Comment by iancmceachern
21 hours ago
They're no longer energy competitive. I.e. the amount of power per compute exceeds what is available now.
It's like if your taxi company bought taxis that were more fuel efficient every year.
21 hours ago
They're no longer energy competitive. I.e. the amount of power per compute exceeds what is available now.
It's like if your taxi company bought taxis that were more fuel efficient every year.
Margins are typically not so razor thin that you cannot operate with technology from one generation ago. 15 vs 17 mpg is going to add up over time, but for a taxi company it's probably not a lethal situation to be in.
At least with crypto mining this was the case. Hardware from 6 months ago is useless ewaste because the new generation is more power efficient. All depends on how expensive the hardware is vs the cost of power.
Tell that to the airline industry
And yet they aren't running planes and engines all from 2023 or beyond: See the MD-11 that crashed in Louisville: Nobody has made a new MD-11 in over 20 years. Planes move to less competitive routes, change carriers, and eventually might even stop carrying people and switch to cargo, but the plane itself doesn't get to have zero value when the new one comes out. An airline will want to replace their planes, but a new plane isn't fully amortized in a year or three: It still has value for quite a while
I don't think the airline industry is a great example from an IT perspective, but I agree with regard to the aircraft.
If a taxi company did that every year, they'd be losing a lot of money. Of course new cars and cards are cheaper to operate than old ones, but is that difference enough to offset buying a new one every one to three years?
>If a taxi company did that every year, they'd be losing a lot of money. Of course new cars and cards are cheaper to operate than old ones, but is that difference enough to offset buying a new one every one to three years?
That's where the analogy breaks. There are massive efficiency gains from new process nodes, which new GPUs use. Efficiency improvements for cars are glacial, aside from "breakthroughs" like hybrid/EV cars.
>offset buying a new one every one to three years?
Isn't that precisely how leasing works? Also, don't companies prefer not to own hardware for tax purposes? I've worked for several places where they leased compute equipment with upgrades coming at the end of each lease.
Who wants to buy GPUs that were redlined for three years in a data center? Maybe there's a market for those, but most people already seem wary of lightly used GPUs from other consumers, let alone GPUs that were burning in a crypto farm or AI data center for years.
4 replies →
That works either because someone wants to buy old hardware for the manufacturer/lessor, or because the hardware is EOL in 3 years but it's easier to let the lessor deal with recyling / valuable parts recovery.
If your competitor refreshes their cards and you dont, they will win on margin.
You kind of have to.
Not necessarily if you count capital costs vs operating costs/margins.
Replacing cars every 3 years vs a couple % in efficiency is not an obvious trade off. Especially if you can do it in 5 years instead of 3.
12 replies →
If there was a new taxi every other year that could handle twice as many fares, they might. That’s not how taxis work but that is how chips work.
Nvidia has plenty of time and money to adjust. They're already buying out upstart competitors to their throne.
It's not like the CUDA advantage is going anywhere overnight, either.
Also, if Nvidia invests in its users and in the infrastructure layouts, it gets to see upside no matter what happens.