Sounds like RTG is still underfunded, so I think two dies will be the max. I seriously hope AMD goes with GDDR, it just doesn’t do much for gaming GPUs. HBM should be compute only. At this point, I just hope AMD gets the small die Navi out sooner rather than later, but they need a large die Navi to match NVs 2080Ti in raster performance (IMHO). Small die Navi will tell us if the potential is there both for a good midrange product and a 'halo' product. AMD seems to have put serious effort into her console version of Navi, hopefully that effort benefits more than it detracts.
Yotsugi
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 1,029
- 487
- 106
Sounds like the tapeout costs are rising exponentially.
Ready to pay $1.5B for 3nm tapeout (if we even get there)?
All depending on memory pricing.
They don't need to match anything.
They do if they want to grab mindshare from NV. If AMD isn’t shooting for that this generation, then fine.
Yotsugi
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 1,029
- 487
- 106
They don't.
Big dies are expensive, and flagship Radeon hasn't been selling anything worth mentioning for like a decade.
~never again~
Mindshare, baring an unprecedented leap, is a lost cause for AMD. Years of being on top to swing the popular opinion. For myself and those I advise, get the best card for your price range. I realize that some and a lot here, go for the absolute best, but the majority by far, have a budget range. AMD's problem is their power draw vs Nvidia. You can sell a lot by being competitive in midrange and lower.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 22,931
- 13,014
- 136
So, AMD graphics is basically stuck in 'bulldozer' land for time X, more or less
Yes and no. They won't compete with the 2080Ti or its successor anytime soon, if ever. But they will do well in enterprise, and Navi should get them a foothold in the low-to-midrange graphics arena.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 22,931
- 13,014
- 136
If Polaris is being outsold 4 to 1, I'd say AMD did pretty well.
Yeah I don't know if I said it here or on another forum. But Apple really turned the tied when they (Jobs) sat back and realized that they could survive even prosper without ever trying to outsell Windows PC's. I was saying it in regards to AMD against Intel. AMD doesn't need unseat Intel be successful. There is enough of a market AMD to succeed and prosper even if their sales stay a fraction of Intel. Same applies to AMD vs. Nvidia. AMD/ATI has been the best seller since the 9800XTX even though for various occasions they have had the unquestionable lead or been an extremely great option value wise (like the 4870). There is probably to much mindshare, lacklusterness, past driver issues, to ever really put a dent in Nvidia's sales without years of product domination. But AMD can still be profitable, still do really well, without ever really competing with Nvidia. Specially if they can make a bigger headway into the server and workstation markets with their fantastic margins. But even a really good midrange card that doesn't come close to selling what Nvidia does can make AMD a lot of money based on the volume those sell at compared to the higher end cards.
tamz_msc
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2017
- 3,865
- 3,730
- 136
One entry-level NVIDIA SKU outselling the entire Polaris lineup? Yeah right.
Probelm is with rising tape-out costs, it gets very important how much you sell of every single die you tape out. Rather sooner than later AMD will sell too little to even make a profit. And the tape-out is fixed cost. You pay the same whether you sell 1 or 1 billion chips. Admittedly for intel this is an even bigger problem as they need to seel enough to recoup the whole process dev. costs.
Stuka87
Diamond Member
- Dec 10, 2010
- 6,240
- 2,559
- 136
Most people thought it would not be successful because of the form factor limiting CPU/GPU power, not necessarily because it was nVidia (Although previous Tegra chips were junk). And they were right to an extent that graphics were significantly hampered by the form factor.
But, most nintendo gamers don't expect top tier graphics. Game play and game quality is far more important.
No doubt but you can assume that Intel is intending to use the GPU chips beyond just gaming.
It still trails the PS4 in overall sales globally month per month. It has had the highest sales some months in the USA, but its also the newest console out of the bunch. And as far as I know its not a big profit machine for Nvidia.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 22,931
- 13,014
- 136
Well in that case, maybe not so much, but I didn't think you meant one SKU versus the entire lineup.
CPU has enough revenue in the total addressable market for AMD to survive.
GPU on the other hand does not. The consumer graphic market is worth around 5 to 6 billion a year.
https://semiengineering.com/big-trouble-at-3nm/
At 3nm, they estimate it will be 1.5 billion for a complex GPU which is something that Nvidia can barely afford at the moment and will need their data center revenue to continue to grow.
At 7nm, cost are tripling compared to 16nm.
These cost are significant and have a bearing on how many chips AMD releases. At 28nm, AMD launched 3 different 28nm chips and over the lifetime of 28nm released 8 different designs on 28nm.
During 16/14nm, AMD only initially launched two chips and by the time this generation is over, AMD will only have released 4 different chips design.
If we count Vega 20 as a 2018 design since that is when it was released, Navi at the end of the year a 2019 design, AMD will be trickling out only 1 7nm card a year and if we look at costs of design, engineering hours, we see why.
What it means for the future for AMD will have to get by with less designs and have their chips cover a larger market. This puts them at a disadvantage because it means compromises on the chip. That is a chip that might be too small to address the mainstream market polaris 10 covers, but a chip too large to go into laptops. What AMD needs to happen between now and 5nm is make a chip design like Ryzen 2 where multiple chips are on the same design so one chip can cover the entire market. The difficultly in this is latency in GPU workloads is more sensitive than CPU ones. If AMD can't do this, they won't be able to afford any nodes beyond 7nm because their revenue is too low and is not growing enough.
Without significant revenue growth to offset the cost of development cost of higher nodes, it simply makes less and less sense for AMD to make consumer graphics. The CPU market is worth 10x as much as the GPU market meaning the return on investment is much better for AMD. The GPU market on the other hand is comparatively little in comparison.
Lisa Su sees this and which is why all the cost cutting measures have been focused on AMD graphic division which has largely been the most successful a profitable part of the company for years. Most people would think, why slowly kill the most successful part of your business. This is short sighted. The reason is a 60 billion dollar market has room for two players while a 6 billion dollar market is going to be a struggle. The former has the value and potential to keep up with the ongoing and increasing cost of nodes, the latter does not unless they are Nvidia and are in a dominant position.
If Su did not focus the companies resources on CPU's, the graphic divisions profits would have eventually been unable to cover the R and D cost of the CPU division and eventually AMD CPU division would have died and taking down AMD graphic with it because of the ongoing development costs of smaller nodes.
Going onto 5nm, development cost from 16/14nm, 100 million about to 540 million. A 5.4x increase in cost. Will AMD graphic revenue increased this much to keep up with the cost? Certainly not in the consumer market. One of the big reasons AMD could afford even the transition from 28nm to 16nm is the transition from an largely North American workforce for GPU development to a Chinese one. With nowhere to pinch any more pennies and the graphic division struggling without mining, the RTG group needs rapid revenue growth to make sense for AMD. This is why AMD has targeted the data center above the gamer segment. I expect Nvidia to even start struggling at 5nm and likely transition part of its work force to China. Revenue growth will be critical for them to continue using new nodes because a 1.5 billion dollar 3nm design right now is too expensive for them.
During 7nm and including the development costs, AMD will make money off of Ryzen 2 and the various server chip. The consumer graphic division on the other hand is likely to struggle. This is because revenue is probably going to be similar to the Polaris generation without mining but with the added cost of R and D, AMD graphic division will struggle to make a profit.
Remember not only does the profit of a chip have to pay for cost of the wafers themselves, but the design cost. If Intel presents a threat, AMD will Find it very difficult to make a profit.
Right now, the discrete market is worth around 1.5 billion dollars quarterly for consumer graphics. 6 billion annually without mining. AMD gets around 300-400 million considering their 30% marketshare vs Nvidia's 70 and Nvidia higher average selling price. The before and after mining showed, growth has been overly optimistic in the consumer graphic market.
If Intel manages to be successful and take 25 percent of the market and takes 375 million from both players, that is about 187 million from Nvidia and AMD each, both are going to feel the pinch but AMD case, it much more significant. If this were to happen this would translate into Nvidia is making around 913 to 1013 million and AMD is making 113 million to 213 million in revenue(not profit). While Nvidia can still make a profit from this, AMD won't be able to(intel won't either but are willing to fight a war of attrition with Nvidia). For the RTG group to survive, Intel has to fail in its consumer chip launch. There is not enough room for 3 players when chip designs cost 300 million at 7nm and the cost of wafers getting more expensive each generation.
Last edited:
SpaceBeer
Senior member
- Apr 2, 2016
- 307
- 100
- 116
^^
Yes, it makes sense. What we might see (actually have it now) is usage of the same chip for long(er) time. I mean, Polaris is amlost 3 years old, Vega is 2 yo. So next gen chips will be rebranded few times and sold with lower price untill R&D is covered. Also, we might see "chiplet" configurations instead of large chips. So they might use only one 5nm chip , maybe ~100 mm^2 for all of their products
Yes, it makes sense. What we might see (actually have it now) is usage of the same chip for long(er) time. I mean, Polaris is amlost 3 years old, Vega is 2 yo. So next gen chips will be rebranded few times and sold with lower price untill R&D is covered. Also, we might see "chiplet" configurations instead of large chips. So they might use only one 5nm chip , maybe ~100 mm^2 for all of their products
Yotsugi
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 1,029
- 487
- 106
BD options weren't even remotely compelling, AMD dGPUs are.So, AMD graphics is basically stuck in 'bulldozer' land for time X, more or less
This really assumes 3nm will ever be economical, or ever be even reached.
The actual (and very decent at that) GPU IP is worth anything.
And I mean it.
As if ISVs don't have enough headaches already, let's make mGPU mainstream!
Last edited:
Yeah but some of this applies to AMD with CPU's as well. But they found a solution in Zen. The next 2 years is a make or break year, but with their completely modular design setup this might be were semi-custom saves the day. Besides the option of doing an true MCM solution for Video (which we assume will suck, but AMD can find solutions we haven't seen yet). The rumor is Navi exists and has it's development funded by Sony and Next-Arch by Microsoft. To cap it off the modular package design may allow AMD to utilize all or part of the GPU designs for the systems dGPU's and chiplet based APU's. This can allow them to have the basis for a semi competitive mid range design for free or nearly so and leave them to work on a single large GPU themselves for retail and servers.
We are already seeing even with Nvidia that dGPU sales has a market has a cap and making products specifically for it is a losing scenario. They can make the faster cards for the market. They can afford the extra dies. But like the RTX series I think all of their GPU's from now on will be compromised by requirements and tech to sell to data-centers.
Yotsugi
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 1,029
- 487
- 106
Hey I said rumors. If you want I can send links. Now I understand not believing it. But I don't think you can say its not true without any proof.
Also power what?
Yotsugi
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 1,029
- 487
- 106
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: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter