# NVIDIA's New GPP Program Reportedly Engages in Monopolistic Practices



## Raevenlord (Mar 9, 2018)

A report from HardOCP's Kyle Bennet aims to shake NVIDIA's foundations, with allegations of anti-competitive business practices under its new GeForce Partner Program (GPP). In his report, which started with an AMD approach that pushed him to look a little closer into GPP, Bennet says that he has found evidence that NVIDIA's new program aims to push partners towards shunning products from other hardware manufacturers - mainly AMD, with a shoot across the bow for Intel.

After following the breadcrumb trail and speaking with NVIDIA AIBs and OEM partners ("The ones that did speak to us have done so anonymously, in fear of losing their jobs, or having retribution placed upon them or their companies by NVIDIA," Bennett says), the picture is painted of an industry behemoth that aims to abuse its currently dominant market position. NVIDIA controls around 70% of the discrete GPU market share, and its industrious size is apparently being put to use to outmuscle its competitors' offerings by, essentially, putting partners between the proverbial rock and a hard place. According to Bennet, industry players unanimously brought about three consequences from Nvidia's GPP, saying that "They think that it has terms that are likely illegal; GPP is likely going to tremendously hurt consumers' choices; It will disrupt business with the companies that they are currently doing business with, namely AMD and Intel."



 



The crux of the issue seems to be in that NVIDIA, while publicly touting transparency, is hiding some not so transparent clauses from the public's view. Namely, the fact that in order to become a part of NVIDIA's GPP program, partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." Bennet says that he has read NVIDIA papers, and these very words, in internal documents meant for NVIDIA's partners only; however, none of these have been made available as of time of writing, though that may be an effort to protect sources. 

But what does this "exclusivity" mean? That partners would have to forego products from other brands (case in point, AMD) in order to be granted the GeForce partner status. And what do companies who achieve GPP status receive? Well, enough that it would make competition from other NVIDIA AIBs that didn't make the partner program extremely difficult - if not unfeasible. This is because GPP-branded companies would receive perks such as: high-effort engineering engagements (likely, aids to custom designs); early tech engagement; launch partner status (as in, being able to sell GeForce-branded products at launch date); game bundling; sales rebate programs; social media and PR support; marketing reports; and the ultimate kicker, Marketing Development Funds (MDF). This last one may be known to our more attentive readers, as it was part of Intel's "Intel Inside" marketing program which spurred... a pretty incredible anti-trust movement against the company.

As a result of covering this story, HardOCP's Kyle Bennet says he expects the website to be shunned from now on when it comes to NVIDIA or NVIDIA partner graphics cards being offered for review purposes. Whether or not that will happen, I guess time will time; as time will tell whether or not there is indeed any sort of less... transparent plays taking place here.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Steevo (Mar 9, 2018)

Fornicate Nvidia with the thorny branch of justice.

Perhaps their new chip is a flop, or they know something about the competition.


----------



## natr0n (Mar 9, 2018)

The word Partner indicates no other than the said partner. It doesn't take a genius to figure that shit out.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 9, 2018)

Steevo said:


> Fornicate Nvidia with the thorny branch of justice.
> 
> Perhaps their new chip is a flop, or they know something about the competition.



Yeah i've been hearing this for the last decade or more...


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 9, 2018)

Steevo said:


> Perhaps their new chip is a flop, or they know something about the competition.



Probably neither , they have grown to a point when they can literally buy market share or force themselves upon consumers/partners. Intel has done it , it was only a matter of time for them to do it as well.


----------



## The Terrible Puddle (Mar 9, 2018)

Ah yes, slap them on the wrist


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 9, 2018)

I for one am totally shocked by these allegations.


----------



## bug (Mar 9, 2018)

Quite frankly, the only beef with that arrangement seems to be that Nvidia wants gaming oriented lines that are exclusive to Nvidia. This could be as harmless as, say, forcing Asus to split their ROG line in ROG - Nvidia or ROG - GeForce and ROG - AMD or ROG Radeon. But I'm no lawyer, I don't really know how that agreement could be read in a court of justice. Still, I'd like a little more detail about what and how it is anti-competitve before I reach for my pitchfork.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 9, 2018)

bug said:


> Quite frankly, the only beef with that arrangement seems to be that Nvidia wants gaming oriented lines that are exclusive to Nvidia. This could be as harmless as, say, forcing Asus to split their ROG line in ROG - Nvidia or ROG - GeForce and ROG - AMD or ROG Radeon. But I'm no lawyer, I don't really know how that agreement could be read in a court of justice. Still, I'd like a little more detail about what and how it is anti-competitve before I reach for my pitchfork.



When nvidia's the talk, just grab the pitchfork because they're bad guys


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 9, 2018)

This does kinda blow Kyle's apparent Nvidia bias out of the water.


----------



## bug (Mar 9, 2018)

oxidized said:


> When nvidia's the talk, just grab the pitchfork because they're bad guys


I know, but it gets tiresome after a while.
And it doesn't have to be Nvidia. It can be Intel. Or Apple. Or Google. Any top dog will do.


----------



## Steevo (Mar 9, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Probably neither , they have grown to a point when they can literally buy market share or force themselves upon consumers/partners. Intel has done it , it was only a matter of time for them to do it as well.


Intel had this same reaction when they only had Nutburst architecture and AMD was kicking their ass.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 9, 2018)

No way, really? It's NVIDIA, they'll never change no matter what.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 9, 2018)

It's literally their entire business model. No one should even blink.


----------



## Imsochobo (Mar 9, 2018)

oxidized said:


> When nvidia's the talk, just grab the pitchfork because they're bad guys



Well, it's not the first time they do weird things.
Every time they get pushed out of their markets and usually the sinner being Intel they go all mental.
When they have bad archs and cards the gameworks increase.

It's not often it happens, but they seem to go a bit mental when it's the case (Not often with Nvidia it has to be said)

At the moment they do not have Anything to fear but I wonder why they do this?

In preparation because Intel and AMD collab project AAAND Intel saying they wanna go gpu ?

at this point a 50% marketshare is given with Nvidia solely by GeForce name and won't change for many years regardless of how bad their arch is and they are the major player for datacenter with no major competition for generic datacenter.
Custom datacenter solutions with custom software stacks utilize AMD effectively (too) but Nvidia Owns out of the box solutions with Cuda there.

I don't understand why, but I don't like exclusivity programs that have stuff that will affect Asus, Gigabyte and the big players big time


----------



## bug (Mar 9, 2018)

Imsochobo said:


> Well, it's not the first time they do weird things.
> ...
> At the moment they do not have Anything to fear but I wonder why they do this?



As I have noted above (and this a general question, not aimed directly at you), can you spell out which part of this agreement you have a problem with?


----------



## etayorius (Mar 9, 2018)

It's usual nVidia behavior, they always been jerks. Nothing to new.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 9, 2018)

Steevo said:


> Perhaps their new chip is a flop, or they know something about the competition.



Probably the latter, AKA a lack of.

Maybe they do have a killer gamer focused arch ready to launch... AIBs do you want a slice of the pie or not?

It's hard to give a shit either way with all the choice consumers currently have.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 9, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> Probably the latter, AKA a lack of.
> 
> Maybe they do have a killer gamer focused arch ready to launch...



Yeah , we know the drill , Nvidia is amazing. Always prepared with amazing new products , never makes one mistake and all for the good of the consumer.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 9, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Yeah , we know the drill , Nvidia is amazing. Always prepared with amazing new products , never makes one mistake and all for the good of the consumer.



Yeah we know, Nvidia are evil... grab the Vaseline.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 9, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> Nvidia are evil... grab the Vaseline.



Only if one enjoys it.


----------



## evernessince (Mar 10, 2018)

Would be funny if AMD and Intel only make PCIe 2.0 x4 available to Nvidia cards.  They could have their chipsets force that speed when an Nvidia card is detected.  Fair is fair, right Nvidia?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 10, 2018)

evernessince said:


> Would be funny if AMD and Intel only make PCIe 2.0 x4 available to Nvidia cards.  They could have their chipsets force that speed when an Nvidia card is detected.  Fair is fair, right Nvidia?



Hehe that probably sums it up, AMD and Intel are desperate to slow Nvidia down. Hence them getting into bed together.

Anti-competitive only when it suits eh?


----------



## iO (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> As I have noted above (and this a general question, not aimed directly at you), can you spell out which part of this agreement you have a problem with?


How about the part where they almost force the AIBs to sign up if they want to stay launch partners, receive more than just ref PCB designs or dont want to be degraded to 2nd class customers..


----------



## erek (Mar 10, 2018)

Nvidia’s GeForce Partner Program doesn't stop companies selling AMD GPUs


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 10, 2018)

nVidia, Intel.... Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 10, 2018)

erek said:


> Nvidia’s GeForce Partner Program doesn't stop companies selling AMD GPUs



That makes less sense then the speculation because AIBs were already doing that.


----------



## dyonoctis (Mar 10, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> That makes less sense then the speculation because AIBs were already doing that.


From my point of view, Nvidia want it to be done as much as possible.  Asus mars and ares would rise from the dead, and become a mainstream brand. 

That seems and odd thing to do though. They are already in a position of power, and something like "MSI gaming green dragon" isn't going to do much. People already know who they are, I've never heard of anyone who buyed a radeon when he wanted a geforce...

edit: It's purely marketing, nvidia seems really just dead on making their products stand out. If PCGamesN is right, all they want is better communication by having an exclusive brand, and maybe an exclusive shroud design from AIB selling both brands. Put a strix 580 and a strix 1060 side by side, and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. That might be what they are after.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 10, 2018)

dyonoctis said:


> edit: It's purely marketing, nvidia seems really just dead on making their products stand out. If PCGamesN is right, all they want is better communication by having an exclusive brand, and maybe an exclusive shroud design from AIB selling both brands. Put a strix 580 and a strix 1060 side by side, and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. That might be what they are after.



I can see that side of it but first you'd have to take them out of the box and ignore well.. all that labeling


----------



## Rictorhell (Mar 10, 2018)

I wish there were more companies that could invest and compete in both CPU design and manufacturing and GPU design and manufacturing, or at the very least just the design aspect of things, in order to give Nvidia AND Intel more competition.

AMD, as far as I can tell, have done pretty well with their CPUs lately; Ryzen, Threadripper, etcetera, but they have to become more competitive with their graphics cards.  They have lost ground to Nvidia, if not in solely graphics processing then in efficiency and power usage.

If I love computers and I am thinking of building a system with a discreet graphics card, even at today's insane prices, and at purchase time I am barely giving a thought to AMD because I know their graphics cards have underwhelmed, for a while, that's bad.

Nvidia, right now, in my opinion, just has the better reputation and the superior product, and they know it.  That's one reason they've jacked up their prices, even before the Bitcoin craziness.  

There have been a ton of complaints about the drivers for AMD's cards not being up to snuff or being rough at the time of introduction, which is another area they need to work on.

AMD still needs to work on getting investors interested in them, they're still getting outgunned by Intel and AMD.  They are doing much better competing with Intel these days but they have to channel more resources into the GPU side of the company.  Nvidia has too much muscle, financially and intellectually and AMD isn't going to be able to counter that and regain mindshare without an awesome product that is also as efficient as Nvidia's stuff, if not more so.


----------



## dyonoctis (Mar 10, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> I can see that side of it but first you'd have to take them out of the box and ignore well.. all that labeling


That's why I still find this odd...there isn't a real need for this, gamers have been able to make their purchasse without any trouble...that seems more like a whim from Nvidia. 

But the initial idea of having the "premium" gaming brand being Nvidia only, just seems too bold...I just don't see why they would try to pull out something that could backlash, when they don't have any reason to do so.


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 10, 2018)

All I see is the implication that if MSI [Insert Model Line name] is going to be used for an nVidia card as a "partner", then MSI would have to call their premium AMD special card something else if they wanted to maintain partner status.... which makes perfect sense.   If nVidia works with a "partner" to loosen up clock restrictions for a special line ... let's say MSI Lightspeed series, then, after investing all that T & E into making that card stand out, nVidia is entitled to protect that fame from being used in another model series from a competitor.   You don't want to deal with that, then don't whine about not getting that kind of assistance.  That doesn't stop MSI from using "WarpDrive' with their special AMD cards.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 10, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> All I see is the implication that if MSI [Insert Model Line name] is going to be used for an nVidia card as a "partner", then MSI would have to call their premium AMD special card something else if they wanted to maintain partner status.... which makes perfect sense.   If nVidia works with a "partner" to loosen up clock restrictions for a special line ... let's say MSI Lightspeed series, then, after investing all that T & E into making that card stand out, nVidia is entitled to protect that fame from being used in another model series from a competitor.   You don't want to deal with that, then don't whine about not getting that kind of assistance.  That doesn't stop MSI from using "WarpDrive' with their special AMD cards.



Its MSI who is spending that T & E already to improve upon the reference design.  That is more of a "Give us your best brand recognition".  What about others like ASUS that has the ROG not just for GPU but across various other products.

Essentially Nvidia in this scenario is asking to piggy back on the reputation of others well established gaming brands through association with *exclusivity* and non-GPP loosing out on launch-day availability.  Might be weeks. months for a non-GPP is able to produce and put a product on the shelves.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> As I have noted above (and this a general question, not aimed directly at you), can you spell out which part of this agreement you have a problem with?


Ooh, ooh, I can!  I have had a preferred 80% of the time GPU brand known as MSI.  Up till now they have always had remarkable optimization of their GPU’s.

As I understood it after reading the [H] article earlier, MSI (and others) will not receive preferential optimization help from NVIDIA because they also sell AMD (I corrected because I accidentally wrote MSI again).  This can translate into not being to match Nvidia exclusive brands like EVGA in performance.  This is assuming Nvidia doesn’t hold back chips, which is left vague.

Yeah, I’ve got a problem with it.


----------



## Steevo (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> As I have noted above (and this a general question, not aimed directly at you), can you spell out which part of this agreement you have a problem with?


The part where funds, and high level engineering help willl be withheld. How does that NOT violate anti-monopoly, or anti-trust laws?


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 10, 2018)

I think you missed the point  I was targeting ....or maybe I explained poorly.   Look at it from a baseppoint that recognizes that the hi end componentry going into the Lightning, Classified, etc just isn't bringing anything tot he table anymore ... at least not enough to justify the cost premium.  performance is determined by the PCB or the GFPU, it's goverened by

1.  Nvidia has been clamping down both physically and legally on what "board partners" are permitted to do.
2.  Several generations back, a Classified, Lighting, etc would have a significant performance advantage because of the leeway that partners had back then.
3.  The added value provided by such "supercard" has been insignificant since the 7xx series.
4.  Since Boost 3 came along ,... and no BIOS editor to boot... there's been only a teeny performance difference between the numerous card lines offered by manufacturers.  Often the next model up, has better cooler, an All all the fancy hi end componentry ya want to the PCB, it can't do beans if the control settings are going to limit speeds regardless.
5.  With max temps at 82C, we have many cards operating on the mid 60s ...so there's way more room cause Boost3's controls apply to the reference card on up with few exceptions.

So given this situation as today's  base point... it would be a smart move on nVidia's part to open up certain tweaks to "special partners" who agree to these terms.  Nvidia could say to MSI ... hey we love what you've been doing with the Lightning ... as a "special partner", if you agree  to limit the usage of the line to only nvidia cards, we believe that we can relax the boost clock limits and allow significantkly higher performance limits for that line... when the driver detects its a Lightning ... you will get +40 bost clocks..


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 10, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> So given this situation as today's base point... it would be a smart move on nVidia's part to open up certain tweaks to "special partners" who agree to these terms. Nvidia could say to MSI ... hey we love what you've been doing with the Lightning ... as a "special partner", if you agree to limit the usage of the line to only nvidia cards, we believe that we can relax the boost clock limits and allow significantkly higher performance limits for that line... when the driver detects its a Lightning ... you will get +40 bost clocks..


Wow....80% of my cards have been Nvidia, so I feel safe in saying: Wow, you’ve got the Koolaid hooked up to an intravenous bag.


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 10, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> As I understood it after reading the [H] article earlier, MSI (and others) will not receive preferential optimization help from NVIDIA because they also sell MSI.  This can translate into not being to match Nvidia exclusive brands like EVGA in performance.  This is assuming Nvidia doesn’t hold back chips, which is left vague.
> 
> Yeah, I’ve got a problem with it.




Msi wont get help cause MSI they also sells MSI ?  I think you mixed terms there but I know what ya intended.  Read the article linked in post 25 which paints a different picture.  What it says is ...

MSI can become an nVidia partner with their "Cofee" line ... but not of they call their AMD based cards "Cofee" also
MSI "Coffee" for nVidia cards  is fine as long as it's MSI "Doughnuts" for the AMD line .



rtwjunkie said:


> Wow....80% of my cards have been Nvidia, so I feel safe in saying: Wow, you’ve got the Koolaid hooked up to an intravenous bag.



Wow talk about left field ...   I wasn't expressing a personal opinion.  I just took the time to read the link in post 25 and summarize what it said. If you have an issue with it, take it up with them.


----------



## kruk (Mar 10, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> MSI can become an nVidia partner with their "Cofee" line ... but not of they call their AMD based cards "Cofee" also
> MSI "Coffee" for nVidia cards  is fine as long as it's MSI "Doughnuts" for the AMD line .



It would be OK if the partners would establish a NEW brand exclusively for nVidia, but they very likely won't. They will user their TOP brands for nVidia and move AMD to budget or noname (or completely erase them) - you can figure out on your own how the sales will go and what this means for PC gaming ...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 10, 2018)

@John Naylor Actually, I read the original reveal article (actually researched by [H], long before the new one. And yes, I did read the new one. It pretty much makes clear that preferential treatment and engineering help only goes to those who give up AMD.

P. S. I did make an error on the MSI. I’m glad you understand I meant AMD.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 10, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> Msi wont get help cause MSI they also sells MSI ?  I think you mixed terms there but I know what ya intended.  Read the article linked in post 25 which paints a different picture.  What it says is ...



You mean this ?



			
				PCGN said:
			
		

> *But we’ve done our own digging into the story and from what we’ve uncovered the truth of the matter is the transparency Nvidia are chasing is about making it clear which graphics card range from a company is based on GeForce tech and which are running AMD’s GPUs*. It's not about stopping a company from having a separate AMD-based gaming brand.



Thats already been done with the labeling as pointed above.



			
				PCGN said:
			
		

> Graphics card companies can then have as many brands as they like, so long as they are separated along green and red boundaries. That means Asus could have a Republic of Gamers Mars brand, which only sells Nvidia, but also a Republic of Gamers Ares brand that is exclusively AMD-based. GPP isn’t going to stop any company from selling AMD GPUs as specifically gaming graphics cards.



Sounds like taking over AIBs/OEMs brand exclusively like I pointed out.



			
				PCGN said:
			
		

> HardOCP haven’t been able to get any prospective GeForce partners to go on record to talk about their concerns with the new program, but have still made their own rather serious claims about it, which from our understanding seem to be entirely based on some confused messaging in the GPP documentation they've seen.



Sounds like they PCGN havent seen it. The author replies in comments with



			
				PCGN said:
			
		

> *From what I've heard from the people involved* the program simply doesn't limit a company's ability to produce graphics cards with the competition's GPUs at their heart, nor does it punish them for doing so, so I don't see how it's meant to affect consumer choice.



He never mentions where he got that information.  Kyle at least points to talking with 7 OEMs/AIBs and sending correspondence to Nvidia.  PCGN piece doesn't say or hint at where their information is coming from.  Kyle right or wrong put his rep on the line and that of HardOcp.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 10, 2018)

Time for perspective.

So, if you dont sign up to GPP, you keep going as normal?  If MSI, Asus and Gigabyte don't sign they can still do all the things they do.  The only anti-competitve part will be if Nvidia withhold the OEM boards/chips that they buy up to produce their AIB cards (and that would lead them straight to court if it was found to be so).  Conversely, if you do sign up you must brand your AIB cards with the Geforce/Nvidia logo and you get help with marketing and engineering help. Kyle has used anonymous sources to say Nvidia will not allow you to sell AMD.  That can't be trusted at face value unless we're being utterly hypocritical.  How often do we criticise TPU for 'unsourced' news material yet we're willing to believe Kyle because he says it on the back of his report?

This one has to be watched as it develops.  I'm not bothered either way.  If I want the best AMD card, I'd probably buy from AMD only brand Sapphire anyway (the *largest supplier of AMD* graphics cards in the world).


----------



## john_ (Mar 10, 2018)

Nothing strange here. Nvidia was dictating to it's own customers what GPU they could use. You could either buy ONLY Nvidia GPUs and have access to CUDA and PhysX, or be a less loyal subject, buy AMD hardware, and lose those two techs. The "Way it's Meant To Be Played" program, was also accused as a problematic way of promoting Nvidia hardware against the competition. Who can forget that Ubisoft removed DirectX 10.1 support from Assassin's Creed because at the time Nvidia didn't had a DX10.1 graphics card in the market, while AMD had, with it's cards getting a nice boost from that version of DirectX in certain cases? GameWorks is also a closed library and in the past there where people accusing Nvidia of using it not only to make the competing hardware look bad, but also older Geforce cards, forcing people to upgrade to the latest series.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> I know, but it gets tiresome after a while.
> And it doesn't have to be Nvidia. It can be Intel. Or Apple. Or Google. Any top dog will do.



I was being sarcastic my friend.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 10, 2018)

the54thvoid said:


> Time for perspective.
> 
> So, if you dont sign up to GPP, you keep going as normal?  If MSI, Asus and Gigabyte don't sign they can still do all the things they do.  The only anti-competitve part will be if Nvidia withhold the OEM boards/chips that they buy up to produce their AIB cards (and that would lead them straight to court if it was found to be so).  *Conversely, if you do sign up you must brand your AIB cards with the Geforce/Nvidia logo and you get help with marketing and engineering help.* Kyle has used anonymous sources to say Nvidia will not allow you to sell AMD.  That can't be trusted at face value unless we're being utterly hypocritical.  How often do we criticise TPU for 'unsourced' news material yet we're willing to believe Kyle because he says it on the back of his report?
> 
> This one has to be watched as it develops.  I'm not bothered either way.  If I want the best AMD card, I'd probably buy from AMD only brand Sapphire anyway (the *largest supplier of AMD* graphics cards in the world).



Nvidia already had that covered with NPFP (Nvidia PartnerForce Program).



			
				Nvidia said:
			
		

> Nvidia PartnerForce Program is the sales and marketing program for Value-Added Resellers, System Builders, Etailers, and Retailers who sell _NVIDIA_ graphics cards, components, or systems.



GPP is a new program.

Kyle is like W1zzard saying he has done a 3 week investigation speaking to companies and is writing the story himself on it. Not like the News writers doing click-bait pieces without a source.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 10, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> Nvidia already had that covered with NPFP (Nvidia PartnerForce Program).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair point.  Well, regardless, it's something to watch as it's yet to come to fruition.

There is one caveat to everything and that would be if Kyle ends up with a _surprise_ job offer from AMD.  lol - look at me making fake news!


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 10, 2018)

Imagine if AMD forced everyone to make games exclusively for them since they own the entire console market... This is what NVIDIA is actually already doing, but on PC.



erek said:


> Nvidia’s GeForce Partner Program doesn't stop companies selling AMD GPUs



Why force them to stop, instead you pressure them into stop selling them themselves, because it'll be so anti-competitive they'll have to drop them. They stop making AMD cards, NVIDIA walks away with clean hands. Perfect plan.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 10, 2018)

the54thvoid said:


> Fair point.  Well, regardless, it's something to watch as it's yet to come to fruition.
> 
> There is one caveat to everything and that would be if Kyle ends up with a _surprise_ job offer from AMD.  lol - look at me making fake news!



He wasn't the only one alerted to it as his article points out



			
				HardOCP said:
			
		

> Before we go any further, in the effort to be as transparent as possible, we need to let you know that AMD came to us and presented us with "this story." AMD shopped this story with other websites as well. However, with the information that was presented to us by AMD, there was no story to be told, but it surely pointed to one that was worth looking into. There needed to be some legwork done in collecting facts and interviews.



Others have also hinted at other possible articles



			
				VideoCardz said:
			
		

> Due to possible defamation lawsuit. I knew some journos who wanted to cover it, but they were short on evidence.
> 
> You can ask questions and get answers, but no one wanted to go on record.



I don't know French (translator) but CanardPC said they have something in their next issue.


----------



## bug (Mar 10, 2018)

Steevo said:


> The part where funds, and high level engineering help willl be withheld. How does that NOT violate anti-monopoly, or anti-trust laws?


Except that' not in the GPP. That's what partners said they fear woudl happen, but that not part of the GPP and can be settled in court if it comes to pass.


iO said:


> How about the part where they almost force the AIBs to sign up if they want to stay launch partners, receive more than just ref PCB designs or dont want to be degraded to 2nd class customers..


See above.


rtwjunkie said:


> Ooh, ooh, I can!  I have had a preferred 80% of the time GPU brand known as MSI.  Up till now they have always had remarkable optimization of their GPU’s.
> 
> As I understood it after reading the [H] article earlier, MSI (and others) will not receive preferential optimization help from NVIDIA because they also sell AMD (I corrected because I accidentally wrote MSI again).  This can translate into not being to match Nvidia exclusive brands like EVGA in performance.  This is assuming Nvidia doesn’t hold back chips, which is left vague.
> 
> Yeah, I’ve got a problem with it.


I think this is where we read things differntly. The "agreement" doesn't bar anyone from selling AMD video cards. It just says the if a brand has a gaming line, that line must be made up entirely of Nvidia cards. It doesn't bar the manufacturer from having a similar line, but for AMD products. Of course, I misread and you got it right, it would be lousy move. And again, one that probalby won't stand in court.


oxidized said:


> I was being sarcastic my friend.


I got that, but apprently my reply didn't convey it well enough


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 10, 2018)

I will say again mind, what if nobody signs up to it anyway?  I mean why would they if the current status quo exists.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 10, 2018)

@bug I can certainly agree that one of us has misread it, and I’m willing to bet only time will tell. 

I like @the54thvoid possibility too.  What if all AIB banded together and said NO to Nvidia?  Then they would have to abandon this preferential treatment and status quo exists.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 10, 2018)

the54thvoid said:


> Time for perspective.
> 
> So, if you dont sign up to GPP, you keep going as normal?  If MSI, Asus and Gigabyte don't sign they can still do all the things they do.  The only anti-competitve part will be if Nvidia withhold the OEM boards/chips that they buy up to produce their AIB cards (and that would lead them straight to court if it was found to be so).  Conversely, if you do sign up you must brand your AIB cards with the Geforce/Nvidia logo and you get help with marketing and engineering help. Kyle has used anonymous sources to say Nvidia will not allow you to sell AMD.  That can't be trusted at face value unless we're being utterly hypocritical.  How often do we criticise TPU for 'unsourced' news material yet we're willing to believe Kyle because he says it on the back of his report?
> 
> This one has to be watched as it develops.  I'm not bothered either way.  If I want the best AMD card, I'd probably buy from AMD only brand Sapphire anyway (the *largest supplier of AMD* graphics cards in the world).


And why do you suppose has saphire turned into Amds main card partner could it be that they exclusively make Amd cards because no one else is, and many aibs stopped making as many variations of  Amd card a few years ago hmmnn timelines 

Also unsurprisingly it was AMD that gave the first hints to kyle and id wager they Know what's going on.

@bug how can you see all GPU makers top Gaming brands going soley Nvidia as anything but anti competitive , if the Gaming brands were all Nvidia wtf do you call the Amd line.
If you're marketing pushes your top gamng brand as the best for gaming then exactly how do you describe option B without it being derised by your own marketing.

This stuffs bad for customers and should not be put up with imho.


----------



## iO (Mar 10, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> I like @the54thvoid possibility too.  What if all AIB banded together and said NO to Nvidia?  Then they would have to abandon this preferential treatment and status quo exists.


Yea but who is going to say No to a briefcase full of "marketing funds" and the possibility to gain an edge over the competition?


----------



## bug (Mar 10, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> @bug how can you see all GPU makers top Gaming brands going soley Nvidia as anything but anti competitive , if the Gaming brands were all Nvidia wtf do you call the Amd line.



Now we have "all GPU makers top Gaming brands going soley Nvidia"? Where did that come from.

And let's be clear: I don't think we should blindly trust GPP is harmless until rpoven otherwise. I'm trying to see (past this news' and HardOCP's titles) what is the actual potential harm.


rtwjunkie said:


> @bug I can certainly agree that one of us has misread it, and I’m willing to bet only time will tell.
> 
> I like @the54thvoid possibility too.  What if all AIB banded together and said NO to Nvidia?  Then they would have to abandon this preferential treatment and status quo exists.


Well, that's exactly what they should do, instead of crying to journalists like little girls. They're world-wide businesses after all, not kids the Nvidia can bully as they please.


----------



## kruk (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> Well, that's exactly what they should do, instead of crying to journalists like little girls. They're world-wide businesses after all, not kids the Nvidia can bully as they please.



nVidia already bullied their partners 10 years ago and now they are even stronger (https://www.fudzilla.com/news/graphics/10251-nvidia-to-leave-only-six-partners - Compare Fuad's list with current AIB state, you will be surprised how true it was). 

I doubt anyone will take the risk ...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> Now we have "all GPU makers top Gaming brands going soley Nvidia"? Where did that come from.
> 
> And let's be clear: I don't think we should blindly trust GPP is harmless until rpoven otherwise. I'm trying to see (past this news' and HardOCP's titles) what is the actual potential harm.
> 
> Well, that's exactly what they should do, instead of crying to journalists like little girls. They're world-wide businesses after all, not kids the Nvidia can bully as they please.


Look ,i said all because that's what Nvidia is pushing for though not likely to get , there's saphire after all i was being a bit extreme i admit.
But the point after stands unanswered by you ie my main point????.

And yes they're all world wide businesses set to deliver the best gpu package they can and sell as much as possible so if they say no

Wink wink

They're inventory to sell empties quickly (especially atm)

And they lose advertising funds the company down the road saying yes does not , what shareholder is having that shituation mate.


----------



## iO (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> And let's be clear: I don't think we should blindly trust GPP is harmless until rpoven otherwise. I'm trying to see (past this news' and HardOCP's titles) what is the actual potential harm.


The potential harm is that AMDs already bad reputation for being always underperforming and only the low-budget oriented second choice would be artificially fueled and get even worse.


> Well, that's exactly what they should do, instead of crying to journalists like little girls. They're world-wide businesses after all, not kids the Nvidia can bully as they please.


Nvidias marketshare gives them quite some leverage, they can basically do what they want...


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 10, 2018)

I say good on them ~ put your monies where your mouth is! This goes for Nvidia, the AIB partners & consumers ~ shame on everyone involved if Nvidia get away with the same sh!t yet again


----------



## bug (Mar 10, 2018)

kruk said:


> nVidia already bullied their partners 10 years ago and now they are even stronger (https://www.fudzilla.com/news/graphics/10251-nvidia-to-leave-only-six-partners - Compare Fuad's list with current AIB state, you will be surprised how true it was).
> 
> I doubt anyone will take the risk ...


Interesting. I went to newegg, looked for Nvidia video cards and found 27 manufacturers. A handful of them look iffy, so let's say we have 20.
Yet somehow, something that was a rumour 10 years, is today reality in your head.


----------



## kruk (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> Interesting. I went to newegg, looked for Nvidia video cards and found 27 manufacturers. A handful of them look iffy, so let's say we have 20.
> Yet somehow, something that was a rumour 10 years, is today reality in your head.



I specifically wrote *AIB*. Please, stop quoting my comments if you don't read them properly.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/partner-locator.html


----------



## dyonoctis (Mar 10, 2018)

If the article on hardcop end up to be spot on, I must say, this is a pretty stupid move from Nvidia. 
- "We are making a lot of money, we are the leader in the segment, so what should we do next ?"
- "What about openly abusing our dominance, and crush the competion to the ground by a making a deal with AIB that will be illegal on some aspect, sure to be heavily debated by the community, and would probably be closely watched by the juridic system of several continent/country ?"
- " Give this man a cookie !"

However when looking at the antitrust case of Intel:
- They weren't fined by the FTC, they just got a small slap on the hands.
- They never admited having done something wrong, and in september 2017 they managed to get a review on the European fine.
- In the end it never really mattered, as long as the product is good, people won't care if it was made by a company doing shady stuff, Intel is still "THE BRAND" for many people.
So i guess that Nvidia is trying his luck to see how much of a benefits they can make before getting sued.


----------



## bug (Mar 10, 2018)

kruk said:


> I specifically wrote *AIB*. Please, stop quoting my comments if you don't read them properly.
> 
> http://www.nvidia.com/object/partner-locator.html
> 
> View attachment 98175


That doesn't make much sense. Authorized board partners are those that provide card based on reference designs. How many of those do you need?


----------



## Steevo (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> Now we have "all GPU makers top Gaming brands going soley Nvidia"? Where did that come from.
> 
> And let's be clear: I don't think we should blindly trust GPP is harmless until rpoven otherwise. I'm trying to see (past this news' and HardOCP's titles) what is the actual potential harm.
> 
> Well, that's exactly what they should do, instead of crying to journalists like little girls. They're world-wide businesses after all, not kids the Nvidia can bully as they please.




I too am only after fair market practices, wherein we the consumers only have a couple choices due to existing patents, and complexity of manufacturing. But much like utilities and other "monopolistic" entities we allow to exist for the betterment of all, while providing more than reasonable profit....... there have to be laws in place. Every source https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...olistic-anti-consumer-practices/#58b40f482241 comes to the same conclusion, the GPP as written is likely illegal in most modern countries, violates consumer protection laws by creating an uneven playing field with the profits received from not only the public domain, but also the government contracts. Considering people were fearful of their jobs and repercussions if they spoke out..... it doesn't sound like its ethical, legal, and pro-consumer.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 10, 2018)

AIBs can easily bypass nvidia's stupid restriction ... 
... for example Asus has a line of graphics cards called 'Strix', so they separate amd gpus into a special 'AMD Strix' line. Effects:

Strix line keeps its recognition
AMD gets extra marketing for mentioning their name
Nvidia gets their separate product line
Soon, nvidia calls asking to change their line from 'Strix' to 'Nvidia Strix'


----------



## kruk (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> That doesn't make much sense. Authorized board partners are those that provide card based on reference designs. How many of those do you need?



Enlighten me please, into which category exactly do partners that build custom boards go.

Here is a list to get you started:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/become-a-partner.html

And also a category that "mislead" me:



> Authorized Board Partners
> 
> Partners who use NVIDIA® GeForce® technology *and* reference designs to build graphics cards for customers



¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## bug (Mar 10, 2018)

Steevo said:


> I too am only after fair market practices, wherein we the consumers only have a couple choices due to existing patents, and complexity of manufacturing. But much like utilities and other "monopolistic" entities we allow to exist for the betterment of all, while providing more than reasonable profit....... there have to be laws in place. Every source https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...olistic-anti-consumer-practices/#58b40f482241 comes to the same conclusion, the GPP as written is likely illegal in most modern countries, violates consumer protection laws by creating an uneven playing field with the profits received from not only the public domain, but also the government contracts. Considering people were fearful of their jobs and repercussions if they spoke out..... it doesn't sound like its ethical, legal, and pro-consumer.


Well, I'm not saying GPP is a Godsend. I'm just trying to look past the inflamatory titles and understand what exactly is wrong with it.


kruk said:


> Enlighten me please, into which category exactly do partners that build custom boards go.
> 
> Here is a list to get you started:
> 
> ...



Use your brain. Custom designs are obviously in the hands of each manufacturer, there's no program at Nvidia for that.
Though there was a point several years ago where Nvidia tightened the grip on how much every builder had on their custom designs. It's hard to say whether that was a bad or a good move, but between that and Microsoft tightening the rules on how to write drivers, copmpared to 10 years ago, today we get almost no blue screens at all.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 10, 2018)

dyonoctis said:


> However when looking at the antitrust case of Intel:
> - They weren't fined by the FTC, they just got a small slap on the hands.
> - They never admited having done something wrong, and in september 2017 they managed to get a review on the European fine.
> - In the end it never really mattered, as long as the product is good, people won't care if it was made by a company doing shady stuff, Intel is still "THE BRAND" for many people.
> So i guess that Nvidia is trying his luck to see how much of a benefits they can make before getting sued.



Because no one would realistically punish them to any significant degree such that it would disrupt their operations , that's never the goal of these organizations. They would all like to avoid issuing billions in fines because of the economical and political aftermath. In the end , the most they can do is "a slap on the wrist" as pathetic as that is.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> I got that, but apprently my reply didn't convey it well enough



Aw ok


----------



## kruk (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> Use your brain. Custom designs are obviously in the hands of each manufacturer, there's no program at Nvidia for that.



Why so hostile? I just wanted to know if AIB partner Fuad is talking about is equal to Authorized Board Partner. And I don't think you cleared it up, although I might be misreading things - in that case I'm truly sorry.

And I would *love* to see that list of 20+ nVidia video card manufacturers on newegg you mentioned, because this is what I see for the Geforce GTX 900 and 1000 series when searching for "nvidia video card".





Even going back to Fermi shows only 10 manufacturers. Maybe there is some geo filtering going on, I really don't know.

Please clear this up as it's really bugging me .


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Mar 10, 2018)

Meh, I don't care about this personally. Throwing around the word *monopoly *when there's a huge shortage of cards from *BOTH *AMD and NVIDIA. If you have warehouses full of your products because of supposed monopolies then start crying. With the current state of things I couldn't care less about this news.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 10, 2018)

It's this simple for me, Nvidia join intel on the" buy only if have to list", instead of being a general option, that's a shame since I'm already labelled biased by some but the facts are fairly plain to see and have been for four or more years though infinitely hard to definitively prove, Nvidia closed out some partners and have moved onto bullying others I'm voting with dollars and will take the stick as necessary.


----------



## bug (Mar 10, 2018)

kruk said:


> Why so hostile? I just wanted to know if AIB partner Fuad is talking about is equal to Authorized Board Partner. And I don't think you cleared it up, although I might be misreading things - in that case I'm truly sorry.


Sorry, didn't mean to come across as hostile. I meant, in the absence of explicit info, we can easily deduce bla, bla.


kruk said:


> And I would *love* to see that list of 20+ nVidia video card manufacturers on newegg you mentioned, because this is what I see for the Geforce GTX 900 and 1000 series when searching for "nvidia video card".
> 
> View attachment 98184
> 
> ...


I didn't filter by generations, didn't think that would make a difference. It obviously does, but otoh I know we can add at least Galax and Palit/Gainward to the list.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 10, 2018)

Mountain, meet mole hill.


----------



## fdl (Mar 10, 2018)

Obviously, the issue is the phrase “Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively with GeForce”.

The meaning, implication and legality shall be tested in the context.

Now, when a consumer look for a card at Amazon.com, he will see something like “Gigabyte Geforce GTX 1050 2GB GDDR5 128 Bit PCI-E Graphic Card”.

Here Gigabyte is the name of the manufacturer and is the brand.

Obviously, “Gigabyte Corporate” won’t give up a long established brand.

So, the “Gigabyte Corporate” will be forced to use “gigabyte” for the brand of Nvidia products and establish a new brand for AMD products from ground up.

Is that legal???


----------



## bug (Mar 10, 2018)

^^^ Asus' gaming brand is ROG. EVGA arguably doesn't even have gaming brand. That's why I said I'm not sure about the implications of that phrase.


----------



## Prince Valiant (Mar 10, 2018)

evernessince said:


> Would be funny if AMD and Intel only make PCIe 2.0 x4 available to Nvidia cards.  They could have their chipsets force that speed when an Nvidia card is detected.  Fair is fair, right Nvidia?


I'd be laughing my arse off.

It'd suck for Nvidia users but it'd be funny to watch everything that came after.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 10, 2018)

bug said:


> ^^^ Asus' gaming brand is ROG. EVGA arguably doesn't even have gaming brand. That's why I said I'm not sure about the implications of that phrase.


Well its really quite straightforward to see now its been named as a thing we can just look at the list of nvidia board partners and see how many make Amd cards and what those brands are called compared to their nvidia bretheren, asus had Rog AMd cards upto a point pure rog , i had a 7970 matrix platinum that was Rog i cant recall the ones after that but not saying anything really and gigabyte ,not many make both brands of Gpu all in and that's a fact, plain as day.

But it also explains to a degree AMD's big slant the last few generations towards a named platform ie from not really mentioning Architecture to noting polaris Big time to the next level of Vega being the card brand, clear evolution to adapt to just this.

@Prince Valiant Nvidia made nvlink as the safe gaurd against the threat of exactly that from intel, why do you supose intel consumer grade chips have so few pciex lanes natively, intel dont really want discrete Gpus ,thats not changed ,they want that revenue though some, no anyhow.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 10, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> I like @the54thvoid possibility too.  *What if all AIB banded together and said NO to Nvidia?*  Then they would have to abandon this preferential treatment and status quo exists.



Big *IF* that is unlikely

EVGA, PNY, Zotac have everything to gain since they are exclusive to Nvidia. They don't have to change anything to benefit from GPP.

The losers are the AIBs/OEMs that deal with both, ie Asus, MSI, Gigabyte. Even if they don't sing on to GPP and maintain their status quo they are relegated to a lower tier.

EVGA, PNY, Zotac would love to get more of Asus, MSI & Gigabyte sales.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 11, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> Big *IF* that is unlikely


Oh I know, my statement was pure fantasy.  It was posed as the only way to get Nvidia to stop, and like you said, some AIB’s are already exclusive partners.


----------



## bug (Mar 11, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> Big *IF* that is unlikely
> 
> EVGA, PNY, Zotac have everything to gain since they are exclusive to Nvidia. They don't have to change anything to benefit from GPP.
> 
> ...


A fair point, there's that sort of fragmantation among builders already. Still, imho Asus, MSI and Gigabyte together have enough market share to stop this if they work together. Then again, who's to say that if they work together, they can't be accused of creating a cartel? I hate it when it comes down to lawyers...

So, up until now, the only downside of joining this program seems to be that you need to have a gaming line branded for Nvidia specifically. Kinda thin for four pages of comments/rage.

What really puzzles me is the lack of a motivation for GPP. I mean, ok, you get more support from Nvidia if you join. But if they really want to make their products look as good as possible, wht stops them from providing said support without GPP in place. Which, btw, they are doing right now. I cannot shake the feeling that there's more to this story, yet everybody seems content to scrape only the surface.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 11, 2018)

I guess at the moment all cards are selling, why would any AIB go out of their way to create seperate lines, when they all sell out instantly anyway?

Gamers are victims and have a lack of choice anyway, Nvidia, AMD and their AIB partners are racking it in regardless.... no wonder Asrock want to join in, and it isn't for the benefit of gamers.


----------



## bug (Mar 11, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> I guess at the moment all cards are selling, why would any AIB go out of their way to create seperate lines, when they all sell out instantly anyway?


The thing is, all we have till now is


> In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce."


And even that is part from the actual agreement, part from HardOCP's Kyle.
That could very well mean that the manufacturer doesn't have to have a gaming brand at all (can anyone say which is EVGA's gaming brand?). But if they do, they mustn't throw both Nvidia and AMD under the same brand. I'm not sure how dumb they think the average use must have gotten to need this kind of delineation, but that's what I understand from the little we have.


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 11, 2018)

... I can't believe we, as consumers, have to go through this crap all the time, whether it is Intel vs AMD, Nvidia vs AMD, etc.

I'm kinda expecting an investigation for anti-competitive practices after this.


----------



## Steevo (Mar 11, 2018)

The other factor to consider here is Nvidia trying to weed out competition for it's own high priced OEM cards. Why sell a core and have to support it, provide engineering support, help pay for advertising, and biggest of all, take the dead die loss for cards used for mining.


----------



## evernessince (Mar 11, 2018)

dyonoctis said:


> If the article on hardcop end up to be spot on, I must say, this is a pretty stupid move from Nvidia.
> - "We are making a lot of money, we are the leader in the segment, so what should we do next ?"
> - "What about openly abusing our dominance, and crush the competion to the ground by a making a deal with AIB that will be illegal on some aspect, sure to be heavily debated by the community, and would probably be closely watched by the juridic system of several continent/country ?"
> - " Give this man a cookie !"
> ...



I would try it too if I were Nvidia.  The current US administration doesn't give 2 cents about corruption.  You know this is true when they are pulling back the equifax probe.  The EU on the other hand has but fining companies pretty hard.  They will get away scott free in the US but I doubt they will be safe in the EU, especially with the impending trade war between the US and it's allies thanks to Trump tariffs.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 11, 2018)

This all made me think, and it is OT.

If Nividia (or any other partner surely), had PCB design interests, could a bespoke 'Gaming' card not be designed with a PCB that monitors power use?  This would allow a dedicated, non-crunching/folding, non-mining design which looked for unusually high and constant power use.  Such a design would throttle and ocasionally 'kill' the power through put after 'x' hours of constant high use.  This would kill the demand for 24/7 mining rigs and make it perfectly usable for games which do not generally run for constant hours at full loads.

Now, you may bitch that would annoy people but how many games run for 4-6 hours at 90-100% load?  But would such a design be appealing to a mining farm?  Or is such engineering wizardry null and void?

You get two lines - Gaming power limited (cheaper) and Mining power unlimited (more expensive).

Just a tangent.


----------



## dyonoctis (Mar 11, 2018)

the54thvoid said:


> This all made me think, and it is OT.
> 
> If Nividia (or any other partner surely), had PCB design interests, could a bespoke 'Gaming' card not be designed with a PCB that monitors power use?  This would allow a dedicated, non-crunching/folding, non-mining design which looked for unusually high and constant power use.  Such a design would throttle and ocasionally 'kill' the power through put after 'x' hours of constant high use.  This would kill the demand for 24/7 mining rigs and make it perfectly usable for games which do not generally run for constant hours at full loads.
> 
> ...


This would really piss off all the motion designer, studio using rendering based on gpu. A mid range Quadro to drive the main display is nice, but for rendering geforce are really more cost effective.


----------



## bug (Mar 11, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> ... I can't believe we, as consumers, have to go through this crap all the time, whether it is Intel vs AMD, Nvidia vs AMD, etc.
> 
> I'm kinda expecting an investigation for anti-competitive practices after this.


You can't believe what? No matter how clearly you draw the rules, companies will always try to find grey areas and exploit them. It's their job.
Only socialism behind the Iron Curtain adressed this from the root (i.e. the state took over the law, the courts and the economy). Trust me, that really, really hurt customer choice.


----------



## medi01 (Mar 11, 2018)

Market grabbing like that doesn't need any other motivation, besides greed, which nVidia has more than enough.



oxidized said:


> Yeah i've been hearing this for the last decade or more...


Well, why, Fermi was wonderful, wasn't it?



bug said:


> Well, that's exactly what they should do, instead of crying to journalists like little girls.


That worked well against Intel, didn't it?



Rictorhell said:


> There have been a ton of complaints about the drivers for AMD's cards not being up to snuff or being rough at the time of introduction, which is another area they need to work on.


"What year is this" ffs.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 11, 2018)

medi01 said:


> Well, why, Fermi was wonderful, wasn't it?



Fermi 5xx was pretty good yes, surely better than the ATi/AMD counterpart. Aside from that you have anything else?


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 11, 2018)

medi01 said:


> Well, why, Fermi was wonderful, wasn't it?



What's ironic is that Fermi was in fact the most rushed and unpolished architecture Nvidia ever made in response to a vastly more efficient design that TeraScale was at the time.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 11, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> What's ironic is that Fermi was in fact the most rushed and unpolished architecture Nvidia ever made in response to a vastly more efficient design that TeraScale was at the time.



What's even more ironic is that as unpolished and rushed as it was, was still better than series 4000 and 5000 from ATi... to find something good we must go back to 2000 series or even before that, or forward to 7000 series and 200/300 to nowadays and even there they were still behind nvidia.


----------



## Power Slave (Mar 11, 2018)

Surprise surprise surprise said gomer pyle.

But really Nothing to see here, move along or move to AMD. They burnt a lot of loyal fans with 970's 3.5 GB of RAM and their response was that of a monopolistic company, so we already knew how they handle things. Let's not get started on Gimpworks made specifically to gain an leverage over their competition by using a developers platform.

Locked overclocking and the Ge"forced" experience is what you get.

I miss the GTX 580 days. Good times with competition and pricing was high but justifiable. ..... and there was NO MINING. Good times.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 11, 2018)

Power Slave said:


> Surprise surprise surprise said gomer pyle.
> 
> But really Nothing to see here, move along or move to AMD. They burnt a lot of loyal fans with 970's 3.5 GB of RAM and their response was that of a monopolistic company, so we already knew how they handle things. Let's not get started on Gimpworks made specifically to gain an leverage over their competition by using a developers platform.
> 
> ...



Don't forget nothing is confirmed, as of now it remains a claim made from someone who's been tipped from AMD itself, so i'd expect everyone to bash AMD the same way everyone's ready to bash nvidia, in case everything gets busted like it previously happened with gameworks stories about the witcher and other games...


----------



## bug (Mar 11, 2018)

oxidized said:


> Don't forget nothing is confirmed, as of now it remains a claim made from someone who's been tipped from AMD itself, so i'd expect everyone to bash AMD the same way everyone's ready to bash nvidia, in case everything gets busted like it previously happened with gameworks stories about the witcher and other games...


Tbh it's not just onr guy's claim. Kyle has spoken to people from the manufacturers before making his claims. But the thing is most of his sources have spoken in anonymity and mostly about things they "fear would happen" if not joining GPP. So you see, no matter how accurate _Kyle's_ claims are _we_ don't have the full picture.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 11, 2018)

bug said:


> Tbh it's not just onr guy's claim. Kyle has spoken to people from the manufacturers before making his claims. But the thing is most of his sources have spoken in anonymity and mostly about things they "fear would happen" if not joining GPP. So you see, no matter how accurate _Kyle's_ claims are _we_ don't have the full picture.



Nor does he, probably, but he thinks he does, if this is confirmed by many other source as important tech sites, and nvidia gets in trouble i'll be happy to eat my words, but as of now it's nothing but sh*ttalk, and wouldn't be the first time, and probably not even the last.


----------



## bug (Mar 11, 2018)

oxidized said:


> Nor does he, probably, but he thinks he does, if this is confirmed by many other source as important tech sites, and nvidia gets in trouble i'll be happy to eat my words, but as of now it's nothing but sh*ttalk, and wouldn't be the first time, and probably not even the last.


Well, the guy and his site are both respectable. Doesn't mean they're 100% foolproof, but they're not wtftech either.

Partnerships like this have existed since forever, all we have right now is this one could be fishy and needs to be watched closely.
For all we know, this can be a marketing stunt from AMD: look, they're so scared of us, they're planning to break the law to keep us at bay. Obviously I'm making stuff up, but if I wanted to start a(nother) crapstorm, I could coroborate the above with the fact that it was AMD who tipped Kyle (interestingly enough manufaturers weren't as bothere by the GPP) and I could start a page conspiracy theorists will love.
So let's not do that here on TPU and try to concentrate on what we know, instead of what our gut or bias tells us.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 11, 2018)

bug said:


> Well, the guy and his site are both respectable. Doesn't mean they're 100% foolproof, but they're not wtftech either.


No doubt the guy and his site are respectable.



bug said:


> Partnerships like this have existed since forever, all we have right now is this one could be fishy and needs to be watched closely.
> For all we know, this can be a marketing stunt from AMD: look, they're so scared of us, they're planning to break the law to keep us at bay.



I don't think that honestly, AMD is respectable, a move like that could completely make them disappear, if it was to get busted, that is.



bug said:


> Obviously I'm making stuff up, but if I wanted to start a(nother) crapstorm, I could coroborate the above with the fact that it was AMD who tipped Kyle (interestingly enough manufaturers weren't as bothere by the GPP) and I could start a page conspiracy theorists will love.
> *So let's not do that here on TPU and try to concentrate on what we know, instead of what our gut or bias tells us.*



That's exactly what i'm saying. What we know is basically nothing besides public's desire for blood when there's some rumor/article/claim that puts nvidia under bad light, and victimizes AMD, that and some article on a usually respectable tech website.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 11, 2018)

oxidized said:


> *Nor does he, probably, but he thinks he does*, if this is confirmed by many other source as important tech sites, and nvidia gets in trouble i'll be happy to eat my words, but as of now it's nothing but sh*ttalk, and wouldn't be the first time, and probably not even the last.



Kyle has the agreement or portion of. He talked to Nvidia about his concerns before he published the story.  Its the Yellow text in the article in-case you missed it.



			
				Kyle said:
			
		

> *I have documents with the program terms* and I discussed the one that was worthy of noting in the article.



He sure sounds like he dotted his i's and crossed his t's.



oxidized said:


> That's exactly what i'm saying. What we know is basically nothing besides public's desire for blood when there's some rumor/article/claim that puts nvidia under bad light, and victimizes AMD, that and some article on a usually respectable tech website.



We know Nvidia isn't being transparent about their transparent program at the moment.  They responded in the Forbes article.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 11, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> Kyle has the agreement or portion of. He talked to Nvidia about his concerns before he published the story.  Its the Yellow text in the article in-case you missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah? What did they say? "We're not being transparent with you about GPP" Cmon people, you gotta stop this crusade against nvidia, every damn time something weirds comes up everyone is always instantly grabbing their pitchfork.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 11, 2018)

oxidized said:


> Yeah? What did they say? "We're not being transparent with you about GPP" *Cmon people, you gotta stop this crusade against nvidia, every damn time something weirds comes up everyone is always instantly grabbing their pitchfork*.



Sounds like your not bothering to read any of it. Think your going off emotion and attachment.

If you bothered reading how the story developed no-one picked up their pitchforks or went on a crusade. It was shopped around of all things yet that didn't happen. On the contrary one person did his own investigation and then after talking to AIBs/OEMs did he feel their was something to it. Enough so he is willing to put his reputation on the line as well as his sites credibility with possible legal retribution.  Others are reporting on him and his story.



			
				Forbes: Nvidia said:
			
		

> "The program is transparent and beneficial to gamers, and we have nothing further to add at this time."



Remember the Time line.  The Nvidia Blog for GPP didnt happen until after Kyles correspondence with Nvidia on the matter.



			
				HardOCP said:
			
		

> At this point you're probably wondering, "What is NVIDIA GPP?" A couple of weeks after we began questioning NVIDIA on GPP, it put up an article on its blog.nvidia.com domain entitled, "GeForce Partner Program Helps Gamers Know What They're Buying." Here what John Teeple, Director - Partner Marketing at NVIDIA, has to say about GPP.



For a transparent program which is to benefit us as gamers was in the shadows and who knows if Nvidia would ever say a word about it if it wasn't for the actions that took place.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 11, 2018)

oxidized said:


> Yeah? What did they say? "We're not being transparent with you about GPP" Cmon people, you gotta stop this crusade against nvidia, every damn time something weirds comes up everyone is always instantly grabbing their pitchfork.


Um, Kyle has always been very pro-Nvidia, so strike one.  I have spoken against this, and 80% of my purchases in the last 15 years or more have been Nvidia.  Strike two on your crusade theory.

We are the people who’s complaints carry a lot more weight, because people like us, which is the majority speaking against this, are on the side of doing the right thing.  And that means sometimes you have to speak out against a product you use or a group you belong to.  It’s called moral courage.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 12, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> Sounds like your not bothering to read any of it. Think your going off emotion and attachment.
> 
> If you bothered reading how the story developed no-one picked up their pitchforks or went on a crusade. It was shopped around of all things yet that didn't happen. On the contrary one person did his own investigation and then after talking to AIBs/OEMs did he feel their was something to it. Enough so he is willing to put his reputation on the line as well as his sites credibility with possible legal retribution.  Others are reporting on him and his story.
> 
> ...





rtwjunkie said:


> Um, Kyle has always been very pro-Nvidia, so strike one.  I have spoken against this, and 80% of my purchases in the last 15 years or more have been Nvidia.  Strike two on your crusade theory.
> 
> We are the people who’s complaints carry a lot more weight, because people like us, which is the majority speaking against this, are on the side of doing the right thing.  And that means sometimes you have to speak out against a product you use or a group you belong to.  It’s called moral courage.




I'm not directly addressing you two when i say _"Cmon people, you gotta stop this crusade against nvidia, every damn time something weirds comes up everyone is always instantly grabbing their pitchfork." _ It's just a sensation i've been having for the latest years, AMD is always in the right, and acts for the people, and nvidia is always acting shady and against consumers, and using not fair and illegal practices, i'm just bored of this, every time, every damn time someone talks about nvidia and amd.

I haven't read all the article on HardOCP because i've got enough from the title and few lines, i already knew where it was going to go, i already read many others similar claims and accusations and theories, which ended up in smoke after a while. Now i'm not saying these surely will too, but you know, cronologically this has more possibility to end up in smoke than something else (and i say this again, i'll be happy to eat my words if proven wrong).

Following logic, nvidia doesn't even need this, their rival is basically digging its own grave, it's not like nvidia had to do anything to counter Vega or Polaris, Polaris was as good as Pascal 106, it was a competitive and good product, but then they totally lost it with Vega, and nvidia didn't do anything to accelerate or amplify AMD's failure, so i really wouldn't expect a complete turn of tide with Navi, it'll most likely be if not Vega, perhaps another Polaris, which is good, but just as good as nvidia's or slightly worse, at a cheaper cost. So again why would nvidia need to do anything about it? Especially risking with these kinds of stunts to counter a not-even potential market-killer product?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 12, 2018)

oxidized said:


> I'm not directly addressing you two when i say _"Cmon people, you gotta stop this crusade against nvidia, every damn time something weirds comes up everyone is always instantly grabbing their pitchfork." _ It's just a sensation i've been having for the latest years, AMD is always in the right, and acts for the people, and nvidia is always acting shady and against consumers, and using not fair and illegal practices, i'm just bored of this, every time, every damn time someone talks about nvidia and amd.
> 
> I haven't read all the article on HardOCP because i've got enough from the title and few lines, i already knew where it was going to go, i already read many others similar claims and accusations and theories, which ended up in smoke after a while. Now i'm not saying these surely will too, but you know, cronologically this has more possibility to end up in smoke than something else (and i say this again, i'll be happy to eat my words if proven wrong).
> 
> Following logic, nvidia doesn't even need this, their rival is basically digging its own grave, it's not like nvidia had to do anything to counter Vega or Polaris, Polaris was as good as Pascal 106, it was a competitive and good product, but then they totally lost it with Vega, and nvidia didn't do anything to accelerate or amplify AMD's failure, so i really wouldn't expect a complete turn of tide with Navi, it'll most likely be if not Vega, perhaps another Polaris, which is good, but just as good as nvidia's or slightly worse, at a cheaper cost. So again why would nvidia need to do anything about it? Especially risking with these kinds of stunts to counter a not-even potential market-killer product?


Well you make some fair points.  If true, then I cannot explain their rationale for doing it.  Maybe just as simple as: because they can.


----------



## Leon2ky (Mar 12, 2018)

His name is Bennett not Bennet.


----------



## jigar2speed (Mar 12, 2018)

evernessince said:


> Would be funny if AMD and Intel only make PCIe 2.0 x4 available to Nvidia cards.  They could have their chipsets force that speed when an Nvidia card is detected.  Fair is fair, right Nvidia?




Or come out with a standard combine (AMD & Intel) and charge Nvidia arms and legs for the license, that would teach them cause their graphic cards will become un-affordable immediately whereas AMD will have a smooth run.


----------



## lewis007 (Mar 12, 2018)

Oh so this is good guy Nvidia trying to save gaming again....LMAO what a joke!! Do you know whats more likely to save gaming in the PC space and in general....Ryzen 3 2200g, Ryzen 5 2400g, and freesync on the XBox eco system. not GPP!!!


----------



## NC37 (Mar 12, 2018)

Steevo said:


> Fornicate Nvidia with the thorny branch of justice.
> 
> Perhaps their new chip is a flop, or they know something about the competition.



They've had very many questionable product launches over the years. Especially with some of AMD's big releases the last couple years. NV has nothing in development till later and then mysteriously cheap shots AMD right before their launch with a product that seemingly comes out of no where that happens to compete perfectly with AMD's release.

You know corporate espionage is happening, that's just a given. All of them do it. Just with NV it always comes off so obvious. They know what AMD is launching, what performance it will bring, and how best to counter it.  

Intel has done it too however, Intel is just that 800lb gorilla with a giant harem that sits around eating and breeding all day. It may see a Ryzen coming but it has no reason to roll over and handle it until it's harem withholds nookie. Then it gets up in a groggy state and slaps together something temporary. Taking it's time to wake up but never really waking up unless it finds harem members talking to the sexy young AMD gorilla.


----------



## Imsochobo (Mar 12, 2018)

bug said:


> As I have noted above (and this a general question, not aimed directly at you), can you spell out which part of this agreement you have a problem with?



AMD on ROG lineup next to Nvidia.
Their exclusive gaming line to be nvidia exclusive, they can't like make Red republic of gamers if we're fed correct information.


----------



## bug (Mar 12, 2018)

Imsochobo said:


> AMD on ROG lineup next to Nvidia.
> Their exclusive gaming line to be nvidia exclusive, they can't like make Red republic of gamers if we're fed correct information.


Well, no. The info we have says there should be some ROG (or similar) line comprised solely of Nvidia products. Nowhere is it specified a similar line for AMD is forbidden.


----------



## cowie (Mar 12, 2018)

bug said:


> Well, no. The info we have says there should be some ROG (or similar) line comprised solely of Nvidia products. Nowhere is it specified a similar line for AMD is forbidden.


I dont think anyone really  cares they want to bitch
come on man don't you know that xbox will save pc gaming.
 amd is got nothing to bring to pc gaming with there top line 1 card does it all bs
lets face it nv puts out something only for pc on there hardware that they could never get on a console they bitch and say its bad for gaming.if amd would just stop looking for frame rate and bring us features we can see that we could not run on a console maybe there would be a reason to spend more for a gpu
this has nothing to do with end users you want to cry for asus giga and msi so be it they don't have your back.
neither does ms  Intel Samsung or apple.


----------



## bug (Mar 12, 2018)

cowie said:


> I dont think anyone really  cares they want to bitch
> come on man don't you know that xbox will save pc gaming.
> amd is got nothing to bring to pc gaming with there top line 1 card does it all bs
> lets face it nv puts out something only for pc on there hardware that they could never get on a console they bitch and say its bad for gaming.if amd would just stop looking for frame rate and bring us features we can see that we could not run on a console maybe there would be a reason to spend more for a gpu
> ...


What's worse is that I'm convinced if roles were reversed and AMD became the top dog, they'd be doing exactly what Nvidia is doing now. Companies aren't trying to gain market share because they're evil. They're doing it because that's their business.
And the GPU market isn't a healthy market. It's an oligopoly. And when you get an oligopoly, this is exactly the kind of behavior you can and should expect.


----------



## cowie (Mar 12, 2018)

exactly brother
you see the stock price?
they have to do things like this to keep the wheel spinning
the tick tock launches ai in cars pro user hardware. like mentioned above nv has amd at every turn because they sit on there ass.the same will happen for the cpus also just give it a year or two

I hope Kyle has to buy his own cards from both sides now just because he was being a little bitch.
then we will see how he rates them for games


----------



## bug (Mar 12, 2018)

cowie said:


> exactly brother
> you see the stock price?
> they have to do things like this to keep the wheel spinning
> the tick tock launches ai in cars pro user hardware. like mentioned above nv has amd at every turn because they sit on there ass.the same will happen for the cpus also just give it a year or two
> ...


I don't have a problem with Kyle. I believe he did his due diligence. What I have a problem with is that for the time being he is the only one with a perspective that shows GPP is harmful to consumer choice. That is enough for me to put the subject on my watch list. In order to me go grab my pitchfork, I need this confirmed from other sources.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 12, 2018)

cowie said:


> I hope Kyle has to buy his own cards from both sides now just because he was being a little bitch.
> then we will see how he rates them for games


Exactly how was he being “a little bitch”?  When he first got wind of it, should he not have done his careful and pretty thorough investigation?  What better way to prove or disprove what a source first told him?  He was DOING HIS JOB as a journalist, not being “a little bitch.”


----------



## AsRock (Mar 12, 2018)

erek said:


> Nvidia’s GeForce Partner Program doesn't stop companies selling AMD GPUs



Here's a video done on it.


----------



## cowie (Mar 12, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Exactly how was he being “a little bitch”?  When he first got wind of it, should he not have done his careful and pretty thorough investigation?  What better way to prove or disprove what a source first told him?  He was DOING HIS JOB as a journalist, not being “a little bitch.”


the sky is falling
wake up nv has 70% of the pc gaming market
if he want to put out a tear jerker over it being so unjust and monopolistic tell him to wait and see if it does do any harm to pc users
its just bs that could go the rounds in the pr world not the public at this point fake news


about the vid done on it what a joke
more assholes opinon yeah you eat that shit up
I need another 5 year break from this site


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 12, 2018)

cowie said:


> the sky is falling
> wake up nv has 70% of the pc gaming market
> if he want to put out a tear jerker over it being so unjust and monopolistic tell him to wait and see if it does do any harm to pc users
> its just bs that could go the rounds in the pr world not the public at this point fake news
> ...


Um, he never said any of that.  Lack of journalistic oversight and lack of people like you caring is how things get all effed up in the world.

Your last sentence is unintelligible.  Despite two degrees I cannot figure out just exactly what it is you want to say.  Edit: actually most of the post.


----------



## bug (Mar 12, 2018)

AsRock said:


> Here's a video done on it.


I hope you realize that doesn't count as an alternative confirmation of Kyle's claims. It's just a rehash of his article.


----------



## cowie (Mar 12, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Um, he never said any of that.  *Lack of journalistic oversight and lack of people like you caring is how things get all effed up in the world.*
> 
> Your last sentence is unintelligible.  Despite two degrees I cannot figure out just exactly what it is you want to say.  Edit: actually most of the post.


maybe you need to hit the books more and less gaming?
the degrees came from a box?
read what you said again..i could figure it out but its so wrong on more then one academic level its not even funny
why the hell would I care about some multi million dollar company? or that of 2 gpu makers 1 falters and 1 successes  you see the prices? you see the games they make? dx12?
you need a degree to tell you when not to care about the state of pc gaming?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 12, 2018)

cowie said:


> maybe you need to hit the books more and less gaming?
> the degrees came from a box?
> read what you said again..i could figure it out but its so wrong on more then one academic level its not even funny
> why the hell would I care about some multi million dollar company? or that of 2 gpu makers 1 falters and 1 successes  you see the prices? you see the games they make? dx12?
> you need a degree to tell you when not to care about the state of pc gaming?


Your writing is atrocious.  I recommend you go back to school and learn some English.  

It actually will matter in the long run, for users that have brand affinity, since they may end up needing to change to another one when their favorite no longer has the benefit of engineering assistance.  

Lastly, why has this got you so angry? I suggest availing yourself of some mental health services.


----------



## Prince Valiant (Mar 12, 2018)

oxidized said:


> What's even more ironic is that as unpolished and rushed as it was, was still better than series 4000 and 5000 from ATi... to find something good we must go back to 2000 series or even before that, or forward to 7000 series and 200/300 to nowadays and even there they were still behind nvidia.


You're misremembering. The 580 and 680 were on par with the 5970 and the 7970 respectively. The 6K series was a bit of a performance drop but they also dropped prices accordingly.


----------



## cowie (Mar 12, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Your writing is atrocious.  I recommend you go back to school and learn some English.
> 
> It actually will matter in the long run, for users that have brand affinity, since they may end up needing to change to another one when their favorite no longer has the benefit of engineering assistance.
> 
> Lastly, why has this got you so angry? I suggest availing yourself of some mental health services.


yours is not much better with all those degrees you have and now med school?
but you just have to respond to me

we all know how smart you are to argue over opinion but to show us your fine breeding also on the spread of  baseless opinion and rumors are priceless.to have added to the conspiracy does not one bit of good
if you think that the gaming community should be so divided all the time we have you and the others to thank
now you could show us how long you have been around and come to the realization that it hurts AMD the most.
we have a vast amount of companys to buy cards from maybe too many infact.
so keep driving the knife in pc gaming.
All it come down it is nv not wanting to advertise the same named card as the other guy.
now you know it my opinion and conjunction but nv  is ready to put a fork in the other brand they are going to hit gaming hard this year. while amd puts out mining cards that are slower but cost more yeah I should be all feeling great and shit.
then when we do get something pc only that adds to the looks(its 2018 man) the sides will bitch again


----------



## oxidized (Mar 12, 2018)

Prince Valiant said:


> You're misremembering. The 580 and 680 were on par with the 5970 and the 7970 respectively. The 6K series was a bit of a performance drop but they also dropped prices accordingly.



No, i'm not, i even went checking before writing my post, all gpu comparison sites and a few benchmarks gave both the 580 and 680 the advantage, actually besides everything even the first fail fermi 4xx was faster than its counterpart...


----------



## bug (Mar 12, 2018)

oxidized said:


> No, i'm not, i even went checking before writing my post, all gpu comparison sites and a few benchmarks gave both the 580 and 680, actually besides everything even the first fail fermi 4xx was faster than its counterpart...


Well, they were technically faster, but within 10% or so. Nothing you could pick up with the naked eye. TPU's reviews show similar perf/$ ratios.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 12, 2018)

bug said:


> Well, they were technically faster, but within 10% or so. Nothing you could pick up with the naked eye. TPU's reviews show similar perf/$ ratios.


Yeah, but still faster, and even a 5% increase performance is good, depends on the cost, sure, but someone who buys cards every 3/4/5 years, i think wouldn't mind that extra cost for even as little as 5-10% avg performance, and not only that, historically nvidias gpu were often cooler and lesa power hungry. But whatever, this isn't even the point of the topic.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 12, 2018)

Good grief this thread has gone bat shit hostile....


----------



## bug (Mar 12, 2018)

the54thvoid said:


> Good grief this thread has gone bat shit hostile....


Totally unexpected, considering the title.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 12, 2018)

bug said:


> I hope you realize that doesn't count as an alternative confirmation of Kyle's claims. It's just a rehash of his article.



Aye, but it was much more interesting to listen to another persons thoughts of the same source.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 12, 2018)

I suppose a key part of the argument here will revolve around the definition of 'brand' (and, beyond that, 'sub-brand').

An example:
Asus is a manufacturer, but also a brand.
ROG is Asus' gaming sub-brand, but could be argued to have sufficient name recognition to be considered a brand of its own.
Ares/Mars are, at best, sub-brands of ROG, with minimal if any separate name recognition. They're barely a step above model designations. If you asked me to guess what GPU manufacturer was behind each name, I'd have no idea.
EVGA is a manufacturer and a brand, but has no "gaming" sub-brand. Then again, they're a much smaller company, and barely make non-gaming products at all.

Now, where to draw the line for what entails a reasonable understanding of this with regards to this report?

It seems unlikely that Nvidia would require top-level brands (manufacturers' names) to be Nvidia exclusive. Not to mention that that would be blatantly anticompetitive, and hence, illegal.
Likewise, it seems unlikely that Nvidia would care at all (or even want!) a constant, Nvidia only sub-brand below ROG. Not only does it not match the reported wording ("exclusive... gaming brand"), but it would make for god-awful product names, which Nvidia (or anyone with a marketing department) would see is a bad idea. "Asus ROG Strix GTX 1060 OC" is bad enough. "Asus ROG Mars Strix GTX 1060 OC" is... well, awful. The more sub-brands, the more confusing it all becomes and the less these actually end up meaning.
As such, it doesn't seem unreasonable to interpret this as if Nvidia would require the ROG brand (Asus' "gaming brand") to be Nvidia exclusive. To keep selling AMD while joining the GPP, they'd need to establish a separate gaming brand, or just sell them as Asus - which of course gives Nvidia a massive PR advantage given ROG's brand recognition. The wording makes it unlikely that establishing a new gaming brand for Nvidia next to an established one (left to AMD) would fulfill this requirement, as the word "the" is consistently used rather than "a".
Asus might be an extreme case, as they're probably the biggest AIB partner out there, but would that mean that they'd get preferential/different treatment than smaller OEMs? I doubt it, as that would be a hard sell for Nvidia to the other OEMs.

So, if this is true, what does it all boil down to? A dominant market leader imposing strict-seeming exclusivivity requirements on partners with the possible penalties having significant economic impacts, especially for smaller partners. That does indeed sound like anticompetitive business practices to me when put in terms that simple - but there are a lot of details and nuances here, not least in terms of how this is put into practice and enforced. I'm no legal expert either, of course. But I'd say it warrants an investigation at the very least.


bug said:


> Well, that's exactly what they should do, instead of crying to journalists like little girls. They're world-wide businesses after all, not kids the Nvidia can bully as they please.


Wow. Seriously? Your answer is "AIB partners should unionize"? That is an absurdly naive stance. Of course Nvidia can bully them around - the vast majority of their GPU business is beholden to the whims of Nvidia. Even as a group, AIB partners have very little say if Nvidia decides to change something. Besides, this is why we have laws and regulations, so that the responsibility of maintaining a somewhat fair society doesn't fall om individuals and minor actors.


the54thvoid said:


> I will say again mind, what if nobody signs up to it anyway?  I mean why would they if the current status quo exists.


Sorry, but how exactly do you think the status quo is? You realise that the incentives and monetary support mentioned here already exists, right? Nvidia already pays out large sums to help partners with advertising. Do you believe Asus alone pays for all those Asus ROG GeForce gaming laptop ads? If so, you're sorely mistaken. And this, of course, flips the script entirely. Nvidia isn't saying "join the GPP and get more", it's saying "unless you restructure and give us favorable branding, we'll stop paying you." Which, of course, is the kind of thing that drives investors and board members to the verge of hysterical fits in fear of projected profits dropping. Which, again, is why this thing has power.


Of course, should this prove to be true, it really shouldn't surprise anyone. It's the nature of profit-oriented business, particularly publicly traded business, to seek the maximization of profits to the highest degree possible. Of course that entails pushing the limits of the law - especially when they can reap the benefits of said practices while under investigation or on trial (or during appeals, and so on...). In the end, they gain more than they stand to lose. AMD would probably do similar things if they were in a dominant market position. It's the name of the game, and the entire reason why "the free market" is a wildly misleading term - free(dom) implies equality and fairness, to which deregulation and "free competition" (i.e. "do whatever you can to win") are diametrically opposed. Unregulated or underpoliced markets are unfree, fundamentally unfair markets. The hunt for ever-growing profits makes this a given.

Edit: corrected GPU to GPP. That's what I get for typing on my phone, I guess.


----------



## Prince Valiant (Mar 12, 2018)

oxidized said:


> No, i'm not, i even went checking before writing my post, all gpu comparison sites and a few benchmarks gave both the 580 and 680 the advantage, actually besides everything even the first fail fermi 4xx was faster than its counterpart...


TPU's own reviews have them pegged at around or slightly higher on the overall % comparison. Looking at individual results it's about the same with some titles giving a big lead to AMD or Nvidia. Nvidia has a definite edge with the 1K series over Vega but it's moot with how screwy the market is right now.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 12, 2018)

Prince Valiant said:


> TPU's own reviews have them pegged at around or slightly higher on the overall % comparison. Looking at individual results it's about the same with some titles giving a big lead to AMD or Nvidia. Nvidia has a definite edge with the 1K series over Vega but it's moot with how screwy the market is right now.


You can keep arguing all you want, facts are facts, besides this ain't the point of this topic.


----------



## Prince Valiant (Mar 12, 2018)

oxidized said:


> You can keep arguing all you want, *facts are facts,* besides this ain't the point of this topic.


https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_580_Matrix/27.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_580_Lightning_Extreme_Edition/27.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_680_Lightning/28.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_680_Limited_OC/28.html

There you go. As for Nvidia's supposed practices, there's not much to talk about unless someone posted concrete evidence I missed.


----------



## oxidized (Mar 12, 2018)

Prince Valiant said:


> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_580_Matrix/27.html
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_580_Lightning_Extreme_Edition/27.html
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_680_Lightning/28.html
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_680_Limited_OC/28.html
> ...



Yeah you basically proved i'm right besides 5970 being faster even than 6970, how is that even possible...


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 12, 2018)

Getting back on topic



			
				Kyle said:
			
		

> I was just informed through a solid source that *ASUS and MSI have already signed on to do NVIDIA GPP*. I have not been able to verify this information with ASUS or MSI yet, and I doubt I will be able to.


----------



## Casecutter (Mar 12, 2018)

"HardOCP's Kyle Bennet says he expects the website to be shunned from now on when it comes to NVIDIA or NVIDIA partner graphics cards being offered for review purposes."

Kind-of, never had respect for [H] or Kyle, but if he keeps the heat on this and investigating, this I might have a change in my opinion and perspective of their past ways of reporting and testing.  

And yes this doesn't in theory "lock" an OEM/AIB out of selling AMD stuff, it just may polarize more AIB's into a particular camp.   

Interestingly there was that news Asrock was talking about building/supplying AMD cards.  Perhaps AMD got wind of some OEM/Contact manufacture is signed to this "GeForce Partner Program (GPP)" and came along and said well we're suspending/not reissuing the contact as your volume has been down and brands under-preform. 

Business can be a fickle mistress!


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 12, 2018)

Casecutter said:


> "HardOCP's Kyle Bennet says he expects the website to be shunned from now on when it comes to NVIDIA or NVIDIA partner graphics cards being offered for review purposes."



*I'm sure he will just be told there will be plenty of fair reviews to read.*


----------



## bug (Mar 12, 2018)

Casecutter said:


> "HardOCP's Kyle Bennet says he expects the website to be shunned from now on when it comes to NVIDIA or NVIDIA partner graphics cards being offered for review purposes."
> 
> Kind-of, never had respect for [H] or Kyle, but if he keeps the heat on this and investigating, this I might have a change in my opinion and perspective of their past ways of reporting and testing.
> 
> ...


Shun him when he says AMD underperforms, love him when he blows the whistle on Nvidia. That's a nice and thoughtful attitude. Critical thinking be damned


----------



## Casecutter (Mar 12, 2018)

bug said:


> Shun him when he says


Those where Kyle Bennett words not mine.

But when the guy deactivates you from [H] forms for pointing out changes to methods, games, use of older drivers etc. Technically we should be able to ask for clarification of the data collection in any means testing if not above reproach.   I can have change it's what thinking people are made to do... evolve.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 12, 2018)

Intel doesn't like him either and Nvidia was the only major players he seamed to get along with until he wrote this story, so hes was completing the trifecta for the love, hate.


----------



## bug (Mar 13, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> Intel doesn't like him either and Nvidia was the only major players he seamed to get along with until he wrote this story, so hes was completing the trifecta for the love, hate.


It's a hard job. For companies to "love" you, you have to stick to their guidelines when reviewing. But if you stick to their guidelines, you won't make your article stand from the crowd. And if you don't stick to their guidelines, you don't get free products to review in a timely manner (or at all).


----------



## Valantar (Mar 13, 2018)

bug said:


> It's a hard job. For companies to "love" you, you have to stick to their guidelines when reviewing. But if you stick to their guidelines, you won't make your article stand from the crowd. And if you don't stick to their guidelines, you don't get free products to review in a timely manner (or at all).


Most tech "journalism" lives in the area between glorified purchase advice and pure advertising anyhow. Suppose that's what happens when no news outlets have the financial security to not depend on free review samples. I have to applaud when someone goes out on a limb like this. We need more of this kind of journalism.


----------



## bug (Mar 13, 2018)

Valantar said:


> Most tech "journalism" lives in the area between glorified purchase advice and pure advertising anyhow. Suppose that's what happens when no news outlets have the financial security to not depend on free review samples. I have to applaud when someone goes out on a limb like this. We need more of this kind of journalism.


Yeah, you have to applaud. How many times have you subscribed when someone went "out on a limb like this"?


----------



## Imsochobo (Mar 13, 2018)

bug said:


> Well, no. The info we have says there should be some ROG (or similar) line comprised solely of Nvidia products. Nowhere is it specified a similar line for AMD is forbidden.




Let me quote:
"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."

Gaming brand exclusive to geforce.


----------



## bug (Mar 13, 2018)

Imsochobo said:


> Let me quote:
> "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."
> 
> Gaming brand exclusive to geforce.


Yes. It does not say "only one gaming brand". And what's not explicitly forbidden is to be interpreted in favor of the party that didn't draft the document.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 13, 2018)

bug said:


> Yes. It does not say "only one gaming brand". And what's not explicitly forbidden is to be interpreted in favor of the party that didn't draft the document.


While the first part is entirely true, do you really believe in your last sentence there? Say, we're talking about Asus ROG. Would they make ROG - the established, widely recognized brand - AMD-only and make an new Nvidia-only gaming brand, or would they do the opposite? I would say the latter is by far the more likely outcome, and as I see it that would most definitely be a case of abuse of a dominant market position. Why? Because if that is the outcome, then effectively this is Nvidia telling ASUS that they need to bar AMD from ROG branding (and all the benefits that come with it), which is a blatantly anticompetitive move. It doesn't matter if Nvidia doesn't put this into entirely explicit terms, as implications and hints carry a lot of weight when they're backed up by the threat of withholding significant financial/technical/other support, and "we didn't say it, it was just implied" is not a defense in any way, shape or form.

And, "what's not explicitly forbidden is to be interpreted in favor of the party that didn't draft the document" - says who? I'm pretty sure Nvidia isn't saying that. Market regulators? Common sense? You're going to have to be more clear than that.



bug said:


> Yeah, you have to applaud. How many times have you subscribed when someone went "out on a limb like this"?


Sorry, I don't quite get your meaning here. You mean 'subscribe' as in getting a paid subscription to a site (or giving other monetary support)? If there was a print magazine quality tech publication that could be relied on to provide serious investigative journalism and balanced reviews, I'd definitely consider that once I'm in a more comfortable financial situation than I am now. Working part-time does that to you. Then again, it's not like I'm supporting low-quality sites financially either. This is a general issue with web-based journalism, regardless of its subject.

Then again, I love your use of obvious and cliched distraction techniques here. Let's change the subject from 'quality investigative journalism' to 'whether I'm a hypocrite through not paying for news', no? That's a real productive subject for discussion. Not to mention individualizing blame for larger societal issues, such as funding journalism. I see your 'bullshit attempt at derailing the discussion', and raise you a 'let's stick to the topic, please'.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 13, 2018)

PCWorld did an Interview with Kyle Bennett on the subject.


----------



## cowie (Mar 13, 2018)

I seent it I seent it^ well most of it
kyle is ok when he reviews and shows mods and stuff but he sucks at investigative journalism.
he don't know how to play that game.

I just cant understand how he goes onto say that nv wants to take over the gaming sector form these aibs.

but then he goes on to say later about steam (unrelated) but its ok for them to own our games?
have you gotten a game lately for pc that lets you boot from the box?
but that's ok?

many things are unjust in this world for gamers gpp is not one of them

if it hurts one of his friends at where ever(maybe at the amd gaming of one of the big 3?) then sorry for him
but as it stands now you showed your hand and you don't have much at all.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 14, 2018)

Wow. It happened. Jay made a video on it.










Mentions when he tried to talk to anyone about GPP they wouldn't.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 15, 2018)

Did research on this and looked at the legalities of this program. It seems very likely that it is a very carefully crafted attempt at a loophole in antitrust laws. However there are clauses within the antitrust laws that explicitly prohibit deliberate attempts to circumvent the theory, technicality and ethics of these laws. Nvidia is crossing a line and it seems they are getting attention from government regulators. This program is blatantly unlawful and is very likely to gain prosecution in every country that has anti-trust laws. Even the government of China is looking into this(and that is never a good thing).


Xzibit said:


> Wow. It happened. Jay made a video on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How often does Jay do serious videos like that and has a seemingly genuine tone of worry in his voice?

This is one of many instances in the latest trend from tech companies to push the boundaries of the law by blatantly breaking them. This is a very troubling trend..


----------



## cowie (Mar 15, 2018)

he did not bring anything new to the table..clickity clickty
but he was not "the sky is falling "unlike kyle or the shills on youtube
remember they get money for that with ads and advertising that we can't choose and they don't have a ad free channel or media.
1 of the same crappy things they claim what's so wrong with gpp

why not have gaming cards go to way of the games themselves and all that bullcrap involved with the gaming industry...we have a lot of restrictions when how and where we can play the game right?
no one stopped ngreeda on the way to the top,as a matter of fact amd basically did nothing to protect the market share 
its your chance now brainiacks  you can be the new number 2 gpu maker(that's for you intel just buy them already)

like I said put up or shut up AT this point we can not even reseasonably find arguments.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Mar 15, 2018)

...so Nvdia wants their specialty product like a strix 1080ti to look different and have an exclusive name so it won't be identical to a vega 64 strix..... and will reward aib partners who do this.....from that stand point i see no evil.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 15, 2018)

ensabrenoir said:


> ...so Nvdia wants their specialty product like a strix 1080ti to look different and have an exclusive name so it won't be identical to a vega 64 strix..... and will reward aib partners who do this.....from that stand point i see no evil.


That's a very oversimplified understanding. Not only do they want demand that, they demand that AIB partners bar AMD from their established gaming brands (which, like ROG, carry a heck of a lot of brand value and consumer goodwill), and if AIB partners don't comply, they'll withhold early access to parts (launch partner status), engineering support and financial support in terms of advertising - all of which they're already getting, without these new demands. In other words, Nvidia is (alleged to be) saying "If you want to maintain the status quo, kick AMD out of your best gaming brand." How is that not anticompetive, when the company saying it has a market share of >70%?


----------



## bug (Mar 15, 2018)

Valantar said:


> That's a very oversimplified understanding. Not only do they want demand that, *they demand that AIB partners bar AMD from their established gaming brands* (which, like ROG, carry a heck of a lot of brand value and consumer goodwill), and if AIB partners don't comply, they'll withhold early access to parts (launch partner status), engineering support and financial support in terms of advertising - all of which they're already getting, without these new demands. In other words, Nvidia is (alleged to be) saying "If you want to maintain the status quo, kick AMD out of your best gaming brand." How is that not anticompetive, when the company saying it has a market share of >70%?



No, they don't. Or at least that's not what the GPP say.
GPP says there has to be a gaming line exclusively dedicated to Nvidia.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 15, 2018)

Valantar said:


> That's a very oversimplified understanding. Not only do they want demand that, they demand that AIB partners bar AMD from their established gaming brands (which, like ROG, carry a heck of a lot of brand value and consumer goodwill), and if AIB partners don't comply, they'll withhold early access to parts (launch partner status), engineering support and financial support in terms of advertising - all of which they're already getting, without these new demands. In other words, Nvidia is (alleged to be) saying "If you want to maintain the status quo, kick AMD out of your best gaming brand." How is that not anticompetive, when the company saying it has a market share of >70%?





bug said:


> No, they don't. Or at least that's not what the GPP say.
> GPP says there has to be a gaming line exclusively dedicated to Nvidia.



You both are saying the same thing, just from different directions.  If AMD is already in a gaming line, then they have to be barred from it in order to have it be exclusively Nvidia.


----------



## bug (Mar 15, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> You both are saying the same thing, just from different directions.  If AMD is already in a gaming line, then they have to be barred from it in order to have it be exclusively Nvidia.


I believe you meant ROG, not AMD.
And if Asus can do "ROG Green" (Nvidia) and "ROG Red" (AMD), I believe everyone will be happy. I'm not 100% sure that will be possible, but from what I have understood from GPP, it will be.

More to the point, I don't expect unlawful clauses to be written as such directly into GPP (it would make it far too easy to shoot it down in the court). So inserting quotes from the GPP won't shed much light on the subject atm. We need _on the record _input from more parties involved, imho. Until then, we're just pretending to be in the know.


----------



## cowie (Mar 15, 2018)

wow that's really old school to wait on real information 
not saying true or not(as for any anti consumerism)   but I have my rags soaked in lamp oil, sticks and the pitch forks ready


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 15, 2018)

bug said:


> I believe you meant ROG, not AMD.


Lol, yes, you are right. That’s what I get for not proofreading that post.


----------



## bug (Mar 15, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Lol, yes, you are right. That’s what I get for not proofreading that post.


No worries, happens to the best of us. As long as it's understandable, we're ok.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Mar 15, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> You both are saying the same thing, just from different directions. * If AMD is already in a gaming line, then they have to be barred from it in order to have it be exclusively Nvidia.*




......whhoops there it is....... never mind........ found the evil.  If they modify their demand into create a line called "blah blah" exclusively for us then i could almost understand their point but to pillage an establihed brand excusively for them is a major  no no.


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 15, 2018)

bug said:


> I believe you meant ROG, not AMD.
> And if Asus can do "ROG Green" (Nvidia) and "ROG Red" (AMD), I believe everyone will be happy. I'm not 100% sure that will be possible, but from what I have understood from GPP, it will be.
> 
> More to the point, I don't expect unlawful clauses to be written as such directly into GPP (it would make it far too easy to shoot it down in the court). So inserting quotes from the GPP won't shed much light on the subject atm. We need _on the record _input from more parties involved, imho. Until then, we're just pretending to be in the know.


That is true and seems like a decent solution but the question remains (at least to me) how far does this go (I don't think there is enough info one way or another to completely judge)?  For Instance:

-Are they allowed to use similar names (Like say ROG STRIX even with an additional word at the end like green or red)
-Will the cooler have to be different and if so how much?
-Will colors be a part of this (Doubtful one as I find that a bit extreme but you never know)

A lot of this sounds like it is up to Nvidia's discretion which I think is a bit of a problem.  Mostly because that can be as easy as just a slight name adjustment to crazy demands about design and color.



Xzibit said:


> Wow. It happened. Jay made a video on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





lexluthermiester said:


> Did research on this and looked at the legalities of this program. It seems very likely that it is a very carefully crafted attempt at a loophole in antitrust laws. However there are clauses within the antitrust laws that explicitly prohibit deliberate attempts to circumvent the theory, technicality and ethics of these laws. Nvidia is crossing a line and it seems they are getting attention from government regulators. This program is blatantly unlawful and is very likely to gain prosecution in every country that has anti-trust laws. Even the government of China is looking into this(and that is never a good thing).
> 
> How often does Jay do serious videos like that and has a seemingly genuine tone of worry in his voice?
> 
> This is one of many instances in the latest trend from tech companies to push the boundaries of the law by blatantly breaking them. This is a very troubling trend..



Now the question is does this violate anti-trust laws...  Even if people find it unethical that does not matter in the long run compared to the law.  In some ways I am leaning towards "It crossed the line" because it was so secretive and no one wants to talk about it.  However, Nvidia is not stupid and would not do something without consulting its lawyers first (Then again I could have said the same about Intel in this regard).

Either way, this is going to be interesting.


----------



## bug (Mar 15, 2018)

GhostRyder said:


> That is true and seems like a decent solution but the question remains (at least to me) how far does this go (I don't think there is enough info one way or another to completely judge)?  For Instance:
> 
> -Are they allowed to use similar names (Like say ROG STRIX even with an additional word at the end like green or red)
> -Will the cooler have to be different and if so how much?
> ...



What's not explicitly included in an agreement can and will be interpreted in favor of the party that didn't draft it.

So the answers to your questions would be yes, no and no. But it all depends on what other pressure Nvidia will put on manufacturers and of that we know next to nothing atm.
Think about this: if you were Nvidia and investing money in promoting brands, would you pay to promote ROG if ROG was made up of both Nvidia and AMD products? I'm sure Nvidia didn't come up with GPP out of goodness of their hearts, but at the same time I realize there can be legit reasoning behind those clauses.


----------



## mouacyk (Mar 15, 2018)

bug said:


> What's not explicitly included in an agreement can and will be interpreted in favor of the party that didn't draft it.
> 
> So the answers to your questions would be yes, no and no. But it all depends on what other pressure Nvidia will put on manufacturers and of that we know next to nothing atm.
> Think about this: if you were Nvidia and investing money in promoting brands, would you pay to promote ROG if ROG was made up of both Nvidia and AMD products? *I'm sure Nvidia didn't come up with GPP out of goodness of their hearts, but at the same time I realize there can be legit reasoning behind those clauses.*



No way... no! The internet is a digital place filled with digital people and their binary views, 1 for good and 0 for bad.  Superposition is only coming with the quantum internet.

I agree with your sentiment.  Right now, NVidia is so far ahead in performance that it doesn't make any sense for uneducated consumers to see the same branding for such different performance levels.  Hey, my RoG isn't performing as well as your RoG!  WTH! RoG is a lie!


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 15, 2018)

bug said:


> What's not explicitly included in an agreement can and will be interpreted in favor of the party that didn't draft it.
> 
> So the answers to your questions would be yes, no and no. *But it all depends on what other pressure Nvidia will put on manufacturers and of that we know next to nothing atm*.
> Think about this: if you were Nvidia and investing money in promoting brands, would you pay to promote ROG if ROG was made up of both Nvidia and AMD products? I'm sure Nvidia didn't come up with GPP out of goodness of their hearts, but at the same time I realize there can be legit reasoning behind those clauses.


That is where I am a little worried about it, I doubt a lot of what I said would come to fruition but who knows and with Nvidia's power they can influence pretty easily.  My point was just that they could and not that I know they are going to.



mouacyk said:


> No way... no! The internet is a digital place filled with digital people and their binary views, 1 for good and 0 for bad.  Superposition is only coming with the quantum internet.
> 
> I agree with your sentiment.  Right now, NVidia is so far ahead in performance that it doesn't make any sense for uneducated consumers to see the same branding for such different performance levels.  Hey, my RoG isn't performing as well as your RoG!  WTH! RoG is a lie!


You would be surprised how much people will buy something off just a name alone without realizing which one they are buying.  Losing those names all the way (Not saying they are just IF) would turn off many consumers who buy cards.  I know plenty of people who buy cards just based on decorations on the box.  Just "OC" letters make people think its amazing and the other names like STRIX, Lightning, etc can really make a difference to some.  I agree with you that right now Nvidia is so far ahead it can confuse people having names like that across boards, I have had one recently accidently buy an AMD card without realizing it because he thought it was something else under a brand he likes (Gigabyte actually).


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 15, 2018)

bug said:


> I believe you meant ROG, not AMD.
> And if Asus can do "ROG Green" (Nvidia) and "ROG Red" (AMD), I believe everyone will be happy. I'm not 100% sure that will be possible, but from what I have understood from GPP, it will be.



Highly doubtful. Red & Green would be sub-branding of ROG, ie like Strix is to ROG. If the idea of the GPP is to have Nvidia align exclusively with their gaming brand any sub-branding of the "Gaming Brand" would be a no.


----------



## jabbadap (Mar 15, 2018)

Geh Asus, now they are selling Geforces under brands and sub-brands like ROG Strix Gaming, ROG Poseidon Gaming, Expedition, Cerberus, Dual, Phoenix and Turbo. If GPP forces them to shrink that under one major brand I'm all over with that change.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 15, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> Geh Asus, now they are selling Geforces under brands and sub-brands like ROG Strix Gaming, ROG Poseidon Gaming, Expedition, Cerberus, Dual, Phoenix and Turbo. If GPP forces them to shrink that under one major brand I'm all over with that change.



It will dilute their branding.

Reference base air blowers AIB cards never make it to Gaming Brands. Asus ROG, Gigabyte Aorus, MSI Gaming, those will be "Gaming Brand". What is more likely to happen is those current Non-gaming brand products get consolidated with the "Gaming Brand" with their own sub-brands or similar.

Or they simply wont sell them and Nvidia boxes them (AIBs/OEMs) out and sells more reference Founders Edition directly


----------



## bug (Mar 15, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> Highly doubtful. Red & Green would be sub-branding of ROG, ie like Strix is to ROG.


highly doubtful based on what? Red and Green were just my dumb suggestions, the idea is nothing I have seen so far prevents a manufacturer from having two gaming brands.


Xzibit said:


> If the idea of the GPP is to have Nvidia align exclusively with their gaming brand any sub-branding of the "Gaming Brand" would be a no.


Big if. Again, only based on your assumption that there can be only one gaming brand.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 15, 2018)

bug said:


> highly doubtful based on what? Red and Green were just my dumb suggestions, the idea is nothing I have seen so far prevents a manufacturer from having two gaming brands.
> 
> Big if. Again, only based on your assumption that there can be only one gaming brand.


The funny thing here is that you seem hell-bent on not actually tackling the question of "what constitutes a brand", all the while putting forward your self-proclaimed "dumb suggestions" as explanation on why this isn't problematic. I'm not denying that you might be right, but would you mind reading my first post in this thread, where I attempt to focus on this, and respond to it? My reason for disagreeing with you is that I don't see any variation of "ROG X" and "ROG Y" as complying with the "gaming brand exclusively aligned with Nvidia" terminology, due to ROG itself (regardless of sub-brands and derivatives) being the gaming brand.

Of course Nvidia isn't (even allegedly) saying "Asus can no longer sell AMD" - that would be blatantly illegal, and would be a PR disaster a lot worse than this - but the reported wording makes it quite explicit that shared branding (such as ROG) would be a no-go. You're welcome to disagree, but I expect you to be able to argue that point with regard to what's been reported, not just "all this is unconfirmed so we should just assume it's all ok."

The logical extension of this is that any AMD gaming brand from ASUS would need a name that isn't ROG - which locks AMD out from ROG's massive brand recognition and established consumer trust. Effectively, Asus AMD Gaming would be reset, starting from zero, while Asus Nvidia Gaming would keep going with current momentum at the very least. Is that anticompetitive? I'd say yes.

These are publicly traded for-profit companies in a multi-billion dollar industry with enormous R&D costs, multi-year development cycles, short product lifespans and tight profit margins. Of course they have incentives to push the boundaries of legality in order to maximize profits. That's almost a given. We have no reason to assume any big tech company (or really any other big company) wants anything more than our money. They are definitely not consumers' friends. I'd rather be a pessimist here and have the occasional happy surprise, rather than be constantly put down by all the shirt things these companies do. 

While unconfirmed reports from off-the-record sources should always be taken with a pinch of salt, this is exactly the type of situation where no-one would be able to go on the record, as they'd no doubt lose their jobs. That Kyle had the story corroborated from various sources at different companies is about as much as we can expect. Nvidia's non-reply to this can also be read as telling: if these "unofficial" GPP clauses didn't exist, why not just say so? What do they stand to lose? Still, as with any investigative reporting we have to trust in the integrity of the journalist responsible. I'm frankly not familiar enough with Kyle or HardOCP to pass judgment on that, but as all I've ever heard is that he's been accused of pro-Nvidia bias, this doesn't exactly add up either. I'm open to this being the proverbial mountain made out of a molehill, but so far I've seen nothing to convince me that there isn't something significantly fishy going on.


----------



## bug (Mar 16, 2018)

Valantar said:


> The funny thing here is that you seem hell-bent on not actually tackling the question of "what constitutes a brand", all the while putting forward your self-proclaimed "dumb suggestions" as explanation on why this isn't problematic. I'm not denying that you might be right, but would you mind reading my first post in this thread, where I attempt to focus on this, and respond to it? My reason for disagreeing with you is that I don't see any variation of "ROG X" and "ROG Y" as complying with the "gaming brand exclusively aligned with Nvidia" terminology, due to ROG itself (regardless of sub-brands and derivatives) being the gaming brand.



No, of course I don't want to get into details, because details is what we don't have. You seem to think there can be only one, I don't. Can we just leave it at that?


----------



## INSTG8R (Mar 16, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> And why do you suppose has saphire turned into Amds main card partner could it be that they exclusively make Amd cards because no one else is, and many aibs stopped making as many variations of  Amd card a few years ago hmmnn timelines
> 
> Also unsurprisingly it was AMD that gave the first hints to kyle and id wager they Know what's going on.
> 
> ...


Sapphire has been their main AIB partner for near decades. I can dig out my X1900XtT Crossfire Master Card with the half peeled Sapphire sticker with Ruby underneath. Sapphire has ALWAYS been there.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 16, 2018)

INSTG8R said:


> Sapphire has been their main AIB partner for near decades. I can dig out my X1900XtT Crossfire Master Card with the half peeled Sapphire sticker with Ruby underneath. Sapphire has ALWAYS been there.


They're not restricted to Amd though on any level known, but yeh I agree they're one of few now  but i always choose their card's nowadays for AMD mostly palit for Nvidia.


----------



## INSTG8R (Mar 16, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> They're not restricted to Amd though on any level known, but yeh I agree they're one of few now  but i always choose their card's nowadays for AMD mostly palit for Nvidia.


Zotac is the other side. They are both under PCPartner


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 16, 2018)

INSTG8R said:


> Zotac is the other side. They are both under PCPartner



PCPartner - Zotac, Manli, Inno3D


----------



## mouacyk (Mar 16, 2018)

Valantar said:


> The logical extension of this is that any AMD gaming brand from ASUS would need a name that isn't ROG - which locks AMD out from ROG's massive brand recognition and established consumer trust. Effectively, Asus AMD Gaming would be reset, starting from zero, while Asus Nvidia Gaming would keep going with current momentum at the very least. Is that anticompetitive? I'd say yes.



So a product that performs faster and has more marketshare cannot awaken to a revelation of control for its image?  Is NVidiia actually breaking a prior contract to do shared branding?  If not, the partners screwed themselves by lumping two competing products into the same brand to save marketing costs and confuse uneducated consumers.  As far as NVidia is concerned, they probably feel they carried AMD in many of the partner brands these past several years.


----------



## sith'ari (Mar 16, 2018)

bug said:


> ...........................................
> Think about this: if you were Nvidia and investing money in promoting brands, would you pay to promote ROG if ROG was made up of both Nvidia and AMD products? I'm sure Nvidia didn't come up with GPP out of goodness of their hearts, but at the same time I realize there can be legit reasoning behind those clauses.



Exactly that!!
 I also asked the same question at [H]'s forum, but noone gave me a logical answer!!  


> ...............................
> *3)* Doesn't a company -(NVidia in this case)- has the right, to use any legal means in order for her products to be distinguished compared to the competition?
> Why both GPUs, GeForce & Radeon *must* have the exact same brand-name, whether this brand is called ROG or Aorus, or whatever ? !! Is this a free market or not? Why must NVidia has to tolerate their products to be sold under the same brand-name as their rivals  ?
> NVidia can also complain that this kind of current policy is damaging their own interests and advertisement, just like AMD complains for the opposite  !!
> ( https://hardforum.com/threads/geforce-partner-program-impacts-consumer-choice.1955963/page-15 )


----------



## INSTG8R (Mar 16, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> PCPartner - Zotac, Manli, Inno3D


Yeah I checked that too but....


----------



## jabbadap (Mar 16, 2018)

Afaik, pcpartner and sapphire have common past, but they are now complete different entities. That subvendor hexa code 174B goes back to early 2000, on the other hand one of the pcpartners brand Zotac has subvendor code of 19DA.


----------



## HTC (Mar 16, 2018)

Assuming this whole thing turns out to be true and in order for a company to adhere to the program, it has to "turn away" the other manufacturers from the brand that will gain the exclusivity for the GPP.

Imagine ASUS ROG has said yes to GPP: does that mean motherboards also have to leave the ROG brand?

Just wondering ...


----------



## bug (Mar 16, 2018)

HTC said:


> Assuming this whole thing turns out to be true and in order for a company to adhere to the program, it has to "turn away" the other manufacturers from the brand that will gain the exclusivity for the GPP.
> 
> Imagine ASUS ROG has said yes to GPP: does that mean Intel motherboards also have to leave the ROG brand?
> 
> Just wondering ...


Even if this happens, I expect everything to stay under their current brands while Nvidia products move under the new brand. At least that's what makes sense to me.


----------



## HTC (Mar 16, 2018)

bug said:


> Even if this happens, I expect everything to stay under their current brands while Nvidia products move under the new brand. At least that's what makes sense to me.



It would be hilarious if, under this scenario with ASUS, they came up with a brand just for nVidia, thus making nVidia's whole "let's make their most successful brand only sell our products" fail spectacularly ...


----------



## mouacyk (Mar 16, 2018)

What makes the most sense to me is every partner just leave the pristine product in a plain box with a proper label and charge me 30% less.

Or, they all scrap the problematic shared branding of yesteryear, and start all new distinguished branding with branding-aligned funding.


----------



## bug (Mar 16, 2018)

HTC said:


> It would be hilarious if, under this scenario with ASUS, they came up with a brand just for nVidia, thus making nVidia's whole "let's make their most successful brand only sell our products" fail spectacularly ...


You're just making up stuff. Nowhere is it specified that manufacturers are expected to surrender their most successful brand to Nvidia. It just says that, because Nvidia will be involved in the promotion of _a_ brand, they need a brand that doesn't carry products from their competition. I really don't understand why people insist of reading this any other way.


----------



## HTC (Mar 16, 2018)

bug said:


> You're just making up stuff. *Nowhere is it specified that manufacturers are expected to surrender their most successful brand to Nvidia.* It just says that, because Nvidia will be involved in the promotion of _a_ brand, they need a brand that doesn't carry products from their competition. I really don't understand why people insist of reading this any other way.



According to Kyle from HardOCP, nVidia seeks *exclusivity* and that means no other manufactures are to be used under the GPP program. Should that not include motherboards as well, for example?


----------



## bug (Mar 16, 2018)

HTC said:


> According to Kyle from HardOCP, nVidia seeks *exclusivity* and that means no other manufactures are to be used under the GPP program. Should that not include Intel motherboards as well, for example?


Nope. They seek brand exclusivity. That's all.


----------



## HTC (Mar 16, 2018)

bug said:


> Nope. They seek brand exclusivity. That's all.



It appears we are interpreting the same thing differently.

I did make a mistake in my previous replies: i said "Intel motherboards" when i should have said "motherboards". I'll edit the replies accordingly.

In the case of ASUS, they'd want the ROG brand to sell nVidia products only because, in this case, that's what exclusivity means. Since ASUS ROG also sells motherboards, this means that they would have to stop doing that *under the ROG brand*.


----------



## mouacyk (Mar 16, 2018)

bug said:


> Nope. They seek brand exclusivity. That's all.


That is not all.  Kyle, AIB/OEMs, and AMD are saying NVidia is pushing AMD out of the established and successful gaming brands, that every gamer knows, blindly relies on, and looks forward to building with.  And, no one is being compensated for the loss.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 16, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> Afaik, pcpartner and sapphire have common past, but they are now complete different entities. That subvendor hexa code 174B goes back to early 2000, on the other hand one of the pcpartners brand Zotac has subvendor code of 19DA.



From my understanding.  PCPartner invested in Sapphire Tech in its early stages and as years passed they rolled back to focus more on Zotac mainly Nvidia from what i gather. PCPartner never had control of Sapphire Tech.


----------



## jabbadap (Mar 16, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> From my understanding.  PCPartner invested in Sapphire Tech in its early stages and as years passed they rolled back to focus more on Zotac mainly Nvidia from what i gather. PCPartner never had control of Sapphire Tech.



Yeah they owned 40% of Sapphire in 2001, might still own that 4.95% which was the case in 2011(if I read this correctly). So all in all PC Partner is still OEM/ODM manufacturer for i.e. AMD and Sapphire, but it have it's own brands too, all nvidia.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 17, 2018)

Linus talks about it.

*Skip ahead to 13:00*









Not much new on it but he provides insight on his dealings & perception with Nvidia behind the scenes


----------



## evernessince (Mar 20, 2018)

Looks like AIBs have already started stripping AMD cards of their branding...


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/85n378


----------



## sith'ari (Mar 20, 2018)

"The Good Old Gamer" has changed his opinion over GPP (*his 1st video about GPP was very harsh towards NVidia) after the release of NV's Ray-tracing RTX technology.
After the RTX-tech, justifiable reasons have applied for NVidia in order for them to want to push forward the GPProgram . So he has reconsidered his perspective about GPP.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 20, 2018)

*Forbes - New Clues Suggest MSI And Gigabyte Are Aligned With GeForce Partner Program*



			
				Forbes said:
			
		

> My own follow-up to his investigation is stalled. I'd secured a commitment from a few companies to speak off the record, but they have also gone dark. *Prior to that happening I had two brief conversations that made it obvious the program was troublesome, to put it mildly*.



Article goes on to point to potential effects of GPP

*Update:*



			
				Forbes said:
			
		

> _Gigabyte tells ComputerBase.de that this product does not have AUROS branding because it is "not gamer focused." Perhaps that's marketing speak for "it _can't_ be gamer focused anymore..."_





			
				ComputerBase said:
			
		

> ComputerBase has inquired at Gigabyte why the model with Radeon RX 580 is the only one of the series not running under Gigabyte's brand for player "Aorus". The manufacturer explains that the focus in this case is not on players. However , this can not be reconciled with the product page, whose first headlines are " _Turn Your Ultrabook to Gaming Platform_ " and " _Upgrade the Game Experience_ ".



Now thats funny


----------



## bug (Mar 20, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> *Forbes - New Clues Suggest MSI And Gigabyte Are Aligned With GeForce Partner Program*
> 
> 
> 
> Article goes on to point to potential effects of GPP


"Potential" we've been discussing for two weeks now. It's the "actual" I'm interested in. But I'm going to read that regardless.


----------



## kruk (Mar 20, 2018)

bug said:


> "Potential" we've been discussing for two weeks now. It's the "actual" I'm interested in. But I'm going to read that regardless.


----------



## bug (Mar 20, 2018)

Oh, the nvidia kill puppies argument. How could I forget about that?

Edit: Just for clarity, I've never said GPP was all peachy. It's just that I read it (admittedly in ahurry) and didn't find anything alarming. But since I don't speak legaleze, I'm waiting for other parties to point out the nefarious sections.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 21, 2018)

bug said:


> No, of course I don't want to get into details, because details is what we don't have. You seem to think there can be only one, I don't. Can we just leave it at that?


The issue with "we don't have the details, so we shouldn't discuss this" is that you are clearly taking a stand as to what constitutes a brand (in this regard) in the suggestions in your posts, but refusing to discuss the foundation of this stance nor what this stance entails, not to mention the likelihood of your assumption being accurate with regard to the information we currently have. I'm completely open that I'm taking a pessimistic stance here, and that I might very well be wrong. I've also made clear the reasoning behind this stance. You refuse to do anything of the kind, instead arguing that your stance is instead some kind of non-stance or default, which is absurd on its face - shown by your own arguments. If you truly believed that there was too little information to discuss this, you wouldn't be promoting your own suggestions, as this would be logically impossible.

As for the seeming signs of AMD products dwindling from high-end gaming lines, I'll hold off speculating too much on what that entails for now. While it definitely looks worrying, there are some clear reasons (such as Nvidia's clear GPU performance advantage) that _could _be the reason for things such as the RX 580 Gaming Box being labelled Gigabyte rather than Aorus (there's no equivalent performance Nvidia box (GTX 1060), regardless of branding). The relative lack of gaming-branded Vega cards was - and still is, really - explained by chip shortages and other issues (mining, mainly). Still, Asus lists both the Vega 64 and 56 on its global ROG product listing. Asus also has the recently launched Ryzen + RX 580 GL702 laptop. Then again, development cycles for PCs and components are 2+ years at best, and re-branding isn't a trivial matter. I suppose we'll see how this pans out in a while.


----------



## bug (Mar 21, 2018)

Valantar said:


> The issue with "we don't have the details, so we shouldn't discuss this" ...



My issue is I don't have a lot of time. If I don't have details, than I'm only discussing opinions. Which is less than useless imho. What you should do, however, is not my problem. Just don't push your discussion based on opinions as fact, truth or something else that it isn't.
The rest of your wall of text, I'm not going to read.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 21, 2018)

bug said:


> My issue is I don't have a lot of time. If I don't have details, than I'm only discussing opinions. Which is less than useless imho. What you should do, however, is not my problem. Just don't push your discussion based on opinions as fact, truth or something else that it isn't.
> The rest of your wall of text, I'm not going to read.


That, my friend, is your right, as it is mine to point out the logical inconsistencies in your arguments. I suppose we should leave it at that.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 28, 2018)

This GPP stands for the following based on my research:
- Pro Monopoly 
- Anti Gaming
- Anti Consumerism
- Anti Competition

Here's Nvidia's domain about GPP which is a blatant lie. 
Here's the Statement """GeForce Partner Program Helps Gamers Know What They're Buying"

Nvidia claims the program isn’t exclusive, yet the agreement asks for exclusivity with a partner’s main gaming brand. Nvidia claims partners can stop participating at any time, but in reality if they do, they will put themselves in a disadvantageous position. Nvidia claims the program is about transparency, but no one is saying which companies are part of the GPP.


----------



## bug (Mar 28, 2018)

Super XP said:


> This GPP stands for the following based on my research:
> - Pro Monopoly
> - Anti Gaming
> - Anti Consumerism
> ...


If everything you wrote was true, you wouldn't need to be told which companies are part of GPP: you'd simply look for manufacturers that stop carrying AMD GPUs


----------



## Super XP (Mar 28, 2018)

bug said:


> If everything you wrote was true, you wouldn't need to be told which companies are part of GPP: you'd simply look for manufacturers that stop carrying AMD GPUs



No No, GPP is cleverly orchestrated that goes beyond the discrete GPU. I can get into more details if you like. 

Yes stick to Sapphire, XFX and Powercolor. To name a few. And boycott ASUS, Gigabyte and MSI.


----------



## bug (Mar 28, 2018)

Super XP said:


> No No, GPP is cleverly orchestrated that goes beyond the discrete GPU. I can get into more details if you like.



Please do. Besides the unwaranted secrecy, I still haven't been able to pinpoint what's wrong with GPP.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 28, 2018)

bug said:


> Please do. Besides the unwaranted secrecy, I still haven't been able to pinpoint what's wrong with GPP.



I took this off AMD Reddit. It pretty much sums up what I was referring to. I'm pro Gaming and Computers. BUT GPP won't benefit Owners of Radeon GPUs, despite Nvidia claims about putting Gamers 1st. Well? They aren't lol

*People buying an individual GPU component is a drop in the bucket on revenue. This is where it starts, this is the future:
HP Omen desktops/laptops: No AMD GPU
Lenovo Legion desktops/laptops: No AMD GPU
Dell Alienware desktops/laptops: No AMD GPU
ASUS ROG desktops/laptops: No AMD GPU
Gigabyte Aorus desktops/laptops: No AMD GPU
MSI GamingX desktops/laptops: No AMD GPU
This is bigger than just buying a branded GPU by itself. This is buying a gaming branded anything.


----------



## bug (Mar 29, 2018)

Super XP said:


> I took this off AMD Reddit. It pretty much sums up what I was referring to. I'm pro Gaming and Computers. BUT GPP won't benefit Owners of Radeon GPUs, despite Nvidia claims about putting Gamers 1st. Well? They aren't lol
> 
> *People buying an individual GPU component is a drop in the bucket on revenue. This is where it starts, this is the future:
> HP Omen desktops/laptops: No AMD GPU
> ...


Did it ever occur to you AMD lagging in perf/W for years might have something to do with them not being the first choice when building a laptop? And them giving up on high-end might have something to do with them not being the first choice when building a gaming desktop? Sure, they have Vega now, but who can get their hands on enough quantity to build a desktop line around it?


----------



## Super XP (Mar 29, 2018)

Yes it did occur to me. But I find it weird, for a company that has about 70% of the GPU market releases GPP, that can potentially harm the competition.  

Not all vendors require high end. And I'm sure AMD's CPU/GPU fusion CPU will do alright. 

Listen, I'm all for fair competition. And to me anyway, GPP is anything but. This branding thing is troublesome. There's already MSI, ASUS and Gigabyte with AMD GPU products that are generic and plain looking. 

Surely you must find this weird?


----------



## bug (Mar 29, 2018)

Super XP said:


> Yes it did occur to me. But I find it weird, for a company that has about 70% of the GPU market releases GPP, that can potentially harm the competition.
> 
> Not all vendors require high end. And I'm sure AMD's CPU/GPU fusion CPU will do alright.
> 
> ...


You offered to show me what's wrong with GPP and ended up telling me you find it weird and asking me if I find it weird, too? Nice.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 29, 2018)

bug said:


> You offered to show me what's wrong with GPP and ended up telling me you find it weird and asking me if I find it weird, too? Nice.


Correct, *I showed you what is wrong with GPP*. It's anti consumerism. This was already discussed and proven as factual. As you can see by the Generic Brands all of a sudden by ASUS, Gigabyte & MSI. GPP holding them by the Balls don't ya think. If that isn't evident enough, what is.

FYI, I am Brand Agnostic. I own Intel, AMD & Nvidia products. After this stunt by Nvidia, I won't be buying their products any longer. All while recommending just that to family and friends.


----------



## bug (Mar 29, 2018)

Super XP said:


> Correct, *I showed you what is wrong with GPP*. It's anti consumerism. This was already discussed and proven as factual. As you can see by the Generic Brands all of a sudden by ASUS, Gigabyte & MSI. GPP holding them by the Balls don't ya think. If that isn't evident enough, what is.
> 
> FYI, I am Brand Agnostic. I own Intel, AMD & Nvidia products. After this stunt by Nvidia, I won't be buying their products any longer. All while recommending just that to family and friends.


Nope, you showed me what you find weird about it. And you only find that weird because you discarded my take on it.

Also, despite you being unable to quote one line in GPP that's anti-consumer, you still have no problem writing "This was already discussed and proven as factual". As a descendant of Plato, I'd hope you'd be a bit more rigorous than that.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 29, 2018)

bug said:


> Nope, you showed me what you find weird about it. And you only find that weird because you discarded my take on it.
> 
> Also, despite you being unable to quote one line in GPP that's anti-consumer, you still have no problem writing "This was already discussed and proven as factual". As a descendant of Plato, I'd hope you'd be a bit more rigorous than that.



Did you miss my post? Seems so. Right from Nvidia's blog. If you can't see Anti Consumerism in GPP, then this discussion is over. There's no point in furthering it. 
Quote"
Here's Nvidia's domain about GPP which is a blatant lie. 
Here's the Statement """GeForce Partner Program Helps Gamers Know What They're Buying"

*Nvidia claims the program isn’t exclusive, yet the agreement asks for exclusivity with a partner’s main gaming brand.* Nvidia claims partners can stop participating at any time, but in reality if they do, they will put themselves in a disadvantageous position. Nvidia claims the program is about transparency, but no one is saying which companies are part of the GPP. "


----------



## bug (Mar 29, 2018)

Super XP said:


> No No, GPP is cleverly orchestrated that goes beyond the discrete GPU. *I can get into more details if you like*.
> 
> Yes stick to Sapphire, XFX and Powercolor. To name a few. And boycott ASUS, Gigabyte and MSI.





Super XP said:


> Did you miss my post? Seems so. Right from Nvidia's blog. *If you can't see Anti Consumerism in GPP, then this discussion is over*. There's no point in furthering it.
> Quote"
> Here's Nvidia's domain about GPP which is a blatant lie.
> Here's the Statement """GeForce Partner Program Helps Gamers Know What They're Buying"



You just had to make sure Plato turns in his grave.

*


Super XP said:



			Nvidia claims the program isn’t exclusive, yet the agreement asks for exclusivity with a partner’s main gaming brand.
		
Click to expand...

*


Super XP said:


> Nvidia claims partners can stop participating at any time, but in reality if they do, they will put themselves in a disadvantageous position. Nvidia claims the program is about transparency, but no one is saying which companies are part of the GPP. "



How do you know Nvidia asks for what you say it asks?
I don't have the terms of GPP, all I have is Kyle's statement:


> 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 doesn't say "main gaming brand" and it doesn't say "only gaming brand" in there. So what on Earth are we talking about here?


----------



## Super XP (Mar 29, 2018)

On Nvidia's official Blog Site. Though it seems some pertinent info which i was discussing about, was conveniently removed or deleted. But of course it was lol, when a company is caught red handed, they will do anything to hide the truth.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 2, 2018)

*Digitimes: Gaming PC makers adjusting strategies under Nvidia GPP initiative*



			
				Digitimes said:
			
		

> *The sources said* the GPP is an initiative to bridge the gap between Nvidia and the companies that make add-in cards or systems based on its tech. But *GPP partners are required to have all their gaming devices* fitted with Nvidia's GeForce GPUs before they can enjoy a spate of incentives from Nvidia, including free marketing publicity, early access to Nvidia's latest innovations, and working closely with its engineering team to bring the newest technologies to gamers.


----------



## bug (Apr 2, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> *Digitimes: Gaming PC makers adjusting strategies under Nvidia GPP initiative*


If that is really in the GPP, I expect courts will have no problem shooting it down. Worldwide.
Not only would that be pretty stupid, but unnecessary to begin with. I mean, Nvidia could get their hands on >70% of the market while builders make cards for both sides, what exactly is the end game here? Because even if they manage to get >90% of the market, they'd become a monopoly and be subjected to all kinds of legal supervision.

Edit: Don't burn me to the stake, I'm not saying that _isn't_ in the GPP. I'm just saying it seems like a really poor move to me.


----------



## HTC (Apr 3, 2018)

bug said:


> If that is really in the GPP, I expect courts will have no problem shooting it down. Worldwide.
> Not only would that be pretty stupid, but unnecessary to begin with. I mean, Nvidia could get their hands on >70% of the market while builders make cards for both sides, what exactly is the end game here? Because even if they manage to get >90% of the market, they'd become a monopoly and be subjected to all kinds of legal supervision.
> 
> Edit: *Don't burn me to the stake*, I'm not saying that _isn't_ in the GPP. I'm just saying it seems like a really poor move to me.



Gets wood ready ...

Agreed: it's a stupid move and it should bite them in the rear, assuming it's indeed true.


----------



## evernessince (Apr 3, 2018)

bug said:


> If that is really in the GPP, I expect courts will have no problem shooting it down. Worldwide.
> Not only would that be pretty stupid, but unnecessary to begin with. I mean, Nvidia could get their hands on >70% of the market while builders make cards for both sides, what exactly is the end game here? Because even if they manage to get >90% of the market, they'd become a monopoly and be subjected to all kinds of legal supervision.
> 
> Edit: Don't burn me to the stake, I'm not saying that _isn't_ in the GPP. I'm just saying it seems like a really poor move to me.



Even if Nvidia is sued for being a monopoly, does it really matter?  Intel pretty much had a monopoly for 10 years.  The US government did nothing and they still have yet to pay their EU fine, which was only a fraction of the money they squeeze out of the market.

I highly doubt the US government will do anything, they are insanely pro big corporations.  Heck, the companies and CEOs pay a lower tax rate than a middle class American.  The amount of wealth held by the 1% was extremely bad before their tax cut, after it's a plutocracy.  Trickle down economics is just a renamed economics system that's been in place since the age of monarchs.

Even if the EU fines them, it will be too little too late.  The amount Nvidia could make will likely far exceed any fine.


----------



## bug (Apr 3, 2018)

evernessince said:


> Even if Nvidia is sued for being a monopoly, does it really matter?  Intel pretty much had a monopoly for 10 years.  The US government did nothing and they still have yet to pay their EU fine, which was only a fraction of the money they squeeze out of the market.
> 
> I highly doubt the US government will do anything, they are insanely pro big corporations.  Heck, the companies and CEOs pay a lower tax rate than a middle class American.  The amount of wealth held by the 1% was extremely bad before their tax cut, after it's a plutocracy.  Trickle down economics is just a renamed economics system that's been in place since the age of monarchs.
> 
> Even if the EU fines them, it will be too little too late.  The amount Nvidia could make will likely far exceed any fine.


You don't get sued for being a monopoly. It's not illegal. But you become subject of additional oversight, because you don't have competition to keep you in check any longer. And that oversight is never pretty.


----------



## medi01 (Apr 3, 2018)

bug said:


> Did it ever occur to you AMD lagging in perf/W for years might have something to do with them not being the first choice when building a laptop?


Did you check how 2500u, 2700u perform?
Any metric: raw CPU perf, raw GPU perf, cpu perf/watt, gpu perf/watt?

Where are the AMD laptops?

This shit is making life of an underdog, who's fighting an uphill battle, even harder, by misusing dominant market position.

I hope they get Huang's  arse spanked by, at least, EU, for all this shit.




bug said:


> You don't get sued for being a monopoly. It's not illegal.


Yeah, sort of: Breakup of the Bell System

But we are not talking merely about a monopoly, we are using about monopoly misusing it's position to harm competition, so it's not even relevant.


----------



## Super XP (Apr 4, 2018)

6 posts above in a row state my point exactly. Nvidia is hurting fair competition and for what? They already dominate in the GPU market. How to stop this greedy company? Simply not buy anything with an Nvidia logo. GPP is a complete ripoff and strongly promotes Anti Consumerism.

And as I said about Nvidia's official Blog Site, they deleted a very important part of the article about GPP. I wish I print screened it.


----------



## kruk (Apr 6, 2018)

WhyCry from VideoCardz has dug up a rumor of a new ASUS GPU brand:



> For now, this is just a rumor, but our information comes directly from ASUS. Apparently, ASUS will launch a new AREZ brand for Radeon series. These cards will not carry any ROG branding. In fact, they might even lose ASUS branding altogether.



https://videocardz.com/75783/nvidia-gpp-meet-asus-arez-radeon-series

GPP just keeps getting worse and worse ...

P.S: "No problems here" from the usual suspects incoming in 1, 2, 3 ...


----------



## Super XP (Apr 7, 2018)

kruk said:


> WhyCry from VideoCardz has dug up a rumor of a new ASUS GPU brand:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly, yet some think otherwise for some reason. This gpp is NOT at good thing at all.


----------



## HTC (Apr 7, 2018)

It would be hilarious if the manufacturers that associated themselves with GPP were hit in sales volume over this and the icing on the cake would be for the EU / who-ever-else fine nVidia AND the manufacturers for monopolistic practices.

Not gonna happen, for the most part, but it would one heck of a "karma" if it did.


----------



## bug (Apr 7, 2018)

HTC said:


> It would be hilarious if the manufacturers that associated themselves with GPP were hit in sales volume over this and the icing on the cake would be for the EU / who-ever-else fine nVidia AND the manufacturers for monopolistic practices.
> 
> Not gonna happen, for the most part, but it would one heck of a "karma" if it did.


If there's anything illegal in GPP, I think it's Nvidia that will be taken to court. It's hard to go after manufacturers when they're virtually all based in China and Taiwan


----------



## HTC (Apr 7, 2018)

bug said:


> If there's anything illegal in GPP, I think it's Nvidia that will be taken to court. It's hard to go after manufacturers when they're virtually all based in China and Taiwan



*If there's anything illegal*, the manufactures are enabling nVidia by agreeing to GPP. That makes them guilty as well, IMO: not to the same extent, but guilty non the less.


----------



## bug (Apr 7, 2018)

HTC said:


> *If there's anything illegal*, the manufactures are enabling nVidia by agreeing to GPP. That makes them guilty as well, IMO: not to the same extent, but guilty non the less.


Pray tell, how would Portugal punish AsusTek Taiwan for signing a document in Taiwan?


----------



## HTC (Apr 8, 2018)

bug said:


> Pray tell, how would Portugal punish AsusTek Taiwan for signing a document in Taiwan?



Not allowing the sale of that brand of graphic cards in the country? Dunno, really: not a knowledgeable person when it concerns legal matters.

EU fined Intel for stuff Intel didn't do in Europe. Same sort of principle?


----------



## Super XP (Apr 8, 2018)

HTC said:


> Not allowing the sale of that brand of graphic cards in the country? Dunno, really: not a knowledgeable person when it concerns legal matters.
> 
> EU fined Intel for stuff Intel didn't do in Europe. Same sort of principle?


If it's sold in the country, they can get fined in that country. Though I think Nvidia is more likely to get fined over AIB's.


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2018)

HTC said:


> Not allowing the sale of that brand of graphic cards in the country? Dunno, really: not a knowledgeable person when it concerns legal matters.
> 
> EU fined Intel for stuff Intel didn't do in Europe. Same sort of principle?


Somehow you managed to make my point while trying to refute it. Even in that case, it was _Intel_ that was fined, not the manufacturers (e.g. HP, Dell or Toshiba).


----------



## HTC (Apr 8, 2018)

bug said:


> Somehow you managed to make my point while trying to refute it. *Even in that case, it was Intel that was fined, not the manufacturers (e.g. HP, Dell or Toshiba).*



You're right.

Still, perhaps if they barred those that sell products enabling monopolistic practices, these practices would be much less likely to happen.


----------



## Super XP (Apr 8, 2018)

HTC said:


> You're right.
> 
> Still, perhaps if they barred those that sell products enabling monopolistic practices, these practices would be much less likely to happen.


Agreed. 

I do remember at one point, DELL would not adopt AMD products, because Intel was giving them huge incentives not too. Of course, that has changed all due to regulatory protections for the prevention of monopolistic practices.


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2018)

HTC said:


> You're right.
> 
> Still, perhaps if they barred those that sell products enabling monopolistic practices, these practices would be much less likely to happen.


Well, that would be too much involvement of the government into private business. After all, there's no monopoly when you can buy your video card from at least a dozen manufacturers. The government probably doesn't care much where those manufacturers source their GPUs from. At least no more than they care where they source their VRAM chips or capacitors.


Super XP said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I do remember at one point, DELL would not adopt AMD products, because Intel was giving them huge incentives not too. Of course, that has changed all due to regulatory protections for the prevention of monopolistic practices.


Yeah, you remember the same case we brought up before. Intel offered rebates that were deemed illegal. Intel had to foot the bill.
What I'm arguing here, is that in this case, too, it's conceivable Nvidia could find themselves slapped with a fine. But it's highly unlikely for the manufacturers themselves to be fined as well.

Regardless, I still fail to see the evil here (which seems to be all too obvious to AMD fanboys). We've had manufacturers with AMD-only or Nvidia-only line-ups before. By now it is clear GPP is less than that. So what exactly is the beef here? Is there anyone who thinks buyers will avoid AMD products because Asus doesn't write RoG on them anymore?


----------



## HTC (Apr 8, 2018)

bug said:


> Well, that would be too much involvement of the government into private business. After all, there's no monopoly when you can buy your video card from at least a dozen manufacturers. The government probably doesn't care much where those manufacturers source their GPUs from. At least no more than they care where they source their VRAM chips or capacitors.
> 
> Yeah, you remember the same case we brought up before. Intel offered rebates that were deemed illegal. Intel had to foot the bill.
> What I'm arguing here, is that in this case, too, it's conceivable Nvidia could find themselves slapped with a fine. But it's highly unlikely for the manufacturers themselves to be fined as well.
> ...



If they wanted a brand name all to themselves, why didn't they have the manufacturers create it solely for them? Done that way, i would have no issues. They could call it AREZ ...

nVidia wanted *THE* top brand name for their cards *WHILE* denying the competition the same benefit. It's when they "force" their competitor's away from brands* that aren't theirs* that i take issue.

ASUS ROG brand, Gigabyte's AORUS and others are well known brand names and already have their own reputations, which is what nVidia is after: that and making sure *their competition is denied access to it*.

Imagine if it were the other way around and you saw ROG Vega cards, Aorus Polaris cards, AREZ 1080 TIs ...


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2018)

HTC said:


> If they wanted a brand name all to themselves, why didn't they have the manufacturers create it solely for them? Done that way, i would have no issues. They could call it AREZ ...
> 
> nVidia wanted *THE* top brand name for their cards *WHILE* denying the competition the same benefit. It's when they "force" their competitor's away from brands* that aren't theirs* that i take issue.
> 
> ...


So your beef is really with the sticker on the box.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 8, 2018)

More like NVIDIA is abusing their market position to claim brands they don't own through illegal per se agreements.  It would be like GE demanding model exclusivity from Boeing so all 777s must have GE engines.  If Boeing didn't comply (because it's their own damn product and they want to sell whatever engines they can fit on it to give their customers more choice), Boeing wouldn't have access to GE parts, service manuals, etc.  If Boeing were like Gigabyte, MSI, Asus that gave into NVIDIA demands, instead of them all being 777s, P&W would be 778, and RR would be 779.

Another example would be Ford in the 1990s with International demanding PowerStroke be a different model from Ford's gasoline engines.


These things don't happen because they're inherently illegal.  NVIDIA should know better, but as others pointed out, NVIDIA would rather do serious harm to AMD and take the slap on the wrist from a lawsuit than let AMD continue to gain ground.  This ploy only works once because when it goes to court and the plaintiff wins, if the defendant doesn't comply with the order to stop it, the plaintiff can request an injection which can lead banning the sale of offending products.  In other words, all of the brands NVIDIA is trying to claim could become black market goods if NVIDIA doesn't comply with the court order--a major backfire.

TL;DR: how could NVIDIA be this stupid?


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2018)

Seriously, does anyone here even shops based on brand? Because despite the fact that I've been building my systems for like 20 years, I couldn't thell which manufacturer owns which brand, save for Asus' RoG.
What if GPP also demands exclusive green PCBs, do we open another thread to rant for another 10 pages?


----------



## HTC (Apr 8, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> More like NVIDIA is abusing their market position to claim brands they don't own through illegal per se agreements.  *It would be like GE demanding Boeing rename the 777 to GE90 because it uses their engines.  If Boeing didn't comply (because it's their own damn product and they want to sell whatever engines they can fit on it to give their customers more choice), Boeing wouldn't have access to GE engines.*



Pretty much this.



bug said:


> So your beef is really with the sticker on the box.



No: my "beef" is with nVidia for making a move like this. I would be just as "beefed" if this GPP-like crap was being done by AMD.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 8, 2018)

bug said:


> Seriously, does anyone here even shops based on brand? Because despite the fact that I've been building my systems for like 20 years, I couldn't thell which manufacturer owns which brand, save for Asus' RoG.


Doesn't matter.  Illegal per se doesn't even require market dominance to be illegal.  Companies can't compel buyers to reduce competitor appeal via a metaphorical knife to the throat.




bug said:


> What if GPP also demands exclusive green PCBs, do we open another thread to rant for another 10 pages?


That's not anti-competitive like controlling branding.  Definitely authoritarian though.


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Doesn't matter.  Illegal per se doesn't even require market dominance to be illegal.  Companies can't compel buyers to reduce competitor appeal via a metaphorical knife to the throat.


So if that's a job for the legal system, can we leave it to the legal system?


HTC said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> 
> 
> No: my "beef" is with nVidia for making a move like this. I would be just as "beefed" if this GPP-like crap was being done by AMD.



A move like what? Do you really care that much what the box says?
And about how Nvidia treats manufacturers, that's their business. If the manufacturers feel so abused, they should drop Nvidia. If their existence depends on Nvidia, well, then maybe Nvidia should have a say after all.
I simply do not get why we need 10 pages for something that doesn't affect us beyond changing a word on a box.

Edit: All this has reminded me of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_in_Labour


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 8, 2018)

*KitGuru: ASUS ROG may soon be Nvidia exclusive with AMD GPUs being bumped to new ‘AREZ’ brand*




			
				KitGuru said:
			
		

> *Last week when we spoke to our source*, we heard that board partners were feeling the pressure with GPP. Nvidia currently has marketshare dominance, so AiBs heavily rely on the company’s support not just for marketing dollars, but for steady GPU supply too. The second point that our source raised with us is that *Nvidia wants exclusivity over the most notable brand each AiB has to offer*, meaning GPP members need to bump AMD cards off to a lesser-known sub-brand.


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> *KitGuru: ASUS ROG may soon be Nvidia exclusive with AMD GPUs being bumped to new ‘AREZ’ brand*


Boo Nvidia, let's burn them to the stake. Happy now?


----------



## Super XP (Apr 8, 2018)

bug said:


> So your beef is really with the sticker on the box.


Absolutely Not. It's how Nvidia presents GPP, force feeding AIB's that support both AMD and Nvidia. And those AIB's would be disadvantaged if they do not accept GPP, because the AIB's that only support Nvidia will get preferential treatment. It's written in black and white. , Nvidia can't deny this fact. AIB's have come out with such proof of anti consumerism tactics inside GPP. 

AMD fan boys? Nonsense, this has nothing to do with what people like and dislike.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 9, 2018)

bug said:


> So if that's a job for the legal system, can we leave it to the legal system?


Yes and yes, the wounded party (AMD, MSI, Gigabyte, Asus) need to file suit.  FTC could too.


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 9, 2018)

The hole point of this GPP discussion is this:
1) Being part of GPP is voluntary.
2) Everyone is saying that the AIBs are forced to do this because otherwise they will lose all benefits!!
*Well , I wasn't aware that a company (nVidia in this case) must give away free benefits forever without asking something in return!!* Yes, they give privileges, money etc, and they are asking for exclusivity and commitment from the AIBs in return. If the AIBs feel that this is extortion, they don't have to sign , since as i said at 1) the program is *voluntary*. BUT they will have to pay the cost. They can't have both, ... money/privileges from nVidia , and also doing whatever they want with these money. They have to choose. So simple.
[*generally speaking ,since nobody among us has read the contract terms, only Kyle Bennet claims this, and he was informed from a non-credible source (AMD) who has every interest to cause harm to their rivals (nVidia). ]


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 9, 2018)

sith'ari said:


> The hole point of this GPP discussion is this:
> 1) Being part of GPP is voluntary.
> 2) Everyone is saying that the AIBs are forced to do this because otherwise they will lose all benefits!!
> Well , I wasn't aware that a company (nVidia in this case) must give away free benefits forever without asking something in return!! Yes, they give privileges, money etc, and they are asking for exclusivity and commitment from the AIBs in return. If the AIBs feel that this is extortion, they don't have to sign , since as i said at 1) the program is voluntary. BUT they will have to pay the cost. They can't have both, ... money/privileges from nVidia , and also doing whatever they want with these money. They have to choose. So simple.
> [*generally speaking ,since nobody among us has read the contract terms, *only Kyle Bennet claims this, and he was informed from a non-credible source (AMD)* who has every interest to cause harm to their rivals (nVidia). ]



I hope your not the same guy that got kicked out over there at HardOCP

Anyone who read the original article knows what your saying is false. Kyle did his own query into the matter and others are doing the same.


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 9, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> I hope your not the same guy that got kicked out over there at HardOCP
> Anyone who read the original article knows what your saying is false. Kyle did his own query into the matter and others are doing the same.



-first of all, i myself have already said that i'm the guy at Hardocp ( check #176 at the current thread )
-secondly, ...."kicked out" ? you are mistaken. I left [H] by myself, (i'm not banned or anything), since i don't like guidelines on what to think or say. If what Kyle wants, is every person there to accept whatever he says, then i can simply leave Kyle to do the talking by himself, it's much easier...
-*EDIT:* and lastly, there have been many things that i haven't said, during my posts at [H], since i mostly respect Kyle's work and decided to tell him personally, via PM.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 9, 2018)

sith'ari said:


> -first of all, i myself have already said that i'm the guy at Hardocp ( check #176 at the current thread )
> -secondly, ...."kicked out" ? you are mistaken. I left [H] by myself, (i'm not banned or anything), since i don't like guidelines on what to think or say. *If what Kyle wants, is every person there to accept whatever he says, then i can simply leave Kyle to do the talking by himself, it's much easier...*
> -*EDIT:* and lastly, there have been many things that i haven't said, during my posts at [H], since i mostly respect Kyle's work and decided to tell him personally, via PM.



I don't think that's what Kyle wanted.



			
				Kyle_Bennett replying to Shith'ari said:
			
		

> You are reaching razor1-like levels with you continuously posting and reposting your already expressed opinions. This is not the GPU forum and you will not monopolize the thread about our GPP story as your own soapbox for your thoughts and opinions. Consider this your warning.



I just think its weird you came from there and was active in the forum discussion. One would think you would have read the article, given your activity over there and here in a few threads on the same topic.


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 9, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> I don't think that's what Kyle wanted.
> I just think its weird you came from there and was active in the forum discussion. One would think you would have read the article, given your activity over there and here in a few threads on the same topic.



-you can read my last comment, *before* i get a warning from Kyle, and judge for yourself whether or not i deserved this warning. (*i just replied to a person that said something to me, so i believe that i had the right to reply)
-also, from all the people who made comments at [H]'s GPP thread, only myself and Razor -(who curiously, we were both asking questions let's say... " favourable" towards nVidia)-  we were the only ones who got a warning, all the others, no matter of the number of their posts , -(*you can try count the number of my own posts at this thread and compare them with the number of the posts of other active members)-, they were never bothered by Kyle (*but they also weren't  judging what Kyle have been saying as well, on the contrary to myself  ).


----------



## bug (Apr 9, 2018)

Super XP said:


> Absolutely Not. It's how Nvidia presents GPP, force feeding AIB's that support both AMD and Nvidia. And those AIB's would be disadvantaged if they do not accept GPP, because the AIB's that only support Nvidia will get preferential treatment. It's written in black and white. , Nvidia can't deny this fact. AIB's have come out with such proof of anti consumerism tactics inside GPP.
> 
> AMD fan boys? Nonsense, this has nothing to do with what people like and dislike.


Once again, AIBs are free to stop carrying Nvidia products altogether. If they can't survive without Nvidia and feel Nvidia is strongarming them, then they're still to blame for putting themselves in this position. If they really feel they're being mistreated here, it doesn't make sense for them to not go to authorities, but unofficially complain to whoever buys their story.

And for the millionth time: wtf is "anti consumerism" (?) in GPP if the only effect so far is the changing of a sticker on the product box?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 9, 2018)

sith'ari said:


> 1) Being part of GPP is voluntary.


It's not "voluntary" when it's either sign and bastardize their AMD cards or quit selling NVIDIA cards.  Three AIBs have already forked their brands evidencing that the alleged pressure was applied effectively.



sith'ari said:


> *Well , I wasn't aware that a company (nVidia in this case) must give away free benefits forever without asking something in return!!*


The AIBs are selling NVIDIA's chips as consumer products.  NVIDIA supports that endeavor (like ATI/AMD) because engineering GPU architectures is their expertise, not marketing, localization, customer support, etc.  It's a mutually beneficial relationship...until NVIDIA dictates they own the AIB branding (which they have no right to, period).



bug said:


> If they really feel they're being mistreated here, it doesn't make sense for them to not go to authorities, but unofficially complain to whoever buys their story.


If NVIDIA catches wind of a legal proceeding, AIB will find they can longer acquire GPUs to put in their products.  NVIDIA doesn't outright say that but it's suggested "with a wink and a nod."  Literally the only one with the power to do anything about it is regulators and AMD.  The AIBs will bend over backwards for NVIDIA because they have no choice unless they leave the NVIDIA market altogether (half or more of their graphics card business which translates to layoffs, closing facilities, etc.).



bug said:


> And for the millionth time: wtf is "anti consumerism" (?) in GPP if the only effect so far is the changing of a sticker on the product box?


Brands are worth millions, if not billions of dollars.  Think "Mickey Mouse" for example: Disney literally rewrote copyright law to protect that brand.


----------



## HTC (Apr 9, 2018)

sith'ari said:


> The hole point of this GPP discussion is this:
> *1) Being part of GPP is voluntary.*
> 2) Everyone is saying that the AIBs are forced to do this because otherwise they will lose all benefits!!
> *Well , I wasn't aware that a company (nVidia in this case) must give away free benefits forever without asking something in return!!* Yes, they give privileges, money etc, and they are asking for exclusivity and commitment from the AIBs in return. If the AIBs feel that this is extortion, they don't have to sign , since as i said at 1) the program is *voluntary*. BUT they will have to pay the cost. They can't have both, ... money/privileges from nVidia , and also doing whatever they want with these money. They have to choose. So simple.
> [*generally speaking ,since nobody among us has read the contract terms, only Kyle Bennet claims this, and he was informed from a non-credible source (AMD) who has every interest to cause harm to their rivals (nVidia). ]




nVidia outsells AMD's cards: we know this. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 70% of all GPUs sold to gamers *from vendors that sell both brands* are nVidia GPUs:

- do you honestly think GPU vendors are willing to let go of a 70% share? They don't care as much about the benefits as they do about that share
- don't forget that nVidia cards are pricier, which only inflates that 70% share that much more

nVidia knows these vendors have allot to lose if nVidia pulls the plug on GPUs entirely (look @ XFX) so they are strong-arming them to "voluntarily" participate. Even if they didn't cut off vendor X completely due to not participating in GPP, they could severely limit the GPU allocation to that vendor, thus putting it @ a disadvantage VS other vendors.

@FordGT90Concept : agree completely!


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 9, 2018)

HTC said:


> nVidia outsells AMD's cards: we know this. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 70% of all GPUs sold to gamers *from vendors that sell both brands* are nVidia GPUs:
> 
> - do you honestly think GPU vendors are willing to let go of a 70% share? They don't care as much about the benefits as they do about that share
> - don't forget that nVidia cards are pricier, which only inflates that 70% share that much more
> ...




Guys , this is getting tiresome, since i've read all these at [H] and here as well, _so i'll make this final post and i won't post again on the GPP thread._
1) Do they, or don't they , the AIBs receive many privileges & and money(*in all kind of forms) from nVidia? 
If *YES,* does or doesn't nVidia has the right to ask something in return for what they give to AIBs? Must nVidia give these privileges to AIBs for ....free ???? 
2) Also , i asked something at [H] and here as well , -(#176)-, but still noone gave me an answer:


> Doesn't a company -(NVidia in this case)- has the right, to use any legal means in order for her products to be distinguished compared to the competition?
> Why both GPUs, GeForce & Radeon *must* have the exact same brand-name, whether this brand is called ROG or Aorus, or whatever ? !! Is this a free market or not? Why must NVidia has to tolerate their products to be sold under the same brand-name as their rivals  ?
> NVidia can also complain that this kind of current policy is damaging their own interests and advertisement, just like AMD complains for the opposite  !!


We have as a given that right now nVidia is 1 generation ahead from the competition, since AMD in order to keep up with performance, their cards need to consume almost double power . With this in mind, what would you do *if you were at nVidia's place*? would you like your superior products being sold under the same brand name with your rivals (*especially now that you have a total advantage ) ? 
Isn't this tactic completely logical from nVidia's point of view ? 
Personally, I know for sure that i would want the exact same thing !! to differentiate my -superior- products from those of my competitors!!


----------



## bug (Apr 9, 2018)

Yeah, this is getting way too ridiculous. It all went from "GPP will limit choice" to "ZOMG products with different video cards will be branded differently".
Not to mention people freaking out over crap like that are actually saying "if AMD has to stand on its own, fewer people will buy from them".

You don't like Nvidia, fine. Criticize away (I think I've made it clear I have my share of beef with them). But "criticism" in this thread has become such a cacophony that it started saying things like I've summarized above.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 10, 2018)

sith'ari said:


> 1) Do they, or don't they , the AIBs receive many privileges & and money(*in all kind of forms) from nVidia?


Yes, engineering resources, marketing support, etc.



sith'ari said:


> If *YES,* does or doesn't nVidia has the right to ask something in return for what they give to AIBs?


They do, like money for the GPUs they're selling and license to use NVIDIA trademarks to sell their product ("GeForce," "NVIDIA," etc.).



sith'ari said:


> Must nVidia give these privileges to AIBs for ....free ????


It's not free.  If the AIB doesn't know how to integrate NVIDIAs chips into their own boards, costs will skyrocket for producing cards because they have to reverse engineer NVIDIA reference cards.



sith'ari said:


> With this in mind, what would you do *if you were at nVidia's place*?


Ilegal per se.  Market position doesn't matter as group boycott is inherently illegal.



sith'ari said:


> would you like your superior products being sold under the same brand name with your rivals (*especially now that you have a total advantage ) ?


None of my business unless they drag my trademarks through the mud (e.g. "GeForce" and "NVIDIA).  I have no claim over an AIB's own trademarks and branding (e.g. "Aorus", "Strix").  Kind of like how no members of the computer industry has ownership over Dell brands like OptiPlex, Precision, and Alienware.



sith'ari said:


> Isn't this tactic completely logical from nVidia's point of view ?


Logical doesn't imply legal.  Case in point: it's logical for competitors to buy out each other to reduce competition but that's anti-competitive which is counter to a free market that governments (should) strive to protect.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 10, 2018)

Tangentially, in the smartphone market, can Qualcomm ask Samsung to have device with their SoC sold under different name than variants with Exynos? 
Maybe they can't because Exynos belongs to the smart phone maker itself?
Here we have 3 mutually "independent" parties, nvdia, amd and board maker ... seems like market share bias brought this one up, aib brand becomes defined by one gpu maker much more than the other.


----------



## kruk (Apr 11, 2018)

Well, I certainly hope that brand split won't mean:
a) worse build quality for AMD cards
b) increases in prices for the nVidia cards

If any of that happens in the future, I hope supporters of GPP will have enough dignity to admit they were wrong ... 

For me, GPP means nothing but trouble for consumers, but I will happily publicly admit I was wrong, if the situation won't get worse ...


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 11, 2018)

kruk said:


> a) worse build quality for AMD cards


It should be same opportunity for AIBs to cut back on components quality as before ... under the same aib brand amd and nvidia gpus share only heatsink/shroud design and fans


kruk said:


> b) increases in prices for the nVidia cards


Separation could give more opportunity to drive prices for either of gpu makers, AIBs will differentiate perception of quality (and real component quality) to justify price increase (or drop) to earn where product sells or to drive sales where it sells below expectation. They only have less incentive to do much for amd's small gpu market share.
So again, same as before, for aib brand recognition only shroud and fans need to look the same ... everything can be pricey/cheap and high/low quality as wanted, and still look the same ... 
To summarize, it seems as if nvidia wanted to protect themselves from AIB's imminent messing with the cards that use gpu with small market share


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 11, 2018)

Kyle from HardOCP confirmed the recent move by Asus



			
				Kyle Bennett said:
			
		

> There will no longer be any AMD GPUs featured under the entire ROG branding. Confirmed.
> AMD motherboards will still be under ROG banner. Confirmed.
> If it was cheap, easy, and good for sales, why wouldn't ASUS move AMD mobos to Arez as well?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2018)

Because AMD isn't dictating, NVIDIA is, and their extent of caring is graphics cards.  That said, I wouldn't be surprised if NVIDIA demands ROG is theirs and theirs alone in a month or two so it will vanish off of boards too.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 12, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> AMD isn't dictating ... NVIDIA demands ...


IMO Nvidia is in position to make demands with graphics cards (and only due to market share) but not with ROG motherboards, while AMD can make similar demand for mobo brand names if it were for their benefit


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2018)

BiggieShady said:


> IMO Nvidia is in position to make demands with graphics cards (and only due to market share) but not with ROG motherboards, while AMD can make similar demand for mobo brand names if it were for their benefit


ROG is Asus's brand, period.  If NVIDIA wants it lawfully, they have to buy out Asus.  To comply with said demand is to make them complicit in the group boycott NVIDIA is orchestrating.  AIBs should have class-action sued instead of bending over backwards for NVIDIA.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 12, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ROG is Asus's brand, period. If NVIDIA wants it lawfully, they have to buy out Asus. To comply with said demand is to make them complicit in the group boycott NVIDIA is orchestrating. AIBs should have class-action sued instead of bending over backwards for NVIDIA.


I don't know about lawfulness, but a demand is often presented as a deal that would not be prudent to refuse ... just sayin', gotta take corporate practices at face value. Also, when I said how nvidia is in position to demand this, I didn't mean rightful position, rather position of great leverage.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 12, 2018)

Kyle put up a quick follow-up

*HardOCP - Dell and HP Resist the NVIDIA GPP Leash - So Far*




			
				HardOCP said:
			
		

> We also now can share that NVIDIA has specified that it will not extend discounts to non-GPP partners. And what is appalling, but not surprising, is that NVIDIA is denying "priority allocation" to non-GPP partners as well. That basically means your GPU order must have gotten lost in the mail.



Not that Nvidia is willing to share or talk about it but it would be interesting to see if the old "non-GPP" agreement was even an option or if it was just replaced with GPP.


----------



## bug (Apr 12, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> Kyle put up a quick follow-up
> 
> *HardOCP - Dell and HP Resist the NVIDIA GPP Leash - So Far*
> 
> ...


You read that piece and didn't get a wtf moment?
I mean, not only neither Dell nor HP have a gaming brand to surrender to GPP, but I don't recall either of them updating their models whenever Nvidia (or AMD for that matter) felt like launching something (i.e. they never cared about having products ready on launch date). So, from what we know, these manufacturers only loose Nvidia's marketing money and engineering expertise by not joining. Maybe they weren't even eligible for the program?


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 12, 2018)

bug said:


> You read that piece and didn't get a wtf moment?
> *I mean, not only neither Dell nor HP have a gaming brand to surrender to GPP*, but I don't recall either of them updating their models whenever Nvidia (or AMD for that matter) felt like launching something (i.e. they never cared about having products ready on launch date). So, from what we know, these manufacturers only loose Nvidia's marketing money and engineering expertise by not joining. Maybe they weren't even eligible for the program?



Maybe your not familiar with the companies

*HP Omen*
*Dell Alienware*


----------



## bug (Apr 12, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> Maybe your not familiar with the companies
> 
> *HP Omen*
> *Dell Alienware*


Those are not video card brands. Afaik, GPP is about video card brands only, so let's stick to that.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 12, 2018)

bug said:


> Those are not video card brands. Afaik, GPP is about video card brands only, so let's stick to that.





You serious

Asus ROG isnt a video card brand either.

Now you want to take the OEMs out of the GPP discussion because its inconvenient


----------



## bug (Apr 12, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> You serious
> 
> Asus ROG isnt a video card brand either.
> 
> Now you want to take the OEMs out of the GPP discussion because its inconvinient


I don't want to take anything out. I was just asking whether you used any critical thinking between reading that news on HardOCP and reposted it here. I got my answer, so I'm going to stop now.


----------



## Super XP (Apr 16, 2018)

Remember, in the end Price / Performance wins in the GPU arena. 
Overall GPU Market share. 
Q4 2017 (Including iGPU & dGPU)

AMD @ 14.2% (versus 13.0% Last Quarter)
NVIDIA @ 18.4% (versus 19.3% Last Quarter)
Intel @ 67.4% (versus 67.8% Last Quarter)

*FTC & EU Commission Zero in on NVIDIA GPP Calls for Investigation & Complaints*
https://wccftech.com/ftc-eu-commission-zero-in-on-nvidia-gpp-calls-for-investigation-complaints/

Those that think Nvidia's scam GPP won't hurt them and hurt those that joined? Think Again. This is but one POLL among several others I am sure. 

*Yes, I will boycott NVIDIA and/or its GPP Partners.
5630 votes 83%*


*No, I will not boycott NVIDIA or its GPP Partners.
1121 vote 17%*
And why is GPP utter BS? Here's one reason why, and it keeps getting worse and worse. This is regardless who created GPP, because even if AMD pulled this nonsense off, they too should not get away with such scams. 


> QUOTE:
> As some of the biggest names in the industry, including MSI and Gigabyte, ostensibly began removing AMD products from their gaming brands, giving indication that they may have signed on to the program, the GPP garnered even more opposition.
> 
> Calls for a boycott of NVIDIA and its GPP Partners erupted all over the web and some have gone as far as to contact the FTC and EU Commission to call for an investigation of the program. Both the Federal Trade Commission and the European Commission appear to have begun heeding and responding, literally, to those calls.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 19, 2018)

*HardOCP: NVIDIA Starts Disinformation GPP Campaign*



			
				HardOCP said:
			
		

> Interesting rumors are now coming out that "Kyle was paid" big bucks for breaking the NVIDIA GPP story. And apparently NVIDIA's disinformation campaign to discredit the story around GPP is rubbing some folks the wrong way. Elric mentions below that "his name is also Brian," so I have to assume that PR at NVIDIA is starting this nastiness. No, I did not get paid for GPP, but I wish I would have. Hell, AMD even gave credit to PCPer for breaking story in its Freedom promo video. Interesting thoughts from Elric below.
> 
> Also worth mentioning is that *I can tell you for sure that two of the things that NVIDIA told me about GPP are simply lies*. *Brian Burke of NVIDIA told me this about GPP before we wrote our initial story:*
> 
> ...


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 19, 2018)

Let's translate '_There is no commitment to make any monetary payments, or discounts for being part of the program._' from legalese ...

... it reads: _Yeah we are doing it whenever we deem necessary, but we are not really committed to the practice (because we don't do it all the time)_


----------



## bug (Apr 19, 2018)

BiggieShady said:


> Let's translate '_There is no commitment to make any monetary payments, or discounts for being part of the program._' from legalese ...
> 
> ... it reads: _Yeah we are doing it whenever we deem necessary, but we are not really committed to the practice (because we don't do it all the time)_


I think what this really means is that Nvidia is not committed to make payments towards manufacturers (their statement), but they can offer discounts (stated in GPP). Refuting a statement that wasn't actually made (that Nvidia will pay the manufacturers) is standard diversion business.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 19, 2018)

bug said:


> standard diversion business


Eh, they obviously feel untouchable ... it'd be nice to see them proved wrong, even if it is proverbial slap on the wrist measured in billions


----------



## bug (Apr 19, 2018)

BiggieShady said:


> Eh, they obviously feel untouchable ... it'd be nice to see them proved wrong, even if it is proverbial slap on the wrist measured in billions


Eh, AMD hasn't been able to touch their high end since I don't remember when. To the point they didn't feel like turning Volta into a consumer product and they don't feel pressured to release the Volta successor either. Wouldn't you feel untouchable in that position?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 19, 2018)

Irrelevant to the topic.  You don't have to be #1 in a market to participate in illegal anti-competitive practices.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 19, 2018)

bug said:


> Wouldn't you feel untouchable in that position?


Nope, but that's just me ... I mean I already said many times how they are in position to do these things, meaning anything gained is worth more to them than any slap on the wrist they may receive ... however I don't think it's right nor good for customer loyalty.
Customer loyalty is affected by both reason and emotion ... and nvidia cleverly waited for it to become less driven by emotion


----------



## HTC (Apr 20, 2018)

Let me put a what if scenario for you dudes.

Imagine AMD manage to *somehow* pull a RyZen on nVidia and launch GPU(s) that were @ least on par with Titan V or, better yet, actually faster: what would these new "GPP adopting companies" do?

In this case, their main gaming brand would suddenly become "not so main" anymore. If AMD actually became faster it would be hilarious, specially if AMD were to "enforce their new brands" to become AMD only.

*Highly doubtful*, i know, but still ...


----------



## bug (Apr 21, 2018)

HTC said:


> Let me put a what if scenario for you dudes.
> 
> Imagine AMD manage to *somehow* pull a RyZen on nVidia and launch GPU(s) that were @ least on par with Titan V or, better yet, actually faster: what would these new "GPP adopting companies" do?
> 
> ...


I think you're on to something there. There is no "main" gaming brand, there are just brands. The one that sells the most can be considered "main", but beyond that it's really just stickers and boxes.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 21, 2018)

HTC said:


> what would these new "GPP adopting companies" do?


Nothing different because NVIDIA won't let them.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 24, 2018)

This is interesting.

*NotebookCheck: Where are all the Kaby Lake-G laptops? Nvidia's GeForce Partner Program may be to blame*



			
				NotebookCheck said:
			
		

> *We've spoken to three independent and reliable sources close to Notebookcheck and they have all suggested the same reasoning - Nvidia is strongly responsible for keeping Kaby Lake-G from proliferating.* Factor in the loud rumors about the anti-competitive terms of Nvidia's GPP, the rumors of HP and Dell keeping their distance from the program, and AMD's own VP acknowledging the leaks and they all strongly point to Nvidia putting a tight lid on the Kaby Lake-G platform.


----------



## bug (Apr 24, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> *NotebookCheck: Where are all the Kaby Lake-G laptops? Nvidia's GeForce Partner Program may be to blame*


There's no rumor you'll take with a grain of salt at this point, is it?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 24, 2018)

I suspect it has more to do with HBM2, chips, and interposer supply to make Kaby Lake-G processors.  It only takes one hang up for supply to dry up.

That said, I could see some vendors like ASUS refusing to sell a Republic of Gamers laptop with the chip because of GPP.  HP and Dell, I doubt it.  Intel is their #1 partner and AMD is their #2 partner.  Doubt they care much what NVIDIA is doing.


----------



## bug (Apr 24, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I suspect it has more to do with HBM2, chips, and interposer supply to make Kaby Lake-G processors.  It only takes one hang up for supply to dry up.
> 
> That said, I could see some vendors like ASUS refusing to sell a Republic of Gamers laptop with the chip because of GPP.  HP and Dell, I doubt it.  Intel is their #1 partner and AMD is their #2 partner.  Doubt they care much what NVIDIA is doing.


It may also have something to do with this: https://ark.intel.com/products/codename/136847/Kaby-Lake-G
Intel themselves seem to mark these CPUs as "announced", so there's no availability to speak of. But this may be caused exactly by what you've noted above.


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 24, 2018)

I know i've said that i won't post again at GPP thread, but i have to make one exception and post Elric's recent video because what he's stating -if true- is of outmost importance.
With this GPP story, @Kyle stated at his [H] thread that nVidia's behaviour is anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Well, let's see if he will make a comment about this video as well, in which we have a reviewer who states that in all his reviewing years, *ONLY AMD has pressed him and dictated him about how to do his reviews!! *(*04:50min. of this video).
Personally, i don't know if Kyle will comment on this, -since, as he said, his intention is to warn consumers about this anti-competitive & anti-consumer GPProgram- , but personally, *as a consumer myself*, i feel that what Elric is stating for AMD is also anti-competitive and anti-consumer, so, me,  *as a consumer* i'm putting this accusation in the same importance with Kyle's accusations for the GPProgram  !!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 24, 2018)

He sure prattles on.
1) He said up front that the guy responsible for it is no longer with AMD.  Problem solved? Why is the video 7 minutes longer than that?
2) Accepting free hardware for review purposes always has strings attached.   Some are worse than others. 
3) Any reviewer that doesn't like those strings (which he admitted he does not) may secure the hardware for review from retail channels.
4) End of the video he was pretty much just promoting himself and his sugar daddy.

Asking reviewers to do or not do things is not something that falls under anti-trust law (definitely anti-press and something that should be frowned upon). Getting your partners to do something with the express purpose of hurting a competitor does.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 24, 2018)

Did Elric ever clarify that the information he was told by Nvidia about Kyle was wrong?


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 28, 2018)

Once again, i'll prove myself wrong about having said that i won't post at this GPP thread again, but considering the fact of how much of fame/infame it was given at this GPP project, i believe that it would be a shame not to add in this thread a relevant "History" video as well, in order for it to remind us all of how companies tend to behave in order to keep/enlarge their marketshare.
So, anyone who wants a quick history lesson as a guide , -alongside our "beloved" GPP project !!!- , *MUST* give a look at Jim(AdoredTV)'s *outstanding* video!!! :










After you finish watching this "history" video , ask yourself these 2 :
*1)*  ""*Even after all these fines being applied to Intel, which one is the company who keeps dominating the computer market -financially&marketshare- if not ....Intel ? ""*.
With this as a given, what is the ..... *"*moral*" *lesson for the other companies ? perhaps that these kind of tactics can give you dominance over your competitors?
After all these methods being applied by Intel all these years, and still Intel being No1 , who can blame nVidia or any other company who will behave similarily ?
*2)* *Still, besides all these methods that were used against AMD in the past, where exactly do we stand now at the present moment ? : 
AMD is cooperating with Intel providing them with the graphic-power that Intel is lacking at !!!*
(*And although AMD have aligned themselves with someone who had almost obliterated them from the market in the past, !!! yet still, some antiGPP-tech-journalists expect from me (*as a consumer i mean) to be outraged with these kind of corporate-tactics that even AMD seem to have forgotten!! , given their present alliances!! soooo, ....."no thanks, i won't bite " )


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2018)

>Even after all these fines being applied to Intel, which one is the company who keeps dominating the computer market -financially&marketshare- if not ....Intel ?
It was already stated in this thread that Intel profited more from their rebate program than they paid in fines.  NVIDIA has taken the same calculated risk with GPP.

>With this as a given, what is the ..... "moral" lesson for the other companies ?
The FTC doesn't just fine, they enforce as well and reevaluate compliance.  Intel hasn't blatantly been anti-competitive since the FTC dropped the hammer on them.

>perhaps that these kind of tactics can give you dominance over your competitors?
It did, for a while.  Intel had the inferior product (Pentium 4) yet AMD struggled to take marketshare from them.  Intel sweetned the deal for OEMs under the table so they wouldn't offer AMD products.

>After all these methods being applied by Intel all these years, and still Intel being No1 , who can blame nVidia or any other company who will behave similarily ?
Intel remained dominant because of their process technology edge.  Now with Global Foundries matching and exceeding Intel, Intel is losing marketshare again.  Anti-competition law isn't about weakening businesses that sell good products; it is about stopping companies from shaping the market that is a barrier to competitors.

NVIDIA knows it's illegal and did it anyway.  They're making the same calculated decision Intel did ~15 years ago.  GPP's days are numbered because the law will eventually catch up.

> Still, besides all these methods that were used against AMD in the past, where exactly do we stand now at the present moment ?
AMD is selling chips to Intel as part of their semi-custom business.  NVIDIA and Intel have a strained relationship, more so than AMD and Intel.  Intel wanted a more powerful GPU because customers demand it, they didn't want to create one themselves for some reason, and they don't want to do business with NVIDIA, AMD was the only remaining choice.


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 28, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ...........................
> AMD is selling chips to Intel as part of their semi-custom business.  NVIDIA and Intel have a strained relationship, more so than AMD and Intel.  Intel wanted a more powerful GPU because customers demand it, they didn't want to create one themselves for some reason, and they don't want to do business with NVIDIA, *AMD was the only remaining choice*.



Yeah but my point was *how AMD chooses to behave, not Intel or nVidia:*
since they don't have a problem to work with a company which applied these kind of fierce tactics against AMD many times in the past then why should i , the customer care? They are the directly-affected side but still , they are doing business with their former rivals so...... 
-(*to be honest, untill i saw Jim's video i wasn't aware of all these tactics that's why i posted this video.
I only remembered the incident with *nVidia's nForce chipsets,* -since i used to buy nForce motherboards back then- , which they were forced out of the market after a law dispute with Intel if i'm not mistaken. They were great chipsets as well, but , unlike now, i don't remember any tech-journalist  starting a campaign back then saying "These tactics will damage consumer choices" .
Consumer choice indeed have been impacted back then though !!  )-


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2018)

I don't get your point.  AMD isn't holding a grudge against Intel for something they did 15 years ago and were paid $1.25 billion to AMD to settle (2009).  It's water under the bridge until Intel does it again.

You couldn't get AMD chips from Dell back when Intel was doing the rebates even though AMD had the better product.  People buy Dells not caring what is in them.  AMD was fiscally damaged because of the Dell/Intel arragement and Dell's customers were unwittingly getting inferior, uncompetitive products.


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 28, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't get your point.  *AMD isn't holding a grudge against Intel for something they did 15 years ago and were paid $1.25 billion to AMD to settle (2009).  It's water under the bridge until Intel does it again.*
> 
> You couldn't get AMD chips from Dell back when Intel was doing the rebates even though AMD had the better product.  People buy Dells not caring what is in them.  AMD was fiscally damaged because of the Dell/Intel arragement and Dell's customers were unwittingly getting inferior, uncompetitive products.




*Exactly my point.*
Since companies use to settle between them, then why should i be "obsessed" defending their interests ? !!
I was extremely sad back then, when due to legal arguments, a product that i used to buy ( nForce motherboards  ) had been cut-off from the market, regardless of their high quality as a product. But these are the standard multinational-corporate tactics so i'm not surprised.
[*I know (*and after i saw Jim's video i'm most certain), as i'm sure you know as well, that multinational-companies will exploit every leverage they have in order to gain more &more marketshare].
BUT.... I can't -and never won't- understand Kyle's ......"obsession" about the GPProgram. !! That's my main problem.
That with the use of titles such as *"GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice"* Kyle transforms a matter that should be settled at courts between companies, -whether this is legal or not-, into a matter that implicates consumers. He acts like he's not aware that these are standard multinational-companies-methods that's why i posted Jim's video, in order for all of us to remember what Intel used to do all these past years, and also, that's why i said that* with nForce chipsets being cut-off, the "consumer choices had been also impacted" *.Did anyone started a campaign back then in order to "protect consumer choices" ? I can't remember such a thing if anyone remembers differently he/she can enlighten me .....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2018)

>I was extremely sad back then, when due to legal arguments, a product that i used to buy ( nForce motherboards ) had been cut-off from the market, regardless of their high quality as a product. But these are the standard multinational-corporate tactics so i'm not surprised.
Moving the memory controller (and later GPU) to the CPU eliminated the incentive to have different chipset manufacturers.  Two chip packages are more costly, slower, and less efficient than integrating chipset features into the CPU.  In other words, the chipset market was going away for good because of the evolution of technology.  Motherboard manufactures can still implement competitive features of their own using the PCIE lanes the CPU exposes.

>Kyle transforms a matter that should be settled at courts between companies, -whether this is legal or not-, into a matter that implicates consumers.
It won't go to court without public drawing the interest of regulators.  How is "GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice" wrong?  GPP certainly isn't improving consumer choice.

>Did anyone started a campaign back then in order to "protect consumer choices" ?
Not really because the primary reason why NVIDIA got into the chipset business is to sell integrated GeForce chips.  Why did that technology work? Because the memory controller was in the chipset too.  Since the memory controller moved to the chipset, the integrated GPU did too.  In the end, consumer choice expanded because now they have an integrated GPU with the option of installing a dedicated GPU.  You can also buy processors that have no integrated GPU as well.

People weren't happy about VIA and NVIDIA getting left behind but it was inevitable due to CPU memory needs.

Edit: Here's a thread from the time NVIDIA left the market: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/10/09/1438204/NVIDIA-To-Exit-Chipset-Business

Remember, Intel signed a licensing agreement with NVIDIA to make their own integrated GPUs.  



			
				NVIDIA said:
			
		

> We will continue to innovate integrated solutions for Intel’s FSB architecture. We firmly believe that this market has a long healthy life ahead. But because of Intel’s improper claims to customers and the market that we aren’t licensed to the new DMI bus and its unfair business tactics, it is effectively impossible for us to market chipsets for future CPUs. So, until we resolve this matter in court next year, we’ll postpone further chipset investments for Intel DMI CPUs.


That quote lead me to this: https://www.anandtech.com/show/4122/intel-settles-with-nvidia-more-money-fewer-problems-no-x86/2


> The most notable bit here is that the chipset license agreement will now formally define that NVIDIA does not gain rights to DMI/QPI, which the agreement defines as being Intel processors with an on-chip/on-die memory controller. So while the company can continue to produce C2D chipsets, they will not be able to produce a Nehalem or Sandy Bridge chipset.


No court is going to compel Intel to license DMI/QPI to NVIDIA when there's little in the way of profit margins there (can't reasonably differentiate their product from Intel's).


I don't think NVIDIA sued AMD over chipsets likely because AMD was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy at the time and AMD can't really offer NVIDIA anything NVIDIA wants unlike Intel.  Intel effectively paved the way for AMD to make APUs.


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 28, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> .............................
> >Kyle transforms a matter that should be settled at courts between companies, -whether this is legal or not-, into a matter that implicates consumers.
> It won't go to court without public drawing the interest of regulators.  How is "GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice" wrong?  GPP certainly isn't improving consumer choice.
> ........................................



This is a legal matter. Kyle shouldn't take position "flaming" things up.
I'm not a lawyer , he's not a lawyer, so we are both unable to judge what is inside legal boundaries or outside of them.
He said that he counseled his lawers and they told him that this program is most likely illegal, *BUT* nVidia has also their own lawyers, who have surely advised the company about the legality of this matter. So, obviously the lawyers from one of the two sides are mistaken. And since Kyle isn't a judge in order to make statements on legal matters, these are issues that should be addressed at courts, and Kyle shouldn't "flaming" things for which the courts haven't reached a decision yet.

P.S. As for the point whether or not this program "hurts consumer choices" , as a consumer myself , i have an entirely different perspective than Kyle's, and i can judge for myself if this "hurts" me or not.
I have analyzed my opinion extensively at [H]'s thread, before i get a warning from Kyle because i was just stating opinions that were different than his own.
1) To summarise *very very briefly*, one of the things i said: (  https://hardforum.com/threads/geforce-partner-program-impacts-consumer-choice.1955963/page-15 )


> *4b)* The argument expressed by the "power community" is that the consumers will be "hurt" if the market is shifted even more towards NVidia. _*BUT*_... If this statement is correct, then it should apply for the OS systems as well, where Microsoft dominates the gaming market with their OS for decades, but ironicaly in this case no "power-user" is saying that this "hurts" the consumer's interests, no "power-user" is saying let's stop bying their products because this is damaging our interests from consumer-perspective (*which is their exact argument towards NVidia !! that if AMD looses ground this won't be beneficial to consumers in longterm!! So why wouldn't this argument apply for the OS area as well ?? *and why the "power-community" doesn't say the same arguments for the windows OS as well?? * )


2)*EDIT:*


> 4b) Not according to Steam Survey, where *98%* of the OS are windows-based !!. We are talking about complete control of the gaming-market, so.... if it is claimed that there will be in the future a negative effect at the consumer market, as a result of NVidia's acts , then with the same logic , _*there is already*_ a negative effect at the consumer market because of Microsoft's dominance as well, right ?


and also
3) I said here at TPU : ( https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...eon-graphics-cards.243088/page-2#post-3825246 )


> Where exactly is the problem here ? (*i'm not referring to you personally, just used your comment in order to make a general comment)
> Why are we all so "stunned" ? All these years there have been companies that support *ONLY ONE manufacturer*.
> Palit, Zotac, Gainward etc they support *ONLY nVidia* , while Sapphire, Asrock(*new addition to the market) etc , they do support* ONLY AMD. *
> So, apparently now, other companies that -untill now- they have been supplying both manufacturers, they are now adjusting their strategy.
> *Why haven't we  been complaining all these past years about Sapphire which only supports AMD, or Zotac which only supports nVidia?* If these have the right to support only 1, then why exactly ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI etc, don't have the right to revise their policy at some point as well , if they feel that this revision will serve their interests better


P.S.2: Thanks for the link about nForce by the way. I'll give it a look tomorrow. *EDIT:*From what i can remember though, is that until those chipsets were cut-off from the market, according to reviews, they had superior performance than their competitor's. And for myself , as a consumer  that was what mattered the most


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2018)

sith'ari said:


> This is a legal matter. Kyle shouldn't take position "flaming" things up.
> I'm not a lawyer , he's not a lawyer, so we are both unable to judge what is inside legal boundaries or outside of them.
> He said that he counseled his lawers and they told him that this program is most likely illegal, *BUT* nVidia has also their own lawyers, who have surely advised the company about the legality of this matter. So, obviously the lawyers from one of the two sides are mistaken. And since Kyle isn't a judge in order to make statements on legal matters, these are issues that should be addressed at courts, and Kyle shouldn't "flaming" things for which the courts haven't reached a decision yet.


To go to court, you need to be damaged.  Who were damaged? MSI, Gigabyte, ASUS.  These are not US-based companies so they're protected by US anti-trust law.  Instead of trying to fight it, they agreed to GPP's terms.

AMD is not the wounded party, at least not directly.  They can't file suit until the effects of GPP definitively come back to them or a regulatory body like the FTC already rules that the terms of GPP are anti-trust material.  Thing is, FTC doesn't investigate what they don't know about.  Here's the timeline of what happened:
1) NVIDIA changed the terms of GPP.
2) AMD caught wind of this and communicated with their contacts trying to collect information about the language of the GPP because they could not obtain it directly from NVIDIA.
3) Kyle was one of the contacts and he started digging around.  Because he wasn't directly affiliated with NVIDIA, the involved companies would talk off the record about GPP with him.
4) Kyle collated the information and ran it past his lawyers before publishing it knowing that his bridge to NVIDIA can be burned by going public with it.
5) The noise that Kyle's article generated caused other technology journalists to take a look at GPP to try to confirm/deny the claims.  Most have responsed in concurrence.
6) The FTC started a probe into GPP.  It often takes a year or more for the case to be brought forward.
7) Once the FTC rules GPP is anti-competitive, AMD will file suit against NVIDIA using the FTC ruling as leverage to get a settlement out of NVIDIA for damaging AMD's graphics card business.



sith'ari said:


> 1) To summarise *very very briefly*, one of the things i said: (  https://hardforum.com/threads/geforce-partner-program-impacts-consumer-choice.1955963/page-15 )


Consumers and developers alike choose Windows.  Name a specific anti-competitive practice Microsoft did the enforce their market dominance in the last two decades (e.g. buy out competitor, pay people to use their product over a competitors, etc.).



sith'ari said:


> 3) I said here at TPU : ( https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...eon-graphics-cards.243088/page-2#post-3825246 )


Who these companies want to do business with is entirely up to them; however, when a company decides to offer both products, NVIDIA can't pressure them to do anything where AMD is concerned and AMD can't pressure them to do anything where NVIDIA is concerned.  That's anticompetitive.



sith'ari said:


> From what i can remember though, is that until those chipsets were cut-off from the market, according to reviews, they had superior performance than their competitor's. And for myself , as a consumer  that was what mattered the most


Performance didn't matter much after the FSB was moved entirely into the CPU.

Let's pretend that someone like NVIDIA wanted to make chipsets today.  The only things they can do is modify USB2, USB3, SATA, PS/2, parallel ports, and maybe integrate audio.  Thing is, all chipsets have the same PCIE budget exposed to it from the CPU.  By adding more of these features, you reduce the lanes available to NVMe and AIBs.  There's little in the way of differentiation between your product and what AMD/Intel offers.  That's not because AMD/Intel wanted to shut NVIDIA out of the market; it's because the necessity for more bandwidth has lead to bringing everything closer to the CPU.  Chipsets aren't a big money business anymore.


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 28, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> To go to court, you need to be damaged.  Who were damaged? MSI, Gigabyte, ASUS.  These are not US-based companies so they're protected by US anti-trust law.  Instead of trying to fight it, they agreed to GPP's terms.
> 
> AMD is not the wounded party, at least not directly.  They can't file suit until the effects of GPP definitively come back to them or a regulatory body like the FTC already rules that the terms of GPP are anti-trust material.  Thing is, FTC doesn't investigate what they don't know about.  Here's the timeline of what happened:
> 1) NVIDIA changed the terms of GPP.
> ...



Interesting info, but as i said i can't (*i'm not a lawer) , and don't want to comment on legal matters. This is court's job not mine.
What i can do though is using my logic and try to make logical assumptions. So let me ask you this:
You said that : "5) *The noise that Kyle's article generated* caused other technology journalists to take a look at GPP to try to confirm/deny the claims.  Most have responsed in concurrence."
Since only Kyle can claim that he has a certain document which proves that the agreement is illegal, this means that neither of us have the facts in order to conclude whether or not Kyle's statement is accurate. [*We must take his word for it, and personally, for different reasons than you can imagine (*not related to this thread, but an older topic) i have strong personal reasons to have some doubts.]
Anyway, to the point:
Let's say *hypothetical*, that the FTC will make a verdict which says that GPP *isn't* anti-competitive.
*If this happens*, can you tell me what nVidia can claim from Kyle afterwards ,if we take into consideration all this "flame" that Kyle has created so far that has damaged nVidia's reputation to the public from "*The noise that Kyle's article generated*" as you said ???



FordGT90Concept said:


> Consumers and developers alike choose Windows.  *Name a specific anti-competitive practice Microsoft did* the enforce their market dominance in the last two decades (e.g. buy out competitor, pay people to use their product over a competitors, etc.).



Fine (**EDIT:*although, if i'm not mistaken , Microsoft was forced to be split in two back in 2000, due to monopoly tactics, but i can't remember exactly what happened, i must re-check it https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/jun/07/microsoft.business1  ), but until the courts judge otherwise, *NOR *nVidia has applied so far anything that is an anti-competitive practice!!
The only one so far who claims this,  is Kyle, and since he's not a judge as far as i know, he has no authority to imply such things unless he goes to courts to prove himself right !!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2018)

sith'ari said:


> *If this happens*, can you tell me what nVidia can claim from Kyle afterwards ,if we take into consideration all this "flame" that Kyle has created so far that has damaged nVidia's reputation to the public from "*The noise that Kyle's article generated*" as you said ???


NVIDIA likely already refuses to do business with him.  If FTC rules in favor of NVIDIA and NVIDIA can prove that what Kyle said damaged them, they could sue him for defamation.  The opposite is also true: if NVIDIA did shut him out and FTC ruled they were anti-competitive, Kyle can sue for damages because they cut him off from being able to review NVIDIA hardware as a technology journalist.




sith'ari said:


> Fine (**EDIT:*although, if i'm not mistaken , Microsoft was forced to be split in two back in 2000, due to monopoly tactics, but i can't remember exactly what happened, i must re-check it https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/jun/07/microsoft.business1  ), but until the courts judge otherwise, *NOR *nVidia has applied so far anything that is an anti-competitive practice!!


Microsoft appealed the decision and then settled with the Department of Justice.  Microsoft was never split. Try again.


----------



## sith'ari (Apr 28, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ..................
> Microsoft appealed the decision and then settled with the Department of Justice.  Microsoft was never split. Try again.



thanks for the update, i wasn't sure what had happened. 
So , although we had a judge's decision against Microsoft, afterwards Microsoft appealed and the judge's decision had been cancelled!!
So, what does Microsoft's case tells us? That even a primal-court's decision is possible be reversed afterwards through appeal, and in this case for nVidia, so far we don't even have a primal-court decision!!! 
So, based on Microsoft's case, we can see how premature is right now for certain people to state a judge-alike verdicts for nVidia, without even having the authority to do that !!


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 28, 2018)

sith'ari said:


> thanks for the update, i wasn't sure what had happened.
> *So , although we had a judge's decision against Microsoft, afterwards Microsoft appealed and the judge's decision had been cancelled!!*
> So, what does Microsoft's case tells us? That even a primal-court's decision is possible be reversed afterwards through appeal, and in this case for nVidia, so far we don't even have a primal-court decision!!!
> So, based on Microsoft's case, we can see how premature is right now for certain people to state a judge-alike verdicts for nVidia, without even having the authority to do that !!



Did you read it? Microsoft was still found guilty. The penalties was what was being appealed.


----------



## Xzibit (May 4, 2018)

Say it isn't so

*Nvidia Blog: Pulling the Plug on GPP, Leaning into GeForce*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 4, 2018)

Back pedaling isn't going to stop the FTC from filing anti-trust charges.


----------



## bug (May 4, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Back pedaling isn't going to stop the FTC from filing anti-trust charges.


To this day, the only detectable "harm" in GPP was separate gaming lines for AMD and Nvidia cards.
If AMD didn't prod Kyle at HardOCP to write that inflamatory article, I wonder if anyone noticed GPP at all.


----------



## HTC (May 4, 2018)

bug said:


> To this day, the only detectable "harm" in GPP was separate gaming lines for AMD and Nvidia cards.
> If AMD didn't prod Kyle at HardOCP to write that inflamatory article, *I wonder if anyone noticed GPP at all*.



Apparently, nVidia noticed enough that it dropped it altogether ... not worth the negative publicity, i'm guessing.


----------



## bug (May 4, 2018)

HTC said:


> Apparently, nVidia noticed enough that it dropped it altogether ... not worth the negative publicity, i'm guessing.


That doesn't even make sense. I was (rhetorically) asking what would have happened in the absence of HardOCP's article, not in the wake of it.


----------



## Xzibit (May 4, 2018)

I find it interesting that rather be transparent about the program they choose not to be.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 4, 2018)

bug said:


> To this day, the only detectable "harm" in GPP was separate gaming lines for AMD and Nvidia cards.


Which was NVIDIA's intent.



HTC said:


> Apparently, nVidia noticed enough that it dropped it altogether ... not worth the negative publicity, i'm guessing.


NVIDIA already got what they wanted out of it: the most valuable graphics card brands are now exclusively NVIDIA.



bug said:


> That doesn't even make sense. I was (rhetorically) asking what would have happened in the absence of HardOCP's article, not in the wake of it.


NVIDIA would have got their way and no one would be the wiser except a tiny group of executives.



Xzibit said:


> I find it interesting that rather be transparent about the program they choose not to be.


Because they knew it likely wasn't legal so they flew the program under the RADAR.  Luckily someone caught a glimpse of it and investigated.


----------



## bug (May 4, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> NVIDIA already got what they wanted out of it: the most valuable graphics card brands are now exclusively NVIDIA.



Valuable to whom? Cause I certainly don't give a rat's ass what's written on the box.


----------



## Xzibit (May 4, 2018)

bug said:


> Valuable to whom? Cause I certainly don't give a rat's ass what's written on the box.



To Nvidia.


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 5, 2018)

Let's just all be thankful it is over, some like freedom of choice, others pretend to care about the freedom of choice.

We need a fair fight after all, it's great Nvidia offered the GTX 1080 back in May 2016, what we don't need is AMD offering GTX 1080 performance a year and a half later.


----------



## kruk (May 5, 2018)

bug said:


> Valuable to whom? Cause I certainly don't give a rat's ass what's written on the box.



It's obviously valuable to hundreds of millions of other PC users. Why else would nVidia waste money on this? Come on ...


----------



## sith'ari (May 5, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> Let's just all be thankful it is over, *some like freedom of choice, others pretend to care about the freedom of choice*.
> 
> We need a fair fight after all, it's great Nvidia offered the GTX 1080 back in May 2016, what we don't need is AMD offering GTX 1080 performance a year and a half later.



*Indeed, i've had great freedom of choice all these past months where the "mining-inflation" has driven GPU prices to sky-high, and for months we couldn't even buy a mid-range GPU without paying a fortune !!*
But nevertheless, ..... thank God that this GPProgram was abandoned and now my i can finally feel that my consumer-rights are protected and safeguarded !! ..... 
So now , with the end of GPP, i can finally say that : *"my consumer choices are not impacted anymore"*  (*or just like Kyle said: *"WE won"*  !!! https://hardforum.com/threads/nvidia-pulling-plug-on-gpp.1959889/ )


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 5, 2018)

Actually, it is until those that bent over backwards for NVIDIA course correct.  Hopefully when the FTC catches up, they'll order NVIDIA to pay damages to those companies that signed on because they felt they had no choice.


----------



## sith'ari (May 5, 2018)

The point here is that this hole "GPP grand-campaign" started in order to protect from nVidia the ...."*consumer choices that were being impacted by GPP*" ( https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/07/geforce_partner_program_impacts_consumer_choice ) 
*UNLIKE*... AMD whose primary goal is to always "*protect consumer choices*"  : 









So, as i said at my previous post, now with the end of GPP, i can finally say that : *"my consumer choices are not impacted anymore"*


----------



## bug (May 5, 2018)

kruk said:


> It's obviously valuable to hundreds of millions of other PC users. Why else would nVidia waste money on this? Come on ...


Ah, GPP is bad because Nvidia was some brands for themselves and the brands are vaulable because Nvidia wants them.
Circular reasoning, but I'll take it if that the best you can come up with.


----------



## Prince Valiant (May 6, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> Let's just all be thankful it is over, some like freedom of choice, others pretend to care about the freedom of choice.
> 
> We need a fair fight after all, it's great Nvidia offered the GTX 1080 back in May 2016, what we don't need is AMD offering GTX 1080 performance a year and a half later.


Not that it matters when we're still sitting at that performance two years later.


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 6, 2018)

Yeah sadly a lack of competition slows things down, hey ho.


----------



## Xzibit (May 6, 2018)

Hardware Unboxed: Gamers Win! Nvidia GPP Abandoned


----------



## kruk (May 6, 2018)

bug said:


> Ah, GPP is bad because Nvidia was some brands for themselves and the brands are vaulable because Nvidia wants them.
> Circular reasoning, but I'll take it if that the best you can come up with.



Well, still better than constant regurgitating that GPP is (was) something good  .


----------



## bug (May 6, 2018)

kruk said:


> Well, still better than constant regurgitating that GPP is (was) something good  .


So you don't think AMD can sell as many cards if they're branded separately?

Edit: Also, if you can please show me where I (or anyone else) said GPP was good, that would be much appreciated. Because the crux of this matter is GPP wasn't public (then again, so are other commercial agreements, but let's not let that stand in the way of a good hating). To conlcude something you don't have access to is either good or bad, requires quite a bit of bias on one's side. Because logic tells us, whether that thing is good or bad, you can't actually tell.


----------



## kruk (May 6, 2018)

bug said:


> Edit: Also, if you can please show me where I (or anyone else) said GPP was good, that would be much appreciated.



Sorry, a non native speaker mistake. With "good" I meant => fine, ok, non-problematic, harmless, etc. I think I don't need to provide quotes for that ...

Additionally, you can find the answer to your first question in my post history. I said everything that has to be said about GPP and now that it's finally dead (or at least looks that way) it's time to move on ...


----------

