3 ms·
I can't find even the sketchiest rumor claiming 96GB of VRAM on a 4090 Ti. That would be more than an H100, which costs around $30k.
by TillE 3y ago
I can't find even the sketchiest rumor claiming 96GB of VRAM on a 4090 Ti.
That would be more than an H100, which costs around $30k.
- nomel 3y agoAgreed. Estimates put the H100 BOM at around $3k. If they do offer that much memory, they're going to implement some way to make it unattractive, to hold onto that sweet 800% margin [1]. 1. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-makes-1000-profit-on-h100-gpus-report https://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-makes-1000-profit-o...
- acdha 3y agoI’d want a better source than someone on Twitter summarizing an unspecified report by a financial analyst before repeating that margin claim. That sounds like the people who claim an iPhone has 400% markup because they added up the bulk prices for the major components and then assumed R&D, assembly, testing, distribution, software development, and support all cost $0.
- wtallis 3y ago> and then assumed R&D, assembly, testing, distribution, software development, and support all cost $0. That's literally what BOM means: bill of materials. It's not supposed to include any of those other costs. BOM is not always the right kind of cost to be talking about, but in a case like this where you're talking about just swapping out the memory on an existing product, BOM accounts for all the costs that change significantly.
- acdha 3y agoYes, now can I direct your attention to the term “margin” used in the comment I was replying to? It is common for people who are looking for the sweet upvotes from a “this company is ripping everyone off” spin to present this as if “retail sales price - BOM = UNJUST PROFIT!!!!!!”. The source is a blog post based on a tweet by one person who does not work in the industry who is repeating another unverifiable claim by someone who does not work in the industry. The term “BOM” is not mentioned anywhere in that, and none of this has any details which could be reviewed for accuracy. The blog post really highlights how effective those headlines are at getting clicks but not informing readers: it leads with “nearly 1,000%” because that sounds even more rage bait-y than the already high “823%”, and that's clearly the impression people take away from the story even though starting with the second paragraph it makes it clear that this is a very fuzzy claim which is likely significant understating the true cost for Nvidia to make the hardware as sold or the other factors I also mentioned. Finally, “swapping out the memory on an existing product” can mean “we replaced part A with larger part B” or it can mean “we upgraded a controller, added additional channels, and redesigned the physical form factor to provide better mechanical and thermal capacity for the extra chips”. That's why those extra details are so important since it's otherwise easy for someone to make a tweet which sounds like they know what they're talking about but is in fact leaving out a lot of important context.