> The real reason Nvidia is doing this is that when mining profitability inevitably drops, either because of a crypto price crash or Ethereum moving to Proof of Stake, the miners will flood the used market and ruin Nvidia's profits for a few quarters. Nvidia is trying to get miners to buy mining-only cards, because those can't be sold to gamers down the line. They'd rather mining cards become e-waste in a few years than get resold.
Great commentary on the unsustainability of it all. Nvidia has no incentive to make sure the GPU market operates in a sustainable way by supporting a secondary market. Thus, they have every incentive to cut the legs out from under resellers. It would also be anywhere from hard to nearly impossible to give them an incentive to allow the secondary market to operate in such a way as to increase the sustainability of their product.
Edit: Aren't we a bit touchy today? (Turn showdead on and look a little down thread.)
> ”Nvidia has no incentive to make sure the GPU market operates in a sustainable way by supporting a secondary market.”
They do in the sense that buyers often consider future resale values when making primary purchase decisions. It’s much easier to justify purchasing a $2500 “enthusiast” graphics card if you’re confident you can get a decent chunk of that back when you sell it in 6-12 months.
Similarly, car makers are incentivised to try to ensure their vehicles have decent resale value. Expected
future residuals affect financing and purchase decisions today.
In my experience base level items have much better resale value then more expensive items. It's true for notebooks, graphic cards and cars too. For example my iPhone 11 Pro has fallen to half of the price in one year, but entry level iPhone 11 probably has still 70% of its value. Same for Macbook Air, entry level with 8GB and 256 SSD will hold value better then maxed out one. Same with cars, extra premium equipment has basically no value for people that are buying used cars. So doubt that premium graphic cards are exception. Their value falls sharply over time, so not sure people buying them are considering resale value as argument to buy them.
The entry level iPhone 11 and Macbook Air are still premium products. You're not reselling your €250 unbranded Walmart laptop for anything more than scrap.
Yep, it's premium to the point that's search function friendly. Apple machines will hold their value very well but it'll be weighted in favour of the basic version of each model.
I think when you get to PC parts it becomes quite a bit trickier as everyone who is willing to buy used PC parts is way more knowledgable on exactly what they're looking for. A lot of things do hold their value pretty well.
On the other side of things, you're taking such a risk selling computer parts on ebay (gotta be a lot of people frying components after buying them and not even realising it's their fault) that I can see why people couldn't be bothered taking the risk of reselling when they can just gift away the parts.
>Same with cars, extra premium equipment has basically no value for people that are buying used cars.
It mostly doesn't impact price as is, but the top equipped car will get much more traffic from potential buyers and therefore can get away with setting the price a bit higher than the current market.
> car makers are incentivised to try to ensure their vehicles have decent resale value
Is this actually true or merely a theoretical thought? Because it would seem that car makers are incentivised to ensure their vehicles annihilate a couple days after their warranty expires and/or after a couple of miles after their guaranteed mileage is driven, and comparing e.g. reputation of second-hand cars manufactured in 80es/90es/2000s/10s seems to support it.
One of the tactics Nissan ran into big trouble with was their extreme reliance on fleet sales. Fleet sales juiced the profits but killed the used market, thus pushing Nissan's cars down market thanks to reduced resale value. This was an active criticism by investors and journalists during the Nissan down turn.
Meanwhile Toyota is able to charge a meaningful premium because their cars retain value. So I do think it is safe to conclude in the case of cars the effect is real.
You came sooooo close to hitting the nail on the head. The first owners have a huge effect on a resale value of a vehicle.
Who buys Toyotas?
Why are those people's cars more valuable on the used market than corporate fleet's used cars?
Now see if your model explains the used value of a Dodge Journey, oilfield pickup and whatever car grandma owned.
Nissan spend the '00s selling to owners who's used cars are not held in high regard and this affected consumer perceptions of them. Toyota spent the 90s and '00s (and still is) selling to upscale people who treated their cars nicely and it affected consumer perception of them.
I'm not so sure. I bought my car mostly to minimize total-cost-of-ownership. I assume I'll resell my car when the TCO of maintenance exceeds the TCO of a new car.
I know a lot of other folks who do something similar to that too.
TCO includes my time, so if I need to take a car to the shop, or miss meetings because things break down, that raises TCO by that opportunity cost. Selling a car is a hassle, and by the time I'm ready to give it up, it's not worth too much (and the buyers will probably be poor, since TCO exceeds a new car) so I don't feel the need to maximize resale value.
While this is an overly rationalist way of phrasing things, but most people I know take a similarly pragmatic approach. Teachers. (Real, not software) engineers. Etc.
I don't buy used cars, since some people sell to upgrade, and some sell because there's some issue. The headache adds a lot to the TCO.
There's also material differences, there's a reason the Nissan CEO from that era is currently a fugitive and on trial for financial misconduct.
And not by some technicality either, he literally hired a paramilitary group to disguise themselves as musicians and smuggle him out of Japan while on bail.
Since 2001 Nissan has used their defective CVT transmission in the vast majority of their lineup from the compact Versa to the Pathfinder SUV (aside from the sports cars and pickup trucks).
The average time to failure depends slightly on the model, but it's often around 60-70k miles.
The cost to replace it is typically most if not more than the value of a typical Nissan.
Because they were selling defective cars, their buyers dried up, so they had to resort to buyers with sub-prime credit. At this point it's joked the Nissan Altima is the official car of bad credit or bad neighbourhoods.
While the poor upkeep by the sub-prime owners certainly doesn't help, the poor resale value is largely due to everyone knowing they are ticking time bombs.
I've shopped for many different used 10-15 year old cars, and through my research have found the used market is extremely accurate in pricing in expected upkeep or failures, even among different variants of the same model from the same brand.
When I wanted an W211 E-class Mercedes (2003-2009), I researched the common failures and the cost to repair. I found the whole range was actually priced pretty similarly once you factored that in.
There were major defects in the 2003-2004 models which would cost around $2500 to fix. The 2005+ models were worth about $2500 more than a 2004 (despite only being worth $5000 and $7500)
The E500 had an air suspension failure issue which would be around $2000 to remedy, the same model year E320 with normal suspension was worth $2000 more. And for 2003-2004 they were only worth $3000 and $5000 respectively.
After months of browsing craigslist and test drives, it was clear it didn't matter which model or year I bought, a Mercedes W211 E-class was going to cost me $7500.
At that point I figured I'd just keep saving and get a Lexus 2IS for $10,000 as it was much better value despite the difference in owner reputation.
tldr: The used market knows exactly what a car is worth regardless of owner reputation. Nissans are worthless because they're shit cars.
Until Masayoshi Son & friends face the music, or the convincion rates drop from a comical 98%, I'm inclined to believe this was entirely politically motivated.
>Is this actually true or merely a theoretical thought?
On one hand you have FCA (I'm sorry, Stellantis) which leans into its not so positive reputation and does just fine.
The other hand you have Toyota who spend the 90s and 00s digging a goodwill moat in the minds of premium consumers.
Both approaches work but for different demographics. You'll never see a 4Runner with a magnetic company sticker sitting in an industrial parking lot or in less well off part of town and you'll never see a Pacifica in an upscale suburban driveway.
> Both approaches work but for different demographics. You'll never see a 4Runner with a magnetic company sticker sitting in an industrial parking lot or in less well off part of town and you'll never see a Pacifica in an upscale suburban driveway.
Huh? Pacificas are everywhere, especially since they also have the only PHEV minivan in the US. In the PHEV Pacifica FB group I'm in (I do own one, so I am a bit biased here), many people have Pacificas alongside Teslas and other EVs. But even the gas Pacificas are everywhere, including "upscale suburban driveways".
Though your point does still stand about FCA/Stellantis' reputation: we had to get over their our perception of them when we got ours, and I would never consider any of their other vehicles. But our Pacifica has been a really great van. I'm just amused that you picked the one vehicle in their entire lineup that doesn't prove your point.
I wanted to say Dodge Journey but they don't make that anymore and it wasn't really a popular fleet vehicle. The nature of the comparison I had to make kind of forced my hand. The Pacifica (minivans in general, too much $$ new) doesn't scream negative equity nearly as loudly as the Journey.
You're right about the PHEV thing attracting a lot of people who otherwise would never own a Chrysler. Checking "just the right boxes" is something FCA is really good at with their more niche vehicles. The high horsepower Charger/Challenger/Cherokee and the Jeep Wrangler are amazingly good at creating a way for the married couple who can't agree on what vehicle want to both leave with enough of their boxes checked.
Pacificas are very common in upscale suburban driveways. Source: live in an upscale suburb with lots of Pacificas in the driveways. Honda Odysseys and Toyota Siennas are popular as well but probably not as much as the Pacifica.
I live in Palo Alto. I have a Pacifica (PHEV). I see many many Pacificas on the road and in driveways. The MSRP of a fully loaded hybrid is 54k. The MSRP of a fully loaded gasser is pretty close.
The reputation hasn't stopped FCA from selling to this market. Wranglers and Grand Cherokees are pretty common too, as well as the rare Hellcat.
Car dealers make their money from trade-ins, parts and service (new sales are often a loss leader to get you in for service work - everyone is driving for the best deal even if the dealer loses money), so the dealers at least care.
Car makers need to do well against the competition, and resale value is something that people look at. They want your car to last 10 years and then fall apart - that being about the time people start to be willing to call a dead car dead of old age. Though they do like having a few collectors cars that are a lot older than that around because collectors also feed into car culture.
I know that cynicism is popular, but in fact their incentives are for more than that. The executive who wants to last - and most do - needs to ensure there is a profit next quarter as well. Sure they will take profit today vs next week, but they also invest in r&d because they know if they don't eventually there will be no bonus at all next quarter.
No real data, but in my decades of gaming I didn't really hear of people buying the top card in hopes to resell it later and make it affordable.
In my experience people buy what they can afford. So mostly *60/*70 (Ti) Nvidia cards. Few people who I know bought the 1080 are still using it. The second life for gaming GPUs mostly is to serve friends/relatives who ask to help building a PC for them.
Some anecdata, I buy midrange cards and never try to sell them. They usually end up in the machines of friends or family.
The purchase price is what I am willing to spend on the device and it's usage, and a healthy dose of pragmatism about what is actually necessary.
I also overclock to stretch their usefulness out but I must admit the leaps in each generation recently, as well as some fundamentally new technology capabilities mean I am not keeping up as well.
I don't have data, but I do participate in an enthusiasts forum. It's a huge thing for a lot of them, because a top card costs quite a chunk of cash (even before the current shortage), maintaining resale value allows them to stay at the top for a relatively modest outlay every card generation.
Of course right now you can sell 4 year old cards for a profit, the market is crazy.
On average, I imagine it's low. However, anecdotally the gamers I know who are buying $1000+ cards, generally do so every 2 years with the intent to flip them and buy the newest hottest card.
In a similar train of thought - there might be better data on this question if one was to look at the photography equipment market. Or other used consumer markets with high re-sale value.
>car makers are incentivised to try to ensure their vehicles have decent resale value
Why? They are only incentivised to make more profit, and selling high-tech expensive cars that break after 10 years is great for that. The ones that will bear the cost of that will be either the financing companies (and it would be fun to see the market collapse as the current crop of shiny German cars hits the 2nd hand market and no-one is dumb enough to buy one), or those poor souls who insist on buying old-ish cars instead of leasing like everyone else.
Now days it is often the automakers themselves doing the financing/leasing, so if a model has poor residuals it directly affects their profits.
Even with third-party financing, the anticipated residuals influence the attractiveness of the lease offer. A cheaper lease offer means more sales for the automaker, and thus more profits.
Personally I don't think the market has yet caught up to the fact that today's new cars will make horrible purchases as the 3rd or so owner.
All the financiers have to do is make sure someone buys it for a good price after 3 years of being leased from new. That's not a bad proposition - the car will probably last a while longer with all of its electonic toys and gizmos working. It's the buyer after that (of which I am usually one) that will find out how expensive the car is to maintain.
Cisco and Sun were the go-to big name equipment suppliers to many startups around the dot-com days. A lot of it was stupid expensive (like 150k for a sun server with the performance of a 5k Linux box, or 20k for a basic Cisco router). Well, when the startups folded a huge amount of that equipment got sold for pennies on the dollar and Cisco basically almost went bankrupt - and Sun basically did.
the glory days of just bonkers sun servers! as a young pup consultant fresh in the USA, i was lucky enough to help setup a fully loaded sun enterprise e10000, gigantic (for the time) external disk arrays and a room-sized storagetek powderhorn[0]. it was in dallas for an insurance company ~1997. all in-house apps, crunching credit card risk stuff i think? an interesting quirk is that they were an almost all-X11 shop! they had a really sweet custom CDE setup. not what you'd expect at that type of firm. would love to know what that e10k eventually sold for.
I make $7-8 per day, after electrical costs, letting my 2080ti (normally used for flight sim, but when not in use…) run nicehash’s miner software. My electricity costs $0.0816 per kWh.
Not a ton of money but it adds up after a month and the GPU was a sunk cost since I got it for gaming. It literally is profitable, for my situation anyway.
If you're using nicehash you're not mining bitcoin. The payout is in BTC but it mines whatever it thinks is most profitable. On your 2080ti, it's not bitcoin.
I agree that the statement "you can't make a profit any more" is just incorrect because of the subjectivity of "you", but it's also worth noting that this is extremely variable - my electricity costs $0.38/kWh off-peak and $0.54/kWh on-peak.
Whether or not mining on existing hardware is profitable depends entirely on where you live, and since we're explicitly talking about the effects of an increased demand on GPUs due to mining, people are clearly not just using existing hardware.
So at around $2500 a pop, you'd be looking at a year just to amortize your costs, and that's assuming BTC stays at its current insane levels. (A mighty assumption, since it's dropped 30% in the last week.)
The volatility is the problem as it makes calculations unreliable but a year to cover your costs on a 2 year (if you upgrade to the latest graphics card every generation) or 4 year (if you go every second gen) life is a reasonable investment.
It's literally a ROI of 100-300%.
Or to put it another way it's similar to a risky stock with a compounding yearly return of 41% for four years.
Using a graphics card for mining that you have anyway is just gravy (apart from externalities which are another big problem).
He bought it for Flight Sim it sounds like, the mining is just a bonus.
And Flight Simulator 2020 needs crazy specs if you want the pretty graphics at decent frame rates. I was planning on doing the mining on the side just to reduce how much it cost, but I'm mainly getting it for the pretty Flight Sim graphics.
Or looked at another way, with only a year of mining you cover your costs, and everything after that is profit. I don't GPU mine, but I can certainly see why people do.
That's absolutely insane. I'm sure it's a nice card, but it's not worth three payments on my house.
Doesn't all this limit the game publishers as well? Surely someone who is currently developing a game has to consider whether or not to even care that something like a 2080 even exists, it might as well not.
And if games starts to be developed with older and slower cards in mind, to ensure that games can even play them, won't that hurt GPU sales in the future?
When even retailers have these prices, then those are the prices.
> I have bought around 4 3070s/3080s all for under 1000 at actual retail pricing.
How much time and effort did you spend to accomplish that?
I've signed up with multiple AIBs and Nvidia itself for months to get notified if anything I'm interested in gets in stock. Nvidia stopped selling directly in my region (Europe) a while ago, no AIB has notified me yet. Probably because I picked all the most affordable models, all of which are still more expensive than 3080 FE MSRP, while 3080 FE has not even an official retailer left in mainland Europe.
Sure, I could setup a whole range of alerts and spend all day hanging out in a bunch of discords to catch one of those super rare stock drops.
But tbh that's not the experience I'm looking for when I'm already willing to spend money: I don't want, and most people simply can't, having to organize the rest of their life around the possibility for a purchasing "opportunity" at any given moment.
Las vegas called, they want you to know they have the brightest and most energy consuming lightsource* in the world blasting at the sky, drawing fambling addicts like a moth to a flame.
*excluding laser research laboratories and weapons.
The luxor light was originally 39 Xenon bulbs running at 7 kW each. 243 kW wasn't that much energy to start, but they actually run only half the bulbs now on a rotating basis. So about 120 kW.
The light costs about $51 an hour. Arguably the smallest expense involved in running a casino hotel 24 hours a day. Less than a rounding error.
They cut back to half-brightness not because of money, or energy, but because they thought the light pollution was a little excessive.
The strip is mostly solar-powered so the Luxor is basically just taking sunlight and beaming it back up into the sky.
It's not like you could take that energy and ship it elsewhere, or do something more productive with it. The Strip's solar plant exists because of The Strip. If the Strip didn't exist then you'd just have sunlight hitting rocks in the middle of the desert like everywhere else in Nevada.
Oh, and moths to a flame? That's literal. There's an entire ecosystem built up around the moths who flock to the Luxor, the bats that eat those moths, and the owls that eat those bats.
I didn't encourage or discourage gaming. Also, mining means stressing the GPU 24-7, gaming is occasional. ... if you're gaming 24-7, then please stop doing that to, it's not good for your physical and emotional well-being :-(
In reality most mining happen with under-clocked GPU cores (and admittedly overclocked VRAM), and at very stable temperatures. The GPU that is used 24/7 for mining will be far less stressed than a GPU that is powered on and off, and cycles through a lot of thermal changes throughout the day
Great commentary on the unsustainability of it all. Nvidia has no incentive to make sure the GPU market operates in a sustainable way by supporting a secondary market. Thus, they have every incentive to cut the legs out from under resellers. It would also be anywhere from hard to nearly impossible to give them an incentive to allow the secondary market to operate in such a way as to increase the sustainability of their product.
Edit: Aren't we a bit touchy today? (Turn showdead on and look a little down thread.)