Last month, Nvidia took the unusual step of “unlaunching” a previously announced product. The 12GB version of the GeForce RTX 4080 graphics card was, by the company’s admission, “not named right” and was delayed and rebranded to avoid confusion with the 16GB version of the RTX 4080 that launched. Besides having less RAM, the 12GB version of the RTX 4080 also offered less memory bandwidth and fewer GPU cores than the 16GB version.
Nvidia didn’t announce exactly what branding it would use for the revived RTX 4080, but regulatory filings submitted by Gigabyte (as reported by VideoCardz) suggest that the company has settled on calling it the “4070 Ti.”
This isn’t guaranteed to be the actual name—regulatory filings like this can be placeholders rather than actual products—but this branding would be more consistent with how Nvidia has named past GPU generations. The xx80 cards usually use the same physical GPU die as the flagship xx90 cards but run at lower clock speeds and with parts of the die switched off; this allows Nvidia to use GPU dies with defects rather than tossing them out. The xx70 cards generally use a smaller, less-performant GPU die based on the same architecture.
Nvidia made the rebranding decision late enough in the process that it reportedly caused Nvidia and its partners to throw out finished packaging and other elements with “4080” branding. Redesigning and then re-manufacturing those things takes time, as does re-flashing the BIOSes on already-manufactured graphics cards so that they identify themselves as 4070 Tis rather than 4080s.
Nvidia still hasn’t said whether the price of the cards would also come down along with the model number; the 12GB version of the RTX 4080 was originally slated to launch for $899, while the RTX 3070 Ti was originally launched at $599. But existing RTX 4090 and 4080 cards are already difficult to get anywhere near their already-high $1,600 and $1,200 starting prices. It may be that an RTX 4070 Ti with decent 4K gaming performance, DLSS 3 support, and the other RTX 4000-series architectural bells and whistles would still sell out even with a big generation-over-generation price hike.
Everybody panic! Next week Google is hosting what can only be described as an “emergency” event. According to an invite sent to The Verge, the event will revolve around “using the power of AI to reimagine how people search for, explore and interact with information, making it more natural and intuitive than ever before to find what you need”—in other words, Google’s going to fire up its photocopier and stick OpenAI’s ChatGPT onto the platen. The 40-minute event will, of course, be live on YouTube on February 8.
Google’s parent company, Alphabet, had its earnings call yesterday, and Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai promised that “very soon people will be able to interact directly with our newest, most powerful language models as a companion to Search in experimental and innovative ways.” Earlier this year, the company declared a “code red” over the meteoric rise of ChatGPT and even dragged co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin out of retirement to help.
Google has plenty of AI technology, but it is mostly not open to the public. It has a chatbot language model called “LaMDA” (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) and an image-generation AI called “Imagen.” While OpenAI turns similar technologies into public products like DALL-E and ChatGPT that wow the world and earn the company a ton of attention, Google keeps everything internal and only ever talks about these projects in blog posts and research papers.
One result of Google’s productization efforts, according to a CNBC report, is called “Apprentice Bard,” a chatbot that uses LaMDA technology enabling people to “ask questions and receive detailed answers similar to ChatGPT.” The report laid out a ton of possible directions Google is experimenting with, like “an alternate search page that could use a question-and-answer format,” “prompts for potential questions placed directly under the main search bar” on the Google homepage, and a results page that shows “a gray bubble directly under the search bar, offering more human-like responses than typical search results.”
It’s not even clear ChatGPT is a real problem for Google. Google has a history of overreacting to other popular things on the Internet, and these “clone a competitor” projects litter the Google Graveyard. At one point, it considered Facebook an existential threat and built Google+. That project was eventually shut down, and today Google has no social presence, yet the company still seems fine. Before that, it was Amazon that was “Google’s biggest search rival.” Those fears eventually gave birth to the Amazon Prime clone Google Shopping Express. That project failed, too, and somehow Amazon has yet to replace Google search. ChatGPT is hyped as a search competitor because it’s a way to get direct answers to questions. While that is a part of Google Search’s business, Google already has an interface for direct answers: Google Assistant. Just like ChatGPT, Assistant was originally pitched as a chatbot.
While the Assistant works fine for simple queries, Google hasn’t been able to monetize the feature, and it’s reportedly been cutting resources from the division. It’s not clear how a ChatGPT competitor would change the core problem of monetization other than kicking that can down the road a few years. Monetization works when you have a list of 10 blue links to sort through but is less easy when you help people immediately find an answer. Pushing more people into that style of interface might hurt Google’s bottom line. It’s not just Google: Amazon has not been able to figure out an answer to Alexa monetization, either.
Perhaps the only part of Google that ChatGPT threatens is the stock price. Google seems rather frantic in its announcement because the company has several yearly events that this announcement could easily slot into, like Google I/O, which is held every May. That’s next quarter, though, and if Google is worried about investor confidence, that would explain why it seems to feel this event needs to happen this quarter and not next quarter. Tune in Wednesday!
Samsung has earned a strong reputation among PC enthusiasts when it comes to solid-state storage. Its Pro series of SSDs are often among reviewers’ top recommendations for users seeking high-speed storage for large work files, apps, and boot drives. Over the past year, though, reliability concerns around Samsung’s 980 Pro and most recent 990 Pro have marred this reputation. It has become so notable that custom PC-maker Puget Systems, a top proponent of Samsung SSDs since the SATA days, has pulled 1TB and 2TB Samsung drives from its lineup.
For Puget, problems with Samsung SSDs, which the 22-year-old boutique PC shop sells in its custom-built systems, started with the 980 Pro that came out in September 2020. On January 31, Puget wrote a blog noting it “received a surprising number of reports of failing Samsung drives, specifically with the 2TB version of the 980 Pro.
“The most common failure mode that we have found is that the drives are suddenly locked into read-only mode, rendering the drive unusable. If the failed drive is the primary drive, then the system becomes unbootable until the drive is replaced and the OS is reinstalled,” Chris Newhart, a Tier 2 repair technician at Puget, wrote.
Samsung recently released a firmware update to remedy the issues, and Puget noted that it worked with Samsung for months to help resolve the problems.
In August, Samsung released the 990 Pro, which was met with positive reviews from publications like PCMag and Tom’s Hardware. But users started reporting reliability issues with this updated model, too.
In January, Neowin reported seeing one of their 990 Pro’s health drop to 95 percent after about a week and before writing 2TB to the drive. This was a dramatically different experience from their other (unspecified) Samsung SSD that was 1.5 years old, had over 40TB written, and 99 percent health.
But the experience was, apparently, not an anomaly.
As detailed by Tom’s Hardware, various users across the web, including on Reddit, Twitter, and the Overclock.net forums, reported rapid health decline. One user reported the 990 Pro showing 64 percent health with 2TB of data written.
Authorized returns of the devices reportedly resulted in Samsung factory-resetting the SSDs and saying they weren’t defective.
Samsung is reportedly working on the issue with Puget but hasn’t made any public statements. In the meantime, the damage has been done, and trust, like the apparent life span of some users’ 990 Pros, has eroded.
Puget, for instance, is “transitioning” away from Samsung when it comes to 1TB and 2TB NVMe drives in favor of Sabrent offerings “while this situation unfolds and we learn more,” it announced in a blog post that was posted Thursday and spotted by Tom’s Hardware today. William George, with product development at Puget, wrote that, “if the endurance (and thus lifespan) of the [Samsung] drives is indeed dropping at this rate, it is very concerning.”
Puget is far from one of Samsung’s biggest partners, but the move and publicity of the statement illustrate the hit that Samsung’s SSD reputation has taken over the past year. Puget has been quite vocal in the past about Samsung SSDs and has gushed about their reliability. In 2016, it said Samsung’s SATA SSDs were “by far the most reliable PC component we have ever sold.” Such strong backing of Samsung SSDs was exactly why Puget felt it had to take a public stance on the current drives.
Puget’s blog noted that “there is a chance that the 990 Pro issue is just improper reporting of endurance loss.” The company will work with Samsung “to help arrive at a solution” for Puget customers and the general public.
It said it’s helping customers who already have 980 Pro 2TB drives to install the latest firmware. The company will still use Samsung’s 500GB 980 Pro.
Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, and Microsoft will collectively incur more than $10 billion in charges related to mass redundancies, real estate, and other cost-saving measures, as the Big Tech companies reveal the hefty price they incur to rein in spending.
The US companies that have been implementing the largest job cuts in the tech sector disclosed the high costs related to their restructuring efforts in earnings statements released this week.
The four groups had previously announced 50,000 job cuts to convince Wall Street they were heading into a “year of efficiency,” as Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg described it. This trend comes after more than a decade of heavy spending in a focus on aggressive top-line growth.
Despite the companies’ high upfront costs such as severance payments, investors appear encouraged by the steps taken.
Since formally announcing their cuts, the companies have together added more than $800 billion to their market capitalizations. Meta, the earliest mover among the Big Tech groups, has seen its value almost double since detailing its job cuts in November.
While savings could have been made by implementing more gradual cost reductions, tech companies were being rewarded by the markets for “ripping the Band-aid off,” said Wedbush analyst Dan Ives.
“Big Tech has been spending money like ’80s rock stars for the last four to five years,” he said. “It feels like there’s adults in the room now.”
The process to become leaner in the wake of macroeconomic pressure contrasts starkly with the pandemic-era hiring boom, with headcounts increasing rapidly at tech companies that were responding to a rise in demand in digital products and services.
Apple remains the only large tech company that has not announced any job cuts or a cost-cutting program, despite on Thursday reporting its first decline in quarterly revenues in three and a half years.
According to Layoffs.fyi, a tracker logging instances of tech redundancies, almost 250,000 employees have been let go across the sector since the start of last year.
Some of the most recent, from this past week, include software group Okta, which laid off 300 employees, data analysis company Splunk, with 325, and image-sharing social network Pinterest, which said 150 roles would go.
The deepest cuts have come from the biggest names. In November, Meta announced it would let go of 11,000 of its employees, as well as dump office space and data centers.
On Wednesday, the Facebook parent detailed charges of $4.6 billion related to restructuring. Severance costs ran to $975 million, according to a company filing, though that cost was offset by “decreases in payroll, bonus and other benefits expenses.” A further $1 billion in charges related to reducing office footprint is expected in 2023.
Amazon chief executive Andy Jassy told employees in January the company would eliminate 18,000 roles.
Speaking to investors on Thursday, Amazon’s chief financial officer, Brian Olsavsky, said $640 million had been spent on severance in the fourth quarter of 2022, as well as an additional $720 million on abandoning real estate, primarily due to pulling back on opening new physical grocery stores. The company did not share further details on charges it might incur in the current quarter and beyond.
Google parent Alphabet, which is laying off 12,000 people, said it expected to incur severance costs ranging from $1.9 billion to $2.3 billion, with most of the impact in the current quarter. At the high end of that guidance, the cost of severance will work out at approximately $191,000 per employee. Alphabet faces a further $500 million in costs relating to office space reduction in the current quarter, it said.
Despite the cuts, Alphabet Chief Financial Officer Ruth Porat told investors on Thursday the company would continue “hiring in priority areas, with a particular focus on top engineering and technical talent, as well as on the global footprint of our talent.”
Microsoft’s planned savings—which include 10,000 job cuts—has resulted in it incurring a $1.2 billion charge in the final three months of 2022, $800 million of which was from severance pay.
Salesforce, which will not report earnings until March, is expected to be another company facing significant restructuring costs, having announced a 10 percent reduction in its workforce last month. That move came as activist investor Elliott Management took a multibillion-dollar stake in the company, saying it intended to work “constructively with Salesforce to realize the value befitting a company of its stature.”
Likewise, Alphabet has drawn attention from activist Sir Christopher Hohn, of TCI Fund Management, who wrote to chief executive Sundar Pichai, saying he needed to make further headcount cuts and trim “excessive” employee compensation.