Mining vs Gaming Products or something *spawn*

[Picao84]

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/


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.

nVIDIA has as a dominant position that AMD so far has not managed to threat, so it is not like they face any pressure to help gamers at all. Gamers will still buy their hardware regardless of the price increases as they have nowhere to go. The higher the price, the more revenue nVIDIA will get, even if some gamers do not upgrade. Go back and review history to see who did immediately start to increase GPU prices, as soon as AMD started to not be able to compete, even before the cryptocurrency boom! See again what happened after AMD's R600 blunder and for how much nVIDIA launched GTX280, until AMD surprised us all with HD4800 series. nVIDIA could really care less about how expensive their cards get on the marketplace..
Next thing you will be telling us that a monopoly is the best thing for the consumer....

 

[DavidGraham]

that is why it is silly and fanboyish to try and paint one as more gamer friendly and the other one less

It's not silly to analyse each company's behavior and extrapolate conclusions based on it.

AMD :
Releases special mining drivers
Statements about ongoing development on mining drivers
Marketing and propaganda that encourages miners
PR statements that encourages mining
Lack of any effort to support gamers buying gpus at MSRP whatsoever

NVIDIA:
Doesn't release a mining driver
Limits number of mining GPUs on a single system through drivers
Sells cards at MSRP on their site
Absence of any marketing or propaganda to miners
PR downplays mining and supports gaming
Encourages AIBs to sell to gamers
Prevents AIBs from mass selling to big miners
Creates separate mining SKUs to stop encroachment on gaming chips
Keeps a steady supply of gaming chips for Mobile and OEMs


Not seeing the night and day difference between both companies is THE denial.

 

[DavidGraham]

Next thing you will be telling us that a monopoly is the best thing for the consumer....

Monopoly isn't good, we need AMD around. We need them so bad to prevent the drawbacks of this very thing. But when AMD chooses to slack off and chooses to establish a gaming monpoly through their absence and reckless actions then they surly deserve some flak for that. And some grave consequences too.

 

[Picao84]

I

It's not silly to analyse each company's behavior and extrapolate conclusions based on it.

AMD :
Releases special mining drivers
Statements about ongoing development on mining drivers
Marketing and propaganda that encourages miners
PR statements that encourages mining
Lack of any effort to support gamers buying gpus at MSRP whatsoever

NVIDIA:
Doesn't release a mining driver
Limits number of mining GPUs on a single system through drivers
Sells cards at MSRP on their site
Absence of any marketing or propaganda to miners
PR downplays mining and supports gaming
Encourages AIBs to sell to gamers
Prevents AIBs from mass selling to big miners
Creates separate mining SKUs to stop encroachment on gaming chips
Keeps a steady supply of gaming chips for Mobile and OEMs


Not seeing the night and day difference between both companies is THE denial.

Where have you seen those at all?

EDIT - nVIDIA limiting the number of mining GPUs on a system can easily be seen as them preparing to have mining SKUs to overcome that and cash in on them? All that can be as easily seem as that, preparing for a mass entry into the cryptomining market, not as having the goodwill of protecting gamers.. in fact, all this GPP stuff is ANYTHING but protecting gamers.

 

[Picao84]

Monopoly isn't good, we need AMD around. We need them so bad to prevent the drawbacks of this very thing. But when AMD chooses to slack off and chooses to establish a gaming monpoly through their absence and reckless actions then they surly deserve some flak for that. And some grave consequences too.

Funny thought that you choose to address something I wrote out of irony, while ignoring all the rest of the text. I guess it does not go along your nVIDIA gaming friendly narrative?

 

[DavidGraham]

Where have you seen those at all?

I fear you were not in the loop quite often to follow up on these events, saldy I am too busy to provide links, I truly am sorry for that. You can use the search function on this forum or Google. Search for AMD blockchain driver, AMD's driver teams interviews stating more development for miners, Vega FE marketing as a blockchain champion, AMD's officials encouraging gamers to mine in their GPUs and CPUs.. Etc.

nVIDIA limiting the number of mining GPUs on a system can easily be seen as them preparing to have mining SKUs to overcome that and cash in on them?

What would limiting GPUs achieve in favor of NVIDIA having mining SKUs? It's not like they sell motherboards or CPUs to cash in on that. That makes no sense at all.

I guess it does not go along your nVIDIA gaming friendly narrative?

It fits more into the drawbacks of monopoly.

 

[Benetanegia]

Let me contribute one of those. I mean "Vega FE marketing as a blockchain champion" is not even some special or obscure page or anything, it's Vega FE's main page:

https://pro.radeon.com/en/product/radeon-vega-frontier-edition/

 

[Mize]

What's the GPU limit in NV drivers? I have a bunch of NV GPUs mining so that part doesn't seem to work.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Do you have 9 gpu's in your system? I think with Nvidia the limit is 8 as shown usable.

 

[Picao84]

Let me contribute one of those. I mean "Vega FE marketing as a blockchain champion" is not even some special or obscure page or anything, it's Vega FE's main page:

https://pro.radeon.com/en/product/radeon-vega-frontier-edition/

That is the Vega Frontier edition, which is a prosumer part, just like NVidia's Titan. It was never sold as a Gaming Card and is not even close in price to Vega 64 to be able to threat gamers. That is no different from nVIDIA supposedly working on a cryptomining SKU.

 

[Picao84]

I fear you were not in the loop quite often to follow up on these events, saldy I am too busy to provide links, I truly am sorry for that. You can use the search function on this forum or Google. Search for AMD blockchain driver, AMD's driver teams interviews stating more development for miners, Vega FE marketing as a blockchain champion, AMD's officials encouraging gamers to mine in their GPUs and CPUs.. Etc.

See my answer above to the same point.

What would limiting GPUs achieve in favor of NVIDIA having mining SKUs? It's not like they sell motherboards or CPUs to cash in on that. That makes no sense at all.

Make the same question, but replace mining SKUs for Quadro SKUs and you will have the answer. They may be looking to sell cards for cryptomining at a price premium.

It fits more into the drawbacks of monopoly.

So you basically agree with me that nVIDIA has no need at all to act in any way to preserve a core market that is not in danger, quite the other way around, its ripe for abuse as GPP shows. Can you drop your nVIDIA gamer's friend bullshit now then?

 

[DavidGraham]

That is the Vega Frontier edition, which is a prosumer part, just like NVidia's Titan

We know that, the point is AMD used even their prosumer line for miners, it's a apart of an overall strategy to prioritize mining above all else. A strategy that you refuse to acknowledge and remain in denial to it's effects.

They may be looking to sell cards for cryptomining at a price premium.

Again that makes no sense whatsoever, selling premium mining SKUs will necessitate unlocking the number of GPUs used to encourage more purchase. Not locking them down.

So you basically agree with me that nVIDIA has no need at all to act in any way to preserve a core market that is not in danger, quite the other way around.

I really don't understand your point any longer, what are arguing about now? The fact and behavioral analysis is right in front of your eyes, one company commited it self fully to miners, fucked it's brand up and thus have no right to complain about some weak sub brands under hostile take over. The other company refused to whore itself to miners, committed to a more gamer friendly narrative and stood to reap the benefits. This is the crux of the problem. There is no good or evil, right or wrong, or whatever. Just business decisions with consequences.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

If a person wanted to read this thread to know more about Nvidias GPP program they would have a hard time following the conversation. And maybe that's the point?

Lurking again? All it takes is a look at the thread title to realize where this conversation was bound to end up, or maybe the title is what drew you in.

 

[Kaotik]

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.

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.

The "within $20" meant that cards have been actually available within $20 of MSRP, nothing to do with any rebates of any size.
I'm not asking about what Gibbo said, I know what he has said and I'm not taking that as some sort of gospel when reality clashes with it.

You completely ignored what I actually said in the post, so let's try again:
If the advertised prices were just launch prices (+black friday) with rebates, how do you explain the new stocks that popped up every once in a while which were priced at the MSRP (again, within $20 or so of the actual MSRP) and nowhere near either launch or black friday?
Which option sounds more likely:
1) eTailers and Retailers decided it would be fun to take some loss or at least severely cut their profits by offering cards at MSRP
2) The MSRP was actually real, not some rebate-deal

If you actually followed the markets, all those cards sold at ~$100 more than MSRP had at least games bundled with them - they were Radeon Packs, which always had higher MSRP than just the card.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

AIBs who signed up to GPP are now doing PR acrobatics around the issue, and the results are hilarious.
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-03/gigabyte-gaming-box-rx-580/#update1

ComputerBase asked Gigabyte why the model with Radeon RX 580 is the only in the series which does not come with the "Aorus" gaming branding. The manufacturer states that the product is not gamer focused. This however is inconsistent with the product page, whose headings are "Turn Your Ultrabook to Gaming Platform" and "Upgrade the Game Experience".

The product called "RX 580 Gaming Box" is "not gamer focused". Get it?

Here's the box with the RX580:

And this is the box version with a GTX1070:

If a person wanted to read this thread to know more about Nvidias GPP program they would have a hard time following the conversation. And maybe that's the point?

Yes, that's exactly the point.
First they tried to close the thread, now the focus is on derailing.
Notice how the only other answer to your post was mostly about your character assassination? Just some more flamebait tactics.
The subject in this thread is pressing some buttons, that's for sure.



Returning to the subject at hand, I had prepared an answer to a post that was eventually deleted, but I think the context here is appropriate enough so I'm bringing it back from the dead, if I may:

Who cares anyway, that GPP stuff is fairly anemic in itself (just very shady, in a bad way), since AMD-only AIBs won't suddenly disappear.
Besides, ASUS/MSI/Gigabyte can come up with some another gaming brand for AMD.

I don't agree.
That's not how marketing works, and marketing is the next most important factor for success after product quality/performance (some would argue foremost important, actually).
Asus, MSI and Gigabyte own a sizeable share of the market and this new gaming sub-brand for AMD will be unknown, whereas nvidia cards will be dancing alone on the laurels of all the marketing time and money AIBs spent on making ROG/GamingX/AORUS known to the public.

Blockbuster movies spend as much in marketing as they do on production. Same with AAA videogames from major publishers. Samsung spends billions marketing the Galaxy S line (attention here: not Samsung phones: the Galaxy S exclusively!). This means their marketing budget can actually outmatch the BoM for the sum of phones being sold.

And when Asus sponsors major gaming events and gets youtube ads for gaming devices, they don't advertise "Asus". They advertise "ROG".

 

[CSI PC]

The "within $20" meant that cards have been actually available within $20 of MSRP, nothing to do with any rebates of any size.
I'm not asking about what Gibbo said, I know what he has said and I'm not taking that as some sort of gospel when reality clashes with it.

You completely ignored what I actually said in the post, so let's try again:
If the advertised prices were just launch prices (+black friday) with rebates, how do you explain the new stocks that popped up every once in a while which were priced at the MSRP (again, within $20 or so of the actual MSRP) and nowhere near either launch or black friday?
Which option sounds more likely:
1) eTailers and Retailers decided it would be fun to take some loss or at least severely cut their profits by offering cards at MSRP
2) The MSRP was actually real, not some rebate-deal

If you actually followed the markets, all those cards sold at ~$100 more than MSRP had at least games bundled with them - they were Radeon Packs, which always had higher MSRP than just the card.

It is difficult to ignore the validity of Overclockers claims who are very open and detailed about the rebate supports when it is also backed up by an investigation by GamersNexus and what AIB-partner said off the record.

You are looking at this from a different perspective/POV rather than what I have raised and Gibbo's fact-ramification around SEP price AMD suggested to public with no margins for retailers but relied upon rebates, and outside of this financial incenctive schemes from both IHV that mask retail pricing fluctuations reasons beyond supply/demand.
This is from AMD matching context of without "bundle"

If you’re already a proud AMD Ryzen or Radeon FreeSync monitor owner, you can buy a Radeon RX Vega 56 or Radeon RX Vega 64 air cooled edition at standalone prices of $399 and $499 SEP USD respectively

I cannot see how prices remained within $20 of SEP since Vega has launched and up to say December 2017, further compounded that nearly all retailers will not talk about the rebate support program publicly (off record see some articles), and the rebate as I keep saying applies to both IHV and compounds understanding the price as it is usually hidden from consumers and exacerbated by supply/demand in certain situations.
Also one cannot use game bundles as a comparison/counter argument to my posts as it is a subtly different financial incentive, both IHV as I stated have more than one financial incentive scheme, which gaming bundles is just one other example of a scheme also done by both in various ways, and there are more that go beyond retailers.

But for further clarification GamersNexus summed it up nicely and noticed the leeway in how AMD marketing responded officially and to their further questions in link 2.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3023-aib-partners-to-gn-yes-vega-price-will-change
https://www.gamersnexus.net/industry/3025-amd-statement-on-vega-pricing-retailers-fault
And the AMD statement in their investigation does not match up to the AIB and retailers they spoke to which is in line with the open-ness from Overclockers on the support rebate, again to reiterate both IHV offer such financial incentives (and not just these ones) beyond the current discussion.

Launching in the middle of the mining market, there’s plausible deniability that mining demand – although the card mines far worse than we expected – is influencing retailer pricing. This defense is employed to a point of nearly accusing retailers of gouging based on demand, levying the “we can’t control that” against a rising tide of confused consumers.
It's certainly a possible cause, but the stories from retailers, AIB partners, and AMD do not align. We were hoping for a response with some substance from AMD, but the PR line is all we’re getting for now.

And the 1st article further aligns my point of relationship with Overclockers and AMD-AIB partners.

We also learned from the AIB partners that AMD provided a list of retailers that board partners should sell to, as those would be the companies most likely holding rebates to best support the lower pricing of the product.

However like I said Overclockers mentioned when rebate was again re-introduced last Black Friday and they dropped their price a notable amount, people complained in the forums when it ended and the price increased again even though he was very clear in the forums about this at the time.
Anyway one last quote that shows how the rebate is structured in this case with Vega launch

The advantage of the bundles is they have free games.

AMD's launch plan was:

$499 - NO games for a set amount of cards (NOW SOLD OUT) <me-due to rebate support number reached>
$599 - Black and Silver with games
$699 - Aqua with games

The monitor and other bundles use the black card which was priced at £449 for launch (£100 discount), the pre-allocated amount sold out so these are now back to the regular £549 ($599) price but now include the games. But at the time monitor, plus card and games was £1249.99, the saving was the £100 discounted already from the card, but the bonus was the advantage of getting free games. I tried to explain this in the OP.

Now the card is £549, back to normal price (MSRP is $599, the $499 MSRP is launch MSRP for set amount, irrelevant what people believe this is the case and stock has come direct from Sapphire/AMD, they set my buy prices and well selling at $499 loses money unless AMD support it which they did for a set amount which is now sold) As such the price is now £1299, so its only gone up £50 whereas the card went up £100 as Samsung are supporting rebate when sold as a bundle.

So its cheaper than you can buy separately (£550 +£800 = £1350 and no games), the bundle is £1299 with free games. So either you can't add up, or just like myself and most people and customers are highly confused by exactly what AMD have done for this launch, LOL!

BTW not all retailers get the same level or rebate support, same way AIB partners get different incentives at times.
For reference this expands on previous my previous post on the subject.
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...rced-gitg-from-hell.60649/page-9#post-2024738
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...rced-gitg-from-hell.60649/page-9#post-2024676

Anyway I will just refer to this post in future as we are not contributing anything new to this thread and 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.

Edit: 23/03
Toned down.

 

[DavidGraham]

This is a very good point. I would encourage people to try to stick to the Nvidia GPP topic.

My first few posts here were related to the same topic, I never meant to derail this thread, that thought is childish and ridiculous actually, the whole point of someone wanting to derail some discussion is never really fruitful, as the discussion will go back to the original topic no matter what anyone does. This is a forum after all, not some live talk show. Discussions branch and converge all the time.

That said, I suggest we move all the discussions related to the effects of AMD's focused mining efforts in a new thread with an appropriate title.

 

[DavidGraham]

Bitmain and two other chip makers will commence manufacturing Etherium ASIC, as such investment rating for AMD and NVIDIA are adjusted based on the expected hit. AMD will be affected hard by this.

Rolland further estimated that ethereum mining-related sales accounted for about 20% of AMD's sales and 10% of NVIDIA's revenue - strong numbers that if declining, would surely impact share value and company valuation. As a result, the analyst lowered his price target for AMD shares to $7.50 from $13, representing a 29% reduction from Friday's close.

Forecast for NVIDIA shares was also reduced to $200 from $215, but NVIDIA didn't see a downgraded state - it remained at neutral - while AMD was downgraded from neutral to negative. The reasoning? "NVIDIA has a stronger and more durable gaming franchise which would help it work through this potential Ethereum-related unwind," he wrote.

https://www.techpowerup.com/242717/...look-as-bitmain-preps-to-launch-ethereum-asic

On another note AMD continues to do more driver development for miners!

As an added bonus for cryptocurrency miners, this latest driver revision also fixes some issues with lower performance on some blockchain workloads.

https://www.techpowerup.com/242711/amd-releases-radeon-software-adrenalin-18-3-4-beta-drivers

 

[Deleted member 13524]

All they did with the recent driver was fix the cryptonight bug that had been hampering Vega 56/64 hashrate performance on normal drivers.
Vega cards weren't detecting Compute mode on newer drivers, which is why anyone mining e.g. Monero could only use the old drivers from August 2017.

This was not a problem for large-scale miners as those don't give a shit about game optimization updates so they were happy to use the old driver.
There's no "blockchain optimization" to increase mining performance of AMD cards. It only allows gamers with a Vega 56/64 to be able to mine Monero during idle times.

As a gamer who's been using his Vega 64 to mine XMR to keep the house warmer during winter and eventually hold some very solid cryptocurrency that is actively fighting Bitmain's centralized PoW, I welcome these news.
It might also get more gamers onboard to pay more for a Vega card when production scales up and prices go down, if the algorithm change the XMR team is imposing to kill ASIC efficiency is successful (which it should).

 

[DavidGraham]

NVIDIA CEO: cryptocurrency mining “is not our business”

While promoting the benefits of GPUs for the cryptocurrency market, he maintains that cryptocurrency mining is not NVIDIA’s business. Instead, GTC’s major focus is to leverage the power of the GPU in systems like the newly launched DGX-2, Tesla, Drive, and GV100s to make advancements in gaming, workstation, artificial intelligence, healthcare and cloud computing.

“Quite frankly, I prefer that our GPUs are available to be used in those areas,” Huang stated, referring to AI and gaming. “And the reason is that there is so much shortage of GPUs at the moment. It’s hard for us to keep it in stock.”

https://www.digitaltrends.com/compu...-cryptocurrency-mining-is-not-their-business/