HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

A lot of people are claiming this as a win for the non mining consumer but as the articles puts it:

> Nvidia does state that these GPUs "don't meet the specifications required of a GeForce GPU and, thus, don't impact the availability of GeForce GPUs to gamers." Frankly, that doesn't mean much. What does Nvidia do with a GPU that normally can't be sold as an RTX 3090? They bin it as a 3080, and GA102 chips that can't meet the 3080 requirements can end up in a future 3070 (or maybe a 3070 Ti). The same goes for the rest of the line. Make no mistake: These are GPUs that could have gone into a graphics card. Maybe not a reference 3060 Ti, 3070, 3080, or 3090, but we've seen TU104 chips in RTX 2060 cards, so anything is possible.

There's also seemingly little value for miners:

> Note that the 90HX lists an Ethereum hash rate of just 86MH/s and a 320W TGP. After a bit of tuning, an RTX 3080 can usually do 94MH/s at 250W or less, so these cards (at least out of the box) aren't any better.

> It gets worse as you go down the line, though. 50HX only does 45MH/s at 250W — that basically matches the tuned performance of the RTX 2060 Super through RTX 2080 Super, with a TGP that's still twice as high as what we measured. It's also half the speed of an RTX 3080 while potentially still using the same GPU (10GB VRAM). Or maybe it's a TU102 that couldn't work with 11 memory channels, so it's been binned with 10 channels. Either way, who's going to want this? 40HX at 36MH/s and 185W and 30HX at 26MH/s and 125W are equally questionable options.

Restrictions placed on the 3060 has also confirmed to be more than just the drivers:

> According to Bryan Del Rizzo, director of global PR for GeForce, more things are working behind the driver. > According to Mr. Del Rizzo: "It's not just a driver thing. There is a secure handshake between the driver, the RTX 3060 silicon, and the BIOS (firmware) that prevents removal of the hash rate limiter." This means that essentially, NVIDIA can find any way to cripple the mining hash rate even if you didn't update your driver version. At the same time, according to Kopite7Kimi, we are possibly expecting to see NVIDIA relaunch its existing SKUs under a different ID, which would feature a built-in anti-crypto mining algorithm. What the company does remains to be seen.

(from https://www.techpowerup.com/278712/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3060-a...)

Unfortunately for those that think this would be a good move, I'd agree with this article that:

> Nvidia probably can't implement the same restrictions on existing GPUs without facing a class action lawsuit...

To put it best is Linus from LTT (https://youtu.be/XfIibTBaoMM):

1. Silicone production is finite

2. These cards have no after market value

Nividia isn't doing anyone but themselves any favours by releasing this.

⬐ postalrat

If they can simply change the key needed to sign the bios or whatever for new cards coming off their production line they can continue to support cards that were sold before the change and have the limiter for cards made after the change. They could also make a tiny to change to the model number. I don't see how they could possibly be sued for doing so.

Nvidia is making the same money regardless if a miner or gamer buys their existing cards. They won't be losing any money of 100% of their production goes to gamers. As a game er if this reduces miners interest in the products I want I'd say it's good for me.

⬐ qqii

They can but I doubt the will as I, like the quoted article belive this would lead them to being sued over misleading marketing, just like the 970 3.5G controversy.

Maybe the model number would do it, but I'd imagine it would have to be pretty distinguishing.

⬐ postalrat

They don't need to continue selling existing SKUs. Just change the signing key and SKU and change any misleading advertising they might have.

⬐ SloopJon

> > These are GPUs that could have gone into a graphics card.

That's an interesting take. After the discussion of the announcement earlier this week, I presumed that this was a way for NVIDIA to improve yields by rescuing bad chips from the scrap heap. If a failed 3090/3080/3070 is going to a CMP instead of a 3060, that's not the win-win that they're pitching. If the alternative is a 2060, on the other hand, I'd still give them the benefit of the doubt.

⬐ qqii

They improve yields on their flagship 3090s by rescuing ones that fail as 3080, 3070 or the highest bin that they meet specification. They wouldn't become a 2060 as that uses a different architecture.

The manufacturing processes will also improve over time and at some point demand will dictate binning over yeild. Chips that are capable of better performance are restricted and sold as lower end cards. If yield is no longer an issue is simply more profitable.

Back in the day it wasn't uncommon for enthusiasts to take lower end cards and bios mod them for equivalent performance, but now features are often disabled in silicone.

How so? Take this excerpt from the article:

> Nvidia does state that these GPUs "don't meet the specifications required of a GeForce GPU and, thus, don't impact the availability of GeForce GPUs to gamers." Frankly, that doesn't mean much. What does Nvidia do with a GPU that normally can't be sold as an RTX 3090? They bin it as a 3080, and GA102 chips that can't meet the 3080 requirements can end up in a future 3070 (or maybe a 3070 Ti). The same goes for the rest of the line. Make no mistake: These are GPUs that could have gone into a graphics card. Maybe not a reference 3060 Ti, 3070, 3080, or 3090, but we've seen TU104 chips in RTX 2060 cards, so anything is possible.

Combine with their after market value (see https://youtu.be/XfIibTBaoMM), this is no more than Nividia trying to spin goodwill whilst padding their bottom line.

⬐ DoctorNick

Because cryptocurrency mining is now one of the biggest contributors to climate change. It is killing the planet. It is a moral imperiative to shut it down by any means necessary.

⬐ qqii

How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have some sources and numbers?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio... puts the latest number at 173,340 TWh in 2019. This is an underestimate for the current value as energy consumption has been increasing.

https://cbeci.org/ estimates the annualised consumption based on a 7 day moving average of 120.87 TWh for bitcoin. To be generous let's assume all cryptocurrency mining is double that for 241.74 TWh.

That's only 0.14% of the total energy production, a lot of which comes from renuables (abundant cheap electricity means more profits for miners).

Even if you assume the worst case of 1100 gCO2eq/kWh (https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn...) that's 265.914 Million Tonnes and https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-... shows the 2019 value at 36.44 Billion Tonnes

That's a grave overestimate of 0.73% assuming the most pollution energy production and even then it doesn't even compare to any other sector: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

⬐ Azeralthefallen

https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons

Right here it says `20 863 TWh` which is nearly 10 times your worst case.

⬐ qqii

Note the difference between only electricity and other forms of energy, the value listed is total electricity production/consumption.

⬐ kortex

It's 121 TWh/y, world total is on the order of 160,000 TWh/y (primary energy supply), so crypto is less than 1 part per thousand.

It's huge for pushing numbers around, but hardly "one of the biggest contributions".

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

⬐ qqii

The source for the BBC article (https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons) even gives it as 0.48% of total electricity production and 0.55% of total electricity consumption. The graph it and the article shows us misleading as it only compares electricity and not total energy consumption.

⬐ imtringued

That's neither true nor the reason why Nvidia is doing this.

What Nvidia is doing is like a dad making his kids share their sweets in a 50:50 ratio by taking advantage of the fact that one of his kids has a peanut allergy and the other has a walnut allergy and therefore 50% of the sweets contain peanuts and the other 50% walnuts.

⬐ amarshall

Sure, but Nvidia is now selling cards specifically marketed towards miners (CMP). Their goal appears to be profit, little more.

⬐ gruez

gp's point is that even though it might have a positive effect on climate change, the decision was likely not made for altruistic reasons. It's like the apple charger debacle from a few months ago.

⬐ kamranjon

'One of the biggest contributors to climate change' - this is so far from being even remotely true

⬐ _jal

Perhaps overstated, but it is a noticeable percentage of global electricity use spent on what is at best an enabling technology for the somewhat quixotic pursuits of a tiny fraction of the population.

You should of course make your own judgments, but many people do not consider that a good tradeoff.

⬐ SXX

Keep in mind that bulk of crypto mining is quite centralized around the places with cheap elictricity so it's also mean cheapest source give highest advantage.

Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes.

⬐ danhor

> Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes.

While electricity transportation is an issue, it's not a huge one compared to the likes of storage and actually having something generating electricity. And, as it turns out, a lot of the mining farms just use coal (https://decrypt.co/43848/why-bitcoin-miners-dont-use-more-re...), with only around 40% of the energy coming from renewables. Even if they were only using renewables, it's still not zero carbon, since renewables also need to be built & since the total power consumption is increased, older coal plants might be used for longer.

For something, where the economic value is comparatively low.

⬐ qqii

The link in your article to the primary source of the Cambridge University survey is unfortunately dead. The alternative metric given (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/) currency predicts 36.95 Million Tonnes of CO2.

That's 0.1% of total CO2 emissions per year (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...) and 0.074% of global CO2eq (https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector).

I'd probably agree that this is still pretty high for what amount to digital hording.

On the other hand the seccond most popular blockchain Ethereum is estimated at half the energy consumption (https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption), has a plan to move to proof of stake and has a lot more economic value.

The space is still new and bitcoin has first mover's advantage, name recognition and trust (most hashrate, most reviewed codebase, etc).

⬐ glogla

It's not quixotic, it's capitalism in it's purest form. They are literally destroying the planet for money and don't give a fuck.

⬐ qqii

I'd assume you're referring to this source (https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons) which gives 0.6% of total electricity production.

Out of total energy production that's closer to 0.07% (~170,000 TWh in 2019 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio...).

It can be. NVDA's stance is utter bull. It is entirely possible to render video games and stream them to another display [1,2]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY4s35uULg4

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1nok2VlF1M

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfIibTBaoMM

⬐ Shivetya

I am may be off base here, but isn't this how the Nvidia Geforce Now service work? Rendering on their systems and streaming to a dedicated client?

I have used this service to play a few different games which I have licenses too where the developer no longer supports Mac; oddly this seems to have gotten worse with M1 chips.

⬐ jffry

> oddly this seems to have gotten worse with M1 chips.

If a developer wasn't around or willing to recompile and test their game on x64 to support Catalina (which dropped support for 32-bit apps), then it's not surprising to me that they are also unable or unwilling to recompile and test and support the game on M1 ARM chips.

⬐ qqii

It will be possible but as your third video suggests the number of cards that'll be used this way and not end up as landfill will be peanuts.

⬐ PartiallyTyped

I don't disagree, but I suppose the structure of my comment didn't convey the message correctly, that is, that NVDA is just maximizing profits while screwing over gamers because a) they can get away with it and b) they are an ever decreasing portion of their revenue.

⬐ dahart

Wait, how did you arrive at ‘screwing over gamers’ when this whole thing was done to keep 3060 cards available to gamers at reasonable prices?

⬐ MAGZine

If they just put these chips into regular cards then they could eventually be resold, to gamers, at a great price.

Instead, during a global silicon shortage, nvidia is producing silicon that has one use and then into the trash.

⬐ dahart

You’re making a huge assumption that they could be resold, even if they’re the same chips. This could be an entirely new market for chips that have yield defects in the graphics units, that will not ever work for games, and were previously already put in the trash.

And your theory doesn’t explain two things: - how this hurts gamers now, and - why if Nvidia just wanted profit and the chips are useful for games, why wouldn’t Nvidia simply do nothing and let the miners buy all the 3060s. Wouldn’t that be the most profitable thing here?

In fact, why wouldn’t Nvidia just hike the price of the 3060? They could make a lot more money on miners if they wanted to, and really screw gamers. But that’s not what’s happening. So from a gamer’s perspective, I just don’t get being mad at Nvidia rather than being mad at the miners who caused this to happen, again.

⬐ qqii

> You’re making a huge assumption that they could be resold, even if they’re the same chips. This could be an entirely new market for chips that have yield defects in the graphics units, that will not ever work for games, and were previously already put in the trash.

Chip binning is nothing new, the article even explains this phenomenon.

⬐ dahart

Fully agree. Didn't suggest otherwise. That doesn't mean that the CMP cards are binning in the exact same way. I mean, isn't it a guarantee that the binning criteria change here to accommodate CMP? Isn't it entirely possible that the new bins are opportunities to sell wafers that couldn't be sold to gamers at all? Nvidia already has market segments for compute cards with no video. Yes, I'm speculating. So is parent & the article. I'm not sure it even matters. What matters is that gaming supply is less destroyed by mining demand.

⬐ PartiallyTyped

> And your theory doesn’t explain two things: - how this hurts gamers now, and - why if Nvidia just wanted profit and the chips are useful for games, why wouldn’t Nvidia simply do nothing and let the miners buy all the 3060s. Wouldn’t that be the most profitable thing here?

No it is not. If they mis-predict when the mining craze ends, they will be stuck with a huge inventory and no way to deal with it. The reason they will be stuck with the inventory is because the miners will be able to sell the second hand cards at a rate that NVDA simply can't compete with, so they end up as the bag holders just like it happened with the 1xxx series.

Infact, I'd wager that DLSS and RTX were used as a hacky solution to drive people away from the 1xxx series because the 1xxx series was more than sufficient for 1080p gaming - which is the most common resolution. The 3xxx series, even the 3060 is an overkill even for 1440p let alone 1080p.

This, to me, suggests that had NVDA not gimped the hashrate of the 3060, once the craze was over and the market was flooded with 2nd hand 3060, people would not be incentivised to buy anything above a used 3060 because it is a) an overkill for 1440p@120hz and b) it has much higher perf/$ than anything NVDA could offer with the 3xxx or 4xxx series and it wouldn't make any sense to go with anything higher anyways because 4k gaming doesn't seem worth it unless you are playing on a TV.

⬐ dahart

Strange theories on top of strange theories. The GTX 1080 is good enough forever? People are using 1080p forever? Games are staying put with the fidelity and textures and poly counts they had 5 years ago, and not improving any more? Last time I checked, there weren’t all that many games that run at 60Hz 1080p and never dip.

⬐ PartiallyTyped

What are you talking about here? My argument is rather simple and you are wilfully misinterpreting it to make your statement. If you want to game, at 1080p, there is very little reason to spend money on a big upgrade, even going with 3xxx series is an overkill.

> Last time I checked, there weren’t all that many games that run at 60Hz 1080p and never dip.

CITATION NEEDED.

The 3060ti is benchmarked at 4k hitting mid to low 50s in high settings in Shadow of the Tomb Raider and hitting 100fps at 1440p with 0.1% minimums at 90fps.

⬐ dahart

> even going with 3xxx series is an overkill.

Then why do you care at all about the 3060 segmentation into CMP cards?

⬐ PartiallyTyped

I dislike companies that pay lipservice or are pretentious like NVDA. On the positive side, I own shares, so I am making money off of it.

⬐ dahart

> I dislike companies that pay lipservice or are pretentious like NVDA. On the positive side, I own shares, so I am making money off of it.

Finally, the truth of the matter. ;)

⬐ qqii

You're taking his words out of proportion. Just by looking at the steam hardware survey you'll see that the majority of gamers buy mid range cards and own 1080p monitors. The most popular games aren't the latest AAA titles either.

There isn't a game option survey but I'd bet most gamers with mid range cards run AAA games on medium as they value being able to play over a beautiful slideshow.

⬐ dahart

An Ampere mid-range card is different than a Pascal mid-range card, 3 or 4 generations older depending on how you count.

> I'd bet most gamers with mid range cards run AAA games on medium as they value being able to play over a beautiful slideshow.

Exactly, I agree. That statement supports what I said and contradicts parent's comment "the 1xxx series was more than sufficient for 1080p gaming".

⬐ qqii

The GTX 970 is just borderline whilst the GTX 1080 is "pretty much sufficient" for modern games according to this benchmark: https://youtu.be/bhLlHU_z55U

⬐ PartiallyTyped

The argument is simple really. By intentionally dropping the hashrate, you reduce the incentive to buy the GPUs for mining. This means that when or if the mining craze stops akin to 2018, there would be plenty of second hand 3xxx series cards to go around, which would only hurt NVDA's pocket. Recall that during the previous craze, NVDA was stuck with a huge inventory of GPUs after the craze ended, inventory that can not be recycled. IIRC they announced that they have more GPUs from 1xxx series available, iirc 1050tis.

NVDA's stance is that miners are the reason for scarce GPUs, but it is not. There has been scarcity since the 3xxx series was announced, similarly for AMD. The reality is that there is simply not enough silicon being produced; with AAPL hogging TSM's 5nm for a year, AMD and NVDA competing for 7nm wafers for AMD's CPUs, GPUs, and the console's SOCs and for NVDA's GPUs, and soon to be joined by INTC.

By cutting 3xxx production for gaming to accommodate crypto they ensure that there won't be second hand gpus flooding the market and eating their profits once the craze is over. Why is that? because it will not be as cost effective to miners to buy 3060s instead of the dedicated chips because of lower performance per watt. Once the craze is over, the miners won't be able to liquidate their dedicated cards, thus, the demand for GPUs for gaming remains intact, thus, they will be able to sell their 3xxx series and 4xxx series without getting screwed over by second hands and they will not be stuck with a huge inventory as was the case in 2018.

Edit:

Infact, the second hand 3060s would outcompete anything NVDA could offer in 1080p and 1440p gaming and anything NVDA could release with their 4xxx cards. In addition, there isn't enough incentive to even go beyond 1080p or 1440p for gaming. Which is why you will see NVDA pushing how great 4k and even 8k gaming is with their recent publicity stunt for 8k gaming on a 3090.

⬐ dahart

What you’re asking for is to get royally screwed by miners now - again - just so you might have the chance to get a cheap and very-used card later. And you’re blaming Nvidia for losing this imagined opportunity a year from now.

Right, like you point out, in 2018, Nvidia was making a lot of money on leftover 1080s. And they’re proposing to not do that this time. Are you suggesting that gamers are going to bypass a $330 card for a year in hopes that mining will crash and they can get a used one for $200 that’s been running hot for an entire year, and then after waiting, give up on that and buy a brand new GPU?

> The reality is that there is simply not enough silicon being produced.

You say potato, I say demand. You’re hand-wavily suggesting that mining is not affecting supply at all. That’s just not true. Mining demand is making an already bad problem (for gamers) much worse, just like it did last time.

What is the huge profit windfall you’re suggesting happens after this current mining bubble pops? Nvidia isn’t going to have an oversupply of cards to sell, and they aren’t hiking the price of the 3060.

This all seems completely speculative too. You’re complaining about a supposed future problem, and ignoring what this does for gamers today.

And it’s weird to frame this as gamers being screwed by Nvidia just because there could have been some awesome second hand market later. The fact is that gamers were totally screwed by miners in the first place when cards weren’t available for a year and the second hand prices were quadruple the list price. It’s not a huge gift to gamers that the market is flooded with cheap leftovers after they were hosed and frustrated and extorted by miners for a year or two.

⬐ PartiallyTyped

> What you’re asking for is to get royally screwed by miners now - again - just so you might have the chance to get a cheap and very-used card later. And you’re blaming Nvidia for losing this imagined opportunity a year from now.

Re very used: no. Cards used for mining are a) undervolted and b) underclocked, both increase lifespan and I'd take them over an overclocked card used for gaming, plus they don't run that hot because at those scales cooling is expensive.

> Right, like you point out, in 2018, Nvidia was making a lot of money on leftover 1080s. And they’re proposing to not do that this time.

I never said NVDA was making money off leftover 1080s because there weren't left over 1080s, it was 1050tis which they are selling off again. The same 1050tis that they held onto during 2018.

> Are you suggesting that gamers are going to bypass a $330 card for a year in hopes that mining will crash and they can get a used one for $200 that’s been running hot for an entire year, and then after waiting, give up on that and buy a brand new GPU?

As I mentioned above, mining GPUs are usually in better conditions than in some dusty and improperly cooled rig and, simply put, there aren't $330 cards for anyone to buy. If people wish to buy $330 cards, they can buy them, but for me, at 21x9 1080p@60 there is no reason to upgrade from my used 1080ti, and had I really needed something better, I'd consider a used 3060.

> You say potato, I say demand. You’re hand-wavily suggesting that mining is not affecting supply at all. That’s just not true. Mining demand is making an already bad problem (for gamers) much worse, just like it did last time.

I never said mining isn't affecting demand but, a) the crypto rally started loooong after NVDA had supply issues, b) Amd has supply issues with their CPUs and they are utterly irrelevant to mining, c) this generation of consoles made with the same wafers can't meet the demand. The demand was there before this cycle of mining frenzy.

> What is the huge profit windfall you’re suggesting happens after this current mining bubble pops? Nvidia isn’t going to have an oversupply of cards to sell, and they aren’t hiking the price of the 3060.

They won't because they are artificially limiting the hashrate, and they are producing more chips for mining. Last time around, people managed to get around the no display issue and could game on "mining gpus" (see Linus Tech Tips, they have 2 videos on the topic), but now NVDA is locking people outside with firmware making reusing mining gpus impossible.

I am complaining exactly because NVDA is taking care of their shareholders and their bottom lines. I am complaining because it goes against my interests.

Gamers are not screwed by miners, gamers are screwed because the pandemic caused a huge influx of people demanding chips, so much so, that even automotive manufactures can't find chips.

I am tired of this conversation and you are either taking my sentences out of context and blow them out of proportion.

⬐ dahart

> I am complaining because it goes against my interests.

So you are already certain you want to buy a used 3060 next year?

> I never said mining isn't affecting demand

You said "NVDA's stance is that miners are the reason for scarce GPUs, but it is not."

> the crypto rally started loooong after NVDA had supply issues

This is irrelevant. You mean this time, right? There wasn't a supply problem last time before bitcoin miners bought everything. It doesn't make any difference to gamers which contributor to scarcity came first, when you're talking about 3060 sales that haven't started yet.

> I am tired of this conversation and you are either taking my sentences out of context and blow them out of proportion.

I think you're taking this entire issue out of context and blowing it out of proportion. You claimed gamers are being screwed, when they're not, they're actually being helped. Many gamers here and on other threads are happy that Nvidia is taking steps to curb miner scalping of the 3060. The change here is to a single model, the 3060. Segmenting that market over this single model helps gamers today, and is not going to kill the second hand market for gaming cards. All other models will be untouched, and the 3060 will still be available second hand.

⬐ PartiallyTyped

> So you are already certain you want to buy a used 3060 next year?

I wanted to buy a graphics card to run my models. I don't have the $$$ to buy a datacenter card for it and in general, I am affected by the demand and the scalpers. I was considering 3060 because my models are small and it is faster than my 1080ti, but at 21x9 1080p@60hz, it's not an upgrade for my gaming experience because that is capped by the monitor, and I am really not willing to buy a new monitor.

> You said "NVDA's stance is that miners are the reason for scarce GPUs, but it is not."

The reason is mentioned before, too much demand for chips, not enough fabrication. You instead, blame the scarcity on mining, mining is part of the demand but is not the main factor.

Linus and many others, me included, disagree with your opinion that NVDA is helping gamers. NVDA does not care about gamers, they are a corporation, they care for their bottom line and their stock price.

⬐ dahart

> Linus and many others, me included, disagree with your opinion that NVDA is helping gamers. NVDA does not care about gamers, they are a corporation, they care for their bottom line and their stock price.

This argument that Nvidia is a company is a straw man. Valve is as much a corporation that doesn't care about gamers as Nvidia. I guarantee that Nvidia cares about gamers, precisely because gamers have a huge influence on NVDA's stock price and bottom line.

I love Linux, but Linus has a vested interest in opposing Nvidia in public, and has a long history of making inflammatory remarks, even to people he works with. Using his opinion as support of your claims here undermines the credibility of the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

To attempt to move the goalpost back to where you first placed them, the question here is whether reserving 3060 sales for gamers is good or bad for gamers. You claim it's bad for gamers vs the second hand market next year, and I claim it's good for gamers vs the first hand market today. We haven't actually disagreed about this yet, because you haven't addressed how your opinion affects gamers right now.

I agree that this might lead to a different second hand market next year. It is true that the second hand sales next year might not be as low without first having a big mining bubble that first prices gamers out and then crashes. I just don't believe that cheap cards later makes up for what miners have already done to you. If you do, it seems like you're ignoring some of the big downsides of what's happened before and what's happening now.

> I am affected by the demand and the scalpers. I was considering 3060

If you want to buy a 3060 now, I don't understand why you can't see the CMP announcement as a good thing for you and your own bottom line.

If you want to buy a used, mined 3060 later, and give your money to a miner and not Nvidia, then I do understand your points.

⬐ PartiallyTyped

I am referring to this [1] Linus, not Torvalds. Watch the video. You have already decided that it is the miners that are screwing you over, and even when presented with evidence, you to the contrary, you keep shilling NVDA.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfIibTBaoMM

⬐ dahart

Sorry, you're right, I misunderstood the Linus reference as Torvals not Linus Tech Tips.

But so you count reductionist click bait opinion commentary on YouTube as "evidence"? Commentary that comes from a company who's profit motive is driven by clicks and attention? Saying that companies primarily care about their bottom line is tautological, it contains no information. It's still a straw man regarding whether or not segmenting 3060s is a net positive for gamers.

Last chance... you still haven't addressed the first-hand market effect on gamers of trying to get miners to buy something else. You haven't yet backed your claim that this is bad for gamers right now. I've basically agreed with what you said might happen, that the second hand market won't look like what happened in 2018. I can only assume that if ad-hominems are going to be the response to an honest question to what you said, then you don't actually have an answer?

⬐ MavropaliasG

Did you watch the damn video mate?

⬐ dahart

Yes, I did, twice. The arguments in the video do not contain a single point that hasn’t been covered by people repeating the talking points here.

The thing Linus didn’t address, and the thing people don’t seem to understand about the basic economics of the situation is that there is no amazing second hand market getting flooded with cheap GPUs without first getting hosed by miners, having the prices go through the roof and not being able to get one for the next year. If that happens, then yeah, sure, the used ones will be cheap some time later, and you don’t get to choose when or even if mining crashes before the next GPU update. If that’s really what you want... enjoy.

That video is primarily an ad. It’s an ad for a VPN service and literally a ball-shaving kit. “If you imagine it any other way, then congratulations, you played yourself.” - Linus.

⬐ qqii

Gamers are getting screwed by Nivida today since the silicone they normally bin as gaming cards are being allocated to mining cards.

In return they're only given the 3060 which is still profitable for miners and Nividia refuses to restrict mining on any other gaming Geforce series card.rxqy

Miners are also screwing over gamers by buying their gaming cards today. In future miners will be a positive for games as they flood the used market with gaming cards.

Neither are altruistic here.

⬐ dahart

> the silicone they normally bin as gaming cards are being allocated to mining cards.

That's an assumption, it's speculation. If true, it means there will be no 3060s for gamers because they'll sell out as CMP, in contradiction to what Nvidia said. We will see if your assumption comes true...

I don't know why your speculative assumption makes any sense. If the chips that could be sold to gamers were being sold to miners instead and effectively "screwing" gamers, then it means that there's no point to segmenting the market, no advantage for Nvidia. It would be no different than letting miners buy the 3060s, and just not having CMP cards.

> In future miners will be a positive for games as they flood the used market with gaming cards.

That doesn't make up for the losses to gamers up front, it does not compensate by 100%, it can't. It would be better (for gamers) if there was no bubble.

⬐ necovek

Well, despite the title, I am sure Nvidia does care about gamers, because they'll mostly sell to them once Ethereum switches away from GPU mining.