News Nvidia gaming GPUs an afterthought as AI generates mountains of cash — RTX 50-series shortages mentioned, not explained

[Admin]

Nvidia just hit a record year in revenue, with data center sales bringing in most of the money. However, it seems that the gaming segment is being ignored in favor of its AI business.

Nvidia gaming GPUs an afterthought as AI generates mountains of cash — RTX 50-series shortages mentioned, not explained : Read more

 

[Kentmos]

And bear in mind: If it hasn't been for gamers and game devs, they wouldn't be at this level in the first place! The fact that nVidia now priorities AI instead of the group of people that brought them here in the first place, shows an heartbreaking illojalality towards the prime baseline of income through all theese years! Very sad to see, and very disappointing although I understand why they go where the money goes. But the stench of greed is overwhelming! 😟

 

[Neilbob]

I'm sure Nvidia are, at this point, only providing these (rather lackadaisical attempts at) gaming GPUs as an act of tokenism, just so they can still say they are a 'gaming company'. They know there's still an excess of people willing to drag themselves over hot coals in order to acquire them at about 3x the rate of inflation compared to 10 years ago.

If it wasn't for that, they'd be only too happy to divert even the shavings off the edge of the silicon wafer towards Auugh Aaayyye. Those shavings would probably still net them more dosh than a full-fledged xx90.

 

[bit_user]

And bear in mind: If it hasn't been for gamers and game devs, they wouldn't be at this level in the first place!

I'd offer a counterpoint to this: the RTX 4090 and RTX 5090 wouldn't be so powerful, if not for AI (i.e. the demand created by it). I know the pricing aspect is harsh, but those gamers who can afford the cost of entry are really getting a bit of a lift from the AI market, here. And that's without even considering DLSS, but just talking about raw compute power and memory bandwidth.

In particular, the RTX 4090 really broke away from historic trends in GPU performance. The main reason why the RTX 5090 isn't a bigger upgrade is partly because of that, but also because demand for 3 nm-class nodes is too high for them to build an even more powerful GPU on it, right now.

​

One neat thing about that graph is how, if you fit a line to the Nvidia points, it looks like the RX 7900 XTX would've intersected it.

I'm sure Nvidia are, at this point, only providing these (rather lackadaisical attempts at) gaming GPUs as an act of tokenism, just so they can still say they are a 'gaming company'.

Um, I think perhaps a bigger part of it is that they sell workstation and server GPUs that use the same chips as some of the larger consumer GPUs. Those are typically used for AI inferencing, at least in server deployments.

If such big gaming GPUs continue to dovetail with Nvidia's strategy for inferencing hardware, then I'd expect the 5090's successor to be another big jump. We'll see.

 

[spongiemaster]

And bear in mind: If it hasn't been for gamers and game devs, they wouldn't be at this level in the first place! The fact that nVidia now priorities AI instead of the group of people that brought them here in the first place, shows an heartbreaking illojalality towards the prime baseline of income through all theese years! Very sad to see, and very disappointing although I understand why they go where the money goes. But the stench of greed is overwhelming! 😟

Current NVidia shareholders are not sleeping on mattresses of cash because of gamers. Before AI, the stock price was languishing under $150 after peaking over $300 during the etherum mining boom. Keep in mind that the current $120 price is a result of a 10x split last June which my other values don't reflect.

 

[Neilbob]

Um, I think perhaps a bigger part of it is that they sell workstation and server GPUs that use the same chips as some of the bigger consumer GPUs. Those are typically used for inferencing, at least in server deployments.

If such big gaming GPUs continue to dovetail with Nvidia's strategy for inferencing hardware, then I'd expect the 5090's successor to be another big jump. We'll see.

Bleh! Don't go saying things that contain logic, common sense or positive outlooks. Let me just be happy here in my Cynical Old Man Couch, in my Cynical Old Man Corner, just how I like it! 👨‍🦳

 

[derekullo]

And bear in mind: If it hasn't been for gamers and game devs, they wouldn't be at this level in the first place! The fact that nVidia now priorities AI instead of the group of people that brought them here in the first place, shows an heartbreaking illojalality towards the prime baseline of income through all theese years! Very sad to see, and very disappointing although I understand why they go where the money goes. But the stench of greed is overwhelming! 😟

Think about it this way.
Now Nvidia has a ton of cash to put into research and development for both AI and gaming.
Despite how many may feel, Gaming and AI can coexist together, not in spite of the other but because of the other due to both of them sharing the same resources and technologies.
This may not be beneficial for gamers in the short term, but it definitely is in the long term!

Some of you may cry, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make!
-Lord Jensen Huang

 

[Gururu]

Such a short-term growth spurt. Is the anticipated turn around for data center hardware going to keep them sustainable?

 

[SomeoneElse23]

Remember, public corporations exist for one reason: to "increase shareholder value".

Everything else takes a secondary role.

 

[A Stoner]

Remember, public corporations exist for one reason: to "increase shareholder value".

Everything else takes a secondary role.

That is what is should be. Unfortunately, lately, that has not always been the case.

 

[JTWrenn]

I am just waiting for the robotics side to take off. It is the next step after the ai infrastructure is built. Going mobile with that AI....and killing us all.

 

[btmedic04]

whats to explain? the silicon allotments went to ai cards. not consumer gpus. why sell a $2000 5090, when that silicon can be used for a $60000 ai card?

 

[John Kiser]

I'm curious how it isn't explained. They had kept manufacturing going for certain other cards and the like and it hurt production for the 5000 series.

 

[Trake_17]

All sounds like good news for AMD

 

[TerryLaze]

Remember, public corporations exist for one reason: to "increase shareholder value".

Everything else takes a secondary role.

Slight differentiation here, corporations are the shareholders, not the only ones but they are, cooperations try to make money for themselves just like you and I are.
You are not working for free if you can help it, and you will always try to get a raise to get more money for the same work.
Don't pretend like the corpos are any worse then any of us, they are just in a way higher league.
Sucks for us but we would do the exact same 100% of the times.

 

[hannibal]

Such a short-term growth spurt. Is the anticipated turn around for data center hardware going to keep them sustainable?

Easily!
The AI is used everywhere. Military use AI to beat enemy. Corporates use AI against competative companies. Criminals use AI to make better grimes! Scienstist use AI to several things...
And the point is... If enemy/competitor/some one else has faster/more powerfull that you have... You have to get yourself even more powerfull AI. So there will be unlimited demand to faster and faster AIs in the future! And AI will come to common devices. AI is washing machines to control water, temperature, chemicals, to our watches and so on. So the long term demand for AI product is increasing and also good for as far in the future as we can see!

 

[hannibal]

whats to explain? the silicon allotments went to ai cards. not consumer gpus. why sell a $2000 5090, when that silicon can be used for a $60000 ai card?

It makes completely sense!
TSMC seems to be only company now that has the highest teck production capasity. They have limited capasity that every one wants. TCMC increase prices for its best nodes. Ofcourse corporates use that to their best selling products. That are now and in future AI hardware!

 

[acadia11]

And bear in mind: If it hasn't been for gamers and game devs, they wouldn't be at this level in the first place! The fact that nVidia now priorities AI instead of the group of people that brought them here in the first place, shows an heartbreaking illojalality towards the prime baseline of income through all theese years! Very sad to see, and very disappointing although I understand why they go where the money goes. But the stench of greed is overwhelming! 😟

“The point is, ladies and gentleman, that
greed-- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms --
greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.”

- Gordon Gekko

 

[Belardo2]

It's not a good feeling. Ask UT4 players.

 

[bit_user]

Slight differentiation here, corporations are the shareholders, not the only ones but they are, cooperations try to make money for themselves just like you and I are.

Many corporate charters, if not actual laws under which for-profit companies are established, dictate that the company's purpose is to increase shareholder value. The shareholders are the ones who vote on board members. If the shareholders aren't being served, they change the board and the board can fire and select a new CEO. So, it really does all come down to the shareholders who own voting shares. Non-voting shares don't count, here.

You are not working for free if you can help it, and you will always try to get a raise to get more money for the same work.
Don't pretend like the corpos are any worse then any of us, they are just in a way higher league.
Sucks for us but we would do the exact same 100% of the times.

They are different, in that they aren't so beholden to social rules, norms, and morals as most people are. I've heard a good argument that if a person acted as ruthlessly in self-interest as for-profit corporations do, they would be clinically diagnosed as a sociopath. So, we line in a world largely run by these sociopathic mega-corps. Not great.

What to do about it is a tricky question. Because, how would you try to legislate that they not act in such narrow self-interest and how would that even be determined? I think it's a fool's errand. I think the better solution is by using tough regulations to limit their power and keep them from doing things harmful to society. The key weakness of that approach is it assumes they can't interfere with & influence the government. And that's as far as I go on this tangent.

 

[bit_user]

“The point is, ladies and gentleman, that
greed-- for lack of a better word -- is good.

My answer to this point is that it's no more good or bad than a basic phenomenon like fire. Fire will burn you out of house and home, but we've also harnessed it to forge steel and develop the internal combustion engine. So, is it good or bad? I think it merely "is".

We can't wish greed out of existence any more than we can deny the existence of fire. Socialists and utopians tried that and it doesn't work. The best we can do is harness it to do some useful work and try to mitigate its downsides. That, in a nutshell, is capitalism.

The problem is that most people don't understand that fundamental concept. Ask a person on the street what's the point of capitalism and they'll tell you it's to make money. If you don't have guardrails, you don't have capitalism - all you have is a feeding frenzy. You get the worst effects of greed, without the benefits.

The typical reaction is to decry capitalism as a failure, but it's not even capitalism at that point - just anarchy. The failure was allowing the machinery of capitalism to be deconstructed, like if you started ripping parts off an engine. Some of those parts might be holding back the engine from its peak performance, but they all have a purpose in keeping the engine running smoothly, efficiently, and for a long time.

 

[acadia11]

My answer to this point is that it's no more good or bad than a basic phenomenon like fire. Fire will burn you out of house and home, but we've also harnessed it to forge steel and develop the internal combustion engine. So, is it good or bad? I think it merely "is".

We can't wish greed out of existence any more than we can deny the existence of fire. Socialists and utopians tried that and it doesn't work. The best we can do is harness it to do some useful work and try to mitigate its downsides. That, in a nutshell, is capitalism.

The problem is that most people don't understand that fundamental concept. Ask a person on the street what's the point of capitalism and they'll tell you it's to make money. If you don't have guardrails, you don't have capitalism - all you have is a feeding frenzy. You get the worst effects of greed, without the benefits.

The typical reaction is to decry capitalism as a failure, but it's not even capitalism at that point - just anarchy. The failure was allowing the machinery of capitalism to be deconstructed, like if you started ripping parts off an engine. Some of those parts might be holding back the engine from its peak performance, but they all have a purpose in keeping the engine running smoothly, efficiently, and for a long time.

The statement is the point of capitalism is to make money for the owner/s of production. It’s not simply to make money. It’s like saying money is the root of all evil, the correct statement is the pursuit of money is the root of all evil … money is neither good nor evil. Meaning when you are willing to do anything to make money it leads to evil … with that said socialism is not a utopia it’s about who owns the means of production. That’s the fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism. capitalism by design is “exploitive” … the geeed isn’t the actual problem beyond being one of seven deadly sins but setup of production verse ownership in that production….Anyway I digress.

The post really was just to throw out a random quote from Wall Street. In truth, the very nature of capitalism leads to the creation of companies like Nvidia overtime. And their greed is multiplied due to their control over the means of production and the feedback loop of capital acquisition. You can put in guard rails but the system itself is designed this way. We can go into a long winded conversation here … but we’ll agree Nvidia is like the empire good or bad depending on what planet you are on and your proximity to the home world. Or was that hunger games … same … different day.

 

[scottslayer]

The easiest path would be for them to tell the truth.

 

[helper800]

capitalism by design is “exploitive” … the geeed isn’t the actual problem beyond being one of seven deadly sins but setup of production verse ownership in that production….Anyway I digress.

Capitalism is "exploitative," but not in the normatively loaded way the word exploitative is used today. A company's incentive is to take advantage of the collective specialized usefulness of its employees to make money. Businesses give hundreds of individuals incentive to work together to create goods / services that are better than any particular individual within the business could possible provide by themselves, and that is the essence of what exploitative means when referred to in capitalism, in my opinion. People work at companies because it is the least risky bet to enable a certain level of livelihood, not to be exploited in the normatively loaded definition of the word. People with means create businesses as a riskier way of making more money than any individual worker can at the cost of potentially losing their livelihood due to such a risk.

 

[acadia11]

Capitalism is "exploitative," but not in the normatively loaded way the word exploitative is used today. A company's incentive is to take advantage of the collective specialized usefulness of its employees to make money. Businesses give hundreds of individuals incentive to work together to create goods / services that are better than any particular individual within the business could possible provide by themselves, and that is the essence of what exploitative means when referred to in capitalism, in my opinion. People work at companies because it is the least risky bet to enable a certain level of livelihood, not to be exploited in the normatively loaded definition of the word. People with means create businesses as a riskier way of making more money than any individual worker can at the cost of potentially losing their livelihood due to such a risk.

And that my friend is the myth. People work on companies because the system is designed to be exploitive and could not function otherwise, the value or gain is between the cost of labor.l/production and sale in the market often to the same labor that produced, that’s why it is exploitive, and that gap is where wealth is derived and accumulated. While you are the producer you do not own the means of production someone else does. We don’t need to guess what exploitive means we know the meaning.

The myth of the owner as such of taking great risk, is a narrative sold to labor to keep the system going, and not question that exploitation … more often then notpeople with the means are not using their own funds they are again utilizing capital that labor parks into the system either through taxation , the banking system and deposits, and beyond that others don’t have means to access or the privilege to acces. The question is always access it’s not a matter of risk taking but access and knowledge. That’s the biggest difference. When Elon musk brought twitter what you think he wrote a check for $44 billion dollars?. But we are moving away from the original topic which is nvidia is exploiting is position to the detriment of consumers and competition.