They got in trouble for not being able to differentiate between cards sold to gamers and those to miners. By selling them directly and not through their partners they know exactly how many cards they have sold to miners.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Nvidia Posts Record Q3 Earnings, Sales of GPUs to Crypto Miners Reach $175 Million
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
This would explain why the flood of cards coming out in late Oct/ early Nov that was predicted by Moore's law is dead never appeared.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
I'm not doubting that miners are buying cards. I'm just wondering which miners are spending that kind of coin with Ethereum 2.0 launching 12/1. Outside of Eth, there isn't a large profitable algo that would give a decent ROI.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
But what's the profitability going to be like going forward?
There are more alt-coins than just etherium. Thousands more. Mine altcoin and trade up for Bitcoin and Eth. Mining on GPU (POW) won't die just because one coin goes POS. And there is the top dollar resale value (for now).
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
The profitability of mining altcoins is nothing compared to ethereum. Nobody in their right mind is going to spend $500 to make less than $1 a day.
You don't understand the scale of mining farms in China and the profitability of trading altcoins. Also, are you using chinese cost of electricity in your calculation?
Last edited:
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
I'm aware of both. The chinese aren't stupid. They understand ROI like everyone else. My bet is that they think they can make up $175 million before ETH moves completely to POS.
I think in the first 2 quarters, the lions share will go to Sony & Microsoft
From April 2021 onwards, the situation should stabilize (if TSMC doesn't hike wafer prices for 7nm)
https://www.hardwaretimes.com/in-q4...avi-production/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
OK, that was part of my replies above. You didn't seem very aware of POW in play until stage 1.5 next year. Who knows on the profitability moving forward. I mined Bitcoin years most people heard of it. Lets just say I profited nicely.
Last edited:
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
Governments need to shut crypto currencies down. It's not a legal form of tender. You could make the argument that both AMD & Nvidia are knowingly facilitating in, or profiteering.
If I had the kind of money to challenge them in a court, I would do it & I would win.
If I had the kind of money to challenge them in a court, I would do it & I would win.
Last edited:
Lol. That would be stupid and near impossible. But hey Venezuela tried it so it must be a great idea.
It’s not a legal tender it’s a commodity, it is traded and regulated as such. Using it to pay for something is no different than using stocks or bonds to pay for something.
Thats exactly it - it:s not legal tender and the government may be able to tax the shit out of it but has no legal footing to ban Crypto. If they do, they miss out on the taxes. Go ahead and ban it. Won't stop Crypto. Your short sighted viewpoint is amusing.
Dion
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Messages
- 3,920
Why can't NVIDIA profit on Mining like everyone else? It is there product after all lol..
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,620
Not sure what your question has to do with my statement.
Surely NVIDIA can do what it wants in order to make it shareholders the most money.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,035
Sure they can, but then they must face the music afterwards. It's just not a "business" you can brag about and expect pats on the back for.
Manny Calavera
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 3,986
Trading Alt coin 'Up" for ETH or BTC is a tremendous waste of time,yes you can make money but is your time worth dollars an hour?!,there are far quicker and easier ways to make bank in todays world. I spent two years mining, years ago, as part of my daily grind as a day trader.
Teenyman45
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,244
At a hypothetical average cost of $1,000 per GPU, then $150,000,000 in sales would translate to one hundred fifty thousand GPUs that could have been in the retail channel. Since we all know that large scale miners will absolutely prioritize maximum efficiency of electricity to hash rate over other considerations such as raw performance per unit, you can expect that this leans more towards the GPUs for 3070s or 3080s, with stripped down RAM and other features not truly essential to mining. Nvidia also gets to cut out the AiB middleman.
Thus, at a more "reasonable" $500 per GPU average that would be three hundred thousand GPU units in miner hands rather than retail channels.
Thus, at a more "reasonable" $500 per GPU average that would be three hundred thousand GPU units in miner hands rather than retail channels.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,620
I suspect it is closer to 500K as NVIDIA ships these in ASIC BOM kits; GPU and RAM. These are Chinese industrial miners, not some local yocal with racks of AIB video cards. These guys build their own cards to the specs they want and NVIDIA gives them the ability to write their own drivers as well. So let's say 350K to 500K GPUs that should/could have been in the retail channel for gamers.
Not sure under what logic (morality/business/etc...) the word should can be use in that context. Should PC gamers always be pretty much the last ever served (and tend to be)
The one that nVidia markets, you will be able to buy these amazing new products on XYZ date, only to not deliver any real quantity of XYZ product.
Gamers where the foundation of nVidia's success, not saying they shouldn't find new markets, but it is pretty scummy to 'launch' a product you know you have no stock for because your selling to another market, just to try and elbow out the competition in market one.
Just because business is amoral doesn't mean the consumer should just soy boy up and accept it.
I see this comment thrown around a lot, with zero context on those that 'had' to buy. Sure most here probably don't have to buy a GPU (you probably already have one, or something good enough, to run most things. Yes its a bit (or a lot if your top of the SKU) of a luxury item, but in COVID world at home entertainment is becoming less of a want and closer to a need, not all of us can live on a country property and hunt/mud/etc in our back yard (in fact, very few people can do that).
GPU's (and a lot of other products, its insane how many things are backordered or sold out) are flying off shelves in most SKU's including older ones, if your hard up for entertainment, have children and are grappling with the restrictions, effects, etc of COVID then no, I don't think Patience is the universal answer.
Given how few Consumer GPUs nVidia actually shipped, I don't think its unreasonable to assume that a good portion of people that 'had' to buy are those that have little other options today, 20k units is minuscule supply, its the kind of supply you'd expect out of a local start up providing hair care products, not one of two global competitors.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,993
$175M from miners... odd that they know this value unless Mining Co. went to nVidia and specifically asked for that... but that said 175M/2.79B = 6.3% miners aren't doing dick to affect the supply, this largely is a supply/demand issue with scalpers hanging onto cards.
And do you think NVidia did not market in similar ways (but with much stronger and clearer delivery commitment) to the Nintendo/Miners/etc... of the world that are getting their product right now ? Is there really a difference here ?
That PC gamers was the foundation of nVidia success is some argument, should it create fidelity for them and so on ( a bit like saying Grand theft auto or other franchise like the witcher studio should have prioritized PC release over console because it was the foundation of their success), but it is not a strong one, has the early buyer was buying with their money 100% of they got without any implication that it would build some privilege in the future.
What amorality claim is going on here exactly ? But sure, that said I suspect that they will, much more than Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft/Miners/Datacenter or other clients would and that AMD/Nvidia not stopping everything else that goes against making PC gamer stock has good has possible was a good decision for them.
You are claiming amorality by your very defense, and I am agreeing that yes corporations and business are amoral, it is the consumer not the business that needs to bring morality to the table.
not sure what your first line is really arguing, nVidia marketed in September with their reveal that their product would launch and be available from XYZ date, there has been controversy since due to limited supply. It now seems fairly clear that the initial supply problems (and ongoing) is not a factor of some unforseen and accidental event (foundry screw ups, supply chain issues) but of a deliberate choice to reallocate product to a prior unmentioned market (crypto ASIC). So nVidia knew that they didn't have the supply by their own internal decision, yet made decisions that have lead up to here anyway, largely in an effort to try and undermine AMD, basically have their cake and eat it too. This should blow up in their face, but in a duopoly it is unlikely.
nVidia made their decisions, and as they come to light they definitely stink of skullduggery.
That's speculation, we have evidence of sales to crypto-miners. These sales where likely lined up in advance rather than a last minute ditch.
Yes, it is speculation. I see no logical reason for them to cede market share to AMD.
DarkSideA8
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2005
- Messages
- 989
I wonder if this speculation on numbers shipped might be off. We know that NV was basically getting a very small return on the FE cards at the list prices, and the AICs had to change up components to make any money at prices close to the list. It's likely, then, that NV sold bulk ASICs to the miners at a higher per unit cost than they reasonably could have charged the AICs for the same components to use in end-use gamer cards. That's the only reasonable guess (on my part) as to why NV would risk long term relationships with AIC partners; they knew they would get a higher per-unit return that AICs would not match, and consequently, the AICs could then charge higher prices (=per unit profit) due to 'scarcity' and 'supply issues'. If they did - then they really did not have much 'supply' available on the Samsung 8nm die... Which brings up another question:
Any thoughts on whether the 'supply issues' might also be related to NV wanting to only buy a limited number of 8nm from Samsung, knowing full well that they'd push more effort into the TSMC 7nm for 'ti' (or whatever) cards?
Yup. Especially because with Ampere being made on Samsung 8 and Turing on TSMC 12, and the miners making their own cards instead of buying from ASUS/EVGA/etc; they didn't need to stop making Turing to start making Ampere for the miners. They could've done the initial slug to the later quietly while keeping 20xx in stock so people whose system needed replaced now could actually buy cards.
Who said anything about cedeing, the very point about announcing and almost paper launching Ampere was to muddy the waters against AMD, while knowing full well they where selling to cryptominers out the back door and having no stock for regular consumers.
That is a much more realistic answer than nVidia having bad yields and miraculously inking $175M in crypto sales to cover it up last minute.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,620
If there were "bad yields" out of Samsung, Jensen would have thrown them under the bus during the earnings call. If there was "blame" to be put elsewhere we all know that man will do it at the drop of a hat. I think everything is very much going to plan for NVIDIA.
Absolutely, they would probably chuck Samsung under the bus and then brag about re-jigging the bad chips to sell to cryptominers at a tidy profit.
DarkSideA8
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2005
- Messages
- 989
Do you throw people under the bus when you're 'winning' as much as they did? Although, I think you're right; they got what they wanted out of Samsung - a way to beat AMD to the table.
"Winning" reminds me of Charlie Sheen. LoL
Jensen would throw his mother under the bus if it made Nvidia look better.