In the UK the 460 technically launched at the same RRP as the 660/760 iirc, slightly more than the 560 and considerably more than the 960 which was abnormally cheap, only less than the 1060/2060 really, but the 1050Ti was the true 960 successor imo with how Pascal cards were repositioned. That's not regarding the fact £199 in 2010 in £250+ in todays money.
It's a fair bit more complex than that, larger dies don't just use more material but also waste more of the wafer(Cutting rectangles to a circle), for 332 vs 445 mm^2 (And you can find estimations for yourself using various wafer calculation tools) you'd expect to get around 50% more chips per wafer for 332 if other factors were equal, and you'd have a higher chance those dies were usable and had a higher %age enabled, but of course without yield numbers and such these are mostly academic comparisons.
I know how silicon wafers are sliced man.
All of this debate and confusion.... The 2060 costs what it does due to a lack of competition from AMD. It really is as simple as that. People can try and explain it away by comparing it to other ludicrously priced cards but it doesn't get us around the facts.
The only card that AMD have that competes with the 2060 is the Vega 64. Yet, due to the way AMD made it and the HBM? they can't sell it cheap. The 2060 on the other hand costs way less to produce.
Before Ryzen launched every one was saying there was no way it could compete with Intel *or* be affordable. Well guess what, it did compete with Intel and it was 1/3 of the price for the exact same thing. That is, comparing the 5960x which could barely overclock past 4ghz with a 4ghz Ryzen 1700 that could clock up to 4.1ghz. They were practically identical in every regard, only the AMD part had more lanes and ran considerably cooler.
If what people are saying is true then AMD would not have made statements such as "It is very cheap to produce" and etc.
You can't tell me that Turing cost more than Fermi. At the time Fermi was made it cost Nvidia an absolute *fortune* because it was a kitchen sink. Heck, so was the GTX 280, however the RRP for the 280 was £320 or less.
The Radeon 5870 launched at around £300. The 5850 launched at £230 or so. Then all of a sudden no response from Nvidia and those prices soared.
Then Nvidia come along with their £450 GTX 480 and every one laughs. They then come along with their £450 or so GTX 580 and people go nuts, and from there on they wised up. That was when they cut down the die massively with Kepler, and then charged a king's ransom for the actual big die (Titan moniker, GTX 780 etc).
Since then they have been probing (and controlling) the market and steadily increasing their prices to beyond joke levels. What comes in Turing? I expect that. I just don't expect it at these absolutely ridiculous prices. IDK why people who are so intelligent, and know as much about computers as they do try and come up with these BS explanations as to why Nvidia are being greedy. Nobody could see the wood for the trees with Intel then all of a sudden Ryzen happens and they all go "Oh yeah, Bloody rip off Intel !".
It makes me laugh. People should just see facts.
