Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There were plenty of coins AMD hardware was good with, but which coin you chose to run was a function of the power you were willing to burn. Some were memory heavy (Eth), some were core heavy (Zec).
nV was cheaper to buy, had "good enough" returns and easier to get due to supply. Its no surprise they sold a metric crapton of cards.
Also setting memory timings on AMD hardware wasnt the easiest thing.
At one point I was running:
1x VegaFE
1x Threadripper 1950X
11x 7950/7970/R9 280X
4x R9 580 8gb
2x R9 480 4gb
6x R9 290X
1x R9 380
1x 1060 6GB
1x Titan (OG)
2x 750Ti
And some other junk. Power didnt matter at the time so everything was overclocked to the nuts..
EDIT
Will agree AMD cards were harder to set up but I didnt have to babysit them much. If you set up your algorithms correctly they switched fine for me. Afterburner worked fine for the 290X's, and Sapphire Trixx seemed best for the 7900 series cards.
If they did on that scale, it might.Nvidia lied? !!!!!!!!! Yeah, would not be the first time and it will not be the last.
That from my experience mining with about 60 cards from mid 2017 on. I still mine, but only have one rig left and it has Nvidia cards.
Always interesting so see what setups people had churning away all day at the time! Did you manage to sell it all on successfully?
From an accounting perspective, it probably does not matter (or cannot be separated) … but from a business and strategy perspective, it is very important to know where the next opportunity might lie, and where the last one might have ended. Not knowing or analyzing this seems like a big oversight. Is that not why market research is done ?...how can an expert tell if a given video card was sold for mining or gaming?
From an accounting perspective, it probably does not matter (or cannot be separated) … but from a business and strategy perspective, it is very important to know where the next opportunity might lie, and where the last one might have ended. Not knowing or analyzing this seems like a big oversight. Is that not why market research is done ?
How much you talk about that or what predictions you will make public is another story …
Telemetry probably.outside GPUs put into boards without video connections ( mining gpus), how can an expert tell if a given video card was sold for mining or gaming?
What? I thought it was perfectly understandable.How does that have anything to do with what he asked? Words seem kind of mish-mashed together, are you a bot?
He asked how an expert would know, not how nvidia would know.What? I thought it was perfectly understandable.
In short: yes they know, because it is their job to know.
In shorter: Nvidia is royally screwed if they lied... They WILL be found out if sued or investigated.
Took it to mean ' at nvidia' implied.He asked how an expert would know, not how nvidia would know.
As in someone buying second hand.
Nv would just look at total number of cards installed in the system, they dont care about single card gamers mining.
nVer.nGreedia would never lie, would they?
As I've understood it the idea is that Nvidia (in their book keeping) took the difference and used it to cover the losses made after the cryto craze was over. (Nvidia "didn't produce more GPUs than they could sell", you know...)Ok, so I think I know what you're saying... But isn't the "actual" $1.95 billion more than the "reported" $602 million...?
They have tons of inventory allegedly, which would mean they over produced.As I've understood it the idea is that Nvidia (in their book keeping) took the difference and used it to cover the losses made after the cryto craze was over. (Nvidia "didn't produce more GPUs than they could sell", you know...)
That way one can claim that viewed over the entire year the numbers add up, it's just that the swing before/after was a lot bigger.
So a company took advantage of the crypto market and sold a crap load of product at list price and raised the price and sold still more. In most other realities, stockholders would be heaping praise upon the leaders of such a well run company. Instead, stockholders seem pissed that the market demand didn't last forever and as a result, future sales will be returning to what they were before the crypto market bubble.
Oh crap, so I looked it up, yeah its raining lawsuits. ( Might have read about it before and forgot) . One of them alleged senior executives including leather jacket were dumping stock at the right moment.NVDA investors are getting a taste of crypto volatility - it's like being on a rollercoaster that didn't go through any OSHA inspections. You might live, or you might get launched into the parking lot when your seat belt fails.
Whether they can or not, nvidia indicated that they can (at least to some extent) when they said crypto is less than x% of revenue (or however they phrased it). This lawsuit is because someone believes that statement was false or misleading (either because they believe they couldn't know, or they believe nvidia knew but lied in some way).How do either company even figure out their revenue distribution of mining vs gaming? Like, how does NVIDIA know it generated $600 mil in crypto related sales? Do they just use a 3rd party app to see how many people use the cards (kinda like steam for gaming)? and then apply some calculation to say...yeah, we generated this amount of revenue from crypto.
It just seems odd to me that either company needs to separate the two. Its a GPU, sales are sales no matter what someone decides to use it for.
I guess another way to say this is that unless they are doing their own crypto mining, they arent really generating revenue from it. they are just selling gpu's. People use both companies cards to view porn, people use their cards to mine, people use their cards for many various aspects. their revenue should just be based off how many cards they have sold.
I never was big into Crypto, but I was under the impression it was the other way around - AMD was the better performer for most miners. That doesn't mean that nVidia couldn't still command 75% of the market, but I wouldn't go and just assume that it's just because "they are so much more powerful".
Also, this doesn't seem to take into account any ASIC or non-GPU mining activity, of which there was certainly some.
Look if a company DIDN'T take advantage of the bitcoin mining blip they would have been STUPID. What they did that was wrong was hide how much better it made their bottom line look. Someone somewhere gave direction to lie about the impact to their bottom line.
What they SHOULD have done is figured out how far out of scope their sales were, THEN take a percentage of that as 'error' and the rest as profit out of line to expectations and NON SUSTAINABLE and fucking reported it that way.
"Due to mining we had an additional profit of 1.x billion dollars. Due to this being far out of line with what we expect to be able to sustain once the Bitcoin bubble breaks we are not declaring that profit as regular income. As such we are taking that excess profit and allocating it's spend into these areas of our company to allow for greater sustainable growth in the near to far term.
Instead... they said. "LOOK AT US WE ARE TOTALLY AMAZING THIS ISN'T A FLUKE!" And now they get to shit the bed and blame it on the past. They did their future selves no favors and now the future selves get to eat ramen.
I can't get to the article, but that's not what I understood the author was claiming.
My understanding was that the author believes NVidia, hurting from their loss of stock value, undervalued their earnings from the crpto-mining market, supposedly to make the recent downturn in crpto-mining not look so bad. As in "Yes crypto-mining going downhill will have an impact, but it won't be a big impact".
So it's not that they falsified numbers to drive their stock up, it's that they are trying to underplay the impact of reduced sales to miners.
My point is if they had claimed realistic numbers from the start. But accounted for the fact that they were not realistic but would give them a long term boon in R&D and future production costs because they would invest that excess cash in the business. THEN they wouldn't be in the shithole they are in now. Yea hindsight is 20/20. That's all these analysts do.
No sorry I wasn't trying to say Nvidia is in trouble. Other than potential trouble for stock price manipulation if the law wanted to dig into WHY they did what they did. But otherwise yea I agree as a company they are doing fine.