The AMD Execution Thread [2018]

[CSI PC]

Well it could be awkward if AMD has blocked ASRock selling dGPUs in Europe, hopefully other journalists will look into this as needs to be seen what has happened (may be nothing or an issue by either AMD or ASRock).

 

[CSI PC]

Err, certain brands being limited to certain markets has been a standard practice for as long as I can remember, heck it was already done in the Voodoo days with 3dfx/PowerColor deal

This is a partner who sell other AMD products in Europe/North America, so it does raise questions if they are blocked for their dGPU; further information is needed to understand if this is an issue related to AMD or ASRock.

Which other primary partner from AMD or Nvidia are blocked selling dGPUs in Europe/North America?

Its a shame because the card is nice if one wants to focus on thermal dissipation (looks to have flexibility to lower fan profile) rather than OC models from quite a few of the other AIB partners.
http://www.tomshardware.de/asrock-g...ufnahme-lautstarke,testberichte-242473-6.html
Need to translate it, but thermal images says it all.

 

[Malo]

Obviously they want to so does the question still remain as to why they can't? Is it a cap on the amount of brands in a region? Lack of some kind of regional contract?

 

[Deleted member 2197]

I wonder why AMD cares if AsRock takes market share away from it's other AIB's in Europe or America? Revenues are still incoming to AMD albeit from a different source.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Right now this is one employee with one statement. There's no official statement from either ASRock or AMD about this, but here's a bunch of points:

1 - Asrock's lineup of Radeon graphics cards is very recent, so this could all be just a matter of timing to get the appropriate licenses.

2 - They seem to be re-selling graphics cards from Colorful (or at least using the exact same coolers). Does Colorful sell in the EU, are their cards CE certified?

3 - Given ASRock's relationship with Asus, this could have been one of many ways to make up for the projected lost sales when Radeons were going to lose the ROG branding due to GPP.
GPP is no more, so maybe there's no need for ASRock graphics cards anymore.

4 - ASRock's lineup seemed to be aimed at miners (or at least part of it). Does ASRock really want to enter EU's gaming market?

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Currently there's too many unknowns regarding their contract or lack there of. A bit more transparency would help with regard to the possibility of limiting competition or protecting partners in global markets.
I would imagine agreements with this type of reach would seem to conflict with some EU anti-competition laws.

ASRock is already in the EU and US gaming markets with their other products. I can see them wanting to have top to bottom offering for enthusiasts who want their brand products.

 

[CSI PC]

Right now this is one employee with one statement. There's no official statement from either ASRock or AMD about this, but here's a bunch of points:

3 - Given ASRock's relationship with Asus, this could have been one of many ways to make up for the projected lost sales when Radeons were going to lose the ROG branding due to GPP.
GPP is no more, so maybe there's no need for ASRock graphics cards anymore.

4 - ASRock's lineup seemed to be aimed at miners (or at least part of it). Does ASRock really want to enter EU's gaming market?

Although Tom's Hardware was officially contacted by ASRock to say they should not had the dGPU for review.
They were contacted by 'senior sales manager of ASRock' (their wording not mine) who clarified the situation and wanted to know how it got through sales channels.

3. The business entity relationship is no longer tight between between ASRock and Asus; putting aside reason I give below, Occam's Razor if it was close why did they go with Powercolor instead of an Asus entry dGPU design.
In another thread it was listed with history how ASRock was spun off completely from Asus and there is only 1 board member that still has an active relationship between all 3 companies these days (his background was government based).
One of the founders still at Asustek+Asustek holdings do equal up to 20% shareholding, but that does not influence business decision as he is not on the board; the power of such a shareholding is influencing who they vote on to the board and indirectly push a direction if they do not like how the company is run (can vote off board members but still would need a majority to support them) but like I mentioned the only one on all 3 boards is an ex-government finance member.
The below post shows the history and how they were separated and even in 2012 Asustek looked to re-acquire ASRock but it did not complete, showing they do not have enough control for business-development direction.
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...rced-gitg-from-hell.60649/page-5#post-2024264
I think my speculation was wrong with regards to stepping down when T.H. Tung joined the board back in the very early days and there was an overlap back then but that did change years back.

4. It would be strange to call a mining card RX 580 Phantom Gaming X, which has reasonably good gaming performance but focused on cool operation when reading the Tom's Hardware review.
After all much of the debate early on in GPP thread was the importance of Gaming as part of a brand name in dGPU gaming segment.
Also the box branding is very similar to that of recent Gaming Fat1lity; this 580 has a Silver P with a red G while looking at such as X370 Fat1ility Gaming motherboard it has a silver F with a large red G albeit much larger and blocker.
Similarities on branding style is there.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

There's no official statement from either ASRock or AMD about this

But there is now.
Tomshardware.de has updated their news piece after being contacted by ASRock, with the following statements:

The VGA card products are only sold in South America and APEC (exclude China, Hong Kong and Taiwan) at first. I cannot provide you the MSRP and the warranty duration because they are different in different sales region...

The decision of sales region for ASRock VGA card is based on the planning of mutual channel agreement. So far the first priority is Asia Pacific and Latin America. No confirmed schedules in EU markets yet.

It doesn't sound like AMD is banning ASRock from selling cards in Europe.
ASRock seems to be going for markets with smaller competition first, but they're clearly suggesting they'll come to the European market at a later date.


I thought it was a bit weird that a sales rep would be comfortable enough to complain about AMD refusing to let them sell cards in Europe.

 

[entity279]

Is it banning or was this just the initial deal between ASrock and AMD ? With possibly some of the PR people not being correctly informed of the actual deal, ofc..

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Is it banning or was this just the initial deal between ASrock and AMD ? With possibly some of the PR people not being correctly informed of the actual deal, ofc..

That seems to be the case. One uninformed rep with a loose tongue and now all tech news outlets are craving for an AMD mistake because they want to appear impartial after the GPP fiasco.

 

[CSI PC]

Is it banning or was this just the initial deal between ASrock and AMD ? With possibly some of the PR people not being correctly informed of the actual deal, ofc..

The agreement limits ASRock to specific countries that excludes all of Europe and North America, and certain Asia-Pac regions as well.
So if ASRock says they would had liked to sell in Europe to Tom's Hardware this means the Sales Channel agreement was forced to be select countries.
Of course one could argue they did not need to sign the agreement but then they would have no product at all then.
What I find questionable is that this is not an upcoming partner but one that is core to AMD's motherboard business throughout a lot of the world, sure this is their 1st step into GPUs but this is not like a completely new partner for AMD.
There are multiple reasons for AMD not wanting to allow ASRock a large portion of the sales channel regions; part of which comes down to logistics-supplies and other AIB partners competiition, to ensuring they take smaller steps to begin with (although it seems they are cut out of some high profile countries outside of Europe/North America).
But it makes Scott's statement a little bit awkward if this does not change in the future when they as a partner would like to expand and have good background-support with AMD on the motherboard side.
As a lower tier AIB partner for GPUs they would have less access to various partner mechanisms (the tiers apply to all IHVs engagement with partners).

 

[entity279]

Of course one could argue they did not need to sign the agreement but then they would have no product at all then.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Banning would imply an initial understanding between the 2 parties in which AsRock were at first allowed to sell in Europe. Or an ambiguous 'understanding'. After which AMD comes and no longer allows the sale in specific areas.
Your scenario of "sign the contract which forbids you to sell in Europe or you can only buy our GPUs from Amazon !" while it wouldn't technically be a ban, we can consider it as such or just as bad.

However, I don't understand why you'd imply this scenario is the only possible one; it is likely that there was room for negociation instead. AsRock may have just as well gone for the deal which doesn't involve Europe in a bid to gain better volumes, better prices and whatnot

Also, this has now emerged : https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...-partner-from-selling-in-europe/#10bb2a463802

 

[Deleted member 2197]

5/7/2018

In further comments, ASRock confirmed that the cards would only be sold in South America and in Pacific regions, like Russia, Australia, Japan, and the U.S. — though excluding China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The reasoning for this is said to be “based on the history of mutual channel agreement,” according to the Toms Hardware source.

How acceptable such a ban on sales is with ASRock though, isn’t entirely clear. A number of rumors surround the reasoning, though a Hardware Info source suggests that it could relate to the several AMD-only brands already operating out of Europe and a desire from AMD to see a wider variety of sellers in other regions. However, considering the recent reports of China being excluded from planned sales zones, early rumors suggesting that ASRock was targeting the Asian market seem unfounded.

Another suggestion is that as the supply of graphics cards at reasonable prices is still low across the globe, AMD is keen on limiting sales to markets with the lowest stock levels at this time.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ban-asrock-graphics-cards-europe/

ASRock targeted market:

https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FAmd%252Fcomments%252F8hltl4%252F

 

[Deleted member 13524]

4. It would be strange to call a mining card RX 580 Phantom Gaming X, which has reasonably good gaming performance but focused on cool operation when reading the Tom's Hardware review.

Here is Forbes' take on the matter:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...-partner-from-selling-in-europe/#5b2513103802

ASRock got into the GPU game with cryptocurrency mining in mind. Indeed, it was initially reported that they were launching mining-based SKUs. What I've been told -- and I confirmed this twice over the phone and again via email -- is that in Europe, ASRock has decided not to sell Phantom Gaming graphics cards commercially. They won't appear in online or brick-and-mortal PC retail shops. They are only intended for miners and industrial use. Furthermore, the minimum order quantity for these customers is 500 pieces.

Clearly this contradicts comments from the ASRock representative who spoke to Tom's Hardware Germany.

 

[CSI PC]

Here is Forbes' take on the matter:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...-partner-from-selling-in-europe/#5b2513103802

Well definitely a conflict from ASRock; Tom's Hardware source was a senior sales manager while Forbes source is a marketing-PR contact at ASRock, choose your poison which is more likely to know *shrug*.

But the crux is why call a mining card the RX 580 Phantom Gaming X while also having the gaming branding that is similar to Fat1ility Gaming; both with a silver initial 1st and a large red G and performs well in a gaming review.
If you want to market for miners you would give it more of an OEM/workstation type brand and image; many argued the reason to use Gaming X for retail related branding and game consumers in several other threads.

In fact just reading Tom's Hardware they have an update from ASRock that further details beyond the PR contact who spoke to Forbes (fits with what Pharma posted):

"... The VGA card products are only sold in South America and APEC (exclude China, Hong Kong and Taiwan) at first." I can not provide you with the MSRP and the warranty term because they are different in different sales region ... "

Updates near top: http://www.tomshardware.de/amd-asrock-grafikkarten-europa-nicht_verfugbar,news-259293.html

And yeah it is a mutual sales channel agreement but in reality they does not mean both parties are happy with the scope.

The decision to sell ASRock's VGA card is "based on the history of mutual channel agreement ."

But it would be nice if it could be clarified a timetable has been agreed for when ASRock can expand their sales region and if staggered window;responses seem kinda vague on this and now Tom's Hardware has been asked to remove the quote from the senior sales manager (could be taken in different ways).
The mining reason could be seen in several ways as well; as mentioned by ASRock PR to Forbes or restrictions of the mutual sales channel agreement they had to sign with AMD beyond what they would like which was indicated by the ASRock senior sales manager (calling it Phantom Gaming X kinda stands out and with the logo branding).
How this pans out longer term is the crux and as some articles have mentioned they have Scott's article in the back of their mind, and what flexibility is currently given with the agreement going forward, at a minimum this shows they are a low tier partner for now as a Radeon AIB partner with less of the benefits which has pros/cons for both AMD and ASRock.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Well definitely a conflict from ASRock; Tom's Hardware source was a senior sales manager while Forbes source is a marketing-PR contact at ASRock, choose your poison which is more likely to know *shrug*.

Tom's Hardware initial source for the "AMD is forbidding poor ASRock from selling in Europe!" news was a local sales manager from an undisclosed asian country. Forbes' source is a "representative handling ASRock's global PR activities".
In the meantime, Tom's Hardware contacted ASRock's headquarters who made official statements about the markets that were mutually agreed upon. And in the meantime, Tomshardware even took out the local manager's statements from the webpage because they consider them to be fruit of misinformation from their initial source.

You're free to believe the word of a local sales manager from an asian country over the words of global representatives regarding ASRock's intentions and timings to sell graphics cards in Europe.
I really don't think that makes much sense, and this subject doesn't feel newsworthy anymore, to be honest.

But the crux is why call a mining card the RX 580 Phantom Gaming X while also having the gaming branding that is similar to Fat1ility Gaming; both with a silver initial 1st and a large red G and performs well in a gaming review.

Why don't you ask ASRock directly?

Maybe because if/when the GPU mining market implodes, having "Gaming" in the name may be better to sell the rest of the stock to gamers, and/or because miners will appreciate the additional resale value when they dump their cards to the 2nd-hand market.

If you want to market for miners you would give it more of an OEM/workstation type brand and image

Why would miners want an OEM/workstation type brand and image? What good would that do to them?

 

[CSI PC]

Tom's Hardware initial source for the "AMD is forbidding poor ASRock from selling in Europe!" news was a local sales manager from an undisclosed asian country. Forbes' source is a "representative handling ASRock's global PR activities".
In the meantime, Tom's Hardware contacted ASRock's headquarters who made official statements about the markets that were mutually agreed upon. And in the meantime, Tomshardware even took out the local manager's statements from the webpage because they consider them to be fruit of misinformation from their initial source.

To repeat the mutual sales channel agreement does not mean all parties are happy with the scope they take what they are given or not sign, all that chart shows is what the scope is with AMD and not necessarily what they wanted.

Also where did you see the Senior Sales Manager to be local sales manager from an undisclosed Asian country?
Considering he was contacting them to stop such leaking of product through sales channel that does not seem to make him that low, and like I said Tom's Hardware also had greater information received than did Forbes when they continued contact with ASRock Head Office with specifics about its launch/region.
How come the PR person Forbes spoke to did not have the information about regional sales like Tom manage to produce?
Point is they did not know everything about sales channel operation/demands as they were PR contact.

And again this is PR vs Sales, both are a poisoned chalice but one was contacting to block sales channel misuse (which a local sales person in an asian country is unlikely to do or even care about Europe or even know what is happening there with regards to a review in Germany).

Can you explain why a general local sales manager in one of the Asian countries would contact a publication in Germany to identify and block the source of the sales channel leak, or why they would even care about a country (Germany this case for the review) well outside their remit.
The unfortunate aspect is the ASRock senior sales manager let it slip they would like to sell beyond the current agreement and now probably under more scrutiny than he expected, which is not in the view of a local country sales guy.
Anyway as I said the responses from ASRock are not great on the subject and more scripted or initiated by PR rather than sales VP type with Forbes.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

To repeat the mutual sales channel agreement does not mean all parties are happy with the scope they take what they are given or not sign, all that chart shows is what the scope is with AMD and not necessarily what they wanted.

And now you can even question if every AIB of every graphics card ever sold was 100% happy with the scope of what they were given or not to sign, be it from nvidia or AMD.
Are you 100% sure that Asus is 100% happy with the deal they signed with nvidia to sell their ROG GTX1080? No? We should discuss that! (Not..)
Which means it's a discussion that doesn't even belong to AMD's Execution Thread anymore.

Considering he was contacting them to stop such leaking of product through sales channel that does not seem to make him that low

Anyone with an e-mail account from ASRock could contact Tomshardware and make those statements. IIRC he didn't contact them to "stop leaking the product". He contacted them to ask how they got their hands on the card because it wasn't supposed to be selling in Europe.

Also where did you see the Senior Sales Manager to be local sales manager from an undisclosed Asian country?

They stated it came from a sales manager of a country from the far east.

And again this is PR vs Sales, both are a poisoned chalice but one was contacting to block sales channel misuse

Nah.
I think it's just you trying to put more weight into the rogue statements of an uninformed employee than several of ASRock's official statements on the subject.
Even despite ASRock keeps saying they may come to Europe at a later date, which completely contradicts the initial statement that said "AMD hasn't agreed to sell us in Europe, which is such a shame". That statement doesn't even say that ASRock wanted to sell in Europe at the moment, yet it somehow got upgraded to "OMG AMD is BLOCKING AIBs from selling in Europe! Them bastards!"

 

[CSI PC]

And now you can even question if every AIB of every graphics card ever sold was 100% happy with the scope of what they were given or not to sign, be it from nvidia or AMD.
Are you 100% sure that Asus is 100% happy with the deal they signed with nvidia to sell their ROG GTX1080? No? We should discuss that! (Not..)
Which means it's a discussion that doesn't even belong to AMD's Execution Thread anymore.



Anyone with an e-mail account from ASRock could contact Tomshardware and make those statements. IIRC he didn't contact them to "stop leaking the product". He contacted them to ask how they got their hands on the card because it wasn't supposed to be selling in Europe.



They stated it came from a sales manager of a country from the far east.



Nah.
I think it's just you trying to put more weight into the rogue statements of an uninformed employee than several of ASRock's official statements on the subject.
Even despite ASRock keeps saying they may come to Europe at a later date.

You make it sound like a mutual agreed contract means ASRock set the terms of the agreement, in reality the IHV dictates most of the terms and where they can sell, in same way they dictate the tier/support/incentives each partner receives.
Where do they say local sales manager in an undisclosed Asian country?
I read it as

then today's statement of a senior sales manager of ASRock

And please explain why a local general sales manager in an asian country would want to resolve the sales channel leak to a reviewer in Germany or even know/bother about it.
The only other source of information is the PR, and well that is a PR spokesperson who did not know actual details of the sales channel structure-operation for this.
The responses are kinda vague and more open information is needed.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

You make it sound like a mutual agreed contract means ASRock set the terms of the agreement, in reality the IHV dictates most of the terms and where they can sell, in same way they dictate the tier/support/incentives each partner receives.

Yes, poor ASRock.
And poor Asus + poor Gigabyte + poor Sapphire + poor MSI + PNY + Zotax + EVGA + XFX + Visiontek + Powercolor + poor all other AIBs.
I suggest you start a thread to discuss how sorry we should all be for graphics card AIBs not being able to unilaterally decide everything they want when signing agreements with IHVs.
But since it's not an issue exclusive to AMD, it doesn't really belong in this thread IMO.

Where do they say local sales manager in an undisclosed Asian country?

In the part they deleted because ASRock asked them to. Because it didn't fit ASRock's official position on the matter.

Even Tomshardware who originally posted the story is claiming there's no story anymore. Everyone else is correcting their initial news articles.
And somehow you keep ignoring ASRock's official statements about eventually coming to Europe at a later date.
Here's the full press release from ASRock:

TAIPEI, Taiwan, May 8, 2018 – A leading global motherboard and graphics card manufacturer, ASRock, announced entering the graphics card market with the Phantom Gaming range – a strong line up of AMD Radeon™ RX500 series graphics card in April 2018. Initially, ASRock will roll out graphics card business in various regions based on internal planning. Regions with first priorities are APEC and Latin America. Then ASRock will gradually launch the business in other regions. Thanks for all media friends recently putting attention on our Phantom Gaming graphic card business and giving them massive coverages.

FWIW, I'm done discussing this. There's no news here.