980ti vs. 1060 6gb

[UnknownSouljer]

Yes are right a company only sees profit whether users are blowing away a pile of cards with dynamite or dumping them in the sea but at least they can do is to make different cards for mining purpose tweak them a little bit and raise prices whether normal ones remain same.

Making more variants is not the solution for a very simple reason: there is only so much capacity in total to make any given product, including graphics cards. In other words, would you like nvidia to make half as many video cards as they do now, and have the other half be mining only cards? Obviously it makes more sense even for the consumer, that every card fits both purposes.

This isn’t to say that graphics cards are at capacity at every fab, but even if they were to make more product, why would they make a product that was limited to a single segment, when one generalized product can be sold to two? It would cost them significantly more to have two SKUs. In having to make another product design, another line of physical fabrication, placement into distribution channels, and so on.

(As a side note, this is far different than having differentiated graphics cards sold to different segments, as that market segmentation is designed to make them more money without any significant added cost. IE: extreme editions, or editions with better cooling etc.)

It makes sense for them to attempt to make more cards, but also no one wants to take that risk currently. There is definitely a saturation point for all these miners, and no manufacturer wants to be caught on the other side of it when it pops. And because all of this is speculative (and I mean that nvidia and ati would have to speculate on when this will happen), they don’t have an interest in ramping up production until the demand is so rabid that they are losing a significant amount of sales due to lack of product. As it stands, they’re enjoying being on the supply side for a change.

Volta is also around the corner. If nvidia is trying to counter, or sell more, then it also makes sense that their goal would be to have that be the ramp in production, rather than last gen cards. Also speculation.

But just like the HD crash in 2011 due to the tsunami, this can’t last forever. So if you’re good with money and have this thing called patience, it will sort itself out.

 

[Algrim]

Personally, I'm not concerned with power draw. Most high-end users aren't.

One card, no. Two or more cards, it starts to make a difference when on the same circuit.

I purchased both a 1070 and a 1080 and my overclocked 980 Ti was faster by 20% against the 1070 and 7% against the 1080. Thus I returned them and kept them my 980 Ti.

So you didn't overclock either the 1070 or 1080 and were surprised that an overclocked prior generation flagship (GM200) was keeping up or exceeding a stock GP104? Comparison is useless unless you're saying that both your 1070 and 1080 were overclocked as well and also doesn't match any overclock comparison between the three cards. 1600+ core 980 Tis are rather rare beasts (you claim a 60% overclock—excuse me, almost 60%—which means you're at or around 1720, an even more rarefied strata which makes me wonder how good you are with percentages). Pat yourself on the back for getting so lucky with the silicon lottery.

EDIT: Welcome to a year-and-a-half old discussion:

https://hardforum.com/threads/1080-...k-oc-vs-980-stock-oc-vs-970-stock-oc.1902897/

EDIT2: A 980 Ti is going to walk all over a 1060. Even the 980 Tis that don't overclock well.

 

[Deleted member 278999]

So you didn't overclock either the 1070 or 1080 and were surprised that an overclocked prior generation flagship (GM200) was keeping up or exceeding a stock GP104?

I did indeed overclock them.

... you claim a 60% overclock—excuse me, almost 60%—which means you're at or around 1720, an even more rarefied strata which makes me wonder how good you are with percentages

Why are you being a dilapidated, ignorant conceded kleenex about this?

I do statistics day in and day out.

https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-980-ti/specifications

((1,600/1000)=1.6)-1=.6 or 60% in percentage land

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

EDIT2: A 980 Ti is going to walk all over a 1060. Even the 980 Tis that don't overclock well.

Yep.

 

[Algrim]

I mistook the 1075 boost clock for base. Even so, 1600 clocks are quite rare. Again, pat yourself on the back for having a golden sample.

 

[BinarySynapse]

I mistook the 1075 boost clock for base. Even so, 1600 clocks are quite rare. Again, pat yourself on the back for having a golden sample.

I couldn't get my old 980TI to go past 1420 without having the driver shit on itself.

 

[Revenant_Knight]

I couldn't get my old 980TI to go past 1420 without having the driver shit on itself.

My 980ti seems happy around 1450 to 1500. If I crank the fan to 100% I can hit 1550-1600, but it's too loud. I did get lucky though in that I had over 80% ASIC quality.

 

[SixFootDuo]

980 Ti is about 40% faster than a 1060. I know, I have both.

Also, this - http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-980-Ti-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1060-6GB/3439vs3639

 

[geforce man]

I am going to state first of all that the following is my opinion, as I have no way of verifying if you have some magical setup that defies every other setup in existence.

You are also trying to say that 1075 was the boost that 980ti's did from the factory. This is not true. The published boost was 1075, but take any non reference 980ti, install the drivers, fire up some software that monitors clock speeds, and I can almost guarantee you they are hitting 1175-1225 range boost. (with altering no clocks).

Here is an example, with using just a reference model: https://www.anandtech.com/show/9306/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/2 (Sorry [H] I couldn't find applicable table in your review!!)

My 1070 for example, with zero modification, and stock installation of drivers, boosts to 1920Mhz. which is a further 200Mhz higher than it is even supposed to.

I call extreme BS on a max'd out 980TI beating out a max oc'd 1080. The only thing I can think of is PEBCAK when installing the 1070 / 1080. I went from a 980ti to a 1070, and in EVERY game, when both were Air cooled non v-modded max oc'd via sliders / powertune only, the 1070 wins. We are talking anywhere from 5% to 20% depending on the game. This is at 2k resolution. 2560x1440.

My results are mirrored in nearly every single review out there. The sample I had (980ti) clocked easily to 1450 Mhz core, sustained. the 1070 was at a "Very average" 2020Mhz. Trying to imagine that your extra 150Mhz would make up the deficit entirely, especially if you had a better overclocking 1070, just isn't working for me.

Moral of the extreme wall of text: The 980ti was / is still a great card. But I do not understand some of this rabid "defense" of a card, which nobody is attacking, stating something that goes against every single reviewer / user out there. I'm not calling anyone out in particular, I am seeing a couple people doing this.

 

[Revenant_Knight]

Like I did on the first page, I'm just going to leave this right here.

 

[elites2012]

If I recall from benchmarks the 980Ti is roughly equal to a GTX1070. It would outperform a 1060, but suck up a whole lot more power doing so.

i told someone this in a facebook group. they called me a liar. i believe the same think you said.

 

[50Cal]

980 TI with a custom bios (extreme OC like 1.5-1.6) and water cooling gave me 4k 60fps on mid to high settings (no AA). Head over to the 980ti owners forums on overclock and see for yourself, just make sure you have the cooling to do it. My 980 Ti went toe to toe with 1080s. I only upgraded to a 1080 Ti because of microcenters awesome protection policy and for less power consumption. There have been plenty of 1080 owners (with buyers remorse) that like to shit on the 980 Ti because you can get the same performance out of these cards that the 1080 owners paid more for.

 

[Batboy88]

980 TI with a custom bios (extreme OC like 1.5-1.6) and water cooling gave me 4k 60fps on mid to high settings (no AA). Head over to the 980ti owners forums on overclock and see for yourself, just make sure you have the cooling to do it. My 980 Ti went toe to toe with 1080s. I only upgraded to a 1080 Ti because of microcenters awesome protection policy and for less power consumption. There have been plenty of 1080 owners (with buyers remorse) that like to shit on the 980 Ti because you can get the same performance out of these cards that the 1080 owners paid more for.

oh both yall totally right, 1060 kinda loses a little bench wise.

 

[cjcox]

Indeed these crypto miners are insane and because of them, gamers are suffering. I wonder when GPU companies ban mining on desktop graphics cards.

Hey card manufacturer, could you stop making money hand over fist and go back to days of average to moderate sales.... thanks!

(not every company would do this, well maybe AMD)

 

[RamonGTP]

You realize no company on earth actually cares what you do with their product right? They only care if they sell them.
nVidia and ATi wouldn't care if some billionaire bought every chip off the fab and then dumped it all into a pit, filled the pit with dynamite, blew them up, and then filled the top with 100ft of concrete and rebar.
As long as they're making the cash no other interest will be served. Do not fool yourself. These companies are not your friend. Their goal is to make money. Creating a superior product (or even just a product) is to meet their goal of making money. The sooner you realize that, the more obvious market forces become and also that spending money to benefit any company makes zero sense. In other words, serve yourself with your purchases. These companies do not deserve your loyalty. Not one of them.

Companies are also interested in long term profitability. When talking about consumer GPUs, gamers are their long-term bread and butter. Miners are a short term gain. Gamers will be around forever, miners will be around until it's no longer profitable to mine. If gamers start getting pushed out of the market due to cost or lack of availability or both, so it's not quite as simple as you think it is. There's a reason why nVidia is requesting that retailers put a buy limit on their GPU's

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Companies are also interested in long term profitability. When talking about consumer GPUs, gamers are their long-term bread and butter. Miners are a short term gain. Gamers will be around forever, miners will be around until it's no longer profitable to mine. If gamers start getting pushed out of the market due to cost or lack of availability or both, so it's not quite as simple as you think it is. There's a reason why nVidia is requesting that retailers put a buy limit on their GPU's

Your own statement contradicts itself.

#1) Gamers will be around forever.
#2) Miners create profit in the short term.
So, with all things there are several lines that can happen. But notably:
#3) Therefore AMD/nVidia make profit in the short term with mining, then go back to making profit with gamers.

There is zero downside for them. The market will correct itself. The only possible argument is the problem of them increasing supply (manufacturing at a higher rate than usual) and having the increased mining demand fall out (creating surplus). But considering AMD has experienced this before, it's unlikely that they will push to generate GPUs faster than they did before the "mining craze". So, if they are "only" producing the same amount of cards as before whether miners are buying "all" the cards or not, their steady stream of income remains unchanged.
And like you say, it's not as if gamers will go away, so eventually as the miners will go away and slowly the prices come back down, gamers will then be snapping up cards for some time as they haven't had viable upgrade paths for half a year. Undoubtedly some people will prefer to buy used to save money (likely from old mining farms), but that is always the case (as in there is always a subset of the market that will prefer to buy used for less rather than new). And as noted above, if they aren't making any more chips than they normally would, the same amount of chips exist in the world whether there are miners or not. Meaning that a so-called "GPU flood" on the used market would only be able to last for a relatively short period of time. Perhaps a quarter. Meanwhile, they'd still sell every new card they make as a part of the market always prefers new and/or has a negative view on cards that have been used to mine with.

"Gamers getting pushed out of the market" literally affects AMD and nVidia not at all. Because as I noted, if gamers are going to be around forever, they will eventually buy a card. They have no alternative, other than to cease to be a gamer. If anything you're explaining more why they'll be okay.

So, if you are going to come up with how this is negative for AMD or nVidia, you're going to have to have a much better argument than that. Because all you've stated is that there is demand on top of demand. Which, if you study economics 101, in any economic model is always good for the supplier.

===

EDIT: Also as a side note, I wouldn't necessarily state either that gamers are the bread and butter either. If anything, these chip manufacturers are realizing how foolish it is to only have one income stream. This is why there is such a fight, and why it's such a big deal to get to design/manufacture a GPU for a game console.

This is also why GPGPU is such a big deal. And you're also neglecting the professional market. This isn't to say that gamers aren't an important segment. But gamers are fickle and volatile. Far more than you seem to think they are. They also tend to consume the least expensive cards (which of course does have profitability, I'm not saying it doesn't). Whereas the scientific community as an example will always buy, and always buy new. And not just a few GPUs, but a whole farm full of them. And not cheap GPUs either.

They might sell in total cards less to professionals and the science market, but those two income streams are far more reliable and dependable than gamers. And this is when only talking about actually buying individual cards. Really where the even bigger and deeper pocket are at is in OEMs and securing those contracts. Which is another reason why AMD and nVidia will be fine with miners or not. Since they have secure contracts with Dell, HP and everyone else, they will continue to sell 1000's of GPUs on contract.

 

[RamonGTP]

Your own statement contradicts itself.

#1) Gamers will be around forever.
#2) Miners create profit in the short term.
So, with all things there are several lines that can happen. But notably:
#3) Therefore AMD/nVidia make profit in the short term with mining, then go back to making profit with gamers.

There is zero downside for them. The market will correct itself. The only possible argument is the problem of them increasing supply (manufacturing at a higher rate than usual) and having the increased mining demand fall out (creating surplus). But considering AMD has experienced this before, it's unlikely that they will push to generate GPUs faster than they did before the "mining craze". So, if they are "only" producing the same amount of cards as before whether miners are buying "all" the cards or not, their steady stream of income remains unchanged.
And like you say, it's not as if gamers will go away, so eventually as the miners will go away and slowly the prices come back down, gamers will then be snapping up cards for some time as they haven't had viable upgrade paths for half a year. Undoubtedly some people will prefer to buy used to save money (likely from old mining farms), but that is always the case (as in there is always a subset of the market that will prefer to buy used for less rather than new). And as noted above, if they aren't making any more chips than they normally would, the same amount of chips exist in the world whether there are miners or not. Meaning that a so-called "GPU flood" on the used market would only be able to last for a relatively short period of time. Perhaps a quarter. Meanwhile, they'd still sell every new card they make as a part of the market always prefers new and/or has a negative view on cards that have been used to mine with.

"Gamers getting pushed out of the market" literally affects AMD and nVidia not at all. Because as I noted, if gamers are going to be around forever, they will eventually buy a card. They have no alternative, other than to cease to be a gamer. If anything you're explaining more why they'll be okay.

So, if you are going to come up with how this is negative for AMD or nVidia, you're going to have to have a much better argument than that. Because all you've stated is that there is demand on top of demand. Which, if you study economics 101, in any economic model is always good for the supplier.

===

EDIT: Also as a side note, I wouldn't necessarily state either that gamers are the bread and butter either. If anything, these chip manufacturers are realizing how foolish it is to only have one income stream. This is why there is such a fight, and why it's such a big deal to get to design/manufacture a GPU for a game console.

This is also why GPGPU is such a big deal. And you're also neglecting the professional market. This isn't to say that gamers aren't an important segment. But gamers are fickle and volatile. Far more than you seem to think they are. They also tend to consume the least expensive cards (which of course does have profitability, I'm not saying it doesn't). Whereas the scientific community as an example will always buy, and always buy new. And not just a few GPUs, but a whole farm full of them. And not cheap GPUs either.

They might sell in total cards less to professionals and the science market, but those two income streams are far more reliable and dependable than gamers. And this is when only talking about actually buying individual cards. Really where the even bigger and deeper pocket are at is in OEMs and securing those contracts. Which is another reason why AMD and nVidia will be fine with miners or not. Since they have secure contracts with Dell, HP and everyone else, they will continue to sell 1000's of GPUs on contract.

If it contradicts itself it’s beciase you don’t understand it. In the absence of miners gamers will be around. If they can’t get a card because of miners they’ll still be around, but they won’t be buying nvidia hardware, they’ll migrate to consoles for the simple fact that they don’t have a choice.

I didn’t bother reading your novel beyond the first 20 or so words, but I’ll just reiterate if all they cared about was sales and didn’t care who the sales went to, they would not be requesting purchase limits. It’s very clear they have zero problems selling every GPU they make and this they are trying to protect their more valuable clients in the consumer space, that being the gamers.

If they were sitting on a stack of unsold GPUs then you’d have a point, but they aren’t, and that’s affecting their base consumer.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

If it contradicts itself it’s beciase you don’t understand it. In the absence of miners gamers will be around. If they can’t get a card because of miners they’ll still be around, but they won’t be buying nvidia hardware, they’ll migrate to consoles for the simple fact that they don’t have a choice.

Take an economics class. Goods aren’t necessarily interchangeable. The utility isn’t the same. Or are you arguing that people will also just stop using computers full stop?

Also, who makes the GPUs for said consoles? They don’t come from nowhere. So you’re saying that they’ll still make a profit? Surprise.

And they'll come back and buy cards after the mining craze is over? Surprise.

I’m sorry I have to be this sarcastic. But considering I LITERALLY went over all these things in my above post. Being redundant is slightly annoying.

I didn’t bother reading your novel beyond the first 20 or so words,

Right. If you’re too ADD to read a post breaking down point by point why you’re wrong maybe a discussion forum is the wrong hobby for you.

At the very least you should consider not replying then, because then you’d have at least the leg of silence to stand on when you repeat yourself with arguments that have already been refuted.

but I’ll just reiterate if all they cared about was sales and didn’t care who the sales went to, they would not be requesting purchase limits. It’s very clear they have zero problems selling every GPU they make and this they are trying to protect their more valuable clients in the consumer space, that being the gamers.

That has more to do with PR and consumer perception than it does with anything else.

And one type of customer isn’t more valuable than another when they are selling everything they make no matter what.

If they were sitting on a stack of unsold GPUs then you’d have a point, but they aren’t, and that’s affecting their base consumer.

I discussed this as well. It affects nvidia and and not at all. Once again, learn basic economics.

Having demand stacked on top of demand can never be bad for the supplier. There is literally no case in which it can be. If this “problem” lasts forever, they will be super happy.

So, you need to figure out your points, and also learn some patience to read things. Or otherwise don’t bother with replying.

 

[RamonGTP]

There is a case where it can be, you're just too dense to see it even though it was quite literally, spelled out for you. I'll do you one better, I'll give you a real life example, such an instance happened during the mortgage crisis a few years back. People aiming for short term profits and throwing caution to the wind when it comes to long term outcome. You can lead a horse to water...

To answer your question, GPUs in consoles come from AMD currently and has very marginal profits. How much does Vega video card alone cost compared to the price of a ready to play console? So your argument fails on that front as well.

My not reading your entire post had nothing to do with ADD, It had everything to do with recognizing how nonsensical it was after the first few words and there was no need to waste my time reading what was obviously a shit filled post.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

There is a case where it can be, you're just too dense to see it even though it was quite literally, spelled out for you. I'll do you one better, I'll give you a real life example, such an instance happened during the mortgage crisis a few years back. People aiming for short term profits and throwing caution to the wind when it comes to long term outcome. You can lead a horse to water...

This is literally not remotely comparable.
#1) The housing market isn't being all sold by a few corporations.
#2) The housing market and its bubble was caused by predatory loaning, which does not remotely equate to anything happening in mining. There were some other factors such as selling risk on loans as a packaged security to people that knew nothing about what they were buying as well. But even with breaking all of this down, it shows more that you don't know what happened in 2008. Because the 2008 economic crash had nothing to do with there being demand that outstripped supply. So much as creating a bubble due to selling loans that should have never been sold.
#3) AMD and nVidia aren't trying to push "short term profits". They are simply selling their product to whomever wants it. Because there are no substitutes on their product (other than substitutes they literally manufacture themselves) no matter what they gain.
#4) Even if you wanted to make the argument that a big crash occured, and "it was bad" and so therefore relates to what's happening now with GPUs: guess what? The banks won. As in, they won all of the profit. If that's your example that in the end the corporations make out with all the cash, then that is literally what AMD and nVidia would want to happen.
#5) I would say in this case, you're the one being quite dense. As there is not a single economic principle you can point to that shows this is bad for AMD or nVidia. Stating that this is bad for the consumer is besides the point.

What you seem to not understand is that what is bad for gamers isn't necessarily bad for nVidia or AMD. Like I noted in the very first post I put up in this thread: AMD and nVidia do not care at all what you do with their product. If you want to buy 1 million GPUs and then dump them into a pit and cover the pit with cement, they make the same amount of money either way. In fact that scenario would be good for them, as it would cause demand to shoot up (as no one else would have their product). Which as you'll note, is much like what is happening now.

To answer your question, GPUs in consoles come from AMD currently and has very marginal profits. How much does Vega video card alone cost compared to the price of a ready to play console? So your argument fails on that front as well.

Fails how? So you admit that every GPU that AMD has is selling and every nVidia GPU that they have is also selling. So then people are going to alternatives that happen to also be made by AMD and those sell more? Yeah, seems really bad for them. They are hurting so much with how much people constantly buy their stuff to the point of being sold out all the time.

My not reading your entire post had nothing to do with ADD, It had everything to do with recognizing how nonsensical it was after the first few words and there was no need to waste my time reading what was obviously a shit filled post.

You've failed now on multiple posts now to explain to me how ANY company on the face of the planet would look at demand on top of demand as remotely bad for the suppliers. You keep saying the same things over and over. You can't get it through your head that no matter what you think selling everything can't be bad for them. If that's the problem that any company is facing, then they will gladly take that problem 100 out of 100 times. What, do you think these business want? To NOT sell everything? Show me any piece of economic literature in which a company wants to NOT sell everything they make.
This is, quite in fact price inelasticity of demand. There are no substitute goods (despite your thinking game consoles are. For some they are, for core PC gamers they are not). You can read about deterrents to price elasticity of demand here. As long as there are no substitutes, and also you'll note the "breadth definition of a good" on GPU's is quite narrow, demand will be high. Demand high means they'll continue on this trend happily.

So before you say anything is "shit posting" try actually educating yourself. Because all of your statements make zero sense according to basic economic principles. Just because you don't understand something, or don't like something doesn't make it less true. And if I am wrong, state why I'm wrong using economics. I challenge you to site ANYTHING in any piece of economic academic literature to prove your case.

Try reading about what occurs economically with a shortage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortage
Doing that one piece of reading might save us both a bunch of headaches.
And for supplemental reading you can try just reading about basic Supply and demand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

And so you're aware. It's not that I'm saying I like the state of these things. You're in here getting emotional. I'm trying to tell you that economics don't care. These companies don't care. In a supply shortage they hold the cards and they will milk every dime they can from it. They aren't trying to help consumers (or for clarities sake, gamers), they don't need to help them. Much like cigarette companies, they don't care if their product even kills you. So long as they sell. So this isn't about whether I like these things or what is good for the consumer, this has to do with reality. And gamers aren't even the core audience, like I've said before. Their shareholders are. And can you guess what shareholders like? (In case you haven't figured it out, it's selling literally everything the company they have shares in makes).

===

EDIT: Even if you want to continue to talk about "how much this hurts gamers": I think this piece of information from the Nvidia telling retailers to stop selling to miners thread is quite illuminating:

I think Nvidia is trying to pull the wool over the gamer's eyes! Did anyone watch Nvidia's press event at this years CES 2018? Jensen talks about the 3 markets Nvidia is in.

1.) Gaming $100 Billion Industry

2.) Artificial Intelligence $3 Trillion Industry

3.) Autonomous Vehicles $10 Trillion Transportation Industry

Now which one do you think Nvidia really cares about? Remember money talks, bullshit walks.

In fact, read that thread for a while. Because if you for whatever reason can't get what I'm telling you, maybe that entire thread will hammer it in for you. There are some folks in there whom also don't understand economics either, so you'll get to agree with their points, and then also be faced with people that do understand at least basic economics, like the Airbrushkid quote I posted above. And for kicks on page 3 you can actually learn about mining and understand its mechanics as well, including at least a little bit economically.

 

[RamonGTP]

Another shit filled posts. I get that it makes you feel superior by being a self proclaimed economics guru and telling people to educate themselves, but if you had even half the economics prowess you think you have, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that you think you have it figured out, but the very simple concept of focusing on customers that will continue to buy your products in the long run eludes you, is comedic and a bit sad at the same time.

But hey... you're the "expert"

 

[SixFootDuo]

No. See above, and stop spreading falsehoods.

980 Ti is 15% slower than a stock 1070.

No, it's not 15% it's actually around 1% or 2% slower ... OR ... slightly faster if you OC your 980 ti

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-980-Ti-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1070/3439vs3609

 

[Shintai]

It depends what games you are using. But overall a 980TI is close to a 1070, specially due to its memory speed. 336GB vs 256GB/sec. A 1070 will pretty much always win tho, even when OCed. In the few cases the 1070 is ~15% faster than the 980TI.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Another shit filled posts. I get that it makes you feel superior by being a self proclaimed economics guru and telling people to educate themselves, but if you had even half the economics prowess you think you have, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that you think you have it figured out, but the very simple concept of focusing on customers that will continue to buy your products in the long run eludes you, is comedic and a bit sad at the same time.

But hey... you're the "expert"

It's easier to do ad hominem attacks then actually put up a defense.

I've given you numbers. I've given you sources. You've given only what you "think" is happening. Now while even being challenged, you haven't been able to site anything. Not even a single link. No economic proof. No business proof. Just how you think it works. Which is not how it does at all.

So instead you say my post is "shit filled" while having nothing of any real substance to say. Ironically you think I'm the one acting arrogant. Meanwhile you place your fingers in your ears and proclaim "fake news". Even your citing of the 2008 crash was entirely incorrect. But rather than try to learn anything, you simply continue on. If you want to continue to be willfully ignorant, fine. But what I find particularly infuriating is the willful ignorance combined with the arrogance. So all that to say, if my posts are "shit filled" then yours are filled with precisely nothing. Devoid of thought, logic, reason, or sources.

I haven't made any claims to being an economics guru. I've simply posted basic economics information. Stuff anyone should've learned in high school or perhaps in general education in college. This isn't more than having an expectation of knowing basic algebra. Still you refuse even to read or know the most basic principles. Even when presented with them.

This is even when presenting evidence of "who the primary customers are". Which isn't gamers. Gamers are nothing in comparison with people buying for AI (the market size being 30x greater than the gaming market) and automotive (100x greater than the gaming market). Even if ALL the gamers went away nVidia and AMD would still be sitting pretty. But you haven't addressed that either.

So thumbs up, if you won for yourself, fine. But as long as you choose to not understand things, then people will be able to manipulate you through your ignorance. As a result, I would highly suggest never starting your own business.

 

[Stoly]

It's easier to do ad hominem attacks then actually put up a defense.

I've given you numbers. I've given you sources. You've given only what you "think" is happening. Now while even being challenged, you haven't been able to site anything. Not even a single link. No economic proof. No business proof. Just how you think it works. Which is not how it does at all.

So instead you say my post is "shit filled" while having nothing of any real substance to say. Ironically you think I'm the one acting arrogant. Meanwhile you place your fingers in your ears and proclaim "fake news". Even your citing of the 2008 crash was entirely incorrect. But rather than try to learn anything, you simply continue on. If you want to continue to be willfully ignorant, fine. But what I find particularly infuriating is the willful ignorance combined with the arrogance. So all that to say, if my posts are "shit filled" then yours are filled with precisely nothing. Devoid of thought, logic, reason, or sources.

I haven't made any claims to being an economics guru. I've simply posted basic economics information. Stuff anyone should've learned in high school or perhaps in general education in college. This isn't more than having an expectation of knowing basic algebra. Still you refuse even to read or know the most basic principles. Even when presented with them.

This is even when presenting evidence of "who the primary customers are". Which isn't gamers. Gamers are nothing in comparison with people buying for AI (the market size being 30x greater than the gaming market) and automotive (100x greater than the gaming market). Even if ALL the gamers went away nVidia and AMD would still be sitting pretty. But you haven't addressed that either.

So thumbs up, if you won for yourself, fine. But as long as you choose to not understand things, then people will be able to manipulate you through your ignorance. As a result, I would highly suggest never starting your own business.

Just so you know, Jen Hsun has repeatedly stated that its main income is gaming cards. Just take a look at its financial reports from ANY year. Even the rest of the markets combined can't match gaming market.

http://s22.q4cdn.com/364334381/file..._reports/2018/Rev_by_Mkt_Qtrly_Trend_Q118.pdf

So maybe, just maybe your 30x greater than gaming market is... lets say a little bit exagerated

 

[RamonGTP]

It's easier to do ad hominem attacks then actually put up a defense.

I've given you numbers. I've given you sources. You've given only what you "think" is happening. Now while even being challenged, you haven't been able to site anything. Not even a single link. No economic proof. No business proof. Just how you think it works. Which is not how it does at all.

So instead you say my post is "shit filled" while having nothing of any real substance to say. Ironically you think I'm the one acting arrogant. Meanwhile you place your fingers in your ears and proclaim "fake news". Even your citing of the 2008 crash was entirely incorrect. But rather than try to learn anything, you simply continue on. If you want to continue to be willfully ignorant, fine. But what I find particularly infuriating is the willful ignorance combined with the arrogance. So all that to say, if my posts are "shit filled" then yours are filled with precisely nothing. Devoid of thought, logic, reason, or sources.

I haven't made any claims to being an economics guru. I've simply posted basic economics information. Stuff anyone should've learned in high school or perhaps in general education in college. This isn't more than having an expectation of knowing basic algebra. Still you refuse even to read or know the most basic principles. Even when presented with them.

This is even when presenting evidence of "who the primary customers are". Which isn't gamers. Gamers are nothing in comparison with people buying for AI (the market size being 30x greater than the gaming market) and automotive (100x greater than the gaming market). Even if ALL the gamers went away nVidia and AMD would still be sitting pretty. But you haven't addressed that either.

So thumbs up, if you won for yourself, fine. But as long as you choose to not understand things, then people will be able to manipulate you through your ignorance. As a result, I would highly suggest never starting your own business.

you Know you’ve lost the argument when I’m comparing gamers to miners and you’re talking about a completely different segment of the market. Yeah I get it. You’re an economics expert that doesn’t know much about economics. Are you a professional swimmer who’s never been in a pool as well?

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Just so you know, Jen Hsun has repeatedly stated that its main income is gaming cards. Just take a look at its financial reports from ANY year. Even the rest of the markets combined can't match gaming market.

http://s22.q4cdn.com/364334381/file..._reports/2018/Rev_by_Mkt_Qtrly_Trend_Q118.pdf

So maybe, just maybe your 30x greater than gaming market is... lets say a little bit exagerated

Not at all. I perhaps slightly misquoted in the sense that what I quoted is the size of the market versus what you're talking about which is what they're currently making money on. You're looking at where the puck is now. nVidia is to say the least, more concerned about where the puck is going. You're a fool if you think that this is where they're going to go for their money in the future. If you're a company going after profit, which slice would you rather have, the smaller one or the bigger one? So rolleye if you like. nVidia themselves have shown where they are placing their development. So if you wanted to see where the info I got came from in terms of the man himself, watch nVidia's 2018 CES keynote.



5:55 - NVIDIA Gaming and BFGDs - Big Format Gaming Displays
13:15 - The World's AI Platform
21:19 - NVIDIA TensorRT - 10x better data center cost of ownership
29:33 - NVIDIA Research in AI
34:54 - AI revolutionizes driving and trucking
40:50 - NVIDIA Xavier SoC sampling in Q1
49:20 - NVIDIA DRIVE AV
56:46 - New NVIDIA auto partners - ZF, Baidu, Aurora, Uber
1:00:10 - NVIDIA DRIVE functional safety architecture and simulation demo
1:14:40 - Announcing DRIVE IX and DRIVE AR
1:24:05 - Volkswagen and NVIDIA partner on VW I.D. Buzz

They spent 13 minutes at the top talking about gamers. Then proceeded to talk over an hour about every other segment they're involved in (which is AI, transportation, machine learning, partnerships with Tesla, etc). You tell me which one they're investing all their money in and why. Because if I go with what you think the future is in, you're leaving all the money on the table. Those numbers are all from Jensen Huang himself (The 10 trillion dollar industry as an example appears at 58:40. Yeah, they want that market).

nVidia's goal is to eat Intels lunch. Which he dialogs about constantly throughout the keynote (not directly, but indirectly, constantly talking about how many CPUs it would take to process vs GPUs). His goal simply is to take up all the processing space using GPGPU. Which to say the least is not the gamer space. Listen to him talk about the Xavier Autonomous Vehicle chip. The amount of R&D money and engineering time that went into it far outstrips any gaming GPU they make or will ever make quite frankly. And if you think they did so without the knowledge and intent that this will make them trillions, I don't know what to tell you. Because you're looking behind instead of looking ahead.

That's just one example. The rest of the keynote does this multiple times, like with machine learning, AI and TensorRT. So if you want to get into this and talk about what is "short term profits" versus where the real money is and what that is for the future. It isn't going to be "miners taking away GPU's from gamers" it's going to be entirely different revenue streams. And I gotta tell you, once again, as I've had to keep harping on in this thread: they will go to the deep pockets where the real money is, and they do not care about gamers so much as they care about making money.

You and RamonGTP are busy looking at surface level stuff. Look at the big picture. Not because "I'm telling you to" or "I'm so smart" but if it helps you: because that's what nVidia is doing. I'm not saying I'm the brilliant mind behind any of this. I'm just saying open your eyes and look at what nVidia themselves are doing. How they are spending their time. Their influence. And R&D money.

you Know you’ve lost the argument when I’m comparing gamers to miners and you’re talking about a completely different segment of the market. Yeah I get it. You’re an economics expert that doesn’t know much about economics. Are you a professional swimmer who’s never been in a pool as well?

You don't seem to get that nVidia and AMD both don't care if they sell GPUs or a useless widget. They also don't care who they sell to. They look at the market and they figure out one thing: who is going to make me money. If it's miners it's miners. Which is where we are. This whole discussion has been academic about "what is bad for GPU manufacturers". You've failed over and over again at how selling everything they make is bad for them. Because it's not. They don't care who the cards go to. Miners, AI, Transportation, and yes gamers. If they sell everything they make, they're happy. The market segment doesn't matter and they don't care. Especially when we're literally talking about ONE PRODUCT getting sold to all of those segments.

So no, you don't seem to get it. Because each of these markets are creating demand for the one thing that nVidia makes: GPUs. You do seem to get that they're finite. But you don't seem to get that they only care about the markets that are and will be paying them money. Or more specifically the biggest pieces of pie. If in a few years they find out that in order to meet the demand of AI and autonomous vehicles that they have to give all their fab space to manufacturing those GPUs and they have to drop the gaming market, you'd better believe that they will in a hot second because that's way more money than gamers will ever provide. And that isn't anything other than economics and business sense.
So you think I'm going off on tangents: I'm not, but you keep bringing up comparisons that don't even make sense, while making feeble attempts at attacking my character.

 

[RamonGTP]

And you don't seem to get the concept of alienating a loyal customer base. The only thing you've proven here is having basic economics knowledge doesn't equate to being a good business man and have quite literally zero concept of long term prospect. Glad you're not at the helm of nViida. Otherwise gamers would really be screwed, but then again, you'd only last as long as mining was a thing.

You are doing the exact opposite of looking at the big picture.

 

[Stoly]

Not at all. I perhaps slightly misquoted in the sense that what I quoted is the size of the market versus what you're talking about which is what they're currently making money on. You're looking at where the puck is now. nVidia is to say the least, more concerned about where the puck is going. You're a fool if you think that this is where they're going to go for their money in the future. If you're a company going after profit, which slice would you rather have, the smaller one or the bigger one? So rolleye if you like. nVidia themselves have shown where they are placing their development. So if you wanted to see where the info I got came from in terms of the man himself, watch nVidia's 2018 CES keynote.



5:55 - NVIDIA Gaming and BFGDs - Big Format Gaming Displays
13:15 - The World's AI Platform
21:19 - NVIDIA TensorRT - 10x better data center cost of ownership
29:33 - NVIDIA Research in AI
34:54 - AI revolutionizes driving and trucking
40:50 - NVIDIA Xavier SoC sampling in Q1
49:20 - NVIDIA DRIVE AV
56:46 - New NVIDIA auto partners - ZF, Baidu, Aurora, Uber
1:00:10 - NVIDIA DRIVE functional safety architecture and simulation demo
1:14:40 - Announcing DRIVE IX and DRIVE AR
1:24:05 - Volkswagen and NVIDIA partner on VW I.D. Buzz

They spent 13 minutes at the top talking about gamers. Then proceeded to talk over an hour about every other segment they're involved in (which is AI, transportation, machine learning, partnerships with Tesla, etc). You tell me which one they're investing all their money in and why. Because if I go with what you think the future is in, you're leaving all the money on the table. Those numbers are all from Jensen Huang himself (The 10 trillion dollar industry as an example appears at 58:40. Yeah, they want that market).

nVidia's goal is to eat Intels lunch. Which he dialogs about constantly throughout the keynote (not directly, but indirectly, constantly talking about how many CPUs it would take to process vs GPUs). His goal simply is to take up all the processing space using GPGPU. Which to say the least is not the gamer space. Listen to him talk about the Xavier Autonomous Vehicle chip. The amount of R&D money and engineering time that went into it far outstrips any gaming GPU they make or will ever make quite frankly. And if you think they did so without the knowledge and intent that this will make them trillions, I don't know what to tell you. Because you're looking behind instead of looking ahead.

That's just one example. The rest of the keynote does this multiple times, like with machine learning, AI and TensorRT. So if you want to get into this and talk about what is "short term profits" versus where the real money is and what that is for the future. It isn't going to be "miners taking away GPU's from gamers" it's going to be entirely different revenue streams. And I gotta tell you, once again, as I've had to keep harping on in this thread: they will go to the deep pockets where the real money is, and they do not care about gamers so much as they care about making money.

You and RamonGTP are busy looking at surface level stuff. Look at the big picture. Not because "I'm telling you to" or "I'm so smart" but if it helps you: because that's what nVidia is doing. I'm not saying I'm the brilliant mind behind any of this. I'm just saying open your eyes and look at what nVidia themselves are doing. How they are spending their time. Their influence. And R&D money.




You don't seem to get that nVidia and AMD both don't care if they sell GPUs or a useless widget. They also don't care who they sell to. They look at the market and they figure out one thing: who is going to make me money. If it's miners it's miners. Which is where we are. This whole discussion has been academic about "what is bad for GPU manufacturers". You've failed over and over again at how selling everything they make is bad for them. Because it's not. They don't care who the cards go to. Miners, AI, Transportation, and yes gamers. If they sell everything they make, they're happy. The market segment doesn't matter and they don't care. Especially when we're literally talking about ONE PRODUCT getting sold to all of those segments.

So no, you don't seem to get it. Because each of these markets are creating demand for the one thing that nVidia makes: GPUs. You do seem to get that they're finite. But you don't seem to get that they only care about the markets that are and will be paying them money. Or more specifically the biggest pieces of pie. If in a few years they find out that in order to meet the demand of AI and autonomous vehicles that they have to give all their fab space to manufacturing those GPUs and they have to drop the gaming market, you'd better believe that they will in a hot second because that's way more money than gamers will ever provide. And that isn't anything other than economics and business sense.
So you think I'm going off on tangents: I'm not, but you keep bringing up comparisons that don't even make sense, while making feeble attempts at attacking my character.

I'm going to go with Jen Hsun when he said on several ocasions that nvidia is commited to the gaming market instead of some guy who swears he knows better. Yes nvidia has diversified in more markets that I can count, but year after year nvidia gaming business grows. The miner market is very recent, I mean, there was virtually no nvidia mining before Pascal. So its not that easy to know the impact on the market just yet.


nvidia has become the dominant player in most of its markets and still has room to grow. So yes eventually maybe, someday in the distant future, gaming may become secondary, but that doesn't mean it will be less important.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

And you don't seem to get the concept of alienating a loyal customer base. The only thing you've proven here is having basic economics knowledge doesn't equate to being a good business man and have quite literally zero concept of long term prospect. Glad you're not at the helm of nViida. Otherwise gamers would really be screwed, but then again, you'd only last as long as mining was a thing.

You are doing the exact opposite of looking at the big picture.

Look, I've told you this several times. They don't care about gamers. They care about money.
They sell a product that THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR. If you want a GPU, you have only two real options (AMD or nVidia, but even in that, all nVidia has to do is be better than their competition or sell less than their competition. Even with this both AMD and nVidia are sold out everywhere). You don't seem to get that nVidia can be complete dicks to gamers and get away with it because what are you going to do about it? Your choices are to buy a GPU or to not game.

But lets say I agree with you: selling to miners is "alienating" gamers. nVidia then is basically a bunch of liars. So you're defending a company that is literally doing NOTHING to stop miners from buying all of their cards. Creating a statement of: "if you could just limit how many we sell to one person" while not doing anything to change policy is akin to the NRA saying over and over don't shoot people in the face while doing ZERO about gun control. There is a vast difference between saying: "stop that" and actually "stopping that". So nVidia themselves have done nothing to change who their cards are going to. If you want to say that: "I have my head in the sand" fine. But it's been over half a year since this "mining problem" has been in place, and nVidia and AMD have done nothing.
And the reason they have done nothing is because this benefits them. So if you feel "alienated" by that, then feel alienated. Because they're "alienating" you now. That is factual.

And for what it's worth, I'm glad I'm not the CEO either. Because obviously he's smarter than I am about looking into the future and knowing where to spend R&D dollars. Which again primarily isn't in gaming.

I'm going to go with Jen Hsun when he said on several ocasions that nvidia is commited to the gaming market instead of some guy who swears he knows better. Yes nvidia has diversified in more markets that I can count, but year after year nvidia gaming business grows. The miner market is very recent, I mean, there was virtually no nvidia mining before Pascal. So its not that easy to know the impact on the market just yet.


nvidia has become the dominant player in most of its markets and still has room to grow. So yes eventually maybe, someday in the distant future, gaming may become secondary, but that doesn't mean it will be less important.

There is a very simple and common phrase of: "putting your money where your mouth is". And: "you know what you value by what you talk about all the time".
So I'm not telling you to listen to me so much as to read between the lines of what is actually happening. Yes Jensen Huang will absolutely say he "cares" about the gaming market. But "saying" something and tangibly doing something are two entirely different things. If you don't know what "placating" is, look it up.
Obviously he's interested in keeping all of the money. Yes, that's what corporations want. But if that isn't possible, he, and nVidia will go after the bigger pie. But that discussion is academic. This is something for whatever reason you guys have reading comprehension problems on.

And yes it will become less important. If one section of the business makes them 20x as much income as the other part of the business, by nature it is less important. You'd have to be really bad a basic math to think to yourself that those two revenue streams are equal in any way shape or form. If I asked you to determine what amount of money your job would pay you, 200k or 10k. Would you allow that decision to be based on a coin flip and think that they were equal?

So no, they're not equal. But yes they will absolutely be in every market they can be, because obviously that's more money.

And it's not in the distant future. I'm sure you haven't watched that keynote but once again: you tell me what he talks about more. You tell me what he's spending R&D on. You tell me which partners he's going after and creating (320 automotive partners). You tell me what other CEO he invited on stage (VW).
Because he didn't do any of that for any gaming CEO. Or gaming partner.

His timeframe is 2 years. Listen to him yourself, since you say you do.

 

[RamonGTP]

No shit they care about money, you say that like they're giving free cards to gamers. At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling are you're really as dense as your posts suggest.

The only clear thing here is you think you know more than you do. The CEO's own comments in their key notes and requests to retailers don't agree with your theories.

Maybe one day in the future, you'll end up being correct, and everything they're saying is some sort of elaborate ruse. That somehow, you've managed to decode what they really mean and have an uncanny knack to read between the lines. Until that day actually comes to fruition, you'll just be that guy who's in love with the sound of his own posts as he reads them back to himself and thinks he has it all figured out.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

No shit they care about money, you say that like they're giving free cards to gamers. At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling are you're really as dense as your posts suggest.

The only clear thing here is you think you know more than you do. The CEO's own comments in their key notes and requests to retailers don't agree with your theories.

Maybe one day in the future, you'll end up being correct, and everything they're saying is some sort of elaborate ruse. That somehow, you've managed to decode what they really mean and have an uncanny knack to read between the lines. Until that day actually comes to fruition, you'll just be that guy who thinks they have it all figured out.

What has he done to get cards into the hands of gamers? And before you say: "his statement about limiting cards sold to single people", show me any tangible proof on how effective that is. Give me any source with any hard number. Last time I checked everyone is still sold out.

This isn't "illuminati" bullshit. This is: where can I buy a card today that isn't an inflated price? And the answer is: nowhere.
So if I'm a crazy liar, go ahead and point it out. But if you're defending the nVidia CEO on his statements then there has to be tangible proof that his statements have any backing. I hate to get political, but this is like believing everything that Donald Trump says at face value without fact checking anything.

So, I'm fact checking you: show me where I can get a GPU at or below MSRP today.

===

EDIT: And where did I say anything was a ruse? I've only said that money determines whom they sell to and the markets they go after. Any "reading" into anything I'm doing you could do yourself. By simply doing what I said in the first place, which is basically: follow the money.

I didn't say they spent billions of dollars of R&D and 8000 engineering hours on their new driving chip, he did. And he didn't say that about any gaming or gaming cards. I didn't spend all my time talking about AI, machine learning, and autonomous vehicles. He did.

It's like you have some sort of disconnect about HIS statements. I'm telling you what HE said.

 

[RamonGTP]

What has he done to get cards into the hands of gamers? And before you say: "his statement about limiting cards sold to single people", show me any tangible proof on how effective that is. Give me any source with any hard number. Last time I checked everyone is still sold out.

This isn't "illuminati" bullshit. This is: where can I buy a card today that isn't an inflated price? And the answer is: nowhere.

Thanks for the easy layup score.

How about the fact that there is an actual "limit one" on a shit load of cards? Just to feed your trolling ways, I just went to amazon, added a 1080Ti to my cart that was shipped and sold by amazon, then adjusted the quantity to 2 and got the following message:

"The Seller has a limit of 1 per customer. To see if more are available from another seller, go to the product detail page"

But please, continue telling everyone they couldn't care less about where the cards go.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Thanks for the easy layup score.

How about the fact that there is an actual "limit one" on a shit load of cards? Just to feed your trolling ways, I just went to amazon, added a 1080Ti to my cart that was shipped and sold by amazon, then adjusted the quantity to 2 and got the following message:

"The Seller has a limit of 1 per customer. To see if more are available from another seller, go to the product detail page"

But please, continue telling everyone they couldn't care less about where the cards go.

And the link? And it showing at MSRP? Finish your layup.

 

[RamonGTP]

And the link? And it showing at MSRP? Finish your layup.

Who cares if it's MSRP, over MSRP or under MSRP? You very clearly said, they are in the business of selling GPU's and do not care who gets them. With the imposition of limit 1 per customer, it seems to me they are trying to get their GPU's in to the hands of ALL their customers. If they didn't care WHO the cards went to and only cared about selling GPUs, there would not be a limit. They'd have no problems letting a small handful of buyers take up all the stock.

The difference between your argument and mine is I agree money is their bottom line. You also added that they don't care where the GPUs go, and that is where you've been wrong from the start. You think the means to that end are not relevant and that's where your argument falls apart.

So we have Jen Hsun's own comments, NVidia's request to the retailers, and the real life implementation of that request being played out, that all say the same thing... You're wrong.

The layup was finished a long time ago, you must have blinked not to see it.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Who cares if it's MSRP, over MSRP or under MSRP? You very clearly said, they are in the business of selling GPU's and do not care who gets them. With the imposition of limit 1 per customer, it seems to me they are trying to get their GPU's in to the hands of ALL their customers. If they didn't care WHO the cards went to and only cared about selling GPUs, there would not be a limit. They'd have no problems letting a small handful of buyers take up all the stock.

So we have Jen Hsun's own comments, NVidia's request to the retailers, and the real life implementation of that request being played out, that all say the same thing... You're wrong.

The layup was finished a long time ago, you must have blinked not to see it.

So, post the link?

Also in my search I didn't even see a single card that was being sold by Amazon directly. So I'd love to see what you have. But literally no other Amazon partner has a limit. So pointing out what one seller is doing also is moot when literally everyone else doesn't care. So, I guess good job? I feel so defeated.

 

[RamonGTP]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06Y3V38R2/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

 

[UnknownSouljer]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06Y3V38R2/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

Thats back ordered. Show me the one I can even get today. February 28th is unacceptable.
Also, like I noted in the previous post, everyone else has no limit and really they're the only ones who have product. nVidias words are incredibly hollow.
If you really wanted to prove that nVidia cared about bleeding heart gamers so much, he would "enforce" all cards only ever being sold at MSRP. But I guarantee you won't find him ever try to make that statement or a move for that either. Because pricing is "alienating" gamers far more than a purchase limitation is "alienating" miners.

Hop over to Newegg. They have a couple. They also enforce your "one per" rule. But once again, literally none of their other channel partners do. Or, alternatively they could just "buy one" from each partner. Newegg makes that incredibly easy to do, as does Amazon.
So this so-called wall is doing very little to stop anyone who wants multiple cards and can afford to buy them. Which pretty much is miners and not really gamers.

 

[RamonGTP]

Thats back ordered. Show me the one I can even get today. February 28th is unacceptable.
Also, like I noted in the previous post, everyone else has no limit and really they're the only ones who have product. nVidias words are incredibly hollow.
If you really wanted to prove that nVidia cared about bleeding heart gamers so much, he would "enforce" all cards only ever being sold at MSRP. But I guarantee you won't find him ever try to make that statement or a move for that either. Because pricing is "alienating" gamers far more than a purchase limitation is "alienating" miners.

Hop over to Newegg. They have a couple. They also enforce your "one per" rule. But once again, literally none of their other channel partners do. So this so-called wall is doing very little to stop anyone who wants multiple cards and can afford to buy them. Which pretty much is miners and not really gamers.

lol, why is it unacceptable? because you said so? Listen, you're wrong. There's a limit and the limit is there to be able to get the cards in the hands of everyone who wants them. You don't like being wrong, understandable. It happens, it's happened several times today. Make friends with that fact.

In stock and out of stock isn't even relevant. The fact remains, when retailers have the cards there's a limit. That limit is there for a reason, and that reason isn't because NVidia doesn't care where the cards go. Like I said, make friends with being wrong.

Heck, I bought three a month ago and needed to get them from separate sources due to the limit.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

lol, why is it unacceptable? because you said so? Listen, you're wrong. There's a limit and the limit is there to be able to get the cards in the hands of everyone who wants them. You don't like being wrong, understandable. It happens, it's happened several times today. Make friends with that fact.

In stock and out of stock isn't even relevant. The fact remains, when retailers have the cards there's a limit. That limit is there for a reason, and that reason isn't because NVidia doesn't care where the cards go. Like I said, make friends with being wrong.

Heck, I bought three a month ago and needed to get them from separate sources due to the limit.

I can buy multiple from any of their channel partners.
I can buy multiple by buying "one" from each partner at a time.

Read please. No one is stopped from buying multiple.
Their "artificial" stop is doing little if nothing to stop this "problem".

===

It's "unacceptable" because you're saying that this limitation is supposed to get cards into my hands today. I cannot buy a card at MSRP from anyone today.

 

[RamonGTP]

I can buy multiple from any of their channel partners.
I can buy multiple by buying "one" from each partner at a time.

Read please. No one is stopped from buying multiple.

Yes you can go out of your way to buy more than one. As I had to do. Doesnt' change the fact they are making an effort to be able to spread the inventory around evenly. Something you said they don't care to do. Why the limit one if they don't care? It's because you're wrong. Are you getting used to it yet?