I dont know the legal implications for Nvidia with their GPP program but gather its entirely voluntary with no restrictions to their partners carrying AMD products (other than name conflicts with Nv products). Pretty sure Nvidia consulted their legal dept on every angle of this program and how it will be implemented. Unless they are stupid enough to expose themselves to law suits or other penalties that may damage them far more than they hope to gain. Lets see what happens down the road. Pretty funny reading all the comments. All 'heiling' Kyle for his selfless investigative journalism, with so many saying thats why they dont buy Nvidia or are planning to ditch Nvidia. Basically meaning that their GPU choices are ethics based instead of performance based. I wonder how many of these folks had Intel CPUs when Intel was at the height of their monopolistic practices a few years ago. Even funnier was someone blaming Nvidia for this Kyle Bennet Urban Dictionary entry. 😀 edit: OK, on closer inspection, it would seem Nv insisting on other brands naming conventions (ie, 'gaming' cards) do not conflict with their own 'gaming' products may be objectionable, but not sure if its anti-trust or not. Again, I'm sure their legal experts have all this covered and they probably should be in the clear but yes, it does seem like a dick move.

p.s. Just discovered that a lot of AMDs cards have 'gaming' in their model names. OK, now things are becoming clearer that Nvidia is up to no good.

It´s no mystery that gamer or gaming branded stuff is selling much more than the non "gaming" branded stuff these days... so nvidia just wants the gaming/gamer labels all for themselves. What a bunch of scumbags.

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.

Maybe AMD should stop relying on defaming the competition and create better products.

Spets:

Maybe AMD should stop relying on defaming the competition and create better products.

You're comment is High Quality Bait. [spoiler]https://i.imgur.com/gE6kIrc.jpg[/spoiler] -- Joking aside this sort of news is very off putting.

Yeah, that's pretty dirty business. That's what companies do with 70% market share to grab even more of that, use their market position to put preasure on manufacturers. If that's really illegal, I guess AMD should sue against it instead of influencing tech journalists, influence the board partners to not sign that program, or sue against it's conditions. Just making them the "bad guys" doesn't really change anything, by common opinion they are already, no?

fantaskarsef:

Yeah, that's pretty dirty business. That's what companies do with 70% market share to grab even more of that, use their market position to put preasure on manufacturers. If that's really illegal, I guess AMD should sue against it instead of influencing tech journalists, influence the board partners to not sign that program, or sue against it's conditions. Just making them the "bad guys" doesn't really change anything, by common opinion they are already, no?

Likely not illegal therefor they decide to whine to tech journalists that are shills for them.

KissSh0t:

You're comment is High Quality Bait.

There is some truth to his post though. AMD would have had my money if Vega would have delivered but it was over a year late and still behind almost 2 year old cards from the competition. Hell vega64 is not much faster than the 980ti.

This story is kind of strange. First it seems to be illegal what Nvidia is proposing. Second, if partners are smart, all they have to do to is agree no to enter GPP, this way no company is going to be benefited or hurt by this "program". Third, the story was brought up by AMD, Fishy to say the least... In the end, i just can´t see how Nvidia is going to benefit from such a stupid move...

H83:

This story is kind of strange. First it seems to be illegal what Nvidia is proposing. Second, if partners are smart, all they have to do to is agree no to enter GPP, this way no company is going to be benefited or hurt by this "program". Third, the story was brought up by AMD, Fishy to say the least... In the end, i just can´t see how Nvidia is going to benefit from such a stupid move...

Could end up being another lie from AMD too, like the Witcher 3 and pCARS crap they tried to pedal.

Forbes did also post on this matter as well. I actually agreed with a forbes post... https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/971879268841115648 http://www.nag.co.za/2018/03/09/nvidia-introduced-the-geforce-partner-program-this-week-and-people-are-mad-about-it/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/03/08/report-alleges-new-nvidia-program-engages-in-monopolistic-anti-consumer-practices/#6ebf8b682241

I think Bennett is probably correct on this one. He seems to have done a lot of research into it, and if what he's saying is true then there is every reason to believe that this program is exactly what he thinks it is - monopolistic and illegal. The fact that not a single company has agreed to talk on record speaks volumes (what are they so afraid of?). Nvidia really needs to come clean on this one (as an investor, I demand it).

Spets:

Maybe AMD should stop relying on defaming the competition and create better products.

Nvidia are doing just fine defaming themselves. Why not have a chat with Intel, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, and all the other companies they have managed to piss off so much they won't work with them again ? As was stated in the original article, AMD shipped the info to HardOCP, who didn't take that as face value. They then went and did their own digging, and found out that a lot of the AIB's and OEM's are not happy with this, but seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I mean HardOCP claims they did their own digging but typical Kyle doesn't actually quote/source anything. Like this for example:

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it.

I want to read the actual documents, not Kyle's interpretation of the documents.. especially because Kyle in the past is known to be a giant drama queen. If what he's saying is true in his example (about ROG) then yeah, that's absolutely insane to me that Nvidia would be demanding that. On the flipside, if Nvidia is just saying "We want you to have a differentiating name like "Strix" for Nvidia products" i don't really know if I see an issue. Like ASUS now differentiates it's mainstream motherboards Crosshair vs Prime for AMD/Intel and I think that's a pretty good differentiation. So if a GPU was called "ROG - Strix 580" ROG implying gaming brand and Strix implying AMD (I know Strix is currently used for both) I wouldn't necessarily mind Nvidia requesting something like that. But if they are saying that ASUS can only use it's ROG brand for Nvidia cards or worse exclusively only sell Nvidia cards under a "gaming" brand - then Nvidia can go EAD. Well, honestly even the former request I feel like opens room for them to change the terms further down the road without much bickering. But yeah - I want to see more actual evidence/information.. because saying stuff like this:

What is disturbing is that we have been told that if a company does not participate in GPP, those companies feel as if NVIDIA would hold back allocation of GPUs from their inventories. From all we have talked to, the issue of not allocating GPU inventories to non-GPP partners have not been spelled out contractually, but is rather done on a wink and a nod.

Without any basis, proof, industry people willing to come forward, anything - it being out of Kyles mouth, AMD seeding the story.. it's just unfounded speculation at this point.. speculation that I guarantee I'll see people quoting two years from now as '100% proof' of Nvidia's greed. Like loophole said, people still bring up Witcher 3, Pcars, Crysis 2 tessellation, "intentional downgrading" and a bunch of other fabricated stories as proof. I feel like we don't need to add more to that pile without at least some form of evidence.

The thing is... [H] is jumping the gun... They do not know what this GPP exactly looks like and what it entails. Yeah it smells fishy when presented like that, but read closely and you will see that [H] is replacing the informations they are lacking with the worst case scenario anticipations. The most glaring example: Kyle is already offended that Nvidia will not supply them with product samples anymore (to punish them for this article)! Despite that being a pure speculation on his part, and despite this not happening at all (yet), and I doubt that it ever will. In fact it was AMD who in past few years has been involved in several cases of denying reviewers product samples, [H] INCLUDED and quite recently at that!

Denial:

Without any basis, proof, industry people willing to come forward, anything - it being out of Kyles mouth, AMD seeding the story.. it's just unfounded speculation at this point.. speculation that I guarantee I'll see people quoting two years from now as '100% proof' of Nvidia's greed.

Yeah but Nvidia is $100B+ company, do they really need our help? I mean fuk em - they have their lawyers, let them earn their salary. I mean the importance of this story might justify possibly lower journalistic standards, speculations/reaching and similar, if you know what I mean. Then again if Kyle was right, and AMD had a leg to stand on against this dirty move by Nvidia, why-in-the-name-of-Jesus would AMD be talking to Kyle, publicly in the open, instead of preparing the case in the utmost secrecy with their lawyers??? --

Noisiv:

why-in-the-name-of-Jesus would AMD be talking to Kyle, publicly in the open, instead of preparing the case in the utmost secrecy with their lawyers??? --

Easy, to shame Nvidia in the public domain. Especially more effective if they have other tech sites [H] or writers do it for them. They may have discussed it with their lawyers and saw their case is not as solid as they'd like, hence getting tech sites to make their case for them and win on the PR front at least. But without the exact wording of what GPP agreements entail, we have no idea how any of this develop on the legal front.

Denial:

I mean HardOCP claims they did their own digging but typical Kyle doesn't actually quote/source anything. Like this for example: I want to read the actual documents, not Kyle's interpretation of the documents.. especially because Kyle in the past is known to be a giant drama queen. If what he's saying is true in his example (about ROG) then yeah, that's absolutely insane to me that Nvidia would be demanding that. On the flipside, if Nvidia is just saying "We want you to have a differentiating name like "Strix" for Nvidia products" i don't really know if I see an issue. Like ASUS now differentiates it's mainstream motherboards Crosshair vs Prime for AMD/Intel and I think that's a pretty good differentiation. So if a GPU was called "ROG - Strix 580" ROG implying gaming brand and Strix implying AMD (I know Strix is currently used for both) I wouldn't necessarily mind Nvidia requesting something like that. But if they are saying that ASUS can only use it's ROG brand for Nvidia cards or worse exclusively only sell Nvidia cards under a "gaming" brand - then Nvidia can go EAD. Well, honestly even the former request I feel like opens room for them to change the terms further down the road without much bickering. But yeah - I want to see more actual evidence/information.. because saying stuff like this: Without any basis, proof, industry people willing to come forward, anything - it being out of Kyles mouth, AMD seeding the story.. it's just unfounded speculation at this point.. speculation that I guarantee I'll see people quoting two years from now as '100% proof' of Nvidia's greed. Like loophole said, people still bring up Witcher 3, Pcars, Crysis 2 tessellation, "intentional downgrading" and a bunch of other fabricated stories as proof. I feel like we don't need to add more to that pile without at least some form of evidence.

You can't force a company or employees to reveal who they work for. If you read fully, he states that no-one was willing to come forwrd publicly, only anonymously. I can understand an employee not wanting to lose his job and cretae potential problems with his employers company. I can also understand why a company would not want to lose one of its two suppliers. Can you also understand this ? If YOU want more proof, go find it, and ask the companies themselves. I suspect they may trust Kyle more than you. off topic : Um Crysis 2 DID have stupid tesselation o everything, and Gameworks is known to not be happy playing witth AMD cards. Its also compltely closed so no-one can see what is happening.

alanm:

Easy, to shame Nvidia in the public domain. Especially more effective if they have other tech sites [H] or writers do it for them. They may have discussed it with their lawyers and saw their case is not as solid as they'd like, hence getting tech sites to make their case for them and win on the PR front at least. But without the exact wording of what GPP agreements entail, we have no idea how any of this develop on the legal front.

Who says the document isn't slightly different for each company? Or the terms ? Would your company take that risk to be found out, and lose a supplier?

Noisiv:

The thing is... [H] is jumping the gun... They do not know what this GPP exactly looks like and what it entails. Yeah it smells fishy when presented like that, but read closely and you will see that [H] is replacing the informations they are lacking with the worst case scenario anticipations. The most glaring example: Kyle is already offended that Nvidia will not supply them with product samples anymore (to punish them for this article)! Despite that being a pure speculation on his part, and despite this not happening at all (yet), and I doubt that it ever will. In fact it was AMD who in past few years has been involved in several cases of denying reviewers product samples, [H] INCLUDED and quite recently at that! Yeah but Nvidia is $100B+ company, do they really need our help? I mean fuk em - they have their lawyers, let them earn their salary. I mean the importance of this story might justify possibly lower journalistic standards, speculations/reaching and similar, if you know what I mean. Then again if Kyle was right, and AMD had a leg to stand on against this dirty move by Nvidia, why-in-the-name-of-Jesus would AMD be talking to Kyle, publicly in the open, instead of preparing the case in the utmost secrecy with their lawyers??? --

Holy Crap. HardOCP don't care about not getting the cards at launch, their readers understand this. You're basically giving Nvidia props for using their product as a "sword of damocles" swinging over their customers heads. That's a problem, not a virtue. I would rather read a review a few days late from a respectable and reputable site. iirc, Hardware.fr (which is VERY respectable and very well liked in the HW community) buy most, if not all the hardware they review. Luckily, they are partnered now with LDLC, and have their own store, so they can literally pick what they want to test. AMD probably don't have the Documents, and neither do HardOCP. Word of mouth still works though, and you get to keep your job 😉 btw, I'm not dragging Guru3D or Hilbert into this, and I fully respect his choice to enter the discussion, or to stay as far away from it as possible. Its his site, not ours.

alanm:

Pretty sure Nvidia consulted their legal dept on every angle of this program and how it will be implemented. Unless they are stupid enough to expose themselves to law suits or other penalties that may damage them far more than they hope to gain.

they were banking on any potential legal action being quiet, smoothed over privately in drawn out court proceedings that would take years...any repercussions or fines being outweighed by the massive potential benefits of this "program". they clearly did not count on having the whistle blown on them publicly before the AIB contracts were even finished being shopped around & signed. hopefully this leads to OEMs organizing against it, or simply abstaining. im not particularly optimistic.

Denial:

I mean HardOCP claims they did their own digging but typical Kyle doesn't actually quote/source anything. I want to read the actual documents, not Kyle's interpretation of the documents

makes perfect sense. his contacts would instantly be fired from their positions for jeopardizing a lucrative incentives program & publicizing news of wat amounts to collusion against competitors, wrapped up in pretty paper.

Noisiv:

read closely and you will see that [H] is replacing the informations they are lacking with the worst case scenario anticipations.

i really wouldnt give nvidia the benefit of the doubt if i were you, & im not saying that because i currently use AMD products.

Evildead666:

You can't force a company or employees to reveal who they work for. If you read fully, he states that no-one was willing to come forwrd publicly, only anonymously. I can understand an employee not wanting to lose his job and cretae potential problems with his employers company. I can also understand why a company would not want to lose one of its two suppliers. Can you also understand this ? If YOU want more proof, go find it, and ask the companies themselves. I suspect they may trust Kyle more than you. off topic : Um Crysis 2 DID have stupid tesselation o everything, and Gameworks is known to not be happy playing witth AMD cards. Its also compltely closed so no-one can see what is happening.

I read the article, I know what he stated. Kyle states a lot of stuff, he's been known to make shit up in the past - so why should I randomly just trust everything he says in this now? No one else is reporting what he is.. all the other sources use his article as their source. Like if this was like Arstechnia reporting it or Ryan Smith from Anandtech or Hilbert (although he typically doesn't do pieces like this) reporting it and it wasn't formatted in a blog post but an actual investigative article with meaningful concern and not conjecture - I'd say fine. But that's not what's happening here - this entire article is designed to create drama and stir the pot. Even his email that he wrote Nvidia looks like it's written by someone in high school.

And after the story I wrote about AMD in 2016 on the Intel/AMD deal and the politics attached to that, this story is going to get a LOT of exposure now that HardOCP's credibility has been returned, if not exalted since all the truth came out on that.

Who writes like that? I'd be embarrassed to write that to Nvidia. I get douche chills reading that. And no, the burden of proof isn't on me to go and find this out. That's ridiculous. AMD/Kyle are proposing this, if they want me to accept it as fact then they need to provide more than "this is what a document I seen implies might happen" and "this is what some random employee we supposedly spoke to "feels" could happen. Also, I didn't mention GameWorks at all in my post, but the source is here: https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-source-github for nearly every GameWorks library - so no.. it's not "completely closed". And the Crysis 2 tessellation underwater/non-culled was debunked by both Crytek itself and modders. It's a non-story that continues to get pushed because just like this everyone went and cried a river, blew everything out of proportion, before all the facts were laid out. If his claims turn out to be true, to the severity is he's claiming - then by all means Nvidia should be punished for it. But I'm not going to sharpen my pitchfork for Kyle and and his speculative blog post. Need more than that.