by derefr | 2025-11-12 19:25:34+00:00
I have a hypothesis that it was AI, not COVID/sanctions/etc, that was mainly responsible for the 2020-to-ongoing "chip shortage." Ignoring companies with their own fabs (Intel) and companies with pre-existing reserved-capacity contracts with fabs (Apple), everyone else is stuck waiting in line behind batch after batch of fab orders from Nvidia.

Downstream of that, AI is effectively also responsible for the current generation of game consoles never declining in price.

Because game consoles are fixed platforms that continue to be manufactured over 5+ years, normally the most expensive parts in the system (the CPU and GPU) would gradually get cheaper to manufacture [and in turn, cheaper to buy] over the course of the console's lifetime—which was often passed onto the consumer in the form of the console's MSRP gradually decreasing. Either the process node for the console's silicon design would stay fixed, and demand for this process node would gradually decrease as larger fab customers move on to newer nodes, decreasing the (effectively auction-based) pricing for fab time on the older node; or the console manufacturer['s silicon vendor] would put their silicon design through a process-shrink, and so, while still paying top dollar for use of the fab's newest node, would be getting more chips per wafer out of that, and again could charge less.

But instead, what we've seen since the start of the AI boom is that there's no longer any price-reduced timeslots to be sold to manufacture the low-BOM parts for these price-sensitive console-maker customers. Instead, both Nvidia and AMD are now getting such high value out of even the older nodes, that 1. the fabs know they can squeeze them, charging full price for those slots as well; and 2. both Nvidia and AMD, in their roles as silicon vendors to the console makers, haven't been able to justify using (very much of) the time they're paying so much for to fab low-BOM-cost parts to fulfill their pre-existing outstanding purchase orders, when they could instead be fulfilling much-higher-margin new POs from the hyperscalers.

Thus every console of the ninth generation (PS5, Xbox Series, Switch) still selling for their launch price (with no help from process shrinks); thus none of these consoles having been able to be produced in excess of demand to the point that supply-and-demand ever drove retail prices below MSRP; and thus the only tenth-gen console so far, the Switch 2, taking ~4 years longer than anticipated to release†.

---

† Nintendo were very likely waiting for Nvidia to run off enough of the Tegra T239 with a sufficiently low passed-on fab cost, for Nintendo to both 1. be able to build a backstock and non-run-dry pipeline of Switch 2s, and 2. be able to be positive-margin on charging the same price as the Switch 1 for them. They waited four years, and neither thing ever happened; so they eventually just gave up and priced the Switch 2 higher, and also built out an entirely novel D2C + online-marketplace-partner distribution pipeline so they could ration the tiny initial supply of units they had been able to build with the chips Nvidia had supplied them so far.

Though, that being said, Nintendo actually got a double whammy here. They were also waiting for fast NAND to come down in price, so that they could have physical game cards manufactured for a trivial BOM price while still enabling the "direct GPU disk-streamed assets" pipeline that games of the last generation had begun relying on. Obviously, as today's article points out, that hasn't been happening either! Thus game key cards; thus SD Express cards only beginning to trickle out, with no sizes above 128GiB available at the Switch 2's launch time; and thus those SD Express cards being ridiculously priced for their capacity compared to equivalent transfer-speed + die-size NAND (as seen in e.g. low-profile/flush-mount flash drives.)