Total dGPU units sold in Q2,13 = 14,000,000 units (Source, Jon Peddie Research)
AMD Marketshare: 38%: 5,320,000 units shipped
Nvidia Marketshare: 62%: 8,680,000 units shipped
I couldn't find exact sales percentages for GK110 vs GK104, but I'd take a gander that GK110 would maybe be around 10% (probably less) of their dGPU sales, compared to GK104. Considering that the greatest majority of Nvidia's current line is GK104/106.
That would mean they shipped out ~868,000 GK110 chips. In otherwords, only a $4,340,000 extra cost at $5 extra cost per chip. Counting in failure of larger dies, lets say, for every 2 dies, you get one working: would mean the total extra cost overall for GK110, would be $8,680,000, given $5 extra cost per chip. Which would cost Nvidia a total of a hundredth of a percent of their total worth (estimate on how much they have to work with money-wise).
And that's not even assuming that AMD is going to have yield issues on their larger die sizes, i.e. Hawaii, and even Tahiti was a considerably larger die than GK104.
That is absolutely nothing to a company the size of AMD or Nvidia. Any argument regarding the cost per die, regardless of the company, is just stupid. It is a negligible amount to either company. Literally a negligible amount. Just basically tired of reading stupid arguments about die costs from certain users on this board that have been causing severe friction among members in this forum on certain threads (not naming names, but would should know exactly who I'm talking about if you read news threads).
Edited by Kinaesthetic - 10/27/13 at 12:59pm