Asus launches Arez Radeons as AMD digs in against Nvidia’s GPP

Controversy has been swirling around the purported effects of Nvidia's GeForce Partner Program on board partners who sell both GeForces and Radeons over the past few weeks. Although the program first came to light in a rather anodyne blog post promising "transparency" and "consistency" for DIY gamers shopping for graphics cards, HardOCP's Kyle Bennett secured quotes from industry members to the effect that signing up for the program as a manufacturer brings with it a range of chafing restrictions.

Most notably, Bennett's anonymous sources suggest that the GPP requires companies who want to sell GeForces in their products to keep their "Gaming Brand Exclusively Aligned with GeForce." In Bennett's example, if Asus were to hypothetically sign up for the program, it couldn't use its popular Republic of Gamers brand to sell both GeForces and Radeons. ROG graphics cards could only be associated with GeForce products. 

That hypothetical now appears to be more concrete than not. AMD's Radeon Technologies Group isn't explicitly saying as much, but the red team seems to be responding to the GPP in force today. In a blog post on the Radeon website, RTG general manager of gaming Scott Herkelman says that "over the coming weeks, you can expect to see our add-in board partners launch new brands that carry an AMD Radeon product."

Before: ROG Strix RX Vega 64

Herkelman asserts that the Radeon brand stands for freedom of choice, and he touts AMD's long history of launching new industry standards like HBM graphics RAM and open technologies like FreeSync. The real thrust of Herkelman's post seems to be putting a couple of barbs in the green team's GPP blog post by touting AMD's "true transparency" and "real consistency" in its interactions with its board partners and gamers, though.

After: Arez Strix Radeon RX Vega 64

Most notably, it's Asus who's leading the charge with new Radeon-specific branding. The company will shortly begin selling Radeons under the Arez brand name. For example, the ROG Strix RX Vega 64 O8G Gaming is now called the Arez Strix RX Vega 64 O8G Gaming, and so on for a wide range of cards under the familiar Phoenix, Expedition, and Dual sub-brands. Not so hypothetical after all, it would seem. Going by Herkelman's blog post, Asus won't be the last company to launch a Radeon-specific brand, either.

In a world where one still can't touch a graphics card for much less than hundreds of dollars over suggested prices at retail, a spat purely confined to branding, marketing, and trade dress is especially hard for me to get worked up over. Gamers seem unlikely to care much about what brand is on the front of a graphics-card box if the sticker on that box still carries an unaffordably-inflated price tag. Should graphics-card prices ever return to Earth, however, Radeon gamers and GeForce gamers will be able to claim their own brands for their GPU vendor of choice in a market that's more polarized than ever.

Comments closed
    • HERETIC
    • 1 year ago

    This only affects a small portion of the market.
    The BIG boys who purchase around 80% for their lappys and box’s have
    already told NV where to go.

    EndlessWaves asked-“So why aren’t the board manufacturers protesting this?”

    Simple answer-NV is a bully-do as your told or no GPU’s.
    I would have expected Tech sites to be very active on this issue,but in these
    days of diminishing revenue,it’s a “Don’t poke the dog with a stick he’ll bite you”
    Or more accurate-he pays our wages………………………..

    • Wirko
    • 1 year ago

    What’s warez without W worth?

    • LocalCitizen
    • 1 year ago

    i don’t like what nvidia is doing. let me use ROG as an example to explain. (not to pick on Asus, but ROG is in this article, and is well known)

    ROG brand was created back in 2006. for more than a decade it is THE gaming brand for Asus. it’s used on motherboards, video cards, laptops, monitors, mice, keyboards, apparels, and the rumoured gaming phone, etc etc etc (check rog.asus.com for yourself). Asus has spent a non-trivial amount of money on product development and marketing.

    purportedly nvidia’s gpp prevent it to be associated with Amd cards. this is different from the “Intel inside” campaign where Intel creates a new brand for itself and pay for the marketing. no, gpp is hijacking the well established name created by Asus and blocking out Amd. so there will still be ROG mice, keyboards, routers, clothing, and Asus will continue to spend money to promote, but no Amd video cards.

    99% of us TR readers will have no problems identifying what we want. we will research the product specs, and read the latest comprehensive reviews on TR. but 99% of the average gamers will rely on brands they hear and see, and the sales guy at the big box stores. i remember there was a report that just by naming an item “sport” will increase sales. gaming chairs, gaming cpu fans, for example.

    Arez will do fine you say? the next time Asus sponsors an esport event, what brand do you think it will promote?

    brand matters a lot.

    but why doesn’t card makers complain? if you don’t care about 80% of your sales, then go ahead, try to piss off nvidia, and see how that goes. i too wonder about the legality of this program. something about market dominance or something.

    • Duct Tape Dude
    • 1 year ago

    Should have named it Asus ROGUE to stick it to nvidia.

    Bacronym it to “Republic of Gamers Ultimate Edition” or similar.

    • Krogoth
    • 1 year ago

    GPP has nothing to do with locking out AMD RTG from discrete GPU market. Nvidia has been dominating the discrete GPU ever since second wave of Kepler GPUs and AMD’s failure to recapture mindshare with GCN 1.0 a.k.a HD 7xxx family. Not even the boost from Polaris a.k.a RX 4xx/5xx has put an dent in Nvidia’s mindshare. It is very unlikely AMD RTG will do anything to change to reverse this course and Nvidia would need to pull a larger debacle then the FX family.

    It is more to do with trying to retain mindshare for discrete GPUs because Nvidia knows that in this coming decade that discrete GPUs are going start to become an niche. CPU + iGPUs solutions from both major x86 vendors are starting to become good enough for needs of the masses (driving two to three monitors, 1080p gaming/4K video playback) and will become ubiquitous. 4K gaming/VR will always be niches like the other dedicated gaming peripherals. The masses simply don’t care enough.

    The same thing happened back in late 1990s moving to early 2000s when integrated audio started to become good enough and CPU overhead for software audio processing became trivial. Discrete audio solutions went from being commonplace into becoming an niche by the time mid to late 2000s rolled around. Creative was a juggernaut back when discrete audio solutions were commonplace but it is a former shell of itself.

    Nvidia would like to avoid a similar fate and has been trying to move away from discrete GPUs as their bread and butter. Trying to move into other areas. They are just trying to milk out discrete market as much as they can before the gravy train starts to dry up. Nvidia lacks a x86 license so they are effectively locked out of the x86 CPU+iGPU market. Raja’s + Intel’s little collaboration was the final straw.

      • LoneWolf15
      • 1 year ago

      A large portion of the sound card thing died because 3D positional audio in hardware became a thing of the past (Microsoft killing DirectSound 3D and all of that). So I wouldn’t call that a real anaolgy.

      I honestly miss DirectSound3D, we’ve actually gone backwards since then.

        • EndlessWaves
        • 1 year ago

        Vista’s change in audio model was after the sound card market started to deline, it may have hastened it’s demise but it wasn’t the driving factor.

        • Krogoth
        • 1 year ago

        3D Audio =! discrete audio

        No, discrete audio became a niche because integrated audio solutions simply caught up and became good enough for the masses and even level-headed audiophiles.

    • EndlessWaves
    • 1 year ago

    So why aren’t the board manufacturers protesting this?

    It seems like there are few enough of them that they could get together and agree to use their existing brands to AMD and not nVidia as a protest.

    nVidia sees a small loss for this behaviour and the board manufacturers may even gain a little if the lack of the familiar brand on nVidia cards means sales of the more expensive AMD cards go up.

      • kvndoom
      • 1 year ago

      The problem is that AMD doesn’t have a competitive product and the customer base for these cards are going to look at benchmarks before buying.

      If a “non-gamer” GTX still whips a “gamer” Radeon, it will result in a sale for Nvidia.

      That being said, the fact that NV has a convincing performance lead already, makes this whole GPP thing pointless in the first place.

        • EndlessWaves
        • 1 year ago

        But those buyers aren’t affected by branding anyway so that’s not a reason for those companies to allow nVidia to dictate their branding like this.

        It affects the world of mouth sales, those who are buying a Nitro+, Windforce or Stryx card because their friend told them it was good.

          • stefem
          • 1 year ago

          With your last sentence you are giving reason to NVIDIA, if you buy a Nitro, Windforce or Stryx card because your friend, who for example owns NVIDIA, told you it’s good and you take one of these but based on AMD you bought something your friend actually never tried and actually doesn’t know if it’s good or not.

            • EndlessWaves
            • 1 year ago

            Why is that giving reason to support nVidia? The user won’t have any worse experience if the friend has an nVidia card and they buy an AMD one.

            • stefem
            • 1 year ago

            You are implying products from the two GPU makers has exactly identical performance and features which does not correspond to reality.
            Some games tends to perform better on NVIDIA some other on AMD, power consumption and ovreclockability are also a lot better on NVIDIA’s GPUs and there are also differences in the “added features”.
            But even ignoring all the above, why would reducing the possibility for someone to mistakenly buy somthing they wheren’t advised for be a bad thing?

        • Waco
        • 1 year ago

        AMD has plenty of competitive models up to the GTX 1080. Am I missing something?

          • EndlessWaves
          • 1 year ago

          I’m assuming he meant with the current price hikes rather than in performance terms.

      • psuedonymous
      • 1 year ago

      [quote<]So why aren't the board manufacturers protesting this?[/quote<]Because all they need to do is perform a copy & paste, and print up some new stickers & box art. No need to worry about stock stagnation, everything is selling out as fast as it can be produced already. By the time there is enough supply available that [i<]not selling every GPU produced[/i<] is actually a vague concern, everyone will have gotten used to XQYZ rather than YQZX being on the box.

      • Kretschmer
      • 1 year ago

      Nvidia has dominant GPU marketshare, and cryptominers don’t care if a card is Republic of Gamers or Confederacy of Morticians, as long as it crunches. AMD GPU-based gamers are a subset of a subset.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 1 year ago

      They can use existing brands to sell AMD cards — they just can’t get NVdia to pay for co-marketing if they do so.

      Basically it’s saying “if you want to be part of this marketing program, you need to give us exclusivity [i<]for that brand[/i<]."

      • BurntMyBacon
      • 1 year ago

      [quote=”EndlessWaves”<]So why aren't the board manufacturers protesting this?[/quote<] The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB.

    • kvndoom
    • 1 year ago

    D*ck move, Nvidia. I’ve supported you for well over a decade’s worth of builds. But you stole a page from Intel’s old playbook. That is despicable.

    • Kretschmer
    • 1 year ago

    This makes me a bit jealous of AMD users, as they might get to buy gaming hardware without LEDS AND RED AND JAGGED EDGES.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 1 year ago

      I believe the terms of the GPP only cover *green* LEDs…

      • tipoo
      • 1 year ago

      How funny would it be if this was the ultimate backfire by pushing uses to non tertiarily branded AMD cards

    • NovusBogus
    • 1 year ago

    I still say the AMD sub-brands should have focused on their mining prowess.

    • gerryg
    • 1 year ago

    Nvidia is trying to be like Apple (Pay our premium! [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XSC_UG5_kU<]Buy our dongles![/url<]). AMD is trying to be like Google (Anyone can build on our platform! We're standard!). Both have good products. As long as they're competitive I'll go with the cheaper one or all else being equal the one that isn't a snobby jerk.

    • psuedonymous
    • 1 year ago

    So the sum total of “oh no, less consumer choice!” is that some of the word salad crammed onto the box is shuffled around. It even still has “GAMING” written on the box for all the ‘Nvidia stole the gaming brand!’ bleating that has been going on.

    Asus could push out an ASUS ROG FART STRIX 1080 OVERCLOCKED EXTREME EDITION and nobody would notice unless they put out a press release to highlight it.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 1 year ago

      [quote<]It even still has "GAMING" written on the box for all the 'Nvidia stole the gaming brand!' bleating that has been going on.[/quote<] Exactly. The only thing they can't use it seems is RoG -- 'k, whatevs...

    • albundy
    • 1 year ago

    this is the worst time to buy video cards anyway. if the want to manipulate the market, then this is the best time. well, for me at least.

    • gc9
    • 1 year ago

    Nice to see the ‘blood’ cleaned off — budding AI’ers and AR’ers can be turned off by products that look like they belong in a red-light district, or a haunted house.

    • Waco
    • 1 year ago

    Read the article. Forgot the new “gaming” branding by the end.

    [quote=”Nvidia”<]Mission accomplished![/quote<]

    • Eversor
    • 1 year ago

    This news post reads like something worth of April’s Fools.

    • cpucrust
    • 1 year ago

    AREZ – “A ROG (card) EZ”. I just look for the owl or strix on the product to know whether it is premium or not.

    • Neutronbeam
    • 1 year ago

    So what does Asus call its drivers – Warez?

    • Mat3
    • 1 year ago

    So Nvidia’s stupid ploy accomplishes nothing except to create a hassle for their board partners who have to make a new “brand”.

    • Captain Ned
    • 1 year ago

    Genuine People Personalities? What could go wrong (other than Marvin)?

      • Voldenuit
      • 1 year ago

      Look at me, GPU the size of a planet, and they’ve got me hashing Bitcoin.

    • TwistedKestrel
    • 1 year ago

    I don’t get why this would work – GPP didn’t seem to be the kind of arrangement that would ever see the inside of a courtroom, so playing by the letter of the agreement and not the spirit of it shouldn’t really matter.

      • Zizy
      • 1 year ago

      Huh, what do you mean? That NV won’t face any (successful) suit because of GPP, or that NV cannot sue partners for breaching GPP?

      Former = maybe. Intel doing this on CPUs against AMD now would result in EU sending another fine pretty rapidly. GPUs are less relevant though and NV could even avoid too much trouble.
      (If I were ruling this is clearly abusing market position and anti-competitive behavior)

      Latter is irrelevant. NV is reportedly also dangling a huge stick called “priority GPU allocation”. All NV has to do is not supply any naughty OEM.

        • TwistedKestrel
        • 1 year ago

        The latter is exactly what I mean – this is very obviously trying to sidestep the agreement, I don’t see how nVidia could be happy with it, and as such unless there’s something I’m missing they’re still going to give Asus the cold shoulder

        • bwcbiz
        • 1 year ago

        nVidia’s market share in GPUs is just as dominant as Intel’s was in CPUs when they tried to lock AMD out of the market. EU would definitely investigate this. Heck back in the day, even the US spent a lot of time investigating Intel for restraint of trade and anti-trust violations. “Priority GPU allocation” could probably scoot by the regulators if nVidia is relaxed about how they interpret the branding requirements, but if they get anal about it, I expect at least some regulators to do the same.

        • stefem
        • 1 year ago

        Except what happened with Intel and AMD is a completely different story than that.
        Intel asked PC makers to not sell AMD products, NVIDIA is not, they are just asking for a different branding.

        As for “special treatment”, anyone in the sector do this (you think Sapphire doesn’t have a special treatment by AMD? why do you think they make only AMD/ATI card since forever?) and unless they break some actual antitrust law like predatory pricing it’s perfectly fine.

          • Zizy
          • 1 year ago

          What happened in the past is a different story. But I didn’t mention that.
          If Intel asked Asus to ditch AMD from their gaming lineup (= what NV is doing right now), they would rapidly get fined in EU.

            • stefem
            • 1 year ago

            Eeehm no, that’s not what they are doing, they are just asking for a separete sub branding, I can safley say that by looking at ASUS.
            The ROG Strix RX Vega 64 O8G Gaming is now called the Arez Strix RX Vega 64 O8G Gaming wich sound gaming oriented as mucg as the former.
            Maybe we should all remember that the story was pushed by AMD to some press and that the biggest “supporter” of this story was Kyle Bennetas which is very close to AMD, as much as running the stage for them on som of their conference.

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    Makes me wanna swear at Nvidia for being a b**** but I honestly don’t think many gamers care one bit about a particular OEM’s own branding like ROG and such.

      • Demetri
      • 1 year ago

      Gamers who follow the hardware industry, like us, generally don’t care about branding. It’s the majority of gamers who don’t that branding makes a difference on. Obviously ASUS believes the branding matters, and so does Nvidia, otherwise they wouldn’t be muscling a competitor out of another company’s established gaming brand. One that applies to more products than just graphics cards.

      • DPete27
      • 1 year ago

      There’s data that suggests gaming-specific branding produces higher sales. I’m on the fence about that, since it’s not so much the name, but what the manufacturer adds to the products within that brand that matters. Gaming-specific branded products (like ROG) tend to include premium features, higher quality components, additional adjustments, finer granularity adjustments, RGB, etc. It’s not like you slap an ROG sticker on a GPU box (everything else equal) and the ROG GPU sells more than the non-ROG one. If this is the way the market is going to get divided, there’s nothing stopping someone like Asus from offering the exact same premium features/components to non-ROG branded products.

      Clearly Nvidia thinks the name makes all the difference. Yes Asus’ ROG brand is [historically] synonymous with their top-tier offerings, but aside from all this negative press the GPP is giving them, I’m not convinced it will improve their sales in any meaningful way.

        • Demetri
        • 1 year ago

        It’s more damaging from a marketing angle. ASUS invests a lot into ROG for sponsorships and advertising, and now Radeon is getting cut out of any benefit from that. ARES will never get any real push because it only covers one specific product. They get a lot more for their money pushing ROG because it covers an entire line of gaming components and peripherals.

          • Welch
          • 1 year ago

          Demetri is right on. Yes, marketing brand names matter even if enthusiasts who know better like we do are not effected by it. Just ask someone if they love their Ford, Dodge or Chevy……. Or their Ruger, Browning or Remmington….. Or their HP, Asus, Acer……

          You get the gist. Lots of money is spent on making these names resonate with target audience, they carry a certain image. When you start a new brand, you loose any good image you had of them in the first place. This is exactly why when AMD bought ATI they waited awhile to market under the AMD name for their GPUs. It’s also why they continued to call them Radeons so they didn’t loose mind share for the brand, and when they split the division off, they kept it at Radeon Technologies Group so you don’t forget who they are.

          The opposite happens when a BAD name is associated with a brand. If the damage is too wide, you will just see an entire brand disappear and a new one jumps in its place. Hell, entire sub-brand and market segmentation exist for this exact reason.

            • stefem
            • 1 year ago

            That’s a bit different, products are still branded as AMD, Radeon and ASUS, the couple NVIDIA-GeForce and AMD/ATI-Radeon can’t be directly compared to a sub brand of one of the OEM.
            What is clear is that NVIDIA feel the needs to differentiate more from AMD while the latter seems don’t, as you said a bad experience can ruin the perception of a brand, I know people that still fear Linux because they briefly tried it 30 years ago…

          • DPete27
          • 1 year ago

          Very true. I forgot that angle since I was focusing on GPUs.

          • Chrispy_
          • 1 year ago

          This is why I can’t believe that GPP is legal.

          I’d have thought Asus/MSI/Gigabyte would be big enough to call Nvidia out on this, but I guess corruption isn’t exclusive to politicians….

            • stefem
            • 1 year ago

            You should take your tinfoil hat off, it’s not healthy for your mind

            • K-L-Waster
            • 1 year ago

            If it was illegal you’d think someone (*cough* AMD *cough) would just report it to the DoJ and that would be that…

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 1 year ago

            That’s not how things work. This isn’t a one hour TV show. Did you go to Costco for law school?

            • K-L-Waster
            • 1 year ago

            [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp._(2001)[/url<] [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp.[/url<] Seemed to get the companies to back down pretty well in those cases...

          • BurntMyBacon
          • 1 year ago

          Agreed. While GPP may not be as large a problem for discrete GPUs, the branding restrictions go beyond discrete GPUs and can include laptops, desktops, etc. depending on how widely the OEM uses the brand. The knowledge of the tech crowd (including posters here) is the exception, not the rule. Most consumers don’t have a clue as to which products will best meet their wants and rely on friends, salesmen, advertisements, etc. to make their decisions. I’ve met quite a few people who buy Gaming products (I.E. laptops) based on branding. Republic of Gamers is quite popular in the gaming laptop market. Given nVidia’s co-opting of the brand, AMD GPUs cannot be used in a Republic of Gamers laptop. While Asus seems willing to put up a new brand for video cards, we have yet to see how well they market it. It is extremely unlikely that Asus will go out of their way to market a second gaming laptop brand, though as much of their success here would be at the expense of the their Republic of Gamers line.

    • Anovoca
    • 1 year ago

    Just because the partners have to add another label doesn’t mean writers and end users have to give in to this idiocy. Lets just keep calling these cards what they really are – Asus Strix. Better yet, lets just drop the gamer branding all together. Lord knows I’m not buying your GPU because I prefer to have a big glowy bicep eagle on it instead of your brand’s name.

      • nerdrage
      • 1 year ago

      +1 for use of “bicep eagle”!

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      Agreed. If gaming branding is what it takes to sell cards, it’s amazing EVGA sells anything at all. Their mostly-black cooler covers are far too pedestrian to get anybody’s eye.

      • LoneWolf15
      • 1 year ago

      Someone needs a white box with a generic “Gaming Video Card” black logo on it. Just for the laughs.

      Underneath it can say “Uses BitchinFast!3D GPU” and how much RAM. If made well, I guarantee it’d sell.

        • Anovoca
        • 1 year ago

        Why go tbat far. Just make a white box with a black pickaxe logo on it.

    • Chrispy_
    • 1 year ago

    Screw Nvidia.
    Screw the RAM shortage
    Screw the cryptocurrency miners.

    The whole market is one sorry mess and adding layers of separation within a single brand just to comply with other assinine branding monopolies is disgustingly ugly. I’m surprised it’s even legal, really.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      Bump for visibility. +3.

      • Theolendras
      • 1 year ago

      It isn’t legal, but who wants to engage a legal battle against the supplier of the most profitable segment of the moment ?

        • Ethyriel
        • 1 year ago

        It almost seems like Nvidia is trying to initiate a crippling legal battle without actually initiating it. I have to hope frivolous lawsuits like Creative vs Aureal wouldn’t fly today, but if Nvidia can get AMD to initiate they could tie up a ton of resources for a company with such thin margins at the moment.

          • Welch
          • 1 year ago

          That actually is an amazing point. You may be right that they are intentionally trying to force AMD to file a lawsuit. I hope their legal team knows better and at the same time is smart enough that they require board manufacturers to market a specific “Gaming Brand” that perhaps is seen across board manufacturers or at least is considered exclusive to AMD. Or for legal reasons is written as NOT being allowed to be made exclusive later down the road for Nvidia to grab up.

          Seriously, screw Nvidia. I’m happy I haven’t had to buy much if any of their hardware in quite some time.

          • Chrispy_
          • 1 year ago

          I like your theory but AMD would be suing for damages that could be pretty significant, eventually.

          Also, if the ruling is in AMD’s favour you’d imagine that all the vendors being blackmailed by GPP would step up to take their pound of flesh too.

          Maybe I’m seeing this wrong from all the anti-Nvidia rage that GPP has caused. Is anyone NOT seeing GPP as holding AIB vendors to ransom, and if so – care to enlighten us on why AIB vendors would actually want GPP?

            • BurntMyBacon
            • 1 year ago

            If any graphics card manufacturer wanted to separate their branding for AMD and nVidia, they could have done so prior to GPP. Regardless of how desirable or not GPP might be in other regards, I have to assume that companies that weren’t already creating GPU supplier specific gaming brands didn’t really want to do so.

            • the
            • 1 year ago

            The last time AMD was in a similar situation, [url=https://techreport.com/news/17950/amd-intel-settle-all-antitrust-licensing-disputes<]they settled the lawsuit out of court.[/url<] While not exactly the same scenario as it is today, AMD at the time did not have the legal arm funded well enough to survive a prolonged court battle even if AMD could have ended up with more money out of the suit. For Intel, that result also worked out in there favor despite a $1.2 billion dollar agreement: it kept US and EU investigators off their backs which would have cost them even more money regardless if AMD survived. So AMD won [url=https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Intel-still-hasnt-paid-AMD-12-billion-USD-anti-trust-fine<](though did they get the promised money?)[/url<] and Intel cut their losses. This time around again AMD can't afford a prolonged legal battle even if they were to become the victor in court. So for the time being their best strategy is to saber rattle, try to get board partners to speak publicly, and see if they can't get the attention of various regulator agencies in the US and EU to pay attention. That doesn't mean a lawsuit won't happen just that it isn't the first option they want to exercise. The wild card are the board partners who already have a strained relationship with nVidia over the Founder's Edition cards nVidia sells directly. nVidia is a both a supplier and competitor in their eye.

          • Zizy
          • 1 year ago

          AMD has to convince EU to look into this so they don’t need to spend any money. Furthermore, this GPP is known enough even USA suit would go fast and result in a shitload of problems for NV.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 1 year ago

        Not sure about it being illegal.

        If it said “you can only sell NVidia GPUs” that would likely be an anti-trust violation. But saying “if you use this comarketting for your gaming brand you can only sell NVidia GPUs with that brand” is less clear cut.

          • Welch
          • 1 year ago

          I believe you are correct, they are basically saying “you don’t have to take the cash, but if you do we want an exclusive gaming brand”. Now if it explicitly forbid them from giving AMD any gaming brand all its own… then possible issue. If AMD had any stake in some of these EXISTING brands, like ROG…. and can show a court that they sunk considerable cost into marketing something like ROG…. and that the board manufacturers had it written openly for them to use it not exclusive to a specific vendor……..

          Actually, they would still be screwed, at that rate they would have to sue Asus or other manufacturers because those brands belong to them, not Nvidia. The more and more Iook at this, the more of a smart move (albeit, sleeeeeezy) this little program is for Nvidia.

          You can’t expect AMD to take on board makers who are between a rock and a hard place. Board makers aren’t going to take on Nvidia because that is big business and they will get screwed. Really the only way this could go is board makers and AMD team up together for legal battles, which still screws the board maker, or AMD and board makers work together to create a new brand and hope to build quick mind share with gamers. The last choice is better long term, the former is likely to lead down a money sink where only Nvidia wins and everyone else loses.

          • NovusBogus
          • 1 year ago

          Antitrust would only come into play if a company is so vertically/horizontally integrated that it’s impossible to do business without them. Since there are two serious discrete PCIe contenders, a swarm of integrated/embedded alternatives, and plenty of room for someone to roll their own graphics solution if they really wanted to it’s not even close to being a thing.

          Exclusivity agreements are actually quite common in the commercial/industrial world for a manufacturer’s reseller network. So are geographical sales territories. Typically if you want to buy something big and awesome like a machine tool or engineering CAD software, you give them your address and they forward that on to whichever reseller is authorized to do sales and service in that area. Or you just go straight to the reseller, since they do most of the local marketing work. You and the reseller work out a ‘special’ deal which is below MSRP but above the mothership’s cut–think car dealership–and their local guys come out to install the thing and fix it if/when something breaks. If you don’t like the reseller you might be able to find another one with overlapping territory, or you can always go with a different vendor–these kinds of things have plenty of competition. Direct sales are starting to become more common, but it’s slow going and mostly driven by upstarts trying to break into an existing market.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This