"According to its source, AMD will be making a net loss on each GPU sold to the consumer"
As an economist, this statement offends me. If AMD were truly making a loss on the sale, they wouldn't sell them. The fact that AMD is selling the M150 as a Radeon VII must mean that AMD expects to make more net revenue than if they didn't do that. So that's a gain, not a loss.
Now, maybe AMD is making a loss compared to the cost of production. But the cost of production is irrelevant. See: sunk cost fallacy.
Prospectively, all that matters is opportunity cost or marginal cost. Assuming that a product has already been produced or an investment has already been made, then the historical cost is irrelevant. All that matters is going forward, whether the revenue from an additional sale exceeds the cost of an additional sale.
E.g., if you invested $1 billion in R&D for a new GPU that fails to sell well, your historic investment is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the revenue from selling one more GPU exceeds the electricity and silicon and whatnot that it takes to make that GPU for sale.