The "advanced chiplets design" would only be "disruptive" vs Monolithic if AMD either
1. Passed on the cost savings to consumers (prices are same for xtx, and 7900xt is worse cu count % wise to top sku than 6800xt was to 6900xt)
2. Actually used the chiplets to have more cu, instead of just putting memory controllers on there. Thereby maybe actually competing in RTRT performance or vs the 4090.
AMD is neither taking advantage of their cost savings and going the value route, or competing vs their competition's best. They're releasing a product months later, with zero performance advantages vs the competition? Potential 4080ti will still be faster and they've just given nvidia free reign (once again) to charge whatever they want for flagships since there's zero competition.
7950xtx could have two 7900xtx dies, but I doubt it
It can be disruptive without being any of these case.
If AMD is able to sell massively the 7900XTX at 900$ with huge margin, they will become even more profitable, they will have more R&D budget for future gen, more budget to buy new wafer, that also, need less of them. They will be able to produce more cards for cheaper. They will be able to wage price wars and win long term.
Right now, Nvidia must ensure they keep their mindshare as intact as possible and must ensure to win flagship no matter the cost to preserve it. Their current chip is huge and that affect defect rate. With the currently advertised defect rate of TSMC for 5/4 nm, they probably have around 56% yield or 46 good die for 82 candidate. Depending on where the defect is, it's possible that the yield could be a bit higher if they can disable a portion of the chip but don't except something huge.
AMD on the other hand can produce 135 good die per wafer for every 180 candidate for a 74.6% yield. Then you need the MCD that are on a much cheaper node, On those, you would get 1556 good die for 1614 candidate for a 96.34% yield. Another advantages are that it's probably the same MCD for Navi 31 and Navi 32, allowing AMD to quickly switch them from where they are the most needed.
AMD can produce around 260 7950XTX with 2 5nm wafer and 1 6nm wafer.
Nvidia can produce around 150 4090 with 3 4nm wafer.
The best comparison would be with ADA 103, for 139 candidate, there would be 96 good candidate for a 69.3% yield. for 3 4nm wafer, that mean 288 cards.
Then we add the cost of each nodes, 5 and 4 nm cost way more than 6/7 nm. I was not able to find 2022/2023 accurate price, and in the end it would be based on what AMD and Nvidia negociated. But those days, people are moving to 5nm and there is capacity available on 7/6 nm. (It's also why they still producing Zen 3 in masses). Rumors are that TSMC 5 nm cost around 17k and 6nm cost around 7-9K but take this with a grain of salt. (and each vendor have their own negociated price too).
So right now, it look that except Ray Tracing, they are able to produce close to as much 4080 cards with one of the wafer on a much cheaper nodes. They can reuse a portion of that wafer and allocate it to other GPU model easily.
This is what is disruptive. It's disruptive for AMD, not for the end users. (sadly), but overtime those will add up and Nvidia will suffer. Their margin will lower, etc. But Nvidia is huge and rich. This will take many gen and Nvidia will probably have the time to get their own chiplet strategy by then.
Intel is a little bit more in hot water because money already drying and they are barely competitive in desktop platform, they struggle in laptop/notebook and they suffer in data centers. They still compete in performance but their margin have shrinked so much that they need to cancel product to stay afloat.
I think it's easy to miss that with all the hype and the clickbait titles we had. But also, it's normal for the end users to look for what will benefits the most.
).
