Engaging in a debate with average laymen is always a mistake.
Can you children please shut the fuck up.
If you can't behave like adults don't post.
AMD and Nvidia don't even put that much R&D money into manufacturing. AMD used to do when they owned their fabs, nowadays this is GloFo's responsibility.
Both AMD and Nvidia are design companies, they don't manufacture their own chips. Process development comes from the companies who actually do manufacturing nowadays, like Intel, Samsung, GlobalFoundries, TSMC...
Intel and Samsung are hybrid companies, they do their designs and can manufacture them because they have their own fabs and their own manufacturing processes. AMD used to be one of those companies too.
Qualcomm, AMD, Nvidia, Apple, MediaTek, HiSilicon and many many others are design companies and they have to contract one (or more) of the manufacturing companies to manufacture their designs.
Lol.
You're stupid.
No you.
What even was that.
I was, and still am tbh, fairly pissed off by the prices we're seeing in Norway... but some folks at DigitalImpuls, a relatively small chain for computer parts, were polite enough to show me their internal product page. They were making 122 NOK off the card, even while the sale price of the card at 2999 NOK is some good 20% over MSRP+VAT in Norway.
TL;DR - It sounds like a lot of suppliers are taking the cake and eating it too before vendors get the cards.
But isn't this exactly that? Artificially lowering yield?
Although exact numbers are usually a trade secret, the yield should hover at at least 90% for a product to be profitable. This means that AMD (or whoever) will burn through high end chips, for which the process is more expensive, only to sell about 20% of them? I'm no businessman (neither a process engineer) but that sounds all wrong to me. Is it really more profitable to do this?
Down-binning due to defects is no big secret and been a standard practice for 2 decades or so, that also means that some fully functional chips will be down-binned, but I really wouldn't expect their number to be more than a few percents of the total chips down-binned.
if they need 90% to be profitable i don't know how they are still in business. I don't think they ever reach that high except after years of perfecting the process (on medium sized chips)
and then there is stuff like this http://electroiq.com/blog/2016/02/yi...nm-and-beyond/
Last edited by mmoc982b0e8df8; 2016-07-03 at 03:00 PM.
The question for me now is a sapphire480 or wait for an aftermarket 1060
Yeah, I had Intel in mind who invest the most into new processes. And the number is for stabilized production. Some people told me (about 3 years ago) that, if the stable yield would drop below 90% Intel will stop investing in new process because it will not be worth it. It was 3 years ago, so policies might have changed, but looking at that graph of yours it doesn't look far from the truth for that time.
Anyway, looking at that graph extrapolation, for 14nm the cumulative yield is above 70%. So it's still nowhere near the initially implied 33%.
Current rumors suggest the 1060 is 3Gb at $250 and 6GB at $280. That's more than a RX 480. I would wait for more rumors to see what the 1060 is sitting at. It's suggested to be +15% faster than the RX 480 but by the time the 1060 reaches the market we may see RX 480's approaching that speed.
If you can afford to wait then wait. Amazon has them for $300+ with crazy low ratings of people complaining of high prices. NewEgg has the RX 480's priced exactly at MSRP, but out of stock. Doesn't look like AMD is doing it any better than Nvidia.