$博通(AVGO)$ $Arista Networks(ANET)$

GPT O3 对于我这种大部分行业的白痴来说，真的是随时能请教的专家，比如我看ANET的CC时读到一句感觉有点和以前的认知矛盾，就问（sorry 格式黏贴过来的时候阅读体验毁了）

“Jayshree V. Ullal Atif, I don't know yet. In terms of port density, in terms of units, if I look at the ratio within a rack versus outside in units, it's quite high, 8:1, 10:1. But in terms of dollars, I don't think it's nearly as much because the level of functionality required is much simpler. So how about we beg that question out for September when we'll know more?”这句话为什么听起来跟avgo管理层的交流有矛盾，AVGO的说法（词语我记忆不精确）scale-up的content捕获量是scale-out的5-10X，是两个说的都对---因为博通获取价值的地方跟ANET能力不同？ 详细解释一下

ChatGPT 说：

已思考 26 秒

Why the two statements sound contradictory but are both correct为什么这两种说法听起来矛盾但都正确

Who said it谁说的Exact claim确切声明What “dollars” they are talking about他们所说的“美元”指的是什么Unit of comparison比较单位Arista (ANET) – Jayshree Ullal“Port ratio is 8-10 : 1 inside-rack vs. outside, but the dollars aren’t nearly as much.机架内与机架外的端口比率为 8-10:1，但金额远没有那么多。Switch-system revenue (metal box, power, fans, EOS licence, optics bundle).交换系统收入（金属机箱、电源、风扇、EOS 许可、光学组件）。Per rack or per GPU cluster每个机架或每个 GPU 集群Broadcom (AVGO) – multiple calls/analysts博通（AVGO）——多次电话会议/分析师“Scale-up networking offers 5-10× more dollar content than scale-out.” Investing.com“扩展型网络提供的美元内容是扩展外网络的 5-10 倍。”——Investing.comChip-level content (ASIC die, SerDes, HBM on-package, co-packaged optics/PHY).芯片级内容（ASIC 芯片、SerDes、高带宽内存封装、共封装光学/PHY）。Per server / per GPU每台服务器 / 每个 GPU

The mismatch is simply vantage point:不匹配仅仅是视角不同：

Broadcom counts how much of the bill-of-materials inside an AI rack flows to its silicon.博通统计 AI 机架内物料清单中流向其硅片的部分。

Arista counts how much revenue it can book on the entire switch appliance it sells.Arista 统计其销售的整个交换机设备可以记入的收入。

1. How the economics break down in one rack1. 一个机架的经济效益如何分解

Item项目Rough $/port大致 $/端口Ports needed for 72-GPU rack¹72-GPU 机架所需端口¹System dollars (Arista)系统费用（Arista）Silicon dollars (Broadcom)硅谷资金（Broadcom）Scale-up switch (inside rack)机架内扩展开关$200~576≈ $115 k (6× 12.8 Tb boxes @ $19 k)≈ 11.5 万美元（6 个 12.8 Tb 盒子，每个 1.9 万美元）≈ $45 k (6 ASICs @ ~$7.5 k)≈ 4.5 万美元（6 个 ASIC，每个约 7,500 美元）Scale-out leaf + optics横向扩展叶节点 + 光学模块$1 40072≈ $100 k (1× 51.2 Tb + optics)≈ 10 万美元（1 个 51.2 Tb + 光学模块）≈ $7 k (1 ASIC)≈ 7 千美元（1 个 ASIC）

Inside the rack the port count explodes (8-10×), but each port is cheaper and the box is simpler (no deep buffers, routing tables, TCAM, FIB, telemetry).机架内部的端口数量激增（8-10 倍），但每个端口成本更低，设备更简单（无深度缓冲区、路由表、TCAM、FIB、遥测）。
For Arista the dollar total grows only ~1.1× ($115 k vs $100 k).对于 Arista，美元总额仅增长约 1.1 倍（11.5 万美元对 10 万美元）。
For Broadcom the silicon shipped grows ~6-7× ($45 k vs $7 k).对于 Broadcom，出货的硅片增长约 6-7 倍（4.5 万美元对 7000 美元）。

2. Why Broadcom’s “5-10×” is real for a chip maker2. 为什么 Broadcom 的“5-10 倍”对芯片制造商来说是真实的

Sheer port multiplier. Every GPU needs 6-8 inside-rack links versus one uplink outside.纯粹的端口倍增器。每个 GPU 需要 6-8 个机架内链路，而外部只有一个上行链路。

All-in silicon stack. Broadcom supplies not just the switch core but also:全方位硅堆栈。Broadcom 不仅提供交换核心，还提供：

SerDes + DSP IP

On-package HBM (in Jericho-Ultra)封装内 HBM（在 Jericho-Ultra 中）

Optional co-packaged optics / linear-drive PHYs可选共封装光学器件 / 线性驱动 PHY

No feature discount. Even if the protocol is lighter, the die area devoted to terabit SerDes and in-network collectives keeps ASP high.没有功能折扣。即使协议更轻量，专用于太比特 SerDes 和网络内集合的芯片面积仍然保持 ASP 较高。

Result: per GPU Broadcom can now sell maybe $600–$900 of silicon vs $60–$120 in a traditional leaf/spine path. That is the “5-10× content”. 网页链接{Seeking Alpha}Investing.com结果：每个 GPU，Broadcom 现在可以销售大约 600 至 900 美元的硅片，而传统的叶脊路径仅为 60 至 120 美元。这就是“5-10 倍的内容”。Seeking AlphaInvesting.com

3. Why Arista remains cautious on the dollar upside3. 为什么 Arista 对美元上涨保持谨慎

Lower box ASP. A scale-up pizza-box switch (12.8 Tb, no deep buffers, fixed-config) might list at $15-20 k versus $60-70 k for a 51.2 Tb deep-buffer spine.较低的机箱平均售价。一个规模扩展的披萨盒交换机（12.8 Tb，无深度缓冲，固定配置）可能标价在 1.5 万至 2 万美元，而一个 51.2 Tb 深度缓冲骨干交换机则为 6 万至 7 万美元。

Software attach smaller. Customers treat scale-up as “wire-on-chip backplane”; willingness to pay big EOS/CloudVision licences is lower.软件附加值较小。客户将扩展视为“芯片上的有线背板”；支付高额 EOS/CloudVision 许可证的意愿较低。

Plenty of competition. ODM-plus-open-source designs or even NVIDIA’s own NVLink-Switch compete aggressively on price inside the rack.竞争激烈。ODM 加开源设计，甚至 NVIDIA 自家的 NVLink-Switch，都在机架内部以极具竞争力的价格展开竞争。

So Ullal’s “dollars not nearly as much” reflects system-level revenue per rack, not silicon volume.因此，Ullal 所说的“美元远没有那么多”反映的是每个机架的系统级收入，而非硅片销量。

4. Strategic implications4. 战略影响

Aspect方面Broadcom (AVGO)Broadcom（AVGO）Arista (ANET)Arista（ANET）Other players其他参与者Value hook价值钩Merchant ASIC + SerDes IP dominate every inside-rack port商用 ASIC + SerDes IP 主导每个机架内端口Systems + NOS integration; can upsell scale-out spines系统与网络操作系统集成；可追加销售扩展型骨干交换机NVIDIA (NVLink-Switch), AMD/Intel (UALink), Marvell (Teralynx-Ultra)NVIDIA（NVLink-Switch）、AMD/Intel（UALink）、Marvell（Teralynx-Ultra）Margin profile利润率概况Fabless-chip margins stay high; 5-10× dollar gain vs legacy leaf无厂半导体芯片利润率保持高位；相比传统叶片实现 5-10 倍美元收益增长Lower gross margin/port but incremental revenue; leverages existing customer footprint毛利率/端口下降但收入增加；利用现有客户基础ODMs drive price compression on hardwareODM 推动硬件价格压缩Key risk主要风险Alternative open fabrics (UALink) choose different silicon vendor替代开放网络结构（UALink）选择不同的硅供应商Customers accept cheaper white-box + open NOS inside rack客户接受机架内更便宜的白牌+开放式 NOS—

5. Bottom-line takeaway5. 底线总结

The two CEOs are describing two different slices of the same pie:两位首席执行官描述的是同一个饼图的两个不同部分：

Broadcom looks at the silicon slice and sees the pie getting 5–10 times fatter.Broadcom 关注的是硅片部分，看到饼图变得大了 5 到 10 倍。

Arista looks at the finished-switch slice and, after pricing dilution, sees only a modest expansion—“better than zero,” but not remotely 5–10×.Arista 关注成品交换机领域，经过价格稀释后，仅看到适度增长——“好过零”，但远远达不到 5–10 倍。

Both statements can therefore be simultaneously true without contradiction.因此，这两个陈述可以同时为真而不矛盾。