(Update) Rumor: PlayStation 5 will be using Navi 9 (more powerful than Navi 10), new update Jason Schreier said Sony aim more then 10,7 Teraflop

[Bofferbrauer2]

Intrinsic said:

Bofferbrauer2 said:

@bolded: We don't even know if that's a true chip (and at 20CU, I really doubt it, especially considering it will be totally bandwith starved even with DDR4 4000). But I digress.

But we know the vega based 2400G exists. We also know that AMD always makes a few APUs with every product series. And those things aren't designed to be graphical powerhouses anyways so RAM bottleneck is a moot point.

And you have got this backwards, AMD even needs their money less now than it ever has. So its more likely to work with them for what is more or less a licensed chip than to tr and milk them for anything.

Bofferbrauer2 said: 

Also, as a side note, you give the costs at 30-40$. Tell me how that works if about half of the sales are from console chips (which was true in 2016) yet the profit margin is at only 24%? Do you think AMD sold their other chips all below production price? And how could that be, considering most chips cost much more than the one in the PS4? Or do you think they had such an R&D expense that it covers half the expenses before wages and taxes? Just saying that your price is off, it may be well below 100$ by then, but I don't think anywhere close to the numbers you're putting there, more like 60-80$. Don't forget that 350mm² ain't exactly a small chip (a 10 core Skylake-X is only 322mm², for instance) and that such a big chip normally sells at quite some higher prices for reasons detailed above.

Again you are going about this wrong...... yes back in 2016 growth from semi custom sector (which is probably 90% consoles) equated to about half of AMDs quarterly revenue in certain quarters. That's total revenue not profit margins. There is a very big difference. eg in a particular quarter revenue in that division was at $590M (real number in their 2nd quarter 2016). Now if in that quarter alone they took in orders of say 5M chips and got around $100 for each one what does that give you? Yup.... around $500M.

Still hard to understand?

1. The 2400G has only 11 CU because RAM bandwith can't support more than that, they'd choke any additional CU to death. That's the reason why the amount of Compute Units has only slightly increased, from 5 in Llano in 2010, 6 on Trinity in 2012, 8 In Kaveri in 2014 and now 11 with Raven Ridge. Each of these increases also came with larger bandwith: Llano had DDR3 1600, Trinity DDR3 1866, Kaveri DDR3 2133 and Raven Ridge DDR4 2666. Hence why I'm saying that 20 CU is unrealistic with DDR4 memory (which is technically only specified until DDR4 3200, anything above is overclocked). I could see 12-15 CU with DDR4 3200 but without any drastic changes 20 CU just can't be fed with data.

2. I spent 2 posts detailing why AMD was in no position to milk them for money, I won't try it again. Just saying that this time around they are in a better position and won't accept just scraps.

3. I know they made half of their revenue with the semi-custom chips and that's not profit margins. But you argued that those chips have an over 100% profit margin. So where is all that profit if even the gross profit margin is only 24%? That's why I made the other examples, to show you that your profit margin is just unrealistically large. AMD would have had to sell everything else at a loss to reach such a low gross profit margin with the consoles deal bringing 50% of he revenue at such a large profit margin. Is that really so hard to understand?