[hn_throwaway_99]

I don't get this. Nvidia didn't "bet the farm" on AI. They are simply allocating limited resources (in this case memory) to their most profitable products. Yes, it sucks for gamers, but I see Nvidia more reacting to the current marketplace than driving that change.

If/when the AI bubble bursts, Nvidia will just readjust their resource allocation accordingly.

[kowbell]

I also don't understand common sentiment that if/when the AI bubble pops and hardware manufacturers come crawling back, we consumers are going to make manufacturers regret their decision.

Isn't the whole problem that all the manufacturers are pivoting away from consumers and toward AI? How are we going to "hurt Nvidia in the pocketbook?" Buy from their competitors? But they are also making these pivots/"turning their backs on us." Just abstain from buying hardware out of protest? As soon as prices go down there's gonna be a buying frenzy from everyone who's been waiting this whole time.

[ssl-3]

If/when the bubble pops, manufacturers will find that they can't butter their bread like they could when the datacenter craze was booming. In a world that is paved by growth, companies aren't very good at shrinking.

It doesn't matter what consumers do or don't do -- we plebians are a tiny portion of their present market. We can buy the same GPUs from the same folks as before, or we can do something different, and it won't matter.

Whatever we do will be a rounding error in the jagged, gaping, infected hole where the AI market once was.

[TheAmazingRace]

This is an even-handed take. I still think consumers in general should vote with their wallets, even if all of them put together won't hold a candle to their datacenter customers. If nothing else, it can grant the competition more market share, and maybe AMD and Intel can invest more into Radeon and Arc, respectively. That can only be a good thing, since I'd love to see more broad support for FSR and XeSS technologies on games, and ROCm and oneAPI for compute.

[ssl-3]

Oh, for sure. It's often good to bet on the underdog in a competitive market -- it helps ensure that competition continues to exist.

When I sold PC hardware, I'd try to find the right fit for a customer's needs and pricepoint. Way back then, that often meant selling systems with relatively-inexpensive Cyrix or AMD CPUs and more RAM instead of systems with more-expensive Intel CPUs that had less RAM at any given price -- because those were good tradeoffs to make. By extension, I did a very small part to help foster competition.

But gamers drive the bulk of non-datacenter GPU sales and they don't necessarily act that way.

Having observed their behavior for decades, I feel confident in saying that they broadly promote whatever the top dog is today (whether they can afford to be in that club or not), and aren't shy about punching down on those who suggest a less-performant option regardless of its fitness for a particular purpose.

Or at least: The ones who behave this way sure do manage to be loud about it. (And in propaganda, loudness counts.)

I suspect they'll be fawning over nVidia for as long as nVidia keeps producing what is perceived to be the fastest thing, even if it is made from pure unobtanium.

[TheAmazingRace]

Now you have me getting misty eyed a bit! I remember when my dad had a Cyrix PC and later an AMD K6 II+ whitebox build. :)

At any rate, you do have a point. I can't argue that Nvidia has an inferior product; yet I just wish Nvidia wasn't abusing their position so much.

[ssl-3]

The K6-2 was a trooper.

I had one of those for what seemed like an eternity.

At first, right out of the gate: I overclocked it from 300MHz to 350MHz just to see what would happen. It worked perfectly without further adjustment (and the next step did not), so I left it right there at 350MHz. For the price, at that time, it kept up great compared to what my peers had going on.

As the years ticked by and it was getting long in the tooth, it stayed around -- but it shifted roles.

I think the last thing it was doing for me was running a $25 SoundBlaster Live! 5.1's EMU10k1 DSP chip under Windows, using the kX audio drivers.

kX let a person use that DSP chip for what it was -- an audio-oriented DSP with some audio-centric IO. With kX, a person could drop basic DSP blocks into the GUI and wire them together arbitrarily, and also wire them into the real world.

I used it as a parametric EQ and active crossover for the stereo in my home office -- unless I was also using it as a bass preamp, in a different mode. Low-latency real-time software DSP was mostly a non-starter at that time, but these functions and routings were all done within the EMU10k1 and end-to-end latency was low enough to play a bass guitar through.

Of course: It still required a computer to run it, and I had a new family at that time and things like the electric bill were very important to me. So I underclocked and undervolted the K6-2 for passive cooling, booted Windows from a CompactFlash card (what spinning HDD?), and hacked the power supply fan to just-barely turn and rotate air over the heatsinks.

It went from a relatively high-cost past-performer to a rather silent low-power rig that I'd remote into over the LAN to wiggle DSP settings on that only had one moving part.

Neat chips, the K6-2 and EMU10k1 were.

Fun times.

(And to bring it all back 'round: We'd be in a different place right now if things like the K6-2 had been more popular than they were. I don't know if it'd be better or worse, but it'd sure be different.)

[TheAmazingRace]

I certainly have no delusions of Nvidia going bankrupt. In fact, they will certainly make it to the other side without much issue. That said, I do foresee Nvidia taking a reputational hit, with AMD and (possibly) Intel gaining more mindshare among consumers.