Correction: 4.3B in revenues.
Other than Nvidia and the cloud providers (AWS, Azure, GCP, Oracle, etc.), no one is earning a profit with AI, so far.
Nvidia and the cloud providers will do well only if capital spending on AI, per year, remains at current rates.
What progress in gaming would that be?
2 generations of cards that amount to “just more of a fire hazard” and “idk bro just tell them to use more DLSS slop” to paper over actual card performance deficiencies.
We have 3 generations of cards where 99% of games fall approximately into one of 2 categories:
- indie game that runs on a potato
- awfully optimised AAA-shitshow, which isn’t GPU bottlenecked most of the time anyway.
There is the rare exception (Cyberpunk 2077), but they’re few and far between.
"DLSS"-slop is mostly because we're at a junction right now, raytracing is starting to make lighting simpler but isn't entirely there performance wise. Many advanced pre-raytracing methods are quite work/tweak intensive (many simply doing screenspace raytracing in shaders without the hardware support).
My point is that it could be far worse if they get in trouble and get bought out by some actor like Qualcomm that might see PC GPU's as a sideshow.
Are Azure/GCP making a profit with AI? ORCL definatly isn't, FCF will go heavily negative.