The GeForce Partner Program has some Kool-Aid it would like you to try

Subject: General Tech | March 8, 2018 - 03:26 PM |
Tagged: dirty pool, nvidia, gpp, GeForce Partner Program

[H]ard|OCP have posted an article looking at the brand new GeForce Partner Program which NVIDIA has announced that has a striking resemblance to a certain Intel initiative ... which turned out poorly.  After investigating the details for several weeks, including attempts to talk with OEMs and AIBs some serious concerns have been raised, including what seems to be a membership requirement to only sell NVIDIA GPUs in a product line which is aligned with GPP.  As membership to the GPP offers "high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF)" this would cut out a company which chose to sell competitors products from quite a few things.

At this time NVIDIA has not responded to inquiries and the OEMs and AIBs which [H] spoke to declined to make any official comments; off the record there were serious concerns about the legality of this project.  Expect to hear more about this from various sites as they seek the transparency which NVIDIA Director John Teeple mentioned in his post.

View Full Size

"While we usually like to focus on all the wonderful and immersive worlds that video cards and their GPUs can open up to us, today we are tackling something a bit different. The GeForce Partner Program, known as GPP in the industry, is a "marketing" program that looks to HardOCP as being an anticompetitive tactic against AMD and Intel."

Here is some more Tech News from around the web:

Tech Talk


Source: [H]ard|OCP

Video News

March 8, 2018 | 04:00 PM - Posted by RadioActiveLobster

Nvidia. You have 80% of the market and an objectively better product.

Why do you do this crap?

March 8, 2018 | 04:08 PM - Posted by JohnGR

Because they would like to keep having 80% of the market FOREVER. Even in the case that competition manages to offer something better.

March 12, 2018 | 04:42 PM - Posted by pohzzer (not verified)

Because in 2019 Nvidia, like Intel, will be facing AMD's modular CPU and GPU architectures on 7nm (10nm for Intel) with their monolithic designs which will have hugely inferiors yield curves, further AMD is splitting their gaming and compute architectures so Nvidia will be competing with a comparable performance architecture while paying substantially more for that performance.

GPP is Nvidia's profit extending ploy until they have their own modular architecture in production.

March 8, 2018 | 04:19 PM - Posted by Anony mouse (not verified)

Some tech-sites still have balls. The vast majority just take the compensation and stay quiet.

March 8, 2018 | 04:39 PM - Posted by Paganstomp (not verified)

And will suffer the consequences like 3DFX did.

March 8, 2018 | 05:19 PM - Posted by ipkh

What new about this? AMD has a similar program. That's like complaining about Gameworks and The Way Its Meant To Be Played logo in video games. You still see AND optimized titles as well.
It would be worth investigating what tours of anticompetitive terms ate in the actual contract language, but none of the things mentioned are odd or illegal unless done unfairly. Intel got in trouble for not honoring the terms with vendors that sold AMD processors no matter what volume they still bought from Intel and qualified for rebates for and gave extra money to vendors that only sold Intel chips.

Thete are plenty of shops that sell both Nvidia and AMD parts so I find it hard to imagine Nvidia is pulling the same stunts. Also, why is AMD shopping this around now and not complaining to the FTC which has jurisdiction here.

March 8, 2018 | 06:10 PM - Posted by NoNoAndNoYouCanNotGreenGoblinCoerceToMaintainMonopolyShare (not verified)

AMD has a program but if an AIB/PC/Laptop OEM decides to not participate they will not be cut out of much of the current Discrete Mobile/Desktop GPU market. As AMD is not a monolopy market share holder in the Discrete mobile/desktop GPU market. And AMD can not legally ask the AIBs/PC/Laptop OEMs to exclude Nvidia as a precondition of being in AMD's program. AMD has little coercion power because AMD has a smaller share of the Discrete Mobile/Desktop GPU market. But Nvidia has that monolopy market share, take it or lose massive revenues, market influnce that can be used as coercion against the AIBs and PC/Laptop OEMs.

It's that exclude AMD explicit requirement/implied reqirement by the Monolopy market holder Nvidia that, wink wink, you will lose massive revenues if you do not "Choose" to participate and FOLLOW our, written or unwritten, Terms and Conditions(Lock AMD OUT unfairly) that will get Nvidia into trouble. All monopoly market share holders are automatically watched by the regulators in case they try to maintain that monopoly market share, in the face of fair competition, by using underhanded and anticompetative tactics.

Those Partner Terms and Conditions(written/implied), incuding the wink wink ones, are subject to the antitrust laws on the books.

March 8, 2018 | 07:31 PM - Posted by ipkh

Neither AMD or Nvidia can put in exclusionary terms. Nvidia might face more scrutiny as the market share leader, but both programs are essentially the same. AMD sponsors some AAA games and Nvidia others. They both have exclusive hardware partners as well.

March 8, 2018 | 10:09 PM - Posted by GamingTitlesAndProcessorMarketsAreDifferentInSomeRespects (not verified)

GPU/CPU/Other processor makers can not tell any third party AIB, PC, Laptop OEM/company to not use another's products that's illegal and any gaming product exclusivity agreements for games should be looked at also if that exclusivity forbids the game from runnning at all on a competitors non console hardware. Now as far as the GPU makers making sure the games run properly on their specific hardware then that may just be because of hardware differences. That's dependent on if a GPU maker is messing with some standard functionality that should be open and able to run on all hardware or if there is some justifiable hardware difference that can not be helped simply because the other GPU maker/s does not support that hardware feature.

Now if a GPU maker is funding, In House, it's own titles to run on its own hardware that different and so is console games developed by the console makers for their console product as long as that title is not already available to the wider PC/Laptop market, or even a console competitors products.

Games and other software have to be considered on a case by case basis but any hardware CPU/GPU/other processor maker can not use a market share advantage in an unfair manner contrary to the free markets in an uncompetative manner.

I'd rather all this Hairworks/TressFX and other software/middleware IP be brought into an open standards graphics API and those sorts of things standardized to prevent vendor lock-in for games and for all gaming engines and games to make use of more standards that ease gaming production for the entire industry.

Gaming soffware is a bit different than Hardware in some respects but this must be fair also in addition to hardware where fair and unhendered competition must be the rule in any any market place.

Any monopoly market share holder needs to be watched closely as onec that market share is gained that monolopy holder will not want to give up market share even on the case where the competion's product may be better/offer better performance and be the result of some new innovation. Unfair competition holds back progess and stifles innovation. The whole Computing and Related OS and API/Software market place needs some close attention becaues those markets are very mature and the past 40 years of the PC has had more than its share of antitrust issues that need to be corrected. There has been to much abusive monopoly legal procedings in the technology markets for too long a period of time and matbe it's time for some breakups so fair competition can be maintained for the good of the market.

March 8, 2018 | 11:04 PM - Posted by Bullion (not verified)

All of AMDs graphics APIs are open source:

March 9, 2018 | 02:17 PM - Posted by nwgat (not verified)

this is not gameworks, but gameworks is probably apart of it

think of this, ASUS or MSI makes AMD and NVIDIA Cards, sooo what happends when one of them signs up to this program that is "exclusive nvidia" ? well no more Radeon RX 580 Gaming X models, no more Ryzen APUs because they have Radeon in them (but that wont happend because lol) am just saying you dont want one company to dicate what another smaller company want to do in their product line

intel has done this in the past, giving out millions of dollars to only limit amd in the market, so you only got a crappy pentium 4 when you could have a nice athlon 64 with all the 64-bit (amd64 aka EMT64 aka x86_64 aka x64 is an AMD technology) goodness

what do you like? do you like corsair? what if the OEM that makes corsair PSUs says nope we want you to only sell vacuum cleaners, nothing more (we will pay you corsair for only selling those vacuum cleaners no more neat looking computer parts for you)

anyway out, have a fun day, open market for all (FYI gameworks is nice but it even messes up perf on nvidias own cards lol)

March 9, 2018 | 03:40 AM - Posted by AnonymousXCX (not verified)

WTF! .. GO TO HELL PR criminal! seriously ! GO TO HELL !

March 8, 2018 | 05:32 PM - Posted by Photonboy

*Hey guys,
Read the HARDOCP article before even commenting:

"NVIDIA will tell you that it is 100% up to its partner company to be part of GPP, and from the documents I have read, if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner."

It's not a simple BRANDING and association issue. The problem is if they use ANTI-COMPETITIVE practices to encourage companies NOT use a competitor like AMD to gain benefits.

This was at the heart of Intel's illegal practices where they had pricing tiers based on how many AMD CPU's a company (like HP) would use.

I like NVidia products. I think they're pretty solid but we need AMD to be given the chance to make a solid product.

After all, look at CPU pricing especially for higher-core products before and after Ryzen/EPYC started offering competition.

March 9, 2018 | 06:19 AM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

To be fair this is less clear cut than Intel IMO.

With Intel it was simply a matter of only sell our CPUs or else, with this it sounds more like we'll let you take peek behind the curtain, give you access to some sensitive information on our GPUs, and help you out or involve you more in our products if you promise only to deal with us.

That's not to say i agree with it but from a legal perspective they could argue that they don't want to give AIB companies privileged information about their GPUs only for it to end up in the hand of their competitors.

March 9, 2018 | 11:46 AM - Posted by psuedonymous

" if you promise only to deal with us."

It's not even THAT far. The GPP requires the 'brand' to be Nvidia only, but the company can simply have a second brand for AMD cards without any conflict with the GPP terms. For example, NotARealOEM could have a GreenFast GPU brand for Nvidia cards eligable for GPP, and a RedFast brand for AMD cards, but they could not have a BrownFast brand for both Nvida and AMD cards and have that be eligible for GPP.

March 9, 2018 | 12:48 PM - Posted by UnfairMarketTacticsByAndStreachOfTheImagination (not verified)

So it's Nvidia's $$$/Clout(via fear of lost Nvidia Favor/lost business revenues among the third party AIB/PC/Laptop gaming OEMs) that gets the better/longer known third parties' AIB/PC/Laptop Gaming Branding that these third parties have fostered over the years while AMD is forced under some unknown new branding that the AIB/PC/Laptop OEMs have to pull out of their nether regions. And how can this unfair branding grab by a the big discrete mobile/desktop GPU monopoly market share holder be seen as proper and legal.

This is not excusable fair market behavior by Nvidia and there is already a long established history of AIB, PC, and Laptop OEM Branding where AMD's gaming products where marketed under these third party entities long and established Gaming Branding that was fostered at some expence by these thrid party entities(Gaming focused AIB, PC, and Laptop third parties respective well known and trademarked gaming branding).

This will not be looked upon nicely by any regulators or courts that are charged with enforcing antitrust laws. This is an illegal attempt by Nvidia to reduce unfairly AMD's mind-share in the discrete mobile/desktop GPU based AIB, PC, Laptop market. The Third Party Gaming focused AIB, PC, and Laptop third parties' gaming branding can not be hijacked by Nvidia in an attempt to unfairly exercise its monopoly market influence in a manner that runs counter to the antitrust laws and regulations that where specifically created to curb these sorts of market tactics by a monopoly market share holder.

I'll repeat this once again having a monopoly market share(natural monopoly) is not in itself illegal but using that monopoly market share to coerce any third party AIBs, PC, Laptop OEMs into a vertically controlled scheme that attempts to deprive the competition of any fair and equal treatment with the third party AIBs, PC, Laptop OEMs(Well Known Gaming Marketing Branding Exclusionary Treatment) is the very dictionary definition of an abusive monopoly market holder behavior and is illegal under the antitrust laws that where enacted to prevent such behavior from occurring.

March 9, 2018 | 02:23 PM - Posted by nwgat (not verified)

hehe, my HD 7970 is still alive and kicking after 5 years, there is one thing, turn off gameworks, for one they mess up the performance so bad on every card from both nvidia and amd that you want to have it off anyway

you really should try amd when the mining craze is over that is, now they pretty impossible to get unless you building a htpc and put a Ryzen 2400G with RX Vega 11 in it ;)

AMD Graphics Cards are built to last forever, case in point my father has a 5870, thats still works and is running in his computer

March 8, 2018 | 05:37 PM - Posted by NoNoAndNoYouCanNotGreenGoblinCoerceToMaintainMonopolyShare (not verified)

Nvidia is in a metaphysical state of angst about AMD's Zen/Ryzen APUs and that large block of integrated GPU market share potential. So AMD's Raven Ridge repersents a very large market for Vega graphics and assoicated gaming engine/games software developer attention. And that attention will see AMD's Vega Integrated graphics vigorously tweaked by games developers who will want to reach that potentiall large Raven Ridge with integrated Vega graphics installed hardware market base. Ditto for that Intel/AMD semi-custom system on an EMIB/MCM.

Nvidia's methods with this Partner Program however, because of Nvidia's large overall monopoly in the PC/Laptop discrete gaming GPU market, can be seen by the antitrust regulators/courts as coercive. This is illegal because of Nvidia's Monolopy market share is so large that any PC/Laptop Discrete GPU AIB partner/laptop OEM that refuses to "Optionally" not participate will risk losing the majority of their diecrete Gaming GPU market access because Nvidia's GPU market share there is so very high. And I'll include Laptop OEMs in with the AIB partners as for laptops the GPU comes with the laptop on the laptops MB or MXM in most cases that is sourced directly from the GPU maker in a similar manner to the AIB OEM's.

Nvidia can be seen as illegially enforcing a virtical market control over the AIB GPU market OEM's, PC OEMs, and laptop OEMs and those OEM's individual Gaming GPU oriented marketing Brands, that Nvidia wishes to monopolise in direct violation of the antitrusts laws already on the books. Nvidia is illegially trying to push AMD's products out of those AIB/PC/Laptop OEM's Gaming oriented brands and out from under the AIB/PC/Laptop OEM's gaming oriented branding. And Nvidia is illegially trying to force its will on the Discrete PC/Laptop Gaming AIB/PC/laptop Market via coercive tactics where Nvidia has an even larger market share than in any Integrated graphics market where Nvidia does not have that much market share(Nintendo Switch) and where Nvidia has to compete fairly via IP and not domination.

The Majority of the Discrete High Margin Highe value gaming GPU market is where Nvidia has that commanding monopoly share and that is where Nvidia's AIB/PC/Laptop OEM market coercive tactics will run afoul of the antitrust laws. Nvidia can not use its overall(Integrated + Discrete) GPU market share in an attempt to justify/dilute(make false equations of market-share) for any coercive market tactics in the Desktop/Laptop/PC/AIB discrete GPU market where Nvidia's marketshare is so large(Nvidia dominates that market).

The discrete PC/AIB/Laptop GPU/Graphics market will be looked on by the courts as a different market segement for the application of any antitrust violation litmus tests and not related market share wise to the integrated SOC/APU graphics/GPU market.

Nvidia can not use it's natural monolopy market share in the Laptop/PC/AIB discrete gaming GPU market to enforce any coercive tactics on the Indipendent AIB OEMs/PC/Laptop to unnaturally maintain that monopoly share. That's the dictionary definition an antitrust violation and Nvidia will have to compete on a level playing field in order to maintain that Discrete GPU monopoly share. Natural monopolies are not illegial but any coercive methods that a current monopoly share holder enforces to hold onto that monopoly market share are the very definition of an illegial market tactic under the federal/and most state's antitrusts laws on the books.

March 8, 2018 | 05:41 PM - Posted by NoNoAndNoYouCanNotGreenGoblinCoerceToMaintainMonopolyShare (not verified)

Edit: OEM that refuses to "Optionally" not participate
to: OEM that decides to "Optionally" not participate

double negative fixed.

March 8, 2018 | 08:44 PM - Posted by Nilbog

Glad to see you guys linking that story here. All the sites that don't talk about this story sometime this week will be losing lots of trust from their audience.

Thanks for not being shills guys :)

March 8, 2018 | 09:10 PM - Posted by Anony mouse (not verified)

Read the article. Many site were pitched the story by AMD. So sites were aware of it but seamed like all lacked interest to do their independent investigation into it.

So he kind of called out the sites for the status quo mentality.

The reaction he received by the OEMs and AIBs is truly telling.

March 8, 2018 | 10:30 PM - Posted by ScaredyCatsAfraidOfFatRATsWhosHandsThatFeedTheSpinMachine (not verified)

Most review sites would go under if their access to those Strings-Attatched free review samples dried up. So maybe it's time to take the hardware makers control over who gets the review samples over to an indipendent impartial entity that is responsible for randomly choosing who in the press gets a review sample. Ditto for the same indipendent impartial entity goning into a randomly chosen retail outlet and getting a non cherry picked review sample from a randomly chose retail location. Make the Hardware makers fund the indipendent impartial entity process where the retail outlet can be compensated with a replacement for the review sample that was obtained for testing by the indipendent impartial entity.

Folks get angry and scared when their bread and butter is put in jeopardy and it's hard to find someone willing to stand up even at such a high cost in the online press that dependends on too many strings attatched with conflicts of intrests in that online press industry that's supposed to be impartial. The online press is not held to the same standards as the very regulared over that air/print press is held to and that may need to be changed also.

March 9, 2018 | 02:01 AM - Posted by Rich Fuck (not verified)

Jeremy you're such a poor faggot.

March 9, 2018 | 03:50 AM - Posted by odizzido2 (not verified)

Jensen Huang is that you?

March 10, 2018 | 01:29 PM - Posted by Rich Fuck (not verified)

No, he has 220,000 more shares then I do.

March 9, 2018 | 08:33 AM - Posted by ALB92 (not verified)

Honestly i don't see how this is on the same level to what Intel did .

Nvidia is giving engineering resources , marketing exposition , exclusive documents etc etc so they obviusly have to ask for brand loyalty.

I mean look at brands like Sapphire or FXF they only make AMD GPU's so do we start screaming at anticompetitive tactics to ?
I don't think so . There will always be OEMs and AIB's who focus more on one side or the other.

Besides that nothing forces them to join such a program , and since nothing comes free in this life , it's up to OEM/AIB's to live with their decisions !

March 9, 2018 | 09:31 AM - Posted by Can'tlogin (not verified)

There is obviously a huge difference between an oem like Sapphire CHOOSING to partner with only one company, and Nvidia PAYING companies on the condition they don't sell any AMD. Calling it "marketing" money is a cute attempt to cloud the fact that they are doing the same illegal thing Intel did... giving special pricing to customers on the condition they don't do any business with AMD.

March 10, 2018 | 10:23 AM - Posted by psuedonymous

" on the condition they don't sell any AMD"

Which is NOT what is happening here. Go read the HardOCP article: The only restriction is on selling GPUs from different vendors under the same branding, Sell it with a different branding (as many AIBs already do), and there is no issue.

March 16, 2018 | 03:55 PM - Posted by Stef (not verified)

Lol, and why do you think Sapphire decided to sell only AMD product? AMD is giving them special advantage, nothing new really

March 9, 2018 | 11:11 AM - Posted by JoniIskandarMuda (not verified)

You are never heard story about one AIB that kick from Nvidia partner because they are selling ATi GPU,, in that Time ATi is better than Nvidia

March 9, 2018 | 11:17 AM - Posted by JoniIskandarMuda (not verified)

EDIT : forget to mention,, thats company is XFX !! yeah you heard me, Nvidia kick small player like XFX because selling AMD brand, while big brand like MSI Gigabyte or Asus just fine selling Both AMD and Nvidia,,,

when GTX 200 and GTX 480 is in position like Vega right now, power Hungry Hot, and expensive but not much performance

March 16, 2018 | 04:04 PM - Posted by Stef (not verified)

What we know, as neither has released an official statement, is that XFX loosed the special treatment and didn't liked that so they themself decided to buy the latest GPUs from NVIDIA and later chased entirely to produce NVIDIA based product.

March 9, 2018 | 11:53 AM - Posted by Anonymousse (not verified)

funny you mention XFX since they were blocked from selling Nvidia card because they started selling AMD GPU and Nvidia didnt like it. Nvidia is one of the most ruthless tech companies there is.

March 9, 2018 | 12:04 PM - Posted by JohnGR

The funny thing here is that Nvidia is doing this to it's customers for about 10 years.

"If you use hardware from our competition, forget CUDA and PhysX".

March 9, 2018 | 11:50 AM - Posted by tatakai

if AMD is successful with CPUs and remains relevant in GPUs, nvidia risks becoming the underdog. AMD is the same company that tried to buy them back in the day and the only reason they are even close in size was thanks to the failing CPU business. CPUs are multiple billions more in revenue globally than GPUs even with crypto mining and AI. intel makes more per quarter from CPUs than Nvidia's whole year.

instead of trying to cheat, they probably should try to go beyond GPUs.

March 9, 2018 | 11:53 AM - Posted by psuedonymous

There's a lot of straw-clutching tin that article, particularly linking it with the Intel antitrust case.

GPP does NOT require an AIB vendor to stop making AMD cards, it just requires them to not share the same brand as the brand Nvidia cards are sold under. An example of this is MSI: they use the "MSI GAMING" brand for Nvidia cards, and the "AMD ARMOR" brand for AMD cards. This would be completely compliant with the GPP terms.

HardOCP use Asus 'ROG' branding as an example of a cross-GPU brand, but the resolution there would be simple: all current Asus GPUs use "ROG Strix" branding. Split AMD cards to "ROG" and Nvidia cards to "Strix" (or vice versa) and the branding issue is resolved.

At no point are AIB vendors prevented from selling cards from other GPU vendors.

Why would Nvidia want this segregation in the first place? If they;re spending their money promoting a brand, they don;t want to be promoting the brand a competitor's cards are sold under.

March 9, 2018 | 01:28 PM - Posted by Jabbadap

ROG, Strix, Gaming, Aorus, Armor etc. are not brands of Nvidia, those are branding of respective AIBs. I can't see how Nvidia could in anyway restrict AIBs using their brands in way they like to use them. If AIB releases some card or product which uses nvidia's own brand naming for non-nvidia system, then I would agree. Like imaginary Titan/gtx laptop without Nvidia gpu or gsync monitor without actual gsync. Only way I can see they might legally restrict AIBs this way, is not allowing to use AIBs own branding at all.

Edit: Apparently MSI does not release Radeon Gaming cards only Armor.

(MSI uses Gaming and Armor brands for both, have been doing that since beginning. And that's actually is the problem. Gaming is considered higher tier than Armor. It's AIBs own commonly known segmentation and they have collected the good name and value for their branding. So marketing point of view that would give Nvidia too much competitive advantage without actual merit.)

March 9, 2018 | 08:48 PM - Posted by psuedonymous

"So marketing point of view that would give Nvidia too much competitive advantage without actual merit."

A simple solution would simply be to create two (or more) new brands to sell under then. These brands are regularly cycled out anyway, so it's not a huge loss (e,g, the retired MSI HydroGen branding, replaced by the SeaHawk branding).
There's even nothing to stop a vendor from keeping an existing brand for the AMD cards only, and creating a whole new brand for Nvidia cards, and getting Nvidia to pay some of the promotion costs under the GPP program.

March 9, 2018 | 09:40 PM - Posted by ItAboutWhatHasOccuredNotWhatYouImagine (not verified)

Building up a brand like for example ROG, others, takes time and cost money and why should any Third Party Gaming AIBs, PC, Laptop OEMs be forced to do that by Nvidia just to please Nvidia's nefarious market cornering schemes.

Nvidia is trying to diminish unfairly AMD's Mind-Share among consumers by trying to illegally force any restrictions by coercive means using Nvidia's Monolopy Market Share to bully Third Party AIBs, PC, Laptop OEMs into going along with such an unfair market practice. Trying to deny AMD the rights to have its GPUs equally used under those Third Party Gaming AIB's, PC, Laptop OEM's LONG STANDIG Gaming Branding that most gaming consumers so easily associate with gaming.

The litmus test for an antitrust violation: Is the majority market share holder(Monopoly) abusing its Monolopy Market Share position in that market by trying to unairly undermine its competition in that same Definded marketplace(Discrete Mobile/Desktop GPUs). Nvidia is definitely trying to undermine AMD's being able to have its GPUs assoicated with the Third Party Gaming AIB's, PC, Laptop OEM's LONG STANDIG Gaming Branding and that will most definitly hurt AMD's consumer gaming mind-share in a negative manner.

The US Justice Department Antitrust division should be opening up some sort of preliminary investigation upon what was stated in that [H]ardOCP article and now picked up by Forbs and other journalistic investigations on this matter need to happen/are happening from the other journalistic sources.

Evidence needs protection at this point so some form of US Justice Department Antitrust division preliminary finding needs to occur so those involved will be aware that obstruction of justice is a serious matter. Emails and other such matters must be preserved and other such evidence that is required to be kept by any publicly traded company.

Nvidia's actions under that GPP that have already occured are what need to be investigated by the regulators and not your continued attempts at confusing matters fruther with you out of left field conjecture.

March 9, 2018 | 09:42 PM - Posted by ItAboutWhatHasOccuredNotWhatYouImagine (not verified)


damn my spelling and proof reading sometimes!

March 9, 2018 | 05:38 PM - Posted by SpeciousPsuedonymousNot (not verified)

Psuedonymous please refer to the other reply to your other post/s. This post of yours as well as the one you made higher up the chain of posts on this forum are the result of the most specious resoning and directed attempts at digressing the debate on your part.

All the third party AIB's, PC, Laptop gaming OEMs' well known and cultivated branding is not Nvidia's to minipulate in an illegial market manner. That is in fact coercion by Nvidia to enforce a virtically(under Nvidia's management control from the top down)influnced Scheme onto the third party entities by Nvidia to illegally leverage Nvidia's MONOLOPY market influnce on the third party AIB's, PC, Laptop gaming OEMs and make them treat AMD differently and have to have a detrimental affect on AMD's Mind-Share in the consumer gaming market.

So Nvidia is illegally trying to coerce and force the third party AIB's, PC, Laptop gaming OEMs to push AMD's products out from under the third party entities' well known and log established third party gaming branding that consumers have come to recognise.

AMD has a right to have its products be treated equally in being under the very same third party entities' respective and well know gaming branding. Nvidia is attempting via subterfuge and coercion to deny AMD an equal market mind-share under the third party entities long standing and well known individual mmarketing branding that Nvidia has no rights to control.

Nvidia(diecrete Desktop/Mobile GPU Monopoly market share holder) can not, through threats of lost benifits or reduced benifits, or different benifits fto these third party entities(OEMs, AIBs, Etc.) coerce the third party AIB's, PC, Laptop gaming OEMs to push AMD's products out from under the long established and well known to the consumer third party entites' respective in-house gaming branding.

Fair market play is enfrcable by antitrust law if Nvidia seeks to deny AMD fair and equal treatment under the third party AIB's, PC, Laptop gaming OEMs' long standing and well known gaming branding. AMD's products can not be forced out from under those third party entities' well known to the consumer respective third party AIB's, PC, Laptop gaming OEMs' branding. That's a big attampt to hurt AMD's recoginition among the consumers that are accustomed to that third party gaming branding.

March 9, 2018 | 08:42 PM - Posted by psuedonymous

"in an illegial market manner"

What law would Nvidia supposedly be breaking? They are not demanding AIB manufacturers join GPP, they are not demanding those who DO join stop making cards from other GPU vendors.

"Nvidia's MONOLOPY market influnce"
"Nvidia(diecrete Desktop/Mobile GPU Monopoly market share holder)"
"antitrust law "

No, Nvidia are not a monopoly, in any way, shape or form. This is a laughably false claim, and one that makes it clear you need to do some significant research into what actually constitutes a monopoly.

March 9, 2018 | 10:27 PM - Posted by ItAboutWhatHasOccuredNotWhatYouImagine (not verified)

Nvidia is the discrete Desktop/Mobile GPU Monopoly market share holder and we are not talking about the overall GPU market because there are no AIB's supplying APU/SOC products as those come directly from AMD and Intel, mostly, and not through any AIB partners. And PCs/laptop OEM's are included because many gaming PC/Laptop OEMs are also AIB OEMs. In the Discrete Desktop/Mobile GPU markets is where Nvidia does most of its consumer business and where compared to AMD/Others is where Nvidia has its Monopoly share of the market.

Nvidia's illegal actions are concerning that discrete Desktop/Mobile GPU illegal market tactics against AMD by coercion of the independent third party AIBs, PC, Laptop OEMs that have their own long standing gaming branding where AMD has a long history of having its GPU products sold under the independent third party AIB’s, PC, Laptop OEM’s long standing gaming branding.

The antitrust laws go all the way back to the 19th century when the Standard oil Trust was abusing its monopoly share of the Oil market to bully the third party independent oil producers into joining under that Trust arrangement where the abusive monopoly market share holder tries to lord over the independent third party independent Oil Producers and vertically integrate the independent Oil Producers into that Trust arrangement by coercive acts. Standard Oil tied up all the railroad oil shipping tank cars and other such things so the independent oil producers with dared go against the Trust(Standard Oil Trust) could not get their oil to market much less to any oil refinery.

In Nvidia’s case Nvidia is trying to get the AIB, PC, and Laptop OEMs that have their respective independent gaming branding to vertically integrate under a Nvidia Trust arrangement where by Nvidia will lord over that market branding and AMD will be denied mind-share and the sales that go along with that mind share much to AMD’s revenue disadvantage and Nvidia’s advantage.

You are once again trying to pepper this whole forum discussion with your attempts at avoiding the truth regarding abusive monopoly tactics and the proper market share context that defines what the proper market segment is in order to apply and properly enforce antitrust law. That discrete mobile/desktop gaming GPU market is the largest market segment by revenue size even though its not as large unit wise compared to the integrated graphics market. PC/Laptop gaming using discrete GPUs is still a large revenue producer in the consumer gaming market and that market still represents the majority of Nvidia’s revenues to this day.

March 11, 2018 | 09:54 PM - Posted by Tony (not verified)

End of the day. Companies like MSI and Asus will just split their gpu department. Then make it own company for AMD or Nvidia cards. Then lease the branding out to that company.

March 12, 2018 | 02:36 AM - Posted by My... name? (not verified)

If only AMD would concentrate on actually coming up with decent, competitive products, instead of making a big scene like some cheap attention whore. It is sad to see that they continue to prove themselves second-rate with their typically petty shenanigans.

March 15, 2018 | 12:32 PM - Posted by Anonymously Anonymous (not verified)

So, you think it is "petty" for a company to call out anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices of another company?

March 14, 2018 | 11:47 AM - Posted by Anonymously Anonymous (not verified)

Why is it that PcPer barely mentions this? Nothing against Jeremy, but this blurb is nothing more than a repeat of what is said on HardOCp.

One of the things being said is that MANY of the tech journos are barely going to touch this subject with a 10ft pole, if they mention it at all for fear of retribution from Nvidia about ANY negative press released.

I wonder if PcPer will mention anything at all about GPP in their next podcast...

March 15, 2018 | 12:26 PM - Posted by Anonymously Anonymous (not verified)

I am somewhat surprised at how long PCPer talked about GPP in their podcast. BUT, take into consideration a few factors:
1. not many tech journos have published anything on Kyle's article about GPP
2. PcPer claims that no answers from Nvidia yet
3. Lenght of GPP segment in podcast
4. Kyle was in the chat room of hte podcast(if that was really him)
5. Intel and AMD collab on low-to-mid-tier gaming laptops, and Nvidia isn't included

Super busy at work at the moment, but all of this combined(and more I can't recall at the moment) points towards there being validity towards some, if not all of what Kyle released.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.