nVidia's GPP program is just a legally enforced GITG from hell?

[CSI PC]

Sapphire or EVGA, Palit/galaxy who only sold GPU of one Brand have nothing to do with GPP... It is their choices..and it is not resulting of a vast program.. Forcing brands to only sold your GPU's if they want tariffs cut ( and brands who dont, will not have them ofc ), free marketing cost ( Nvidia seems to pay the marketing cost from their pocket ), and bring priority on the retail channel to them.. . etc etc as described in the article seems to look exactly like what was doing Intel in the 90-2000 with Dell, HP etc

lets call distort the concurrences ( not only bettween AMD and Nvidia, but too between the different gpus brand ( Asus, MSI, etc ). What next ? Shop who can only sold one brand, otherwise they dont get enough GPU to sold, have higher prices than their competitors, etc etc ?

Similary, Apple is in trouble for similar practice here in Europe. ( for the smartphone market )

Now, i have absolutely no idea if the article is true..

Not sure what your getting at with the bold. The AIB will need to rebrand to differentiate between AMD and Nvidia.
It is a play on words to say negatively Nvidia is stopping AIB partners selling AMD products, the reality is the partner will still sell both but the negative is the overhead it creates for them due to rebranding-product-market strategy and commited resources rather than it being anti-competitive.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Who delivered 1st 480 and 580 GPUs and reference design?
Who had the largest supply available to retailers for the 1st few months?

You tell me. But with credible sources, please.
Launch day for the RX580 had reviewed cards from at least Powercolor, Sapphire, Asus and Gigabyte.

The Vega launch had cards from different OEMs on equal proportions (I remember the OCUK owner claiming this in the forums). My day-1 Vega 64 is from Powercolor, actually.

Who was the sole Global Distribution supplier of FirePro

There is one supplier for FirePro for the same reason there is one supplier for Quadro (PNY).
The reason is in my previous post.

The list goes on,

By all means, do expand this list.

and funny enough the next AIB partner doing well these days is XFX, who again are AMD exclusive.

XFX was shortlisted by nvidia back in 2010 and that's the only reason why they're exclusive to AMD right now.
As a coincidence, XFX was kicked out by nvidia less than 2 years after they started selling AMD cards during the RV770 comeback.

The GPP as reported with concerns involved everything AMD does currently with Sapphire....

Citation needed.

 

[CSI PC]

You tell me. But with credible sources, please.
Launch day for the RX580 had reviewed cards from at least Powercolor, Sapphire, Asus and Gigabyte.

The Vega launch had cards from different OEMs on equal proportions (I remember the OCUK owner claiming this in the forums). My day-1 Vega 64 is from Powercolor, actually.



There is one supplier for FirePro for the same reason there is one supplier for Quadro (PNY).
The reason is in my previous post.




By all means, do expand this list.




XFX was shortlisted by nvidia back in 2010 and that's the only reason why they're exclusive to AMD right now.
As a coincidence, XFX was kicked out by nvidia less than 2 years after they started selling AMD cards during the RV770 comeback.



Citation needed.

Yeah nice arguing sigh.
Citation; what so now want proof Sapphire gets preferential treatment and that it was 1st with large availability with the Nitro as a custom model,largest availability close to launch to any other AIB partner, or that it is the preferred business partner with AMD for reference design platform/global distributor for FirePro that would also mean closer technical engineering engagement, do your own search.

The context of XFX is in relation to other AMD partners and not 2010...
Reviews and when available are massively different, case in point was one Asus AMD custom model that reviewed way earlier than even launched.
Are you re-writing history and the low shortage of 480 and 580s and what was available and especially when the Nitro was initially available.
Many in the early days changed their orders from Asus/etc to Sapphire on Overclockers UK due to the wait/lack of progress/very low supply/etc.
At launch OverclockersUK mentioned various AIB partners open to order/preorder, but they only had large physical stock and photographs as evidence of Sapphire and HIS, and as it went on the stock supply was in the 1000s for Sapphire but marginal from other partners and especially so when it came to custom models vs Nitro.
It took a while for the supply availability to equalise and give customers greater choice.

But this is going off tangent, in reality the practice AMD does with Sapphire is pretty much what Nvidia is looking to setup with their GPP unless one is in denial how much Sapphire engages with AMD at the expense of other board partners.

 

[swaaye]

Sapphire and ATI go way back. Back to at least the first Radeon cards. Sapphire may have been their only 3rd party card manufacturer but it wasn't very apparent because there was only ATI branding. I could see there being a unique relationship there.

 

[CSI PC]

Sapphire and ATI go way back. Back to at least the first Radeon cards. Sapphire may have been their only 3rd party card manufacturer but it wasn't very apparent because there was only ATI branding. I could see there being a unique relationship there.

Yeah.
Not saying it is a bad thing per se and comes down to perspective, just the way it is and the Nvidia GPP going forward is kind of a reflection of that relationship, albeit with what could be deemed unfair in that it will force AIB partners extra burden in terms of rebranding/marketing/resources (while Nvidia will provide some benefits to offset this but not entirely) and those AIB partners would not want to miss out on that program relationship.
The Sapphire-AMD relationship does not have these negative for Sapphire, but then it is not a relationship open to all nor has the complication of the partner working with the other GPU manufacturer.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Yeah nice arguing sigh.

Arguments with sources.
Of which you have been incapable of providing even one (1) so far.

Your only argument with actual sources (not provided by you though) has been to compare GPP to Sapphire's FirePro exclusivity, as if everyone should be equally concerned with that. But you did so by conveniently leaving out that nvidia does the exact same exclusivity deal with PNY for the Quadro line, for the exact same reason -> narrow down component/PCB variation to be able to provide a premium support.

 

[Grall]

The article is in context that Nvidia is going to use the GPP for preferential treatment and a lot is being made of this, well AMD already does this with Sapphire in terms of both 1st to market products/higher level of supply and technical engagement and some business practices such as making them the Global Distributor of FirePro back in 2013.

The point was, NV is forcing companies who want to be in GPP (and there are many advantages) to use their gaming brand only for NV cards. There is no such requirement reported coming from AMD - not that they'd be in a position to demand it in the first place. But NV is, with 2/3 of the market - and much more than that in the GAMING market.

Being deliberately obtuse (repeatedly!) on this point does not change these facts.

And while some may say "ah but the Nvidia program affects more", it is still not anti-competitive because the OEMs/AIBs are still able to have same level of commitment to AMD as now

No this is not true, as shown in Kyle's example about ASUS/ROG.

ROG is a big label, in fact it's THE label for ASUS when it comes to gaming. They use it for everything specifically gaming-related; not just graphics boards, but also peripherals like keyboards mice and monitors, and also entire pre-built PCs.

If AMD loses ROG - and other major gaming-centric marks from other vendors, whatever they might be - it'd obviously be a major blow against them. Why else would you think NV is doing this? That's their entire point, to deliver a hard nut-kick to AMD.

You do not find it strange the preferential position of Sapphire that solely engages with AMD?

Not any stranger than Powercolor being exclusively NV. Manufacturers can make deals with whom they like. This is NV forcing a deal on manufacturers; not OK! Especially since they're in a dominating market position. Also, strawman alert; whataboutism alert.

To clarify I am not defending Nvidia but just seeing it from a broader perspective that goes beyond Nvidia practices.

Oh yeah? Because from where I am standing it sure looks like blind loyalty apologism.

 

[CSI PC]

Arguments with sources.
Of which you have been incapable of providing even one (1) so far.

Your only argument with actual sources (not provided by you though) has been to compare GPP to Sapphire's FirePro exclusivity, as if everyone should be equally concerned with that. But you did so by conveniently leaving out that nvidia does the exact same exclusivity deal with PNY for the Quadro line, for the exact same reason -> narrow down component/PCB variation to be able to provide a premium support.

And you miss the point and context...
The complaint with GPP is that it would cause the preferential treatment for a AIB partner along those lines seen with Sapphire, it is irrelevant what PNY do with Quadro but context and obervation comparing what benefits Sapphire has over other AMD AIB partners, your deliberately skewing context.
AMD raised this as a story with HardOCP and other sites in context the GPP will punish those that do not sign up, yet Sapphire has advantages with its relationship with AMD.

Sapphire has the following advantages over other board partners;
Sapphire is the Global Distributor for FirePro, which has the largest margins. - you provided the link.
Sapphire is the only AIB partner for Reference Design Platform Partnership including Embedded at Elite partnership.
That partnership level also means greater level of technical/engineering engagement with AMD; some of the technical embedded solutions with others involve both AMD and Sapphire such as the ones created with Symmetry back in 2014 to others more recently.
Sapphire is 1st 480 shown publicly: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-480,32306.html
Sapphire is 1st custom 480 available: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...rder-at-overclockers-uk-world-first.18738486/
However this shows how relying upon review date as you showed earlier is not ideal, review of customs went back to April 4th: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-graphics-card-roundup,4962-9.html
Before the custom when just reference design this gives bit of an indicator to the stock ratio for the 480 (they were meant to have the largest stock of other reference partner boards):

There is a lot more evidence than this but tbh I do not see why I need to spend anymore time on a pretty obvious situation with Sapphire.
Regarding 580 comes more down to XFX and Sapphire in general but both are AMD focused

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Sounds more like what AMD does with Sapphire and Nvidia is expanding that to be more of broader program rather than what Intel pulled and forcing AIB Partners to be more focused on them rather than AMD.

This is absolutely nothing like what AMD does with Sapphire.

Other AIBs aren't at a massive competitive disadvantage with Sapphire if they also offer NV branded GPUs.

NV are basically telling companies like Asus, that if they want to continue selling top tier NV GPUs using their high margin gaming brands, that they had better stop using AMD GPUs in those gaming brands, otherwise they'll castrate their ability to compete with other NV video card makers.

Regards,
SB

 

[CSI PC]

The point was, NV is forcing companies who want to be in GPP (and there are many advantages) to use their gaming brand only for NV cards. There is no such requirement reported coming from AMD - not that they'd be in a position to demand it in the first place. But NV is, with 2/3 of the market - and much more than that in the GAMING market.

Being deliberately obtuse (repeatedly!) on this point does not change these facts.


No this is not true, as shown in Kyle's example about ASUS/ROG.

ROG is a big label, in fact it's THE label for ASUS when it comes to gaming. They use it for everything specifically gaming-related; not just graphics boards, but also peripherals like keyboards mice and monitors, and also entire pre-built PCs.

If AMD loses ROG - and other major gaming-centric marks from other vendors, whatever they might be - it'd obviously be a major blow against them. Why else would you think NV is doing this? That's their entire point, to deliver a hard nut-kick to AMD.


Not any stranger than Powercolor being exclusively NV. Manufacturers can make deals with whom they like. This is NV forcing a deal on manufacturers; not OK! Especially since they're in a dominating market position. Also, strawman alert; whataboutism alert.


Oh yeah? Because from where I am standing it sure looks like blind loyalty apologism.

At least they get the option unlike the preferential position of Sapphire.
So you would be happy then if they just did the same as AMD with Sapphire and used a select number of AIB partners they negotiate quietly and all other partners will have less engagement?
Rog is brand recognition-positioning, I am not being obtuse because some keep inferring these partners could no longer successfully sell AMD products, the reality is they would still be able to.
And tbh if as you say AMD is such a small % in said market, rebranding them would not have major impact as it would still be an Asus Vega blah blah or Asus 580 blah blah, tbh myself and those I know do not take much notice of model brand but what the model actually provides.
The problem as I keep saying is the burden it pushes onto AIB partners, and I am someone who has worked in product engineering and with partners albeit not GPUs in this context.
Grall you are over reacting to my point, this same type of situation happened when I argued from an engineering product position on Nvidia and Sakura using Titan V with some others.....and yeah we know how that ended up.

It is getting way over emotional.

 

[CSI PC]

This is absolutely nothing like what AMD does with Sapphire.

Other AIBs aren't at a massive competitive disadvantage with Sapphire if they also offer NV branded GPUs.

NV are basically telling companies like Asus, that if they want to continue selling top tier NV GPUs using their high margin gaming brands, that they had better stop using AMD GPUs in those gaming brands, otherwise they'll castrate their ability to compete with other NV video card makers.

Regards,
SB

So Sapphire had no advantage when it was the primary custom 480 model available for quite awhile?
Also was applicable to 580 but to a lesser extent.
Sapphire gets no advantage as global distributor for the higher margin Firepro?
Saphire gets no advantage with the embedded partnership and as the only AIB partner to achieve this?


You really think Asus would not be able to sell AMD GPUs unless they are ROG?
The headache is rebranding and critically AIB partner costs (here is where the criticism should be) , but it is not forcing them to stop selling AMD products or being able to rebrand them.
AMD manages to rebrand their products near enough every year.

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Of abusing dominant position on the market
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/08/geforce_partner_program_impacts_consumer_choice

AMD came to us and presented us with "this story." AMD shopped this story with other websites as well.

Typical of AMD. If the can't compete then throw mud and see if some of it sticks.

Looks like Kyle took the bait hook, line and sinker.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Typical of AMD. If the can't compete then throw mud and see if some of it sticks.

Looks like Kyle took the bait hook, line and sinker.

You're implying there is nothing behind the story, why?

 

[Deleted member 2197]

AMD sourced rumour? Hopefully it's not from their marketing department.

 

[Kaotik]

AMD sourced rumour? Hopefully it's not from their marketing department.

It pretty much stopped being rumor at the point where AMD only tipped Bennett and Bennett found tip to be true

 

[CSI PC]

We need more details to how the GPP partnership would affect any rebranding and naming-product positioning for those selling products from both AMD and Nivida, some of which would be a serious intervention from Nvidia and would be a concern for AMD directly but more details are required to know how it is implemented.
Such as is the term 'gaming' being enforced (this would be a redline if AMD brand strategy within an AIB partner could not be defined with gaming), is Nvidia willing to support a new branding strategy from AIB partners where their current branding spans many diverse products beyond GPUs,etc.

One aspect where it could had really hurt AMD was where it involved an AMD CPU with an Nvidia GPU, however it looks like the distinction is specifically AMD GPU from the branding rather than CPU, so the GPP branded product can still be an OEM solution combining AMD CPU with Nvidia GPUs.
Could say it is silly that they would then need to rebrand the same OEM system when using AMD GPUs instead and meaning double the marketed OEM product, so adds some complexity for consumer but most of the concern would again fall back to the added burden put on OEM partners.

 

[digitalwanderer]

We need more details to how the GPP partnership would affect any rebranding and naming-product positioning for those selling products from both AMD and Nivida, some of which would be a serious intervention from Nvidia and would be a concern for AMD directly but more details are required to know how it is implemented.

Which is a huge part of the problem, for all of nVidia's talk of transparency we aren't allowed to see the details of the contract and AIBs and OEMs are too scared to talk about them or even give me selective excerpts!

(Been having fun hitting up old sources today, nothing like a luscious nVidia scandal to get my mind of my real problems! )

 

[CSI PC]

Which is a huge part of the problem, for all of nVidia's talk of transparency we aren't allowed to see the details of the contract and AIBs and OEMs are too scared to talk about them or even give me selective excerpts!

(Been having fun hitting up old sources today, nothing like a luscious nVidia scandal to get my mind of my real problems! )

How can it be a huge part of the problem when we do not know the answer to the points I raised, it will be a huge part of the problem if they end up happening but for now one cannot assume anything beyond the basics provided in the article.
Reading the forum it seems HardOCP moderators/Kyle are not exactly sure themselves on those definitions-points I raise.
Hence we need more details, which should start happening over the week due to his article.

I agree the use of 'transparency' from Nvidia is ridiculous, better off just saying aligning their product strategy to be more effective to compete with future challenges from competitors. - meaning the Intel-AMD collaboration that Nvidia would never directly say publicly because they would want to avoid giving weight to any solutions they launch.

 

[Grall]

At least they get the option unlike the preferential position of Sapphire.

AGAIN with the whataboutism? Jesus, will you stop beating this dead horse already.

You want to discuss AMD-Sapphire, go make a thread about that and present your facts there. It's irrelevant for this discussion - and not even comparable in the first place as AMD isn't denying other brands support, or making decisions on how they may use their own trademarks.

I am not being obtuse because some keep inferring these partners could no longer successfully sell AMD products, the reality is they would still be able to.

Nobody is saying that! Literally, NOBODY IS SAYING THEY CAN'T SELL AMD BOARDS. Jesus. Stop with the strawman nonsense!

And the obtusive bit was for you refusing to acknowledge the AMD-Sapphire deal isn't comparable in scope and reach to this GPP thing.

And tbh if as you say AMD is such a small % in said market, rebranding them would not have major impact

Oh but it would. Hardware design and branding go hand in hand. The premium PCBs, coolers get the ROG (or equivalent for other vendors) branding. Deny AMD that, and the geekazoids who get turned on by blingy hardware (myself included) will not be attracted by inferior AMD offerings. They're not going to make two separate gaming brands, one for NV and one for AMD, that'd cost money and resources which can't be justified for a minor market player - plus it's redundant, plus "consumer confusion" etc. Also, again, apologism much?

If NV believed it would not have a major impact, why do you think they'd bother to cook up a contract like this? Of course they know it will have a sizeable impact; whatever you want to call NV, they're not fools.

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Key Disclosures: NVIDIA has completely denied on-the-record the existence of all anti-consumer practices alleged in the report and have stated while the program exists, there are no MDFs/discounts/priority allocation associated with aligning a gaming brand exclusively with NVIDIA. In the interest of complete disclosure and transparency I will also mention that AMD reached out to me stating that they had received tip-offs from multiple partners who stated (on the condition of anonymity) that the program existed a few weeks back.

https://wccftech.com/nvidias-geforce-partner-program-allegedly-engages-in-anti-consumer-practices

So much for the grand conspiracy spread by AMD and picked up Kyle (who got played).

This whole thing seems more like Charlie's style from Semi-In-Accurate.