Comments Locked

78 Comments

Back to Article

  • Someguyperson - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    The Navi chips are so small that AMD could drop the prices even more and still make a profit. It just makes sense to keep the prices as close to being competitive with Nvidia to increase profit margins as much as possible.
  • imaheadcase - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    Most of the price of chips isn't that though, its the R&D to develop them. As with most things hardware, having a good software and design makes or break a product in the end.
  • Smell This - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    ►Je-Baited

    It's Jerry Sanders golden anniversary. Fork R&D; we're gonna party.
    It's in AMD's **RDNA** to lead in price/performance.

    What Guachi says ...
    ""They should rename the 50th anniversary edition the LISA SUper edition.""
    (guachi - Saturday, July 06, 2019)

    HA!
  • Dark42 - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    But R&D is a one-time effort.
    Therefore AMD can keeps the prices lower than Nvidia and still make bigger profits than with higher prices because of bigger volume.
  • Irata - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Yes, but you still need to amortize the R&D expenses. Otherwise, there is no money to develop the next generation.
  • Dug - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    "But R&D is a one-time effort."
    No it's not. At least if you want to keep good employees.
  • Opencg - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    amd did only develop one microprocessor for the navi launch. as well the tensor and rt cores are not really helping mainstream performance so nvidia is footing the bill for extra silicon per fps.

    although nvidia was able to set high prices on the rtx cards for over half a year due to limited competition from amd.

    both companies are likely doing fine right now. excited to see how navi stacks up vs super in a few hours. and glad that gpus are returning to sane prices. although some real forward progress has not happened since pascal
  • Korguz - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    " and glad that gpus are returning to sane prices " they are ??? doesnt look like it
  • Santoval - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    The Navi dies might be quite smaller but TSMC's 7nm wafers are also much more expensive, while the yields are typically lower than of wafers fabbed on more mature nodes. And that's without even taking into account the higher development and design costs of CPUs/GPUs based on smaller nodes.
    You almost make it sound like : 1/2 the die area => twice the number of dies per wafer => 1/2 the cost per die => double the profit per die, when the reality is not anywhere close to that.
  • Audacioucity - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    https://caly-technologies.com/die-yield-calculator...

    Try it yourself. Per wafer, even assuming a defect density four times of the mature 12nm, AMD is still getting more good dies. There's no way a process with a defect density that bad can be used for mass production. It's a conservative estimation to prove my point. Even though it's nowhere near 1/2 the production cost, it might still be a meaningful advantage for AMD.

    Also, it should be noted that a common narrative nowadays is that AMD is the only one who's able to slash prices. In reality, it is more likely that both can drop prices and still make a comfortable profit margin as it is historically the case. A 200-300 mm2 card on a leading-edge process should never cross $320. Polaris launched $250 on what was a leading-edge process then. There's no way that 7nm and GDDR6 alone adds $70 on production cost.
  • Irata - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    There's a simple way to check this - look at AMD's and nVidia's total earnings and margin per chip sold.
  • jospoortvliet - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    ... and if you do you see they are both doing just fine in terms of profit margin. They certainly could slash prices but given their duopoly there is little reason. I think NVIDIA is fine with AMD taking a small part of the pie - after all, if AMD would stop making video cards NVIDIA might get issues with the market regulators in various countries.
  • gdansk - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    That doesn't really work out. AMD has a hard time moving the volume to recoup R&D costs.
  • Audacioucity - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Neither AMD nor Nvidia disclose profit margins per SKU they offer. In the smallest unit, gross profit margins are figures of a particular division or more commonly the whole company.
  • Dark42 - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    So the 5700 has more RAM and better performance than the 2060 for the same price.
    While the 5700 XT beats the 2070 / 2060 Super for the same price.
    Well done AMD.
  • bananaforscale - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    We don't know that yet, and 2070 isn't relevant anymore with 2070 Super being the same price. What you want to compare to is just the 2060 Super because that's the only one that makes sense.
  • Flunk - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    The non-super cards are discontinued.
  • V900 - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Lol no!

    7nm node is much more expensive than the 12 non node.

    And yields aren’t going to be as high as with the 12nm node that Nvidia has been using for years.
  • alawadhi3000 - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    Doesn't work that way, 7nm isn't cheap, plus probably have lowered yields than NVIDIA's 12nm.
  • eek2121 - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    7nm has better yields equal to 16nm according to TSMC.
  • eek2121 - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    Since I can't edit, let me clarify. The per-transistor cost of 7nm is cheaper than 16nm. This means that an AMD chip on 7nm actually costs AMD less than 16 or 14nm. Ultimately what this boils down to is AMD could probably drop NAVI prices down another $100 or so and still be profitable, but they don't want to do that unless absolutely necessary. NAVI is a new architecture and "big" NAVI is coming out next year. They are trying to increase revenue in the GPU dept to catch up, get ahead, and stay ahead of NVIDIA, so they will only be dropping prices to remain competitive.
  • nismotigerwvu - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    One thing you forgot to mention is that Navi 10 has about half a billion less transistors than TU106. Calculating the exact cost per transistor isn't as straightforward as it seems as both AMD and NV leave quite a bit of dark silicon on the chips to allow for better thermals and prevent leakage and whatnot. The important bit is that even in the worst case scenario they are seeing equal cost per chip to NV in a Navi 10/TU106 comparison and likely have a noticeably lower cost in reality.
  • Opencg - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    The TU106 dies used on the old 2060s only had 30 SMs enabled. The yields on the 2060 supers that the 5700 XTs compete against will be lower due to them having 34 SMs enabled.

    But the elephant in the room is RT and tensor cores. They take up silicon. Nvidia had a good architecture with pascal but you cant just throw on more and more silicon and keep your profit margins. AMD wins this one and they could probably go even lower to be honest.
  • Kevin G - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    Bait and switch marketing with that clam. Per transistor reduction is expected but if you are able to squeeze more transistors into a given area, the net cost per die given equal area can still increase. The variable is just how much more can the transistors be crammed together.
  • bobhumplick - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    i doubt it. amd are barely getting 70% yields on a 70mm2 die with the zen 2 core dies. and it takes nearly twice as long to make a chip from start to finish because they are going from dual patterning to quad patterning. i would say a 7nm die that is 250mm2 (like the 5700) costs as much as at least a 350mm2 die, probalby closer to 400mm. they could still sell them cheaper but it costs lot more than polaris dies which are about the same size as these and still about the same as vega which is about 330mm2. but that vega die is from glofo which is the bargain basement chip supplier. so the 7nm would cost a lot more still than vega but they dont have to buy hbm.

    the 2070 is about 440mm2 and i would think they would cost a tiny bit more but then yields would actually make the 2070 about the same price since 12nm will yield better.
  • Audacioucity - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Nvidia 2060 Super is 445 mm2, cut down a little bit. AMD 5700 is 251 mm2 and also cut down. The reason why the 5700s will always be cheaper is not on the actual process itself, the transistor count or the defect density. According to https://caly-technologies.com/die-yield-calculator... even
    at a worst-case scenario that 7nm has 4 times the defect density of 12nm (which is very unlikely for mass production), AMD will still get more chips per wafer thanks to the smaller size.
  • edzieba - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    " The per-transistor cost of 7nm is cheaper than 16nm. "

    That's not true, cost/transistor has been rising with each process scaling since 28nm.
  • Santoval - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    "This means that an AMD chip on 7nm actually costs AMD less than 16 or 14nm."
    No it doesn't. That's because CPU/GPU companies do not sell their products based on the number of transistors. They sell CPUs & GPUs with a different number of transistors, with the number of transistors not being a selling point (their number might be mentioned in their technical data, but it's rarely used for marketing).

    Thus what actually matters to them is the total cost per die, taking into account all R&D costs, yields per wafer, and finally its packaging into a complete chip. The largest (or at least a very large, I don't have precise numbers) part of the R&D is done by the company designing the new CPU/GPU, not the foundry that fabs it. So that cost is not included in TSMC's cost profile because they don't really care about it.

    The yields per wafer (of dies, not of... transistors) are obviously lower with each new node. That has always been the case, but as we reached single digit nm nodes it got even worse, while the R&D costs of developing each CPU/GPU went also through the roof.

    In short the total cost per die at 7nm (for AMD, Nvidia etc, not the foundries) will be clearly higher at first when the yields are low and eventually (as the node matures and the yields increase, and as the foundries' clients have recuperated some of their R&D costs), it will reach parity with the previous nodes or be slightly cheaper.
  • saratoga4 - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    >7nm has better yields equal to 16nm according to TSMC.

    This is not true. They are hoping to have them comparable by the end of the year, which would still leave 7nm quite a bit more expensive.
  • Samus - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Yeah, if 7nm had even good yields, they wouldn't have like 5 versions of the same die...Navi 10, 12, 14, 21 or whatever, etc etc. There are a ton of harvested dies that make up different versions of it.
  • Korguz - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Samus
    and where are you getting navi 12, 14, 21 etc from ?? all amd has announced is navi 10, correct ? or are you just speculating ?
  • Samus - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    it leaked by an OEM

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/c1xkd0/navi_...

    But reportedly yields are 70%, which isn't bad for a new process

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/beqxk4/amd_r...

    And I understand these are reddits but there are sources...
  • Dragonstongue - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    umm....NO, historically AMD has had better yield parts, mainly cause they
    go the extra mile
    when comes to their base design, Nv tends to do the most "base of base" for things like VRM etc (up until the pricey 1000 series and now RTX..kind of for RTX which absolutely was "rushed out the droo at a massive price for a "oops my bad"

    anyways...AMD 7nm is "better than average" yield as they have had 3 generations+ of "getting ready for it"

    Nv
    started with" the 16nm then 12nm etc, AMD went GF to TSMC AND they really really "fine tooth comb" to get what they could "initially" so far it seems they hit another Radeon 4870 moment, now they just need to keep pulling, Nv will do another "rush" and fubar...wait and see.
  • eek2121 - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    If you are referring to my post, the news I mentioned earlier came straight from TSMC. NAVI is a great architecture with a bright future ahead of it. We've seen a few leaks of what big NAVI can do (you have to dig to find them) and those leaks happened to make it the fastest card around for the limited set of benchmarks that were leaked (not AMD specific titles).
  • cheshirster - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    Equal perf/watt and perf/transistor ... on different nodes.
    That's like 1/4 of "4870 moment".
  • V900 - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Wut?!?

    What sort of nonsense is this?

    Would you have some sort of inside information about AMDs and Nvidia’s yields the last five years?

    No?

    Ah, so you’re just pulling “historically they had better yield parts” out of your rear then, I got ya!
  • V900 - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    And no. AMD isn’t having a “better than average yield at 7nm” and they certainly didn’t have “3 generations getting ready for it.”

    You’re either just making this up on the spot, or you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Both Polaris and Vega were made on Global Foundries 14nm process.

    (Aside from a small run of the much bigger Vega 7nm chip)

    GF 14nm process is completely different from TSMC 7nm process.

    Very little of their GF experience would have been useful at TSMC, and parts of the chips would have to be redesigned.

    (Even if GF HAD a 7nm process, you’d still need to redesign parts of the chip to make it on TSMCs 7nm node.)

    TSMCs 7nm process is still new and very expensive. Even with a relatively small chip like the Navi, yields won’t be ideal.

    Compare that with Nvidia, who are using TSMC 12nm process, which is more mature and naturally has higher yields.

    When the latest 20XX Super GPUs hit the street, Nvidia has been using that process for TWO YEARS, which means they had plenty of time to refine it.

    (And Nvidia’s previous Pascal cards were manufactured on a very similar 16nm TSMC node.)

    Nvidia is absolutely getting much better yields than AMD right now, and at a lower price.
  • Korguz - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    v900
    " You’re either just making this up on the spot, or you have no idea what you’re talking about.
    " sounds like you might be doing the same, would you mind sharing where you are getting all this info from ?
  • V900 - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    All this info? What info? What process the different cards were made with? You can read that on Wikipedia or in most cases here on anandtech.

    As for Nvidia getting better yields than anandtech, you can ask any industry insider on Twitter or look it up at Beyond3D forums. It’s simple logic that you get much better yields with a mature process that you have been using for years, than you’d get with a brand new node that you haven’t worked with extensively.
  • Korguz - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    the info in your post i replied to...
    " any industry insider on Twitter or look it up at Beyond3D forums " yea.. and i am going to believe some random person on twitter or worse some forum.. yea ok...
  • catavalon21 - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    As someone who hasn't bought a new video card since 970, I'm very interested to see how both sets of new cards play out. I will be taking a plunge, and don't care whether Red or Green ends up in the box. I have one PC on a 970, one on a 760 (light gaming) and one on IGP (don't get me started - 7850 died recently), so yeah - this is a good time as a mid to upper range buyer, every several years.
  • chrnochime - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    At least you got a 970. I still have a 770 that's appreciably slower :S
  • Xex360 - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    Great for us consumers, hopefully these cards will deliver something, while lacking any hardware RT acceleration in this price range it doesn't really matter because you need a much more powerful GC to using RT acceptable performance wise.
  • ianmills - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    Its hilarious how AMD is doing an overpriced "Founder's edition" as well. With nvidia it made sense because they were the only cards available for the first few weeks. I guess if the cards don't sell well amd will lower the prices more in a couple months
  • Cooe - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    Selling a pre-binned GPU for those that want it is an easy way to bring up the margins that AMD so desperately needs. Just like people whom bought FE cards for their well-binned "A" dies to liquid cool.
  • Koenig168 - Friday, July 5, 2019 - link

    It's for the 50th Anniversary, not FE. There are similar editions for some other AMD products.
  • guachi - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    They should rename the 50th anniversary edition the LISA SUper edition.
  • RBD117 - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    I like this idea. You should be working in AMD Technical Marketing.
  • Samus - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Depending on how well the 5700 overclocks, it could be a monster value for $300-$350. nVidia has lost their God damn minds lately, making their pre-RTX generation cards a far better value for the price. A 1080 can be had for well under $300 used and it's just as fast as a modern card costing twice as much.
  • tviceman - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Nvidia doesn't sell used GTX 1080's nor do they have control over the after-market sellers. That comparison is entirely invalid.

    A $400 RTX 2060 Super is about 10-15% faster than the $500 initial MSRP GTX 1080. The $500 GTX 2070 Super is the same speed as the $700 initial MSRP GTX 1080 TI.
  • edzieba - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Scenario A: AMD caught on-the-trot with the Super series pricing and positioning, and have had to cut their margins to compete. Consumer win, AMD loss).

    Scenario B: AMD planned all along to sandbag the pricing, meaning they artificially inflated the price in order to prompt Nvidia not to lower Super pricing to match. AMD win, consumer loss.
  • wr3zzz - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    How does consumer lose in scenario B? We got better price-performances than before regardless.
  • edzieba - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    If the 'true' price were distributed from the start, the Super line would have been price targeted to compete with that price, not an inflated price.
  • BenSkywalker - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Scenario A there was nothing surprising about the super launch outside of some ray tracing bench outliers, which would make AMD look ignorant.

    Scenario B use the biggest gaming convention in the world to make your own gaming products look markedly worse so you can get a pr bump footnote on dedicated tech sites a month later- that would make them utter morons.

    There is a reason AMD's PR is an abject failure attracting people outside of the devoted.
  • Yojimbo - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    So if AMD originally launched at $399 and $349 then NVIDIA would have... launched at the same Super prices and not made AMD change their prices before the cards were actually released? That would be better for AMD. Or launched at even lower Super prices in which case AMD would reduce their prices even more, in which case AMD tricked NVIDIA into higher price points for both of their products and therefore hurt consumers? Maybe he ought to think through what his snarky comments imply before he tweets them out.
  • Cooe - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link

    If AMD had kept the original prices, Super would have been priced cheaper & shoved Navi out of the market.
  • TristanSDX - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    let they also slash prices of Ryzens 3000, bo 10-15%
  • eastcoast_pete - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Good! Let the price wars begin!
    Two other comments: I don't get the obsession about which company can make how many transistors cheaper - I don't care, I am not a buddy of either Jensen Huang or Lisa Hsu. Isn't it all about bang for your buck, or Euro, or Pound, or Yen, or Yuan? So, whichever card does what I want at a good price, and without doubling my electric bill or heating the entire house gets my money.
    Lastly, regarding the design of the enclosures of the new Navi cards: What's up with that strange kink in the top of the enclosures for the 5700 XT (and the Anniversary Edition)? Looks like somebody banged it against a sharp edge and dented it. I had to do a double take to make sure it wasn't just my eyes playing tricks on me. The plain 5700 doesn't have that. Any ideas why "the kink is in"?
  • Zaibatsu - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    "Bend the rules" was written on the 5700 XT box.
  • WaltC - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    I think that these prices were the original MSRPs all along. AMD invites nVidia to match its pricing, nVidia responds with "Super" (which no one who bought a 2080/2070/2060 recently appreciates, I'm sure!), then AMD drops pricing further. 4d chess with Mr. Spock...;)
  • BenSkywalker - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Make yourselves look bad at E3 in front of the gaming world to say gotcha in front of the tiny niche GPU tech community a month later?

    Best case scenario they best nVidia perf/$ and look like fools who had to back pedal, worst case they are comparable to nVidia or worse and look incredibly greedy and foolish.

    AMD PR only looks good to rabid AMD fans. To anyone with a passing blue about PR it's 'what the f45k are you doing?'
  • AshlayW - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Okay, AMD. I see what you've done here.

    Consider my RTX 2070 Super purchasing plans on hold.

    5700XT for 399 looks really very nice for the performance there. But part of me still wants to wait till these cards are 250-300, like next year. But also Idk if I am "comfortable" spending like 400 quid on a GPU without hardware ray tracing capabability. I know it doesn't mean a lot right now, but it's just a part of me thinking it's not as forward looking as I'd like it to be (hence i want to pay lower prices).

    Ugh.
  • V900 - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Looks like AMD panicked and blinked first, when the 20XX Super’s were announced.

    Too bad.

    A 50$ price cut will absolutely cut into their profits, and the extra sales they’ll make probably won’t make up for it.

    Why? Simple:

    If an Nvidia card costs the same as a Radeon card and has similar performance, most GPU-agnostic gamers would go for the Nvidia. Not just because of the power of their brand, but also because the better features like Raytracing and DLSS.
  • V900 - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link

    Looks like Navi is a slightly better buy now, but the price cut won’t be enough to move the needle in a major way.

    The 5700XT has similar or slightly higher performance as the 2060S. But it lacks Raytracing, so many gamers would go for the more futureproof 2060S.

    (And it’s just 100$ more for a high end card like the 2070S)

    And it’s the same situation with the 5700. The same price and similar performance as the 2060 hardly makes it a great buy.
    And when the 2060S only costs 50$ more, most folks would go for that.
  • Korguz - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    v900..that may be the case in the US.. but in other countries.. the price difference.. could be A LOT more, and there fore..the better buy.. could be with the navi cards.... but until navi is released.. and there are 3rd party benchmarks out.. this is still unknown.... who knows what the prices for the the super cards and navi will be in other countries yet ....
  • Gigaplex - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    This generation of raytracing isn't powerful enough to be future proof. Get what works best for the games you play today.
  • webdoctors - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    This a joke? These price drops is basically the sales tax and shipping depending on the retailer you get it from in the USA.

    If a Mercedes and a KIA have the same HP and priced the SAME which car would you get? Its not even a debate....The cards need to drop by $100 to make it more clear to the consumer, otherwise without the raytracing feature its DOA.

    Its like the Ryzen CPUs, I'm buying it over the Intel ones at the same price because I get the SMT multicore too, that's a huge win!
  • Korguz - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    IF navi is less then the 2070/2060, and has the same performance, why bother with ray tracing ???? personally, id grab a navi based card in that case, NONE of the games i play have ray tracing, and in some cases.. the performance hit.. isnt worth it unless you go 2070 or 2080, and then, those cards are way to expensive... no one i know personally, even cares about ray tracing right now, for pretty much the same reasons i have. in some ways.. its funny how some put so much weight into ray tracing, considering how so few games can use it.. even saying its " future proof " isnt all that good, as by the time other games use it.. the next version of the hardware will be out, and maybe the performance hit.. wont be as bad....

    as for your comparison between the Benz and the KIA.. i'd take the kia, over all it would be cheaper to maintain, and personally.. i just dont like Mercedes to begin with :-)
  • UltraLeader - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    $399 is still too expensive. Why compare with nVidia extremely overpriced company ? Why not just make a real reasonable price ? RX 5700 XT only worth $249 because no ray tracing tech and only 2560 Stream Processors. In 2019, Stream Processors must be double to 5120 !!! 2560 is like nothing special !! and can not play 4K 60+ FPS !! Why make card that can not run 4K 60 FPS ? and still sell expensive ?
  • silverblue - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    You can't ever go off stream processor count. Navi != Polaris in this area. In the case of Navi, they should be more efficient and far better utilised. As such, there's little chance that a 5700 will perform like an RX 590.
  • Maxiking - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Expected, no raytracing, cheap and loud blower fans, what are we, in 2014? It will also mean limited oveclocking ability, no Gsync and that final nail into the coffin is that Freesync also runs on Nvidia.

    One must be dense to buy an amd gpu. Or a fan. Sadly, this is a causal relationship.
  • Korguz - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    no Gsync ??? NO big loss, that COSTS you some cash in the monitor. upping the price... freesync.. is just that.. free.. and part of the reason why nvidia now supports it.. is because few were buying gsync monitors ...

    and one must be denser to by an overprices nvidia gpu, or have more money then brains
  • Korguz - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    oh also " cheap and loud blower fans, " thats why most people will wait till the custom cooling cards come out ...
  • saiga6360 - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Exactly. So the simplest way for the masses to know AMD is just fine is that despite Nvidia's dominance, they are still in the GPU business.

    It's really funny how some of us mere mortals are that worried about these corporations making enough money.
  • NewCPUorder - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link

    Anandtech didn't want to put to specifications table PCIe 4.0 mention? What is the reason? Sandbagging AMD products again?
  • Korguz - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link

    huh???
  • MASSAMKULABOX - Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - link

    Pcie 4.0 wont make a diff to gfx cards for some number of years..
  • AndrewIntel - Sunday, July 10, 2022 - link

    this solution is based on a 12 inch wafer and in the future the industry will move to 18 inch wafers, which means higher utilization of the fab and better pricing per wafer and eventually better prices to the end user. This die per wafer calculator show the various options per wafer size: https://anysilicon.com/die-per-wafer-formula-free-...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now