6 ms·

I don't get this. Nvidia didn't "bet the farm" on AI. They are simply allocating limited resources (in this case memory) to their most profitable products. Yes,

I don't get this. Nvidia didn't "bet the farm" on AI. They are simply allocating limited resources (in this case memory) to their most profitable products. Yes, it sucks for gamers, but I see Nvidia more reacting to the current marketplace than driving that change. If/when the AI bubble bursts, Nvidia will just readjust their resource allocation accordingly.

TheAmazingRace 11mo ago
I certainly have no delusions of Nvidia going bankrupt. In fact, they will certainly make it to the other side without much issue. That said, I do foresee Nvidia taking a reputational hit, with AMD and (possibly) Intel gaining more mindshare among consumers.
kowbell 11mo ago
I also don't understand common sentiment that if/when the AI bubble pops and hardware manufacturers come crawling back, we consumers are going to make manufacturers regret their decision. Isn't the whole problem that all the manufacturers are pivoting away from consumers and toward AI? How are we going to "hurt Nvidia in the pocketbook?" Buy from their competitors? But they are also making these pivots/"turning their backs on us." Just abstain from buying hardware out of protest? As soon as prices go down there's gonna be a buying frenzy from everyone who's been waiting this whole time.
- ssl-3 11mo ago
  If/when the bubble pops, manufacturers will find that they can't butter their bread like they could when the datacenter craze was booming. In a world that is paved by growth, companies aren't very good at shrinking. It doesn't matter what consumers do or don't do -- we plebians are a tiny portion of their present market. We can buy the same GPUs from the same folks as before, or we can do something different, and it won't matter. Whatever we do will be a rounding error in the jagged, gaping, infected hole where the AI market once was.
  - TheAmazingRace 11mo ago
    This is an even-handed take. I still think consumers in general should vote with their wallets, even if all of them put together won't hold a candle to their datacenter customers. If nothing else, it can grant the competition more market share, and maybe AMD and Intel can invest more into Radeon and Arc, respectively. That can only be a good thing, since I'd love to see more broad support for FSR and XeSS technologies on games, and ROCm and oneAPI for compute.
    - ssl-3 11mo ago
      Oh, for sure. It's often good to bet on the underdog in a competitive market -- it helps ensure that competition continues to exist. When I sold PC hardware, I'd try to find the right fit for a customer's needs and pricepoint. Way back then, that often meant selling systems with relatively-inexpensive Cyrix or AMD CPUs and more RAM instead of systems with more-expensive Intel CPUs that had less RAM at any given price -- because those were good tradeoffs to make. By extension, I did a very small part to help foster competition. But gamers drive the bulk of non-datacenter GPU sales and they don't necessarily act that way. Having observed their behavior for decades, I feel confident in saying that they broadly promote whatever the top dog is today (whether they can afford to be in that club or not), and aren't shy about punching down on those who suggest a less-performant option regardless of its fitness for a particular purpose. Or at least: The ones who behave this way sure do manage to be loud about it. (And in propaganda, loudness counts.) I suspect they'll be fawning over nVidia for as long as nVidia keeps producing what is perceived to be the fastest thing, even if it is made from pure unobtanium.
      - TheAmazingRace 11mo ago
        Now you have me getting misty eyed a bit! I remember when my dad had a Cyrix PC and later an AMD K6 II+ whitebox build. :) At any rate, you do have a point. I can't argue that Nvidia has an inferior product; yet I just wish Nvidia wasn't abusing their position so much.
        11mo ago

TheAmazingRace 11mo ago

I certainly have no delusions of Nvidia going bankrupt. In fact, they will certainly make it to the other side without much issue. That said, I do foresee Nvidia taking a reputational hit, with AMD and (possibly) Intel gaining more mindshare among consumers.

kowbell 11mo ago

I also don't understand common sentiment that if/when the AI bubble pops and hardware manufacturers come crawling back, we consumers are going to make manufacturers regret their decision. Isn't the whole problem that all the manufacturers are pivoting away from consumers and toward AI? How are we going to "hurt Nvidia in the pocketbook?" Buy from their competitors? But they are also making these pivots/"turning their backs on us." Just abstain from buying hardware out of protest? As soon as prices go down there's gonna be a buying frenzy from everyone who's been waiting this whole time.

ssl-3 11mo ago
If/when the bubble pops, manufacturers will find that they can't butter their bread like they could when the datacenter craze was booming. In a world that is paved by growth, companies aren't very good at shrinking. It doesn't matter what consumers do or don't do -- we plebians are a tiny portion of their present market. We can buy the same GPUs from the same folks as before, or we can do something different, and it won't matter. Whatever we do will be a rounding error in the jagged, gaping, infected hole where the AI market once was.
- TheAmazingRace 11mo ago
  This is an even-handed take. I still think consumers in general should vote with their wallets, even if all of them put together won't hold a candle to their datacenter customers. If nothing else, it can grant the competition more market share, and maybe AMD and Intel can invest more into Radeon and Arc, respectively. That can only be a good thing, since I'd love to see more broad support for FSR and XeSS technologies on games, and ROCm and oneAPI for compute.
  - ssl-3 11mo ago
    Oh, for sure. It's often good to bet on the underdog in a competitive market -- it helps ensure that competition continues to exist. When I sold PC hardware, I'd try to find the right fit for a customer's needs and pricepoint. Way back then, that often meant selling systems with relatively-inexpensive Cyrix or AMD CPUs and more RAM instead of systems with more-expensive Intel CPUs that had less RAM at any given price -- because those were good tradeoffs to make. By extension, I did a very small part to help foster competition. But gamers drive the bulk of non-datacenter GPU sales and they don't necessarily act that way. Having observed their behavior for decades, I feel confident in saying that they broadly promote whatever the top dog is today (whether they can afford to be in that club or not), and aren't shy about punching down on those who suggest a less-performant option regardless of its fitness for a particular purpose. Or at least: The ones who behave this way sure do manage to be loud about it. (And in propaganda, loudness counts.) I suspect they'll be fawning over nVidia for as long as nVidia keeps producing what is perceived to be the fastest thing, even if it is made from pure unobtanium.
    - TheAmazingRace 11mo ago
      Now you have me getting misty eyed a bit! I remember when my dad had a Cyrix PC and later an AMD K6 II+ whitebox build. :) At any rate, you do have a point. I can't argue that Nvidia has an inferior product; yet I just wish Nvidia wasn't abusing their position so much.
      - 11mo ago