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

[leadeater]

20 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Because for AMD to do that, it shows there is nothing illegal going on lol, its stupid for them to do so, its AMD complaining and whining because nV has an upper hand. 

It doesn't mean nothing illegal is going on, when it comes to markets like these things can be so complex and drawn out that legal or not by the time you even get a ruling, in your favor or not, the whole ordeal is too late. Just look at the often mentioned Intel example.

 

When you have contracts that have penalty clauses in them for making them public, even to complain to regulatory authorities, companies aren't just going to stick their neck out 'for the greater good'.

 

You really need to let go that this was brought forward by AMD, look and see if there is an issue. If there is then there is an issue irrelevant of who brought it up. In your own words business isn't run this way, you don't solely count on market regulators to pick up on anti-consumer practices and do something about it, nice guys don't win in business and that's who AMD keep trying to be. If someone is legitimately doing some bad, legal or not, that's where your marketing teams comes in. You want people to know your competitor is doing something bad damn well tell people.

[laminutederire]

25 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

You really have to stop spreading false information about AMD. They're not competitive on the higher end but their low and mid range cards are quite decent and compete fairly well.

 

The situation is not that black or white. You re spreading the mindshare ideology that AMD is nowhere which will indeed lead to them being nowhere at all due to lack of funds and sales even if they have some products that are worth the money (minus the mining craze that makes any card not being worth the money).

 

Yes they haven't got the best product on all markets but on low and mid range they have decent products that are completely on par with Nvidia, so get your facts straight.

 

As of now no one really knows what is happening, but your argument doesn't hold when you look at how long it took amd to finish lawsuits with Intel even if Intel was clearly in the wrong and it was well documented.

 

That's what's wrong with the situation really.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

The situation is not that black or white. You re spreading the mindshare ideology that AMD is nowhere which will indeed lead to them being nowhere at all due to lack of funds and sales even if they have some products that are worth the money (minus the mining craze that makes any card not being worth the money).

 

Yes they haven't got the best product on all markets but on low and mid range they have decent products that are completely on par with Nvidia, so get your facts straight

But people only care about 1080Ti's and Titan V's even though they are buying 1060's. Objectivity is mostly dead now days, even for myself in a lot of cases. It's legitimately hard to be truly objective so it's always good to remember you're inherently biased. It becomes a problem though when it starts crossing in to the realms of interfering with facts or not making properly informed purchases leading to not actually buying the best valued product.

[Razor01]

28 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It doesn't mean nothing illegal is going on, when it comes to markets like these things can be so complex and drawn out that legal or not by the time you even get a ruling, in your favor or not, the whole ordeal is too late. Just look at the often mentioned Intel example.

 

When you have contracts that have penalty clauses in them for making them public, even to complain to regulatory authorities, companies aren't just going to stick their neck out 'for the greater good'.

 

You really need to let go that this was brought forward by AMD, look and see if there is an issue. If there is then there is an issue irrelevant of who brought it up. In your own words business isn't run this way, you don't solely count on market regulators to pick up on anti-consumer practices and do something about it, nice guys don't win in business and that's who AMD keep trying to be. If someone is legitimately doing some bad, legal or not, that's where your marketing teams comes in. You want people to know your competitor is doing something bad damn well tell people.

 

 

Oh so lets see what happens if there are two separate game lines for ROG or MSI gaming, then what, AMD just was smoking a big J right?  Why would this matter we can say?  They led Kyle down the wrong path that is why.  AMD opened its mouth that could have ramifications on Kyle and [H],  Linus did  a good video on this.  MDF, game bundling, pass through rebates, are done a per AIB basis.  There is nothing "taken" away from AIB's, nV is just being upfront and saying we aren't giving you any of these anymore unless you let use market and brand our products they way we want to.  Simple.

 

 

AMD's rational to this is not a singular behavior

 

lets start with gameworks

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/28/nvidia-fires-back-the-truth-about-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/#31e09a582fd5

 

https://www.cinemablend.com/games/NVIDIA-Sabotaged-Our-Hardware-Performance-Witcher-3-AMD-Says-72041.html

 

Hair works was funny as hell, AMD had access to Witcher 3 prior to when they stated they did.  They were fully well aware of hairwoks because CD Projeckt Red showed off a demo of hairworks with the same witcher 3 artwork years prior to that.  But yet, they didn't know hairworks was in there?

 

 

This was shown off in 2014, yet hairworks only came into witcher 3 a month before the game was released?

 

Lets go to polaris's reveal prior to launch

 

 

 

All of this eluded to one thing, Polaris was going to beat maxwell's perf/watt handily, and might even take on Pascal.  but with a huge caveat, which really wasn't mentioned, frame rate lock which gives AMD a big advantage in power savings.  Of course they won't really want to show their perf/watt numbers without that, because, well it will only show they finally just reached Maxwell's perf/watt.

 

Now I can show the stuff on Vega too, but its pretty on the nose, "Poor Volta" yeah.

 

Marketing never works unless its based on some truth guys.  Marketing shouldn't go out of its way to shoot themselves in the foot.

 

marketing people shouldn't be the ones that try to wage war in a public forum when it comes to legal documents.  NO its frowned upon by our Judaical system.  There is NO place for marketing and the press in our legal system, because it can shape the course of the legal proceedings.  It will take an impartial system and force partiality on the outcome.

 

Should the actions of Journalist be taken into consideration when something is done illegally in a business relationship.  Sure but then marketing should not be tainting the parties involved in such a case. AMD should have never shopped the story around.  If Kyle came about it on his own, or other reports, or AIB's went to the press. 

 

When you have someone saying something to the public or trying to get it out there in the public, there are reasons for them to do so, selfish reasons.  They must benefit from this. 

[hobobobo]

13 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

-snip-

The argument works only with legal system working like clockwork, not with the way its working now, with legal battles being deliberatly dragged out for decades to basicly bleed the opponent. Linus put it in a nice way: "you may win in court 10 years down the line, but we will make sure there will be no company left to get the payment." Court rulings are unenforcable on big enough companies, i mean how long ago was the ruling for intel to pay out a nice chunck of cash to amd and how long ago did they actually pay it?

 

On the part of marketing, AMD just needs to fire the whole Radeon marketing devision, those wankers have no idea how to play to the strenght of their products, and it would be ludicrious to proclaim there are no strenghts.

 

Its understandable that everyone in big business is a wanker, does not mean though any1 has to like it or be fine with it. And issues like this should be taken on the case to case basis, otherwise biases trample sound logic

[leadeater]

31 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

-snip-

There's way too much there to respond to, much of it not related to my point though. Simple fact is AMD bringing it forward is not grounds to ignore it nor is it right to assume that what ever publication went with it didn't do any proper analysis to find out if what was being said was true.

 

I'm not saying if any of this is true at all, we don't have the evidence to say that. Just don't write it off as nothing without evidence to back that either, AMD being the source isn't enough.

[Razor01]

22 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

The argument works only with legal system working like clockwork, not with the way its working now, with legal battles being deliberatly dragged out for decades to basicly bleed the opponent. Linus put it in a nice way: "you may win in court 10 years down the line, but we will make sure there will be no company left to get the payment." Court rulings are unenforcable on big enough companies, i mean how long ago was the ruling for intel to pay out a nice chunck of cash to amd and how long ago did they actually pay it?

 

On the part of marketing, AMD just needs to fire the whole Radeon marketing devision, those wankers have no idea how to play to the strenght of their products, and it would be ludicrious to proclaim there are no strenghts.

 

Its understandable that everyone in big business is a wanker, does not mean though any1 has to like it or be fine with it. And issues like this should be taken on the case to case basis, otherwise biases trample sound logic

 

 

That is only if this is really what the contract is about.  If it wasn't the case and that's all nV wants is separate brands?

 

What is the recourse on that.  [H] is slime?  Or should it be taken a bit further, and actually punish the people for giving [H] the piece to begin with?  [H] is culpable yeah I would agree, they are of age people lol, they can think for themselves.  So are the people that got this story to them.

 

People here are saying nV's ethics are bad and should be stopped correct?  What about ethics of the others involved?

 

We can't have laws govern some of these things at all.  Feelings, marketing, all this stuff is ephemeral. 

 

If nV is telling other sites that they just want two seperate brands one for their products and one for their competitions, but we have Kyle stating contrary to that, who are we to believe?  The truth will come out soon enough.  We know Asus signed up, MSI too.  just have to keep our eyes open right?

[Mihle]

40 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

The argument works only with legal system working like clockwork, not with the way its working now, with legal battles being deliberatly dragged out for decades to basicly bleed the opponent. Linus put it in a nice way: "you may win in court 10 years down the line, but we will make sure there will be no company left to get the payment." Court rulings are unenforcable on big enough companies, i mean how long ago was the ruling for intel to pay out a nice chunck of cash to amd and how long ago did they actually pay it?

 

On the part of marketing, AMD just needs to fire the whole Radeon marketing devision, those wankers have no idea how to play to the strenght of their products, and it would be ludicrious to proclaim there are no strenghts.

 

Its understandable that everyone in big business is a wanker, does not mean though any1 has to like it or be fine with it. And issues like this should be taken on the case to case basis, otherwise biases trample sound logic

Radeon marketing team should look at what the Ryzen Marketing team have been doing and learn.

[hobobobo]

21 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

That is only if this is really what the contract is about.  If it wasn't the case and that's all nV wants is separate brands?

 

What is the recourse on that.  [H] is slime?  Or should it be taken a bit further, and actually punish the people for giving [H] the piece to begin with?  [H] is culpable yeah I would agree, they are of age people lol, they can think for themselves.  So are the people that got this story to them.

 

People here are saying nV's ethics are bad and should be stopped correct?  What about ethics of the others involved?

 

We can't have laws govern some of these things at all.  Feelings, marketing, all this stuff is ephemeral. 

 

If nV is telling other sites that they just want two seperate brands one for their products and one for their competitions, but we have Kyle stating contrary to that, who are we to believe?  The truth will come out soon enough.  We know Asus signed up, MSI too.  just have to keep our eyes open right?

I was not talikng about feelings, wether Kyles report is accurate or not, or the recourse of that.

All im saying - there is a legit reason for AMD to go to the media instead of the court, in case [H] report is accurate. In case its not - AMD is being dirty trying to gain points off of fairly inconsiquential business decision, and even that way, there is a bit of merit to the claim, just way less that they lead to belive there is (kinda like rtg merketing, lol)

 

And im pretty sure, as ordinary consumers, we should air on the side of disclosure and transparency. As i stated above, in the case of big companies i choose to belive the worst untill they prove otherwise. With their statement above seperate subbrands, one thing really irks me - allocation of MDF, since by sponsoring the sub brand, for example ROG Green, they strengthen ROG Red by proxy, via strengethening the ROG brand as a whole. I honestly doubt they would be fine with that and to me it looks they want not sub brands but different brands and there is a problem with that

 

Edit: As i see it, there are 3 options:

1) nV wants ROG for themselves, Asus is free to develop another gaming brand for others

2) nV wants "gaming" to be mentioned exclusivly next to GeForce name, with other cards being non-gaming

3) nV wants their ROG Green with others being ROG Red or ROG Blue

only 1 of those options is fine, others are distrubing on a variable degree

[Razor01]

9 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

I was not talikng about feelings, wether Kyles report is accurate or not, or the recourse of that.

All im saying - there is a legit reason for AMD to go to the media instead of the court, in case [H] report is accurate. In case its not - AMD is being dirty trying to gain points off of fairly inconsiquential business decision, and even that way, there is a bit of merit to the claim, just way less that they lead to belive there is (kinda like rtg merketing, lol)

 

And im pretty sure, as ordinary consumers, we should air on the side of disclosure and transparency. As i stated above, in the case of big companies i choose to belive the worst untill they prove otherwise. With their statement above seperate subbrands, one thing really irks me - allocation of MDF, since by sponsoring the sub brand, for example ROG Green, they strengthen ROG Red by proxy, via strengethening the ROG brand as a whole. I honestly doubt they would be fine with that and to me it looks they want not sub brands but different brands and there is a problem with that

 

 

Hey nV might want the Rog brand, and AIB's might just give them what they want, from our point of view, its not ethical, but its not illegal either   If AIB's decide to do it on their own accord, regardless of any imaginary pressures of a winks and hints lol, There is nothing anyone can do about it.  That is pretty much the Wan show said lol.  Even taking them to court they might not be able to prove that.  That is really hard to prove since they are handing over the main brand prior to any wrong doing on nV's part.

 

MDF is on a per situation basis.  its not going to be spelled out in that contract.  Separate contracts of those.

[hobobobo]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Hey nV might want the Rog brand, and AIB's might just give them what they want, from our point of view, its not ethical, but its not illegal either   If AIB's decide to do it on their own accord, regardless of any imaginary pressures of a winks and hints lol, There is nothing anyone can do about it.  That is pretty much the Wan show said lol.  Even talking them to court they might not be able to prove that.  That is really hard to prove since they are handing over the main brand prior to any wrong doing on nV's part.

 

MDF is on a per situation basis.  its not going to be spelled out in that contract.  Separate contracts of those.

The case with handing them ROG brand i find more or less acceptible, well just have to wait and see if any of those companies handing their brands to nV start a new gaming lineup for AMD cards, if they dont - its a pretty good indicator that its not just the brand, its the "gaming" denomination, at that is illegal. One can argue that none of those companies just wants to invest into starting a new brand for just AMD, but if NONE of them does so, the argument crumbles, they are vacating a nice niche in the market and it would be against of their self-interest not to at least try to gain it back with minimum investment. Shareholders would eat them alive

[Notional]

4 hours ago, Hyncharas said:

The issue with GPP is its irritating crap - the Ts&Cs contradict themselves.  There's an advertisement the UK government did about needing to register to vote, which exemplifies a lot how this program works:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8kmmZN4oA

 

To be honest, I think NVidia needs to take a good, long look about how they're running their business.

They did take a long good look at their business: They are making more money than ever, and people are dying to (over)pay for NVidia GPU's and proprietary vendor locked in Gsync monitors. Proprietary tech and vendor lock in are wholly anti consumer, yet the same consumers applaud and support NVidia for doing so. Consumers are idiots.

 

1 hour ago, Razor01 said:

Hair works was funny as hell, AMD had access to Witcher 3 prior to when they stated they did.  They were fully well aware of hairwoks because CD Projeckt Red showed off a demo of hairworks with the same witcher 3 artwork years prior to that.  But yet, they didn't know hairworks was in there?

5

What are you talking about? AMD knew about Hairworks. Their complaint was that they had no access to hairworks or sourcecode (for both the game and gameworks). You're arguing a strawman.

[Humbug]

11 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Because for AMD to do that, it shows there is nothing illegal going on lol, its stupid for them to do so, its AMD complaining and whining because nV has an upper hand.

Let's say for arguments sake  there is nothing illegal going on, even if that were true this is still of public interest. We can like or dislike something based on our ethical standards, regardless of whether it is strictly illegal under the law. It's still of public interest.

 

Let's take a hypothetical example. Steam is not a monopoly but it does have the majority market share for PC game sales. What if Valve was to suddenly start offering exclusivity deals to developers. So if you launch on steam you have to be steam exclusive, you can't simultaneously offer your game on other PC stores such as GOG, Origin, uplay or via your own website etc.

 

This may not be illegal, the consoles do it all the time by giving payouts to devs for exclusivity. So steam can start that practice on PC, it is not illegal. But it still of public interest. If that kind of shit starts happening we need to hear about it as consumers!!

[Razor01]

Just now, Notional said:

They did take a long good look at their business: They are making more money than ever, and people are dying to (over)pay for NVidia GPU's and proprietary vendor locked in Gsync monitors. Proprietary tech and vendor lock in are wholly anti consumer, yet the same consumers applaud and support NVidia for doing so. Consumers are idiots.

 

What are you talking about? AMD knew about Hairworks. Their complaint was that they had no access to hairworks or sourcecode (for both the game and gameworks). You're arguing a strawman.

 

 

They can't have access to the code, period, its not their code, its not even the gamedev's code. 

 

That is not a strawman's argument, that is the law. 

 

Math can't be copyrighted or owned, but what can be is the interpretation of that math, and that is what code is, interpreted math.

[Razor01]

6 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

The case with handing them ROG brand i find more or less acceptible, well just have to wait and see if any of those companies handing their brands to nV start a new gaming lineup for AMD cards, if they dont - its a pretty good indicator that its not just the brand, its the "gaming" denomination, at that is illegal. One can argue that none of those companies just wants to invest into starting a new brand for just AMD, but if NONE of them does so, the argument crumbles, they are vacating a nice niche in the market and it would be against of their self-interest not to at least try to gain it back with minimum investment. Shareholders would eat them alive

Intel did it with ultrabook books, and it was legal lol, AMD had to call their notebooks thin and light that were in the same market segments, and Intel forced the industry to do the same.

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

They can't have access to the code, period, its not their code, its not even the gamedev's code. 

 

That is not a strawman's argument, that is the law. 

 

Math can't be copyrighted or owned, but what can be is the interpretation of that math, and that is what code is, interpreted math.

4

Arguing a strawman yet again. First, it wasn't what you claimed first. Second, of course, Nvidia has that right. But it's anti-consumer and hurts AMD users, and that's a fair point from AMD.

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Let's say for arguments sake  there is nothing illegal going on, even if that were ture this is still of public interest. We can like or dislike something based on our ethical standards, regardless of whether it is strictly illegal under the law. It's still of public interest.

 

Let's take a hypothetical example. Steam is not a monopoly but it does have the majority market share for PC game sales. What if Valve was to suddenly start offering exclusivity deals to developers. So if you launch on steam you have to be steam exclusive, you can't simultaneously offer your game on other PC stores such as GOG, Origin, uplay or via your own website etc.

 

This may not be illegal, the consoles do it all the time by giving payouts to devs for exclusivity. So steam can start that practice on PC, it is not illegal. But it still of public interest. If that kind of shit starts happening we need to hear about it as consumers!!

 

Consumers can say all they want but a company that has better products and the market share.  Which the consumers gave to them in the first place because of the nature of competition, how much is change can the consumer real bring in such a situation.

[hobobobo]

Just now, Razor01 said:

Intel did it with ultrabook books, and it was legal lol, AMD had to call their notebooks thin and light that were in the same market segments, and Intel forced the industry to do the same.

Intel invented the ultrabook branding and trademarked it, its ridiculous and disengenious to compare it this way. Its not like nV developed ROG neither is it their TM

[XenosTech]

Anyone else hearing the echo in here ?

[Razor01]

Just now, Notional said:

Arguing a strawman yet again. First, it wasn't what you claimed first. Second, of course, Nvidia has that right. But it's anti-consumer and hurts AMD users, and that's a fair point from AMD.

 

 

really its anti consumer to add fidelity to the game, the game play didn't change, just some grassy looking hair lol.

 

You think a company that spent millions of dollars in making something should just hand that over to their competition and say, its ok, we should kiss and make up?

 

Hell no.  If I made a graphics engine that beat the pants off of Unreal Engine 4, I don't need to give Epic anything.  Sorry that isn't a free market, that is called communism.

[pas008]

2 hours ago, Humbug said:

Forcing partners to have different brands for Nvidia and AMD is less offensive than forcing them to only use Nvidia.

 

But is Nvidia trying to highjack existing brands such as 'Asus ROG' and 'MSI gaming' ? While forcing them to relegate AMD to new brands which haven't got a reputation built up... The example given by kitguru about ROG green and ROG red was a hypothetical. Does anybody really believe that the agreements signed by Nvidia have given them ownership of a sub brand like Asus ROG green? LOL. More likely they have highjacked the whole of the parent brand 'ROG'... Which means they have got forced exclusivity over a brand created by somebody else.

 

Also Why is this guy suggesting that AMD should not have shopped this story to the press? If they had not we the consumers would be even more in the dark and we would not be even having this discussion and asking these questions. That's just retarded.

we dont know if they want to high jack rog yet

 

but they deserve to be sepated from amd technically

24 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

I was not talikng about feelings, wether Kyles report is accurate or not, or the recourse of that.

All im saying - there is a legit reason for AMD to go to the media instead of the court, in case [H] report is accurate. In case its not - AMD is being dirty trying to gain points off of fairly inconsiquential business decision, and even that way, there is a bit of merit to the claim, just way less that they lead to belive there is (kinda like rtg merketing, lol)

 

And im pretty sure, as ordinary consumers, we should air on the side of disclosure and transparency. As i stated above, in the case of big companies i choose to belive the worst untill they prove otherwise. With their statement above seperate subbrands, one thing really irks me - allocation of MDF, since by sponsoring the sub brand, for example ROG Green, they strengthen ROG Red by proxy, via strengethening the ROG brand as a whole. I honestly doubt they would be fine with that and to me it looks they want not sub brands but different brands and there is a problem with that

 

Edit: As i see it, there are 3 options:

1) nV wants ROG for themselves, Asus is free to develop another gaming brand for others

2) nV wants "gaming" to be mentioned exclusivly next to GeForce name, with other cards being non-gaming

3) nV wants their ROG Green with others being ROG Red or ROG Blue

only 1 of those options is fine, others are distrubing on a variable degree

any are fine except 1 because amd was first rog but then again doesnt mean shit considering nvidia deserves to be separated

 

[Notional]

Just now, Razor01 said:

really its anti consumer to add fidelity to the game, the game play didn't change, just some grassy looking hair lol.

 

You think a company that spent millions of dollars in making something should just hand that over to their competition and say, its ok, we should kiss and make up?

 

Hell no.  If I made a graphics engine that beat the pants off of Unreal Engine 4, I don't need to give Epic anything.  Sorry that isn't a free market, that is called communism.

3

Yes, it is anti consumer. All the trailers and tech demos had that in it, so non tech savvy consumers will think it will be like that on their pc. Then they find out performance will crash and burn, because they have a different GPU, that is otherwise as powerful. Furthermore, I believe the higher presets activated GameWorks, so you might get terrible performance without understanding why.

 

AMD did with TressFX. And it works great on Nvidia too. Because that is pushing the gaming industry without punishing certain consumers. It's a bizarre thing, how most Americans tend to defend corporations rights to screw them over.

 

You don't know the first thing about communism or Marxism it seems. A proprietary graphics engine is mutually exclusive to EU4. A black boxed API implemented into whatever graphics engine is not, however. Odd comparison.

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, hobobobo said:

Intel invented the ultrabook branding and trademarked it, its ridiculous and disengenious to compare it this way. Its not like nV developed ROG neither is it their TM

 

 

Ok who created the Air Jordan Brand?

 

Who coined Michael "Air" Jordan?  It wasn't MJ, it was done by a person in the press, so should Nike, MJ just give up their brands to this media person? 

 

By the way Allen Iverson's nickname and future brand was done by his family friend, family friend took Allen to court on this, and it didn't go in his favor.

 

This is where things get complex, just because the ROG brand isn't nVidia's, It doesn't mean Geforce isn't what is making the ROG graphics card sales. 

[hobobobo]

7 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Hell no.  If I made a graphics engine that beat the pants off of Unreal Engine 4, I don't need to give Epic anything.  Sorry that isn't a free market, that is called communism.

That is not free market at all) Neither would it be communism

Under the free market AMD would get access albeit for a fee

Under communism there would not be hairworks in the first place, but an open unifiend standart developed by a consorcium incuding amd nvidia intel qcom and god knows who

 

 

On the air jordans thingy, Jordan owns a part of the brand, its not like its all Nike's

And i sadly have no clue who Allen Iverson is so cant talk about that one

 

[pas008]

15 hours ago, hobobobo said:

They already are branded differently, its not like its Rog Strix 1080 and Rog Strix 64, both have NVidia Geforce or Radeon in the brand name as a subbrand. Exclusive branding and differently branded are miles apart

Samsung phones would be the easiest example, with both snapdragon and exynos being under the same galaxy brand. DRAM is another good example, with samsungs/hynix/micron chips being sold under the same branding.

like i said we only find it in components

and technically this is regionally

dram is completely different story doesnt require drivers to work

 

i always find it funny when I'm reading about drivers and someone is trying to install nvidia drivers on amd system because thats what they thought they had

their needs to be separation period

I can post many topics on geforce and amd forums because that though they bought the latter