Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 20 Aug 2018.
This is a new kind of mining, only the pickaxe is Nvidia's cock and the mine is your eye socket.
It's no different than what Apple or any business does. They slowly push the prices up year after year, defining the new "normal" price.
Seems like Nvidia are milking the miners and forcing gamers towards their game streaming service.
Absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrency mining, this: demand has dropped 98 percent. GPU mining is, for now, dead in the water - and even if it recovers, nobody's going to be buying the new cards for it 'cos adding in the RTX and Tensor cores means the 2xxx family has fewer CUDA cores than the 1xxx family - meaning they're likely to be slower for mining purposes.
This is wholly and simply on Nvidia: it's come up with something the professional market wants (deep-learning and ray tracing acceleration), but because of its business model (design high-end GPUs for the professional market and sell a few, then cripple 'em and sell loads of 'em to gamers) it now has to convince the gaming market that it also needs the same features. Until it does, and it sees the demand, it's having to take the hit of developing expensive new tech (and, per the other thread, convincing developers to use said expensive new tech even though nobody's got the hardware yet) without the guarantee that gamers will actually buy the things. Combine that with, and I'm only guessing here but it seems safe, lower-than-usual yields thanks to the shiny new tech and you're left with sky-high asking prices.
If Nvidia succeeds, and RT/Tensor cores become the Next Hot Thing instead of the Next PhysX, we'll see prices fall.
Also doesn't help that AMD is struggling to compete at the top end so Nvidia doesn't have to be 'competitive' price wise so to speak?
There's that, too, but Nvidia wants to be careful there: if AMD gets kicked out of the market, it's going to end up with a monopoly investigation and potentially get split up - which may mean that Nvidia is pricing its stuff high to reduce sales, in order to boost AMD's share of the price-conscious end of the market. If Nvidia can hold out until Intel launches its dGPUs and if Intel actually manages to grab a decent chunk of the market - which is no guarantee, despite Intel having All The Money to throw at the problem, 'cos look at its complete failure to get into smartphones - then the pair can kill off AMD's graphics arm with impunity.
So it's hardware few people can afford, tied to software some people don't want to use, and is going to be used sparingly, what could possibly go wrong.
The market badly needs a shake up and really short of these cards not selling well (which is unlikely considering the wait and hype) we are waiting on AMD to bring something that truly makes Nvidia rethink their strategy. Unfortunately I honestly can't see it happening anytime soon.
Ok...Can we just have a show of hands for who is on for one of these then?
Yeah, that's gonna be a no from me, dawg.
NVIDIA is doing the stupid once again. Announces pricing at $X. Sets FE version price to $X+200, official reason being so it won't compete with board partner cards. Board partners say "our cards are better than FE version", so they price it above FE version price.
GG NVIDIA, you did this with 1080, and you repeat the same mistake once again.
It was widely (and correctly) rumoured that nvidia was going to jack the prices on the new cards, to protect the Pascal line from heavy discounts. Mass returns from board partners due to lack of demand (after misjudging the mining market) means they have a mountain of previous gen and we get to pay for their error.
I'd say vote with your wallet and make em hurt, but fools willing queuing up to buy them as usual.
I think you throw around monopoly far too easily. Every Intel chip has a gpu in it. Nvidia has no monopoly worries - no one cares that the PC has a gpu as part of or separate from the CPU, just that it has a gpu and can do what you'd expect a gpu to do.
As for Intel making stand alone gpu's to compete - do you really believe they are up to it, this is the company that is having trouble innovating CPU's and that's their core market?
No with this new architecture Nvidia is basically competing with themselves - no one else is going to even have ray tracing till 2020 at the earliest. AMD is the best bet, but they lost all gpu focus to get Ryzen out, they are a long way off. Even then it's not as if AMD is having much success outside of mining - look at the steam charts, there's barely any recent AMD cards being used.
Hence they can charge what ever they can get away with, although in Nvidia's defence their is a ton of r&d in these new chips, and the chips are huge. The 7nm shrink is what we need to make them cheaper. I'd also say at least they are innovating - real time ray tracing is huge for games. They could have done an Intel and abuses their dominant position to do pretty well nothing to years.
I disagree: the discrete GPU market is very, very different to the integrated GPU market - which is why they're tracked separately. You can have a monopoly in the discrete GPU market without having a monopoly in the integrated GPU market.
Look at Intel-versus-AMD: when AMD started flailing, Intel threw 'em cash to keep 'em alive because it was afraid it would go under, Intel would be declared a monopoly and split up. This, despite the fact that Intel is a minority market holder in the wider processor market, miles behind Arm's cores shipped; it would have been found to have a monopoly in the mainstream desktop/laptop/server sub-sections, just as Nvidia would be found to have a monopoly in the discrete GPU sub-section. Hell, the EU fined Intel a record amount for abusing its de facto monopoly position even without AMD going under.
Did I not, in the very message you quote, say 'if Intel actually manages to grab a decent chunk of the market - which is no guarantee, despite Intel having All The Money to throw at the problem, 'cos look at its complete failure to get into smartphones'?
If there is, as you argue, no difference between dGPU and iGPU markets, then Nvidia's already been beaten to the punch: Imagination Technologies had real-time hardware-accelerated ray tracing for games in 2016.
Real time ray tracing is an imprecise benchmark really.
If you only have 10 rays to trace then sure you can do that in real time! Will it look good? No.
I guess the argument goes that this is real time 'equivalent' visuals to pre-rendered ray traced visuals (but obviously no where near Pixar movie levels)
So in June Huang said no new GPUs 'for along time'. Two months later they launch a new generation, with multiple dies ready right from the start. Isn't that illegal?
Lol why would it be illegal.
Prices are crazy like
Because he clearly lied.
Depends what he meant by 'long time' or how it was interpreted by the audience he was addressing.
Or it's a product that does what I want at a price I'm comfortable paying.
If you think it's 'too expensive', then don't buy it. Nvidia are not forcing you to, after all.
Separate names with a comma.