Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

tomshardware.com

81–90 of 520 posts

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#81
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume it can still be used for other CUDA applications, although I doubt that miners will care much about that.

Who will be buying it though? Last time this happened mining cards without display output were sold much cheaper than their equivalent counterparts. The only saving grace they had were hacky Looking Glass style solutions.

Machine learning? VFX shops?

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#82
post #20
post #4

I have no sympathy for miners, but purely from software freedom perspective this is maximally evil: closed-source software that decides what you can use your hardware for. The CMP version is a straight-to-landfill product. As soon as it stops being profitable for mining it will have zero resale value, and become e-waste.

Good point re landfill - haven't seen anyone else raise that

So people are going to build entire data centers to look for combination of bytes that yield a hash that is funny looking. And when it doesn't become profitable to do so anymore, the e-waste issue it generates is somehow the fault on the chip maker ?

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#83
Probably not the main reason and may not even be a reason. But this seems like it would work as a clever way not to have the market flooded with older (but still very capable) graphics cards once the value of them in a mining rig stops making sense.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#84
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does anybody else think that the "mining is bad for the environment and gamers can't buy the cards" argument is a bit weird? After all, if all these cards weren't used for mining but for gaming, wouldn't the environmental outcome be the same? I never had that specific opinion, but I have another point of view. Games bring inherent value to the table. That is, if you didn't play games you would be reading a book, go…

Although you may disagree with the current value of most cryptocurrencies would you at least agree that their inhenrant value isn't 0? Newer projects like Uniswap, AAVE and MakerDAO (for DAI) are uniquely new and novel concepts that can't be accomplished trustlessly without blockchain technology. Bitcoin has a lot of intangibles (name recognition, trust, hashpower) and for many is a more intersting asset (in what it…

> Although you may disagree with the current value of most cryptocurrencies

I would like to clarify something. I didn't say I disagreed with the value of cryptocurrencies (that is, its value in dollars). I said I find their societal cost way too high. In other terms, (Inherent Value of crypto > would you at least agree that their inhenrant value isn't 0?

I agree with that. Although my previous answer stated "I don't see tangible value in crypto" I suppressed the paragraph that said that crypto may have some inherent value when it comes down to international transactions (or transactions in general). If international transactions in crypto are cheaper than with banks, clearly those who want to make these transactions do see some inherent value in the currency. That is, its value would emerge from its transaction properties.

I did suppress the paragraph because I just don't know enough about the fees of such transactions. I think it is reasonable to expect Banks and Financial entities to offer transaction fees lower than Crypto for all use cases. If that happened, then I just don't see any value in crypto whatsoever.

I have said it a few times on HN: I see more potential into a "Crypto Dollar" than in crypto in general.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#85
post #51

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…

> > 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.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#86
post #79
post #4

I have no sympathy for miners, but purely from software freedom perspective this is maximally evil: closed-source software that decides what you can use your hardware for. The CMP version is a straight-to-landfill product. As soon as it stops being profitable for mining it will have zero resale value, and become e-waste.

I agree. It's a bad move. Provide a better product for mining .. don't cripple what's out there. This feels similar to when Nurofen tried to repackage generic drugs for different types of pain. I.e. ultimately a branding exercise. -- Edit: spelling and s/paracetamol/generic drugs

I appreciate this move to make GPUs more available for non-crypto users. As someone who wants to buy an AMD GPU to run my Ryzen machine, I have been waiting 2 weeks because there is no supply of GPUs at the RRP price. I can only buy the 2 year old models for double the price they sold for.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#87
post #82
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point re landfill - haven't seen anyone else raise that

So people are going to build entire data centers to look for combination of bytes that yield a hash that is funny looking. And when it doesn't become profitable to do so anymore, the e-waste issue it generates is somehow the fault on the chip maker ?

Well yeah, since if the chip maker didn't come up with this product strategy the extra e-waste would be further limited.

I think we can probably all agree that corporations should have some responsibility in the ramifications of their products.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#88
post #4

I have no sympathy for miners, but purely from software freedom perspective this is maximally evil: closed-source software that decides what you can use your hardware for. The CMP version is a straight-to-landfill product. As soon as it stops being profitable for mining it will have zero resale value, and become e-waste.

Gamers will generally try to avoid buying preowned graphics cards that have been used for mining. Running them 24/7 at full pelt tends to “age” they quicker than one that’s just been used for gaming.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#89
I am convinced Nvidia is deeply involved in the crypto space more so than they care to admit. I can’t wait until Apple matches or surpasses Nvidia so we don’t have to listen to Jensen’s lies quarter after quarter about how insignificant crypto mining is to their business.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#90
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GPUs that are used for mining will be used 24/7 whereas gaming is likely to be performed by a human being who cannot or would not utilize the GPU nearly as many hours of the day. Yup. And even if they could utilize them 24/7, gamers generally* won't have 10+ cards going at once. *:I'm sure someone has some weird 360 degree flight simulator edge case.

If you reduce this argument, the best way to help our planet is to have fewer children. I’d argue the target total fertility rate per woman should be somewhere below one. To hell with economic growth that relies on an ever increasing human population.

I'd much rather change my extremely wasteful (can't overstate how much, from someone that makes an effort to minimize it) lifestyle, and much rather use the force of law so that everyone has to, before advocating or forcing such an asinine policy.

Even if strange when it comes to animals, humanity progresses following rules similar to classic evolution, aka by randomly mixing stuff until something works. We've gotten (only) pretty good at selecting and amplifying what works extremely well, but we still need a steady stream of randomly arranged characteristics to enter the pool. Imagine if the next Newton isn't born (or is born 200 years later) because a couple decided to not have children to "save the planet". Perhaps this figure would've been a key piece in a breakthrough discovery about energy, climate, terraforming, public policy....

I seriously fail to understand anti-natalists.

Post reply on HN