HTCLet 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 ...

HTCwhat would these new "GPP adopting companies" do?

NotebookCheckWe'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.

XzibitThis is interesting.

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

FordGT90ConceptI 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.

FordGT90Concept...........................
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.

FordGT90ConceptI 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.

NVIDIAWe 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.

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.

FordGT90Concept.............................
>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.
........................................

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?? )

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 ?

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

sith'ariThis 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.

sith'ari1) To summarise very very briefly, one of the things i said: ( hardforum.com/threads/geforce-partner-program-impacts-consumer-choice.1955963/page-15 )

sith'ari3) I said here at TPU : ( www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/in-aftermath-of-nvidia-gpp-asus-creates-arez-brand-for-radeon-graphics-cards.243088/page-2#post-3825246 )

sith'ariFrom 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;)

FordGT90ConceptTo 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.

FordGT90ConceptConsumers 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'ariIf 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 ???

sith'ariFine (*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 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!!

FordGT90Concept..................
Microsoft appealed the decision and then settled with the Department of Justice. Microsoft was never split. Try again.

sith'arithanks 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 !!

FordGT90ConceptBack pedaling isn't going to stop the FTC from filing anti-trust charges.

bugTo 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.