Jump to content

nVidia GeForce Partner Program: Well Intention Marketing or Anti-Competitive

WMGroomAK
24 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Market share when nV and AMD cards were close in all metrics was always around a 5% swing in either direction.  That 5% - 10% is your mind share and marketing abilities of each company.

I think you underestimate it. In a perfect world, and would have had a lead of 40% at least when they had better products just like Nvidia has it now. That would put the influence on the mindshare at about 30%. Which is not surprising. Hell you type on Google you architecture: half of the results and 2 thirds of related results contains Nvidia. That shows the consumer obsession with this brand regardless of everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Market share when nV and AMD cards were close in all metrics was always around a 5% swing in either direction.  That 5% - 10% is your mind share and marketing abilities of each company.

No those graphs are only based on units sold, when they were close for like 1 year that will never erase the previous 10 year gap. Nvidia simply always had more GPUs in actual computers being used even when ATI were selling more so if you ask someone what GPU you have at every point in history (where it's been Nvidia or ATI/AMD) the most likely answer is going to be Nvidia, that is where mind share comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, asus killer said:

If i were AMD that's were i would focus, beat the Nvidia flagship, and of course without needing a nuclear powered PSU or some other drawback. And not beat them once and then go back to be overshadowed by Nvidia products, changing customers perceptions of a brand is hard, and no marketing can help you if you constantly trail behind.

Thing is ATI did have the outright best product multiple times, twice the performance gap was so great it forced Nvidia to release dual GPU cards just to keep a showing in the review graphs. When this was happening Nvidia also used more power or it was essentially the same. Your perception of history just goes to show how strong Nvidia's brand actually is, that's not your fault though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I think you need to watch the WAN show and listen to Linus explain it, it's nothing like what you are saying it is. As for smaller partners those are the ones that need to be in GPP the most, again see WAN show.

 

Also Nvidia already enforces branding requirements, again WAN show.

 

GPP is nothing but forcing even more control over the AIB's, that's all any partnership program is at the end of the day for anyone. It's just a set of terms that both parties come to an agreement on but normally that's done with a reasonable level of equal partnership and influence in those negotiations, in this case it's not balanced and Nvidia hold all the leverage so you aren't going to get mutual agreement you're going to get comply or lose out.

 

And you still fundamentally don't get it, GPP is not a choice you must be part of it or forget selling Nvidia products at all otherwise lose money trying to do so.

 

Call it up front all you like but it's anything but. Partnership deals already existed before and those are clear already, they have to be. All the things in those existing contracts are now excursively in GPP, this is just a contract renegotiation but now with potentially unfair terms with no option other than to agree to them.

 

I have no idea why you want to keep supporting this and painting it as everything is fine don't worry about it, you can't possibly know that, you or anyone else here have not seen the GPP terms. Literally no one knows how good or bad it is other than what has been reported and even if you remove some potential truth stretching there is reasonably clear signs Nvidia is trying to force more control over partners that they should not have.

 

The only thing on a graphics card that Nvidia own is the GPU die, nothing else. It's not their product it's the partners and that is even more the case when it's a custom design not reference, but good luck trying to do that now if you're not in GPP. There are very few industries where parts suppliers like Nvidia, or even AMD for that matter, get as much control over the product it's being put in.

Hmm the wan show stated the same things I did, the pass through rebates are a per vendor per circumstance basis. The other "perks' of the program I know first hand that's how they work. When one vendor gets one and another vendor finds out, they go and whine about it to their partner and the partner gives them something else to ease the plight.

 

nV wants more brand requirements.  They have enough leverage right now to ask for more, and the AIB's have no choice but to give it to them if they want to keep doing what they are doing.  And NO nV owns the GPU and the gpu board IP too!,  you think these card makers could make the GPU board without nV telling them how to make it in the first place?  They own ever ounce of those products.    With nV's input on making those boards, their GPU's, their drivers, there is no product.

 

I'm not saying its fine from an end point of view, its fine from a business point of view.  Its AIB's, OEM's want to play ball or go home. 

 

Now do you see why AMD shopped for media?  Cause there is nothing to it.  either the AIB's join this program or there is nothing they can do about it.  Why shop for media if this program is "so" bad, that its anti competitive?  There is no reason to shop for media, if AIB's can't AMD surly can.  They have the cash now, they are making money on Ryzen and going to make more, spend a cool million or 2 in a quarter for lawyers and go at it.  The contract just started its easier to stop it now then later on when it real resources are being put into it.  Going to the media is always a last resort for companies, its when there is nothing else they can do. 

 

BTW Kyle has the contract, that means others do too.  If an AIB was stupid enough to send it to Kyle when Kyle asked them, you can bet AMD was able to do same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Thing is ATI did have the outright best product multiple times, twice the performance gap was so great it forced Nvidia to release dual GPU cards just to keep a showing in the review graphs. When this was happening Nvidia also used more power or it was essentially the same. Your perception of history just goes to show how strong Nvidia's brand actually is, that's not your fault though.

 

It wasn't brand, ATi never had the crown outright for more than one generation (9700 pro and 9800 pro).  And the crown it was only about performance, there were other factors of the graphics card too.  All of these things were outside of marketing.  So then you also have to think about if ATi only had the performance crown for a limited time in the great over all span of things, to gain market share repeatedly quarter after quarter, is going to be hard for them.  That is where brand recognition comes into play.

 

Look any time there were power advantages for either side, they made more sales.  Why, for us its not a big deal.  But for an OEM, a drop in power consumption by lets 50 watts, means the rest of their system, they can cut down costs for cooling and power delivery.  Even at 5 bucks a system savings, when Dell is selling how many system lets say?  Yeah it adds up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

I think you underestimate it. In a perfect world, and would have had a lead of 40% at least when they had better products just like Nvidia has it now. That would put the influence on the mindshare at about 30%. Which is not surprising. Hell you type on Google you architecture: half of the results and 2 thirds of related results contains Nvidia. That shows the consumer obsession with this brand regardless of everything else.

 

 

nada we don't see that at all in play in the market place, the closest competition of products at a certain time were the 78xx series from nV and x18xx series from AMD, look at those market share numbers 45 to 55, then the second 79xx vs 19xx, the marketshare got even closer but the 19xx flexed its muscle with AA and compute needs something nV couldn't show at all.  Next closest after that.  Got wait for 3 gens till we get to the HD 4xxx series. There was a lot of things going on there too, where nV took a loss after a very long time for 2 or 3 quarters.  They had to cut down prices to the point they were scrapping at the bottom of the barrel.

 

 

 

The only time when ATi or AMD had a outright performance crown really was ATi with the 9700, and 9800's with all other metrics on their side too.

 

 

AMD when they came close at times and at times had a smidgen better in performance but the other metrics like power were they comparable?  Not really.

 

AMD didn't even have the performance crown for the HD 4, 5, or 6 series, but they gained market share, why  because its not all about the performance crown, or marketing.  If marketing was able keep Fermi or the gt 200 series on top, we wouldn't see these fluctuations at all.  The HD4xxx 5xxx series for the money and what it could do, was a much better gaming card than anything nV had at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

nV wants more brand requirements.  They have enough leverage right now to ask for more, and the AIB's have no choice but to give it to them if they want to keep doing what they are doing.  And NO nV owns the GPU and the gpu board IP too!,  you think these card makers could make the GPU board without nV telling them how to make it in the first place?  They own ever ounce of those products.    With nV's input on making those boards, their GPU's, their drivers, there is no product.

 

I'm not saying its fine from an end point of view, its fine from a business point of view.  Its AIB's, OEM's want to play ball or go home

No they do not own the graphics card, not at all. See the brand name written on it, that is who owns it period. There is no way to argue that. Nvidia owns the GPU die and the IP that contains, that graphics card contains parts from suppliers that are not Nvidia or designed by Nvidia, how AIB's want to make the graphics card and what parts to choose is up to them. If they were all the same then tear downs and looking at components that are actually different across models and brands would be pointless. Do not confuse licensing rights with ownership.

 

You think the Volkswagen or Toyota engines in cars that use them make it belong to them? Heck no, but they make and sell them to multiple different brands and own all the IP of that engine but the car is still who ever makes it and who's brand is on it.

 

I'm not going to discuss that aspect of it, because it's not true. There's only so much fact distorting I'm willing to hear before I'll throw my hands up and go nope not worth discussing any more because you're totally stuck on Nvidia can do no wrong and anything they are doing is within their right. Holding power doesn't give them a right to do anything, that's precisely where abuse of power comes from and why holding them to account is MORE important in those situations. "Everything is fine nothing to see here" lets them get away with it.

 

Not once have I said any of what has been reported is true or even the full facts but I'll never accept ignore it things are fine or it's Nvidia's business right to do it, what a careless thing to be saying.

 

20 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Its AIB's, OEM's want to play ball or go home

Terrible thing to say and portray as ok.

 

22 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

They have the cash now, they are making money on Ryzen and going to make more, spend a cool million or 2 in a quarter for lawyers and go at it.

A legal battle like this will take more than 2 million.

 

23 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

The contract just started its easier to stop it now then later on when it real resources are being put into it.  Going to the media is always a last resort for companies, its when there is nothing else they can do. 

It's not the last resort, it can often be the best first resort. It gets people looking which can then also help you acquire the required evidence to make a legal challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

The only time when ATi or AMD had a outright performance crown really was ATi with the 9700, and 9800's with all other metrics on their side too.

X800 and X850 were performance crown cards, so was the X1900 and X1950, 5970, 7970 on release with the GTX 680 barely beating it 3-4 months later. Also even with the mentioned 9700 and 9800 it only had single quarter at near even, X800 did far far better than that.

 

GeForce 200, 400 and 500 were all bad architectures with the latter two being absolutely woeful but still enjoyed 60%-70 market share with not a single thing justifying that. They were so bad Nvidia start promoting SLI and releasing dual GPU cards, a play right out of AMD's book lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No they do not own the graphics card, not at all. See the brand name written on it, that is who owns it period. There is no way to argue that. Nvidia owns the GPU die and the IP that contains, that graphics card contains parts from suppliers that are not Nvidia or designed by Nvidia, how AIB's want to make the graphics card and what parts to choose is up to them. If they were all the same then tear downs and looking at components that are actually different across models and brands would be pointless. Do not confuse licensing rights with ownership.

 

You think the Volkswagen or Toyota engines in cars that use them make it belong to them? Heck no, but they make and sell them to multiple different brands and own all the IP of that engine but the car is still who ever makes it and who's brand is on it.

 

I'm not going to discuss that aspect of it, because it's not true. There's only so much fact distorting I'm willing to hear before I'll throw my hands up and go nope not worth discussing any more because you're totally stuck on Nvidia can do no wrong and anything they are doing is within their right. Holding power doesn't give them a right to do anything, that's precisely where abuse of power comes from and why holding them to account is MORE important in those situations. "Everything is fine nothing to see here" lets them get away with it.

 

Not once have I said any of what has been reported is true or even the full facts but I'll never accept ignore it things are fine or it's Nvidia's business right to do it, what a careless thing to be saying.

 

Terrible thing to say and portray as ok.

 

A legal battle like this will take more than 2 million.

 

It's not the last resort, it can often be the best first resort. It gets people looking which can then also help you acquire the required evidence to make a legal challenge.

I see what you are saying, but you are not seeing what I'm saying, without nV's IP, or their GPU, they can't make a card period.  That is why its nV's product, ultimately without them, their "partners' have nothing.

 

Volkswagen and Toyota, another company can make that engine and they can still make their vehicle. so that is not even remotely anything like this.

 

From a legal perspective its fine, You are saying its abuse of power, is it really?  When you have power not to use it to your benefit is stupidity.  How far they go is another matter.  If nV wants their products to be shown in the way they want them to be shown.  Legally that is ok.  End result, if it hurts consumers in way like removal of competitive products from the market place, then its bad, its anti competitive.  Is it asking for that to happen?  No, just have the branding different.  Will that shift the market in their favor.  Hell ya, but that is what leverage gives you, even more leverage.  They are using their brand power to give them more leverage simple right?

 

Err in a legal battle will take around 2 million a quarter, I'm not saying 2 million over all, I'm saying 2 million a quarter for the duration of the time it takes to do the case. This is the best time to do it because AMD is coming into money with Ryzen and it will stay in the black for quite some time for the foreseeable future unless something crazy happens.

 

Going to public is always a last resort, and evidence gained by that method is always looked as dubious in court.  Its frowned upon since it looks to them as the plaintiff is using the media to sway opinions of the Jury and Court, not to mention many other things that could be in favor of the plaintiff can be damaged in the courts eyes.  Already talked to attorneys about that, its in one of my posts, and linked to their responses on that subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Thing is ATI did have the outright best product multiple times, twice the performance gap was so great it forced Nvidia to release dual GPU cards just to keep a showing in the review graphs. When this was happening Nvidia also used more power or it was essentially the same. Your perception of history just goes to show how strong Nvidia's brand actually is, that's not your fault though.

on the contrary, i actually remember better that time then the glory days of Nvidia. For a long time and until last year i kept away from PC's. Still it was a long time ago for technology standards. Still you hardly have to make an effort to understand gpu market to know how much stronger is Nvidia nowadays. Even away i knew Nvidia were the gpu to get.

Didn't AMD did the same with Vega with HBM just to stop their power hungry gpus and try to compete with Nvidia?

 

Could be really wrong but if Vega had beaten the 1080ti and the next release did the same, in no time we would be having the opposite discussion. No marketing from Nvidia could change that.

 

Still standing by my comment, a lot is AMD's fault and the constant underperformance of their products.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, leadeater said:

X800 and X850 were performance crown cards, so was the X1900 and X1950, 5970, 7970 on release with the GTX 680 barely beating it 3-4 months later. Also even with the mentioned 9700 and 9800 it only had single quarter at near even, X800 did far far better than that.

 

GeForce 200, 400 and 500 were all bad architectures with the latter two being absolutely woeful but still enjoyed 60%-70 market share with not a single thing justifying that. They were so bad Nvidia start promoting SLI and releasing dual GPU cards, a play right out of AMD's book lol.

 

X800 and x850 had what a 5% lead at launch?  You can call that a crown card?  I call that pretty much equal, nV had better feature set.

 

X1900, x1950, which I mentioned didn't show their muscle till about 6 months after launch, the games at the time of launch, went both ways, some to the 79xx some to the x19xx cards.  But those 6 months, 6 months after that the g80 showed up.  And it was all done after that.  This is also a repeating theme for AMD and ATi, the first batches of reviews that come out, we don't see the full performance of their cards.  They need to stop this "fine wine" crap lol, it doesn't work for sales  The first batch of reviews is what sells cards.  Best foot forward AMD.

 

7970, was a good a card, but power?  Did it match up well with the gtx 680?

 

Then we had the 2xx series, which was probably the best GCN cards and did well against 78x series.  But big problem with supply, those shortages wasn't due to miners because we would have seen market share go up if it was, just like last quarter right?

 

GTX 2xx was it a bad architecture?  That was the same G80 architecture.  nV did the same thing AMD did with GCN, they kept the tesla architecture for too long.  The GTX 4xx was a bad archicture, they had some node issues later solved with the GTX 5xx, even with those node issues they were still able to get the performance crown, but that didn't' stop them from loosing marketshare with the gtx 4xx, they gained marketshare once the gtx 5xx series came out though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

I see what you are saying, but you are not seeing what I'm saying, without nV's IP, or their GPU, they can't make a card period.  That is why its nV's product, ultimately without them, their "partners' have nothing.

 

Volkswagen and Toyota, another company can make that engine and they can still make their vehicle. so that is not even remotely anything like this.

I know what you are trying to say but fact is fact, Nvidia do not own the graphics cards so I'm not going to agree with that. Nvidia without AIBs would have graphics cards either so the GPU IP is own by the AIB by the same logic. Without each other both have nothing but it still remains Nvidia hold the better hand of cards because they can shop around for partners when AIB cannot.

 

And the car example is the same. No other company can make a Toyota engine other than Toyota, not unless Toyota license someone to do it. Other companies can make engines, other companies can make GPUs (AMD) but Honda can't make a Toyota engine and Nvidia can't make an AMD GPU.

 

8 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

From a legal perspective its fine

You can't possible know this or say it, because you do not know the terms.

 

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

If nV wants their products to be shown in the way they want them to be shown.  Legally that is ok.

Again you can't know that without seeing the terms.

 

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Legally that is ok.  End result, if it hurts consumers in way like removal of competitive products from the market place, then its bad, its anti competitive.  Is it asking for that to happen?  No, just have the branding different

You don't know, again you haven't seen the terms.

 

My issue is you keep saying it's all fine yet you cannot possibly know.

 

10 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Hell ya, but that is what leverage gives you, even more leverage.  They are using their brand power to give them more leverage simple right?

This can be illegal. That's where it can get tricky because using your leverage isn't inherently illegal but there are laws to keep this in check because it can and has been illegal depending on the specifics of what is happening.

 

12 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Going to public is always a last resort, and evidence gained by that method is always looked as dubious in court.  Its frowned upon, not to mention many other things that could be in favor of the plaintiff can be damaged in the courts eyes.  Already talked to attorneys about that, its in one of my posts, and linked to their responses on that subject.

Going public is a good way to give people in the industry the confidence to come forward with details because they are no longer alone or unprotected, they can come forward in secret or with the protection of media coverage but bring things to light helps more information become available. Going to the media is a well exercised legal play and you don't have to use any evidence at all from any of the public media investigation.

 

There is more than one way to use the media and public interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I know what you are trying to say but fact is fact, Nvidia do not own the graphics cards so I'm not going to agree with that. Nvidia without AIBs would have graphics cards either so the GPU IP is own by the AIB by the same logic. Without each other both have nothing but it still remains Nvidia hold the better hand of cards because they can shop around for partners when AIB cannot.

 

And the car example is the same. No other company can make a Toyota engine other than Toyota, not unless Toyota license someone to do it. Other companies can make engines, other companies can make GPUs (AMD) but Honda can't make a Toyota engine and Nvidia can't make an AMD GPU.

 

You can't possible know this or say it, because you do not know the terms.

 

Again you can't know that without seeing the terms.

 

You don't know, again you haven't seen the terms.

 

My issue is you keep saying it's all fine yet you cannot possibly know.

 

This can be illegal. That's where it can get tricky because using your leverage isn't inherently illegal but there are laws to keep this in check because it can and has been illegal depending on the specifics of what is happening.

 

Going public is a good way to give people in the industry the confidence to come forward with details because they are no longer alone or unprotected, they can come forward in secret or with the protection of media coverage but bring things to light helps more information become available. Going to the media is a well exercised legal play and you don't have to use any evidence at all from any of the public media investigation.

 

There is more than one way to use the media and public interest.

 

 

Nvidia can make their own cards, they don't need AIB's, AIB's in the past was a great idea because it cut down costs for these companies.  If the costs aren't an issue no need for AIB's ;) .

 

What I'm saying about the cars, yeah But if a company can't license an engine from Toyota, why can't they get it from another company?  They can do that.  Can they do that for nV cards?  Nope.  Not if they want to keep their current sales figures.

 

I'm going not respond on the "you don't have proof" or legal things and media stuff because I have linked to IP attorneys that pretty much agree with me, so its kinda moot to even discuss it. 

 

Come on the contract is out there, Kyle has his hands on it.  He was skimming through it in the Full Nerd video.

 

That is all the evidence a court needs man.  No need to go any further than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

X800 and x850 had what a 5% lead at launch?  You can call that a crown card?  I call that pretty much equal, nV had better feature set.

2121.png

Way more than 5%, way way more.

 

26 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

7970, was a good a card, but power?  Did it match up well with the gtx 680?

45174.png

8% ish more power draw.

 

Fine wine has nothing to do with it, all the cards I mentioned were outright better from day one. GTX 680 came in a bit later and competed very well. Nvidia had to release an updated 7800 512MB variant to counter the X1900, which was then countered with the X1950, so Nvidia countered again with the 7950 GX2 which was so much worse than just two 7900 in SLI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Nvidia can make their own cards, they don't need AIB's, AIB's in the past was a great idea because it cut down costs for these companies.  If the costs aren't an issue no need for AIB's ;) .

Who do you think makes Nvidia reference (Founders Edition) cards that they sell on their site, it's not Nvidia ;). Nvidia isn't a manufacturing company, anything they make is contracted out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Who do you think makes Nvidia reference (Founders Edition) cards that they sell on their site, it's not Nvidia ;). Nvidia isn't a manufacturing company, anything they make is contracted out.

 

Nvidia gives the specs to Flextronics.  Flextronics makes it for them, just like all the other AIB's, AIB's gets the spec from nV, and go to a company like Flextronics, and those guys make it for the AIB's.  Same thing for OEM's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

2121.png

Way more than 5%, way way more.

 

45174.png

8% ish more power draw.

 

Fine wine has nothing to do with it, all the cards I mentioned were outright better from day one. GTX 680 came in a bit later and competed very well. Nvidia has to release an updated 7800 512MB variant to counter the X1900, which was then countered with the X1950, so Nvidia countered again with the 7950 GX2 which was so much worse than just two 7900 in SLI.

You are going to show me one game, and that is all.

 

if we take all of the games in anandtechs review, 5% is a good figure.

 

Yes I can take one game out of that review too

 

2100.png

 

Lets take two from that review

 

2114.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

What I'm saying about the cars, yeah But if a company can't license an engine from Toyota, why can't they get it from another company?  They can do that.  Can they do that for nV cards?  Nope.  Not if they want to keep their current sales figures.

But they can't get another Toyota engine from another company though can they. There's just more options in the car industry to get an engine unlike with GPUs, Nvidia or AMD and if you burn one bridge oh boy you are screwed long term.

 

16 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Come on the contract is out there, Kyle has his hands on it.  He was skimming through it in the Full Nerd video.

 

That is all the evidence a court needs man.  No need to go any further than that.

The contract was not made public so the evidence is not there, and legally Kyle can't release it or hand it over to AMD. He's not even supposed to have it. One person having it doesn't mean it's readily available, far form it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

But they can't get another Toyota engine from another company though can they. There's just more options in the car industry to get an engine unlike with GPUs, Nvidia or AMD and if you burn one bridge oh boy you are screwed long term.

 

Yeah that is the leverage part.  They know where their bread and butter is coming from, they don't want to piss off nV.  nV isn't giving much of a choice about it either.  Either you join or you loose your benefits.  It sucks but that is reality when a company has that much marketshare.  It doesn't remove the choice in the marketplace though.  Its a fine line between anti competitive, and as long as there is no removal of AMD products from the marketplace directly is where it all comes down to.  nV is saying don't sell our products, we don't need you if you want to sell AMD products under the same brand.

 

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The contract was not made public so the evidence is not there, and legally Kyle can't release it or hand it over to AMD. He's not even supposed to have it. One person having it doesn't mean it's readily available, far form it.

 

 

I do think AMD has the contract, they wouldn't have gone to the public without it.  That is the only reason they would do such a thing.  If it was illegal for AMD to get the contract in the first place that is a different matter.  The contact doesn't need to be released publicly at all, infact it wouldn't even be released in court publicly, it would be done behind closed doors and then discussed about.

 

Now Kyle having it, if he releases it, he isn't on the hook at all if it really reads the way it is.  Journalists are actually protected from such actions.  The reason why he hasn't released it was because he doesn't want to hurt the people that gave it to him, which in all fairness is the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

You are going to show me one game, and that is all.

 

if we take all of the games in anandtechs review, 5% is a good figure.

 

Yes I can take one game out of that review too

 

Lets take two from that review

 

I showed you one because I know you are capable of going and looking at the source, and no only those two games plus Jedi Knight/F1 and X2 on max settings only were faster for Nvidia the rest all went to the X800. For most of the games the 6800 Ultra was almost a no show, this is why the X800 sales were so good because it was just so clearly better no amount of brand bias could counter it. People are only so willing to hit themselves in the foot with a hammer until the hammer gets so big you actually do stop and think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I showed you one because I know you are capable of going and looking at the source, and no only those two games plus Jedi Knight/F1 and X2 on max settings only were faster for Nvidia the rest all went to the X800. For most of the games the 6800 Ultra was almost a no show, this is why the X800 sales were so good because it was just so clearly better no amount of brand bias could counter it. People are only so willing to hit themselves in a foot with a hammer until the hammer gets so big you actually do stop and think.

 

 

I just skimmed through 2 other reviews, that 5% difference over all, holds up.

 

All Open Gl games, nV cards even the gt dominated the xtx platinum, Wolfenstien just came out then. 

 

Prince of Persia came around that time too which heavily favored nV cards as well, the gt smacked the XT platinum too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, asus killer said:

what if there really is a brand change? on the alert why, who really cares.

Anyone informed will not care at all. Those that shop blindly would most probably go with nvidia anyway, and that's mainly AMD's fault anyway as we can see by the historical market share graph that was posted

If there is a brand hijacking deal forcing AMD out of existing brands then a lot of people care. Or else this whole thing would not be newsworthy. People care not just because of their own choices, sure educated consumers can still buy AMD. But many of those educated consumers also do not want additional market barriers put up against AMD because they want AMD to remain profitable and grow (for the good of the ecosystem) which means also being in a position to appeal to non-educated consumers by not being locked out of established gaming brands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

I do think AMD has the contract, they wouldn't have gone to the public without it.  That is the only reason they would do such a thing.  If it was illegal for AMD to get the contract in the first place that is a different matter.  The contact doesn't need to be released publicly at all, infact it wouldn't even be released in court publicly, it would be done behind closed doors and then discussed about.

Could AMD actually use it as evidence considering they aren't legally allowed to have a copy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Could AMD actually use it as evidence considering they aren't legally allowed to have a copy?

There are ways to use it as evidence, not directly though.  They have to call in the partners to testify to the affects of the contract.  But at that point yeah its pretty easy to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

I just skimmed through 2 other reviews, that 5% difference over all, holds up.

 

All Open Gl games, nV cards even the gt dominated the xtx platinum, Wolfenstien just came out then. 

 

Prince of Persia came around that time too which heavily favored nV cards as well, the gt smacked the XT platinum too.

lol I went through and did the average for all of the games max settings only, exactly 0% average difference but there are rounding errors cos lazy ish math. The differences is far greater for the X800 on slightly lower settings but I can only be bothered to do it once, without AA and AF on all resolutions it much more than 5% though. Reminds me now of all the AA talk back then tanking ATI cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×