Revealed Nvidia GP100 Analysed... full GP100 specs extracted

patrickjp93 · April 14, 2016

3 hours ago, Sharkyx1 said:

If I said graphics card would you accept my post? on the enterprise side nvidia will just tank the yields and price accordingly, they can't sell titans for 6k usd though.

I don't doubt the chance that nvidia might impress me and release earlier than I expect, but do you think we'll see a shipping 610mm graphics card in 2016?

Yes. It might be a Quadro, but yes!

Misanthrope · April 14, 2016

5 hours ago, Sharkyx1 said:

If I said graphics card would you accept my post? on the enterprise side nvidia will just tank the yields and price accordingly, they can't sell titans for 6k usd though.

I don't doubt the chance that nvidia might impress me and release earlier than I expect, but do you think we'll see a shipping 610mm graphics card in 2016?

Is that like a challenge? Because guys like Linus or Jayz2cents would definitively buy not one but several, even out of pocket if needed be.

Prysin · April 14, 2016

7 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

An enthusiast card for enthusiast use cases. AMD does exactly the same quality of work but throws a liquid cooler on it. The VRMs between the Titan X and 295x2 are the exact same components.

It's perfectly ethical. It's up to businesses to be honest and consumers to be discerning.

oh yeah, because it would hurt Nvidia so bad if they had to cut 30 bucks out of their already near 200% margins on the TitanX in order to make a better cooling solution.

Making a product with the intention of rapid degradation under normal intended use is NOT ethical. Not in any way.

You dont see Intel, Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple, Western Digital, Seagate, Hitachi, Toshiba, or AMD designing their products to fail after warranty ends just by using the product as intended. This is especially true for their top of the line stuff. I have yet to hear about 5960Xs failing under normal intended use. Hell, even washing machines isnt made to break with normal use. Even if way over the warranty period.

So if most other global companies doesnt do it, it is probably due to a reason. That is because it is a BAD BUSINESS DECISION. Sure, you CAN make more money by designing things to fail but you also gain a lot more animosity towards your brand.

Not all PR is good PR, and dieing products are NOT good PR. Even if outside of warranty, it is expected to last, even if slowing down, for some time. Not just die. This is especially true for the top of the line products. One assumes one pay for quality and performance, not just for the sake of lining Nvidias pockets.

A warranty is there only to guarantee that it WILL work flawlessly for that period. It is not there as a absolute lifespan. The reason a warranty is usually just 1-2 years, is simply because unless the market segment evolves at a slower pace, one must expect that new products will replace the old one in a fashionable amount of time. Thus having 5-10 year warranties make no sense, as replacing the product 5 years down the line would simply not benefit the customer. They would be stuck with sub-par and outdated tech, which benefits nobody. However that does not grant the manufacturer a right to plan and decide when your product is meant to stop working.

Honestly Patrick, i would advice you to not try to defend this practice. It just make you look like a massive fanboy.

Bad practices are bad, regardless of who commits them.

patrickjp93 · April 14, 2016

6 hours ago, Prysin said:

oh yeah, because it would hurt Nvidia so bad if they had to cut 30 bucks out of their already near 200% margins on the TitanX in order to make a better cooling solution.

Making a product with the intention of rapid degradation under normal intended use is NOT ethical. Not in any way.

You dont see Intel, Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple, Western Digital, Seagate, Hitachi, Toshiba, or AMD designing their products to fail after warranty ends just by using the product as intended. This is especially true for their top of the line stuff. I have yet to hear about 5960Xs failing under normal intended use. Hell, even washing machines isnt made to break with normal use. Even if way over the warranty period.

So if most other global companies doesnt do it, it is probably due to a reason. That is because it is a BAD BUSINESS DECISION. Sure, you CAN make more money by designing things to fail but you also gain a lot more animosity towards your brand.

Not all PR is good PR, and dieing products are NOT good PR. Even if outside of warranty, it is expected to last, even if slowing down, for some time. Not just die. This is especially true for the top of the line products. One assumes one pay for quality and performance, not just for the sake of lining Nvidias pockets.

A warranty is there only to guarantee that it WILL work flawlessly for that period. It is not there as a absolute lifespan. The reason a warranty is usually just 1-2 years, is simply because unless the market segment evolves at a slower pace, one must expect that new products will replace the old one in a fashionable amount of time. Thus having 5-10 year warranties make no sense, as replacing the product 5 years down the line would simply not benefit the customer. They would be stuck with sub-par and outdated tech, which benefits nobody. However that does not grant the manufacturer a right to plan and decide when your product is meant to stop working.

Honestly Patrick, i would advice you to not try to defend this practice. It just make you look like a massive fanboy.

Bad practices are bad, regardless of who commits them.

Try 650%, and businesses exist to earn money. You cannot legislate morality nor demand it beyond human rights. Vote with your wallet and your feet and quit kvetching about what company does what with their products. If they suit your use case, then buy, else, don't.

While I never have owned an AMD product, I'm not in the market for any and hold no positions with anyone in the tech world other than long IBM, Imagination, and Intel and short Qualcomm. I am the anti-fanboy. I'm also anti-stupid. This practice is perfectly defensible. It's just not savory. Notice I defended AMD in the same stroke. And I would defend Intel too just as I did during the Skylake CPU Bending fiasco that was eventually proven the fault of cooler makers and consumers, rather than Intel's spec.

Apple pretty much does. You could argue for Seagate too.

Silicon is not remotely equivalent with a metal and plastic VRM. And in the case of washing machines, they have very few points of failure and are very simple machines that can't exactly break until the bearings wear out. They're not remotely comparable to this situation. Animosity toward the brand?! People what suits them best regardless of their emotions in most cases. Part of competing in business is understanding that. AMD would do well to stop supporting so many card generations at once to bolster its own revenues AND cut costs. Of course then people would bitch about "planned obsolescence" despite the fact tech moves fast and you have to get over that.

no, Nvidia gets you to pay for something you feel you need, to line its own pockets. You are otherwise irrelevant as long as the product doesn't violate your human rights.

Definitions change. If Nvidia can make more money having the warranty function as a more precise barometer for product lifespan, then it will, and eventually other companies will follow suit. Efficiency is the name of the game in the global economy. It's efficient to have fast product turnover in cadence with releases. It's evolution of business plain as day.

The business has every right to do that, and you as the consumer can make a choice to support that or not. I don't have a dog in this fight, but you're being a petulant, whining child. Until Nvidia violates your personal rights, it can do whatever the Hell it wants with the products it makes and sells, period.