• auradragon1@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • ea_man@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months 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.