The thing about virtualization is that it's implemented in hardware that is non-negotiable as far as x86 CPU cores go and it's not a significant increase in hardware cost. It can be fused on or off irrespective of elements like the die, IO, and other physical parameters.
There are use cases for low-end virtualization that some buyers will pay money for, and it's also a prerequisite for many workloads for which buyers will pay massive amounts of money for.
As such, there's some income on a higher-volume segment and income from very lucrative ones as well.
For a DP-capable GPU, there isn't a good dividing line. A high-throughput DP device will need high bandwidth, but so does a high-performance gaming GPU.
Their die sizes are going to be large no matter what, a GPU can hit its TDP with SP and DP, and various extras don't significantly change that there are going to be two large dies with the engineering and manufacturing costs that goes into each distinct ASIC.
A more economically established high-end niche might change that, as Nvidia's high-end Tesla chips seem to indicate, but AMD's not holding the high ground there.
Even then, the compute market is very focused on cost/performance, which is something more measurable than cost/virtualization (this tends to be more binary). On top of that, GPU compute is itself undercut by CPU products that frequently get better utilization in various workloads and which still have a vastly superior software situation.
Even when CPUs lose, they can fall back to very lucrative markets where they still win.
A DP-specific GPU that loses can go nowhere if the hardware isn't also similarly at the top of its class in SP. However, if that's the case you can't charge more for the DP hardware if it's always enabled, negating having it at all unless you jack up the prices on SP hardware.
