing the work for nvidia in keeping the software market "healthy".
We'll see what happens in the coming years.
coercitiv
Diamond Member
My entire post was based on the assumption of low/fake competition.
Even screwing over AIBs, nVidia would be losing money.
Look, things are going to get even worse. N2 looks like it's going to be decently worse $ per transistor. And who knows how much GDDR7 will cost. Performance gains are still possible but you will have to pay for it.
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
There are people here who know what the margins really are on these products. AFAIK, they are aren't commenting on this this thread. Or any threads here.
Speculation on margins of products mass produced & assembled overseas is folly without insider knowledge.
This is ground we've covered before, so I won't mention it further here.
Heartbreaker
Diamond Member
These are closely guarded secrets, but I keep seeing two assumptions repeated here as
given.
1: NVidia doesn't care about gaming GPUs anymore.
2: Margins are egregiously fat (jpiniero is a notable exception).
I argue if these were true. AMD would have strongly responded to the Super cards with significant price cuts. If margins were that fat, they could afford it and still make significant profit, and if NVidia didn't care about gaming anymore, they wouldn't respond, so AMD could gain significant market share.
IMO, both the common assumptions are wrong. Margins are not egregiously fat, and NVidia still cares a lot about gaming.
Aapje
Golden Member
@Heartbreaker
We know that AMD made a big whoopsie with the 3 Ghz thing, so it can be true that AMD's margins aren't that great, but Nvidia's are.
And it can also be true that both companies spend excessively on TSMC's wafers, because they signed contracts during the mining boom.
We know that AMD made a big whoopsie with the 3 Ghz thing, so it can be true that AMD's margins aren't that great, but Nvidia's are.
And it can also be true that both companies spend excessively on TSMC's wafers, because they signed contracts during the mining boom.
coercitiv
Diamond Member
Are we talking about the AMD who is now fully invested in datacenter GPUs, to the point where they scrap some consumer RDNA 4 designs to focus on CDNA? AMD has shown us again and again they will only undercut Nvidia by as little as possible.
Meanwhile, Nvidia dropped the price of the 4080 by $200, the equivalent value of an entire videocard with 8GB of VRAM. TSMC demand is strong, inflation is still high, and yet Nvidia somehow finds a way. In fact Nvidia cares so much for PC gaming that they could not bear selling the 4070 Ti for $900. They dropped the price by $100 just like that, sacrificing their fair margins in favor of a healthy ecosystem.
BFG10K
Lifer
They don't because there's a duopoly so AMD just rides NV's pricing structure, with slight undercuts where needed. This isn't some kind of shocking revelation.
AMD, Nvidia Conspire to Price Fixing; Sued
A major lawsuit has been filed against AMD and Nvidia for breaking antitrust laws and fixing prices on GPUs and graphics cards.
NV's "settlement" was $1.7 million, so about the price of one of Jensen's skinned mink coats. It's always more profitable for mega-corporations to break the law and just pay the fines.
These days it's not as direct but there's still a tacit understanding between the two to keep pricing high, especially after they've tasted COVID/crypto margins. High pricing benefits both.
The only vendor selling GPUs at reasonable prices is Intel. If you have evidence Arc GPUs are sold at a loss, I'd love to see it.
Last edited:
Saying Nvidia does not care about gaming is silly. They care about maximizing revenue, and gaming is part of that.
Most know my opinion of the Steam survey, so I'll reference it while holding my nose. The latest does seem to reflect AMD's earnings statement about increased Radeon sales helping to offset some of the losses in the gaming division. According to the survey AMD is at 16.46% and Intel 8.42%. That is all coming at Nvidia's expense. They are now under 75%. I am especially pumped about the Intel numbers. Even some of the Intel iGPUs can game so users are obviously doing it. The ARC install base is always growing too.
The comment in this thread about some now dismissing Nvidia entirely resonates with me. I have read many reddit and Youtube comments saying just that. Including some very salty GTX and older gen RTX owners that are disenchanted over being left behind on features. No one is happy about Nvidia pricing. And the sentiment about them taking gamers for granted and giving us the - let them eat cake attitude, has been pushing a grassroots movement to show them what happens when you try us like a free sample. They chased crypto gold, now they are chasing A.I. gold. They keep it up, and there might not be many gamers left when they return. Raster gamers can pick AMD. And RT and upscaling seekers without deep pockets have ARC as an alternative. Evidently some are doing it.
Will the supers stop the bleeding? We'll see. Or have many gamers indeed crossed Nvidia off of the shopping list? I know I have. Voting with our wallets is how we reach them. They have enjoyed the Shut up and take my money! effect far too long, and PC gaming has suffered for it.
Most know my opinion of the Steam survey, so I'll reference it while holding my nose. The latest does seem to reflect AMD's earnings statement about increased Radeon sales helping to offset some of the losses in the gaming division. According to the survey AMD is at 16.46% and Intel 8.42%. That is all coming at Nvidia's expense. They are now under 75%. I am especially pumped about the Intel numbers. Even some of the Intel iGPUs can game so users are obviously doing it. The ARC install base is always growing too.
The comment in this thread about some now dismissing Nvidia entirely resonates with me. I have read many reddit and Youtube comments saying just that. Including some very salty GTX and older gen RTX owners that are disenchanted over being left behind on features. No one is happy about Nvidia pricing. And the sentiment about them taking gamers for granted and giving us the - let them eat cake attitude, has been pushing a grassroots movement to show them what happens when you try us like a free sample. They chased crypto gold, now they are chasing A.I. gold. They keep it up, and there might not be many gamers left when they return. Raster gamers can pick AMD. And RT and upscaling seekers without deep pockets have ARC as an alternative. Evidently some are doing it.
Will the supers stop the bleeding? We'll see. Or have many gamers indeed crossed Nvidia off of the shopping list? I know I have. Voting with our wallets is how we reach them. They have enjoyed the Shut up and take my money! effect far too long, and PC gaming has suffered for it.
Heartbreaker
Diamond Member
Says who? The cult of MLID?
Which makes sense if NVidia cares enough about gaming, to respond to those price cuts. Because if NVidia does care, they won't let price cuts go unchallenged. When they respond with their own cuts, it goes back to the status quo, and all AMD has accomplished is to lower both their margins.
But if, as many argue here, NVidia doesn't care, they would just let AMD take the market share... Then AMD would have an incentive to make steep cuts.
Heartbreaker
Diamond Member
Stop the bleeding? That makes it sound like a massacre, but they lost how much? About 2%, in about 2 years? OMG - Doomed. 😉 Bear in mind that a lot of that ~26% shared by AMD and Intel is iGPU/APU that NVidia doesn't make. If this was just discrete cards NVidia share would be well above 80%...
Also it isn't like those RTX 4000 cards were hurting before Super models.
RTX 4060, 4060 ti, 4070, and 4070 Ti have all already surpassed (4090 soon will) AMD's all time best seller (and thus anything AMD ever made), the RX 580. That's despite them all costing significantly more, and being on the market a relatively short time, while the RX 580 is cheap, and has been on the market continuously since 2017...
Judging by the Steam results, the only card NVidia really screwed up was the 4080. It clearly stands out as the slowest seller, and for obvious reasons of extremely poor value in the lineup. The 4080 Super fixes that, by fitting it's pricing rationally within the lineup.
Unless AMD responds to the Super Cards, they will be the ones bleeding share...
I'm not seeing any Intel impact yet. Their share looks steady over the two years.
BFG10K
Lifer
Guys, guys, it's clearly all inflation. NV operates razor thin margins, yo!
www.techspot.com
Nvidia generates up to 1,000% profit for each H100 GPU sold
For every H100 GPU accelerator sold, Nvidia appears to be making a remarkable profit, with reported margins reaching 1,000 percent of production costs. Tae Kim, a senior...
www.techspot.com
Last edited:
beginner99
Diamond Member
The AI hype train will derail soon enough when everyone realized the cost isn't worth the gain in most cases. Also when dedicated AI inferencing hardware will be available, that market will also be gone because such hardware would be cheaper and more important use a fraction of the power compared to a "GPU".
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
Did you see H100 GPUs (AI chips really) are selling for $40k each? It might be a rough off ramp. I assuming they are planning for that somehow…
Heartbreaker
Diamond Member
The hype may die down, but deep Learning usage is only going to get more pervasive.
Data Centers likely also have use cases for GPU compute, so they can buy Data Center GPUs that do both.
Dedicated HW will eat some market share, but there is nothing stopping NVidia from also making dedicated Tensor parts for Data Center if there was a strong move away from GPUs. Dedicated HW actually came first as Google was making their own dedicated Tensor units before NVidia added the functionality.
Some of the posts here really are taking the proverbial, aren't they?Guys, guys, it's clearly all inflation. NV operates razor thin margins, yo!
Nvidia generates up to 1,000% profit for each H100 GPU sold
For every H100 GPU accelerator sold, Nvidia appears to be making a remarkable profit, with reported margins reaching 1,000 percent of production costs. Tae Kim, a senior...
Firstly, we know their overall margins.
And we know the die sizes.
So saying that a $200 4060 would result in:
AD107 is 159mm2 according to TPU's database:
Die Yield Calculator - iSine
DIE YIELD CALCULATOR Use this online calculator to figure out die yield using Murphy’s model. You’ll need to know the die size, wafer diameter, and defect density. iSine is your complete resource for ASIC design – from concept to manufacturing and testing. We have expertise in system...
isine.com
Yields are another thing. TSMC is defect rate is often quote at 0.07 per mm² so I used that, giving 320 defect-free dies. Defect-free does not mean they will all run the correct frequency / voltage but then GPUs usually have parts which can be fused off so 89.4% is probably worse case.
So, how much is a 5nm/4nm TSMC wafer? Well, $20,000 sounds like the max and would make each die a bit over $62.
IMO, then $200 should be doable even with decent margins but we'd have to know more about the BOM of the rest of the card. AD107 is a GPU designed down to price though with a 128-bit bus, only 8GB of VRAM etc.
Now, we know Nvidia have no intention of selling RTX 4060 for $200, but I propose they could and still enjoy healthy margins.
Last edited:
igor_kavinski
Lifer
AMD releases a scaled down version of MI300 cheap enough to buy in quantity, decent software stack and then just watch the current dominant GPU in the AI space come crumbling down.
Heartbreaker
Diamond Member
Most of their sales are things like $30,000 Data Center cards, so that is what is pushing margins.
So their overall margins essentially have nothing to do with low end consumer GPUs.
I don't think any company which is R and D heavy wants to deal with such poor margins for a product and would rather not sell the product in general. They would rather maintain prices and let the product stay on shelves. AMD CPU's are a far worse culprit when it comes to fat margins and even with awful sales, AMD does not really want to drop the prices too much.Some of the posts here really are taking the proverbial, aren't they?
Firstly, we know their overall margins.
And we know the die sizes.
So saying that a $200 4060 would result in:
AD107 is 159mm2 according to TPU's database:
so that's 358 potential dies (0.12mm scribe line is the default). I took the sqrt of 159mm² and from TPUs' die shots in the reviews AD107 is pretty square.
Die Yield Calculator - iSine
DIE YIELD CALCULATOR Use this online calculator to figure out die yield using Murphy’s model. You’ll need to know the die size, wafer diameter, and defect density. iSine is your complete resource for ASIC design – from concept to manufacturing and testing. We have expertise in system...
Yields are another thing. TSMC is defect rate is often quote at 0.07 per mm² so I used that, giving 320 defect-free dies. Defect-free does not mean they will all run the correct frequency / voltage but then GPUs usually have parts which can be fused off so 89.4% is probably worse case.
So, how much is a 5nm/4nm TSMC wafer? Well, $20,000 sounds like the max and would make each die a bit over $62.
IMO, then $200 should be doable even with decent margins but we'd have to know more about the BOM of the rest of the card. AD107 is a GPU designed down to price though with a 128-bit bus, only 8GB of VRAM etc.
Now, we know Nvidia have no intention of selling RTX 4060 for $200, but I propose they could and still enjoy healthy margins.
It costs $69 dollars to manufacture a r9 7950x which uses tiny 2x68mm2 CCD. And AMD CPU sales have cratered compared to the pandemic far worse than the GPU's, yet AMD still keep the price up. Client CPU's have been cut in half and AMD is still charging $519 dollars for something that costs 69 dollars to manufacture. Charging $299 for a 7950x and $1000 dollar for threadripper CPU's would still have good margins and the chips would fly off the shelf at those prices, but AMD has likely done their homework and find it is more profitable to keep prices as high as they are.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
