Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.



> > 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.


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.


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.


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.


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




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: