Nvidia to limit hash rate of RTX3060 GPU's

[Minstadave]

Makes sense to separate gaming and mining GPU lines for the manufacturers.

The mining cards can be sold at a higher premium, have reduced warranty and be stripped back.

 

[Tinek]

We're wiping out other species and continue to lose species at a horrifying rate.

If you kill somebody you're not just "mostly hurting yourself" because you end up in prison. You also KILLED the other chap!!

If you wipe out other life on this planet you will indeed be hurting yourself, but the other chap will be DEAD!

That's not "mostly hurting yourself" Unless, as said, you can't empathise with the other chap who you killed. Then, indeed, you might simply be miffed at having to go to jail.

Earth had been able to wipe out 99.9%+ of species a couple of times already, in the past. No matter what we do, we can't match it (so far). Many species just die out without our help - it's a natural circle of life on this planet and constant evolution. Whatever isn't adapted, will die out. That includes us, if something happens that we just can't handle.

But don't get me wrong - I believe we are advanced enough to stop being so reckless with environment and we should instead use our knowledge and resources to push humanity forth instead of using it to fulfill our greed. However, a lot of scientists believe now that some greed is necessary for any species to be able to evolve and survive. Pretty much all species on Earth have it to some degree. Still, it might as well be our undoing if not kept in check. And so far we have a bunch of very polluting countries that do it just for their own gain (power greed etc.). UK isn't one of them, though, neither is EU.

 

[Lightnix]

I do not think manufactures can nor should do anything to stop the miners. It's not their job. What will sort it out for good (at least with Eth) is when these crypto coins with from proof of work to proof of stake. GPU mining won't be needed then. Eth supposedly is switching middle of this year, which also makes NVidia's announcement a bit suspicious, as that would mean they will block mining Eth only few months (at best) before it's a history anyway.

At the end of the day it's literally their job to control how their products fit the market. Asking the mining community to fix this is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Chances are an operational and profitable eth 1 fork will exist for a long time and if it's faster to make money with that than validating eth 2, people will keep doing it.

 

[FoxEye]

At the end of the day it's literally their job to control how their products fit the market. Asking the mining community to fix this is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Chances are an operational and profitable eth 1 fork will exist for a long time and if it's faster to make money with that than validating eth 2, people will keep doing it.

There is also not universal agreement in the crypto community that Proof of Stake is "better" than PoWork.

In fact there are are a lof of PoW advocates. PoW is not going away.

 

[Tinek]

At the end of the day it's literally their job to control how their products fit the market. Asking the mining community to fix this is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Chances are an operational and profitable eth 1 fork will exist for a long time and if it's faster to make money with that than validating eth 2, people will keep doing it.

Manufacturer sees a need on the market and provides a product to fulfill that need. And gets nicely rewarded in the process. Currently, there's (aside gamers market) a need for GPUs that can mine and be sold later with little loss. There's no need to have purely mining GPUs (uneless they'll be much cheaper than gaming ones) that can't be resold or used for anything else just few months after purchase. People should not forget that mining on an expensive GPU is profitable usually only for few months before difficulty spikes too high to bother for most. Nvidia is (once again - this isn't their first rodeo) trying to artificially force buyers to choose the product they want them to choose and divide the market, selling older and rubbish GPUs that wouldn't fit in gaming cards for a premium to miners. It's a very smart move from them but if that works, they won't stop on that and will push forth with other ideas. Apple is very successful doing that, hence corporation like NVidia surely would like to join the gravy train. Is that really so good for consumers? I am confident they do not do it for gamers but just use it as a nice PR excuse.

 

[Lightnix]

Manufacturer sees a need on the market and provides a product to fulfill that need. And gets nicely rewarded in the process. Currently, there's (aside gamers market) a need for GPUs that can mine and be sold later with little loss. There's no need to have purely mining GPUs (uneless they'll be much cheaper than gaming ones) that can't be resold or used for anything else just few months after purchase. People should not forget that mining on an expensive GPU is profitable usually only for few months before difficulty spikes too high to bother for most. Nvidia is (once again - this isn't their first rodeo) trying to artificially force buyers to choose the product they want them to choose and divide the market, selling older and rubbish GPUs that wouldn't fit in gaming cards for a premium to miners. It's a very smart move from them but if that works, they won't stop on that and will push forth with other ideas. Apple is very successful doing that, hence corporation like NVidia surely would like to join the gravy train. Is that really so good for consumers? I am confident they do not do it for gamers but just use it as a nice PR excuse.

There is not a need for miners having access to effectively free GPUs, there is a demand - and quite an unreasonable one I might add - that is currently being fulfilled through a set of circumstances that were never going to last forever. Of course Nvidia is going to play this situation to their advantage, that's just what companies do.

 

[Tinek]

There is not a need for miners having access to effectively free GPUs, there is a demand - and quite an unreasonable one I might add - that is currently being fulfilled through a set of circumstances that were never going to last forever. Of course Nvidia is going to play this situation to their advantage, that's just what companies do.

What corporations also do is to fulfill their own greed and constantly push the line of what's ok to do. Is that good for consumer and should we actually cheer for them to artificially block things in their GPUs? Because I am sure this isn't the last thing they plan to block but is instead another step towards the idea that they want to co control everything that one can do with their GPUs. They already did it with pro use, now mining, what will be next?
Intel already nicely divided market and charge extra for anything above the basic CPU functionality. AMD finally shown Intel you can make good CPU and not artificially lock it down just to charge premium for all the things people back in the days took for granted - not that it changed much in Intel's behaviour, yet. But they lack the power to show the same to NVidia, hence the latter behaves more and more like a monopolist.

In other words, gamers cheer for the PR stunt whilst I look forth and ponder what is this really about and what will come next. Look at microtransactions and DLC etc. in games - people didn't mind much at first and now everything is monetised. Definitely not a good thing for consumers. Hardware DLCs/microtransactions are already a thing - a small so far, but a thing. I expect more of that to come soon enough to yours and mine PC and it doesn't make me happy.

 

[Doobedoo]

Pretty much every facet of our existence has been monetised, that’s just capitalism and while their is capitalism their will be such things as miners and people only really care n this instance because it’s affecting them being able to play games which again is another industry built on making money. Saving the environment is another means to make money, carbon taxes and all that, mean while those corporations drilling and fracking the world, get off Scott free. I understand the sentiment that people have regarding mining and its environmental impact but it really is small fry in the grand scheme of things and is born out self interest at its core.

 

[Lightnix]

What corporations also do is to fulfill their own greed and constantly push the line of what's ok to do. Is that good for consumer and should we actually cheer for them to artificially block things in their GPUs? Because I am sure this isn't the last thing they plan to block but is instead another step towards the idea that they want to co control everything that one can do with their GPUs. They already did it with pro use, now mining, what will be next?
Intel already nicely divided market and charge extra for anything above the basic CPU functionality. AMD finally shown Intel you can make good CPU and not artificially lock it down just to charge premium for all the things people back in the days took for granted - not that it changed much in Intel's behaviour, yet. But they lack the power to show the same to NVidia, hence the latter behaves more and more like a monopolist.

In other words, gamers cheer for the PR stunt whilst I look forth and ponder what is this really about and what will come next. Look at microtransactions and DLC etc. in games - people didn't mind much at first and now everything is monetised. Definitely not a good thing for consumers. Hardware DLCs/microtransactions are already a thing - a small so far, but a thing. I expect more of that to come soon enough to yours and mine PC and it doesn't make me happy.

In my view this move comes with pros and cons for gamers. Most gamers I imagine will be willing to accept that tradeoff, and Nvidia will be very careful to package it such that they do. As far as gamer/pro user segmentation and such goes, in a lot of ways that's worked out quite well because what gamer really needs a spare few teraflops of DP performance when they'd be better served with more SP performance? Do I need ECC capabilities to watch YouTube? Nope. A kitchen sink approach is often just wasted silicon. Likewise what do miners get out of raytracing accelerators or raster operators? Not a lot.

Other side of the coin, there's always option 3: governments start wading in. Now I'm fine with that but I know a lot here won't be.

 

[no_1_dave]

I don't want to, nor ever will, mine.

I've just been doing a bit of reading up on nicehash website, and here in the crypto forum and to me it sounds as dodgy as hell.

First off on nicehash website it states you have to make an exception in your anti-virus programs for it to run. That's the first and last red line for me personally. Anything that needs to circumvent an antivirus is not getting installed on my PC ever!

I might be wrong, but it seems like something along the lines of having to open up an account with somewhere like coinbase, to transfer from nicehash, then you have to use their "pro" service, which you then register your bank details with (another big no from me for a company I don't trust) and in these very forums I've seen people saying their accounts at coinbase have been stuck being "verified" for months on end, i dread to think what documents you may have to send to this coinbase to get "verified", again something I would never do.

Some viruses in the past have used the PCs they infect to mine crypto, so now most crypto miners flag antivirus programs

You can withdraw directly from Nicehash into your account
Coinbase is a doddle, people are left in verification due to user error
You can even withdraw to paypal

Quite a few people who had high-paying city jobs left them to go live in the mountains (you know what I mean, here; I'm not being 100% literal).

People who earned enough money to move out to the countryside and never need to work again... We can all dream

Huge difference in those scenarios. Yes, many useful/required activities have a carbon cost.

1) Most industries are trying to reduce consumption (energy/carbon/etc).
2) BTC energy usage will increase (exponentially?) by design (read the other day it's increased 800% in 2.5 years).

BTC does not seek to reduce consumption. In fact it seeks to increase it. Nor is producing BTC something I'd class as a "useful/required" activity. Unlike, say, having your groceries delivered. Because you kind of need to eat.

Home miners are mining Eth with graphics cards and Eth is changing to 'proof of stake' in the near future so it won't use as much power
Bitcoin will still use lots of power though

Now there are rumblings of some kind of secure handshake between the silicon, BIOS and driver. If this means the card verifying a cryptographically signed driver before it allows it to work, and the scheme is actually implemented securely then miners might have a bit of a problem on their hands. Can't imagine it's great for the open source community, either, though.

It's to little too late and an obvious cash in.

They'll design the new mining cards with failed yields where the cores cannot be used in gaming cards because it's the ram that Eth mining needs. It's just a way for them to make more money out of something that would otherwise have been thrown out. Add this to the fact that the 3060TI and the 3080 are the best purchases for miners and people can/will still buy them solely for mining

I bought my 3080 for gaming, but mining on the side is proving a nice bonus

 

[andybird123]

It only affects Eth, so other coins still make $6-7 a day on this card, that's about the same as a 2080ti

 

[nvidiamd]

It makes you laugh really:
We can't find any 3080 to buy because they are all sold to miners.
Nvidia: Ok we will solve this. We will reduce the mining performance for the 3060. And also launch dedicated mining cards.

How will this solve the 3080 unavailability/price problem? It's not like the miners were expecting the 3060, they were already buying the most desired card from the series. Heck even if the 3060 had 0 mining performance, it will solve nothing in the high end market.

 

[Grim5]

The mining nerf is not just driver related, it's a silicon and vbios level change and kope says all SKU are going EOL for replacement- meaning all RTX3000 card will get mining nerf if you buy a new card, old card will have high hash rate

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-says-it...current-ampere-turing-gpus-remain-unaffected/

 

[Random Guy Esq.]

Nvidia: "There is a secure handshake between the driver, the RTX 3060 silicon, and the BIOS (firmware) that prevents removal of the hash rate limiter."

Miners: "Challenge accepted."

 

[FoxEye]

Here's a thought: if this just targets Ethereum and not other cryptos, could they be sued by Ethereum miners for unfair discrimination?

 

[Grim5]

Here's a thought: if this just targets Ethereum and not other cryptos, could they be sued by Ethereum miners for unfair discrimination?

what? Lolwat

yeah, and I'm gonna sue the Goverment for putting speed limit on the road that's only 1/3rd of what my car can do, how dare they!! And while I'm at it I'm gonna sue them for not letting me drive my car on the bus lane and train tracks


As has been mentikned before RTX3000 cards are for games, as long as games are not effected Nvidia can do whatever the hell it wants, they never promised you anything but gaming performance - by using the card for something other than games you are using it outside of its advertised and intended use so you take all risk

 

[FoxEye]

I just wondered since it would be pretty unusual to just target one crypto.

If other crypto could be mined without hash limiting kicking in, then Ethereum could lose ground and other crypto gain ground, leading to no real benefit to non-miners, but Eth miners losing $$$.

Since we know the crypto market is a billion dollar industry, and knowing how much the US loves a good lawsuit, I just wondered if there was a case to answer about unfair discrimination against Eth.

e: In your analogy, it would be like limiting Audis to 30mph but letting all other brands do 60mph.

 

[Grim5]

I just wondered since it would be pretty unusual to just target one crypto.

If other crypto could be mined without hash limiting kicking in, then Ethereum could lose ground and other crypto gain ground, leading to no real benefit to non-miners, but Eth miners losing $$$.

Since we know the crypto market is a billion dollar industry, and knowing how much the US loves a good lawsuit, I just wondered if there was a case to answer about unfair discrimination against Eth.

e: In your analogy, it would be like limiting Audis to 30mph but letting all other brands do 60mph.

Isn't that because other popular crypto like Bitcoin has been much more profitable using asic than gpu so no one buys gpu for Bitcoin

 

[FoxEye]

Isn't that because other popular crypto like Bitcoin has been much more profitable using asic than gpu so no one buys gpu for Bitcoin

The point being if there are multiple crypto coins that can be GPU mined (ignoring BTC which is asic mined as you say), if the nVidia limit kicks in for Eth, but not (let's say) Dogecoin* or all the other PoW altcoins, then Eth is uniquely at a disadvantage.

*I don't know if Dogecoin is PoW or not, but that doesn't matter to the argument

 

[XeNoNF50]

Good on them tbh