Absolute Bull. That 100 dollar figure is horrendous and common sense should make it obvious that it isn't true.
If cards were that cheap to produce, videocard companies would be much much richer companies and the industry would be more competitive because everyone would be diving to get in.
If a card like this cost 100 dollars to produce, it would basically means the chip costs 20-40 dollars to make, 60-66 dollars for rest of components from past previous estimates. This is also assuming the 1gb of ddr5(during the 6870 generation) has the same cost as 8gb of ddr5. And considering this is the newest variant of ddr 5, I think we would be lucky if 4gb of ddr5 cost the same as 1gb of ddr5 back then. This would means AMD has somehow been able to make their yields better than apples for their a9x(147mm2) which is a much smaller die.
Doing the math, Gross margins, if things were that cheap to make would be 68% which is impossible. 106(34 dollar cost) selling cost to board partners, 66 for card manufacturing+remaining parts, 10 dollars for packaging, 15% margin for board partners, 10 percent margin for retailers = 230 dollars
With Nvidia's high pricing, their overall gross margins are 58% and this average is increased by their professional lineup, data center and car division which have terrific margins, which makes up 42% of their revenue Considering the average gross margin of this division is somewhere along the lines of 80+ percent, it's their consumer lineup is what is dragging it down.
How could a GPU of this size on a new node which is notoriously expensive have margins this good, when they are selling it at a unprecedentedly low price?
The last time a card had a GPU this big on it on a new node, with this type of pricing was the 3870, and this was smaller than polaris by 20%. Before that, I can't remember when a chip this big was sold at the MSRP that Polaris has.
Polaris has very little margins and was released at this price to get marketshare above all else.
Edited by tajoh111 - 7/3/16 at 10:05pm