• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

[H]ardOCP: GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

humbug said:
Yes, they are not allowed to market AMD GPU's as "Gaming GPU's" that's the main segment they are not allowed to market for.
Click to expand...


No, they can but they can't share marketing. So if Asus sell ROG branded GeForce card they can't sell ROG branded AMD cards, but could have a different slogan and marketing material.
 
TNA said:
Not sure if I missed a earlier post of yours, but what are your thoughts on this whole situation DP?
Click to expand...


It's all a bit strange. There is what Nvidia is publicly stating and then rumours that supposedly come from AIBs, but we don't know what the exact rules and conditions are.

It makes absolutely no sense for Nvidia to pursue a blatant anti-competition campaign. They aren't stupid and know that will end in lawsuits they will likely loose.

I'll wait for the hot air to blow over and see what actually materializes. I'm also not sure if this is something to better combat mining, along with the rumoured mining chip.

If this is really an attempt to monopolize through anti-competitive practices then **** them.
 
Samwell said:
Why should Intel join forces? Intel themself will be the company which might force AMD out of the discrete gpu market. When intel joins the market they will bundle their cpus and gpus and easily get a lot of market share through oems. You will mostly just have intel cpu with intel cpu and just in the premium other combinations. But as Nvidia is stronger there it will come down to only intel/nv combinations and amd will be only in amd/amd systems.
Click to expand...

You obviously have very little understanding of how the market works, has worked in the past and will work in future. Intel have always been rubbish in the discrete GPU market, they are fully aware of that themselves which is why they have joined with AMD to develop. There is more chance of me winning the lottery then Intel ever selling GPU's.
 
D.P. said:
No, they can but they can't share marketing. So if Asus sell ROG branded GeForce card they can't sell ROG branded AMD cards, but could have a different slogan and marketing material.
Click to expand...

AMD should just charge Nvidia a large fee for motherboard support/QA
 
ltron said:
I stand corrected then. I had no idea bullet physics was in GTA and I don't remember seeing any logos to that effect. It should have been front and centre so the consumer knows, especially since the physics in GTA 5 are really good.

Is it possible with open source to say "okay you can use it, but you have to advertise our name and the technology in the game particularly if you want our engineers' help with it"?
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm a little confused? when you said "bullet physics" do you mean the open source physics engine (like your Havok or Physx) or do you mean bullet physics like drop off or the Coriolis effect.

a lot of people seems to love the character physics/behaviours rather the physics it self. I did use to work for the middle ware company responsible for that for some 7 years but not until GTA4 where it was first used.
 
KillBoY_UK said:
Sorry I'm a little confused? when you said "bullet physics" do you mean the open source physics engine (like your Havok or Physx) or do you mean bullet physics like drop off or the Coriolis effect.

a lot of people seems to love the character physics/behaviours rather the physics it self. I did use to work for the middle ware company responsible for that for some 7 years but not until GTA4 where it was first used.
Click to expand...
I meant the open source physics engine that AMD were touting about 8 years ago. I thought you were saying that it was used in GTA 4 and 5. A Google search shows you are right.
 
Last edited:
ltron said:
I meant the open source physics engine that AMD were touting about 8 years ago. I thought you were saying that it was used in GTA 4 and 5. A Google search shows you are right.
Click to expand...

Then yer it dose the bullet physics engine, I just didn't want to get my wires crossed
 
D.P. said:
It makes absolutely no sense for Nvidia to pursue a blatant anti-competition campaign. They aren't stupid and know that will end in lawsuits they will likely loose.
Click to expand...
Nvidia eventually losing lawsuits wouldn't matter much considering they could keep doing it likely for years before materializing of any punitives... Which would be likely completely negligible compared to damage done to AMD.
(+ no personal consequencies to decision makers)
 
Ugh had to pick a DGPUafter all, as 2400G doesn't cut it for some games even at 1080P. Anyways buying an Nvidia GPU these days is like buying a real fur coat, controversial, and gives you a edgy wrong feeling.. Not that I have ever bought fur, but I imagine the feelings are similar...

At least my GPU is a used one I guess, not contributing towards the evil empires the brand new stuff xD
 
I just remembered, Nvidia spy on us with their drivers too, gotta remove that from registry. Oh the joys of being under the evil overlords. All hail Jenson and his leather jacket...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom