Thanks for sharing the video. What's funny is that YouTube tagged a 10 year old video as AI-generated. Google is another company that's fallen hard from grace.

Not defending NVIDIA by any stretch, but I think Intel is the only one that allows ‘enterprise’ features on their consumer cards, like SR-IOV.

Such a complete failure of the market that NVIDIA hasn’t had any real competition. All of the vendors abandoned PC gamers though. Though the price choke point is memory, not cores.

Which makes me curious, if AMD did another HBM-based card like the Vega series, would that RAM be cheaper now than GDDR?

> I don't envy the situation Jensen is in but I won't be sorry for him.

Connected. Complete lack of integrity.

If he cheats on his wife, and on his customers, he'll probably cheat on his shareholders. Hence having to quit before he's pushed.

Owning three percent of one of the most valuable companies in the world is a completely unbearable situation to be in.

Yeah I never really shared the adulation the AI community still seems to have for Jensen. To me he was always a sleazebag.

This was the discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50451903

selective binning of semiconductors is not a new or inherently evil practice. that being said, someone managing to get a 170hx to 80 gigs is possibly the most prominent example of unlocking manufacturer restricted features.

True. As much as we hate on companies like Microsoft and Nividia, or people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk, it has to be acknowledged that above a certain level, it's a eat-or-be-eaten world, and I'll never reach that level.

>We should celebrate their fall, maybe there will be room for some real competition.

How are you going to get more competition when the entry cost is so high? The only competition will be the Chinese willing to dump endless cash into this but they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts either and it will still take years. If NVIDIA starts to falter then in the short term things will get even more painful for consumers as AMD becomes the new crummy company people love to hate.

I always thought that Nvidia's presence in the Khronos Group was a farce. On one hand they were vendor-locking as much as possible at the expense of the industry, and on the other they were "contributing" to the open languages and protocols.

When a bubble pops, the pop typically takes years to happen. It's more of a slow deflation in most cases. Afterwards, you can easily spot the peak that would never be reached again but, during a "pop", it's not clear if you're past that peak or if you're just experiencing a momentary blip on the path to new highs.

Nvidia is likely not going to surge back to $240 soon. It might go lower actually. Skeletons are still falling out of closets. Huang may have been the tech founder's tech founder, but he kept some pretty nasty company in recent years and, as we're now finding out, got both himself and his company into shady territory. As it turns out, ethics are not just for aesthetics.

Is Nvidia slowing down for a year or two bad for AI as a technology? Probably not. Nvidia could find a leader that will return them to top form, or another company could take advantage of the situation to catch up and surge past. A lot of AI researchers have been calling for a pause or, at the very least, a slow-down. This might be just what was needed.

However, given Nvidia's utterly unique position as both hardware supplier and bank for the data centre build-out, what will the impact be on the rest of the AI sector? The market is going to have to price in a weaker and slower build-out as well as a loss of trust in Nvidia. That's clear downwards pressure. Is it a blip, or are we now past the peak?

Yep. Slowly and all at once.

Then why am I having trouble getting the GPU capacity I need?

17B sounds low.

> Corporate development-led AI equity investments alone exceeded $40 billion in just the first four months of 2026

The accusation in the headline is that this activity contributed to the general shortage of GPUs which would, if true, increase their pricing power and profit margins even on chips sold to other customers. So I don't think it's a direct comparison to their equity deals.

Is this the only reason Nvidia made money? No, obviously. But is it adding fuel to the fire? If there is a bubble will this make the fallout worse? Seems likely.

More importantly this suggests a second plausible reason the board might have wanted to wrest control of the company away from him. (The other hypothetical one being that he was doing illegal stuff.)

if circularly financed neoclouds are 5% and singapore china flow is another 12% things suddenly dont look so good

According to Gemini, Nvidia added $43 billion in direct equity stakes,$36 billion in AI compute partnerships, and $100+ billion in loan lease guarantees, which works out to $63 billion this year, $20 billion for the next 3 years, and $10 billion for the last 6 years based on it's assumptions.

So about a third, a sixth, and a twelth of their annual revenue respectively.

I think the larger concern is that both the revenue and assets/agreements depend on Nvidia maintaining sales, market share, and their share of capacity at TSMC/etc... If they run into trouble on any of those fronts, their revenue and assets could take hits from multiple directions.

No one seriously denies the actual activity was happening, they just dispute its implications, and for good reason. Vendors frequently extend financing with the hope of making more sales, the most obvious example being auto loans and BNPL

Well, they own chunks of Coreweave and Nebius I think?

The scale is the largest factor, I think. If vendor financing is happening in a mature multi-vendor market on a small enough scale as to not constrain supply, it’s a less unhealthy situation than when there is only one vendor.

A friend of mine works on Nemotron. He stated quite plainly that they intentionally don't push the boundaries for the reason you state. It's similar to when companies create reference designs that show off the features of their real product, like Google and their Pixel phones

* they don't want to piss off their biggest customers.

:D

The neutral person would not downvote; just saying.

A neutral person would not have an opinion on negative or positive tone.

See Futurama for a comedic dramatization of the logic of the neutral character

but thats how banks actually create inflation under the limits of the regulators, isn’t it?

enough fallacies here to drown Cicero. ad hominem circumstantial with a side of false equivalence

80-series at MSRP would probably make people happy, though it's more than I'm willing to spend for gaming myself.

There is a lot of demand at higher prices too!

Part of me wonders (maybe naively) if with falling cost of AI inference and improvement of models means there is an oversupply of inference infrastructure. since we may reach a point where no one needs more and everything you could want can be done by the machine and adding more compute for most users is not any kind of benefit (like it was before LLMs there was an obvious ceiling where the majority of people did not need more compute).

I know Jevons paradox is a thing and I could see it going the other way as well but the first possibility seems to be ignored and I am not sure we can. Eventually demand for training might dry up as well if are models become largely very good and only a bit of fine tuning is required for most applications.

You don't think the limited availability of consumer gear is at least partly caused by what's going on in the server market?

Similar to the fact that supply of consumer RAM is currently low.

Plus some people are buying consumer gear and trying to use it commercially.

Forgive me, but I feel the take you describe is part of the broader problem we are experiencing now.

<edit> oh god, I just re-read my response and face-palmed at me. I'm trying to think of how to express what I mean. Here's the shitty version: Dude says "this article doesn't really show any evidence - is just impression." You say, effectively, " do you have any evidence that they don't have evidence?"

Not the greatest of retorts, but I feel compelled to let it stand. I hope you get a little bit of what I mean.

> there actually is a lot of value in this tech

Unlike that weird technology "the web", the basis of the .com bubble. Turned out to have no value in it!

Many HNers didn’t know and are now speaking in hindsight. (They love doing that to appear smart) Otherwise they would have shown the receipts about it years ago.

Nvidia did a great job at engineering a central bank-style AI funding bubble for as long as possible. Unfortunately, Cisco did the exact same thing.

Before, there was denial about the circular financing bubble, now look at them believing that a crash is coming.

> One problem is that there isn't one number that indicates what percentage of Nvidia's equity investments come back to it in the form of chip purchases.

And why couldn't a single number be calculated for this? They know their portfolio companies, their investment amounts, and the portfolio company purchases of their products.

> There are also the questions of the revenue and revenue quality of the companies Nvidia has invested in, how much debt they've taken on, what sort of backstops/guarantees Nvidia has given them, etc.

These are generally good things to look at for all corporate investments.

The main takeaway is that Nvidia investing in their own customers isn't inherently a bad thing. Investing in a poorly performing company is a bad thing.

Sounds like a terrific investment if you get $3 Revenue plus equity for $1 invested.

What seems to be the problem?

From WSJ below. Seems clear they went too far. But not clear Kress can navigate this.

Over the course of the meeting, he proceeded to tear into the woman who is now taking over for him as Nvidia CEO.

Colette Kress was "a deer in the headlights," he said, interrupting her presentation, according to a person familiar with the comments.

He had summoned Kress and his senior finance team to diagnose a ballooning problem: Nvidia was in talks to provide billions of dollars of guarantees to companies that couldn't afford its chips. That included deals led by Huang's son-in-law, Nico Caprez, who had been offering upstart cloud providers and data-center developers financing in the hopes of turning them into long-term customers.

Huang had launched a dealmaking spree and was now starting to question whether it had gone too far, according to people familiar with the matter.

Kress was a "reporting CFO," not someone who could help him define a strategy or make decisions, Huang said during the August meeting.

This isn't responsive to GP's remarks.

Well that's actually a hopeful sign for the future. I was a bit worried hearing she'd been conservative about investments in the past... but if the conservatism was about vaguely fraudulent circular financing deals we'll all be better off.

The GPUs going in datacenters are not usable at home right?