That or they want to remove software limits on performance to mine cryptocurrency faster.
Only reason they are buying GPUs is that they can run it until something better comes to market and still sell it to some gamer who is actually going to use the hardware for its intended purpose.
More power to Nvidia. If I could make the decision the hashrate of any cryptomining on gaming cards would be 0. Let the crypto-bros buy the crypto cards and leave the gaming cards for people who are actually going to enjoy them.
We shouldn't need to limit hardware for specific usages, but we already see that people won't stop themselves from wasting energy and accelerating world climate if this gives you more wealth and power.
I'd also be up for limiting all military weapons from being so destructive across the globe for example. It's mind blowing how we managed to create so many harmful tools in such a small time span of our history.
But I agree with you when the use case is actually useful for humanity.
I'd love to learn that I'm wrong on the crypto one, give how well widespread is, but I haven't seen any fully convincing argument.
And as far as the gaming goes, I cannot see how playing games is more noble usage of gpu than crypto mining.
If you don't see anything wrong with that then that's about it. I really hope US or China or someone is going to regulate cryptocurrencies to shit so cryto-bros can stop destroying the planet and normal people can again afford GPUs.
Also, for "normal people" there are plenty of 1 and 2Gb videocards at reasonable prices, unusable for mining.
Apart from the ability to check the GPU health, GPU providers could easily implement some hardware “calculation counter” or design specific solution so resell value could be more easily evaluated.
We are trying, but crypto-bros are buying our cards. C'mon pay a bit more attention.
Maybe you should grow up a bit :)
and play PC games how? for some reason I thought people around here were smart
gamers frequently are, you just described a console.
It’s not something I propose, but giving hypothetical example of what would really be fair for both sides
Companies seeking to maximize their revenue is very much the nature of the free market. It's their business, you don't get to tell them how to run it. You're a customer in a market, if you don't find the product acceptable then you can go elsewhere. There are competitors offering products as well, and as a whole this determines a market rate.
If your business is no longer profitable (or profitable enough) paying the market rate, then you go out of business. That is also how the market works. Many, many businesses would be far more profitable if they could force their suppliers to cut their revenue streams.
Miners have responded to the shift in the power dynamic by throwing a tantrum and attacking and blackmailing their suppliers. Bioshock nailed it: laissez-faire is great when you're the one on top, but as soon as someone else out-competes you, or exerts their own market leverage, it's an unfair and ridiculous imposition on your own right to profit, and it's time to shout and flip the game board.
This is exactly what you see with the whole "gamers aren't entitled to cheap cards" thing you said, that was great when miners had more market power than gamers, but everyone leaves off the whole "and miners aren't entitled to cheap cards either", which is equally true. Suppliers are taking note of that market power and moving to take a cut of the revenue for themselves. Customers are free to re-shuffle to new suppliers if they no longer find the terms acceptable. And that's how the free market works.
As always - businesses that are not agile enough to adapt, will "exit the market", and create room for newer, healthier businesses.
And remember, this has been status quo for a long time. If your business depended on CAD, it probably sucked when ATI and NVIDIA started releasing workstation products and artificially limiting CAD performance on gaming cards. The world moved on though.
#notAllMiners
All you're saying is that businesses should sell to whoever makes them the most profit - so how does that explain Nvidia cutting value and lowering the price of their cards to sell to gamers rather than miners?
As much as people are aware of resources being limited on our planet, rarely anybody actively thinks that it’s already becoming a reality, yet it seems like extreme addiction to technology has only just started.
As usual the gaming crowd is utterly lacking in self-awareness.
"Hey, those crypto guys need to stop doing dumb things with GPUs so me and my friends can use that fancy hardware to waste hours of our lives pretending to be soldiers and race-car drivers on our computers in the basement"
Say what you will about the crypto crowd, at least they know people think they're ridiculous.
Miners are just mad that they got a free ride for a lot of years and are now being shifted to their own segment to try and control the infinite demand they tend to periodically create. But they are a money-making asset in a business, nobody cried a tear when AMD and NVIDIA forced Raytheon to pay a premium to buy Quadros to run their CAD software at the full performance levels the hardware is capable of.
Also, generally speaking this arrangement is beneficial for consumers: if you outlawed artificial segmentation tomorrow, companies aren't going to hugely lower their prices and give up all that revenue from the enterprise market, they are going to raise prices in the consumer market. The alternative to gimped Celeron chips isn't that you get Xeon capability for Celeron prices, it's that you pay much closer to Xeon prices for your celeron. Which is like, several times as much.
That R&D has to be paid for somewhere, and margins are not all that huge considering the total lifecycle (the chips are cheap once you make them, but the R&D for the first chip costs billions). You can't just give up 80% of your enterprise revenue and make a go of it. If we really did have Xeon for Celeron prices, the alternative would be much longer product cycles and other belt-tightening in the R&D department. The beige box market has a huge business component too and they won’t have any qualms about an extra $200 on every cpu if that’s what it costs. It’s just gonna suck personally for you as a consumer.
Consumers are the “price sensitive” market that benefits from price discrimination, in this instance, and product segmentation is how you allow that. Take that away and those price-sensitive markets are the ones that will pay more, because business pricing is very inelastic and quantities are very large. They don’t care about you buying one celeron every 5 years as much as the business who buys 1000 office desktops every 3 years.