undefined

points

[-]

> from a fiduciary standpoint it would be negligent to sacrifice any capacity for higher-margin AI chips to make gaming cards

Corporations do not have a fiduciary duty to seek maximal profits. This is a myth.

They are given wide latitude to decide what's in the best interests of the shareholders. Keeping a less-profitable offering alive just in case the current big offering doesn't pan out in the long term would easily be defensible in court.

It wouldn't even be a challenge. Courts are loathe to question the judgment of directors and executives. The reasoning is obvious: why in the world would a judge have better knowledge of how to run a company than the people whose jobs are to run the company?

by techpression9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You are correct, I should’ve used financial not fiduciary. They make more money selling AI hardware than gaming and it’s a zero-risk transfer because if AI collapses gamers will not “vote with their wallets” and not buy a new card from NVIDIA, and they know it. And I don’t even disagree with them here, if you can make 10-100x more money doing less work, why wouldn’t you?

by SmirkingRevenge4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

It does OK on most of the 5 series cards, but you can only do 4k on the 5090 basically. And there are lots and lots of knobs to tune and experiment with.

In some cases, it seems that lowering resolution and graphics actually produces better DLSS5 output (but it varies)

It's really good at making older gen games look remade/remastered.