Hello /r/hardware

As you might noticed, the subreddit was re-opened as of yesterday - and this is just a brief post to explain whats going on.

After the initial June 12 closing of the subreddit, we've internally decided to extend the period until this weekend in light of what can only be described as out of touch and condescending behaviour from Reddit's CEO Steve Huffman (Or better know as Spez).

• Reddit Threatens to Remove Moderators From Subreddits Continuing Apollo-Related Blackouts

• Steve Huffman, the Reddit CEO, told NBC News in an interview that a user protest on the site this week is led by a minority of moderators and doesn’t have wide support.

• Reddit CEO Steve Huffman: Reddit ‘was never designed to support third-party apps’

• Reddit CEO Steve Huffman: 'It's time we grow up and behave like an adult company'

It goes without saying what we think of the initial changes has not changed, and Spez comments certainly did not change our mind one bit. Third Party apps and tools are part of reddit whether for us the moderators, or indeed a substantial portion of the community in how they use reddit. Our stance towards Reddit API pricing changes remained the same:

Instead of outright hostility, allow the developers of third-party tools and apps to work in good faith with Reddit Inc., and come to a amicable solution that would work for every party.

"So, are you forced to re-open the subreddit?"

The short answer is: No we aren't. In fact, we are way too small for Reddit to even notice us to tell the truth. We did not receive any communication directly from Reddit admins throughout the period, nor was us put under any direct pressure to re-open the subreddit.

However. We are acutely aware of the increasingly hostile and forceful reaction by the administrators (what is clearly spurred on by its CEO) towards other subreddits. Noticeably:

• /u/ModCodeofConduct (a supposedly anonymous Reddit Admin account):...this means that we have policies and processes in place that address inactive moderation (Rule 4), mods vandalizing communities (Rule 2), and subreddit squatters (also Rule 4). When rules like these are broken, we remove the mods in violation of the Moderator Code of Conduct, and add new, active mods to the subreddits.

• Reddit threatens to remove protest leaders

Lets make one thing abundantly clear: We are not against having more involvement with the community when it comes to running the subreddit - In fact, it was the community who brought the whole Blackout about within the context of /r/hardware. We were having internal discussions until this post was submitted, and it was a forgone conclusion that how we should proceed then.

/r/hardware has never been interested in following trends of other (tech) subreddits. We have always had our own rules and our own way of distinguishing ourselves amongst our peers - in stricter content control, informational pieces and discussion on the hardware space. We don't ever claim credit for what we do, because all of the moderation team joined because they like the subreddit's "culture" enough to want to play a part in maintaining it.

It doesn't need much explanation this sudden U-turn of policy from Reddit itself has on every subreddit that ever existed. A vocal portion of the community - however minor, or even never part of the community - now has potential power to completely hoover up any subreddit - notably - the subreddits that are engaging in an indefinite blackout can now be kicked out with Reddit CEO and adminstrators' FULL backing because they dare challenge the powers that be.

If you are discontent, why are you re-opening the subreddit?

However disapproving we are towards Reddit's action recently, life goes on. We are proud of /r/hardware and its distinct place amongst tech subreddits, and we know that a lot of our community still likes to hang out, or just to learn something new in the subreddit.

Of course, we absolutely respect those of you who believes you want nothing to do with Reddit from now-on in protest and would like to move on to an new platform - that is your choice and we can 100% understand that. But I hope you also understand the position we're in. It is not a signal of defeat, but it is sensible to at least have a period of rethink and looking at various options towards the future of Reddit itself.

For now at least, we have determined the best course of action is to re-open the subreddit, but with the caveat that we are still in constant discussion about the API changes as well as Reddit's newfound bullying behaviour towards its subreddits. If there are any significant collective action amongst subreddits, we will actively consider to participate in it.

AMD is often criticized for launch prices that are too high or a generally too timid pricing strategy compared to nVidia. And indeed, only moderate price markdowns compared to the technologically leading nVidia offerings are often not enough to outdo them. What's more, the retail prices of most AMD accelerators drop considerably over time, meaning that the price range demanded from the outset does subsequently emerge - but usually too late to make a significant impression. The same picture can also be seen with the RDNA3 generation - even though the current prices are certainly not yet a real sale-out level, but rather part of the steady downward price trend:

There are certainly better examples from the past, but this also shows that AMD's launch pricing for its current graphics cards has led to launch prices that are unsustainable in the long term but initially overpriced. This can be seen particularly clearly with both top models, where the current best price has now led to a -23% (7900XTX) or -36% (7900XT) discount compared to the list prices (in Germany). This raises the (justified) question of whether AMD would not have been better off setting the Radeon RX 7900 XT & XTX at 700 and 900 euros respectively right from launch. This would then be a difference of 350 and 250 euros respectively to the list price set by AMD, but also much more in line with the performance and market potential of these cards. The first impressions of these cards could have been much friendlier if AMD had set these prices, which is offered on the market anyway, right from the start.

All of this speaks in favor of lower launch prices for AMD graphics cards. This would be the only way to really put pressure on nVidia if both the appropriate top performance is lacking and the feature set on offer is not sufficient to keep up with nVidia in all disciplines. Price as a way of gaining more market share (what is strongly recommended for AMD) is of course the textbook wisdom of economists. However, this wisdom only applies to ideal markets - those with many market participants and often only for standard products that are easily comparable between suppliers (e.g. oil, steel, wheat, apples, etc.). Especially in a market with many participants, the strategy of price competition is attractive because the individual suppliers usually hold small market shares in percentage terms and the conquest of further market shares is then spread across many competitors - which, viewed individually, only ever lose slightly if a (single) other market participant makes significant gains.

However, this does not apply at all to the situation in the graphics card market: Intel is effectively irrelevant, so anything AMD wanted to grab in terms of market share can only come from nVidia. In this situation, a price offensive on the part of AMD would normally force the only relevant competitor, nVidia, to react - especially if that price offensive is successful. If AMD takes one percentage point each from (assumed) many competitors and thus doubles its overall market share, then this is only a small loss for the other suppliers. However, if AMD has to get this doubling from nVidia alone, then nVidia's market share must fall on a scale that is also noticeable at nVidia and hardly remains unanswered.

And this brings us to the crux of price offensives: You can't usually counter technology offensives immediately, technology first needs to be developed and brought to market (which takes at least quarters, but usually years). But price offensives can be launched at any time - or can be countered immediately. Every price offensive by AMD thus challenges nVidia to an immediate counter-reaction, which nVidia could also follow immediately in this field. Of course, nVidia does not have to do this, nVidia could rely on the strength of its own product and brand and hope that the market will continue to pay a certain nVidia premium. But the more aggressive AMD's price move is, the less this thesis works.

So if AMD approaches the launch with really aggressive prices, nVidia will not be able to leave this unanswered either. And this can quickly turn into a zero-sum game for both manufacturers - which is of course good for consumers and more in line with real competition on the market. However, since the manufacturers have all the levers in their hands, hardly anyone will start a price war that ultimately leads to only minimal changes in market share, but leaves both manufacturers earning less. A price war is not really successful when you have achieved more market share, but when you really achieve higher sales and profits. A market shift with higher market shares but unchanged sales and lower profits (via lower average prices) would not be a win for AMD.

However, this is precisely the perspective of all aggressive price steps on the part of AMD: nVidia could easily counter any of these steps, the cash situation at nVidia would ultimately allow a price war of (very) far below cost price. This is why AMD should ultimately not take this step at all: The risk of earning significantly less, whether with better or perhaps even unchanged market shares, is simply excessive in this specific market constellation. It should also be mentioned here that every price reduction has an excessive impact on the profit share: 20% lower graphics card prices do not result in 20% lower gross profit, but rather something like 50% lower profits - because every price reduction comes solely from the profit item, the important items in the overall calculation of the graphics card price (cost price) logically remain mostly unchanged with a pure price reduction.

In order to achieve at least the same gross profit with 20% lower graphics card prices, AMD would have to double its market share. This would be quite conceivable in a market with many participants and based on AMD's current market share of only 12% for desktop graphics cards. However, since AMD has to take everything from nVidia alone in this specific graphics card market, some reaction from nVidia would be inevitable - and this would then destroy AMD's textbook math and turn it into an overall loss. The most likely consequence of a very aggressive pricing strategy for AMD would thus be perhaps a few percent more market share at a lower overall gross profit, taking into account an expected nVidia response. This possibility is effectively blocked for AMD, regardless of what textbook economics says.

The only conceivable price steps for AMD are those that are just before the limit before nVidia feels compelled to intervene. However, it is difficult to estimate this precisely - and what must not happen from AMD's point of view is that they make a mistake and nVidia then goes along with the new AMD price level after all. The aforementioned 250-350 euros less for the Radeon RX 7900 XT/XTX is probably already too much. If AMD had done this with the RDNA3 launch, nVidia would probably have reacted and the graphics card buyers of 2023 would have been happy about a remarkably lower price level, especially if the new launches of 2023 had been at generally lower list prices. However, a certain intermediate path between no better launch prices at all and an overly aggressive pricing strategy seems quite conceivable, and AMD should work on this.

Another point that should be mentioned at this point is the general argument against the thesis that AMD would achieve a higher market share through better prices: All of these calculations always assume an ideal market, which reacts to price reductions by automatically increasing market share in favor of that market participant. However, AMD has had the experience in the past with a large number of products (not only in the graphics sector) that better prices compared to an overpowering competitor often only led to a very marginal increase in market share. This effect was sufficiently small that the overall market share development was driven more by other, larger effects - such as competition on a technical level or side effects such as crises or crypto-mining hypes:

Add-in Board GPU Market Share 2002 - 2Q 2024 (click on "Original" for the full-size graphic)

This long-term chart of market shares for desktop graphics cards clearly shows that nVidia is pushing AMD ever closer to the wall and is now almost impossible to defeat simply by virtue of its superiority. All of AMD's attempts over the decades to wrest market share from nVidia by means of better prices have only brought temporary results, but have never led to a substantial improvement in the market situation for AMD. Significantly, the only time AMD was ahead of nVidia in terms of market share was at a time when AMD was enjoying the technological fame of the Radeon 9000 series (first DirectX9 accelerators) and nVidia was not producing any particularly outstanding products with the GeForce FX/6.

AMD must also take this point into account in all its product and price decisions: The nVidia brand is obviously far too strong for AMD to be able to take a particularly large market share with reasonable effort. In an ideal market, the limit for each market participant is usually 100%, but between AMD and nVidia, the market share currently achievable for AMD worldwide is more likely only 30% (rough estimate, may be less). For many consumers, there is simply only nVidia, and they remain loyal to nVidia over perhaps even several weaker nVidia generations. This fits well with a recent meme that expresses the oft-quoted wisdom that a large proportion of market participants only want competition from AMD so that nVidia is somewhat restrained in terms of price.

Now, 30% market share would still be much more than AMD currently has (12% as mentioned), but it does indicate the increased difficulty AMD faces in this market: A great deal of effort and maximum (achievable) success would be required - but after all, AMD would be still remain as the smaller market player. And with a price offensive likely to result in lower overall profits, this is not a good starting point for AMD management to decide to actually challenge nVidia in this market. AMD's decision not to offer any further high-end accelerators in the upcoming RDNA4 generation should also be seen in this light.

Although this means a further loss of market share (the company is unlikely to grow miraculously in the mainstream and mid-range segment as a result of this decision), it will reduce its own costs and may also require less manpower for the GPU division. AMD currently prefers to allocate this manpower to those segments where it still has real growth opportunities: processors, especially server models, and then of course all developments in the field of AI accelerators. AMD is therefore simply reallocating its resources and retaining a certain minimal position in the graphics card market - from which it will certainly be able to shift up a gear at some point in the future and offer new high-end accelerators.

If AMD has observed the graphics card market closely enough, then it should not only come to the conclusion that no price battle against nVidia is worthwhile - but also that nVidia must be grabbed by its technological superiority. This is currently very easy to demonstrate using the example of ray tracing performance: Here, nVidia installs more technology, thus achieving a clear performance superiority - and this in a field that will foreseeably become increasingly important in the future, while performance under regular raster graphics is likely to decrease in importance on the same scale, especially for top graphics cards. In other words: If AMD has been able to wriggle around this point so far, at least equivalent ray tracing performance will probably be the benchmark for judging AMD graphics cards in the future.

However, if AMD really wanted to gain on nVidia, it can be assumed that even more than that is necessary: Either a performance plus or a feature set plus - but in any case no more disadvantages in ray tracing performance and on the feature side. AMD seems to be working hard on the latter, and this can be seen as conceivable preparation for a new, serious attack on nVidia. This attack is really not worthwhile for AMD before then - which does not mean that high-end solutions could not be developed, but these would then have to be deliberately set below nVidia's top solution. After all, at the current price level, nVidia certainly offers the possibility of developing 1000 dollar/euro accelerators that only have to compete with the second-best nVidia graphics chip.

From this point of view, it is to be hoped that the abandonment of high-end accelerators in “RDNA4” is probably also partly due to the upheaval of the earlier MCM plans for Navi 41 & 42, and that AMD will therefore subsequently serve this market segment again with “RDNA5”. In the long term, AMD must first and foremost work on catching up with nVidia on the technology side, otherwise no “market-breaking” products are feasible. As explained above, the price war is simply not a path that has a realistic chance of leading to success in this particular market situation between AMD & nVidia, but will probably even “give” AMD lower profits. Ultimately, AMD has not necessarily been able to put Intel under pressure in the processor market through better prices, but rather through better technology. Admittedly, Intel also made it quite easy for AMD at the time, nVidia is the far more difficult opponent to defeat.

Source: 3DCenter.org, translated with the help of DeepL & Google

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Finally overtaking the 3060 which has moved into second place.

The 4060TI is 3rd and the 4070 is 4th

Really surprised that the 5070ti is in such high demand, when the 4070ti is pretty far down the list. I would assume most are waiting for the regular 4070 and below.

First off, this is my opinion, and I understand it is likely quite a controversial one.

My Argument: Nvidia has set a precedence that you no longer actually own your computer hardware with the news that the RTX 3060 will be released with firmware/bios/drivers whatever that will be capable of detecting if the GPU is mining cryptocurrency and gimp its performance.

Why: Nvidia is dictating what you can and cannot run/use on the hardware you purchased to own. If a company still has control over how and when you use a product you purchase, thats no longer ownership. Nvidia is restricting the end user on how they can use their device.

Discussion: I'd argue that this is within the same line of large tech companies essentially leasing you hardware that you have to pay retail for, just like how apple is currently fighting right to repair, not allowing end users to be able to repair the devices they own, and with Tesla, selling you hardware inside of your car that you have to pay more money to be allowed to use. Id say if I pay for something to own it, i should actually own it.

The specific issue I have with this decision is that it is targeted. the end user is paying full retail price for a graphics card, but Nvidia has decided that the end user is not allowed to mine crypto on the card they thought they own, and can only use it for workloads Nvidia allows. thats a scary slippery slope if you ask me.

Just to put the current situation into a different scenario, I would liken this new move to the RTX 3060 limitations, to something like this:

Nvidia has announced that RTX / GTX Branded graphics cards are for Gaming only (quote from their blog post: "GeForce is Made for Gaming"). any use outside of their intended usecase, they will reduce their performance by 50% or greater. Adobe products, Autodesk products, and GPU based rendering software will all have full performance on our professional line of GPUs, the quadro graphics cards. Quote - "We are gamers, through and through."

this limitation to Crypto mining workloads on their GPUs has opened the doors to a possibility like that. I dont know about you but that scares me.

Let me know what you think, I'd love to hear some other opinions and discuss with y'all. thanks

EDIT: ok, so lets get a little bit tinfoil hat action going on here. take this specific part with a massive grain of salt, as this is all just opinion and theory. you have been warned.

also, just to preface this, I personally do not specifically mine Ethereum, nor do I hold or have any investments in Ethereum.

In Nvidia's blog post under the "halving hash rate" section, it says, " RTX 3060 software drivers are designed to detect specific attributes of the Ethereum cryptocurrency mining algorithm, and limit the hash rate, or cryptocurrency mining efficiency, by around 50 percent. "

why are they specifically only limiting performance on the Ethereum algorithm? wouldn't there goal be to completly nerf the card in all Crypto mining related workloads? why just Daggerhasimoto or whatever. just seems odd to me. think of it what you will.

Those two CPUs are aimed at a very narrow market and I just don't get why we're still talking about them a week after their reviews when most of us won't buy them anyways. On top of that, the conclusion is literally always the same:

• On one side, you have an 800$ chip with a TDP so unsustainable that it reaches 100°C on a high load no matter its cooler.

• On the other side, you have a more power-efficient 8-core chip that's priced higher than a 12-core chip from a platform near the end of its life.

And the only thing that those two chips are marketed for is about a 10% improvement in 1080p gaming only. And the people willing to spend that much money on those products are likely not gaming at 1080p anyway. You probably won't see any noticeable performance improvements at any resolution higher than that.

Please move on, guys