Article is good and tells the current situation, which again is known to those who wish to upgrade.
So, who's to blame? Makers, stores, scalpers, miners? Doesn't matter! All "studies & solutions" are pointless and only increase.. anger.
I prefer just to think that (in this case) most recent cards just don't exist in real. And that's it. At some point in future, they will be made and become available. Till then, I just need to use what I have.
And I will say again, no matter how much money I (don't) have: I will never buy PC component that's significantly above MSRP. It's not about not supporting "scalpers" -it's just stupid, no matter what "excuse" one might have.
Also keep in mind, that currently overpriced cards are only first phase. After some time, all those currently unavailable cards will appear as second hand cards on used market. A lot of them. Maybe at "appealing" prices... will you buy them? Yes? If so, you'll make those who you blame today, extremely happy.
As usual, just sharing my opinion.
So, who's to blame? Makers, stores, scalpers, miners? Doesn't matter! All "studies & solutions" are pointless and only increase.. anger.
I prefer just to think that (in this case) most recent cards just don't exist in real. And that's it. At some point in future, they will be made and become available. Till then, I just need to use what I have.
And I will say again, no matter how much money I (don't) have: I will never buy PC component that's significantly above MSRP. It's not about not supporting "scalpers" -it's just stupid, no matter what "excuse" one might have.
Also keep in mind, that currently overpriced cards are only first phase. After some time, all those currently unavailable cards will appear as second hand cards on used market. A lot of them. Maybe at "appealing" prices... will you buy them? Yes? If so, you'll make those who you blame today, extremely happy.
As usual, just sharing my opinion.
knightmike
Distinguished
- Jan 10, 2009
- 252
- 4
- 18,815
I think Nvidia and AMD are throwing away free money here. They should release the cards with a high MSRP and lower it over time.
The real world facts, however, agree with me. The Bitcoin hash rate at the end of September was running 150 exahashes/sec. As of last night, it was 149 eh/sec. A 30-day moving average shows a slight increase since October, but nothing extraordinary. Yes, some miners are buying some 3000-series GPUs to mine with, but there hasn't been a 350% surge in mining, nor anywhere near it. Your statements that "miners will buy them all, no matter how many are made" and "the more they buy, the more they make" are both fallacious. When the hash hate climbs, ROI declines, and the payback period for a new card quickly becomes unattractive.
- Mar 16, 2013
- 179,631
- 22,152
- 184,590
Mining ROI is not tied to only the hashrate. All the other factors come into play. Speculators, investors, etc, etc.
If the degree of difficulty rises, but the sell price rises more due to outside influences...then it is still profitable.
Especially when you pay zero or close to zero for the power.
If the degree of difficulty rises, but the sell price rises more due to outside influences...then it is still profitable.
Especially when you pay zero or close to zero for the power.
As opposed to the thousands of tons getting burned pointlessly so gamers can shoot virtual bullets at virtual targets?
You're rationalizing your own belief system. Casual gaming might provide some benefits, but most psychologists would say that anyone who who considers themselves a "serious" or "hardcore" gamer is displaying at least borderline mental heath issues: addictive behaviour and lowered social interaction among them. And while investing in cryptocurrency may be gambling, mining certainly is not.
Not "all" other factors. It's simply the ratio of two ratios: the miners hash rate vs. that of the entire network, compared to currency value vs. the miner's expenses.
A 350% increase in the currency causes a 350% increase in profitability only in a static analysis. The hash rate rises, the block difficulty height increases, and those factors quickly work to counter the increase.
Why not do at least a little math before making off-the-cuff statements?
2.2 billion gamers worldwide * 200 watts/av * 16 hrs/wk * 52 wks/yr / 1000 (w-kw) / 8141 kw-h/ton = 45 million tons of coal. Per year. Every year.
Some systems may not use 200 watts, but then again there are many gamers using 400+ watt systems for far more than 16 hours a week. I ignored energy-mix considerations, but I used the US figure for TCE, whereas the figure for anywhere in Asia and Africa is going to be lower. So I think this estimate is far closer than your "dozens".
So why not responsibly give up gaming? And posting to message boards also? The CO2 you save may save a life one day.... 🙄
Last edited:
kyzarvs
Distinguished
- Aug 19, 2008
- 1,220
- 190
- 19,990
And if you are in a country that regularly announces days where all electricity generation has been done with renewables (+nuclear I'm guessing) such as the UK?
Chung Leong
Reputable
- Dec 6, 2019
- 494
- 193
- 4,860
Investing heavily into an illiquid asset to profit off a volatile market is the surest way to financial ruin. It's like buying a bunch of bulldozers in the middle of a housing bubble.
A) I partially account for that by using an ideal TCE figure, and furthermore so-called renewables also generate substantial CO2 emissions, though less than coal. I also ignore tertiary factors, such as additional cooling costs from heat output (which tends to outweigh any heating cost reduction).
B) Since crypto-mining is done in these nations also, when comparing the impact of gaming vs. mining, the energy-mix question become irrelevant, as miners benefit as much from it as do gamers.
You stated my point more succinctly than did I. Kudos to you.
alceryes
Splendid
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,614
- 1,119
- 28,090
AMD and NVIDIA aren't stupid. They are playing 'the long game'.
By having a choke hold on the core chip supply, they directly control how many cards, of any particular flavor, make it to the AIB manufacturers and thus to the consumer. They have deals with their core manufacturers (TSMC for NVIDIA) for a certain number of chips per week/month/quarter/whatever. To increase this yield would cost NVIDIA more money per core. NVIDIA and AMD purposely limit the number of premium chips to market to create and maintain a high demand. Their production target is lower than ANY metric of demand they can foresee. This produces a knock-on affect for last gen cards and also allows them to create 'filler' cards from cheaper-to-produce cores (3060 Ti and 3050). Also, fab process cost generally goes down over time. It costs more to produce RTX 3080 core number 1 through 1000 than it does to produce core number 50,000 through 51,000. In addition, now that TSMC has been producing the new cores for a while, NVIDIA can add easier-to-produce chips to the line-up, for less cost, and higher margin, because demand is still sky high for just about anything.
This is business administration 101. (or maybe 102) 😉
By having a choke hold on the core chip supply, they directly control how many cards, of any particular flavor, make it to the AIB manufacturers and thus to the consumer. They have deals with their core manufacturers (TSMC for NVIDIA) for a certain number of chips per week/month/quarter/whatever. To increase this yield would cost NVIDIA more money per core. NVIDIA and AMD purposely limit the number of premium chips to market to create and maintain a high demand. Their production target is lower than ANY metric of demand they can foresee. This produces a knock-on affect for last gen cards and also allows them to create 'filler' cards from cheaper-to-produce cores (3060 Ti and 3050). Also, fab process cost generally goes down over time. It costs more to produce RTX 3080 core number 1 through 1000 than it does to produce core number 50,000 through 51,000. In addition, now that TSMC has been producing the new cores for a while, NVIDIA can add easier-to-produce chips to the line-up, for less cost, and higher margin, because demand is still sky high for just about anything.
This is business administration 101. (or maybe 102) 😉
- May 18, 2007
- 23,878
- 5,317
- 108,890
It isn't the new normal. It mainly happened because many people quit using PCs and laptops at home since they could do most of their home computing on phones and tablets so they didn't have a PC or laptop to do more serious work on. There is likely a good chunk of people also burning some of their stimulus checks on PCs and laptops to kill time while everything else is shut down. With a huge chunk of the potential PC-buying public having unplanned covid upgrades, sales should crash down to baseline or worse for the next couple of years after stimulus spending ends.
Sales to work-from-home aren't really new sales since they basically replace sales that would otherwise have gone to office seats anyway. In many cases, work-from-home people simply take their office laptop home and call it a day IT-wise.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,878
- 5,317
- 108,890
That is impossible for one simple reason: unified shaders. Rendering is a pure math problem, so is crypto-mining. If you wanted to make GPUs that can only do graphics and cannot be used for anything else, you'd basically have to go back to hard-wired rendering pipeline. Unless you want graphics to regress back to something like DX6, that isn't possible. Programmable shaders are here to stay and anything that would attempt to cripple programmable shaders for one particular use would likely cause many more headaches for game developers than crypto-miners.
Ok, so by now with all of you guys replying to my post, I now understand that what I said can't be done - a pure 100% gaming GPU only, but my question is: can it be done to a better degree as compared to how it is now?
The RX 6000s GPUs are already having by design lower mining performance compared to their increase gaming performance vs the Navi 1 generation, so AMD did make a right step into not making these better at mining, but worse in terms of efficiency price/perf for mining.
Nvidia on the other hand did the opposite, as the greedy ignorants they are they made the Ampere cards even better for mining than the last gens. They don't care about gamers at all.
As I said on a youtube comment, they should have renamed their lineup from Geforce RTX to Hashforce MHs.
So yeah, my question again is: can AMD (because nvidia clearly won't) further downgrade with (next gen?) the efficiency of mining on AMD GPUs while at the same time improve gaming performance? Or this the the most they could do to achieve this unbalance, without hurting gaming performance too?
Because at some point, as we can see now, even inefficient GPUs become profitable and are bought, because it all depends on how high is the price of the coins that are mined.
If you look at the marked you will see that the price of all GPU rise. Even old cards like rx 480/580, even cards with miserable hashrate/watt - rtx 2000. No matter how bad is the hashrate of any gpu it is attractive for miners. That is weapon for the scalpers because the marked is empty and everyone miner or gamer want to get whatever is available and they are free to resell with +50% price. The things wont become better because if amd and nvidia rising the price now with rx6000 and rtx3000, their next gen will be way more overpriced on launch and even then rx 5000/6000, rtx 1000/2000/3000 even rx 400/500 will have acceptable profit for mining and the miners wont sell them until they are absolute unusable after 5+ years. The miners will become more and more next years and you won't get GPU at normal price anytime soon. Our only hope is etherium blocks to reach 8gb size so all 8gb GPUs to be less profitable and hope to not become tool for other crypto currency
Do you think automakers should be producing cars and trucks that can't carry cargo or make long-distance trips either, so that people buying these vehicles simply for joyrides don't have to compete with other buyers?
The irony in all this is that you -- and most of the other posters here -- fail to realize that, short-term issues aside, miners (and all the other non-gaming purchasers) are actually helping you by reducing the cost of a given level of performance. Most of NVidia's revenue comes from non-gamers. Without those additional revenue streams, they would be unable to devote anywhere near the development resources they now do to bringing new cards to market.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,878
- 5,317
- 108,890
No, because games are also starting to use the GPU to run physics, AI and in some cases, some degree of other GPGPU. Anything that artificially degrades performance will likely cause issues in future games that make more extensive use of GPU-accelerated features beyond conventional shaders. The trend toward enabling shaders to do more different things and more complex math is continuing with next-gen GPUs introducing mesh shading. The more access shaders have to do more different things, the more difficult it becomes to prevent them from getting used for specific things since the added flexibility means more ways to work around arbitrary roadbumps.
As for how AMD got a bigger boost in gaming than hashing performance between generations compared to Nvidia, that is mostly a matter of Nvidia dictating how most game development gets done and AMD's previous architectures having to cope with that fact. It is easy to make up a larger chunk of ground between generations when you start from further behind with the trail already laid down for you.
GPU designers should focus on bringing the most efficient and effective GPUs possible using available fab tech to market in whatever volume they can within reason and let the market sort itself out. If the inflated demand turns out to be sustainable, the supply chain will increase manufacturing capacity to meet the projected sustained demand. It may take a few years to get there but it will happen eventually.
- Mar 16, 2013
- 179,631
- 22,152
- 184,590
The issue IS the (hopefully) short term lack of devices.
Scalpers and miners, sucking up the available inventory. Leaving few for people who wish to game.
These GPUs would have been sold without the scalpers or the miners. Resulting in the same $$ going to AMD/Sony/Nvidia.
To your car analogy - If there were a particularly new and desirable model of car, but the Uber/Lyft conglomerates bought up all the initial supply...you'd see the same bitching.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,878
- 5,317
- 108,890
Nvidia would be doing perfectly fine without those "additional revenue streams", they'd just be having a 40-60% gross profit margin instead of 100+% on datacenter/AI/research/etc. stuff.
Also, profits from current elevated prices are going to scalpers and price-gougers, not Nvidia.
Did you actually type that? Money doesn't grow on trees, nor do any other resources. Where do you think R&D dollars come from, if not gross profit margins?
Because of tripe like you see on this message board, which forces NVidia to leave money on the table. And in any case, the miners and AI researchers and datacenters are still generating demand, demand which factors into NVidia's long-term projections controlling the amount of R&D resources they devote to future products.
They were doing fine before these fictitious puff-smoke coins came to be and be mined. There was a time before Bitcoin and Co, you know? They still did good enough for R&D and all their dreams to come true...
Pffft, you can try to shove the mining brick down one's throat, but it won't do any good no matter how many times you try - still makes me vomit (and I'm not the only one).
You're not convincing anyone, so let's agree to disagree.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Introducing the Tom’s Hardware Premium Beta: Exclusive content for members
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 40
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question how do you boot b650i without a case (short circuting pins)- Started by 93QSD5
- Replies: 3
-
Question Battery Pack Stops Charging After A Short While- Started by Kamryn
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram