AMD 7600 reviews

[gdansk]

The majority of R&D for RDNA3 is paid for by Sony.
Of course accounting doesn't work that way. But that's basically it. RDNA3 would never have been on 6nm if not for possible 5nm wafer shortages and semi-custom opportunities. That AMD wants a higher margin for a product that they created as a hedge is not my concern. I'll simply wait a few months until it is sub $250 like it should be.

 

[blckgrffn]

I literally said the cost of engineering and drivers was spread across the entire line of cards. But the majority of that cost is recouped from the sale of the top tier products as they are higher margin items.

Let's just let the bean counters at AMD do their thing. If they want to cook up a loss on each unit, they will. If they want to show better margins across all products, they will. Choosing how to allocate these costs is at their discretion.

I do think its funny that we like to think we know what the margins are on things. It's pretty ridiculous, and reminds of one of the places where I worked previously where some warehouse team members got a hold of "cost sheet" and suddenly thought they new the financial standing of the company. The "cost sheet" was simply a vendor base cost excel sheet but they suddenly knew just how it all worked out when us in management were vastly less sure That's the vibe I am getting here.

Imma go ahead and assume they've got margins worth their time - some how, some way - for the products they release and that they are generally fatter than most people think, because that has been my experience.

 

[blckgrffn]

That AMD wants a higher margin for a product that they created as a hedge is not my concern. I'll simply a few months until it is sub $250 like it should be.

Exactly. 100%. Insert company name, product and price here.

 

[Heartbreaker]

The majority of R&D for RDNA3 is paid for by Sony.

That claim needs a lot of evidence to back it up.

 

[jpiniero]

Let's just let the bean counters at AMD do their thing. If they want to cook up a loss on each unit, they will. If they want to show better margins across all products, they will. Choosing how to allocate these costs is at their discretion.

The problem is that AMD may have simply overbought N33 expecting a lot more mobile sales than they ended up getting. Which is why the 7600 was released and N32 wasn't, because they were able to pull the plug on N32 in time.

 

[gdansk]

That claim needs a lot of evidence to back it up.

Sony alone was 16% of AMD's revenue last year. Semi-custom is the reason their gaming segment makes money. Desktop and laptop chips could be canned and they'd be better off for it financially. Except that their technology would suffer without the generational improvements these failures provide.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Sony alone was 16% of AMD's revenue last year.

Evidence?

 

[Joe NYC]

That gets too far into the weeds as AMD isn't selling only Navi 23 cards. Some of the design costs are shared with CDNA where margins are higher and their partnership with console manufacturers also pays for some of these expenses.

Obviously if margins are lower you need a lot of volume to cover high fixed costs, but there are many industries that work this way because they're largely dealing in commodity parts or products.

CDNA cards have negative margin. Because the sales so far didn't come close to covering the development costs. But unlike low end client GPUs, datacenter GPUs are a strategic area for AMD.

For an area that is NOT strategic (low end client GPU), AMD is just going to estimate the total sales for the die, allocate the costs by the estimate number sold, in order to arrive at the price.

IMO, that price was $299 and AMD bend over backwards to offer $269.

With all the negativity, AMD may just as well withdraw from the low end market, offer strong APUs, and let the ungrateful idiots get screwed twice as hard by NVidia.

 

[Joe NYC]

Evidence?

This was in one of the financial disclosures, that Sony is AMD's biggest customer.

 

[gdansk]

Evidence?

One customer accounted for 16% of our consolidated net revenue for the year ended December 31, 2022. Sales to this customer consisted of sales of products from our Gaming segment. A loss of this customer would have a material adverse effect on our business.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000000248823000047/amd-20221231.htm

 

[Aapje]

Now we're getting to the point where 4 GB will be available on a single chip, so if you're just targeting 8 GB of VRAM you could do it with a smaller bus.

I haven't seen any evidence that 4 GB chips with a 32 bus width are coming, just 4 GB chips with a 64 bus, which means that you need fewer chips, but cannot do with a smaller bus (although you can of course still clamshell).

 

[Heartbreaker]

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000000248823000047/amd-20221231.htm

Ok, that's probably Sony.

But having a big contribution to general revenue does not mean "The majority of R&D for RDNA3 is paid for by Sony."

Not even close.

 

[Aapje]

For an area that is NOT strategic (low end client GPU), AMD is just going to estimate the total sales for the die, allocate the costs by the estimate number sold, in order to arrive at the price.

That's only how monopolies or near monopolies can set prices. And even then only to the point where customers don't stop buying that kind of product altogether.

You actually already have to admit that you are wrong with the very next sentence:

IMO, that price was $299 and AMD bend over backwards to offer $269.

If you had been right about how they price things, they wouldn't lower the price until learned about the unexpectedly cheap 4060 and then concluded that this would increase the sales of the 7600, so then they could lower the price.

This is not a particularly believable narrative.

In general, your narrative dictates that companies should lower prices if they have little competition and dominate the market, but raise prices if they have trouble finding buyers. That is a rather interesting economic theory, that few economists seem to share.

 

[gdansk]

Ok, that's probably Sony.

But having a big contribution to general revenue does not mean "The majority of R&D for RDNA3 is paid for by Sony."

Not even close.

Desktop/laptop revenue is about 1/3rd their gaming segment revenue based on their financial report. So who is paying for developing RDNA? Mainly semi-custom.

 

[Joe NYC]

I literally said the cost of engineering and drivers was spread across the entire line of cards. But the majority of that cost is recouped from the sale of the top tier products as they are higher margin items.

Sorry, I should have been more precise. I don't think majority of RDNA3 costs have already been paid by 7900 XT, XTX.

In RDNA2 generation, majority of revenue likely came from Navi 22 and Navi 23 on the dGPU side, not from Navi 21.

 

[Joe NYC]

That's only how monopolies or near monopolies can set prices. And even then only to the point where customers don't stop buying that kind of product altogether.

No, that's how every company sets its prices. Price > Cost

You actually already have to admit that you are wrong with the very next sentence:

A company can deviate from what would be normal pricing. To be more or less aggressive with certain products. For number of reasons.

On CDNA and CDNA2, I don't think AMD recouped its costs. Because CDNA3 will likely more than make up for it.

If you had been right about how they price things, they wouldn't lower the price until learned about the unexpectedly cheap 4060 and then concluded that this would increase the sales of the 7600, so then they could lower the price.

You make it sound like this is Pizza, that you can just make another pie. Or not make another pie.

No, these dies on sale today were processed probably > month ago, AMD placed orders with TSMC maybe 6 months ago. A bunch more dies may be going through the TSMC fab as we speak.

They are now coming no matter what, and AMD has to sell them. So AMD opted for price that will likely result in AMD being able to sell them.

This is not a particularly believable narrative.

In general, your narrative dictates that companies should lower prices if they have little competition and dominate the market, but raise prices if they have trouble finding buyers. That is a rather interesting economic theory, that few economists seem to share.

No, I think you just don't know what is high price, what is neutral price and what is low (aggressive) price.

You think $269 is a price increase, while in reality it is a price cut.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Desktop/laptop revenue is about 1/3rd their gaming segment revenue based on their financial report. So who is paying for developing RDNA? Mainly semi-custom.

Overall it's financed out of general revenue, which includes everything, not just gaming...

In the business case, the up front costs will be assigned to the products that are going to be built with it.

So RDNA3 R&D will be assigned to RDNA3 GPUs. Not previous generation products generating the revenues.

 

[Joe NYC]

Desktop/laptop revenue is about 1/3rd their gaming segment revenue based on their financial report. So who is paying for developing RDNA? Mainly semi-custom.

If you take last quarter in isolation, you would be right. But there were big shifts in revenue.

Client revenue collapsed by 65% from a year ago. This is on CPU side but dGPU likely parallels that. At the same time, consoles had the best quarter ever.

So if you go back to Q1 2022, dGPU revenue was ~3x of 2023. In the separate, segment client CPU which includes notebook with iGPU, the sales had the same trajectory.

Going forward, I think AMD expects that console sales were at their peak and will go down, while PC client side may have a recovery.

 

[Joe NYC]

The majority of R&D for RDNA3 is paid for by Sony.
Of course accounting doesn't work that way. But that's basically it. RDNA3 would never have been on 6nm if not for possible 5nm wafer shortages and semi-custom opportunities. That AMD wants a higher margin for a product that they created as a hedge is not my concern. I'll simply wait a few months until it is sub $250 like it should be.

I think you meant RDNA2.

But yeah, that's the trajectory of the prices. A generation of CPU or GPU is 18 months to 2 years, and generally, it is starts high ends at the low.

Over that run, there is some average, which is the real goal to reach. If you wait even longer, a year, you will be able to get 7600 for $199.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Going forward, I think AMD expects that console sales were at their peak and will go down, while PC client side may have a recovery.

I doubt that's what AMD is expecting, if Sony is any indication. They seem confident the PS 5 sales are going to increase due to unconstrained supply. They have their own handheld coming too. On that note: Whomever it was that told me here a good ways back, that the Steam Deck would be the only handheld to sell in volume is the new Nostradumbass. 🫵 🤡

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9159...-console-generation-ever-sony-says/index.html

 

[gdansk]

Overall it's financed out of general revenue, which includes everything, not just gaming...

In the business case, the up front costs will be assigned to the products that are going to be built with it.

So RDNA3 R&D will be assigned to RDNA3 GPUs. Not previous generation products generating the revenues.

AMD would develop RDNA IP for Sony and other APUs regardless. Somehow dedicated GPU purchasers are supposed to pay high, almost Nvidia-like margins so that AMD can guinea pig these designs and make improvements. Okay, not my problem. I'll wait until the discount brand gives up that delusion. They can afford lower margins because other customers share the cost to develop RDNA IP and obviously they spend less on other R&D too.

 

[gdansk]

I think you meant RDNA2.

But yeah, that's the trajectory of the prices. A generation of CPU or GPU is 18 months to 2 years, and generally, it is starts high ends at the low.

Over that run, there is some average, which is the real goal to reach. If you wait even longer, a year, you will be able to get 7600 for $199.

No, I don't. RDNA3 IP was developed for semi-custom opportunities and APUs just as much as RDNA2 was. N31/N33 do not need to recoup all RDNA3 development because the semi-custom team wants it too. If they don't have new IP to offer they may lose contracts. And while RDNA3 might be a dud for consumer GPUs it is a good match for semi-custom because it is more dense despite having faster ray tracing, ai acceleration plus more modern display and media blocks with already optimized layout on both N5 and N6. Almost like that was its priority all along.

 

[Heartbreaker]

I doubt that's what AMD is expecting, if Sony is any indication. They seem confident the PS 5 sales are going to increase due to unconstrained supply. They have their own handheld coming too. On that note: Whomever it was that told me here a good ways back, that the Steam Deck would be the only handheld to sell in volume is the new Nostradumbass. 🫵 🤡

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9159...-console-generation-ever-sony-says/index.html

I think the Sony Handheld is going to flop. It's NOT a console. It's just a dedicated Wifi Streaming device for your PS5.

Sony’s new Q handheld is official: 8-inch screen, streams PS5 games

Project Q launches later this year.

www.theverge.com

 

[Joe NYC]

I doubt that's what AMD is expecting, if Sony is any indication. They seem confident the PS 5 sales are going to increase due to unconstrained supply. They have their own handheld coming too. On that note: Whomever it was that told me here a good ways back, that the Steam Deck would be the only handheld to sell in volume is the new Nostradumbass. 🫵 🤡

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9159...-console-generation-ever-sony-says/index.html

That was the explanation of last quarter's booming PS5 sales. Unconstrained supply. Who knows, it may continue for a while longer.

 

[Joe NYC]

No, I don't. RDNA3 IP was developed for semi-custom opportunities and APUs just as much as RDNA2 was. N31/N33 do not need to recoup all RDNA3 development because the semi-custom team wants it too. If they don't have new IP to offer they may lose contracts. And while RDNA3 might be a dud for consumer GPUs it is a good match for semi-custom because it is more dense despite having faster ray tracing, ai acceleration plus more modern display and media blocks with already optimized layout on both N5 and N6. Almost like that was its priority all along.

I agree that there is sharing of costs that includes not only dGPUs, consoles but also iGPUs. But none of them pays it all, and then, the costs have to amortized across all of the the products that use the shared technologies.