NVIDIA 5 Series cards - Get your wallets ready boys and girls....

[kksnowbear]

LOL This just keeps getting better.

(It is, however, off topic again.)

Edited January 28 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

Meanwhile with DEEPSEEK, I wonder if Jensen should reconsider the pricing for 5090 (and the rest)...

Looks like DeepSeek was trained on Nvidia GPUs  

[MAXsenna]

LOL This just keeps getting better.
(It is, however, off topic again.)

In what way is it off topic? The subject is literally "get your wallets ready". What do predict will Happen to MSRP prices? Nvidia doesn't give a flying F? I assume so. Will they sell less in the US, more chips for us? Or will they reduce it accordingly for US. And if they do that, what will happen to European prices?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[okopanja]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Looks like DeepSeek was trained on Nvidia GPUs  

it means it needs less of them, less powerful.

[kksnowbear]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

In what way is it off topic? The subject is literally "get your wallets ready". What do predict will Happen to MSRP prices? Nvidia doesn't give a flying F? I assume so. Will they sell less in the US, more chips for us? Or will they reduce it accordingly for US. And if they do that, what will happen to European prices?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Sorry if it wasn't clear. It happens I agree with you about costs, prices, etc - as it applies to the 50 series GPUs.

I was referring to nonsense about how many FPS humans can see, claims of USAF test reports that cannot be proved, and whether/why there are no modular GPUs that can be upgraded.  The business about supply and demand is misplaced, I think, as well.

The topic is "Nvidia 5 Series cards" as per title change.

Edited January 28 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

14 minutes ago, okopanja said:

it means it needs less of them, less powerful.

From Morningstar:

“We believe that AI graphics-processing unit demand still exceeds supply, so while slimmer models may enable greater development for the same number of chips, we still think tech firms will continue to buy all the GPUs they can as part of this AI “gold rush,”

No fire sale on graphics cards yet it seems…

 

[kksnowbear]

IMO it's a fallacy to blindly apply "supply and demand" here, when it's already well known that Nvidia is intentionally manipulating things by throttling the supply.

I think it's misleading to suggest that, in the classic sense, this can be accounted for with simple "supply and demand" argument.  Pretty sure that "law" is intended to account for/explain the relationship between supply and demand, not to justify questionable ethics and business practices.

Edited January 28 by kksnowbear

[MAXsenna]

Sorry if it wasn't clear. It happens I agree with you about costs, prices, etc - as it applies to the 50 series GPUs.
I was referring to nonsense about how many FPS humans can see, USAF test reports that cannot be proved, and whether/why there are no modular GPUs that can be upgraded.  The business about supply and demand is misplaced, I think, as well.
The topic is "Nvidia 5 Series cards" as per title change.

Aha! I see. Makes sense now.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[okopanja]

31 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

From Morningstar:

“We believe that AI graphics-processing unit demand still exceeds supply, so while slimmer models may enable greater development for the same number of chips, we still think tech firms will continue to buy all the GPUs they can as part of this AI “gold rush,”

No fire sale on graphics cards yet it seems…

 

They demonstarated that more can be achieved with less. Hence, any rational investor will prefer to do the same. It did not push stocks down randomly.

[Dragon1-1]

8 minutes ago, okopanja said:

They demonstarated that more can be achieved with less. Hence, any rational investor will prefer to do the same. It did not push stocks down randomly.

What NVIDIA is saying can also be said in other words: "pay and cry, we know full well we haven't squeezed every possible dollar out of you yet, and we'll just keep throttling supply if you try any of that do more with less nonsense".

With Trump tariffs, expect prices to only get worse. TMSC will likely not come to the US, since that would mean paying US taxes and US wages. It could be cheaper for the company to leave its customers paying tariffs, and even if they do build a US factory, chips from that will be expensive. Samsung does make chips, too, by the way, in addition to Chinese manufacturers who are slowly catching up, so it's not that all our eggs are in one basket, but either way, the market is not very competitive, and any hiccup from TMSC will result in others jacking up their prices.

58 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

The business about supply and demand is misplaced, I think, as well.

This "business" is all about the reason why the pricing on the 50 series is as insane as it is, specifically how NVIDIA is blatantly abusing the mechanism. The other discussions are not that far off topic, either, since they all circle back to two fundamental questions about the 50 series: "why can't I afford the one I want?" and "do I need that overpriced crap at all?".

Edited January 28 by Dragon1-1

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, okopanja said:

They demonstarated that more can be achieved with less. Hence, any rational investor will prefer to do the same. It did not push stocks down randomly.

Markets can be skittish. The daily ups and downs shouldn’t be something to make snap judgements about. The bottom line is they are still the leader in GPUs and the demand for those will just get higher with AI no matter how efficient it might be. Did more efficient computing cause people to buy less chips from Intel in the 90s? No…

[okopanja]

8 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What NVIDIA is saying can also be said in other words: "pay and cry, we know full well we haven't squeezed every possible dollar out of you yet, and we'll just keep throttling supply if you try any of that do more with less nonsense".

Base on the ability to predict the demand they made certain planning. Now that planning is not valid anymore, but I am pretty sure that fab capacity was already allocated for them. They may easily choke the supply to the market, but what do they do with fabs?

[Dragon1-1]

Whatever the beancounters think makes them the most money. Idle them, store the output in a warehouse, or retask them. I don't know what they'll do, but lowering prices is unlikely to be part of the plan.

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Base on the ability to predict the demand they made certain planning. Now that planning is not valid anymore, but I am pretty sure that fab capacity was already allocated for them. They may easily choke the supply to the market, but what do they do with fabs?

People don’t take their foot off the gas when more efficient compute power comes along. 

”Now I have the fastest computer I will ever need” Said nobody ever…

Now there’s a more efficient AI model to run and Nvidia still makes the best chips for that. 
For the long term investor that little bump yesterday looks like this.

 

Edited January 28 by SharpeXB

[kksnowbear]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

This "business" is all about the reason why the pricing on the 50 series is as insane as it is, specifically how NVIDIA is blatantly abusing the mechanism. The other discussions are not that far off topic, either, since they all circle back to two fundamental questions about the 50 series: "why can't I afford the one I want?" and "do I need that overpriced crap at all?".

I think you misunderstood.  I said before (essentially) what you said after, in terms of Nvidia abusing the mechanism.  I've said previously it's not really explained by the classic 'supply and demand' argument.  Please see here:

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

IMO it's a fallacy to blindly apply "supply and demand" here, when it's already well known that Nvidia is intentionally manipulating things by throttling the supply.

I think it's misleading to suggest that, in the classic sense, this can be accounted for with simple "supply and demand" argument.  Pretty sure that "law" is intended to account for/explain the relationship between supply and demand, not to justify questionable ethics and business practices.

The 'other discussions' I consider off topic are, as I described:

2 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

I was referring to nonsense about how many FPS humans can see, claims of USAF test reports that cannot be proved, and whether/why there are no modular GPUs that can be upgraded. 

These are clearly not on the topic, particularly once the title was changed.

I believe we agree in principle at least, on the questions of "why can't I afford the one I want?" and "do I need that overpriced crap at all?" (although I might not express the questions exactly in those words).

Edited January 28 by kksnowbear

[Dogmanbird]

it might still be a wake-up for some and reveal the level of coding skills v relying on hardware improvement. I think this is a good moment and may trigger some changes

does anyone remember the vic-20 days of LamaSoft games and how well their machine coded games could run compared to nearly everyone else's, on just a 3k or 5k expanded machine?

Edited January 28 by Dogmanbird

[SharpeXB]

Sometimes markets can be really dumb. This DeepSeek reaction is like thinking GM will sell less cars because someone created more powerful gasoline and people can drive fast enough already. Or a new more powerful rocket engine means Elon Musk still just wants to go to Mars instead of Jupiter

A great buying opportunity for anyone who didn’t own Nvidia already. But likely any investor already does, so… stay the course.

Edited January 28 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

30 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

”Now I have the fastest computer I will ever need” Said nobody ever…

My dad actually did. It's been a while since he got himself a 1080-based rig. Nearly perfectly silent when idle or close to idle, can run almost everything but the very latest stuff on his modestly sized screen, and unlike my own rig, it doesn't double as a space heater. He barely uses its full capabilities, anyway.

In fact, I suspect that quite a few people dropped out of the performance race, which is causing a lot of grief when they try playing the latest games on a rig that was cool when it was built (like my dad's), but the technological progress passed them by. In fact, I'd expect the majority of people to not be too eager to constantly update their PCs.

22 minutes ago, Dogmanbird said:

it might still be a wake-up for some and reveal the level of coding skills v relying on hardware improvement. I think this is a good moment

I think it's way past time for that. UE5 games, in particular, seem to be suffering from an epidemic of bad optimization and poor coding that can be powered through, but people shouldn't have to buy a top tier GPU just to play the latest releases. Even lowering the graphics settings often doesn't help.

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

My dad actually did.

My wife still has a 2011 iMac but those aren’t the target consumers for these GPUs

[Dragon1-1]

That was my point. My dad was very much in the race for a long time, in fact, he'd been at it since he swapped his second Atari for a PC. As a kid, hand-me-downs from him were sufficiently powerful that I seldom complained about not being able to run something, except when things like SSE2 appeared, at the time I had the last high end AMD CPU that didn't support it, which kind of sucked when it became a hard requirement. At one point, he just decided further upgrades weren't worth the money, the 20xx series RTX being a bit of a dud had a lot to do with it, and the 30 series launch pricing sealed the deal.

The "target consumers" are getting tired of ballooning prices for incremental performance gains. While I haven't yet declared the 3090 will be the last GPU I buy, unless something truly revolutionary is added (more than spamming fake frames, anyway), I expect it to suffice for the foreseeable future. When I do upgrade my rig, it'll likely be because something like retina-level VR came out.

Edited January 28 by Dragon1-1

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The "target consumers" are getting tired of ballooning prices for incremental performance gains.

Those target consumers just got a performance gain in the form of more efficient AI. So the analogy again is like thinking SpaceX stock should go down because somebody invented a more powerful rocket fuel. So they’ll sell less rockets since less will be needed to go to Mars. Not realizing customers could continue buying the same number of rockets but use them to go to Jupiter instead. Or to accomplish even more missions on Mars. In fact the demand for rockets could go up now that rockets can do even more. And again this gets back to the theory of infinite demand. The beauty the market is that it will correct itself eventually… don’t sell Nvidia just yet.

[Dragon1-1]

42 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

So the analogy again is like thinking SpaceX stock should go down because somebody invented a more powerful rocket fuel. 

This is exactly what would happen if someone were to invent a new fuel, or a better engine. Moreover, this example is particularly bad, because rockets are designed to run on a specific type of fuel. Sure, people would be going to Mars in fewer launches, but not on SpaceX rockets. That is why they'd take a stock hit, and also why other AI companies are taking the hit now. It's not their AIs that are in demand. Likewise on the semiconductor market, if it can work with fewer, lower end NVIDIA chips, who's to guarantee the next version won't run on, say, a few 2070 from the bargain bin? Stock market bets on promises and expectations, and right now, it took a hit because there's a very reasonable fear that the AI market will not continue its current explosive growth trajectory, but will instead plateau, with companies moving towards efficiency instead.

42 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Not realizing customers could continue buying the same number of rockets but use them to go to Jupiter instead. Or to accomplish even more missions on Mars. In fact the demand for rockets could go up now that rockets can do even more. 

Except the consumers want to go to Mars, not to a giant ball of gas shrouded in radiation. Maybe, for instance, parts for Mars bases do not get cheaper or faster to produce just because rockets did, and bases designed on Mars will not work on Jupiter. In that case, even if SpaceX reengineers their rockets to work on the new fuel (itself a big investment that will eat into profits), the result will be that fewer rockets will fly through no fault of their own. Understand that, and you'll understand why companies sometimes choose a FUD campaign instead of getting on with the times. Sometimes, it's enough to outright kill off an innovation.

Another example: if you build a better mousetrap in a mice-infested country, you'll certainly make good money. But what if it's so good that it outright extirpates the mice? Would you be able to sell an even better trap in this situation? I don't think so. In some markets, it's very much possible to go out of business because your product was too good. For further reading on why your theory is bunk, look up Phoebus cartel.

42 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And again this gets back to the theory of infinite demand. 

Yes, which is why most of of what you wrote is neoliberal balderdash. Your thinking is exactly what made the markets, and the world as it is now, such a mess. There is no such thing as infinite demand, the only reason NVIDIA can say things that it does is that they're a near-monopoly when it comes to AI chips, and thus are free to manipulate the supply. It's not that demand is infinite, it's that the people making the stuff made damn sure to never make enough chips for everyone, even though they could.

Markets are a complex thing. They're never completely free, they depend on finite resources, finite logistics, finite market size, and are often interconnected (for instance, a shortage of latest socket CPUs will bog down sales of mobos with that socket, no matter how good they are). Real markets, as opposed to simplified models used to bamboozle the general public, are never as well behaved as you'd like to think. I'd suggest you educate yourself on this before you pretend to know anything about economics (and I really wish politicians heeded that advice...).

Edited January 28 by Dragon1-1

[SharpeXB]

32 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Likewise on the semiconductor market, if it can work with fewer, lower end NVIDIA chips, who's to guarantee the next version won't run on, say, a few 2070 from the bargain bin?

Or it could accomplish more by harnessing both the more effective AI and newer more powerful chips. And everyone still uses Nvidia GPUs including DeepSeek.

35 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Except the consumers want to go to Mars, not to a giant ball of gas shrouded in radiation. Maybe, for instance, parts for Mars bases do not get cheaper or faster to produce just because rockets did, and bases designed on Mars will not work on Jupiter. In that case, even if SpaceX reengineers their rockets to work on the new fuel (itself a big investment that will eat into profits), the result will be that fewer rockets will fly through no fault of their own. Understand that, and you'll understand why companies sometimes choose a FUD campaign instead of getting on with the times. Sometimes, it's enough to outright kill off an innovation.

You realize the above example there was meant as an analogy, not to go off topic into the specifics of space travel.  

37 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Yes, which is why most of of what you wrote is neoliberal balderdash.

Liberal?! I think basic economic reality is a rather conservative world view if you ask me.

38 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

There is no such thing as infinite demand

I can’t think of a better example of this honestly. Saturated demand would refer to selling something like washing machines where customers won’t really buy more than one no matter what the price. And they aren’t apt to buy them all up and resell them for profit etc. The demand for GPUs definitely outpaces supply as it does for most goods. Hence the price. 

48 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Markets are a complex thing. They're never completely free, they depend on finite resources, finite logistics, finite market size, and are often interconnected

Indeed capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the others

[Dragon1-1]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Liberal?! I think basic economic reality is a rather conservative world view if you ask me.

Neoliberal (and it is politically conservative, Reagan and Thatcher were its champions). If you can't even get that right, then you should really stop pretending you know anything about "basic economic reality" until you can at least recognize the basic terms.

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You realize the above example there was meant as an analogy, not to go off topic into the specifics of space travel.  

So was mine, and you failed to see that, too. Looks like I have to spell it out.

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Or it could accomplish more by harnessing both the more effective AI and newer more powerful chips. 

What if there isn't anything more to accomplish? What if we're about to hit the plateau? These are the questions the investors are asking. We're still being promised the next great leap, but here comes a Chinese guy and says "how about efficiency instead?" That's got to get some people thinking, what if we make the leap and faceplant into a wall? What if progress, from here on, will mean doing slightly more cool things with fewer chips every time?

Deep Seek runs on NVIDIA chips, but the investors aren't thinking about Deep Seek. They're thinking about is successor. Will you put money on it running on NVIDIA chips? Will you put money on it requiring more of them? A large amount of people just didn't. The fact that it's Chinese, not American, means that it will likely to be looking at using Chinese chips in the future, the international situation being what it is. 

28 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Indeed capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the others

...you do realize you're actually mangling a quote from a socialist? Your version is just as wrong as the original one, BTW. Churchill was good at witty quotes, but I'm not sure if you're aware of what happened once he had to campaign on his policies. Both times.

[SharpeXB]

45 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Neoliberal (and it is politically conservative, Reagan and Thatcher were its champions)

Ha then I am a neoliberal, I lived that era but I don’t recall anyone referring to them back then as any sort of “liberal”. Let’s stay off politics though… 

PS my brother was a political science major back then. He never heard that term applied to Reagan either, it’s probably a revisionist creation.

45 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What if there isn't anything more to accomplish?

There’s always something more to accomplish. 

45 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

...you do realize you're actually mangling a quote from a socialist?

I know

Edited January 28 by SharpeXB