NVIDIA May Be Trying To Prevent GeForce GPUs From Being Used In Data Centers

[nslay]

NVIDIA is doing its data center customers and its gaming customers a huge favor by enacting policies that prevent the usage of gaming cards in data centers. Big data applications require very large frame buffers, larger than are found in consumer cards. They require ECC VRAM to ensure the integrity of the data they are working with. And they require thoroughly tested, vetted and certified drivers.

Yeah, because integrity is an important concern for deep learning... we already know that deliberately injecting random noise doesn't help deep learning and we know that evolution-based optimization (which are deliberately random) doesn't help deep learning either. Companies are completely concerned about replicability and explainability of their big data deep learning applications too! Indeed, background cosmic radiation would probably completely destroy deep learning rather than helping it! Companies totally need ECC VRAM... yeah...

Just a sarcastic comment to highlight how full of crap you are.

No, this really is an attempted money grab by nVidia.

EDIT:
Happy new year! I know I can be a jerk... but you really are full of crap. I'm sorry, it's true.

[duby229]

ROTFLMAO!!! I don't know what's sadder, your response or the fact that someone upvoted it.

So you consider it a social plus to bring fast food to the masses? Despite the fact that there is a proven correlation between fast food and obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes?

The benefit to society is that the fast food industry has a substantial impact on the economy, generating trillions, both directly and indirectly, by providing jobs, significant revenue and due to the negative effects on health by providing health care jobs and significant revenue generation.

If you think about it the fast food industry and the tobacco industry only exist to generate cash for participants and promote the growth and sustainability of the health care industry that has grown to deal with the resulting health problems.

It's actually funny, here you support an industry whose sole purpose is generate as much cash as it can, to the detriment of society yet you condemn NVIDIA for embracing a policy that not only helps insulate NVIDIA against unnecessary support claims resulting from the incorrect usage of their products, not only helps to ensure a robust revenue stream for NVIDIA but also helps gamers so that they don't face a similar scenario as existed when crypto-miners started buying up certain gaming cards to use in mining rigs thereby lowering the supply available for gamers (the intended use case of the cards) and raising the prices.

If data centers are allowed to ignore best practices standards and start deploying gaming cards instead of pro cards with ECC VRAM, like they should be doing, they cause the supply of gaming cards to dry up and prices to skyrocket and then people like you will be bitching that NVIDIA isn't doing anything for the gamers.

It's called freedom of choice. People -choose- to buy fast food, people -choose- to buy tobacco. People are still going to -choose- those things whether you dictate otherwise or not. They exist -because- people -ARE- choosing them. Hospitals and doctors exist -because people choose- to go visit them.

Almost anything you can think of applies the same exact logic.

[coder]

hippie, Bernie Sanders inspired, leftist, rhetoric about how businesses have some deeper reason for existing other than making money.

The public supports corporations & capitalism for the employment opportunities, goods, and services it provides. As long as corporations and capitalism continue to serve those interests, then the situation is stable. However, if unemployment rises too high and corporations become too predatory, capitalism is at risk. So, what's keeping that from happening?

Also, I have to agree with @starship's point that a fair number of people start companies not as simply the easiest way to make the most money, but as a way of financing and manifesting a greater vision they have. Of course, once they take on investors, they have a fiduciary responsibility to try and maximize the return on their investments.

Speaking for myself, I didn't choose my profession based on salaries or stock options. I do it because it's something I like - and it helps that it pays the bills. Not to say I don't care about money, but it's not usually my most immediate concern and overarching focus. If I could not get a job in tech, it's something I'd do as a hobby.

[coder]

In any company you will have people that are highly motivated and will do whatever you ask of them and you have the people that are content to do the bare minimum possible.
...
I don't believe in simply looking at who the lowest performing employee is and firing them ...

I've definitely worked in teams where there were a couple folks not pulling their weight and everyone knew it. Those people should be gotten rid of - the sooner the better. But when you have a team that's clicking along well, it would only be disruptive to have everyone looking over their shoulder, trying not to end up at the bottom of the stack.

Another effect that I find pretty poisonous is cynicism. A little is reasonable, but it can quickly get out of control. The main thing is not to focus on the negatives and what we can't control, but rather to focus on succeeding in the areas we can control. The thing is, sometimes the most cynical are also the lowest performers. So, the team is taking a double-hit, as long as they are kept around.

I've definitely had the impression my bosses kept around low-performers as cannon fodder for when layoffs hit. That's probably one of the problems I think you could trace back to the short-term thinking about which bridgman was complaining. Investors don't want to see profits down for too long, so that means layoffs can hit even when they damage future profitability. If the investors were focused on the long-term, there wouldn't be so much incentive for managers to pad their departments. That said, I can think of some potential solutions that are less heavy-handed than Intel's policy.

[Spooktra]

BTW, does no one see the irony of voicing free-market fundamentalism in forums devoted to open source software?

Sure, it doesn't exist entirely apart from capitalism (especially now), but open source reflects a fundamentally non market-based collaboration model.

Just sayin...

I have actually talked about the commie inspired, leftist, hippie GPL in other threads and have blamed it for the lack of penetration (gigidy) that Linux has enjoyed on the desktop.

[Spooktra]

BTW, Intel famously has a policy of regularly firing the lowest-performing employees. That might sound good, and it seems to have worked for them, but it's not without controversey or down-sides (tends to lead to people being very defensive, risk-averse, and engaging in corporate politics). So much for job security. And we'll just see how Intel does in coming years, now that it seems they can no longer ride the Moore's Law gravy train.

I actually support that, within some limits.

I currently work for a very large company and I supervise between 20-25 employees. In any company you will have people that are highly motivated and will do whatever you ask of them and you have the people that are content to do the bare minimum possible.

I support policies that reward employees that try harder and that conversely punish employees that are just lazy and want to milk the clock. I don't believe in simply looking at who the lowest performing employee is and firing them because then the next lowest performing is now the lowest performing and you can use that logic to get rid of everybody.

But I do support keeping a running record of employee performance and motivating greater dedication to the job by rewarding hard work with more O/T opportunities, more PTO, bonuses, gift cards, etc and configuring the schedule accordingly to minimize the amount of hours a low performing employee gets.

[Spooktra]

You might be missing my point as well as starshipeleven's point. The distinction relates to "what will you do to make as much money as possible ?".

Will you loot your employee's pension fund ? Will you make decisions which hurt your company's reputation and business over time but give higher profits in the short term ? Will you put your own personal well being as a manager/executive over that of your employees and customers ? Will you replace your well-respected products with cheaper ones outsourced from a third party and lay off most of your employees in order to make a higher profit ?

Unless your answer to all of those is "hell, yes" we are probably more in agreement than you think.

I didn't miss either one of you two guys' points, I quote exactly what you guys said.

I took the position that the purpose of a business was to make as much money as possible, I trust you both remember those words.

You and he countered with some hippie, Bernie Sanders inspired, leftist, rhetoric about how businesses have some deeper reason for existing other than making money.

Allow me to make this as clear as possible, without committing any crimes, such as the raiding of employee's pension funds, or defrauding your customers or investors, a company has a duty to itself, it's investors and it's employees to make as much money as possible and to take actions that insulate it against unnecessary support costs.

That means that you make sure you guide potential customers to the proper product for their needs, that means charging the maximum for a product or service that the market will support.

A company has an obligation to ensure it's financial solvency, the obligation is to its creditors, its investors, its employees and its customers.

NVIDIA is doing its data center customers and its gaming customers a huge favor by enacting policies that prevent the usage of gaming cards in data centers. Big data applications require very large frame buffers, larger than are found in consumer cards. They require ECC VRAM to ensure the integrity of the data they are working with. And they require thoroughly tested, vetted and certified drivers.

When those data centers crash due to over-heating of said consumer gaming cards, when they start spewing out erroneous results, when they start crashing due to out-of-memory conditions the data center admins won't blame themselves and the cheap IT departments that tried to save a buck by using the incorrect tool for the job, they will blame NVIDIA.

And when gamers discover that the supply of gaming cards has started drying up and the prices have started skyrocketing, like happened with the crypto craze that drove the prices of certain cards through the roof and the supply through the floor, NVIDIA will likewise again get the blame.

NVIDIA is doing the right thing here, it's the data centers that are being penny wise but pound foolish.

It kind of reminds me of my younger days when I worked as a car mechanic. In those days I didn't see the benefit of spending a lot of money on high quality tools, like Snap-On when I could just buy the cheaper Sears/Craftsman tools that had lifetime warranties.

The problem is that Sears/Craftsman, like Kobalts, tools are just fine if you just want a set of tools to work on your own car every once in a while but if you're planning on making a living working with your hands then you quickly find out that those tools simply do not last, I don't remember how many wrenches and sockets I had break on me in the middle of a job before I finally caved and spend the money to by Snap-On wrenches and sockets. In the long run, when you add up all the lost hours of work because my tools broke and I needed to replace them the Snap-On proved to be the more cost effective option, especially since I never had one break on me. Same thing with Hilti drills and drill bits, You're going to pay through the nose for a high end Hilti drill and drill bits but the one I bought about 17 years ago and used constantly for years during my contractor days is still alive and kicking and the Hilti drill bits kept their cutting edge for years. When I decided to go cheap and replace them with some cheapo brand, those drill bits lasted for maybe 2 or 3 jobs before they needed to be replaced.

[Spooktra]

Wow, so horribly tainted, it's sad really. What does a fast food restaurant add to society? Duh, fast food, obviously. Those food joints do add jobs, but they don't exist simply to add jobs, they exist because they contribute fast food to society.... I could go on, but I think this is all I need to say.....

ROTFLMAO!!! I don't know what's sadder, your response or the fact that someone upvoted it.

So you consider it a social plus to bring fast food to the masses? Despite the fact that there is a proven correlation between fast food and obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes?

The benefit to society is that the fast food industry has a substantial impact on the economy, generating trillions, both directly and indirectly, by providing jobs, significant revenue and due to the negative effects on health by providing health care jobs and significant revenue generation.

If you think about it the fast food industry and the tobacco industry only exist to generate cash for participants and promote the growth and sustainability of the health care industry that has grown to deal with the resulting health problems.

It's actually funny, here you support an industry whose sole purpose is generate as much cash as it can, to the detriment of society yet you condemn NVIDIA for embracing a policy that not only helps insulate NVIDIA against unnecessary support claims resulting from the incorrect usage of their products, not only helps to ensure a robust revenue stream for NVIDIA but also helps gamers so that they don't face a similar scenario as existed when crypto-miners started buying up certain gaming cards to use in mining rigs thereby lowering the supply available for gamers (the intended use case of the cards) and raising the prices.

If data centers are allowed to ignore best practices standards and start deploying gaming cards instead of pro cards with ECC VRAM, like they should be doing, they cause the supply of gaming cards to dry up and prices to skyrocket and then people like you will be bitching that NVIDIA isn't doing anything for the gamers.

[nslay]

nVidia says: "No, those cheap GeForce cards are for gamers! You companies need to pay 3-4x more for Tesla and P100!"

Meanwhile, companies move their computers with GeForce cards from the data center and into their new indoor tropical garden for decoration / powerful computing wonders museum / cubicle areas of generally disliked employees.

[bridgman]

BTW, does no one see the irony of voicing free-market fundamentalism in forums devoted to open source software?

At least it's in a thread related to closed-source drivers