News Nvidia Prepping RTX 4080 With New Silicon, Report Claims

[Admin]

Rumors are that Nvidia has cooked up a new piece of silicon for the GeForce RTX 4080.

Nvidia Prepping RTX 4080 With New Silicon, Report Claims : Read more

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

$1 dollar extra to the BOM!? This equates to about $50 at retail! Greedy......

 

[umeng2002_2]

I think you mean an extra $1 BOM equates to another $400 in retail.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

What's the incentive for nVidia to lower the price when their competition is just as ridiculously overpriced as well, they're flying off the shelves, and they can make more profit per card than they could at lower prices?

 

[CircuitJammer]

Best seller? Flying off the shelves?
Umm... they are literally gathering dust on the shelves and selling very poorly. Where do you guys get this stuff?

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Best seller? Flying off the shelves?
Umm... they are literally gathering dust on the shelves and selling very poorly. Where do you guys get this stuff?

The article itself:

Despite the steep price tag, the GeForce RTX 4080 is still one of the best-selling graphics cards on Newegg.

 

[e_fok]

The new revision of the chip probably makes the largest difference to the mobile GPU for laptops should it likely be more efficient at lower power levels. Saving a few watts and using less components matters a lot more for laptops.

 

[bit_user]

Based on my previous analysis, the RTX 4080 should have a list price of about $1049, to be in line with how the RTX 4070 Ti and RTX 4090 are priced.

I would like it to be much cheaper than that, of course, as that's still much more than I'd spend on a GPU for mere personal use.

 

[Papusan]

Based on my previous analysis, the RTX 4080 should have a list price of about $1049, to be in line with how the RTX 4070 Ti and RTX 4090 are priced.

I would like it to be much cheaper than that, of course, as that's still much more than I'd spend on a GPU for mere personal use.

Why? 4090 was 100$ above 3090. 3080 was $699, so proper price should be 799$ for 4080. And 4070 Ti was the last one out from nvidia and should be priced... 699$. You take it out in the wrong order. Latest released graphics cards shouldn't determine the price point for the earlier released SKUs. That is to start in the wrong end.

All new gen cards should've had the same price hike as the 4090 (right below inflation) or rounded up to nearest 100$ spot above previous gen cards.

Imagine Nvidia had done the same greedy way with 4090. Added 71% on top of 3090 and put MSRP for 4090 at +2500$ 🆒 And if 4090 Ti show up, then it should be priced at +3400$. All to match 4080's disgusting MSRP. The 4080 destroyed the whole pricing from Nvidia.

 

[bit_user]

Why?

Based on $ per mm^2 and $ per GB. The RTX 4080 is an outlier in both dimensions.

GPU	Die Area (mm^2)	Memory (GB)	MSRP	cost/area	cost/GB
RTX 4070 Ti	294.5​	12​	$799​	$2.71​	$66.58​
RTX 4080	378.6​	16​	$1,199​	$3.17​	$74.94​
RTX 4090	608.5​	24​	$1,599​	$2.63​	$66.63​

To better align with both costs and its relative performance, it should be about $1049.

Note that I'm not arguing $1049 represents a reasonable value for consumers. Just that it's an outlier within its own family.

 

[Papusan]

Based on $ per mm^2 and $ per GB. The RTX 4080 is an outlier in both dimensions.

GPU	Die Area (mm^2)	Memory (GB)	MSRP	cost/area	cost/GB
RTX 4070 Ti	294.5​	12​	$799​	$2.71​	$66.58​
RTX 4080	378.6​	16​	$1,199​	$3.17​	$74.94​
RTX 4090	608.5​	24​	$1,599​	$2.63​	$66.63​

To better align with both costs and its relative performance, it should be about $1049.

Note that I'm not arguing $1049 represents a reasonable value for consumers. Just that it's an outlier within its own family.

If you count in the die size... 4080 is around 60% smaller than 4090. And have less vram. Then you have the calculus for 3080. Minor differenc in die size vs 3090 but a hell lot cheaper. You can't always calculate this way. And neither did Nvidia. They defended the much higher price due the increased performance.

 

[bit_user]

You can't always calculate this way. And neither did Nvidia. They defended the much higher price due the increased performance.

Their costs correlate pretty closely with die size and GDDR memory. So does performance, in fact.

So, both in terms of costs and in terms of performance, $1199 is out of line with their other MSRPs of the RTX 4000 series that have so far been announced.

 

[HundredthIdiot]

High GPU prices will strangle the PC gaming market. Porsche pricing strategy (constrain supply to enable massive margins) only works when there is an ocean of lower priced car(d)s to support the market. If Porsches were the only vehicles on sale there would be no roads for them to drive on.
Feasting on margins made sense during the mining boom when supply was massively constrained. Now Nvidia should focus on getting next gen cards into the hands of PC gamers, particularly now that consoles are at the point in their lifecycle where they can't compete on horsepower.

 

[bit_user]

Porsche pricing strategy (constrain supply to enable massive margins) only works when there is an ocean of lower priced car(d)s to support the market.

Unlike a couple years ago, there are tons of lower-priced cards readily available.

Now Nvidia should focus on getting next gen cards into the hands of PC gamers,

The die is cast, so to speak. I think their upper-end designs are simply too large and costly to make at the prices people want to pay, which essentially seems to be their old price scale from a couple generations ago. Pay close attention to the amount of L2 cache they used in this generation, compared with all prior generations - that chews up a lot of die space, especially in newer process nodes.

Nvidia isn't going to take excessive financial losses for the good of the gaming community - they're always going to price their products to maximize profits. Especially since it's not as if you can't find a Nvidia card in your price range. There's plenty of earlier gen cards available that PC gamers can afford.

If you really want to accelerate the transition towards newer cards, you could help by buying up some of the existing inventory!
; )

 

[digitalgriffin]

Based on $ per mm^2 and $ per GB. The RTX 4080 is an outlier in both dimensions.

GPU	Die Area (mm^2)	Memory (GB)	MSRP	cost/area	cost/GB
RTX 4070 Ti	294.5​	12​	$799​	$2.71​	$66.58​
RTX 4080	378.6​	16​	$1,199​	$3.17​	$74.94​
RTX 4090	608.5​	24​	$1,599​	$2.63​	$66.63​

To better align with both costs and its relative performance, it should be about $1049.

Note that I'm not arguing $1049 represents a reasonable value for consumers. Just that it's an outlier within its own family.

Not to brown nose but "well done analysis and spot on"

I will add that Nvidia has priced themselves out.

An 80.class card should be the same price gen to gen, after adjusting for inflation. I don't care if it's only a 5% increase in speed. Save the Uber priced stuff for titans.

Case in point: 1080 was ~$500. The 4080's "MSRP" is ~240% the price in 3 generations.

It's just greed. AMD is no better. And they are paying for it. "Worst sales number in over a decade". Sure you can brag you made a ton of money on a few GPU sales. "We have 60% margin" If you sold 3, you starve. They didn't do their sales price yield curve correctly.

I see Nvidia's consumer net profits plummeting in 6 months. They are running out of suckers who have the cash. By the time the October end business year report comes around, NVIDIA, AMD, and TSMC will have to do something drastic.

 

[bit_user]

Case in point: 1080 was ~$500. The 4080's "MSRP" is ~240% the price in 3 generations.

It's just greed. AMD is no better. And they are paying for it.

Thanks for confirming my earlier point about price expectations.

What I don't understand is how you reach the conclusion that it's "just greed". I'm not saying there's no greed involved, but it seems to me like the most greedy thing would be to make a cheap GPU and sell it for a lot. I don't know how you could get away with that, but I also don't get the sense that's what we're seeing.

I think they simply looked at what prices the market was willing & able to support and then designed higher-performance cards to better fit that price structure. A more greedy approach would've been to do less ambitious refreshes and just hope the crypto/AI craze keeps going.

I also don't really see why it matters what the top-end card costs. I understand they're drawing extra attention because they launched the top-end first, and the rest of the product lines have been delayed. But, let's say AMD introduced a 7999 XT XXX tomorrow, and it was 2x as powerful and 3x as expensive as the 7900 XTX. It doesn't make the 7900 cards any slower or a worse value. That's a little bit like how I see the RTX 4090 - just an over-the-top model that stands unopposed. And because of that, it can have whatever price they want.

I see Nvidia's consumer net profits plummeting in 6 months. They are running out of suckers who have the cash.

The RTX 4070 Ti reportedly outperforms the RTX 3090. We have yet to see how their lower-end 4000-series GPUs perform, but they could represent a compelling value at more affordable prices. Waiting is the part that sucks.

 

[trance77]

We here in Portland, WA have (2) Best Buy’s and the wire-cages are stocked and or full with 4080’s. I counted about 30 4080's overall sitting in the cages at close to MSRP. Simply they are not moving off the shelves even with OR having no State sales tax! The latest (2) AMD GPU’s for most buyers maintains to be a dirty word and of course they are available in big numbers as well right next to the 4080's. The masses or enthusiasts still simply want 4090’s at MSRP and 'Partner' cards always go first. I was told that they hadn’t any 4090’s in stock for any length of time during the past 4-6 months. The only 4090’s which were available are ‘Open Box’ items which took just days to sell instead of hours. It’s a crazy world out there with cash supposedly being in short supply.

Same in UK, every time I check the Nvidia store they have the 4080 FE in stock. Not the 4090 though.

 

[thisisaname]

Best selling graphics card does not mean a lot when they do not say how many have sold and also considering that the market for GPU's has fallen (https://siliconangle.com/2022/12/29/sales-computer-graphics-cards-slump-lowest-level-two-decades/) even less meaning?

|(*making up some numbers*)
If the 4080 sold 50 and the next best 49 it is still the best selling card, until actual sales figures come out it is hard to say if they are selling well rather than just better than the rest.

 

[qwertymac93]

Based on $ per mm^2 and $ per GB. The RTX 4080 is an outlier in both dimensions.

GPU	Die Area (mm^2)	Memory (GB)	MSRP	cost/area	cost/GB
RTX 4070 Ti	294.5​	12​	$799​	$2.71​	$66.58​
RTX 4080	378.6​	16​	$1,199​	$3.17​	$74.94​
RTX 4090	608.5​	24​	$1,599​	$2.63​	$66.63​

To better align with both costs and its relative performance, it should be about $1049.

Note that I'm not arguing $1049 represents a reasonable value for consumers. Just that it's an outlier within its own family.

The thing is the "4080 12GB" was going to be $899 and that comes out to be $3.05 per mm² and $74.92 per GB; much closer to the current 4080 pricing than the 4090 in terms of value. The 4070 ti being a decent value (relatively) is purely due to backlash. The 4080 16 GB was already launched so Nvidia changing the price was just not going to happen. The new AD103 die will probably be part of a second wave of 4080s launching at a reduced price. The die itself isn't that much cheaper, but if it needs a new PCB it'll probably go into simpler designs with smaller coolers and maybe a $1099 MSRP.

 

[Cliff3.141592653589793238]

Too much for my blood. Just impatiently waiting for the lower tiered 40 series to come out.

 

[umeng2002_2]

Most people simply won't pay near or more than $1000 for a GPU... not most gamers anyways. The fact that the original GPUs needed a voltage comparator circuit when the new one doesn't leads me to think there was something broken in the first batch of chips.

 

[digitalgriffin]

What I don't understand is how you reach the conclusion that it's "just greed".

Moore's law says 2x transistor density in 18months. I know that is no longer feasible. But transistor density is largely what determines performance and cost per transistor. With each generation the cost of each transistor should go down.

That said, yes wafer cost are going up. However this merely slows down the price decrease per transistor per generation.

Looking at transistor count and cost per transistor based on wafer node, the margin Nvidia and amd are pulling are insane compared to what it used to be.

Basically the fps/dollar has stagnated. Yet they keep lowering the price of entry level going "$800 Is the new 70 class". Bull honkey. You price out the mainstream where most of the money is made and kill off the market.

Not to be an armchair CEO, but it was obvious before the release of the cards crypto upheld these high prices. How AMD and NVIDIA didn't see the collapse in demand at these prices is beyond me.

Higher gross margins = more greed. And that's reflected in the stock reports.

I agree with you. I could care less about the Uber high end. I'm more a 1 to 2 down the product stack. But not above $750 for #2 card. Six years back $750 would have gotten you a #1 card. $550 #2

 

[spongiemaster]

Moore's law says 2x transistor density in 18months. I know that is no longer feasible. But transistor density is largely what determines performance and cost per transistor. With each generation the cost of each transistor should go down.

That said, yes wafer cost are going up. However this merely slows down the price decrease per transistor per generation.

Looking at transistor count and cost per transistor based on wafer node, the margin Nvidia and amd are pulling are insane compared to what it used to be.

Determining what a graphics cards should cost based on the price of a transistor is about as bad a method as there is. The actual cost of making a GPU is a smaller percentage of the overall cost of developing and selling a graphics card each generation. Nvidia's R&D costs have increased every quarter going back to 2016. They spent about $6.9 billion over the past year. Just 4 years ago, or 2 GPU generations, they had spent about $2.25 billion the previous year. More than triple the expenditures in 4 years. Where in your cost per transistor calculation is that cost increase reflected? How much do you think it costs Nvidia to pay their increasingly large engineering staff? I bet that cost isn't decreasing. Is their marketing budget stagnant year after year? Probably not. The real world costs of developing high tech products today can not be simplified down to one basic metric like cost per transistor.

I agree with you. I could care less about the Uber high end. I'm more a 1 to 2 down the product stack. But not above $750 for #2 card. Six years back $750 would have gotten you a #1 card. $550 #2

The last time Nvidia sold a halo single GPU gaming card under $1000 was 2012 with the 600 series.

 

[digitalgriffin]

Determining what a graphics cards should cost based on the price of a transistor is about as bad a method as there is. The actual cost of making a GPU is a smaller percentage of the overall cost of developing and selling a graphics card each generation. Nvidia's R&D costs have increased every quarter going back to 2016. They spent about $6.9 billion over the past year. Just 4 years ago, or 2 GPU generations, they had spent about $2.25 billion the previous year. More than triple the expenditures in 4 years. Where in your cost per transistor calculation is that cost increase reflected? How much do you think it costs Nvidia to pay their increasingly large engineering staff? I bet that cost isn't decreasing. Is their marketing budget stagnant year after year? Probably not. The real world costs of developing high tech products today can not be simplified down to one basic metric like cost per transistor.



The last time Nvidia sold a halo single GPU gaming card under $1000 was 2012 with the 600 series.

I've calculated a number of ROI to justify projects. I know what goes into an engineering project in terms of soft and hard cost and how that amortizes out.

And you act as if it is our responsibility to support overly aggressive growth with their staff increases. I got news for you: It's not our responsibility to support a company if they decide to grow too fast.

Yet somehow their margins keep growing. Having more engineers does not seem to be hurting them too much.

I'm calling you on it Spongie: Hogwash.

BTW:
980Ti = $650 on launch.
1080Ti = $700 on launch
Each was a #1 rank.

A majority of gamers are just getting priced out. Even decent 1080p entry level is inaccessible for most now.

 

[bit_user]

The thing is the "4080 12GB" was going to be $899 and that comes out to be $3.05 per mm² and $74.92 per GB; much closer to the current 4080 pricing than the 4090 in terms of value.

The RTX 4070 Ti is the RTX 4080 12 GB. They simply renamed it!

The 4070 ti being a decent value (relatively) is purely due to backlash.

Whatever the reason, its pricing is in line with the RTX 4090, which makes the RTX 4080 the outlier.

The 4080 16 GB was already launched so Nvidia changing the price was just not going to happen.

Price changes happen all the time, though I think it is harder for Nvidia to reprice something that's already on the market and in the channel. They're probably hoping some of that inventory will burn off, before they take the financial hit of doing it. Perhaps, they're even waiting so that the financial impact falls in a different quarter of their financial year.

The new AD103 die will probably be part of a second wave of 4080s launching at a reduced price. The die itself isn't that much cheaper, but if it needs a new PCB it'll probably go into simpler designs with smaller coolers and maybe a $1099 MSRP.

Let's hope. It would be progress.