nVidia ends GeForce Partner Program

[Razor01]

5 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Which ones? Or was it part of the marketing spiel that is mandatory to place on the boxes of Nvidia products?

Ask any reviewer, they were told by the AIB's what the specs were for those cards, they don't go back to nV and calculate from the frequencies to get fill rates lol.

 

The box stuff, because of the overclock had different fill rates on them.  PNY definitely had the ROP counts and fillrates.

 

What was more fed up it didn't even show up in Techreports fillrate tests with the B3D test suite!

[Carclis]

Just now, Razor01 said:

Ask any reviewer, they were told by the AIB's what the specs were for those cards, they don't go back to nV and calculate from the frequencies to get fill rates lol.

 

The box stuff, because of the overclock had different fill rates on them.

Because that's what they were told by Nvidia. Even the bios reported to GPU-Z that they had 64 ROPs instead of 56.

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Because that's what they were told by Nvidia. Even the bios reported to GPU-Z that they had 64 ROPs instead of 56.

Sorry man when doing internal tests, which they would have done extensive tests (AIB's) they would have seen discrepancies lol.  Come on they aren't idiots.  Something was going on.  Come on a 3rd party guy outside with no tools figured it all out.  That just shows how easy it was to find it.

 

Also tech power up tool doesn't get all its info from the bios, not all of it, its from a database.  The only thing it measures is GPU and memory clocks. Vendor name and what not.

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Ask any reviewer, they were told by the AIB's what the specs were for those cards, they don't go back to nV and calculate from the frequencies to get fill rates lol.

 

The box stuff, because of the overclock had different fill rates on them.  PNY definitely had the ROP counts and fillrates.

 

What was more fed up it didn't even show up in Techreports fillrate tests with the B3D test suite!

almost every review of any gtx 970 states 64

6 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Because that's what they were told by Nvidia. Even the bios reported to GPU-Z that they had 64 ROPs instead of 56.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/gpu-z-0-8-2-releasedsupport-nvidia-titan-xfixed-gtx-970-rop-count.2424558/

Just now, Razor01 said:

Sorry man when doing internal tests, which they would have done extensive tests (AIB's) they would have seen discrepancies lol.  Come on they aren't idiots.  Something was going on.

oh they should know their product if it was theirs right?

lol

[Carclis]

Just now, Razor01 said:

Sorry man when doing internal tests, which they would have done extensive tests (AIB's) they would have seen discrepancies lol.  Come on they aren't idiots.  Something was going on.

They may or may not have, but it doesn't matter because Nvidia were the ones who did the marketing. It was their responsibility to put the right information out and they lied in their reviewers guides and when presenting the new products.

Quote

You should take two things away from that simple description. First, despite initial reviews and information from NVIDIA, the GTX 970 actually has fewer ROPs and less L2 cache than the GTX 980. NVIDIA says this was an error in the reviewer’s guide and a misunderstanding between the engineering team and the technical PR team on how the architecture itself functioned.

PCper

Anywhos, I'm not sure where this is going and it's 2am...

[Carclis]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

oh they should know their product if it was theirs right?

lol

Not if their product is manufactured using many parts that are are all supplied and supposedly designed to meet a spec. As we have established, manufacturing is contracted out.

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Not if their product is manufactured using many parts that are are all supplied and supposedly designed to meet a spec. As we have established, manufacturing is contracted out.

 

 

Can't have it both ways, the GPU and Board IP is nV's, its their product that makes the AIB's work even remotely marketable.  So at the end of the day, its the AIB's responsibility to get the product to the market, but the product , its IP solely "belongs" to the nV.  Take out ownership by money here, Pas008 and I are talking about who really owns the product from an IP point of view, that is why nV will always be targeted before the AIB's.  nV tell's it AIB's what they want for their products.  Just as AMD does for theirs.

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Not if their product is manufactured using many parts that are are all supplied and supposedly designed to meet a spec. As we have established, manufacturing is contracted out.

are they a contracted manufacturer or ip manufacturer?

[Razor01]

Simple when we buy software, do we buy the software?

 

No we buy the licensee for that software, to use it in a manner that is specified by the license.

Same thing here, do the AIB's buy the product?  No, they buy the license to the product to do as they they are deemed to by nV to create the product in full and sell to the market.

 

The product is owned by nV, and is licensed to the AIB's which they can customize based on that license agreement.

[WMGroomAK]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Take out ownership by money here, Pas008 and I are talking about who really owns the product from an IP point of view, that is why nV will always be targeted before the AIB's.  nV tell's it AIB's what they want for their products.

So what you're saying is that if the VRM fails on my GPU, I need to take up the issue with nVidia and not EVGA, right?  

 

https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/EVGA-Overheating-VRM-Issue-GeForce-ACX-Coolers

 

As far as I can tell, the only time that the whole graphics card (PCB and all) are the GPU designers is when they are the reference design, otherwise the design specs & PCBs are modified by the AIBs to meet whatever want/need that they are aiming for.  AMD or nV may have minimum requirements that they want to see used on the final product, but outside of the reference designs, they don't specify how overbuilt a VRM, what all the outputs are on the card or even what style of cooling is used to keep all of the components at temp.

[Kamjam21xx]

2 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

So what you're saying is that if the VRM fails on my GPU, I need to take up the issue with nVidia and not EVGA, right?  

 

https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/EVGA-Overheating-VRM-Issue-GeForce-ACX-Coolers

 

As far as I can tell, the only time that the whole graphics card (PCB and all) are the GPU designers is when they are the reference design, otherwise the design specs & PCBs are modified by the AIBs to meet whatever want/need that they are aiming for.  AMD or nV may have minimum requirements that they want to see used on the final product, but outside of the reference designs, they don't specify how overbuilt a VRM, what all the outputs are on the card or even what style of cooling is used to keep all of the components at temp.

Yeah he will just keep going on forever about it. Die hard for the nv

[Razor01]

14 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

So what you're saying is that if the VRM fails on my GPU, I need to take up the issue with nVidia and not EVGA, right?  

 

https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/EVGA-Overheating-VRM-Issue-GeForce-ACX-Coolers

 

As far as I can tell, the only time that the whole graphics card (PCB and all) are the GPU designers is when they are the reference design, otherwise the design specs & PCBs are modified by the AIBs to meet whatever want/need that they are aiming for.  AMD or nV may have minimum requirements that they want to see used on the final product, but outside of the reference designs, they don't specify how overbuilt a VRM, what all the outputs are on the card or even what style of cooling is used to keep all of the components at temp.

 

EVGA will take care of that, but was due to a faulty cooler design.  That is EVGA's problem.

[Razor01]

1 hour ago, Razor01 said:

 

The end product is still there, because of the GPU and IP, if there are faults in either of those, nV has to cover the AIB's ass.

 

Just like the 970, the GPU didn't have the advertised ROP's, so nV had to cover that.  Do you think AIB's had to pony up money for that?

 

EVGA made a faulty cooler for some of the cards right?  Did nV pony up for a bad cooler that EVGA made? 

See

 

You guys don't seem to understand, AIB's have a license to resell these products, with certain customization, that license gives them the right to do certain things for reselling.  They can own the product directly if they don't want to resell the product, sure because then they will be an end user.  But if they want to be a seller of those products then they don't have the right of ownership of the product.  That is the whole reason for an IP license to grant certain rights to do certain things.

If lets say Qualcomm gets the x86 license from Intel, to do work on a specific product, the license is given to them for a specific product, something that doesn't have anything to do with Intel's markets, Qualcomm makes the product and then directly goes and sells the products in the server market.  That is not possible, because Intel owns the product and they gave certain rights to Qualcomm, and one of the stipulations was they can't directly compete in current Intel markets.  Does Qualcomm really own the product at this point?  Intel is telling them what they can and can not do with Qualcomm's product even though Qualcomm PAID for the license, PAID for designing the chip, PAID for manufacturing of the chip, PAID for marketing the chip.  They PAID for a lot of things, but they didn't PAY for ownership rights.  They can't do what they feel like doing, any which way they want to.

 

This is the same with AIB's, they don't own the product as a whole if they want to be a reseller of the product, even if they PAID for making the custom board or PAID for the RAM.

[Kamjam21xx]

I have owned a prebuilt computer from HP, it was mine... i owned it.

 

No company was going to come take my computer or control anything i do with what came in the box, because i have no agreement with anybody to own it.

 

It was mine

I was the owner

 

Bam debunked

 

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

I have owned a prebuilt computer from HP, it was mine... i owned it.

 

No company was going to come take my computer or control anything i do with what came in the box, because i have no agreement with anybody to own it.

 

It was mine

I was the owner

 

Bam debunked

 

 

You are an end user, you own that product, because its not a license, I don't remember end users even licensing hardware for reselling, did you do that with your system?

You made your computer, you bought your OS right?

 

If you used that OS in a way that EULA say's you shouldn't, like putting it on two systems and you get caught and the serial gets burned.  You don't own your software lol.  You broke that license and you lost your rights to use the software.

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

I have owned a prebuilt computer from HP, it was mine... i owned it.

 

No company was going to come take my computer or control anything i do with what came in the box, because i have no agreement with anybody to own it.

 

It was mine

I was the owner

 

Bam debunked

 

end user lol and you pretty much agree to the software licenses all the time when you check boxes or say I agree

 

asus/evga/etc are licensed partners which include distrubition and handling their own rmas

[Kamjam21xx]

No i know, im just kidding. I just hate to see everyone arguing over IP like lawyers in a court room. If i wanted that, id go break the law and get caught.

[Cheezdoodlez]

'Member when this thread was on topic? 

 

This thread is so off the rails the last pages are in another galaxy. 

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Razor01 said:

They don't, you need to understand, Geforce made the marketshare it did, Asus's brand, MSI's brand, what ever else's AIB's brand DID NOT make the 70%+ gaming GPU market for nV.  AIB's are literally IRRELEVANT went it comes why the market is the way it is right now.  If those AIB brands ment something, in the GPU market, you would see AMD having more marketshare.  But it all comes down to the core product and brand, Geforce vs Radeon.

That's irrelevant to the product owner, AIB's make more than GPUs and the brands they use for the GPUs are across multiple product segments. This isn't a discussion about market share or why the market is like is now it's purely who is the product owner because if you think Nvidia owns the end product designed by the AIB, parted out by the AIB, branded by the AIB, sold by the AIB then you're sorely mistaken.

 

Why does this matter, because it's not Geforce vs Radeon. It's who's allowed to use the AIB's branding, their IP not Nvidia's or AMD's.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That's irrelevant to the product owner, AIB's make more than GPUs and the brands they use for the GPUs are across multiple product segments. This isn't a discussion about market share or why the market is like is now it's purely who it's the product owner because if you think Nvidia owns the end product designed by the AIB, parted out by the AIB, branded by the AIB, sold by the AIB then you're sorely mistaken.

 

Why does this matter, because it's not Geforce vs Radeon. It's who's allowed to use the AIB's branding, their IP not Nvidia's or AMD's.

 

I think the problem is people start applying conditions like who built the products value and market share as arguments for why they believe the AIB or Nv should be held accountable/subjected,   Instead of sticking directly with the conditions of  law (as we understand them).  Once people move beyond the legal realm and into their own ideals about what is legal/ethical then we have many different arguments that cannot be resolved due the arbitrary nature of their motivation.

[Razor01]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

That's irrelevant to the product owner, AIB's make more than GPUs and the brands they use for the GPUs are across multiple product segments. This isn't a discussion about market share or why the market is like is now it's purely who is the product owner because if you think Nvidia owns the end product designed by the AIB, parted out by the AIB, branded by the AIB, sold by the AIB then you're sorely mistaken.

 

Why does this matter, because it's not Geforce vs Radeon. It's who's allowed to use the AIB's branding, their IP not Nvidia's or AMD's.

 

That is the problem its co branding, so who has the right to say what?  This was what I stated in one of my first posts about the GPP, Geforce has too much weight right now and the AIB's must follow suit if nV wishes they want to do something about their brand.

 

Any marketer, or advertiser will tell you that is a danger of co branding.  There is nothing illegal, unethical, non business point of view for this.  This is business and in business brands have a certain stigma and value, and when co brands are not equal in merit the owner of the stronger brand has more leverage.

 

Any business dealing is based on what the parties bring to the table.  Asus's ROG brand or MSI's Gamer X brand doesn't bring anything to the table when Geforce is why people are buying these cards.  If Asus tomorrow drops all Geforce cards from their products WILL THEY MAINTAIN the same graphics card % in the marketshare?  No they won't they will not be able to supplant nV graphics cards with AMD graphics cards and maintain their share.  Their ROG brand means nothing in this context.

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Any marketer, or advertiser will tell you that is a danger of co branding.  There is nothing illegal, unethical, non business point of view for this.  This is business and in business brands have a certain stigma and value, and when co brands are not equal in merit the owner of the stronger brand has more leverage.

I'm not even talking about any of this at all though, that's not the point. Like I said way back I have no idea how far I have no issue with Nvidia having branding requirements as part of their partnership and supply contracts. The how is important.

 

ROG is a huge brand it's not inconsequential and people buy ROG products over others all the time, yes people may want a GeForce GPU but they have options from multiple AIBs and that is where ROG comes in.

 

ROG was not created for Nvidia or for an Nvidia product.

 

Quote

To realize their vision, these pioneering engineers and enthusiasts formed a new division within ASUS dubbed Project G and began working on a motherboard code-named Pluto. Project G morphed to become the Republic of Gamers, while Pluto spawned the original Crosshair motherboard. The Crosshair redefined expectations for what a motherboard could be, and ROG has remained at the forefront of gaming and enthusiast hardware in the 10 years since its debut.

 http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/10-years-republic-gamers-history-innovation/

 

The first ever ROG product was an AMD motherboard.

 

So you can stop with the down playing of ROG and AIB brands because they mean a lot, these companies invest a fair decent amount of money in to their brands and utilize funds from many different vendors to bolster them. They have never belonged to Nvidia, Intel, AMD etc and Nvidia didn't gain ownership over them with GPP they only gained exclusivity to them, for GPUs only, and that is the part I don't agree with.

 

I have a very specific issue, there rest you or others keep bringing up I'm not that interested in. Nvidia wants exclusive branding stump up and create it not take it, it's not theirs.

 

23 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Any business dealing is based on what the parties bring to the table.  Asus's ROG brand or MSI's Gamer X brand doesn't bring anything to the table when Geforce is why people are buying these cards.  If Asus tomorrow drops all Geforce cards from their products WILL THEY MAINTAIN the same graphics card % in the marketshare?

Again this is not about GeForce or Nvidia's market share, it's about AIBs and their products. I buy ROG over other products, others may prefer another brand and this is what it is about.

[pas008]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm not even talking about any of this at all though, that's not the point. Like I said way back I have no idea how far I have no issue with Nvidia having branding requirements as part of their partnership and supply contracts. The how is important.

 

ROG is a huge brand it's not inconsequential and people buy ROG products over others all the time, yes people may want a GeForce GPU but they have options from multiple AIBs and that is where ROG comes in.

 

ROG was not created for Nvidia or for an Nvidia product.

 

 http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/10-years-republic-gamers-history-innovation/

 

The first ever ROG product was an AMD motherboard.

 

So you can stop with the down playing of ROG and AIB brands because they mean a lot, these companies invest a fair decent amount of money in to their brands and utilize funds from many different vendors to bolster them. They have never belonged to Nvidia, Intel, AMD etc and Nvidia didn't gain ownership over them with GPP they only gained exclusivity to them, for GPUs only, and that is the part I don't agree with.

 

I have a very specific issue, there rest you or others keep bringing up I'm not that interested in. Nvidia wants exclusive branding stump up and create it not take it, it's not theirs.

 

Again this is not about GeForce or Nvidia's market share, it's about AIBs and their products. I buy ROG over other products, others may prefer another brand and this is what it is about.

Wasnt rog made with nvidia chipset on amd motherboard? with actual rog logo on the chipset itself?

Which allowed sli on amd mobo?

[ImNotDeViLzzz]

I love Nvidia for bringing about PhysX and more but so glad that this here was stopped.  Thanks to all the people who made a fuss to get them to change their minds. This still doesn't mean that I won't buy Nvidia though as I want the best and they offer the best.  I miss my GTX 1080 Ti and I hope to replace it with something similar in the years to come.

[DrAwesome821]

praise the sun