Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate • Hacker News Board

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#281

Post by throwaway-8c93 » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

ryebit wrote: post #196

galangalalgol wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long until gpgpu isn't cost effective for mining? I know a lot of fpgas went on ebay for cheap when the new xilinx line came out. The watt per hash has to be lower for fpgas already. Will the cost of a coin always reflect the current price to make a new one and thus gpgpu will always be a cost effective technique?

I think right now biggest earner for GPU mining is Ethereum. And (I think) it's aiming to move to Proof of Stake sometime in next 12-24 months, which kinda time limits the utility of both Eth-specific mining chips, and large investments in GPU mining (unless mining burns GPUs out really fast?). Regardless, most proof of work algorithms are already being optimized with ASICs (ala bitcoin)... Or, like Ethereum's ETHASH…

A question out of genuine curiosity: Doesn't the nonce puzzle difficulty adjust to the amount of compute the network has, making it a zero sum game? If every mining pool buys 20% extra GPUs, isn't everyone soon back where they started, wasting hundreds of millions in the process?

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#282

Post by mlyle » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #217

Sholmesy wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed? My understanding was that gaming cards are pushed far harder, at higher temps, with fluctuating power and thermals, which causes more issues than a single stable power limit and temperature

Where is your understanding coming from? There is no such thing as pushing cards “far harder, at higher temps” than when mining or doing other compute tasks that run the GPU at 100%. Failure rates land squarely on the side of higher temps, and the reasons are well understood https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/444474/can-i... You might be thinking of spinning disk drives rather than GPUs. A lot of people…

Higher temps are bad, but thermal cycles are equally bad or worse. Different things on the card have different thermal coefficients of expansion. Getting warm and cooling makes everything flex and stresses solder joints, wire bonds, and thermal interfaces.

Miner cards have longer, sustained high temps. This is bad for life.

Gamer cards have lots of thermal cycles. This is very bad for life.

Miner cards are more likely to be undervolted to improve power efficiency and thermals. This is good for life. (Lower peak temperature, less electromigration).

Gamer cards are more likely to be overvolted and overclocked to improve peak performance. This is very bad for life. (higher peak temperatures, more electromigration).

https://www.dfrsolutions.com/hubfs/Resources/services/Temper...

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#283

Post by deepakhj » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

oakesm9 wrote: post #88

pornel wrote: 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.

Miners will under volt, under clock, and boost memory speeds in order to keep temperatures and fan speeds at a lower level. Card failures affect profits.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#284

Post by dahart » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:36 PM UTC

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #266

dahart wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, how did you arrive at ‘screwing over gamers’ when this whole thing was done to keep 3060 cards available to gamers at reasonable prices?

The argument is simple really. By intentionally dropping the hashrate, you reduce the incentive to buy the GPUs for mining. This means that when or if the mining craze stops akin to 2018, there would be plenty of second hand 3xxx series cards to go around, which would only hurt NVDA's pocket. Recall that during the previous craze, NVDA was stuck with a huge inventory of GPUs after the craze ended, inventory that can…

What you’re asking for is to get royally screwed by miners now - again - just so you might have the chance to get a cheap and very-used card later. And you’re blaming Nvidia for losing this imagined opportunity a year from now.

Right, like you point out, in 2018, Nvidia was making a lot of money on leftover 1080s. And they’re proposing to not do that this time. Are you suggesting that gamers are going to bypass a $330 card for a year in hopes that mining will crash and they can get a used one for $200 that’s been running hot for an entire year, and then after waiting, give up on that and buy a brand new GPU?

> The reality is that there is simply not enough silicon being produced.

You say potato, I say demand. You’re hand-wavily suggesting that mining is not affecting supply at all. That’s just not true. Mining demand is making an already bad problem (for gamers) much worse, just like it did last time.

What is the huge profit windfall you’re suggesting happens after this current mining bubble pops? Nvidia isn’t going to have an oversupply of cards to sell, and they aren’t hiking the price of the 3060.

This all seems completely speculative too. You’re complaining about a supposed future problem, and ignoring what this does for gamers today.

And it’s weird to frame this as gamers being screwed by Nvidia just because there could have been some awesome second hand market later. The fact is that gamers were totally screwed by miners in the first place when cards weren’t available for a year and the second hand prices were quadruple the list price. It’s not a huge gift to gamers that the market is flooded with cheap leftovers after they were hosed and frustrated and extorted by miners for a year or two.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#285

Post by s3cur3 » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:36 PM UTC

social_quotient wrote: post #169

pornel wrote: 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.

Yeah, imagine if this applied to trucks. No one could use one for non truck bed usage. Ford disables ignition if it detects the bed is empty after X concurrent uses or miles. Trucks generally are often wasted (from a green perspective) because people like them not for their intended design utility. Same for single passenger SUV usage etc... (I drive an SUV - not trolling those that do)

I think it’s important to note that the 3060 is not for sale yet. Nvidia is telling everyone up front that this is how it’s going to work.

The analogy is improved like this: Ford announces in advance that their upcoming truck requires a certain usage, and if you want whatever special commercial usage, you need to pay a premium. You might be grumpy about the upcharge, but this is a very different situation from them changing the terms of the deal after the sale.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#286

Post by deepakhj » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #136

gruez wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not to mention crypto miners will often have the GPUs overclocked on top of running full tilt to get every last hash out of it. It's about as brutal of a situation as you can get for a GPU. This is false because miners often undervolt to achieve better efficiency. The popular GPU mining algorithms are all memory-bound, so you can undervolt your core clocks quite a bit and still get >95% of the original performance.

That depends on how valuable the last 5% of your hash rate is and local electricity prices. Running an OC especially for memory can objectively be the correct choice. For collage dorms for example rarely charge based on electricity use. Some apartment complexes also include electricity as part of the rent.

I’m running at 50% gpu which lowers my tdp to 165 watts and gpu temp of 70C.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#287

Post by qqii » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

danhor wrote: post #183

SXX wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that bulk of crypto mining is quite centralized around the places with cheap elictricity so it's also mean cheapest source give highest advantage. Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes.

> Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes. While electricity transportation is an issue, it's not a huge one compared to the likes of storage and actually having something generating electricity. And, as it turns out, a lot of the mining farms just use coal ( https://decrypt.co/43848/why-bitcoin-miners-dont-use-m…

The link in your article to the primary source of the Cambridge University survey is unfortunately dead. The alternative metric given (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/) currency predicts 36.95 Million Tonnes of CO2.

That's 0.1% of total CO2 emissions per year (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...) and 0.074% of global CO2eq (https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector).

I'd probably agree that this is still pretty high for what amount to digital hording.

On the other hand the seccond most popular blockchain Ethereum is estimated at half the energy consumption (https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption), has a plan to move to proof of stake and has a lot more economic value.

The space is still new and bitcoin has first mover's advantage, name recognition and trust (most hashrate, most reviewed codebase, etc).

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#288

Post by einpoklum » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

> The company also limited the mining performance of the soon-to-be-launched RTX 3060 cards to roughly 50% of the normal performance

What does that mean? What has NVIDIA actually done on those cards? Also, if this doesn't effect 3050, 70, 80 , Ti's, Quadro's and Tesla's - does it really matter all that much?

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#289

Post by Retric » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #282

dahart wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is your understanding coming from? There is no such thing as pushing cards “far harder, at higher temps” than when mining or doing other compute tasks that run the GPU at 100%. Failure rates land squarely on the side of higher temps, and the reasons are well understood https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/444474/can-i... You might be thinking of spinning disk drives rather than GPUs. A lot of people…

Higher temps are bad, but thermal cycles are equally bad or worse. Different things on the card have different thermal coefficients of expansion. Getting warm and cooling makes everything flex and stresses solder joints, wire bonds, and thermal interfaces. Miner cards have longer, sustained high temps. This is bad for life. Gamer cards have lots of thermal cycles. This is very bad for life. Miner cards are more likel…

That’s testing for thermal cycling over wide temperature ranges or longer lifespans. GPU’s are used indoors and don’t have a very long lifespan.

The major risk factor for GPU’s is electromigration which is a major factor in GPU lifespan and directly relates to usage. A 40 hour a week gamer is extremely rare, but a mining GPU is pulling 168 hours a week.

Re: Nvidia Limits RTX 3060 Hash Rate

#290

Post by qqii » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #81

qqii wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

These industries certainly didn't buy mining cards last time.