eBay used bare H100 SXM5 80GB module (single-module listing, tested)

USED / Pre-Owned, BARE SXM5 module only - no HGX baseboard, no server, no NVLink fabric. $12,999.00 captured 2026-10-03, title asserts 'Tested Working'. Warranty: none from NVIDIA; seller offers 30-day returns (buyer pays return shipping) plus eBay Money Back Guarantee. Price excludes any baseboard or host. PRICE CLASS: this is an ASKING price captured from a live listing or product page, i.e. the price at which a seller advertises the part for sale right now. It is NOT a sold/completed transaction price, NOT an auction result and NOT a dealer cost. A realised price on the same day would generally be lower, and for used or refurbished parts the gap between ask and realised is typically wide PERISHABLE-FIGURE STAMP (added 2026-10-04, uniform across data/supply/ so it is greppable). PRICE CLASS: ASKING price - the rate at which a seller advertises the item for sale, NOT a sold, completed or realised transaction price. OBSERVED: 2026-10-03 RE-VERIFY BY: 2027-01-04 - the repo's quarterly re-verification bar. After that date this figure is presumed drifted and must be re-checked against its source before it is quoted again. A price without its observation date is noise; this stamp exists so a reader can tell a fresh figure from a stale one without reading prose. UNIT: USED / Pre-Owned, BARE SXM5 module only READING RULE: No further perishable flag is published for this figure.

lead_time_weeks is null because no lead time applies: this is a secondary/auction market priced per listing. What a buyer faces is listing availability at the moment of purchase - the record's availability field is a snapshot of what a seller posted, not a schedulable delivery date - plus whatever shipping the listing states. An auction close date is not a lead time.

EAR 3A090.a / 3A090.b (advanced-computing ICs) + EAR 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) (D:5/Macau end-user and ultimate-parent) + EAR 744.23 (Entity List screening) + EAR 744.6 (Unverified/MEU lists)

LAYER 1, EXPORT LICENCE: under the Jan 2026 BIS rule 91 FR 1684 (effective 2026-01-15) the license review policy for advanced-computing commodities with TPP < 21,000 AND total DRAM bandwidth < 6,500 GB/s - the NVIDIA H200 and AMD MI325X are the rule's named examples - moved from PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL to CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW, but only for exports FROM THE UNITED STATES to end users located in China or Macau, and only against six exporter certifications filed via SNAP-R before shipment: (1) items below the thresholds with the count of units shipped in the US; (2) sufficient US supply, judged 'taking into account normal lead times'; (3) no diversion of global foundry capacity away from US end users; (4) aggregate China+Macau shipments <= 50% of total US end-use shipments of that product; (5) no end-user or use prohibition; (6) the consignee runs rigorous KYC. Every shipment must then pass a qualified third-party testing lab - US-headquartered, not controlled by a D:5/Macau entity, no ownership stake in any party, qualification revocable by BIS at any time - verifying TPP, total DRAM bandwidth, interconnect bandwidth and copackaged DRAM capacity. Reexports and in-country transfers of the same chips to China/Macau REMAIN PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL. LAYER 2, END-USER AND PARENT SCREENING: per BIS guidance of 2026-05-31 a licence is required where the consignee is HEADQUARTERED in Country Group D:5 (15 CFR part 740 supplement no. 1) or Macau OR whose ULTIMATE PARENT COMPANY is so headquartered - even when the consignee itself sits outside D:5/Macau. The requirement sits at EAR 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) for destinations outside the US, with an exception available only under the license exception at 740.2(a)(9)(ii). The destination country alone therefore never answers the question; screen the parent. LAYER 3, REMAINING LIMITS: exports to D:5/Macau-headquartered OR -parented entities stay PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL wherever the buyer sits, and the AI Diffusion Rule that would have set a country-tier structure on who could lawfully buy what was RESCINDED on 2025-05-13 and is not being enforced, so any recorded status rests on the instruments named here rather than on tiering.

Useful because it pins down that a used H100 SXM5 MODULE is not the same product as a used 8-GPU HGX baseboard, and the gap is enormous: the same seller's ecosystem listed an 8x80GB H100 HGX GDX baseboard at $341,872.75 (~$42,734/GPU) - more than 3x the $12,999 bare-module figure. Anyone budgeting 'used H100' must state which of these they mean. A bare SXM5 module is close to unsellable without a compatible carrier. RISK: 'Tested Working' is the seller's assertion, not a burn-in report. A same-session comparable 'Nvidia H100 80GB SXM5 GPU GH100-885K-A1, before bid ask me!' listed at $14,000.00 plus delivery from a different seller, so the two public data points bracket roughly $13k-$14k for a bare used 80GB SXM5 module. Also present in the same used result set, cheaper and more usable for cheap inference: used H100 96GB SXM5 at $14,999.00, GH200 Grace Hopper dev superchip 96GB at $4,499.95 / $5,449.99, and GH100 qualification sample at $4,500.00. The GH200/qual-sample pricing is the discount channel for Hopper-class inference, and is legal where a compliant H100 sale is not - though dev kits and qual samples carry their own support limits. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04, mechanism-level; sources spl-eccn-3a090-ccl, spl-bis-2026-01-advanced-computing-case-by-case, spl-bis-2026-05-d5-guidance): these parts classify under ECCN 3A090.a/.b, whose thresholds are 'total processing performance' (TPP) >= 4800, or TPP >= 1600 with performance density >= 5.92 (the .b band is TPP 2400-4800 with performance density 1.6-5.92, or TPP >= 1600 with performance density 3.2-5.92). The mechanism has THREE layers and all three must be cleared, not just one: (a) LICENSE FOR EXPORT FROM THE US - controlled by the January 2026 rule (91 FR 1684, effective 2026-01-15), which moved TPP < 21,000 AND total DRAM bandwidth < 6,500 GB/s parts from presumption of denial to CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW, but only for exports from the US to end users in China/Macau, and only against six exporter certifications - US supply sufficiency judged 'taking into account normal lead times', no diversion of foundry capacity away from US end users, aggregate China+Macau shipments capped at 50% of US end-use shipments, no end-user prohibition, consignee KYC procedures, and prior verification by a qualified third-party US testing lab of TPP, total DRAM bandwidth, interconnect bandwidth and copackaged DRAM capacity; (b) END-USER AND PARENT-COMPANY SCREENING under 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) - per BIS guidance of 2026-05-31 a licence is required where the consignee is HEADQUARTERED in Country Group D:5 or Macau OR ITS ULTIMATE PARENT is so headquartered, EVEN IF the consignee itself is outside D:5/Macau, which means the destination country alone never answers the question; (c) THE LIMITS THAT REMAIN - reexports and in-country transfers of the same chips to China/Macau remain PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL, and exports to D:5/Macau-headquartered or -parented entities remain presumption of denial wherever the buyer sits. The Jan-2025 AI Diffusion Rule was rescinded and not enforced from 2025-05-13, but that rescission did not remove (a) or (b). LEAD TIME: null, and deliberately so. A secondary-market LISTING has no lead time - the part either exists on the marketplace on the observation date or it does not, and the seller's dispatch time is not published and not a commitment. This is the opposite failure mode from a distributor: a backordered new part at least carries a distribution window (CDW prints '4-6+ Weeks' on some SKUs, source spl-cdw-published-lead-times-gpu-2026-10), whereas a used listing with no buyer carries nothing at all. The correct consequence for a reader is that used and auction supply cannot be scheduled around and therefore cannot carry a build plan - they are opportunistic capacity, which is the strongest argument in this slice for the renting-over-buying decision. Probe log in source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time.