Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
Convert wrote:I fail to understand the point of this program.
Does Nvidia really think they are saving someone from accidentally buying an AMD card by doing this? They think that someone out there beleives ROG always = Nvidia and so they just click buy on the first ROG card that shows up?
Forbes wrote:For Nvidia partners, the program is set to deliver social media promotions, engineering and marketing support, and early access to new Nvidia GeForce technologies.
ludi wrote:I'm so old, I not only remember when Google wasn't evil; I remember when Nvidia wasn't evil.
ludi wrote:...and you walked there through the snow... uphill... both ways!I'm so old, I not only remember when Google wasn't evil; I remember when Nvidia wasn't evil.
JustAnEngineer wrote:ludi wrote:...and you walked there through the snow... uphill... both ways!I'm so old, I not only remember when Google wasn't evil; I remember when Nvidia wasn't evil.
synthtel2 wrote:Go Kyle Bennett, asking the tough questions!
This is 100% in-character for the Nvidia I know, and I'm more surprised it took so long for something like this to wind up public.
Convert wrote:I fail to understand the point of this program.
bthylafh wrote:Wearing a 50-pound rucksack and leaky old boots.
Ryu Connor wrote:I'm perplexed by all the talk of anti-competitive behavior.
They don't have significant market power or government backing.
I wouldn't expect any regulatory bodies to get involved in this.
AMD fished this to Kyle to create a tempest in a teapot. Looks like he took the bait.
Welch wrote:The "claim" is that AMD didn't lead them in that direction, but I guess we will see in time. At this point it is all hearsay from Kyle and the Forbes article author. I'm curious to see where if anywhere it leads.
Ryu Connor wrote:Welch wrote:The "claim" is that AMD didn't lead them in that direction, but I guess we will see in time. At this point it is all hearsay from Kyle and the Forbes article author. I'm curious to see where if anywhere it leads.
This is how opposition research works in politics too.
A political entity with deep pockets does the leg work and finds a skeleton(s) that will create perceptual and/or real issues for a public figure.
Then they drop some clues/hints to the press and step away, cleanly removing the discussions of bias or other tangential concerns from the story. The political entity merely becomes yet another "anonymous source" that helped make the story possible.
This really deserves one of those GIFs of people clapping and someone saying, "Well played, AMD. Well played."
Welch wrote:As far as Intel having the lion's share, we all know that is just general GPU, not discrete. Since Intel doesn't have a discrete option, I wonder if you could show those markets as their own segment and then a regulatory body would care to take action? Again, if any of this materializes.
Ryu Connor wrote:I'm perplexed by all the talk of anti-competitive behavior.
They don't have significant market power or government backing.
I wouldn't expect any regulatory bodies to get involved in this.
AMD fished this to Kyle to create a tempest in a teapot. Looks like he took the bait.
Ryu Connor wrote:If Kyle was as good a journalist as he claimed, we would already have some answers for that.
Glorious wrote:So... maybe just don't publish this claim then?
Ryu Connor wrote:I'm perplexed by all the talk of anti-competitive behavior.
They don't have significant market power or government backing.
[terrible graph of a tree in a forest]
I wouldn't expect any regulatory bodies to get involved in this.
AMD fished this to Kyle to create a tempest in a teapot. Looks like he took the bait.
Bauxite wrote:That graph is about as relevant to reality as posting the brand of capacitors on motherboards. You also don't have to be a monopoly to put illegal terms in business contracts.
Bauxite wrote:I'm going to dig deep in my nerd bucket here and call your post deliberately obtuse.
Bauxite wrote:Pretty funny that you float amd as the source for kyle too.
Forbes Article wrote:This is not a story Bennett just stumbled onto. Several weeks ago AMD approached Bennett (and other undisclosed journalists) about a new Nvidia program launching called the GeForce Partner Program
Kyle HIMSELF wrote:Before we go any further, in the effort to be as transparent as possible, we need to let you know that AMD came to us and presented us with "this story." AMD shopped this story with other websites as well.
Ryu Connor wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I thought it topical to stop in and remark that this chart isn't particularly relevant to the conversation of AMD vs. Nvidia in the discrete graphics space. If you look at the discrete graphics card sales Nvidia does indeed dwarf AMD by a factor of 5:1 or more. Customers primarily using integrated graphics don't have a lot to do with the competition between AMD and Nvidia.They don't have significant market power or government backing.
(chart redacted for space)
RAGEPRO wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I thought it topical to stop in and remark that this chart isn't particularly relevant to the conversation of AMD vs. Nvidia in the discrete graphics space. If you look at the discrete graphics card sales Nvidia does indeed dwarf AMD by a factor of 5:1 or more.
RAGEPRO wrote:Customers primarily using integrated graphics don't have a lot to do with the competition between AMD and Nvidia
cegras wrote:By your logic, there is no such thing as a monopoly since the TAM for any company is a subset of the entire global market. Intel doesn't have a monopoly on server chips because its server chip shipments are only a small fraction of total chips of any kind shipped.