AllYouCanTech

Nvidia Discontinues Support for Legacy GPUs, Featuring the Well-Liked GTX 1060

### Nvidia Phasing Out Support for Legacy GPUs: Implications for Gamers and Developers

Nvidia, a frontrunner in the GPU market, is again making waves as it prepares to discontinue support for various older GPU architectures. This initiative coincides with the debut of its state-of-the-art RTX 50-series GPUs, built on the innovative Blackwell architecture. While the new GPUs promise revolutionary performance, the choice to reduce support for older architectures such as Maxwell, Pascal, and Volta has ignited conversations among gamers, developers, and technology aficionados.

#### A Retrospective: The Heritage of Maxwell, Pascal, and Volta

The Maxwell, Pascal, and Volta architectures have played a crucial role in establishing Nvidia’s supremacy in the GPU sector. These architectures powered some of the most sought-after and energy-efficient GPUs of their era:

– **Maxwell Architecture (2014-2016)**: The Maxwell-based **GeForce GTX 750 Ti** transformed the gaming experience, delivering notable performance while utilizing considerably less power compared to its AMD rivals. It gained immense popularity among cost-conscious gamers and small-form-factor PC enthusiasts.

– **Pascal Architecture (2016-2018)**: The Pascal-powered **GeForce GTX 1060** is arguably one of Nvidia’s most legendary GPUs. It reigned atop the Steam Hardware Survey for more than five years, reflecting its widespread use and lasting performance. Even now, the GTX 1060 remains among the top 15 most-utilized GPUs on Steam, surpassing many newer models from AMD and Intel.

– **Volta Architecture (2017)**: Primarily aimed at professional and AI tasks, Volta GPUs like the Titan V demonstrated Nvidia’s capabilities in high-performance computing. These GPUs set the stage for breakthroughs in AI, machine learning, and deep learning.

#### The Conclusion of an Era: Understanding “Feature-Complete”

Per Nvidia’s latest **CUDA release notes**, support for Maxwell, Pascal, and Volta GPUs is deemed “feature-complete.” This indicates that although these GPUs will continue to receive essential security updates for the foreseeable future, they will no longer gain from new CUDA features or performance enhancements. CUDA, Nvidia’s parallel computing environment, is crucial for developers engaged in AI, scientific computing, and various GPU-accelerated applications.

For gamers, this signals that future **Game Ready drivers**—designed to optimize GPU performance for new game launches—may exclude these older architectures. Nvidia has not yet provided a definitive timeline for when these GPUs will be entirely eliminated from driver support, but indications are evident.

#### Reasons Behind Nvidia’s Discontinuation of Older GPUs

The strategy to phase out support for older GPUs is not unprecedented. Nvidia previously ceased support for its **Kepler architecture** in 2021, with AMD following suit by ending support for several notable GPUs in 2023. There are several factors driving GPU manufacturers to make these choices:

1. **Resource Management**: Supporting older architectures demands considerable engineering resources. By concentrating on newer GPUs, Nvidia can invest more resources into creating groundbreaking features and enhancing performance for contemporary hardware.

2. **Technological Evolution**: As games and applications grow increasingly demanding, older GPUs often falter. Phasing out support allows Nvidia to explore the limits of its latest architectures.

3. **Market Tendencies**: Encouraging users to upgrade to newer GPUs helps Nvidia sustain its market presence and revenue. The introduction of the RTX 50-series GPUs exemplifies Nvidia’s commitment to innovation and performance.

#### Influence on Gamers and Developers

The discontinuation of support for Maxwell, Pascal, and Volta GPUs will yield different effects based on the user’s profile:

– **Gamers**: Users with GPUs like the GTX 1060 or GTX 750 Ti may discover that newer games no longer perform as seamlessly or at all. While these GPUs can still manage older and less demanding titles, upgrading to a newer GPU will be essential for enjoying the latest AAA games with optimal performance.

– **Developers**: Developers relying on CUDA for GPU-accelerated applications may need to shift to newer hardware to benefit from the latest features and performance enhancements. This is particularly pertinent in fields like AI, where computational demands are soaring.

– **Casual Users**: For routine activities such as web surfing and video playback, older GPUs will still function adequately. However, users may forfeit advancements in video decoding, AI-driven upscaling, and other contemporary features.

#### What Lies Ahead for Nvidia?

As Nvidia introduces its RTX 50-series GPUs, the company is reaffirming its dedication to innovation. The new **Blackwell architecture** promises substantial performance improvements, enhanced power efficiency, and sophisticated AI capabilities. These GPUs are anticipated to set new standards for gaming, content creation, and professional performance.

Simultaneously, Nvidia’s choice to discontinue support for older architectures highlights the necessity of remaining updated in a swiftly evolving technological landscape.

“WHO Begins Implementing Cost-Reduction Strategies in Anticipation of U.S. Exit Planned for January 2026”

**The Consequences of the US Exit from the World Health Organization (WHO)**

The World Health Organization (WHO), a fundamental element of global health governance since it was established in 1948, is encountering a major financial and operational obstacle as the United States advances its plans to withdraw from the institution. The US, which has traditionally been the largest financial backer of the WHO, representing roughly 18% of its budget, is scheduled to officially exit on January 22, 2026. This choice, sparked by an executive order signed by President Trump, has raised significant alarm among leaders and experts in global health.

### **Context on the US-WHO Dynamic**
Since its creation, the United States has been an essential participant in the WHO, contributing not just financially but also providing technical knowledge and leadership in international health initiatives. Throughout the years, this collaboration has led to notable successes, such as the eradication of smallpox and the near-elimination of polio. The US has also been instrumental in responding to global health crises, including the Ebola outbreak and the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, friction between the US and the WHO intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. President Trump criticized the organization for its management of the emergency, claiming it was too compliant with China and failed to act promptly to contain the virus. These criticisms, alongside worries regarding financial contributions and wider geopolitical factors, culminated in the decision to withdraw.

### **Financial and Operational Consequences for the WHO**
The departure of the US presents a substantial financial challenge for the WHO. The organization’s budget for the two-year period of 2024-2025 is set at $6.8 billion, with contributions from the US accounting for a significant share of this funding. To address the anticipated budget deficit, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has announced a number of cost-reduction strategies. These include:

– Freezing the hiring of new employees.
– Reducing travel costs and shifting meetings to online formats.
– Limiting upgrades to IT infrastructure.
– Pausing office renovations.

While these actions are intended to lessen the impact of the immediate financial fallout, they are insufficient to remedy the long-term effects of losing the US as a member state. Tedros has indicated that more measures will be forthcoming in the next few months.

### **Global Health Repercussions**
The US withdrawal has faced considerable backlash from global health experts, who caution about its extensive ramifications. Kenneth Bernard, a former biodefense official during the George W. Bush administration, characterized the decision as “simply foolish,” stressing that it undermines global health leadership and creates an opportunity for other nations, especially China, to fill the gap.

The WHO is crucial in orchestrating global responses to health crises, tackling the underlying causes of diseases, and bolstering health systems worldwide. The reduction of US support may hinder these initiatives, making the global community less equipped to tackle future health emergencies. Additionally, the withdrawal could diminish America’s sway in international health governance, relinquishing leadership to other countries and potentially jeopardizing its own national security.

### **The WHO’s Reaction and Aspirations for Reconsideration**
In a statement released on January 21, 2025, the WHO expressed disappointment over the US’s decision and called for a reassessment. The organization underscored the reciprocal advantages of the partnership, noting that “WHO and the USA have saved numerous lives and shielded Americans and people globally from health dangers” over the last seventy years.

The WHO’s statement also highlighted the interconnectedness of global health, asserting that health threats in one region can swiftly become threats everywhere. The organization’s capacity to tackle these difficulties effectively relies on the combined support of its 194 member states, including the US.

### **What Lies Ahead?**
According to a 1948 Joint Resolution of Congress, the US exit from the WHO necessitates a one-year notice. This creates an opportunity for the decision to be reversed, either by the current administration or a successor. The WHO and its advocates are likely to persist in urging the US to remain a participant, spotlighting the vital function the organization plays in protecting global health.

Meanwhile, the WHO will have to adjust to the financial and operational difficulties posed by the US exit. This may entail seeking greater contributions from other member nations, diversifying its funding sources, and prioritizing its actions to concentrate on the most urgent global health challenges.

### **Conclusion**
The US withdrawal from the WHO signifies a profound shift in global health governance. As the organization contends with the financial and operational implications of losing its primary contributor, the larger consequences for global health security and leadership remain uncertain. Although the decision has been condemned as myopic and counterproductive, it also highlights the necessity for a renewed pledge to multilateral cooperation in addressing the intricate health issues of the 21st century. Whether the US ultimately reconsiders its choice will have significant repercussions not just for the WHO but for the health and security of individuals worldwide.