Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD refuses to limit cryptocurrency mining: We will not be blocking any workload

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: AMD refuses to limit cryptocurrency mining: We will not be blocking any workload

#41

Post by nhkcode »

jsheard wrote: post #10

AMD doesn't particularly need to limit RDNA2 mining because those cards are inherently less desirable for miners. RDNA2 is designed around relatively slow memory with a big chunk of on-chip cache to compensate, which works quite well for games but the random memory access pattern of crypto mining blows the cache and bottlenecks on the slow underlying memory bus. https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/amd_s_rx_…

> It's not like AMD is above artificially limiting the performance of certain workloads when it suits them, they do it with CAD applications unless you pay the workstation tax.

I'm curious about that, do you have an example? I only know of nvidia consumer drivers giving you abysmal performance if you try to use fixed function pipeline line or wireframe rendering with opengl. Or at least they did a couple of years ago. As soon as you used shaders to render the same lines everything got super fast. I always suspected it's their way to force users of CAD systems to buy their pricey professional cards. No game would use opengl line rendering without shaders or if any game did in the long gone past it's probably so old and the line count so low that it would be still fine with the artificial slowdown.

Re: AMD refuses to limit cryptocurrency mining: We will not be blocking any workload

#43

Post by seaourfreed »

Shared404 wrote: post #9
ttt0 wrote: post #3

Wait, so there are people who are expecting hardware manufacturers to dictate to users what their products can or cannot be used for? Is this the war on general purpose computing I've been hearing about?

My understanding is that Nvidia's move was universally condemned. AMD's just taking advantage of Nvidia's blunder.

Why did Nvidia work to block crypto mining on their video cards? (I don't buy "because gamers couldn't buy them")

Can someone explain why they think nvidia really did this?

Re: AMD refuses to limit cryptocurrency mining: We will not be blocking any workload

#44

Post by proce55ing »

seaourfreed wrote: post #43
Shared404 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that Nvidia's move was universally condemned. AMD's just taking advantage of Nvidia's blunder.

Why did Nvidia work to block crypto mining on their video cards? (I don't buy "because gamers couldn't buy them") Can someone explain why they think nvidia really did this?

The cards that have access to mining lack a video output. Once they become unprofitable to mine with they won’t impact the gaming market on resale.

Re: AMD refuses to limit cryptocurrency mining: We will not be blocking any workload

#45

Post by jsheard »

nhkcode wrote: post #41
jsheard wrote: post #10

AMD doesn't particularly need to limit RDNA2 mining because those cards are inherently less desirable for miners. RDNA2 is designed around relatively slow memory with a big chunk of on-chip cache to compensate, which works quite well for games but the random memory access pattern of crypto mining blows the cache and bottlenecks on the slow underlying memory bus. https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/amd_s_rx_…

> It's not like AMD is above artificially limiting the performance of certain workloads when it suits them, they do it with CAD applications unless you pay the workstation tax. I'm curious about that, do you have an example? I only know of nvidia consumer drivers giving you abysmal performance if you try to use fixed function pipeline line or wireframe rendering with opengl. Or at least they did a couple of years ago…

You can see it in action here: https://techgage.com/article/specviewperf-13-viewport-perfor...

The consumer RX580 and workstation WX7100 are based on the same Polaris silicon, and the consumer card is configured with a higher power limit of 185W vs 130W, but the workstation card usually performs similarly or much better anyway. It's most egregious in the Siemens NX test where the workstation card is about 8 times faster.

I think AMD strategically throttles legacy OpenGL paths similar to Nvidia, Autodesk Max/Maya use modern shader-based viewports and in those the consumer card pulls ahead as you'd expect given its higher power limit.

Re: AMD refuses to limit cryptocurrency mining: We will not be blocking any workload

#46

Post by oliwarner »

ttt0 wrote: post #3

Wait, so there are people who are expecting hardware manufacturers to dictate to users what their products can or cannot be used for? Is this the war on general purpose computing I've been hearing about?

If it means people who only want to play games can actually but one for less than the price of a car, sure.

Hardware manufacturers have imposed weird arbitrary feature limits on things forever. It's how they segment out valuable markets. Even in graphics you get output limits to protect workstation cards. Nothing new.

Re: AMD refuses to limit cryptocurrency mining: We will not be blocking any workload

#47

Post by baseballdork »

Daho0n wrote: post #35
kardos wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broadly speaking, the issue is that cryptocurrencies drive up demand for GPUs, and that makes them less available/affordable for gamers. If there was a crypto-crippled GPU then it would be exempt from that particular demand.

And since the amount of GPUs won't go up magically by inventing another product there will be too few anyway or the price will go up. There's nothing to win by doing so which is why people condemned Nvidia for doing it.

The intent was to cut demand, presumably. If a GPU can't mine ethereum, then ethereum miners won't be competing with gamers to buy that GPU.

Re: AMD refuses to limit cryptocurrency mining: We will not be blocking any workload

#48

Post by pirocks »

baseballdork wrote: post #47
Daho0n wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And since the amount of GPUs won't go up magically by inventing another product there will be too few anyway or the price will go up. There's nothing to win by doing so which is why people condemned Nvidia for doing it.

The intent was to cut demand, presumably. If a GPU can't mine ethereum, then ethereum miners won't be competing with gamers to buy that GPU.

Many people believe the intent was to prevent a glut of gaming gpus when crypto crashes. If you get miners to instead by crypto only ASICS or "mining gpus" then can't be resold.

Re: AMD refuses to limit cryptocurrency mining: We will not be blocking any workload

#49

Post by varispeed »

rrss wrote: post #20
varispeed wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see them trying to beat M1 rather than chase the GPU game. Apart from gaming these GPUs have little use in day to day computing. Maybe you encode a video once in a while, but it does not make huge difference whether it will encode in 10 or 5 minutes.

lol, this is such a vacuous comment. "device made specifically for gaming is not useful for people uninterested in gaming"

It's a smaller market than a CPU and likely requires same or more effort. As a person not interested in gaming I would prefer the resources to be used to develop better computing experience. I understand the pool of people who can do such things is not unlimited. Current CPU market is in dire straits as Intel was bumbling the last few years and only now AMD is catching up, but it seems like Apple is already miles ahead. That wouldn't be too bad, but it means the market may be won by a company that is anti-consumer, anti-competitive and two faced.

Re: AMD refuses to limit cryptocurrency mining: We will not be blocking any workload

#50

Post by ttt0 »

oliwarner wrote: post #46
ttt0 wrote: post #3

Wait, so there are people who are expecting hardware manufacturers to dictate to users what their products can or cannot be used for? Is this the war on general purpose computing I've been hearing about?

If it means people who only want to play games can actually but one for less than the price of a car, sure. Hardware manufacturers have imposed weird arbitrary feature limits on things forever. It's how they segment out valuable markets. Even in graphics you get output limits to protect workstation cards. Nothing new.

I kinda get the segmentation part, at least in theory, but I don't buy that it's to "protect the poor gamers". Maybe I'm missing something, but the production cost is the same and it costs virtually nothing to not put on those limits. If anything, it almost certainly costs more to do this. So as far as I understand it, it's just charging more money for what essentially is the same thing. Especially when you consider the fact that they simultaneously changed the license of one of their cheaper GPU cards to prevent using it in data centers, so you'd have to switch to something more expensive. What's important to note is that they specifically didn't prevent the blockchain stuff.

I don't know, I just find producing something and then breaking it to be wasteful and borderline immoral.

Post reply on HN