Sort of. My opinion is that the "we love gamers, partners please stop selling to miners" and the LHR limiter were both virtue signaling.

What was a legitimate problem was being preferentially sucked off shelves by miners. When NVIDIA was 2x as good as AMD, and it led to NVIDIA cards being priced 2x as high as AMD, that was a problem. And that was happening - prices lined up perfectly according to hashrate, and AMD cards had lower hashrates because they had narrower memory buses and infinity cache didn't help mining. They were taking heat in tech media for failure to control prices/get supply under control (despite roughly 2x'ing their usual production) and potentially losing users to AMD

Solution: drop the hash rate by half. Now you are no longer preferentially being sucked off shelves and LHR cards should approximate the price of their AMD counterparts. You don't lose out on miner sales completely, but you're not disproportionately affected. And if there is a bust, you are both equally affected then too.

So it wasn't a fullhearted "we want miners OUT of the gaming market". If that was the case you'd have slowed it down by like 90-95%. They were happy to have the sales from miners, they just didn't want to suffer a competitive disadvantage relative to AMD due to miners gobbling up inventory.

I am not quite sure what to make out of the mining cards side of the equation. They have done this at least twice now (P104 mining cards, etc) but they never seem to lean into it fully in the sense of really shunting inventory heavily towards mining. And yet they know that a lot of gaming cards are being sold to miners, including big direct-to-farm sales from partners (who love it because it's bulk and they force the farms to disclaim the warranty).

Perhaps it's an artifact of how it's really partners doing the ordering of products (including mining cards - those are all sold via partners not direct from NVIDIA). If they're ordered as gaming chips you get gaming chips, and partners may not want to take the risk of leaning into mining too hard. Maybe if there was a harsher mining limiter it might force partners to actually make a choice on it instead of fence-sitting with gaming inventory, who knows.

--

On the other hand that strategy kind of missed in that AMD simply opted not to participate in the GPU market, when consoles were eating up 80% of their wafers off the top and the CPU market could shift their remaining wafers at 10x the margin of GPUs. See my other comment about the impossible boom/bust cycle of GPUs and AMD's answer is: simply don't participate in the GPU market during this cycle.

It took almost a full year for any of the 6000 series cards to show up in Steam Hardware Survey at a mere 0.15%. NVIDIA had 7-8% of the market being 30-series around the same point - and I doubt 30-series are being used in LAN cafes in china, that is a 1060/1650 phenomenon not one that hits all cards equally. And actually 6700XT rapidly overtook all three of the higher cards combined. AMD just barely made any of the 6800/6800XT/6900 series at all, for the first year.

You can't blame them when one $649-MSRP 6800XT with 520mm^2 of silicon and $200-300 of other BOM cost, could be sold as six 5800X processors (81mm^2 CCD, GloFo 12nm IO die) each with an MSRP of $449, or as 3/4 of an Epyc 64C that sells for $10k MSRP, with essentially no BOM cost. You are talking about selling the same piece of silicon for $200, $2700, or $7500, it's not a hard choice to make. And they could absolutely sell the CPUs at or above MSRP, and that's after cranking MSRP and dropping value SKUs already. So they did a token launch (as late as possible) to satisfy their legal obligation to investors and went and made some fucking money, and simply chose not to participate in the GPU bubble this time.

Increasingly I think the discrete GPU market is just a backstop for AMD. It's a place to soak up excess wafers if they order too much for CPUs and Epyc, and it's a slush fund of wafers if they have unexpected demand from CPUs and Epyc and consoles. It's not something they put an R&D focus on (a major chunk of RNDA1 and RDNA2's early-stage R&D were largely funded by Sony and MS) and it's not something they put first in their manufacturing priority. It's also why they're lagging on the features side of the equation - consoles are paying for the R&D and consoles don't care about tensor cores or video encoder quality or optical flow engines, and won't pay for it in their chips or even fund the R&D.

dGPUs are just a sponge to soak up any excess in the rest of the business, or squeeze a little extra out of. Not a focus anymore. Maybe that changes if they're the first to multi-GCD and have a real shot to win, but, in the current scenario they get 80% of the revenue for 20% of the effort and that's what they're doing.

--

Now the other side of the "AMD simply chose not to participate in the GPU market" coin: it's all still a single market and AMD has to wait for the inventory to burn off too, even if it's NVIDIA inventory. OEMs like Gigabyte, Asus, MSI, etc aren't buying RDNA3 GPUs for their beige boxes or laptops if they have a bunch of Ampere sitting around, even if AMD inventory isn't high itself. Same for the secondary market, it doesn't matter if you are selling new RDNA3 cards if there are a bunch of used miner cards at great prices and people are buying used instead of new. It's all one market.

Some of the drop in marketshare despite deep price cuts is due to exactly this: OEMs aren't buying right now. Not buying anyone, but what's sitting in their stockpile is NVIDIA cards. And AMD can't make the big deals with OEMs that make up the majority of the market - the DIY market is a fraction of the overall market and AMD is selling great there (see: mindfactory numbers) due to aggressive pricing, but OEMs had piles of Ampere they need to get rid of. JPR did have some errors in the last set of numbers but still, the numbers for AMD are not great even then and that's the reason IMO, it's not DIY sales it's OEM sales.

I think the fact that they launched laptop Navi 33 in January but delayed the desktop until June is due to this: it's an inventory problem, and there is a lot of dGPU inventory still piled up. Not theirs, but that doesn't really matter.