GeForce Partner Program may be to blame for lack of Kaby Lake-G products

[laminutederire]

14 hours ago, Razor01 said:

 

What's your point the way? It does seem like you want to confuse everyone by changing your point all the time.

 

As far as perfecting patents go, it all depends where. In many countries, getting a patent which extends another patent yields the obligation for the original patent holder to provide a fair license to the new patent holder. This mandatory license almost always cannot be exclusive etc.. in all those countries your argument falls apart.

However what is true in all countries is that you don't have to have a license for the original patent to get an extending patent. You may not be able to use your own patent depending on if you get a (mandatory or not) license, but you still can forbid anyone else to use your patent.

 

Where you don't understand patents is that yes they can potentially do exactly that. If it is the result of an inventive process which is not in current state of knowledge (in patents or published etc), they can. If their revendication in that patent do not entail any patents of Nvidia, they can both get the patent and exploit it without Nvidia saying a thing about it. That means that they can patent the power delivery system of their graphics card, and Nvidia can't do anything about it even if it is exploited with graphics cards using their GPU.

 

Yea sure Apple can do that, but you don't seem to understand why. Apple can do that because MacOS isn't patented, it is copyrighted. So basically if you redo yourself MacOS you can sell it. What you can't do is sell the MacOS source code as is, or slightly modified. But that's absolutely not applicable to ideas, hence why we have patents for those ideas. It's often very hard to patent software, becausebyou can't patent the code, you have to patent a functionality of the code.

And it's basically because of that distinction that Crytek is allowed to do that with your code, but Nvidia can't with AIBs. Because copyrights are legally different than patents and they have different laws regulating them.

 

Then I really don't understand what exclusivity has to do with anything...

By the way, aib can have exclusive licensing, if Nvidia wishes so.

 

Nobody has talked about that anywhere in the discussion, stop trying to drown people in useless points which don't have a relation to the discussion. We know what you're trying to do.

 

13 hours ago, Kamjam21xx said:

He had the 3 stances, without going into the many paragraphs indepth. 

1. They own everything manufactured 

2. They are part owners

3. They just control if you can sell the product, and also own it.

If you look at it, he does not really have a precise point.

He just throws half garbage on topic, half correct statements on something else entirely all the time, like we can't make the difference.

In a way, he is the Donald Trump of Linus tech tips, where he creates his own reality and tries to move argument to something else entirely to divert attention from the fact his original point is flawed and has been debunked.

[Razor01]

1 hour ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Wrong. Sorry, just not true. Because ive looked into doing that, so i definitely know thats wrong.

Yes it is, I have looked into franchising fast food and gas stations here in the US, its exactly that.  They give the owner the right to do things under their name, their brand.  Fast food, even if you buy your products from the franchisee, they still own the shit lol.  You can't do what ever you want with their food lol.  You can't make your own menu, sell it at any price you want to.

 

Now back to the case of the graphics cards, nV gives the right for board partners to make modifications based on their IP to the boards, the IP is still there's, and the GPU is still theres, its all nV's ownership man.  You can't take that away from them.

 

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

If you look at it, he does not really have a precise point.

He just throws half garbage on topic, half correct statements on something else entirely all the time, like we can't make the difference.

In a way, he is the Donald Trump of Linus tech tips, where he creates his own reality and tries to move argument to something else entirely to divert attention from the fact his original point is flawed and has been debunked.

 

No you guys are looking at it from a singular point, there are many different points that have to be looked into.  A singular point, straight forward, AIB's does not own the IP they are selling, thus they don't have the right to call it theirs, nor do you have the right to call it theirs either!  In court of law, ITS NOT THEIR's.  They might own the damn cooler but that is it.  Everything else is OWNED by nV period since its their IP that makes the board and the GPU.

 

Look up what derivative works mean.

 

https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/understanding-the-importance-of-derivative-works.html

 

Derivative works are works based on a particular IP, that licensee gives the "RIGHT" not the "Ownership" of said IP to do the work, the Derivative work is NOT THE PROPERTY of the creator unless that RIGHT is also given by the Licensee.

 

Lets say you read a book and find you can make a great movie out of it.  You get the rights to make the movie, you still don't own that movie, its still owned by the writer of that book.  You might have done the work to get it to the big screen, but unless that writer gave you ownership of his IP for his book, you don't own JAKE.

 

In this case nV vs its AIB's this is definitly the case, nV gave the AIB's the right to create a different board (Derivative of the the IP), and gave them the right to sell that board and their gpu (probably based on validation of course).  They did not give the right of ownership for that IP or its derivatives to the AIB's.  They own their IP and the work done by the AIB's to create that board.  At no time can they do such a thing because at that point if they did, that AIB will have a leg up on ever single one of its competitors as it can now make the boards on its own and sell to others.  This is unheard of in the tech realm and would be a huge ass loop hole that would screw with the industry.

 

I think the part we are diverging from our views, is this.

 

You are looking at the company that is actually bringing the product to the market as ownership.  Which do they "own' that product, physically yes, but the way I look at it is they don't own it because the IP in that product is not theirs.  If nV has a problem with how that product is brought to the market, their IP ownership, supersedes anything these companies can claim as ownership of a product since they don't have a claim on ownership of the IP.

 

Its kinda like your or I going to a store and buying a product, do we "own" that product yeah if you or I bought it we own it, but do we own that IP, nope.  Product is not mine or yours to do as we see fit, we can not modify it and then sell it in an open market and state its ours.  Even if we got the rights to use the IP of that product, we still can't do that unless the company states we can.

[Nowak]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

This insistence that GPP is responsible for everything when we have actual historical trends and market conditions that offer more compelling reasons just baffles me.

Wouldn't it make sense, though, for GPP to be at least partially responsible? Vega M GL/GH directly competes with the GTX 1050 and 1060 Max-Q respectively, plus with the brand recognition Intel has it can threaten Nvidia's market and even mindshare. It makes perfect sense to me for Nvidia to see Kaby Lake-G as a threat of some sort.

[grimreeper132]

16 hours ago, porina said:

Are we going to blame GPP for everything that doesn't happen now? Do we know how much KL-G costs compared to similar equivalent of Intel+nv GPU? I did fear when I saw the NUCs it was too expensive for the performance level, the only advantage it really gave was space saving for smaller form factors.

Although it may seam unlikely this is entirely possible the GPP has somethings in this like that, and Dell, HP etc. have so many laptops etc. that they make that even if Nvidea doesn't supply cards to them for a month or hell even a week then they seriously hurt them, and the GPP also is a black box which could say and restrict anything and it's not a risk these companies want to tread, and even taking them to the courts against Nvidea who provides most of their GPUs especially in the high end they have no chance. That and also the heat output was lower which means a lighter and smaller heatsink can be used.

 

I am not saying GPP is the reason, it could be something like the motherboards are harder to make cause of reasons or something but it does seam possible and likely it is the GPP

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

Wouldn't it make sense, though, for GPP to be at least partially responsible? Vega M GL/GH directly competes with the GTX 1050 and 1060 Max-Q respectively, plus with the brand recognition Intel has it can threaten Nvidia's market and even mindshare. It makes perfect sense to me for Nvidia to see Kaby Lake-G as a threat of some sort.

 

Not really, All we have is a lack of G products.  The GPP bit is speculation.   Especially when we have more tangible reasons that explain it better.  

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

Wouldn't it make sense, though, for GPP to be at least partially responsible? Vega M GL/GH directly competes with the GTX 1050 and 1060 Max-Q respectively, plus with the brand recognition Intel has it can threaten Nvidia's market and even mindshare. It makes perfect sense to me for Nvidia to see Kaby Lake-G as a threat of some sort.

If GPP is a factor it's only possible due to memory and GPU shortages. Intel has what I like to call "Fuck You Money" which they have more of than Nvidia does. If Intel wants something then they can get it, but GPP by itself would not stop Intel getting KL-G in to products they want it in.

[Razor01]

22 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If GPP is a factor it's only possible due to memory and GPU shortages. Intel has what I like to call "Fuck You Money" which they have more of than Nvidia does. If Intel wants something then they can get it, but GPP by itself would not stop Intel getting KL-G in to products they want it in.

Intel has their products in premium brands, which nV is not in anymore, they already took that away from nV lol.  The HP specter, is pretty much the highest quality parts for notebooks HP uses.  nV was there before, if I'm not mistaken, all removed by Kaby Lake G products.

 

Dell's 2 and 1's are not the same 2 and ones that nV's products were in before, they are quite a bit a better quality wise now and they are also now all Kaby Lake G products.

[laminutederire]

59 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

You don't listen so what's the point. Go live in your world and let us discuss properly on our own. I made clear more than a few time that intellectual property under copyright is not the same as patents. And yet you insist on comparing both. A book is ruled by copyright-like laws. Nvidias intellectual property is based on patents for everything they physically produce and by copyrights for mainly everything they produce as code, and then they have their brand like ip ruled by branding laws.

Those aren't the same, and you can't infer between them, period.

 

In the case of Nvidia and AIBs, they are the sole owner of their products. The sole reason why is that they sell the gpus to AIB. The same transfer of ownership then applies when it transfers from AIB to consumers. As for the AIB patents, depending on the country, if they depend on Nvidias patents, Nvidia may be forced to licence them those. But their patents most probably do not depend on Nvidias that much, since they have similar designs for AMD cards, which leads to believe that their own patents are independent from both and and Nvidia, or they depend on a common set of patents held by Amd and Nvidia.

As far as your last comment goes: Nvidia patents do not supersede anything. If those are involved, the licensing agreement is made through the selling contract of the gpu from Nvidia to AIB. This contracts then supersedes everything else. Nvidia can annul the contract, but it will not prevent sale retroactively of the gpu they already sold. It will just mean that aib cannot exploit the new gpus anymore, since they won't have those in the first place.

Your argument is tantamount to say that you don't own anything, and that everything you could expect to own is actually owned by the people who patented the tech behind it. (Which is ridiculous because it breaks all the contract of sale made in history).

 

(Oh and if you want to quote something, quote something relevant. Your link is about copyrights, not patents, so I'll day it one more time with the same condescending tone you have with other people: in case you can't read proper English: copyright not equal to patents. Discussion about patents.)

[Razor01]

34 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

You don't listen so what's the point. Go live in your world and let us discuss properly on our own. I made clear more than a few time that intellectual property under copyright is not the same as patents. And yet you insist on comparing both. A book is ruled by copyright-like laws. Nvidias intellectual property is based on patents for everything they physically produce and by copyrights for mainly everything they produce as code, and then they have their brand like ip ruled by branding laws.

Those aren't the same, and you can't infer between them, period.

 

In the case of Nvidia and AIBs, they are the sole owner of their products. The sole reason why is that they sell the gpus to AIB. The same transfer of ownership then applies when it transfers from AIB to consumers. As for the AIB patents, depending on the country, if they depend on Nvidias patents, Nvidia may be forced to licence them those. But their patents most probably do not depend on Nvidias that much, since they have similar designs for AMD cards, which leads to believe that their own patents are independent from both and and Nvidia, or they depend on a common set of patents held by Amd and Nvidia.

As far as your last comment goes: Nvidia patents do not supersede anything. If those are involved, the licensing agreement is made through the selling contract of the gpu from Nvidia to AIB. This contracts then supersedes everything else. Nvidia can annul the contract, but it will not prevent sale retroactively of the gpu they already sold. It will just mean that aib cannot exploit the new gpus anymore, since they won't have those in the first place.

Your argument is tantamount to say that you don't own anything, and that everything you could expect to own is actually owned by the people who patented the tech behind it. (Which is ridiculous because it breaks all the contract of sale made in history).

 

(Oh and if you want to quote something, quote something relevant. Your link is about copyrights, not patents, so I'll day it one more time with the same condescending tone you have with other people: in case you can't read proper English: copyright not equal to patents. Discussion about patents.)

oh really here you go I'm going to write up what my IP attorney sent to me,

 

 “license” originates from the latin word “licentia,” which means freedom or liberty. A license is statement that gives a waiver or promise not to sue the licensee for conduct that, absent the license, would be actionable.

 

 

That is all it is, there is no ownership change man, Even products that are made based on another person's IP is not their products.  They just have the right to sell those products and not get sued lol.

 

And when was I talking about copyrights are the same as patents, Never stated that ever. nor did I even talk about copyrights in that way.  You stated IP was the same as patents though lol, which I pointed out there was more to IP then just that.

 

Seriously bone headed thoughts are coming here without even understanding what you guys are stating.

 

Going to be point blank about this.

 

Do AIB's own the products they make, from a financial point of view, yes but only because the right was given to them to make the products to begin with.

 

From a legal point of view of selling those products with or without permission from the IP holders.  HELL NO.  The ownership of the IP was not transferred and never will be.

[laminutederire]

23 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

I hope for you not to go to court with that guy then. I've passed a law class which was solely on IPs, and he says something that does not comply with how law works at least in Europe.

 

Licences in the case of patents between companies are contractualized. Nvidia will lose if they sue for the exploit of said licence on a period where the contract hasn't been breached or annulled. First of all, anyone can use their ip freely, the burden is on the patent holder to sue to forbid another company to exploit it. In the event Nvidia would, if there is a licence contract, any patent organization has the duty to reject the accusation.

Maybe in the US it's different in practice since its a very corrupt country, but in theory, licences are legally binding for both parties.

 

There is an ownership change since they sell products to another company which gets ownership of every gpu Nvidia will sell them. No they won't own Nvidia's IP, but the property of the GPUs will be theirs as per the sale contract between the two. In this scenario, there isn't any licensing involved at all. It's purely a commodity exchange for money. Then AIB transforms those gpu into graphics cards. There they may need to license some patents to effect the transformation legally.

 

Well in this case IP are restricted to potentially patents and that's about it. Solely because of the nature of the contracts involved. And you were still wrong to compare the situation to copyrights derivatives because there are no copyrights involved in the manufacturing of GPUs except for the copyrights associated with logos of the AIB which would appear on the card. So the fact that IP can be broader just isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

From a legal standpoint, as long they don't manufacture the gpu itself (which they don't since they buy it from nvidia), Nvidia has close to no patents to licence them to build the graphics card from the gpu, so they can use it in any way they want. The only thing that could prevent them from selling it would be a clause in the selling contract which allowed them to purchase the gpu in the first place (in which case they wouldn't buy them since it would be a waste of money).

 

The patents solely apply on manufacturing. You can't forbid to sell something with patents, you can only forbid to produce (which subconsequentially does not allow sales). And before you tell me there are other types of IP, none of those are involved here except the Nvidia logo on the box, and Nvidia name in the product name. Oh and on the drivers provided with the card as well, since the code is protected by copyrights. Three things that most consumers will just throw out anyway by the way.

 

But you'll find a way to claw back anyway by summoning an unknown source or unverified self proclaimed expertise to back up your affirmations.

Oh and if you want my sources, just go have a look at the European convention on patents. Mostly everything is on there. It's in German-English-French.

[Razor01]

31 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

I hope for you not to go to court with that guy then. I've passed a law class which was solely on IPs, and he says something that does not comply with how law works at least in Europe.

 

Licences in the case of patents between companies are contractualized. Nvidia will lose if they sue for the exploit of said licence on a period where the contract hasn't been breached or annulled. First of all, anyone can use their ip freely, the burden is on the patent holder to sue to forbid another company to exploit it. In the event Nvidia would, if there is a licence contract, any patent organization has the duty to reject the accusation.

Maybe in the US it's different in practice since its a very corrupt country, but in theory, licences are legally binding for both parties.

 

There is an ownership change since they sell products to another company which gets ownership of every gpu Nvidia will sell them. No they won't own Nvidia's IP, but the property of the GPUs will be theirs as per the sale contract between the two. In this scenario, there isn't any licensing involved at all. It's purely a commodity exchange for money. Then AIB transforms those gpu into graphics cards. There they may need to license some patents to effect the transformation legally.

 

Well in this case IP are restricted to potentially patents and that's about it. Solely because of the nature of the contracts involved. And you were still wrong to compare the situation to copyrights derivatives because there are no copyrights involved in the manufacturing of GPUs except for the copyrights associated with logos of the AIB which would appear on the card. So the fact that IP can be broader just isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

From a legal standpoint, as long they don't manufacture the gpu itself (which they don't since they buy it from nvidia), Nvidia has close to no patents to licence them to build the graphics card from the gpu, so they can use it in any way they want. The only thing that could prevent them from selling it would be a clause in the selling contract which allowed them to purchase the gpu in the first place (in which case they wouldn't buy them since it would be a waste of money).

 

The patents solely apply on manufacturing. You can't forbid to sell something with patents, you can only forbid to produce (which subconsequentially does not allow sales). And before you tell me there are other types of IP, none of those are involved here except the Nvidia logo on the box, and Nvidia name in the product name. Oh and on the drivers provided with the card as well, since the code is protected by copyrights. Three things that most consumers will just throw out anyway by the way.

 

But you'll find a way to claw back anyway by summoning an unknown source or unverified self proclaimed expertise to back up your affirmations.

Oh and if you want my sources, just go have a look at the European convention on patents. Mostly everything is on there. It's in German-English-French.

edit

Good for you, I did too here in the US as I've stated before I'm 6 course away from taking the bar, which I will never finish because I don't need to not for my job.

Yeah I'll give ya that second point, which I have stated in numourous threads, on going contracts can't be affected.

 

NO ONE can use someone elses IP freely lol.  Not if they want to make products that sells on the market, don't know where you thought that was legal, but that is highly ILLEGAL.  The AIB's have no IP of their own in these cards period, the board's IP is nV's, the GPU is nV's, the only thing they have really is the cooler lol.  How are they going to go and raise a ruckus about a cooler design?

 

Patent organizations have nothing to do with laws here in the US, don't know if that is even valid in any other country either, EU doesn't work that way..... Even in England which is where I'm guessing you are from from your spelling of certain words doesn't work that way either.  Patent organizations only have to ability to give out patents not work on laws.

 

 

From a legal stand point, keep this in mind, they are not buying the GPU for sole purpose of using that GPU, they are buying it to make their products on which are all based on the IP that nV gives them even the board.

 

They have ownership of the GPU based on certain contingencies that the license offers them.  They are buying the GPU's because they have the IP to make the cards and sell them.  They don't get to that freely without nV's approval.  Nor can they do that with reverse engineering. Doesn't work that way.

First off to buy the GPU's separately, that is completely different, we aren't even talking about that lol,

 

These AIB's are buying GPU's on the SOLE PURPOSE OF making graphics cards.  So why even bring that up?  They need the IP of

 

1) The board

2) drivers as you stated

3) etc, there could be other things we don't know about

 

Without the IP, THEY CAN'T do anything with those GPU's, I would doubt nV will even sell them the GPU's with those IP's anyways.

 

Where did you take this law course my I ask?  Because if they didn't teach you that, I sure hope you get your money back.

 

Oh yes you can forbid selling products based on many things depends on the contract so we are going to somethings we don't know about, but also doesn't really matter in this case as above.  And there will be a list of things the AIB's can't do.

 

And before you pull out your credentials of taking a course in IP law, or contractual law, get your facts right because the first half of what you stated, is absolutely BS, please get your money back.

 

 

[Misanthrope]

Ok I am beginning to see a pattern here: pretty soon some of the people both reporting and commenting on this will also start getting brainforce pills from the infowars store.

[pas008]

Lol all this ridiculous talk

 

Nvidia products period

 

Tsmc is nvidia primary chip manufacturer that also use supposedly use Samsung for some things

Just like all these aibs are manufacturers for the final product for nvidia

 

Just like Intel has final say in their products like removing overclocking on certain chipsets or locked cpus

We all know apple doesn't make many of their products but they have final say

And all

And believe nvidia and apple use foxconn 

Why doesn't foxconn own those products? Oh wait they are nvidia and apples because they paid for pay for the manufacturing lol

 Aib are slightly different because they get to put their own twist on out but still doesn't make it a nvidia product

Hence why xfx doesn't make nvidia cards anymore and palit didn't make amd anymore

 

People should learn why we have aibs in the first place

History lesson?

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Lol all this ridiculous talk

 

Nvidia products period

 

Tsmc is nvidia primary chip manufacturer that also use supposedly use Samsung for some things

Just like all these aibs are manufacturers for the final product for nvidia

 

Just like Intel has final say in their products like removing overclocking on certain chipsets or locked cpus

We all know apple doesn't make many of their products but they have final say

And all

And believe nvidia and apple use foxconn 

Why doesn't foxconn own those products? Oh wait they are nvidia and apples because they paid for pay for the manufacturing lol

 Aib are slightly different because they get to put their own twist on out but still doesn't make it a nvidia product

Hence why xfx doesn't make nvidia cards anymore and palit didn't make amd anymore

 

People should learn why we have aibs in the first place

History lesson?

 

 

He is trying to make an angle that since the AIB's are using nV's IP to create another product (board) it becomes their IP.

 

Doesn't work that way.  Its just illogical.  He tried to do get me and others to think that line of thought from a few posts ago where then I mentioned derivative works don't work that way lol.  Since if that occured, then no other company needs to license from nV, they can just buy the GPU from nV and then buy the board from whom ever made that derivative work (board).

 

The AIB's were given the right to create the derivatives works, but they don't "own" that work since its based on nV's original IP.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

If GPP is a factor it's only possible due to memory and GPU shortages. Intel has what I like to call "Fuck You Money" which they have more of than Nvidia does. If Intel wants something then they can get it, but GPP by itself would not stop Intel getting KL-G in to products they want it in.

Artistic renditions of Nvidia trying to use GPP against Intel:

Spoiler

 

9 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Just like all these aibs are manufacturers for the final product for nvidia

No, Nvidia is one of the component providers to the final product Manufacturers make. Beyond basic spec, Nvidia has little to no say in what manufacturers do. Once it leaves Nvidia's hands and enter manufacturers', it's no longer their product.

 

10 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Just like Intel has final say in their products like removing overclocking on certain chipsets or locked cpus

They have final say because its firmware locked out when Intel hands it over. Not because Intel has final say (hint: they don't have final say).

 

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

We all know apple doesn't make many of their products but they have final say

That is a completely different situation. Apple commissions Foxconn to make every device to an exact spec with no room for deviation, no aftermarket designs. Whereas companies like MSi and ASUS buy Nvidia's GPUs outright to manufacture GFX cards.

[pas008]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Artistic renditions of Nvidia trying to use GPP against Intel:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

No, Nvidia is one of the component providers to the final product Manufacturers make. Beyond basic spec, Nvidia has little to no say in what manufacturers do. Once it leaves Nvidia's hands and enter manufacturers', it's no longer their product.

 

They have final say because its firmware locked out when Intel hands it over. Not because Intel has final say (hint: they don't have final say).

 

That is a completely different situation. Apple commissions Foxconn to make every device to an exact spec with no room for deviation, no aftermarket designs. Whereas companies like MSi and ASUS buy Nvidia's GPUs outright to manufacture GFX cards.

Then why isn't xfx stillmaking cards for nvidia?

Why are they using nvidias drivers?

Why are they required to label them geforce?

Why are they forced to release fe cards first?

Oh wait they need permission from nvidia but why?

Oh wait it's nvidias end product

 

Did you learn the history of add in board/card partners?

[Razor01]

19 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Artistic renditions of Nvidia trying to use GPP against Intel:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

No, Nvidia is one of the component providers to the final product Manufacturers make. Beyond basic spec, Nvidia has little to no say in what manufacturers do. Once it leaves Nvidia's hands and enter manufacturers', it's no longer their product.

 

They have final say because its firmware locked out when Intel hands it over. Not because Intel has final say (hint: they don't have final say).

 

That is a completely different situation. Apple commissions Foxconn to make every device to an exact spec with no room for deviation, no aftermarket designs. Whereas companies like MSi and ASUS buy Nvidia's GPUs outright to manufacture GFX cards.

No it doesn't work that way.  nV gives certain rights for use of IP based on what ever is agreed upon.

 

AIB's can use that IP to make products, but those products must fall in the guidelines provided by what nV and the AIB have concluded as fair.  The products solely based on what the AIB did and purchased can be looked as theirs, but the actual product as a whole, IP, is still owned by nV. 

 

The argument of who owns what is what is in question.  AIB's are given the right to make and sell products based on the IP that is owned by nV.  If nV doesn't like what they see their IP is being used for, they can shut down the AIB from making future products.  On going products, only if there is a breach of contract.  Now if nV forces that, they need to have pretty significant proof. 

 

Simple.  If something goes wrong with the GPU, the AIB's aren't the ones that have to fix that right?  AIB's might take the card back, but if the GPU is bad, then nV has put up the cost for it.  If its a reference board, nV has to fix that too, since its their reference.  If its a custom board by the AIB, AIB's must fix that if its out of spec of the original IP.   But if its in spec with the original IP of the board, the cost is split. 

 

AIB's buy GPU's not outright by themselves, they buy GPU's based on certain things that are licensed to them.

 

Look at panda miner, the one and few companies that buy GPU's from AMD outright to make custom components for use for mining.  Look at the quality difference of those products.  They absolutely SUCK without AMD's IP to back them up, they are literally up shits creek.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Then why isn't xfx stillmaking cards for nvidia?

They got in a pissing contest, leading to XFX ultimately dropping an Nvidia that was trying to leverage GPU supply to get what they want.

 

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Why are they using nvidias drivers?

The GPU itself requires Nvidia's drivers for full functionality.

 

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Why are they required to label them geforce?

The marketing name starts with Geforce.

 

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Why are they forced to release fe cards first?

They're not. Nvidia has the reference design finalized before they actually ship GPUs. Manufacturers sell the reference designs to have product on shelf while they design their aftermarket versions.

 

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Oh wait they need permission from nvidia but why?

Fun fact: Manufacturers don't need to denote Geforce in the name of THEIR products. Manufacturers aren't required to sell reference designs in any capacity.

 

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Oh wait it's nvidias end product

No, it's not. Manufacturers have final say on "Nvidia's End Product," because Nvidia needs them in order to sell product, not the other way around.

Nvidia does not have final say. They get to have a few (modest) stipulations in supplier contracts.

 

But their say in the final product is fucking worthless.

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

No it doesn't work that way.

It does if you're not a fucking idiot.

 

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

nV gives certain rights for use of IP based on what ever is agreed upon.

Nvidia sells a component with a (weak) contract.

 

10 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

AIB's can use that IP to make products, but those products must fall in the guidelines provided by what nV and the AIB have concluded as fair.  The products solely based on what the AIB did and purchased can be looked as theirs, but the actual product as a whole, IP, is still owned by nV.

Nvidia's IP starts and ends at the GPU they've sold. That's it. Once sold to a manufacturer, Nvidia has no say in the final product.

 

11 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

The argument of who owns what is what is in question.

No, it's not. Nvidia owns the right to make the GPU, the GPU driver, and the basic firmware of the GPU itself. The physical GPU, is owned by the manufacturer until sold to a consumer, they own the vBIOS, overclocking utilities, GFX board drivers, and aftermarket designs.

 

13 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

If something goes wrong with the GPU, the AIB's aren't the ones that have to fix that right?

Unless the issue is found by the manufacturer prior to shipping to customer, it is the manufacturer that has to fix it.

 

13 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

AIB's might take the card back, but if the GPU is bad, then nV has put up the cost for it. 

Only if the GFX card manufacturer finds the faulty component before it ships.

 

14 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

If its a reference board, nV has to fix that too, since its their reference.

No, the manufacturer has to fix the faulty product they push.

[Razor01]

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It does if you're not a fucking idiot.

Very constructive

 

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Nvidia sells a component with a (weak) contract.

Very few IP contracts are "weak"

 

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Nvidia's IP starts and ends at the GPU they've sold. That's it. Once sold to a manufacturer, Nvidia has no say in the final product.

OH yes they do lol.  They will protect their IP to the full extent they possible can.  They don't let AIB's do what ever they please, otherwise we would have seen double chip cards coming out of AIB's so those AIB's can say they have the fastest card on the market.  nV doesn't allow AIB's to do things like that.  AMD doesn't either.  They might give the rights for AIB's to do things like that on special circumstances. For nV products it would be easy for them to do since their is no separate bridge chip, its built into the GPU.

 

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, it's not. Nvidia owns the right to make the GPU, the GPU driver, and the basic firmware of the GPU itself. The physical GPU, is owned by the manufacturer until sold to a consumer, they own the vBIOS, overclocking utilities, GFX board drivers, and aftermarket designs.

vBios is not owned by the manufacturer, it is owned by nV also. 

 

Overclocking utilities also have code and IP owned by nV as well. 

 

Do you know why this is, look why we can't mod nV bios anymore?  Because those tools haven't been released, nor has the information been released for anyone in the community to do this.  Back prior to Fermi, we were able to though.  Now we are at soft modding stuff, can't do it directly though.  And with Maxwell/ Pascal, I don't even thing that is possible anymore, at least I haven't heard anything about it.

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Unless the issue is found by the manufacturer prior to shipping to customer, it is the manufacturer that has to fix it.

 

Only if the GFX card manufacturer finds the faulty component before it ships.

 

No, the manufacturer has to fix the faulty product they push.

 

LOL no, they don't, most of the time its split, these guys don't make enough off of card sales to make a profit man.  AMD and nV are the only guys that really make money off their components, everyone else its skin and bones.  This is the reason for the MDF, and all the other kickbacks.  Because AMD and nV take care of their partners to keep them afloat.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

Lack of supply, Product cost/margin, performance and marketability are all pretty good reasons to not invest in it.  

Add to that the fact that there are Kaby-G products...

 

I mean, what we lack are two things: evidence and a counterfactual. Evidence is self-explanatory. By counterfactual I mean: what was the expected lineup of Kaby-G products? The theoretical anomaly consists on the actual lineup being smaller than the expected one. For that, we need to specify what were we expecting. Previous experiments by Intel with expensive iGPUs weren't exactly prolific wither (think Broadwell and Iris graphics). And some of the suspect companies are offering AMD-based laptops, so...

 

Still, it is perfectly possible that GPP is playing a role. Maybe that's why, other than Intel, it is HP and Dell who are using it. Maybe at some point Asus officially, or someone inside Asus unofficially, will confirm that they can't offer Kaby-G products (although it would seem than an "Arez" laptop lineup would be enough... or maybe that's the point).

So, it is very possible. But possible and certain are two different things. And starting with a theory and then looking for facts that "fit" is not a test (I encourage anyone who hasn't read it to drop everything and go grab Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco). HP and Dell using Kaby-G "fits" the GPP story, but it doesn't prove it.

And please, people, "what other explanation do you have?" is not the correct "burden of proof". Why were the Nazca lines made? To communicate with aliens. How do we know? Well, do you have a better, fully proved alternative? 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if GPP had an impact on this. But I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't either.

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, Nvidia is one of the component providers to the final product Manufacturers make. Beyond basic spec, Nvidia has little to no say in what manufacturers do. Once it leaves Nvidia's hands and enter manufacturers', it's no longer their product.

Best to just leave it alone not only is this off topic it's not going to take long if it continues for a massive thread clean and potential warnings.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Best to just leave it alone not only is this off topic it's not going to take long if it continues for a massive thread clean and potential warnings.

Okay.

 

Has anyone given any thought to this potential and radical concept:

 

Kaby-G hasn't been put into that many products because it requires a new cooling design?

 

That somehow, instead of having two squares, that are interchangeable with the last generation of two squares, and not radically different from the preceding generation of two squares, this rectangle of chippy chipness puts both heat sources right next to each other, with no flexibility? In systems that can put those squares on opposite ends of the unit if needed?

 

That perhaps the manufacturers have to redesign their products, and that anything based on Kaby-G wouldn't come out that soon?

 

That would also be expensive, and that maybe manufacturers are also concerned about not getting an acceptable ROI?

 

Or that the chip itself is more expensive than some GPU+CPU combinations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No?

 

Huh.

[Nowak]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Okay.

 

Has anyone given any thought to this potential and radical concept:

 

Kaby-G hasn't been put into that many products because it requires a new cooling design?

 

That somehow, instead of having two squares, that are interchangeable with the last generation of two squares, and not radically different from the preceding generation of two squares, this rectangle of chippy chipness puts both heat sources right next to each other, with no flexibility? In systems that can put those squares on opposite ends of the unit if needed?

 

That perhaps the manufacturers have to redesign their products, and that anything based on Kaby-G wouldn't come out that soon?

 

That would also be expensive, and that maybe manufacturers are also concerned about not getting an acceptable ROI?

 

Or that the chip itself is more expensive than some GPU+CPU combinations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No?

 

Huh.

To be honest, I can't see it requiring too radical of a cooling redesign unless you're trying to cool the 100W i7-8809G, especially when the 8809G is overclocked. The 65W, locked 8705G should be much more manageable, cooling-wise.

[Razor01]

8 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Okay.

 

Has anyone given any thought to this potential and radical concept:

 

Kaby-G hasn't been put into that many products because it requires a new cooling design?

 

That somehow, instead of having two squares, that are interchangeable with the last generation of two squares, and not radically different from the preceding generation of two squares, this rectangle of chippy chipness puts both heat sources right next to each other, with no flexibility? In systems that can put those squares on opposite ends of the unit if needed?

 

That perhaps the manufacturers have to redesign their products, and that anything based on Kaby-G wouldn't come out that soon?

 

That would also be expensive, and that maybe manufacturers are also concerned about not getting an acceptable ROI?

 

Or that the chip itself is more expensive than some GPU+CPU combinations?

 

No?

 

Huh.

Intel will front the costs for redesign of the products, this is done all time to bring something new to the market.

 

8 hours ago, NowakVulpix said:

To be honest, I can't see it requiring too radical of a cooling redesign unless you're trying to cool the 100W i7-8809G, especially when the 8809G is overclocked. The 65W, locked 8705G should be much more manageable, cooling-wise.

 Even then Dell did some pretty cool things (pun) to get Kaby Lake G into their 2 in 1's.

[Nowak]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 Even then Dell did some pretty cool things (pun) to get Kaby Lake G into their 2 in 1's.

Yeah they did, but tbh I'd like to see KL-G in more normal laptops as well.