The AMD Execution Thread [2018]

[CSI PC]

Yes, poor ASRock.
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:




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

I will remind you in future then that it is fine for any IHV to restrict any AIB partner with regards to regions and also tiers at the expense of consumers and importantly retailers (which is the event where Scott did his speech) that involves benefits such as support/logistics/parts assigned/marketing/etc.
Especially when that partner is already a global core partner with their motherboard gaming business and this to the backdrop of AMD pushing unrestricted choice to consumers and retailers.

They deleted it because they said they did not want the ASRock manager to get in trouble with AMD (not in trouble with ASRock but says AMD)....
I have asked twice and you have not linked or quoted the part where you insist it was just a local sales manager in an unknown asian country to put him lower than a PR person at ASRock.
You also have not explained why a general local sales representive in an asian country would bother to investigate and remove any sales channel product leak for a region and different continent that is currently blocked.
If you dealt with various regional sales channel VPs-depts for a large international tech company it would be a very unusual situation a lower rung country specific sales representative actively getting involved with resolving how a review publication in Germany managed to get hold of the product.

They changed the title because the official answer is that the situation 'is in line with the mutal sales agreement', this changes nothing already mentioned and AMD or any IHV dictates the mutual agreement scope-restrictions.

And the reason this could (meaning it is not definite yet) be awkward is how AMD went on a mission about not restricting customers/retailers choice depending how flexible the agreement is for ASrock a few months from now, other articles like I said have that in the back of their mind watching how this unfolds, ironically the ASRock news update also does not mean solely mining which some insisted.
Like I keep saying how this eventually or if at all expands beyond its very tight sales channel scope for now is what is of interest and clarification on timescales when regions can expect the product, there is no confirmation when or which countries/regions will be getting access to the sales channel; 3-6 months would be fair if the news is truly transparent but the product becomes less viable once you get towards 12 months from now, nor do we know what this means for any future GPU from ASRock.
I have been pretty consistent saying further investigation is required before it can be concluded either way.

Edit:
To make the point how confusing the situation is with a narrative (such as mining suggested these were dedicated to) Scott Herkelman at AMD said in the ASRock news going back.

"The new ASRock Phantom Gaming Series, based on the powerful Radeon RX 500 Series graphics cards, will provide gamers the best of Radeon features and performance which will include FreeSync, the ultimate technology for smooth and stutter-free gaming, Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition for seamless streaming, sharing and gameplay capture now with mobile device functionality, and Radeon graphic's highly optimized DirectX 12 and Vulkan performance."

Point is there may be a split between ideally what they want/intend and what currently limited to but for how long.

 

[Kaotik]

I will remind you in future then that it is fine for any IHV to restrict any AIB partner with regards to regions and also tiers at the expense of consumers and importantly retailers (which is the event where Scott did his speech) that involves benefits such as support/logistics/parts assigned/marketing/etc.
Especially when that partner is already a global core partner with their motherboard gaming business and this to the backdrop of AMD pushing unrestricted choice to consumers and retailers.

In future? Region limits have been common practice since the damn Voodoo-days and we still don't know if ASRock even wanted to push EU or NA markets in the beginning or test their feet in the waters first.

 

[CSI PC]

In future? Region limits have been common practice since the damn Voodoo-days and we still don't know if ASRock even wanted to push EU or NA markets in the beginning or test their feet in the waters first.

And now we go full circle; we are talking about a major core AMD global partner that wants to expand into GPUs, not a new unknown partner, against the backdrop of AMD saying freedom for consumers and retailers when Scott said 'The freedom to support a brand that actively works to advance the art and science of PC gaming while expanding its reach.'

I assume you are ok then with tier restrictions as well which includes support/logistics-parts/marketing/etc, which is integral to such sales channel scope we currently see for ASRock for some of the reasons I mentioned before not only good but bad.
Anyway so now you just ignore the senior sales manager who was caught off-guard giving his comment when chasing up why german review publication had a Phantom Gaming card and where it came from.....
Removed from the site they say to protect him from further problems with AMD.
Of course seems your happy to go with the PR line now it is all being pulled back, but if it was another company with that PR not sure you would be so indifferent and would be keeping an eye on how this will unfold and want further investigation.

 

[Kaotik]

And now we go full circle; we are talking about a major core AMD global partner that wants to expand into GPUs, not a new unknown partner, against the backdrop of AMD saying freedom for consumers and retailers when Scott said 'The freedom to support a brand that actively works to advance the art and science of PC gaming while expanding its reach.'

I assume you are ok then with tier restrictions as well which includes support/logistics-parts/marketing/etc, which is integral to such sales channel scope we currently see for ASRock for some of the reasons I mentioned before not only good but bad.
Anyway so now you just ignore the senior sales manager who was caught off-guard giving his comment when chasing up why german review publication had a Phantom Gaming card and where it came from.....
Removed from the site they say to protect him from further problems with AMD.
Of course seems your happy to go with the PR line now it is all being pulled back, but if it was another company with that PR not sure you would be so indifferent and would be keeping an eye on how this will unfold and want further investigation.

I find it most likely that either there was some serious language barriers, off-the-record chat which isn't meant to be taken literally (company reps often use language that is nowhere near clean enough for release) or lack of knowledge on the matter on ASRock sales guy. Or combination of those.

 

[CSI PC]

I find it most likely that either there was some serious language barriers, off-the-record chat which isn't meant to be taken literally (company reps often use language that is nowhere near clean enough for release) or lack of knowledge on the matter on ASRock sales guy. Or combination of those.

That would mean the senior sales manager does not know much even though he initiated chasing up to stop a breach of the sales channel.
He contacted Tom's hardware to stop the sales channel breach, this is not your general sales representative....
Working for several large international tech/IHV companies including alongside the VPs and their sales channels the assumption an average local sales representative for another country on another continent would contact Tom's Hardware in Germany to block the channel breach is a bit far fetched.

Sure it is possible but not one I have ever come across and highly unlikely when it comes to responsibility in protecting-managing those channels from a global perspective (which is how the senior sales manager was involved from ASRock).
As an example for grey market products is it a general remote local sales representative responsible for only one country on another continent or a senior sales manager also posssibly with a sales representative in the country the product appears that resolves such sales channel abuse?

Hence why I am interested in more than the current generalised responses from ASRock and what feels like a pull back on the current situation exposed regarding their sales channel agreement/tier with AMD.
I guess though we will have to wait 3+ months before we can discuss this again and the transparency of the PR briefing this week.
Already we can say that this is not just a mining product that some felt it was and why it is limited.

Edit:
And I should say grey market is a serious consideration-issue for the current tech manufacturer I work for, so an important aspect of the sales channel structure-operation by country and region and importantly division.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Should we now go over the history of AIBs getting their start selling GPUs, but not offering them in all territories? Should we start to question why HIS, Powercolor and many other graphics card makers didn't have a presence in the US for many years? Should we address why Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, and many other OEMs do not officially offer all of their products in the EU and US?

Maybe Samsung and Sony not offering all of their products in all territories also has some sort of internal marketing agreement ban from their parts suppliers?

There's nothing odd about ASRock not offering all products in all territories, especially when they are just starting with those products and some territories feature entrenched competition making it difficult to compete in those territories.

Who is the more reliable source of information?

• Upper management which should know what the company's goals are? Who know what went into the decisions regarding strategic planning for a newly introduced product line?
• Middle management sales managers who get told where the products will be sold, but often not the reasons why their region is getting the product while another region isn't (or vice versa).
  • Especially when supply is limited and if their region needs more supply, but they then see an agency in a region that isn't supposed to get supply suddenly showcasing that product. Their natural reaction would be to reach out and attempt to ascertain where the breach of sales is happening.
  • And if they don't know the reason why, because they are in middle management, they are likely to speculate when questioned about it by the agency they are contacting. It wouldn't surprise me if this person is getting reprimanded by ASRock, or potentially even demoted.

Regards,
SB

 

[entity279]

Seems to me the past ~10 posts here insist either that
- there's something fishy with Asrock not being able to sell in Europe, without evidence
- it is OK that Asrock does not yet sell GPUs in Europe. This is a situation that can indeed apear a nominal one between AMD and a partner. But also there's no evidence that Asrock is fine with current arrangement

Is there some other point to be made here?

 

[CSI PC]

Should we now go over the history of AIBs getting their start selling GPUs, but not offering them in all territories? Should we start to question why HIS, Powercolor and many other graphics card makers didn't have a presence in the US for many years? Should we address why Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, and many other OEMs do not officially offer all of their products in the EU and US?

Maybe Samsung and Sony not offering all of their products in all territories also has some sort of internal marketing agreement ban from their parts suppliers?

There's nothing odd about ASRock not offering all products in all territories, especially when they are just starting with those products and some territories feature entrenched competition making it difficult to compete in those territories.

Who is the more reliable source of information?

• Upper management which should know what the company's goals are? Who know what went into the decisions regarding strategic planning for a newly introduced product line?
• Middle management sales managers who get told where the products will be sold, but often not the reasons why their region is getting the product while another region isn't (or vice versa).
  • Especially when supply is limited and if their region needs more supply, but they then see an agency in a region that isn't supposed to get supply suddenly showcasing that product. Their natural reaction would be to reach out and attempt to ascertain where the breach of sales is happening.
  • And if they don't know the reason why, because they are in middle management, they are likely to speculate when questioned about it by the agency they are contacting. It wouldn't surprise me if this person is getting reprimanded by ASRock, or potentially even demoted.

Regards,
SB

I agree if it was not an existing core global partner, albeit now wanting to be involved in GPUs which with the structure of the agreement and its limitations mean they would also on a much lower tier for Radeon GPUs (affecting various benefits including stock-logistics-marketing), it is note-worthy because it is against the backdrop of Scott talk-marketing strategy about free choice choice for consumers/retailers/supporting AIB Partners that I quoted earlier; point being this could become awkard if it turns out this does not occur.

It is not upper management vs middle management but more around different department with different responsibilities/knowledge.
It is a senior sales manager (explained from experience why it is a long stretch for it not to be a global sales manager) vs PR (press release team) who in the piece with Forbes actually gave incorrect or not complete information as they did not know any details about region structure which Tom's Hardware received talking to the sales channel through Head Office or they gave incorrect context about it being just mining (latest news makes no reference to mining but expanding business and importantly also contradicts AMD brief).
Forbes article says:

They are only intended for miners and industrial use. Furthermore, the minimum order quantity for these customers is 500 pieces.

AMD themselves with a senior Radeon manager Scott Herkelman said about the Phantom Gaming launch:

" The new ASRock Phantom Gaming Series, based on the powerful Radeon RX 500 Series graphics cards, will provide gamers the best of Radeon features and performance which will include FreeSync, the ultimate technology for smooth and stutter-free gaming

So now we take PR over a senior AMD manager who would be involved in the structure of the business and is VP and general manager of Radeon Technologies group and taking time to quote for Phantom Gaming launch, while also the PR contradicting the senior sales manager that contacted Tom's Hardware.

I am not basing this on just press but also experience working with VPs and sales channels for several international tech companies; products-solutions that feed into various regions-divisions-sales channels.
Like I said do you think PR know anything about managing-controlling grey market sales channel abuse or would that be the remit of a senior sales manager within ASRock beyond just a local country, or about the details of global sales channel and their strategy.
Anyway the PR response is not entirely accurate even with information out there, and the recent vague news update does not really help to clarify the situation, that said not going to hurt us to wait 3-6 months to see the rollout of the Phantom Gaming.
PR team-marketing team-sales team do not always go hand-in-hand.

 

[CSI PC]

Seems to me the past ~10 posts here insist either that
- there's something fishy with Asrock not being able to sell in Europe, without evidence
- it is OK that Asrock does not yet sell GPUs in Europe. This is a situation that can indeed apear a nominal one between AMD and a partner. But also there's no evidence that Asrock is fine with current arrangement

Is there some other point to be made here?

Yes it is against the backdrop of Scott Herkelman big piece about freedom for consumers/retailers and importantly supporting AIB partners, which was picked up by many journalists, while also now we have PR contradicting both the senior sales team manager and AMD comment going back last month for launch of Phantom Gaming.
Also this is a large existing core AMD partner not a new one (I appreciate can be debated that they are new to the Radeon GPU side but again against the backdrop of AMD Radeon saying supporting partners unlike a competitor), who will also be on one of the lowest Radeon tiers (this impacts the partner in multiple ways) due to the high restrictions of the sales channel agreement with what we can tell they are able to do.

 

[entity279]

Also there's no evidence for the contradictions being more than instances of missaligned comunication between the various parties

 

[CSI PC]

Also there's no evidence for the contradictions being more than instances of missaligned comunication between the various parties

True, but it seems the only one that missaligns is the PR contact Forbes spoke to; does not align with either the senior sales manager or AMD saying Phantom Gaming great for gamers, or even the latest news brief where the video shows the features of Adrenalin for gaming.
It makes it difficult to completely ignore the original statement and context of the senior sales manager who probably was not expecting himself to be caught off-guard and speaking too freely/openly.

Anyway it will not hurt to wait and watch how the rollout happens over next 6 months to see how there was a communication breakdown/misunderstanding between them all.

 

[Kaotik]

True, but it seems the only one that missaligns is the PR contact Forbes spoke to; does not align with either the senior sales manager or AMD saying Phantom Gaming great for gamers, or even the latest news brief where the video shows the features of Adrenalin for gaming.
It makes it difficult to completely ignore the original statement and context of the senior sales manager who probably was not expecting himself to be caught off-guard and speaking too freely/openly.

Anyway it will not hurt to wait and watch how the rollout happens over next 6 months to see how there was a communication breakdown/misunderstanding between them all.

Huh? How on earth do you pull "AMD says Phantom Gaming is great for Gamers" into this in any possible way as misalignment?
It is great for gamers - on the markets where ASRock is first entering with it, even if there are mining models available too.

 

[entity279]

I don't know for sure what CSI was trying to say by involving the Phantom Gaming's brand target audience into the discussion. For me, the fact that Phantom brand is for gaming or for mining looks completly unrelated to the places where ASrock may sell its cards.

Okay, one may say it's another evidence of poor-ish communication between components of ASRock

There may be merit though, IMO, to say that there was some confusion around that this Phantom branding too. I saw, 1-2 months ago, the Asrock's entry into the GPU market being announced in a mining related site (and nowhere else back then). I thought that was odd back then. Then there is this Forbes article where the author claims ASrock wanted to address the mining market mainly.
Clearly this doesn't quite add up with the "Gaming" part in the card's name

 

[Kaotik]

I don't know for sure what CSI was trying to say by involving the Phantom Gaming's brand target audience into the discussion. For me, the fact that Phantom brand is for gaming or for mining looks completly unrelated to the places where ASrock may sell its cards.

Okay, one may say it's another evidence of poor-ish communication between components of ASRock

There may be merit though, IMO, to say that there was some confusion around that this Phantom branding too. I saw, 1-2 months ago, the Asrock's entry into the GPU market being announced in a mining related site (and nowhere else back then). I thought that was odd back then. Then there is this Forbes article where the author claims ASrock wanted to address the mining market mainly.
Clearly this doesn't quite add up with the "Gaming" party in the card's name

There's even the slide with Mining-models, but they're separate models even though both are sold under "Phantom Gaming" -brand (yes, the Gaming-part is included in the name regardless)

 

[Deleted member 13524]

But also there's no evidence that Asrock is fine with current arrangement

Except for the fact that ASRock is selling AMD graphics cards, which they wouldn't be doing if they didn't believe they'd get a profit out of it?

Do you have evidence that EVGA is fine with their current arrangement with nvidia for graphics cards?
Do you have evidence that Asus is fine with their current arrangement with Intel for motherboards?
Do you have evidence that Amazon is fine with their current arrangement with apple for selling macbooks?

If ASRock releasing an official statement claiming the decision to not sell in Europe was internal, and that they will expand the territories in the future, what other evidence can possibly satisfy your concerns?
Do you need a video of ASRock's CEO doing a polygraph test? A secret tape of all meetings that happened between AMD and ASRock to discuss the GPU business?


If there's no reasonable demand that would satisfy your concerns, maybe you should start by rethinking their validity.










Meanwhile, this witch hunt has nothing to do with AMD's execution. It's not about their profits, the timing of their product releases, their marketshare, etc.
Perhaps you should take the conversation elsewhere.

 

[CSI PC]

I don't know for sure what CSI was trying to say by involving the Phantom Gaming's brand target audience into the discussion. For me, the fact that Phantom brand is for gaming or for mining looks completly unrelated to the places where ASrock may sell its cards.

Okay, one may say it's another evidence of poor-ish communication between components of ASRock

There may be merit though, IMO, to say that there was some confusion around that this Phantom branding too. I saw, 1-2 months ago, the Asrock's entry into the GPU market being announced in a mining related site (and nowhere else back then). I thought that was odd back then. Then there is this Forbes article where the author claims ASrock wanted to address the mining market mainly.
Clearly this doesn't quite add up with the "Gaming" party in the card's name

It fits the whole narrative,debate.
The PR contact is in the discussion as a counter they know more than the senior sales manager and the Forbes article that resolves what the senior sales manager said, but I showed how the PR contact was not entirely correct or concise with the article; if the PR contact cannot get this truly correct then one cannot assume this overrides the knowledge-responsibility and context of the senior sales manager that Tom's Hardware quoted, and also the quote I provided from AMD that contradicts the PR contact.

There is some kind of miscommunication/contradiction but one still cannot say conclusively what is truly correct, only time will tell with regards to how transparent-accurate the PR contact was relative to the senior sales manager, and where the whole of the communication breakdown occurs because it is at many levels and we are still no further along how the restriction to sales channel/tier will affect ASRock from a Radeon GPU standpoint (context is against the backdrop of Scott's marketing/speech).

Separately and beyond your point, I doubt any partner is content to be on the lower tiers and sales channels restrictions when looking to expand their business, and that would be applicable to any business; calling these 'mutual agreements' takes away that the IHV is in the driving seat and partners sign if it is worth their time even if it is not the scope-level they wanted.
When an IHV changes the tier-structure (this can impact partners quite a bit) from a higher to a lower one for a partner (context beyond ASRock), it is still highly unlikely they would walk away from the 'mutual agreement' for the sales channel.

I am sure not all OEMs/partners are happy with their individual 'mutual agreement' they have with Intel/Nvidia/etc as an example.

 

[CSI PC]

Huh? How on earth do you pull "AMD says Phantom Gaming is great for Gamers" into this in any possible way as misalignment?
It is great for gamers - on the markets where ASRock is first entering with it, even if there are mining models available too.

Well some produced the PR contact as proof the senior sales manager was wrong but it ignores how the PR information is not aligning correctly.
They were brought into this by others expressly on basis of the mining factor to prove the senior sales manager was wrong and indeed the Forbes article uses this and the PR's statement of intent on regions.
The PR contact as I quoted expressely said the Phantom Gaming models are for mining and requires a client to order 500+.
Here is the part several in this thread has focused on:

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.

Bold bits are not mine but others in the thread.

However we know that is not necessarily true or there is a fundamental disconnect between not just dept divisions but companies involved because:
a) As part of the news launch for Phantom Gaming AMD's context is these are gaming models.
b) The latest news update has embedded Adrenalin in context of gaming related functions.
c) Senior sales manager context of use contradicts the use implied by PR contact (mining focus).

So as I keep saying, it is still questionable what the PR is saying that some here feel is more worthy than what the senior sales manager was reported to say.
We could just wait 3-6 months and then come back to this subject, which I am happy to do.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

But also there's no evidence that Asrock is fine with current arrangement

I'd agree. I can't imagine AsRock being happy with being locked out of selling mining cards in the APEA region to major markets in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong where perhaps 98% of the mining market is operating. Especially if your forced to sell no less than 500 cards per purchase.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Separately and beyond your point, I doubt any partner is content to be on the lower tiers and sales channels restrictions when looking to expand their business, and that would be applicable to any business; calling these 'mutual agreements' takes away that the IHV is in the driving seat and partners sign if it is worth their time even if it is not the scope-level they wanted.
When an IHV changes the tier-structure from a higher to a lower one for a partner (context beyond ASRock), it is still highly unlikely they would walk away from the 'mutual agreement' for the sales channel.

No one likes being at the bottom of the barrel competitively, and AMD has nothing to do with that. Starting up a new GPU product division in a highly competitive and highly supply constrained market is more than enough to relegate any new comer to the bottom of the barrel without AMD having to stipulate any restrictions.

Going into the highly competitive EU and US markets (high margin compared to many other markets and thus saturated by entrenched competitors) is extremely risky compared to going into a market that is less saturated and less cutthroat.

As well, while it's nice to already have channel agreements in place for their MBs, it does not automatically mean those same channels are amenable to wanting to carry your newly introduced line of GPUs. Again, see how long it took for many OEMs to break into the EU and especially the US even though they existed for many years in some of the Asian countries.

As an example, ASRock was originally conceived as a budget offering from parent company ASUS. Despite ASUS being well entrenched in western countries, it still had a difficult time getting channel partners to carry ASRock branded products in the EU And especially in the US.

ASUS did a great job of transforming ASRock from the product brand no channel vendor wanted to carry in the EU and US into one that after it's divestiture from ASUS has become a fairly desirable brand. However, it's still not nearly as desirable in Western countries as it is in Asian Countries where it has surpassed it's original parent company, ASUS, in many regions.

As an example, Biostar has been offering graphics cards to the US market for a while now. They've been selling MBs in the US since the 1980's. Virtually any company selling MBs is going to carry at least some of Biostar's MBs. Almost no companies will carry their graphics cards. Amazon have some listings but only by 3rd parties, and considering not a single one has a user review, volume likely is extremely low to non-existent.

Good luck finding their AMD graphics cards in the US, despite the company ostensibly offering them to retail channel partners in the US. Most of them go to mining companies and are snatched up long before they can make it to retail.

Also, good luck finding their NV pascal based graphics cards in the US in retail, as again, they don't have a chance to make it to retail as mining companies buy them long before they can get to retail. Again, despite Biostar ostensibly offering them to their US retail channel partners in the US.

Rather than go through the expense of marketing the product to the US or EU channels, when in reality no product would ever make it into those channels, it was likely decided to just not enter those markets at this time.

Also, how would it look if they announced in a PR statement that they are introducing their graphics card products into the US or EU, and then it's almost nonexistent due to all the product going to mining companies first? Remember, their primary target currently for their GPU products is mining.

I'm willing to bet that as soon as the mining craze dies down sufficiently (hopefully it dies eventually, anyway), ASRock will announce they are entering the US and EU markets with their GPU products. I'm bolding that as I believe that's what is likely going to happen.

Speculation based on precedence set by other non-top tier GPU makers combined with what ASRock themselves are saying, sure. But better than speculation based on a phone conversation with a middle management sales manager from an Asian country which has since been redacted by the original source (Tomshardware) as being erroneous and something they never should have posted.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Good luck finding their AMD graphics cards in the US, despite the company ostensibly offering them to retail channel partners in the US. Most of them go to mining companies and are snatched up long before they can make it to retail.

Also, good luck finding their NV pascal based graphics cards in the US in retail, as again, they don't have a chance to make it to retail as mining companies buy them long before they can get to retail. Again, despite Biostar ostensibly offering them to their US retail channel partners in the US.

One outlet I checked does have Biostar AMD cards in stock. Could be wrong, but don't think Biostar offers their one nvidia card (GeForce GT1030 2GB) .