Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video Cards' started by sabrewolf732, Aug 1, 2019.
Sure, but they didn't charge anyone any extra to implement with full knowledge that Nvidia would eventually have to support it. No resources, well played. They knew they couldn't pressure vendors and directly compete. Even after some success they still worked with the industry and continue with freesync 2 allowing anyone, including Nvidia to utilize it. I'm not saying it was near as good as nvidias and admitted I wish they had better defined stuff. Given their position, they did what they could. I would take lower quality freesync over fixed refresh and given my situation won't be paying the Nvidia tax anytime soon. I could now (thanks AMD) buy a freesync monitor and know I have freedom of choice for my GPU when it's time to upgrade any one of my boxes.
AMD didn't- but there was still a cost. Nvidia did because they manufactured specialized hardware fit for the purpose.
The term 'Freesync' is an excellent marketing coup, one of very few from AMD's braindead marketing department- but that's all it was at release, and it still has a cost today.
In addition to seeing AMD add another level of refinement to Freesync- which they may just leave to Nvidia, and that's cool, I guess- I'd like to see Nvidia support the Freesync protocol with future G-Sync modules to provide the best experience that a non-Nvidia GPU could produce.
Now that would be a coup!
I would love to see that as well, but... Nvidia. They want to corner the market and demand everyone use their hardware. Just because it's technically better doesn't mean adoption. There have been many technically better things that have failed due to the the costs to use (royalties, hardware, etc). Im just not a huge fan of the apple ecosystem and don't want to see it bleeding into the pc hardware sector where they lock you in. While great for consistency, it sucks for choice.
In general, this is what all corporations 'want'.
But if Nvidia actually wanted that, they'd just push AMD's GPUs out of the market completely. Pound for pound, AMD's GPUs are lower performing and cost more to make; all Nvidia has to do is sacrifice revenue and profit for AMD's marketshare, and make AMD's GPU ROI negative across the board.
But then another company would pick up the IP- if not Intel, then Samsung, perhaps- and Nvidia would be staring down a real 2080Ti-class competitor instead of Big Navi .
Instead, Nvidia just keeps making better products, and lets AMD do what AMD does; since AMD is always a few years behind, it's not that big of a deal.
No, they don't want to push them out, they need them so they aren't considered a monopoly, but they don't want them gaining any advantages or getting to much of the market share. I know every business wants to maintain an advantage and will use tactics to maintain their lead, and AMD chose the tactic that was most effective at combatting, which has worked out without actually being superior, but being more open and a cheaper solution with more options. I'm not blaming Nvidia for trying, but I'm also not blaming AMD for fighting back either.
Nvidia doesn't need AMD for this when Intel holds a vast majority of the desktop GPU market .
If a natural monopoly forms that's fine (a 'benign' monopoly). If a company's actions becoming a monopoly helped cause the competitor's demise, that's when the laws apply.
As mentioned by Algrim, depends on the circumstances, although we see the slap on the wrist most companies receive nowadays. You illegally destroyed your only competitor, we're taking 3 days revenue from you and now you have no competition, lol. I'm hoping big Navi can prove worthwhile to help keep much needed competition.
That's the thing- Nvidia is solving more problems than AMD in the GPU space. If AMDs graphics division starts operating deep in the red, well, that's on AMD. You can't fault Nvidia for making better products and consumers choosing them.
As an example, AMD releasing Big Navi without ray tracing hardware would be a big reason- if consumers pan it because ray tracing is a must have (we're in the hypotheticals here), AMD will have spent a significant sum producing Big Navi only for it to sit on shelves.
As a counter-example because I don't want to sound all doom-and-gloom despite how hard AMD tries to disappoint, if Big Navi were feature-for-feature competitive with the 2080Ti and came in say US$100 cheaper after Nvidia's second round of pavlovian price cuts, AMD should have no problem clawing away marketshare.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that if it's just bad decisions by AMD that's anywhere close to illegal. Things like the failed GPP however could be scrutinized more closely
I think AMD will do just fine with big Navi based on how much higher prices are now, they will have flexibility with pricing while maintaining a healthy margin as was seen with the 5700 price cuts. I have no doubts their margins are still ok. As long as it doesn't cost more than they can sell it for they will be fine.
It did rightly throw the tech journalist community into a tizzy, but it's also standard corporate boilerplate. Do note also that the GPP was more of a prememption of Intel's entry into the dGPU market than it was targeted at AMD, as Nvidia doesn't really have to bother with AMD.
Intel, however, is a threat that Nvidia is well aware that they may not be able to counter.
Both Intel and Nvidia have behaved in well documented anti-competitive ways, Intel for decades. Nvidia, maybe a few specific instances.
You can speculate, but the immediate effect was to ensure that Nvidia partners would have to treat AMD as a second rate company. This is anti competitive, but it's hard to determine motive and hard to determine actual damages, which is why so many of these things go unpunished.
While the GPP had the appearance of treating AMD as a second rate company, the objective effect was an enforced 'separation' between AMD and Nvidia parts with respect to AIB branding. The GPP was certainly devious taken on the whole, but it should be noted that this something that every company tries to do when they have command of their market. Marketing is huge, and Nvidia (rightly, from the standpoint of a manufacturer), wanted to make sure that their branding was as clearly separated as possible.
For those that would argue that their angelic conception of AMD would not do something like the GPP: you need a reality check. AMD would absolutely love to have more control over their branding and how their products are used by their partners, and as bad as many recent releases have gone, they really need to step that level of control up for Big Navi to be a success.
That is true. However, I was commenting specifically on monopoly law which doesn't automatically apply once monopoly status is achieved. Just being a monopoly isn't illegal; it's the actions that get the company that status is what determines whether or not action is taken.
I found the entire GPP episode to be repugnant and inexcusable. nVidia's 'branding' was successful in no small part to the companies that agreed to build cards around nVidia GPU chips.
Whilst I agree that AMD would love to do this if they could, they in fact have not done so. I hold companies accountable for the actions they do, not what they could get away with but haven't so far.
Most of the community did, largely because what we participate here at [H] is a community- and that's why Nvidia failed. However, it is also important to point out that what they were doing is standard in most industries.
And? Every order and contract is its own entity. Those companies may cut Nvidia off if they like, but even with GPP they found value in continuing to be Nvidia's customers. Neither 'owes' the other anything.
AMD is one example, and their fans like to think of them as 'not like every other company'. That's fallacious. This is business, and businesses always seek to control their branding. AMD not being in control of their branding is an example of their shortcomings, not of their 'enthusiast piety'.
It didn’t bother me. At the time I worked for a distributor (automation/hydraulics/servos/robotics ect.) and in that industry exclusivity is completely normal. Especially the hydraulic side. nVidia wasn’t even asking for that, which I think is way above and beyond GPP, they just wanted a product line specific to nVidia. Totally agree with your post.
GPP didn’t make much sense to me. I always thought people shopping for graphics cards were quite aware of whether AMD or Nvidia were under the hood. If that’s not the case though and people shop AIB brands like “Asus ROG” then I can see where nvidia is coming from.
Then they should have new names created for their products but they did not want that. They wanted AMD products to be completely renamed, which is what GPP attempted to do.
They aren't.like every other company... They are the small dog in the big kids club. While I can't say they wouldn't do the same things (they probably would), they haven't yet done so. You can't condemn someone for something they could do given the opportunity. That's like saying you could be a murderer it's just that you haven't yet. That's not how things work (at least here in the US so far). I have no doubts any business will try to capture market share and if they aren't tiptoeing the boundary of legality, they aren't trying.
Nvidia isn't in control of their branding either, and forcing companies to separate your brand from another AFTER it's been established is the problem. If they helped each company build their brand Nvidia only from the start it would have been acceptable (at least in my view). This isn't how it went down as we know. Specific branding isn't the issue, it's how it was attempted to be forced at the expense of a competitor who is smaller.
It's not that AMD isn't a company, not do I think they wouldn't take opportunities if they have them, and I sure hope nobody would excuse their actions if they did similar things.
As mentioned, this wasn't an agreement in place from the onset, this was forced. Had Nvidia signed an agreement up front before the branding started and was being used, it wouldn't have even been a blip in the news. But they used their market position to force manufacturer's to basically drop AMD from their gaming brands after they had been established. That's the difference from what you are talking about and this.
True. That does raise an eyebrow.
It doesn't need to be in order for it to be statistically valid. Learn some basic sampling info.
No, we understand statistics and how easily manipulated they are. The point of disclosing how they select people for survey is so we understand there is no bias. If they just collected all of them there would be even less chance of bias (intended or accidental). If I canvas New York City to see who in New York was voting Democrat vs Republican, I could call 10,000 people and get a good sample size... It doesn't make my data useful outside of the city. Statistics are great in science.... Let's leave them there please, because once they come out to be used by companies or governments (or people on message boards), there is almost never a guarantee of the accuracy of the sampling. I have no doubts the accuracy of the #'s, but that doesn't mean it represents what you think it does.
So please stop insulting people's intelligence just because you believe some numbers from a company and others are skeptical. And like I said earlier, in reality they are probably representative to a good degree, but it's hard to confirm for sure. And, since they have the actual data, it seems silly to take a poll that can lead to inaccuracies.
But they can't.
Nvidia can't offer more performance.... only less performance. That is why all these "RTX On" comments are so backwards and illogical. Who is buying RTX for Ray tracing.... find that person please. Those facetious People don't exist in public, only 4 people ever on a forums, are the same people who herald the choppy RTX as kewl..
I would guess, that people who will choose an RTX gimmick, over actual performance upgrade are about 1%.
And... those 1% illogical buyers are HERE, on these forums using a $1400 GPU to game at 75 frames. When most people are just using a $800 GPU to run at the exact same frames. And these same "believers" are trying to convince the rest of us to pay Nvidia premium tax, because they share holders, not Gamers.
RT matters to everyone, but owners of RTX cards don't get to experience full RT. Because RTX On is broken and will never work properly, as long as you own the card.
Earn it dude, earn it. In the mean time, Big Navi is coming and will probably be quite good, whenever it is released.
Small navi is disappointing, so I doubt big navi will be "quite good."
How is small Navi disappointing? the 5700 XT blows away for 2060 super for the same price? The Sapphire Pulse card is only $10 over MSRP with a better cooling solution.
Why is Little Navi disappointing?
It sits between a 2070 and 2070 super, for less than both.
I guess we can say the 2060 super and 2070 super are also disappointing.
That's not how nividia logic works
Disappointing that it is at or above Nvidia level for less money? Or disappointing because you want 2080ti performance for $200?
That's not at all what GPP required, which you well know. But why tell the truth when it comes to Nvidia, right?
GPP required different brands. Nvidia wasn't claiming anyone's sub-brand, they just wanted all branding at ASUS that applied to Nvidia GPUs to be Nvidia specific. Which meant that the AMD stuff would wind up being AMD specific, at least until Intel's parts enter the game.
So if ASUS and MSI wanted to create new sub-brands just for Nvidia, and leave their current ones to AMD, that would have been acceptable. It would have also been a mistake, because AMDs products are inferior especially above the low-end, so it made sense for vendors to use those sub-brands for the most popular, highest performing products.
And if Big Navi released and happened to have performance that was untouchable, then whichever sub-brands it would fall under would gain notoriety, new or old. GPP could not and was not designed to prevent that, just ensure that the branding was separate.
I think that this is an extreme simplification of consumer behavior... and just general consumer ignorance, and how content consumers are with said ignorance.
That's why marketing is so important and why controlling branding is so important, and why policies like GPP are normal for many other industries.
I'd expect someone at the [H] like ourselves to be informed, but we represent a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the market. We're louder of course, but in terms of how your average consumer perceives marketing and branding, we are not remotely representative.
To be absolutely clear: exerting marketshare-based control over branding isn't exceptional, it is the absolute norm. Nvidia failing to do so is the exception.
AMD failing to do so- well, that's what AMD does. They don't have the marketshare to exert control, but if they did, they would generally be considered negligent by not exerting control.
To understand GPP relative to corporate norms, take AMD out of the picture, because by and large they aren't relevant to Nvidia, and replace them with Intel. That's who the GPP was aimed at.
And to be very clear: Nvidia wasn't dictating which brands to dedicate, and of those brands that are popular based on marketshare alone, Nvidia absolutely has had a tremendous hand in building them up. You cannot claim that Nvidia didn't help build ROG GPU cache when the majority of those ROG GPUs that have shipped- and the near totality of those shipped that deserve premium branding- shipped with Nvidia GPUs at the heart. Maybe Big Navi will change that.
Nvidia wasn't telling ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / etc. which choice to make, but to make a choice whichever way. And Nvidia nor their partners are obligated to 'be fair' to AMD, and there's no legal line being crossed. There's really no ethical line being crossed either, except the expectations by us in the community that Nvidia produces GPUs for.
Lastly: I've said that the GPP was absolutely devious on Nvidia's part, and I stand by that- when the topic was new and the GPP was still under consideration by various companies, I stated that I did not agree with the GPP, as a member of this community, however, I did understand the GPP and in the context of Intel entering the dGPU market, was a prudent move on Nvidia's part.
technical enthusiasts are a fraction of a fraction of the public in any medium ...be it computer hardware, software, gadgets, cars, etc.
I dont think anyone who's actually part of those clubs can realistically know how the other 99% of the customer-base thinks and how they perceive the market.
nvidia and intel's anti-competitive campaigns over the years is less about convincing the purchasing public that their products are superior and more about controlling what is available to be sold to the public at all.
I can't fathom what goes thru the mind of non-enthusiasts. But when the market has been manipulated to only show you 1 product, that's the product most people are going to end up buying. It's not capitalism at work, since it's not the consumer that's making the choice.
I'm buying big navi when it comes out. Less so for the undoubtedly high performance it will have. I'd buy it even if it was not as fast as the best thing nvidia has out or even equally priced nvidia hardware. I buy amd gpu's simply for the open source driver support.
I can't understand the fixation of linux users with open source drivers, more so when closed drivers work perfectly fine.
FOSSing is a religion bro.
Well that was the problem wasn't it... GPU superiority has waxed one way or the over the course of years. So companies that built gaming brands over those years have had at different times top end cards from both AMD and Nvidia.
Nvidia timed their GPP crap for exactly the time when they knew for a fact no one was going to toss their cards out of those brands. It was a DICK move. And they got caught and called on it. >.<
Ask yourself if AMD had superior cards at the time would NVs marketing dept have asked the same of partners. Of course not they would have been pissing away millions in marketing.
I can't understand why all you privacy nuts are worried about google having all your infos. Or Apple or MS or the Government. If your not doing anything wrong why are you worried ?