- Joined
- Jul 5, 2016
- Messages
- 155 (0.05/day)
System Name | Purple Stuff |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Core I7-8700K @ 5.0 Ghz |
Motherboard | Asus ROG Strix Z370-F Gaming |
Cooling | NZXT Kraken X62 |
Memory | Corsair Vengence 16 GB DDR4 @ 3600 Mhz |
Video Card(s) | Asus ROG Strix GTX 1080 TI |
Storage | Samsung EVO 960 500 GB, HDD 4TB WD Black, SSD Crucial MX400 1TB |
Display(s) | Acer Predator XB271HU 27" x2 |
Case | Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX Tempered Glass |
Power Supply | Seasonic Focus + Platinum 850 W |
Mouse | Steelseries Rival 700 |
Keyboard | Razer Blackwidow Chroma V2 |
Software | Win 10 Pro |
i don't know if you are pretending or actually missing the point, mining sales not only led to sell more gpus, the demand on gpus also led to increase of gpus prices that are actually sold for and used by gamers. datacenters and professional visualization. this is where all this "amazing" revenue grows come from.
And the point you are missing is that GPU prices were not inflated by nvidia/AMD but by the retailers. Here's the deal both nvidia and AMD have a contract with the AIB's the AIB's get the chips change the PCB and whatnot and add to the cost. What makes you think neither AMD or nvidia for that matter couldn't have done more than just to increase production? They have no control on the end price. As the demand scales up the AIB's demand will do as well, they might charge extra for the extra shipments but the money that goes to either AMD or Nvidia is no where near the $1200 mark that was asked for a VEGA 64 since that was the retailer's asking prince. Oh and here's another thought during the whole mining craze Nvidia kept the MSRP for their FE cards, the stocks were low because they had contracts to fulfill with the AIB's. Oh and the GPU's that were sold to datacenters, visualization and whatnot were never in the same area as the consumer ones. Every company out there handles corporate before consumers since they are the ones that can be tied to CONTRACTS that have CLAUSES for
Last edited: