Nvidia could absolutely make a stellar budget GPU, they just have ZERO desire to do so because the margins are so low. Nvidia just made $14.51 billion from DC sales, and ‘only’ $2.86 billion on gamer, which is a lower margin segment.
Nvidia is predicting an insane 75% profit margin in 2024.
Jensen isnt going to stop to pickup a penny $10 bill in a parking lot.
Huang is talking about complete independence, not just leading edge node production like i’ve seen many people assume based on the headline. Achieving this in 10-20 years with the volume of components needed is actually pretty optimistic.
Huang explained that Nvidia’s products rely on countless components from around the world, not just Taiwan, although Nvidia’s most important components are made in Taiwan.
“We are still 10 to 20 years away from achieving supply chain independence,” Huang said.
The truth is, the U.S. and other countries dont really want to create (and spend) for complete chip independence, they just dont want to depend on Taiwan and China. Outside of wartime production, chips would just be sourced from the U.S. and trading partners like Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Ireland, Germany.
They should focus on fixing the egregious 80ms response time on MacBook screens before thinking about a ‘privacy screen’. Average response time for the industry is around 20ms, while some are under 1ms. Apple is leading the pack for some of the worst response rates in laptops.
It’s not even a drop in the bucket for Tim Cook to personally do. His net worth fluctuates more than a million dollars a day.
It’s not that they can’t make a 5G modem, they can, it’s just that it won’t be as good as the Qualcomm modems Apple is already licensing. Qualcomm is the gold standard for modems, and when manufacturers use someone else, like Google’s Pixel using Samsung’s modems, you get tons of complaints about lower battery life/abnormal heat, and poor reception.
Redesigning the iPhone specifically to be more easier for automated assembly would likely result in a worse product, and thus it wouldn’t be worth it for Apple as that would lead to less sales. It’s more profitable to just hire cheap labor and sell more product.
Apple has a fully automated recycling robot in the works, it functions but has issues and isn’t big enough scale to handle all the recycling waste Apple has. There are videos on it, but as you would probably guess, destructive recycling is far easier than ‘white glove’ assembly. It breaks the screen, drills out the screws, freezes the back of the phone to weaken the batteries glue, etc. https://youtu.be/fUXiYecGZs8?si=2S5ic8M-M5cbGT8g
While complete autonomous assembly is absolutely doable, it just takes a ton of engineering and time, and with Apple producing new phones every year, that’s just not worth it, when you can train a person to do the same task in minutes. It makes more sense for products that aren’t going to change much over the years and can easily be nearly fully automated, like the production of pasta.
This is the wrong sub, but that build is pretty well picked out.
I agree. Apple should’ve known that this would eventually bite them in the ass. I’m actually surprised it’s taken this long.
Apple should’ve made it so that consumers really prefer using the App Store and then open up iOS. Steam isn’t the biggest PC gaming platform because it forces people into it, but because it’s the oldest and most feature friendly. While side loading and third party stores are a thing on Android, most people use Google Play Store out of convenience unless the app is banned or priced too high.
Apple will fight this tooth and nail because digital sales are their second biggest revenue stream and growing, more than Mac or iPad. But I don’t see them winning this long term, and once one country wins a suit against Apples closed garden of apps, the rest will follow if Apple doesn’t make worldwide changes.
If you mean Zen 5, late next year.
It didn’t start anything, it’s the most toned down and generic open world game to exist. BotW took far more from other games than it actually innovated itself
AMD is known for screwing launch buyers by dropping prices hard when competition doesn’t allow them to keep theie high prices. Like look how hard and fast Zen 4 pricing fell after 13th gen launched. I know someone will think ‘its good they reacted to competition’, and that’s true, but AMD knew a $300 6 core non-X3D wouldnt be competitive, but they didn’t care and let early adopters overpay.
But I don’t think AMD is going to start pricing at $600, that’s too low of a ‘starting’ price for their ‘flagship’. I could see $750-$800 but definitely not as low as $600.
This is why Apple devices ‘have such good resale value’, because Apple barely has sales.
Windows laptops and Android get deep discounts for sales, making them cheaper to buy new, this resale is low.
People will say the higher resale value is good for them when they want to sell their Apple product, but then thats negated by the fact that Apple has higher prices.
Those were the rumors around launch, saying the flagship dies had issues and that they were going to be refreshed later for big performance gains, but I haven’t heard that rumor ever since. If AMD really had that much performance left on the table, I think they would’ve pushed to have the cards out this holiday season, and not wait until 2024, but I don’t think those rumors are true.
There were also rumors claiming RDNA 3 would be when AMD surpassed Nvidia. Unfortunately it was a regression in competitiveness.
Leaks about the structure of a GPU or CPU, the cores, memory type, architecture used, are typically more reliable far ahead of release, but the leaks about performance are almost never reliable until a couple months before release.
That’s not what’s going on. GPU isn’t influencing the other prices.
CPU pricing is very competitive because Intel basically always keeps their prices + inflation, so when Zen 3 was priced higher, 12th gen was priced lower, when Zen 4 still priced higher, 13th gen was still priced lower. AMD tries to move pricing up and Intel keeps anchoring it back down, and then it ends up being them in a price war with sales. Even when Bulldozer was a disaster Intel didn’t break change their pricing, this pricing scheme goes back over a decade.
GPU pricing is ridiculous because Nvidia loves it’s profit margins and sets them high, and AMD simply joins in, slightly lower but usually with worth performance and certainly worse features, so Nvidia and customers don’t care.
Then you have memory and storage prices tanking because DDR5 is now mature and there has been an glut, too much NAND produced when demand pulled back, leading to very good prices as manufacturers take losses.
It’s nice that you made this, but the formatting leaves a lot to desire. This chart wont break down specific codenames and IGP info, but it’s far easier to read quickly.
It’s nice that you made this, but the formatting leaves a lot to desire. This chart wont break down specific codenames and IGP info, but it’s far easier to read quickly.
Context makes that comparison not surprising either, and also less impressive.
The 13980hx is Intel 10nm, now called Intel 7, which is comparable to TSMC 7nm. The M3 is on TSMC N3B.
Even the base M3 uses more transistors than the 13980hx. The M3 Max has more transistors than a 4090.
So it’s essentially Apple buying their way to have a very good CPU. A similar chip is doable by Intel and AMD, but they have to build chips that partners want to buy, and the industry isn’t eager to have $1000+ SoCs that need to go into $3000 laptops, consumer demand for that is low.
And mind you while the 13980hx is Intels highest performing mobile CPU, it’s not actually a mobile CPU, it’s a desktop CPU binned and power limited for mobile use. It’s a half ass take. After next year they will likely dump this approach as they are fundamentally changing their lineup.
The people paying a premium for Microsoft Surfaces aren’t going to buy a random Chinese brand called “ALLDOCUBE”.
Tim Fapple