Nvidia discusses $2,000-per-GPU annual fee for software that 'runs agents on AI factories' — details unclear about potential overlaps, firm already charges more than twice that amount for its AI Enterprise software platform

Nvidia V100 PCIe GPUs
(Image credit: Nvidia presentation)
17

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has put the annual cost of licensing the company’s AI software at around $2,000 per GPU to 'run all the software that Nvidia provides that runs agents on these AI factories,' according to a recent video of the comments (below), a pricing model that could generate $50 billion over five years under a proposed scenario involving five million paid licenses outlined by FourWeekMBA.

Huang discussed the pricing at GTC Berlin on October 22, where the company outlined its broader push to build an AI infrastructure business spanning chips, software and AI-agent security. “Software licensing will become increasingly a major part of our company’s business. The way that we license will be…for example, it’s about $2,000 per GPU per year to run all the software that Nvidia provides that runs agents on these AI factories,” said Huang.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Newton Gitonga
Freelance Writer

Newton Gitonga is a tech journalist covering gadgets, PC hardware, AI, data centers, and the wider tech industry. His interest in technology started early, taking apart things around the house to see how they worked, often to his dad’s frustration. His curiosity sometimes got the better of him, including a few failed attempts to fix laptops, one of them a gifted Dell XPS. He has previously written for Notebookcheck, ZyCrypto, CoinCentral, and Crypto News Flash.

  • bit_user
    Nvidia talking about revenue streams that don't involve selling additional hardware sounds a lot to me like the bubble beginning to pop.

    Also, if the bubble is indeed popping, then extracting more revenue from their customers is just going to drive them into debt even faster!

    Finally, this would undermine the value proposition of their hardware, pushing customers towards alternatives. This news might sound good to the casual Nvidia shareholder, but it sounds very ominous to me.
    Reply
  • SonoraTechnical
    oh, this all sounds so benevolent...

    doesn't tech and all that it promises for humanity make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    just watch the knife at our throat and hand in your back pocket.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    SonoraTechnical said:
    oh, this all sounds so benevolent...
    Nvidia has never been benevolent with its pricing. They always charge as much as possible, up to the point where their competitors could offer a better value or where the loss in sales volume would otherwise exceed gains by further margin increases.

    SonoraTechnical said:
    doesn't tech and all that it promises for humanity make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
    It's big business. It has always been thus.
    Reply
  • Thunder64
    bit_user said:
    Nvidia talking about revenue streams that don't involve selling additional hardware sounds a lot to me like the bubble beginning to pop.

    Also, if the bubble is indeed popping, then extracting more revenue from their customers is just going to drive them into debt even faster!

    Finally, this would undermine the value proposition of their hardware, pushing customers towards alternatives. This news might sound good to the casual Nvidia shareholder, but it sounds very ominous to me.

    I very much hope you are right. The bubble popping will hurt a lot but a correction is necessary.
    Reply
  • alan.campbell99
    All while among other things they're doing a good impression of GE Capital.
    Reply
  • randomizer
    Milking the cow until it bleeds.
    Reply
  • Pierce2623
    Who will pay the $80,000-$100,00 per GB300 node when that’s enough to rent one for 40-50 years? This isn’t making much sense.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Pierce2623 said:
    Who will pay the $80,000-$100,00 per GB300 node when that’s enough to rent one for 40-50 years? This isn’t making much sense.
    I'm not exactly sure where those figures come from, but you have to assume that any increase in ownership prices will impact rental prices, as well.
    Reply
  • DS426
    Ignorance is about the nicest way I can put this. Apparently they haven't seen CoreWeave and other neocloud providers all over the news. All of this is built on a house of cards, so as soon as one major player goes down, investors are pulling out, which will crash the rest of them.

    Nvidia needs to be broken up. The concentration of power, funding, and market coercion is unsustainable. I see no less than three new entities being necessary to satisfy this problem:
    An enterprise hardware company (GPU's, servers, custom server design, etc.)
    An enterprise software company (CUDA that is opened up to Intel, AMD, Broadcom, etc. , software support, custom apps and AI models, etc.),
    A gaming hardware and software company (gaming GPU's and related software like DLSS remain in the same house)Many of the biggest Sherman anti-trust breakups resulted in a lot more new business entities than three, such as Rockefeller Oil being broken into more than 30 new companies. That still resulted in some of the most powerful and wealthy megacorps in the world, such as Exxon and Chevron, today's AT&T, etc. Will this happen? I'm doubtful until I hear otherwise.

    The market will continue to get milked until the bubble pops. Sad, sad state of affairs.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    DS426 said:
    Nvidia needs to be broken up. The concentration of power, funding, and market coercion is unsustainable. I see no less than three new entities being necessary to satisfy this problem:
    An enterprise hardware company (GPU's, servers, custom server design, etc.)
    An enterprise software company (CUDA that is opened up to Intel, AMD, Broadcom, etc. , software support, custom apps and AI models, etc.),
    A gaming hardware and software company (gaming GPU's and related software like DLSS remain in the same house)Many of the biggest Sherman anti-trust breakups resulted in a lot more new business entities than three, such as Rockefeller Oil being broken into more than 30 new companies. That still resulted in some of the most powerful and wealthy megacorps in the world, such as Exxon and Chevron, today's AT&T, etc. Will this happen? I'm doubtful until I hear otherwise.
    Yeah, I'm not totally sold on the idea of breaking them up, but I'd agree that the amount of vendor-locking they impose on customers is rather extreme and I'd be worried it's smothering an important new industry... except for the fact that I think AI progress is already too fast and broader competition might even make that worse.

    I have long felt that the CUDA ecosystem was a problem, here. Even if it's not spun off, there are other ways to lessen its leverage in binding customers.

    At the very least, customers should be allowed to develop truly drop-in alternatives. I recall that, during some of the Microsoft anti-trust litigation, a big complaint was Microsoft's use of internal APIs that weren't available to competing products. I'm not sure if the courts ever tried to do anything about that, before the case got canned by a new administration coming into office. And then there was MS' long-standing practice of embrace-and-extend, as another way of introducing hurdles, even when they adopted some standards-based approach.
    Reply