|
disolitude said: I fully understand your points but I disagree with this logic. Let's take PS3's lauch for example. Initial estimated cost of PS3 was 840 dollars by isupply. http://www.edge-online.com/news/isuppli-60gb-ps3-costs-840-produce/ "Some of the more expensive PS3 components that were charted by iSuppli include Nvidia’s $129 RSX graphics chip, the $125 blu-ray disc drive and the $89 IBM Cell processor." So the RSX which is based on older 90nm tech and offered middle of the road like performance at the time cost Sony $129. The size of the RSX is just under 200mm² so lets say 300 chips per wafer like you stated before. Because this isn't a cutting edge chip lets say the yields were 90% - $5000 / 270 chips = $19 per chip So iSupply states that RSX cost Sony $129 bucks yet the chip costs $19 dollars to manufacture each. How so? |
lol
1. I'm pretty sure the RSX in 90nm used a 200mm wafer... just the 65nm started to use the 300mm wafer... the 300mm wafer is almost two times bigger than the 200mm... so you can cut that for 150 chips instead 300...
2. I'm pretty sure too the percent of good chips of RSX was below 90%... less than 130 chips per wafer.
3. The actual 300mm wafer for 28nm costs $5000... the 200mm wafer for 90nm costs $8000-10000 in 2006.
So... $10000 / 130 = $77 but that's not for Sony... Sony needs to pay to NVIDIA and TSMC to manufacture the chips... the RSX was in 2006 a chip near $100 to manufacture... even more if the quantity of good chips was low.
A 80% or 70% of good chips can give you the $129 estimated by the site.
