What the actual fuck does die size have to do with the price that NVIDIA has to pay TSMC for GPUs manufactured on a leading-edge node? Nothing, that's what.
I wish people would educate themselves before spouting such stupidity.
Die size is everything when it comes to the price Nvidia pays.
You want an exact comparison on the latest node? Great, let's compare the 4080 to the 4090.
You are talking about 60%
of the die size at 75%
of the cost. Mind you that's before you consider that yields increase exponentially as you reduce die size. The 4080 isn't expensive because leading edge nodes are expensive, it's expensive because Nvidia thinks it can get away with it. I'd be surprised if the 4080 had even half the relative cost compared to the 4090 for Nvidia simply because of how much better that smaller chip will yield.
I tend to agree. Smaller die? Yes, but a wafer now costs $20,000 instead of $7,000.
As pointed out above, even relative to Nvidia products using the exact same node pricing doesn't add up.
FYI the $20,000 figure you are quoting is incorrect. $20,000 is for 3nm and that's only at the launch. Nodes costs decrease over time, which is why AMD isn't paying anywhere near the $16,900 for it's 5nm wafers. This is also ignoring yields, which are higher on TSMCs newer nodes than it's 7nm nodes. If the cost per wafer goes up but the yield increases those two factors can very well offset each other.
I have pointed this out elsewhere in the TPU forms (check those out for more details) as well but recent wafer price increases are not the largest price increases in GPU history. If 3nm only costs 20,000 at launch that would be a very tame sized increase over the price of 5nm. Historically GPU prices do no increase each time wafer cost increases and in some cases GPU price has actually decreased. Wafer cost is only a single variable, something many defenders of Nvidia's pricing point to despite this fact and historical data.
The best GPU for mining that gives cryptocurrency pros maximum performance. Only through NVIDIA Partners.
Nvidia doesn't make video cards. They "make" a small amount of reference ones, but that it. What exactly did they "allow"?
Nvidia controls the size of branding on the box, how petty they can be with GPU allotment, what their partners can call their cards, ect. We all remember the GPP and how that brought forth AIBs revealing just how controlling Nvidia is of anything with an Nvidia GPU in it. You are telling me they weren't aware that AIBs were selling cards directly to miners? No chance Nvidia wasn't aware and consenting.
That they did and mining was probably one of the reasons. But you have no proof it was the only reason.
Let's cool off a bit and separate facts from guesses, shall we?
Individually these actions would have been anti-consumer, together they prove that Nvidia had the appropriate Mens Rea that fits the idea that Nvidia was catering to miners.
Nvidia may have had more reasons of course but those are incidental to the conversation.