BIOSTAR Intros VA47D5RV42 Mining Graphics Card with "RX 470D" GPU

[btarunr]

BIOSTAR posted technical specifications of its first graphics card designed for crypto-currency mining, bearing the model number "VA47D5RV42." This card, which is based on the design of its RX 470/480 graphics cards; is built around the Radeon RX 470D chip, and endowed with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The RX 470D is a "lite edition" or LE variant of the Polaris 10 silicon, which never made it to the DIY channel market, but occasionally reared its head in the pre-built OEM market. It features fewer stream processors than the RX 470, at 1,792 vs. 2,048. The chip is clocked at 1200 MHz (boost), with 7.00 GHz (GDDR5-effective) memory. Interestingly, unlike most "mining" graphics cards we've seen so far, this card appears to feature a full complement of display outputs, which includes three DisplayPorts and one each of HDMI and DVI. The company didn't reveal pricing.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[P4-630]

I hope it's cheap so miners can buy such cards by bulk instead of buying out gaming cards.....

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Nope doubt its any cheaper. But now atleast they are making cards for two different markets.

 

[notb]

Nope doubt its any cheaper. But now atleast they are making cards for two different markets.

They're not, because this card is simply named as mining. Not much else changes.
For GPU cards to be made for a specific market (mining xor gaming), mining cards have to be unusable in games (e.g. no video output) and gaming cards have to be pointless for mining as much as possible.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

not true, thats a bit extreme. intent is a factor here. just like the RX FE card argument, its doesnt have to all the way one way or all the way the other. Just because what one product is intended for does not mean it has to forsake being the other, that would be stupid marketing. a jack of all trades sells better then the master of one.

 

[Captain_Tom]

They're not, because this card is simply named as mining. Not much else changes.
For GPU cards to be made for a specific market (mining xor gaming), mining cards have to be unusable in games (e.g. no video output) and gaming cards have to be pointless for mining as much as possible.

That's not at all true.

Having a single DVI or HDMI would always be nice. Price/MH/s is what matters.

 

[R-T-B]

I hope it's cheap so miners can buy such cards by bulk instead of buying out gaming cards.....

What it needs to be to fix this problem is not cheaper, but more energy efficient, rendering normal gpus undesirable.

 

[Keullo-e]

This toy money craziness is getting out of control.

 

[Patriot]

This toy money craziness is getting out of control.

 

[AsRock]

I hope it's cheap so miners can buy such cards by bulk instead of buying out gaming cards.....

Seriously should be as that GPU heat sink looks pos.

 

[hat]

Seems like they're digging into broken crap GPUs to me. /shrug

 

[cdawall]

Seriously should be as that GPU heat sink looks pos.

Less shaders than the 470 means less heat, means less heat sink needed. The 470 didn't need much already. These will be something like 65w cards good for 24/25 mh/s if equipped with Samsung memory.

 

[AsRock]

True but.

Still looks like shit.

 

[cdawall]

True but.

Still looks like shit.

Looks like dollar signs to people who will buy it.

 

[AsRock]

Sadly yeah, i am wondering what this will do to the secondhand market for video card in the long term.

 

[Keullo-e]

Seems like they're digging into broken crap GPUs to me. /shrug

I guess toy money miners will accept everything.

 

[cdawall]

I guess toy money miners will accept everything.

If it cost little and mines well and gets rid of throw away GPU's sounds like a win for companies and consumers.

 

[hat]

I guess toy money miners will accept everything.

You do realize you can transfer bitcoins to a "real" currency of your choice, right? It's not monopoly money.

 

[notb]

You do realize you can transfer bitcoins to a "real" currency of your choice, right? It's not monopoly money.

You can exchange any kind of goods for money, if someone is willing to pay you (and as long as trading of this commodity is allowed). Bitcoin is no different.
What is different about a proper currency is that it is guaranteed by the state that issues it.

"Toy money" is unnecessary pejorative, but so is "monopoly money".

In the end only one question is important...
Would you invest your life savings (e.g. your retirement account) in Bitcoin?

 

[hat]

Maybe some of it. I wouldn't stake my entire life on Bitcoin. To do so would be foolish; the phrase "don't put all your eggs in one basket" exists for a reason. If I had a decent retirement account though, sure, I'd be willing to invest $3000 or so into some mining hardware. There's a very good chance it will not only pay for itself but become a nice little source of extra income as well, and then you can use that income to grow.

 

[cdawall]

You can exchange any kind of goods for money, if someone is willing to pay you (and as long as trading of this commodity is allowed). Bitcoin is no different.
What is different about a proper currency is that it is guaranteed by the state that issues it.

"Toy money" is unnecessary pejorative, but so is "monopoly money".

In the end only one question is important...
Would you invest you life savings (e.g. your retirement account) in Bitcoin?

Stupid comparison I would invest my like savings in an single point of investment. No retirement account does that so phrasing it that way is asinine. Forbes 100 companies are investing into the "toy money" in both the creation and just currency market.

 

[notb]

Maybe some of it. I wouldn't stake my entire life on Bitcoin. To do so would be foolish; the phrase "don't put all your eggs in one basket" exists for a reason. If I had a decent retirement account though, sure, I'd be willing to invest $3000 or so into some mining hardware. There's a very good chance it will not only pay for itself but become a nice little source of extra income as well, and then you can use that income to grow.

You're talking about looking for potential profits with high risk.
I'm talking about (basically) preserving the value. About minimizing risk. That's why I mentioned retirement account. :-D

You might be risking a portion of your saving in BTC, but you're still keeping most of it in USD or instruments priced in USD. That's because USD is stable. It's safe money.

Mind you, there are countries on Earth that don't have a privilage of stable state money. They actually put their saving in something else, usually... USD (or other currency considered safe, like EUR or CHF).
I'm from a country that had such problems 20 years ago - maybe that's because I value state money so highly, while people in US don't know how it is to live with >100% inflation. But no offence - good for you...

Stupid comparison I would invest my like savings in an single point of investment. No retirement account does that so phrasing it that way is asinine. Forbes 100 companies are investing into the "toy money" in both the creation and just currency market.

If you invest in US, your investments are most likely evaluated in USD. So you're implicitly investing in USD as well, just with very low risk. When you keep USD cash at home, you're also investing in USD.
It's like trading currency pairs on FOREX. When I buy a pair, e.g. EUR/USD, my profit depends on performance of both currencies.

And companies are not investing in cryptocurrencies as money. They try to utilize the concept of blockchain, because it solves a lot of problems. But this has nothing to do with mining. Actually, it has nothing to do with the currencies you know today. Corporations create in-house, "closed" blockchains. And they're mostly designed for improving internal processes.
So yes, there might come a day when you'll be able to pay your electricity bill or insurance with Bitcoin. But this is not what electric and insurance companies see as the actual benefit of blockchain (something worth investing billions).

 

[hat]

You're talking about looking for potential profits with high risk.
I'm talking about (basically) preserving the value. About minimizing risk. That's why I mentioned retirement account. :-D

You might be risking a portion of your saving in BTC, but you're still keeping most of it in USD or instruments priced in USD. That's because USD is stable. It's safe money.

Mind you, there are countries on Earth that don't have a privilage of stable state money. They actually put their saving in something else, usually... USD (or other currency considered safe, like EUR or CHF).
I'm from a country that had such problems 20 years ago - maybe that's because I value state money so highly, while people in US don't know how it is to live with >100% inflation. But no offence - good for you...


If you invest in US, your investments are most likely evaluated in USD. So you're implicitly investing in USD as well, just with very low risk. When you keep USD bills at home, your also investing in USD.
It's like trading currency pairs on FOREX. When I buy a pair, e.g. EUR/USD, my profit depends on performance of both currencies.

And companies are not investing in cryptocurrencies as money. They try to utilize the concept of blockchain, because it solves a lot of problems. But this has nothing to do with mining. Actually, it has nothing to do with the currencies you know today. Corporations create in-house, "closed" blockchains. And they're mostly designed for improving internal processes.
So yes, there might come a day when you'll be able to pay your electricity bill or insurance with Bitcoin. But this is not what electric and insurance companies see as the actual benefit of blockchain (something worth investing billions).

While I empathize with your past, I must call out your method of argument. You seem to have an all or nothing approach. Nobody in their right mind would invest their entire life into Bitcoin, be it mining or simply buying BTC. Of course I'm primarily going to use USD. I live in the US, I get paid in USD, and everybody accepts USD as payment. Everything is priced in USD. My method for mining right now is to generate USD, so I can pay some debts I owe more easily/quickly. By investing in Bitcoin through mining I'm essentially generating USD by proxy, yes, but that doesn't mean BTC is worthless. Once I have some debts paid off and I can just earn freely by mining, I might just hold on to my bitcoins and wait for the price to go up. I might use money I generated to make some significant investment. I might stuff it into a savings account where it's safe, but won't grow much.

 

[cdawall]

If you invest in US, your investments are most likely evaluated in USD. So you're implicitly investing in USD as well, just with very low risk. When you keep USD bills at home, your also investing in USD.
It's like trading currency pairs on FOREX. When I buy a pair, e.g. EUR/USD, my profit depends on performance of both currencies.

BTC is currently evaluated in USD as well. As I type that works to $2597.96 USD for 1 BTC. It is a volatile market to play, but the risk/reward is there for those willing to risk on it. Again there are fortune 100 companies that have diversified their investment portfolios to include BTC/ETH.

And companies are not investing in cryptocurrencies as money. They try to utilize the concept of blockchain, because it solves a lot of problems. But this has nothing to do with mining. Actually, it has nothing to do with the currencies you know today. Corporations create in-house, "closed" blockchains. And they're mostly designed for improving internal processes.
So yes, there might come a day when you'll be able to pay your electricity bill or insurance with Bitcoin. But this is not what electric and insurance companies see as the actual benefit of blockchain (something worth investing billions).

I mean other than the ones that are using them no differently than the stock market and currency trading. If there is money to be had fortune 100 and wallstreet companies can and will invest in it, typically regardless of risk.