GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

[Brian_B]

Look what happened to XFX.......

They declined to stop selling AMD, they no longer offer nvidia products.

Don't think it did hurt their bottom line.

That and XFX was a pretty big dealer until nvidia dumped them.

Could be, you have a good point. But GPP wasn't the cause of the XFX/nV breakup.

And Pine Tech Holdings Limited seems to be doing pretty well lately. I don't see stock history going back far enough to see exactly how the nV breakup affected them at the time, and of course, we can only speculate what it would be today if they had continued carrying nV.

 

[noko]

Terms and Condition directly from source:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/partnerforce-terms.html
NVIDIA PARTNERFORCE PROGRAM TERMS & CONDITIONS
Please read the Terms and Conditions of use of the NVIDIA PartnerForce™ Program carefully.

By registering to the NVIDIA PartnerForce™ Program ("Program"), you and NVIDIA agree as follows:

1. You acknowledge and agree that you do not acquire any right, title, or interest in or to any software or any other intellectual property of NVIDIA under this Agreement, including any trademark, trade name, logo or service mark of NVIDIA except for the license that is expressly granted in Section 2.
2. Subject to your enrollment in the Program and the terms and conditions of this Agreement, NVIDIA Corporation ("NVIDIA") offers you a revocable, nonexclusive, nonassignable, nonsublicenseable, royalty free limited trademark license to use the NVIDIA Corporate Logos (the "NVIDIA Logos") that are depicted in the NVIDIA PartnerForce Portal. You may only use the NVIDIA Logos pursuant to the following acknowledgements and terms and conditions:
   1. You agree that NVIDIA is the exclusive owner of the NVIDIA Logos, and your use of the NVIDIA Logos acknowledges NVIDIA's exclusive ownership of the NVIDIA Logos. You acknowledge and agree that all use of the NVIDIA Logos shall inure to the benefit of NVIDIA.
   2. The NVIDIA Logos are intended solely for use and display in connection with computer systems that contain the Products. You will not use the NVIDIA Logos in any advertising/promotional materials, collaterals, products, labels, packaging or any other printed material without NVIDIA's prior written consent. Any use of the NVIDIA Logos or other protected materials not specifically allowed by this Agreement is prohibited without the express prior written consent of NVIDIA.
   3. You must provide the following notice to third parties on the same web page as the page on which the NVIDIA Logo appears or where you include other third party notices: "NVIDIA, the NVIDIA Logo, and other NVIDIA marks are trademarks or registered trademarks of NVIDIA Corporation in the United States and other countries."
   4. You shall NOT modify or alter the NVIDIA Logos in any way; use the NVIDIA Logos in such proximity to any other trademarks so as to create a combination or composite mark; use the NVIDIA Logos in any context that disparages NVIDIA, its products, its services, or infringes NVIDIA's intellectual property rights; or display the NVIDIA Logos in any way that implies that NVIDIA sponsors or endorses your web site or goods or services.
   5. The foregoing trademark license is revocable by NVIDIA at its sole discretion. NVIDIA further reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to modify the foregoing license rights or the NVIDIA Logos themselves.
   6. You will include NVIDIA names/logos in all advertising listings for computer systems that contain the Products, as well as your company's worldwide web site, and adhere to all name/logo usage standards established and published by NVIDIA with respect to the use of any such names/logos.
3. You shall provide all end user support for computer systems you assemble that contain the Products. NVIDIA is under no obligation to support the Products in any way or to correct any deficiencies, nor, in the case of software, to provide end users or you with updates, new build or error corrections. If NVIDIA, in its sole discretion, supplies end users or you with updates, new build or error corrections, they shall be provided in accordance with any accompanying terms. In the absence of any accompanying terms, their use shall be governed by these terms.
4. You agree to provide NVIDIA with your contact information as outlined on the membership form. NVIDIA agrees not to provide your details to any third party supplier. Your information will be used solely for internal purposes.
5. You agree that at least one member of your staff will participate in a minimum of five (5) online training sessions of NVIDIA products per year. Name and company details need to be entered into the training taken.
6. To be eligible for the benefits of the Program (including access to free NVIDIA POS and use of the marketing service) you agree to make purchases of Authorized Board Partner products from Authorized Distributors on a regular basis as determined in NVIDIA’s sole discretion.
7. You agree to use NVIDIA POS for the promotion of NVIDIA products and will not misuse it or do anything that may bring NVIDIA or any of its partners and / or competitors into disrepute.
8. You agree to purchase NVIDIA products from Authorized Distributors and / or Authorized Board Partners only.
9. You agree to keep your company contact / profile promptly updated.
10. THE PRODUCTS AND NVIDIA LOGOS ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS. NVIDIA DISCLAIMS ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT.
11. You acknowledge that NVIDIA makes no claims on your behalf as to the quality of products or services that you offer. You shall make no claims that NVIDIA endorses your products or services.
12. IN NO EVENT SHALL NVIDIA BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF, OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY END USERS, WHETHER BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, AND EVEN IF NVIDIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ADDITION, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL THE LIABILITY OF NVIDIA HEREUNDER EXCEED U.S. $10,000.
13. You will defend, indemnify and hold NVIDIA and its employees, officers, directors, successors and assigns harmless from any and all claims, actions and suits based on your use, sale, marketing and distribution of any products or your use of the NVIDIA Marks.
14. The amounts of cooperative marketing funds that NVIDIA so chooses, at its discretion, to make available and the terms and conditions for the Program may be updated at any time and from time to time by NVIDIA. You are responsible for regularly reviewing any such terms and conditions, which may be available from your sales representative. Your continuing participation in the Program constitutes your acceptance of any then-current terms and conditions.
15. Participation in the NVIDIA PartnerForce Program does not guarantee your eligibility to receive Program Benefits. NVIDIA reserves sole discretion to determine eligibility.
16. All information provided to you by NVIDIA under this program shall be considered NVIDIA confidential information. Except as otherwise authorized in this Agreement, you shall not disclose the confidential information of NVIDIA to any third party without the prior written approval of NVIDIA and shall maintain such confidential information with at least the same degree of care that you use to protect your own similar confidential information, but no less than a reasonable degree of care. Confidential information of NVIDIA shall not be reproduced in any form, except as required to accomplish the intent of this Agreement. Your obligations regarding confidential information shall expire five (5) years after the date of final disclosure to you.
17. By participating in the program, you represent that you will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules and governmental regulations. You may not export or re-export the Products without complying with applicable export control laws and obtaining all necessary permits and licenses.
18. NVIDIA reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time for any non-compliance, or for any other reason with or without cause, as NVIDIA deems, in its sole discretion, to be appropriate grounds for termination.
19. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without giving effect to any choice of law principles that would result in the application of the laws of a different state. All disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and Federal courts located in Santa Clara County, California, and the parties agree and submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of these courts. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply to this Agreement.
20. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding its subject matter and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings and communications, whether in written or oral form. Any waiver of any terms of this Agreement must be authorized in writing and executed by authorized representatives of each party. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be considered separate and apart from the remainder of this Agreement and the other provisions shall remain fully valid and enforceable. The terms on any purchase order or similar document submitted by you will have no effect on the provisions of this Agreement.
21. BY SUBMITTING PERSONAL INFORMATION THROUGH THIS PROGRAM, YOU EXPRESSLY CONSENT TO THE COLLECTION, USE, AND PROCESSING OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH NVIDIA'S PRIVACY POLICY LOCATED AT HTTP://WWW.NVIDIA.COM. YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION MAY BE PROCESSED IN THE COUNTRY IN WHICH IT WAS COLLECTED AND IN THE UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES LAWS REGARDING THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL INFORMATION MAY BE LESS STRINGENT THAN THE LAWS IN YOUR COUNTRY.

What really STICKS out to me on the first read through this lawyer induced excrement was #6. If you are an OEM making your gaming brand computer -> NVidia can dictate what board partners you can buy to install in your machine. So let say ASUS does not join this control freak program but Dell does -> Nvidia gives (dictates) to Dell a list all of the comrades of the GPP board partners but leaves out ASUS, Dell can only use the sanction GeFORCED gaming cards. This not only hurt AMD branded cards but AIB cards not on NVidia GPP program -> To me this is even worst than Intel past endeavours.

 

[renz496]

meh. just give nvidia the right to make their own x86 CPU.

 

[razor1]

Terms and Condition directly from source:

What really STICKS out to me on the first read through this lawyer induced excrement was #6. If you are an OEM making your gaming brand computer -> NVidia can dictate what board partners you can buy to install in your machine. So let say ASUS does not join this control freak program but Dell does -> Nvidia gives (dictates) to Dell a list all of the comrades of the GPP board partners but leaves out ASUS, Dell can only use the sanction GeFORCED gaming cards. This not only hurt AMD branded cards but AIB cards not on NVidia GPP program -> To me this is even worst than Intel past endeavours.

Well right now the big 3 computer makers get their cards directly from nV . Talking about the little guys, boutique stores that will be forced to do that, EVGA is the big suppliers for those smaller fish. Asus, MSI and Gigabyte, not so much on the radar there.

Remember the FE cards and the purpose for those, OEM's wanted them.......

I am willing to bet, this arrangement came from the FE talks......

 

[grtitan]

Every... Everyone...

Sorry bro, not buying it. There's at least a half-dozen perspectives to consider here, and we're not going to ignore the ones that make you feel uncomfortable or conflict with your personal computer piety.

At this point, I dont care much to post here, mainly because of this type of hypocrisy, but I will feed you one last time, before leaving.

Examples of this bullshit:

Mentioned that nvidia blocked their own cards via drivers, if used only for physx and an AMD card was used as primary device. Response received here? "They have good reasons for this"

Mentioned that gameworks was just a blatant way to block/hinder AMD or anyone else in the games market. Response received here? "Looks at the batmobile smoke in arkham knight, well worth it!"

Every damn time that a nvidia driver was released, very conveniently, the included telemetry drivers issue was ignored. Response received here? "Get out of here, conspiracy theorist!"

Lastly, mentioned the fact that every company that has worked with them, has ended screwed so bad, that they never went back. Examples, MS with the original xbox, sony with the ps3, apple is simply refusing to use anything from them. Response? "Your are crazy!"

Never a bip from kyle or the others, unless it was to ridicule and defend nvidia, hence why i said what i said.

Feel free to twist this as you wish, since i wont be bothering in returning to read it, since im that disgusted with this place.

yeah, make the witty door comment and whatever childish response you need to get off your chest.

 

[EdZ]

The accusation that Nvidia are offering brand promotion only to brands that are exclusively for Nvidia GPUs: well, duh? That's rather the entire point of the exercise.
Note that even by Kyle's admission there is NO clause preventing the same company selling cards from both GPU manufacturers. Using the Asus example: splitting the ROG brand for AMD and the Strix brand to Nvidia would completely comply with the terms outlined in the article.
This is in contrast to the Intel issue where the contractual terms actively prevented use of other CPUs in any product. Conflating the two is disingenuous.

The accusation that Nvidia are withholding GPUs from companies who are not part of the partnership program: worrying if true, though with no evidence it's in the FUD department for now.

 

[joyzbuzz]

This is really about what happens in 2019 and beyond.

AMD's modular CPU and GPU architectures on 7nm vs. Intel and Nvidia monolithic architectures will provide AMD with a substantial manufacturing cost and pricing advantage. Intel will be further disadvantaged by being stuck on 14nm for a couple more years which is why Epyc 2 will destroy Intel server chips on cost/performance/efficiency, Threadripper 2 the same in HEDT while the 7nm Ryzen 2 will far and away become the CPU of choice of gamers. AMD 7nm Zen/Vega 2 based APUs will decimate Nvidia's OEM mobile and low end desktop markets. By the end of 2019 the compute market will have shifted substantially in AMD's favor. AMD will become a premiere brand in gaming CPUs which will reflect on it's GPUs and with AMD now having the wherewithal to split it's GPU architectures into Radeon and Instinct lines Nvidia can expect to lose it's architectural edge in the gaming space.

JHH is simply reading the tea leaves and stacking the consumer market deck as much as possible while he has the leverage to do so. It is a rear guard holding action but JHH is famously able to spot and maximize profit opportunities and this will help stretch out profits in the consumer market for a while.

 

[razor1]

This is really about what happens in 2019 and beyond.

AMD's modular CPU and GPU architectures on 7nm vs. Intel and Nvidia monolithic architectures will provide AMD with a substantial manufacturing cost and pricing advantage. Intel will be further disadvantages by being stuck on 14nm for a couple more years. Epyc 2 will destroy Intel server chips on cost/performance/efficiency, Threadripper 2 the same in HEDT while the 7nm Ryzen 2 will far and away become the CPU of choice of gamers. AMD 7nm Zen/Vega 2 based APUs will decimate Nvidia's OEM mobile and low end desktop markets. By the end of 2019 the compute market will have shifted substantially in AMD's favor.

JHH is simply stacking the consumer market deck as much as possible while he has the leverage to do so. It is a rear guard holding action but JHH is famously able to spot and maximize profit opportunities and this will help stretch out profits in the consumer market for a couple of years.

Lets not have wet dreams over what AMD can do, so far they are still in their little pond .

Please modular CPU and GPU design, only work if monolithic designs aren't possible, we haven't reached that point yet. AMD went this route for CPU's because they have NO CHOICE, they don't have the money to do monolithic designs right now. Do you think AMD wanted to getting KILLED on distributed database and HPC performance, or lose out in gaming performance? These were the results of their design choice, why make such a design choice if they didn't have to? GPU's think farther out on this software needs to change for that to happen, think around 2020 or even more. 2021? Possibly but it all depends on nodes, and 7nm is said to be coming along good, which 7nm will last till 2021 at least.

 

[noko]

Well right now the big 3 computer makers get their cards directly from nV . Talking about the little guys, boutique stores that will be forced to do that, EVGA is the big suppliers for those smaller fish. Asus, MSI and Gigabyte, not so much on the radar there.

Remember the FE cards and the purpose for those, OEM's wanted them.......

I am willing to bet, this arrangement came from the FE talks......

Alienware liquid cool 1080 Ti is not a FE version plus the Vega options would go out the window. There are also 1080 liquid cool versions as well. Dell seems to have a lot of PNY version cards, FE and Custom. If Dell signs up -> AMD GPUs for their Gaming lineup would go poof and if PNY does not join up as well, Nvidia can will tell Dell to use someone else that has joined the club -> Pretty much forcing PNY to join as well or loose Dell's sells.

 

[BreezeDM]

Wow, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was going to buy a 1080Ti. Now I am going to buy the AMD equivalent. See there is no AMD 1080TI equivalent. Welp, I guess I'll buy the 1080 equivalent, the Vega. Sees that Vega is out of stock. Screw it! I'll buy a 1080 TI or 1080, I want a new graphics card now. Sees that 1080TI and 1080 are out of stock too. FML

 

[razor1]

Alienware liquid cool 1080 Ti is not a FE version plus the Vega options would go out the window. There are also 1080 liquid cool versions as well. Dell seems to have a lot of PNY version cards, FE and Custom. If Dell signs up -> AMD GPUs for their Gaming lineup would go poof and if PNY does not join up as well, Nvidia can will tell Dell to use someone else that has joined the club -> Pretty much forcing PNY to join as well or loose Dell's sells.

Liquid cooled are extra options, those are AIB boards, but Dell gets their stuff directly from nV. Large OEM contracts are never handled by AIB's, the profit margins are less and AIB's can't be subjected to things like what happened with the memory issue or any component supply problems for that matter. It will out right kill the OEM, hence why we haven't seen any delays on OEM products with graphics cards but we see it with AIB's.

this was the reason why OEM's wanted the FE, so that it didn't matter what AIB they choose they already knew the card will fit in just the same way as the original specs. The choice is on their end.

Btw I have a gtx 970 here from dell its not PNY, its a reference design from nV.

 

[joyzbuzz]

Lets not have wet dreams over what AMD can do, so far they are still in their little pond .

Please modular CPU and GPU design, only work if monolithic designs aren't possible, we haven't reached that point yet. AMD went this route for CPU's because they have NO CHOICE, they don't have the money to do monolithic designs right now. Do you think AMD wanted to getting KILLED on distributed database and HPC performance, or lose out in gaming performance? These were the results of their design choice, why make such a design choice if they didn't have to? GPU's think farther out on this software needs to change for that to happen, think around 2020 or even more. 2021? Possibly but it all depends on nodes, and 7nm is said to be coming along good, which 7nm will last till 2021 at least.

AMD steadily taking market share from Intel with it's Zen based CPUs prove otherwise. Zen 2 on 7nm will decisively validate the superiority of the modular architecture as Intel will literally be unable to physically manufacture a monolithic chip remotely performance competitive with an 7nm Epyc 2 64 core modular chip. Their current 28 core monolithic chip is already near the reticule limit on 14nm and monolithic chip yields on 10nm are so horrendous THREE YEARS after 10nm was supposed to do into production Intel is talking producing low power 2 core mobile chips sometime later this year.

In 2019 Intel's 14nm CPUs will decisively lose the gaming market to AMD's Zen 2 7nm 5GHZ (GloFlo verified) chips.

 

[razor1]

AMD steadily taking market share from Intel with it's Zen based CPUs prove otherwise. Zen 2 on 7nm will decisively validate the superiority of the modular architecture as Intel will literally be unable to physically manufacture a monolithic chip remotely performance competitive with an 7nm Epyc 2 64 core modular chip. Their current 28 core monolithic chip is already near the reticule limit on 14nm and monolithic chip yields on 10nm are so horrendous THREE YEARS after 10nm was supposed to do into production Intel is talking producing low power 2 core mobile chips sometime later this year.

In 2019 Intel's 14nm CPUs will decisively lose the gaming market to AMD's Zen 2 7nm 5GHZ (GloFlo verified) chips.

This is hogwash man, are you making this shit up? do you know 100 million for AMD which is what they increased this past quarter equates to 1% increase in gross margins. Guess what, they got 1% increase in gross margins! Wow and we got to see the 100 million increase in the bottom line!

They are scrapping at the bottom of the barrel right now, will it get better? Yeah if they keep proving themselves, till they do, they aren't going anywhere. The other side of the coin, its not just AMD, the other companies, Intel and nV, both are bigger, both have technologies that compete or outright beat AMD right now. GPU side not going to change for a couple of gens, CPU, its close but Intel still has the lead, and we don't know what or how Intel is going be doing in the future, speculation on that when there is no visibility is pointless.

Love the crap about modular design man, its a tech wanna be geeks fantasy to have all these things happen with out actual work being done on the software side to make those things happen. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN QUICKLY nor will it be something AMD CAN DO BY THEMSELVES. AMD doesn't have the marketshare nor the clout in the industry to do shit on the software side of things. Until the other players decide its time to change direction and go to modular designs that is the ONLY time we will see software change.

 

[Chimpee]

This is hogwash man, are you making this shit up? do you know 100 million for AMD which is what they increased this past quarter equates to 1% increase in gross margins. Guess what, they got 1% increase in gross margins! Wow and we got to see the 100 million increase in the bottom line!

They are scrapping at the bottom of the barrel right now, will it get better? Yeah if they keep proving themselves, till they do, they aren't going anywhere.

Not to mention he still thinks Intel will use 14nm fabrication in 2019 is just mind boggling.

 

[Bankie]

Erm.. nope... exclusive game deals for consoles are very different.
They hand over quite a bit of money to buy the exclusive release of a game for their specific console - not counting the games from studios, owned by the console maker.
They even got rarer in the recent years.
Square Enix has a long history of releasing Final Fantasy games exclusively for Sony consoles.
That has changed in the recent years.
The games are merely time limited exclusives now.

Nintendo always tries to be innovative on how games are played in the first place. Not everything does work out (see WiiU and 3D functionality of the 3DS). Other details do work out - like the hybrid nature of the switch and the motion controls, first seen in the Wii.
They also have *very* strong brands of their own - Mario Franchise, Zelda, Pokemon...
They don't really need to buy exclusive game rights nowerdays. The difference in philosophy on how the games are played is the key selling point.

So Nintendo forcing Youtube to demonetize content creator's videos that show Nintendo gameplay isn't underhanded and sleezy? Sony has never installed Rootkits onto people's PCs? Microsoft has never done anything shady? Are you for real?

 

[razor1]

Not to mention he still thinks Intel will use 14nm fabrication in 2019 is just mind boggling.

Yeah really, that is just crazy.

Also the software changes to go to a modular design for CPU is enormous. The undertaking to do this for current databases, is a very hard task. Talking about 2 or 3 times the amount of code to ensure performance pitfalls won't happen, or just turn off all CCX modules outside of one. Neither of these are good alternatives right now. He just had to look into why NUMA code isn't used in most desktop applications right now. Well because its a pain in the ass to get the most out of multiple CPU's with most programs currently.

GPU's API's must change and then engines must change, that right there is 3 years + 2 years, that's 5 years down the road at least. 2023 is the earliest we will see this if we had GPU modular designs as of now.

 

[lcpiper]

My understanding is that if MSI sells video cards with NVIDIA GPU's and is part of the GPP, it can't sell AMD GPU's in any shape or form. Whether or not this would include APU's in notebooks, I couldn't say. I don't know if sub-branding like Republic of Gamers or Aorus counts either. It may be like GMC and Chevrolet being different, but with the same parent company. I don't know. It's an interesting question for sure.

Wait, this is not my interpretation at all, or it's not the same angle I see.

First, just like NVidia said in the disclaimer up front;

The program isn't exclusive. Partners continue to have the ability to sell and promote products from anyone. Partners choose to sign up for the program, and they can stop participating any time. There's no commitment to make any monetary payments or product discounts for being part of the program.

I think Heatlessun had it right earlier, NVidia is wanting exclusive branding under the program. Some manufacturers that build NVidia products may not build AMD or Intel based cards. Can you guys think of any, like maybe EVGA?

All of EVGA's cards are GeForce cards, EVGA doesn't build on AMD or Intel, only NVidia. EVGA can become a GPP Partner and cash in on whatever value that badge provides without loosing any skin. ASUS or MSI on the other hand could still build to both platforms but their gaming branding would have to be segregated so that NVidia products had a recognizable brand from the manufacturer if these companies wish to use whatever benefits there are to GPP.

So besides something that is supposed to add recognition to product brand, what does being a GPP Member mean to a company?
What will EVGA easily gain over ASUS for instance by becoming a member and say ASUS chooses to pass on it ?


EDITED: After thinking it over, if the OEMs and AIBs feel that NVidia is being a bad boy, couldn't they all just call each other and agree to not join the program. As long as no one signs up, no one gets any unfair advantage and a clear signal is sent to NVidia and to everyone else, "We don't play that shit!"

 

[razor1]

My understanding is that if MSI sells video cards with NVIDIA GPU's and is part of the GPP, it can't sell AMD GPU's in any shape or form. Whether or not this would include APU's in notebooks, I couldn't say. I don't know if sub-branding like Republic of Gamers or Aorus counts either. It may be like GMC and Chevrolet being different, but with the same parent company. I don't know. It's an interesting question for sure.

They can't sell AMD cards in that specific gaming line up.

 

[Dan_D]

They can't sell AMD cards in that specific gaming line up.

Yes, we covered this in later posts.

 

[dragonstongue]

There's nothing inherently evil about wanting your brand to be exclusive. The question is "What strings are really attached to this?" beyond branding because I doubt anyone believes that it's just about branding and marketing.

of course nothing wrong with wanting your brand to be exclusive, but as you said or at least the way I am thinking it, it should not come at the cost of making others products appear sub-par just to make yours appear "fast" when in fact they really are not "superior" you just found a way to cleverly hobble competition while getting the blessing of the race organizer (graphics API or software in general).

If they ARE then let the product prove itself, should not have to resort to trickery or anti-competitive actions to accomplish this goal.

example Tessellation AMD had a very distinct advantage with it prior to Nv "forcing" MSFT to tilt the tables in Nv favor and effectively forcing AMD to redesign their engine to suit Nv "because AMD had an unfair advantage" not counting the fact that AMD spent probably many millions in software and hardware to have it in the first place for many generations "unused"

PhysX same concept, even though Nv bought out Ageia, AMD had a distinct performance advantage, Nv couldn't have that so they prevented the Radeons from running it or when they could, it ran shitter than should have (less performance or much higher load % than it did previously..not hitting the gpu the same way as it used to)

my point I suppose is just that, if you are the fastest car on the track than the race is yours (provided you are a better driver) one should not have to be cobbled by having extra concrete weights added to all other vehicles on the track or you are "allowed" to strip the car down to nothing so it weighs basically nothing and call it "fair competition" if you are not playing by the same "rules" you should not be given permission to be fully compatible with a specific API or be "allowed" to emulate things that others have to do in hardware alone (concrete weights)

course the problem in this case is squarely on MSFT and their various DX designations, there should IMO not be 2-4 or whatever "Stages" of compatibility, should be either baseline or full support (any extras are extras nothing more) this way here at least you would know that if something says it is full DX version x compatible it WOULD BE, not find out that even though the sticker claims it is, it in fact is not fully compliant.

________________________________________
_______________________________

I suppose a different analogy, why are ferrari/lambo/porsche more expensive than many in their class?
because they are in effect superior to others in their class, so can justify the "pricing" as such, Nv resort to tomfoolery to make the sale rather than actually being a "superior" option, they are "clever" at things no doubt about that, but, they really should "say it as it is" instead of trying to find clever ways of lying about what they are or what they can ACTUALLY do.

If they (Nvidia) truly want to be superior as they often claim they are, they would be trying to work with competitors to make their (and others) products as good as they possibly could be (then justify the higher pricing as they are a more complete product) vs just wanting massive pay days on every product they push out, even when there are likely better options available at much lower cost to themselves and end consumers as a whole (G Sync LMFAO, and the mentioned Gameworks)

Least IMO AMD does the best they can do, even if it does not mean massive pay days directly (such as Vulkan) where they do not go out of their way to cripple anyone elses ability race, but rather if the others cars are that much faster at it then they are, awesome, everyone gets to compete anyways.

(does not hurt that the Radeons and AMD CPU tend to be better built from a BOM standpoint/design from what I can see 9/10 are, so if anything the Radeons and AMD CPU should be the ones pricing as premium because they are more "complete")

am done, very much all over the place on my replies/quote to topics as of late, apologize for that ^.^

 

[lcpiper]

Wow that is fucked up. If I had Nvidia stock, I would be selling it all right now. Nvidia's lawyers are about to be real busy...

Props to Kyle for having the balls to post this.

They get paid whether they are busy or not, they are on retainer.

 

[Dan_D]

Wait, this is not my interpretation at all, or it's not the same angle I see.

First, just like NVidia said in the disclaimer up front;


I think Heatlessun had it right earlier, NVidia is wanting exclusive branding under the program. Some manufacturers that build NVidia products may not build AMD or Intel based cards. Can you guys think of any, like maybe EVGA?

All of EVGA's cards are GeForce cards, EVGA doesn't build on AMD or Intel, only NVidia. EVGA can become a GPP Partner and cash in on whatever value that badge provides without loosing any skin. ASUS or MSI on the other hand could still build to both platforms but their gaming branding would have to be segregated so that NVidia products had a recognizable brand from the manufacturer if these companies wish to use whatever benefits there are to GPP.

So besides something that is supposed to add recognition to product brand, what does being a GPP Member mean to a company?
What will EVGA easily gain over ASUS for instance by becoming a member and say ASUS chooses to pass on it ?


EDITED: After thinking it over, if the OEMs and AIBs feel that NVidia is being a bad boy, couldn't they all just call each other and agree to not join the program. As long as no one signs up, no one gets any unfair advantage and a clear signal is sent to NVidia and to everyone else, "We don't play that shit!"

My understanding of the GPP has grown since I made that post. I concur, it's probably limited to specific branding like ROG and Aorus. As for the second part, you guys need to understand that these companies do not play well together and have zero trust in one another. They all go to great lengths to reverse engineer each others products and to screw each other over as much as possible. I won't get too far off into the weeds on this but suffice it to say, there is no way that these companies would trust each other enough to band together and tell NVIDIA to suck it.

 

[lcpiper]

I've been team green since my debacle with CF 4850s. And I've been very happy, but that's because Nvidia has earned my business with great products and great partners. I've been team green since my 9800gt.

But this is the opposite. This is them taking business by some kind of racketeering scheme with the AIBs. They're holding funds and inventory hostage in exchange for leverage into AIB's branding activities. And then to threaten [H]?

That's shit, and it makes me seriously consider team red when I replace my 970.

Lose the crap, Nvidia, or lose enthusiast customers.

Wait up, someone threatened [H] ? I missed that.

 

[rgMekanic]

Well why would they like it?

I'm an OEM and have built a recognizable and profitable Gaming Brand and it's competing well with other well known gaming brands and now if I want to be a GPP member I need to build an entirely new Gaming Brand and segregate the cards, one NVidia, one is everything else?

That alone wouldn't make me happy.

Except you woudln't be able to build a new "gaming" brand for AMD, your current "Gaming" brand would be for Nvidia and you would have to make another NON Gaming brand for AMD.

 

[lcpiper]

NVidia has already undoubtedly put in substantial risk analysis to look at probability of loss vs probability of gain of this program, and I'm betting even if there is an anti-trust suit the outcome will cost less than the gain in market position and channel protection.

What they probably didn't account for is Kyle bringing this program and its implications to light -- nice job.

I'd be thinking of investing in any OEM like EVGA who is already solely building on NVidia, if anyone is sure to gain from this in the short term, it's them.

EDITED: Oh, EVGA is not publicly traded it seems.

 

[lcpiper]

Except you woudln't be able to build a new "gaming" brand for AMD, your current "Gaming" brand would be for Nvidia and you would have to make another NON Gaming brand for AMD.

I think this is being misinterpreted, but the thread is so long I can't see it, how about you point out where this is proven?

Source you're comment please so I can see why you claim it's this way.

 

[rgMekanic]

I think this is being misinterpreted, but the thread is so long I can't see it, how about you point out where this is proven?

Source you're comment please so I can see why you claim it's this way.

It's right in the article

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it.

"It's Gaming brand" not "A gaming brand"

 

[ND40oz]

I think this is being misinterpreted, but the thread is so long I can't see it, how about you point out where this is proven?

Source you're comment please so I can see why you claim it's this way.

From the story:

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it.

Edit: already posted anyway

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Modular --> less efficient than dedicated designs

 

[razor1]

example Tessellation AMD had a very distinct advantage with it prior to Nv "forcing" MSFT to tilt the tables in Nv favor and effectively forcing AMD to redesign their engine to suit Nv "because AMD had an unfair advantage" not counting the fact that AMD spent probably many millions in software and hardware to have it in the first place for many generations "unused"

Nope AMD's tessellation was crap prior to adding in hull shaders, as was nV's, into the API to make them usable. ATI's old tesseletors had issues with artwork development, it wasn't intuitive enough and there were visual bugs if the artwork wasn't made properly. This is why ATi dropped hardware tessellation to software tessellation going from the 8500 to 9700 and then dropped it all together after that, adoption rate just wasn't there and it became a waste of silicon.

PhysX same concept, even though Nv bought out Ageia, AMD had a distinct performance advantage, Nv couldn't have that so they prevented the Radeons from running it or when they could, it ran shitter than should have (less performance or much higher load % than it did previously..not hitting the gpu the same way as it used to)

It wasn't nV's problem to make phsyX libs multi-threaded on CPU's, its only their intention was to make it work for their GPU's, its their software and now hardware.

course the problem in this case is squarely on MSFT and their various DX designations, there should IMO not be 2-4 or whatever "Stages" of compatibility, should be either baseline or full support (any extras are extras nothing more) this way here at least you would know that if something says it is full DX version x compatible it WOULD BE, not find out that even though the sticker claims it is, it in fact is not fully compliant.

Yes and this was done. MS created GS, the unified pipeline with both AMD/ATI's and nV's involvement, AMD stuck with a VLIW architecture which was not conducive to compute performance. Added to this their tessellation performance was hindered by the amount of GS units they had and still have.

________________________________________
_______________________________

I suppose a different analogy, why are ferrari/lambo/porsche more expensive than many in their class?
because they are in effect superior to others in their class, so can justify the "pricing" as such, Nv resort to tomfoolery to make the sale rather than actually being a "superior" option, they are "clever" at things no doubt about that, but, they really should "say it as it is" instead of trying to find clever ways of lying about what they are or what they can ACTUALLY do.

If they (Nvidia) truly want to be superior as they often claim they are, they would be trying to work with competitors to make their (and others) products as good as they possibly could be (then justify the higher pricing as they are a more complete product) vs just wanting massive pay days on every product they push out, even when there are likely better options available at much lower cost to themselves and end consumers as a whole (G Sync LMFAO, and the mentioned Gameworks)

nV is the best gaming cards right now, you can't deny that. AMD didn't step up to the plate with Vega or Polaris, their own fault this happened. When a marketshare leader wants something, they are more likely to get it, if they want a separate line for their cards, so be it, that is what they want, of course they will give benefits to those whom want to do that. Right now AMD is not even relevant in gaming, so....what are they going to gripe about? The reason why they went to press people with this is because they know they can't win in court with something like this......

G Sync is arguably better

Least IMO AMD does the best they can do, even if it does not mean massive pay days directly (such as Vulkan) where they do not go out of their way to cripple anyone elses ability race, but rather if the others cars are that much faster at it then they are, awesome, everyone gets to compete anyways.

AMD did try to cripple nV, don't ever think they didn't, shader intrinsic from consoles to PC does just that, those optimizations don't work on nV hardware at all, dev's must recode shaders for nV hardware.

Same this Async compute, Async compute works differently on different hardware, AMD tried to push dev's to do things in a certain way where it would look good on their hardware.

What do you think Premium VR was? That was just marketing AMD made up for their own cards, hell do you see nV saying anything about that? They didn't need to, cause well AMD's premium Vr was mediocre VR. nV should have done a marketing campaign on VR just to hurt AMD more.

Both these companies will try anything and everything to gain an advantage. When they do they should be called out on it. We need to see what AIB's and OEM's have signed up for this program and see how they change their line ups. Until then we don't know enough to say what the GPP is bad. Is it going to hurt AMD, hell ya, too bad, they don't have the marketshare or hardware to stay relevant in the gaming market anyways, at least not right now.

 

[Brian_B]

And what about the NForce chipsets that i mentioned before? Wasn't the project abandoned because of the other companies that wanted to stop NVidia from expanding? So, exactly why NVidia not to apply similar practices?

I thought nForce died because nVidia didn't gain the patent rights to create x86 chipsets with QPI architecture - they only had rights for older CPU architectures that used an AGTL FSB (Conroe-era). It was some settlement between Intel and nVidia, so that Intel could continue licensing necessary patents for IGP.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/4122/intel-settles-with-nvidia-more-money-fewer-problems-no-x86

 

[razor1]

I thought nForce died because nVidia didn't gain the patent rights to create x86 chipsets with QPI architecture - they only had rights for older CPU architectures that used an AGTL FSB (Conroe-era). It was some settlement between Intel and nVidia, so that Intel could continue licensing necessary patents for IGP.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/4122/intel-settles-with-nvidia-more-money-fewer-problems-no-x86

that is true but Intel effectively didn't want nV's involvement in chipsets anymore. Why share the pie when they didn't need to? This also happened with AMD, once AMD bought out ATi, they didn't need nV's chipsets anymore.

 

[Master_shake_]

that is true but Intel effectively didn't want nV's involvement in chipsets anymore. Why share the pie when they didn't need to? This also happened with AMD, once AMD bought out ATi, they didn't need nV's chipsets anymore.

and thank goodness really.

nforce chipsets were akin to a blast furnace in terms of heat produced.

 

[lcpiper]

It's right in the article



"It's Gaming brand" not "A gaming brand"

Do you think NVidia, even under the strength of the GPP membership agreement, would get away with something as anti-competitive as this, if an OEM decides to push it?

 

[razor1]

and thank goodness really.

nforce chipsets were akin to a blast furnace in terms of heat produced.

well the only good thing about them is they actually could get decent on board GPU performance at that time once Intel and AMD integrated, they were really just a waste. But for people like us lol, forget it, all we want are dgpu's anyways. But they did come in handy at the time as they were pretty much the best boards to overclock with, they had the features overclockers wanted, but that too Intel starting doing so it all was a wash at the end of nV.

 

[digitalwanderer]

If you're inviting comment, I'm not sure what this bit brings to the story



It comes across as firstly blowing your own trumpet for previous reporting successes. The second bit where you tell them that you've spoke to lawyers and have had their assurances you're on firm ground comes across as combative and a little rude, if I were in their position. Unless we're missing previous conversations where they have been likewise? I don't feel it gives the reader any information on the actual story. From what I can see in the article you told them you thought the program was problematic, they asked you what your concerns were. You responded and you've not had anything back since? Without the language they used it's hard to say, but it seems to me like they were asking you your opinions.

I thought it was good and pretty concise background color which added perspective to it. Also Kyle is a journalist but [H] is his home and a lot of members are like family and he tends to write to them rather than just a general audience, it's a characteristic and charm about online hardware sites I sort of like tbh.

This isn't just a story, I think it could end up being an entire saga or chapter.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Do you think NVidia, even under the strength of the GPP membership agreement, would get away with something as anti-competitive as this, if an OEM decides to push it?

Do you think an OEM having signed on to the GPP would push it? They've already caved.

 

[lcpiper]

and thank goodness really.

nforce chipsets were akin to a blast furnace in terms of heat produced.

That's just a product of life cycle development.

Create a new architecture, it's superior to the previous ones, better performance less power and heat. Ride that architecture as long as you can, just keep raising the frequencies, and drawing more juice, add sexy cooling, rinse and repeat. They both do this, always have.

 

[razor1]

Do you think an OEM having signed on to the GPP would push it? They've already caved.

The problem is there is no alternative right now Digi. This is why AMD went to the press with this and not seeking a court injunction to stop this. 100% they went to their attorneys and asked them what they can do about it. The response probably was, they can't do anything.

They know its going to hurt them, and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

 

[lcpiper]

Kyle needs an editor. This was a poorly-written piece, from both English language and journalistic perspectives. It presents as quite juvenile in tone and delivery. least he alluded to the fact that is essentially an opinion piece.

He's always looking for good help.

If my name was Don Rickles I'd tell you "Then make a D-E-A-L"