Spitballing Nvidia's RTX 5090 GPU die manufacturing costs — die could cost as little as $290 to make

Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090
(Image credit: Nvidia)

Nvidia's GB202 graphics processing unit has a die size of 761.56 mm^2, which makes it one of the largest GPUs for client PCs ever produced. The graphics card model it powers — the GeForce RTX 5090 — also appears among the most expensive add-in boards ever. Perhaps this is because the GB202 chip costs a fortune to produce. We spitballed some figures for what it might cost Nvidia to punch out these massive dies for its flagship GPUs. However, outside of TSMC and Nvidia, the details of actual yields are closely guarded secrets, so take our calculations with a grain of salt. Let's analyze the possibilities. 

A 300-mm wafer can fit roughly 72 GB202 candidates, assuming that one die measures roughly 31.5 mm × 24.2 mm. This is not a lot, considering the fact that TSMC may charge as much as $16,000 per 300-mm wafer produced using its 4nm-class or 5nm-class fabrication technologies. Considering defect density and yields, Nvidia may have to spend around $290 to make a GeForce RTX 5090 graphics processor, though it could also increase to $340 if only the perfect dies were sellable. These are very rough napkin-math estimates, though, so take them with a grain of salt. Other factors, such as parametric yields, should also be considered, so calculating the end results involves more than a bit of fuzzy math.

TSMC makes GB202 using the so-called 4NP process technology, which is a custom version of the company’s N4P production node with some customizations for Nvidia. TSMC’s N4 and N4P belong to the N5 family of manufacturing technologies and have been in production for years. Based on TSMC’s defect density performance graph, the defect density of N5/N6 was around 0.05–0.06 defects per square centimeter six quarters after mass production began. By now (4.5 years after N5 entered high-volume manufacturing), it might be even lower due to continuous process improvements, but let us assume that it is still at 0.05 these days. 

If this is the case, then each 300-mm wafer carries 47 perfectly fine GB202 graphics processors with 24,576 CUDA cores, four partial dies, as well as 21 dies with some kind of defect, according to the SemiAnalysis Die Yield Calculator (Murphy’s Model). This does not mean that those 21 die go to waste. First of all, Nvidia’s large GPUs tend to include plenty of redundancies, so a minor defect may not even damage the functionality of the die. Second, Nvidia does not need a perfectly fine GB202 die for the GeForce RTX 5090: it needs a GPU with 21,760 functional CUDA cores. Third, even GB202 dies with severe defects can eventually be used for cheaper graphics cards, such as the GeForce RTX 5080. In some cases, even partial dies can be sold. 

Since we do not know for sure how many of the dies with defects are broken, how many are sellable as RTX 5090, and how many are sellable as something lower-end, let us assume that each 300-mm wafer carrying GB202 processors carries 55 GPUs that can be sold as GeForce RTX 5090 products. In this case, each processor could cost around $290 without dicing, testing, packaging, and binning, assuming that TSMC charges Nvidia $16,000 per N4/N5 wafer. If only absolutely perfect die were sellable, that would jump to $340 per die. 

Even if a fully packaged and binned GeForce RTX 5090 silicon costs Nvidia $350, the company will still be able to make money on its $1999 graphics board. However, not all of that is pure profit, as other additives, such as the VRAM and board assembly, add considerable cost as well. That's also not to mention developing drives, support, supply chains, and a myriad of other costs that go into the final product. 

It should be remembered that Nvidia is one of the companies that knows how to build large processors with great yields by adding redundancies and selling partly defective dies. As a result, Nvidia can possibly sell everything it produces on a wafer, albeit at different prices. 

What is no less important is that Nvidia may have as many as 47 fully functional GB202 dies per wafer, and these can be sold as the RTX 6000 ‘Blackwell Generation’ professional graphics card for CAD and DCC applications or as the L50s board for datacenter-grade inference AI workloads. These solutions tend to cost thousands of dollars, so Nvidia can make a lot of money not only on the $2,000 GeForce RTX 5090 but also on the $6,000 ProViz and AI products powered by the GB202.

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • edzieba
    Remember that's TSMC's cost per wafer. Doesn't include dicing the wafer into dies, testing, binning, packaging, testing again, etc, and the rest of the card (more component, more packaging, more testing, HSF, etc).
    It's sort of like estimating car manufacturing cost from engine block casting cost - there's a positive correlation, but not much more.
    Reply
  • motocros1
    so that's 290$ plus roughly 1-200 million in research and development. 2 grand seems like a steal. *sarcasm*
    Reply
  • DS426
    edzieba said:
    Remember that's TSMC's cost per wafer. Doesn't include dicing the wafer into dies, testing, binning, packaging, testing again, etc, and the rest of the card (more component, more packaging, more testing, HSF, etc).
    It's sort of like estimating car manufacturing cost from engine block casting cost - there's a positive correlation, but not much more.
    Yeah, probably should have mentioned all the additional cost points much sooner in the article, then go in-depth on die cost calculations later.

    That said, those big dies probably aren't quite as expensive as some of us were thinking in our heads. I maybe had a number more like $400-$450. It really is hard to say since NVIDIA's contract pricing is unknown on 4NP and most nodes (NDA/Proprietary contract protections).
    Reply
  • aberkae
    motocros1 said:
    so that's 290$ plus roughly 1-200 million in research and development. 2 grand seems like a steal. *sarcasm*
    All that r and d plus they threw everything at it inculding the kitchen sink to barely get 30% atypical delta gains means the margins are atypically even higher. The already recuperated the r and d cost 1000 fold over!
    How do you guarantee the public pay for such atypical margin ask? You create fud around scarcity and throttle all stock to maximize the maximum profits per silicon sold. Nvidia tactics 101!
    Reply
  • systemBuilder_49
    The thing is, you can calculate the difference in cost at TSMC between the 4090 and 5090. Just put both ICs into the costing calculator and subtract the smaller from the larger. Then add a markup for extra power, 8GB RAM, DDR7, and profit margins for NVidia(61%, 2021), AIBs(12%), Retailers(5%), to get the resulting price-increases from the 4090. The cost of dicing and wiring up the chip should be included in that.

    I did the same calculation with the 9070xt and figured it should cost about $100 more (at retail) than a 7800xt, if yields are 90% for both dies.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Partner card MSRP tells us everything we need to know about the margins nvidia is making on these products. The lowest MSRP on any partner card that is known so far is $2200 (that may change with official launch, but with limited availability I assume stores are going to happily take a premium). There's no doubt that the nvidia FE cooling and board design costs more money than the partner ones, but they're still MSRP of $2000.

    It also sounds like GDDR7 availability isn't great right now so AIBs are getting memory with the GPUs from nvidia.

    It's extremely unlikely any material cost explains the $400 difference between the 4090 and 5090. The board partner MSRP difference is also higher than we've seen in the past. All of these things really seem to indicate that nvidia wants even higher margins than they got with the 40 series. They're able to do this due to their market dominance of course, but it seems very unhealthy for the industry as a whole.

    For as much as people love to complain about the ~8 years of Intel quad cores they never really raised the price point (i7-920/860 ~$284 i7-7700K ~$339). In the graphics space everyone's being told to pay more (and some times to get less) which is just never sustainable and something I'm not sure any of the modern companies understand.
    Reply