GDDR6 VRAM Prices Falling According to Spot Market Analysis - 8 GB Selling for $27

[T0@st]

The price of GDDR6 memory has continued to fall sharply - over recent financial quarters - due to an apparent decrease in demand for graphics cards. Supply shortages are also a thing of the past—industry experts think that manufacturers have been having an easier time acquiring components since late 2021, but that also means that the likes of NVIDIA and AMD have been paying less for VRAM packages. Graphics card enthusiasts will be questioning why these savings have not been passed on swiftly to the customer, as technology news outlets (this week) have been picking up on interesting data—it demonstrates that spot prices of GDDR6 have decreased to less than a quarter of their value from a year and a half ago. 3DCenter.org has presented a case example of 8 GB GDDR6 now costing $27 via the spot market (through DRAMeXchange's tracking system), although manufacturers will be paying less than that due to direct contract agreements with their favored memory chip maker/supplier.

A 3DCenter.org staffer had difficulty sourcing the price of 16 Gb GDDR6 VRAM ICs on the spot market, so it is tricky to paint a comparative picture of how much more expensive it is to equip a "budget friendly" graphics card with a larger allocation of video memory, when the bill-of-materials (BoM) and limits presented by narrow bus widths are taken into account. NVIDIA is releasing a GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB variant in July, but the latest batch of low to mid-range models (GeForce RTX 4060-series and Radeon RX 7600) are still 8 GB affairs. Tom's Hardware points to GPU makers sticking with traditional specification hierarchy for the most part going forward: "(models) with double the VRAM (two 16 Gb chips per channel on both sides of the PCB) are usually reserved for the more lucrative professional GPU market."




Trendforce anticipated some of this market movement with their prediction from last September: "In terms of Graphics DRAM...(we expect) another round of price cuts for graphics cards. However, various types of terminal promotions can only eliminate preexisting inventory, which possesses limited value in driving new demand. Demand for GDDR6 8 Gb and 16 Gb has weakened simultaneously due to buyer inventory adjustment. Buyers' purchasing volume was not stimulated even though DRAM suppliers slashed prices in 3Q22. Therefore, preexisting graphics DRAM inventory continues to pile up, creating greater pressure coupled with the gradual production of previous wafer starts. From the perspective of 4Q22, although there are only two GDDR6 8 Gb suppliers, Samsung and SK Hynix, due to huge inventory pressure the two parties will inevitably compete for orders by undercutting the other's pricing. Therefore, the price decline of GDDR6 8 Gb chips in 4Q22 may be higher than GDDR6 16 Gb, lowering prices by approximately 10~15%."

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[damric]

Gb not GB

 

[qcmadness]

It means nothing when NVIDIA sells the GPUs with ram chips and charges as NVIDIA likes.

 

[R0H1T]

And Nvidia charging their loyal fans suckers at highway robbery rates

Spoiler

 

[n-ster]

Gb not GB

The chart shows 8Gb chips being a bit over 3$, 27$ price is for 8 GB.

3DCenter.org has presented a case example of 8 Gb GB GDDR6 now costing $27

@T0@st should be GB in this sentence, they specifically write GByte on their Tweet

 

[eidairaman1]

It means nothing when NVIDIA sells the GPUs with ram chips and charges as NVIDIA likes.

Vote with your wallet, I did and never regretted it.

 

[Dragokar]

Vote with your wallet, I did and never regretted it.

This! With the current lineup from all three planned, I probably stick a long time with my RX 6800.

 

[dgianstefani]

Gb not GB

The chips are sold in 8 or 16 Gb size, which equates to 1 or 2 gigabyte/GB.

The 8 GB for $27 is correct, that's the price of four 16 Gb chips.

 

[T0@st]

@T0@st should be GB in this sentence, they specifically write GByte on their Tweet

Thanks, I've been wrestling with the back end system's correction suggestions. Hooray for writing on a Saturday evening before dinner time.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Good. Maybe by the RX 9000/RTX 6000 series there will be something worth upgrading to in frames/$.

Until then the 6800xt will be just fine.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

There must be other major reasons for the drop in prices of stored quantities of the older (and slower) GDDR6 series. For example the new 22Gb/s GDDR6w, and 24Gb/s GDDR6+ that are being prepared for production this year, as well as GDDR7 for next year...

 

[Bomby569]

i think nvda's thing is more about market/price segmentation then what memory costs them or not

 

[Totally]

Don't hold your breath, those days are long gone ever since Nvidia moved from per segment pricing to perf/$ ever since 2xxx super. Next gen entry level card performs just as well as last gen mid range, the new entry level card is going to cost the same as last gen mid range card at launch. Going to be that way unless AMD forces their hand.

 

[Bomby569]

Don't hold your breath, those days are long gone ever since Nvidia moved from per segment pricing to perf/$ ever since 2xxx super. Next gen entry level card performs just as well as last gen mid range, the new entry level card is going to cost the same as last gen mid range card at launch. Going to be that way unless AMD forces their hand.

you mean Intel, because AMD just shaves a couple of bucks but plays the same game

 

[64K]

I've been wondering what VRAM cost ever since the postings from gamers about shortages of VRAM on midrange cards. So basically adding 8 GB VRAM to a card that only has 8 GB would cost around $27? I guess there are other costs as well but with VRAM so cheap I don't see a reason why 16GB shouldn't be standard on a midrange card. It would extend the life of the card at a time when gamers need that because of the high prices of cards. Most gamers are keeping their card for longer than in the past.

 

[dgianstefani]

I've been wondering what VRAM cost ever since the postings from gamers about shortages of VRAM on midrange cards. So basically adding 8 GB VRAM to a card that only has 8 GB would cost around $27? I guess there's other costs as well but with VRAM so cheap I don't see a reason why 16GB shouldn't be standard on a midrange card. It would extend the life of the card at a time when gamers need that because of the high prices of cards. Most gamers are keeping their card for longer than in the past.

It's not the VRAM chip that's expensive, it's the die size to include a larger bus width.

 

[64K]

It's not the VRAM chip that's expensive, it's the die size to include a larger bus width.

Then I wonder about the GTX 1060 3 GB and the GTX 1060 6 GB. Both had the exact same Die Size and the same Memory Bus Width. The 6 GB version just doubled the VRAM of the 3 GB version.

 

[HD64G]

Then I wonder about the GTX 1060 3 GB and the GTX 1060 6 GB. Both had the exact same Die Size and the same Memory Bus Width. The 6 GB version just doubled the VRAM of the 3 GB version.

Correct. Nothing to do with the memory bus. Also, RX480 had both 4 and 8GB versions as the 390X previously.

 

[R0H1T]

They have enough high density RAM these days to make 12-16GB standard ~ if they want to of course but why would they?

You moan & scream, throw lots of hissy fits & yet keep buying Nvidia

 

[TumbleGeorge]

So basically adding 8 GB VRAM to a card that only has 8 GB would cost around $27

Yes if companies buying VRAM on market price...

 

[dgianstefani]

Then I wonder about the GTX 1060 3 GB and the GTX 1060 6 GB. Both had the exact same Die Size and the same Memory Bus Width. The 6 GB version just doubled the VRAM of the 3 GB version.

Same amount of chips. They just used double capacity chips in the 6 GB version.

 

[kawice]

Mr Leather Jacket, can we have more VRAM on 40xx series now?

 

[eidairaman1]

Correct. Nothing to do with the memory bus. Also, RX480 had both 4 and 8GB versions as the 390X previously.

The 390X/390 was 8GB only, the 290X was 4 and later 8GB.

 

[HD64G]

The 390X/390 was 8GB only, the 290X was 4 and later 8GB.

I stand corrected. Nevertheless, 390(X) was a refresh of 290(X).

 

[konga]

It's not the VRAM chip that's expensive, it's the die size to include a larger bus width.

I'm skeptical of this framing. How much die size is really taken up when going from a 128-bit bus to a 192-bit bus?