Even if i got the choice of selling a wafer full of Athlon 200/3000G vs. selling a wafer full of A100?
I'm as skeptical of
@Bondrewd 's statements as the next guy, but this comparison couldn't be farther from fair and honest.
A100 is nvidia's flagship chip (i.e. the one probably selling with the highest margins), and you're comparing it to AMD's CPUs with the lowest margins.
AMD's flagship CPU at the moment is the Epyc 7742 which is selling for $5000-7000 each. It contains one 125mm^2 IO die made on the super cheap GF 14nm, and 592mm^2 worth of 7nm Zen2 chiplets, split into 74mm^2 chiplets, meaning they maximize yields.
The A100 is probably getting a higher revenue-per-chip, but its monstrous monolithic size means yields can't be spectacular and nvidia can't sell it without putting it into an interposer together with six HBM2 chips and then in a PCB with voltage regulation. Oh and then they need to put it into a motherboard with a couple of Epyc 7742 CPUs, which they buy from.. AMD.
And then there's the fact that the TAM for Epyc is probably on a completely different order of magnitude compared to an A100.
Intel's
quarterly datacenter revenue has been around $7B, which is significantly greater than
nvidia's latest projected $1.7B (of which 1/3rd come from Mellanox network hardware sales, meaning GPU sales account to less than $1.2B).
If AMD has the superior product and has successfully gained traction in the server space, it's a no brainer that this should be their focus. Navi is indeed just a child's toy when compared to the revenue potential of Zen 2/3/4.