Mining vs Gaming Products or something *spawn*

[DavidGraham]

Jensen literally said he sees crypto as a solid revenue stream (CEO words are not enough for you? What about NV AIBs building crypto boards?).

Stating something and acting on it are completely different.

What about NV AIBs building crypto boards

An obvious tool to fend off miners gunning for gaming GPUs. You may argue the effectiveness of the strategy, but you can't argue the reason behind it.

Other focuses on datacenter and emerging markets, trying to wash away the "gaming company" stigma.

Yet despite that, they ARE the gaming company right now. Magnitudes more than AMD. They control the entire PC gaming market, how could that possibly happen? Not through mining of course.

 

[Kaotik]

Agreed. The Vega product release pricing strategies were a joke, but seems to be the way AMD operates and in this case with the losers being gamers.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1997447/

AMD sold their cards for the prices they announced, sure the "barebones" model was scarcily available, but it was and it wasn't just a "launch thing to disappear later".

What exactly do you think AMD should have done, hiked up the prices a crapton and find out how high miners are willing to go, meaning no gamer anywhere could have gotten a card?

 

[CSI PC]

It is difficult to know exactly how much the cards were sold to large retailers due to the rebate support structure from both AMD and Nvidia, this has an effect on pricing for what some of the largest retailers can offer as RRP, this has been a cause at times for prices to jump when it is removed, plus supply/demand situation exacerbating that as well.
OverclockersUK went into this a few times in the past, and they source enough volume to buy directly from AIB partners and distributors.

Not sure how that or the fact Vega was only briefly at RRP at launch and the mess between retailers and AMD who denied rebate support (which Gibbo still stood by) being involved adds to this thread.
https://overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/amd_s_rx_64_launch_pricing_was_only_for_early_sales/1
Separately Gibbo asked about it:

We reached out to OcUK for a little clarification on the pricing situation.

"Launch price was $499, AMD even worded it as such," Gibbo explains. "They gave us a set quantity to sell at this launch price which was several hundred and limited to 1pc per customer. We expected it to last several hours, maybe even a day, unfortunately it lasted around 20 minutes.

"AMD unfortunately have worded their comms pretty poorly, so now customers just think the retailers are upping the prices to make more margin, the reality is if they did not increase the prices they would lose a lot of money as AMD support ended once the set quantity was sold."

Funny enough he had a rebate support deal in place again for Vega back at Black Friday, which he felt would be the last for a long time.

But this is digressing about the AIB partners situation, which is not the same situation although does show that there are financial incentive schemes (this is not the only one) run by both IHV beyond the current discussion.

 

[Kaotik]

Not sure how that or the fact Vega was only briefly at RRP at launch and the mess between retailers and AMD who denied rebate support (which Gibbo still stood by) being involved adds to this thread.
https://overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/amd_s_rx_64_launch_pricing_was_only_for_early_sales/1

So you're suggesting that the cards priced at MSRP (or thereabouts, within $20 or so) before the mining craze pulled the prices to heavens were just etailers/retailers taking a loss for fun?
Yes, even the "bulk" model without any bundles did pop up every once in a while with new stock at around MSRP.
Like AMD stated when directly asked, the MSRPs are what they told at launch, only thing that really sucked about it was too small quantities of the "bulk"-model, 99%+ were sold as Radeon Pack SKUs which was what, $100-200 more expensive depending on SKU

 

[CSI PC]

So you're suggesting that the cards priced at MSRP (or thereabouts, within $20 or so) before the mining craze pulled the prices to heavens were just etailers/retailers taking a loss for fun?
Yes, even the "bulk" model without any bundles did pop up every once in a while with new stock at around MSRP.
Like AMD stated when directly asked, the MSRPs are what they told at launch, only thing that really sucked about it was too small quantities of the "bulk"-model, 99%+ were sold as Radeon Pack SKUs

It was actually a $100 rebate if you want to know - separate to what I posted earlier.
But like I said in my post rebate support makes it difficult to actually see what the retail price should be as it is usually a hidden factor from consumers and can/does contribute to a notable price fluctuation.

There is no suggestion but fact, Gibbo clearly states the situation and I quote it quite clearly and I think most here can remember the situation from launch to just after.
Take the whole post to make the argument.

We reached out to OcUK for a little clarification on the pricing situation.

"Launch price was $499, AMD even worded it as such," Gibbo explains. "They gave us a set quantity to sell at this launch price which was several hundred and limited to 1pc per customer. We expected it to last several hours, maybe even a day, unfortunately it lasted around 20 minutes.

"AMD unfortunately have worded their comms pretty poorly, so now customers just think the retailers are upping the prices to make more margin, the reality is if they did not increase the prices they would lose a lot of money as AMD support ended once the set quantity was sold."

And like I said he received another AMD rebate support back for Black Friday and feels it would be the last one they get in some time for Vega, and yes the retail priced dropped when he did have the rebate for Black Friday.
Overclockers have very good relationship with AMD and their AIB partners (and also Nvidia's), such as being the 1st to offer the custom Sapphire 580 that I linked earlier in this thread; just saying as some may want to discount their credibility in this regard.

But this is digressing about the AIB partners situation, which is not the same situation although does show that there are financial incentive schemes (this is not the only one) run by both IHV beyond the current discussion.

 

[DavidGraham]

This is called "having cake and eating it." Except, it doesn't work of course, it never does.

But it can mitigate the issue to a certain extent, when it's a part of an overall strategy to reduce pressure off the gaming chips, when you coerce your partners to sell only these SKUs to miners and restrict access to gaming SKUs. When you attract miners to these mining SKUs through discounts. When you offer cards for gamers at MSRP.

The fact is, NVIDIA has been able to get cards in the hands of gamers far more than AMD. That's how they achieved such a gigantic market share.

 

[Picao84]

But it can mitigate the issue to a certain extent, when it's a part of an overall strategy to reduce pressure off the gaming chips, when you coerce your partners to sell only these SKUs to miners and restrict access to gaming SKUs. When you attract miners to these mining SKUs through discounts. When you offer cards for gamers at MSRP.

The fact is, NVIDIA has been able to get cards in the hands of gamers far more than AMD. That's how they achieved such a gigantic market share.

There is also the fact that Kepler and Maxwell both sucked at cryptomining compared to AMD cards, so they were not as desirable.

 

[DavidGraham]

There is also the fact that Kepler and Maxwell both sucked at cryptomining compared to AMD cards, so they were not as desirable.

True, but you also have to consider that NVIDIA extended their lead much further specifically during the Pascal era.

 

[Picao84]

True, but you also have to consider that NVIDIA extended their lead much further specifically during the Pascal era.

That is not true at all. It was during the Maxwell generation that NVidia got above 80% of the market. It dropped to 70% when Polaris launched.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12107/q3-2017-graphics-cards-shipments-hit-5-year-high

 

[Deleted member 2197]

True, but you also have to consider that NVIDIA extended their lead much further specifically during the Pascal era.

I think he may have meant that Pascal gained in popularity over Maxwell with regard to crytomining, though not to the extent as HBM equiped cards.

 

[Picao84]

I think he may have meant that Pascal gained in popularity over Maxwell with regard to crytomining, though not to the extent as HBM equiped cards.

Well, I don't think that chart differentiates between graphics and cryptomining (how could it, you don't ask what people are buying the card for?), so that point is still hard to make in face of the evidence. Especially when nVIDIA lost marketshare to AMD, not the other way around.

 

[DavidGraham]

That is not true at all. It was during the Maxwell generation that NVidia got above 80% of the market. It dropped to 70% when Polaris launche

This isn't representative of gaming marketshare though, at least since the mining mess has occured. This is shipping share, it encompasses cards sold to miners, gamers, professionals, servers.. Etc.

In fact, the very fact that the market share dropped when Polaris launched, yet NVIDIA managed to capture more gaming share, speaks volume at how the balance has shifted. Steam survey shows the 1060 sold 30 times more cards than 480 and 580 combined for example.

NVIDIA likey gives a steady supply of gaming cards to mobile, and OEMs (excluding Titans, Teslas and Quadros), which keeps these chips untouched by the mining crowd, unlike AMD who probably allocated all of their stocks (even Vega FE) toward miners.

 

[Picao84]

This isn't representative of gaming marketshare though, at least since the mining mess has occured. This is shipping share, it encompasses cards sold to miners, gamers, professionals, servers.. Etc.

In fact, the very fact that the market share dropped when Polaris launched, yet NVIDIA managed to capture more gaming share, speaks volume at how the balance has shifted. Steam survey shows the 1060 sold 30 times more cards than 480 and 580 combined for example.

NVIDIA likey gives a steady supply of gaming cards to mobile, and OEMs (excluding Titans, Teslas and Quadros), which keeps these chips untouched by the mining crowd, unlike AMD who probably allocated all of their stocks (even Vega FE) toward miners.

All I see on your post are lots of IFs and Speculation for what both nVIDIA and AMD are or were doing, without a shred of evidence to sustain (Steam Survey is not reliable), just to try and paint nVIDIA as the good guy and AMD as the bad guy..

 

[DavidGraham]

just to try and paint nVIDIA as the good guy and AMD as the bad guy..

There is no bad or good here, just gaming reach or not. Steam isn't the only survey to showcase the huge divide between both of them gaming share wise.

 

[Picao84]

There is no bad or good here, just gaming reach or not. Steam isn't the only survey to showcase the huge divide between both of them gaming share wise.

Care to share sources for that, other than Steam?

 

[Mize]

I think it's silly to believe either company doesn't want miner sales. Were that true it'd be child's play to make the dozen or so crypto hashing algorithms inefficient while preserving gaming prowess.

Corporations will invariably gravitate to whatever creates the most wealth for their shareholders. That's why they exist. Both AMD and Nvidia will do whatever it takes to sell the maximum number of GPUs at the highest possible gross margins. To believe otherwise is simply naive.

 

[Picao84]

I think it's silly to believe either company doesn't want miner sales. Were that true it'd be child's play to make the dozen or so crypto hashing algorithms inefficient while preserving gaming prowess.

Corporations will invariably gravitate to whatever creates the most wealth for their shareholders. That's why they exist. Both AMD and Nvidia will do whatever it takes to sell the maximum number of GPUs at the highest possible gross margins. To believe otherwise is simply naive.

Yup, that is why it is silly and fanboyish to try and paint one as more gamer friendly and the other one less. Like I mentioned, the only reason why nVIDIA arrived late to the cryptomining game is only because of an unsuitable architecture. Pascal changed that and now nVIDIA buyers are suffering as much as a AMD ones. Saying otherwise is denial, especially if it comes together with "oh, GPP is to help gamers" apology.

 

[DavidGraham]

Care to share sources for that, other than Stea

There were quite afew others shared in one of the threads here, can't find them though right now. I will post them once I do. Anyhow recently there is the occulus Rift one:
https://developer.oculus.com/hardware-report/pc/

Corporations will invariably gravitate to whatever creates the most wealth for their shareholders. That's why they exist. Both AMD and Nvidia will do whatever it takes to sell the maximum number of GPUs at the highest possible gross margins. To believe otherwise is simply naive.

Actually no, corporation will do whatever it takes to achieve profit and perserve core markets, NVIDIA has every incentive to stick to and uphold their gaming marketshare domination above all else, it's 60% of their revenue. AMD not so much, that's why they feel unshackled to chase whatever gets them quick cash injections. And it shows in each company's behavior.

 

[Mize]

They wouldn't preserve core markets if it didn't create wealth. I had a business that made industrial controls and one of my customers made water quality analyzers for decades, right up until a new product in a new market took off, eclipsing their traditional products by orders of magnitude.

They dropped all of their legacy products and markets.

Any company would do likewise.

 

[CSI PC]

I think it's silly to believe either company doesn't want miner sales. Were that true it'd be child's play to make the dozen or so crypto hashing algorithms inefficient while preserving gaming prowess.

Corporations will invariably gravitate to whatever creates the most wealth for their shareholders. That's why they exist. Both AMD and Nvidia will do whatever it takes to sell the maximum number of GPUs at the highest possible gross margins. To believe otherwise is simply naive.

Yeah.
The crux of mining though is not just now but importantly also how to protect ones product strategy and product pricing once the mining market drops enough that consumers are flooded with cheap 2nd hand cards.
History has shown what happens when an IHV increases manufacturing/logistics to support both and the future ramifications it has on consumer retail perception and product value; it became a nightmare for AMD launching new products since 2xx in this regard and product margins.
My concern is AMD may be doing the same again with current dGPU market share change this quarter albeit not on the same scale but more so than Nvidia, unfortunately the data for quarterly dGPU shipments is too crude to be sure.
I feel Jensen narrative with regards to gamers and miners is actually to cover the fact Nvidia is looking to protect future product value/margins/perception and their product strategy rather than actually concern for gamers specifically, which the data may be showing in not significantly increasing production and possibly nudging-incentivise a bit partners/distributors to better manage the ratio but how much involvement here is difficult to say or even if it was followed through.