Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Not you in particular, but it is very pippopu to bash Nvidia these days and it generates a lot of céickd with people on the anti-nvidia bandwagon.
Your rubbish about Nvidia religion etc. makes you pretty suspect though.
.things like the 970vram wouldn't be affected if someone discovered they could report it with or eitjwit the NDA. If nvidied expicexpli told reviewrre it only had 3.5Gb of ram but either that under an explicit NDA, then they couldn't report it without breaking the NDA, but such a clause would likely be deemed illegal anyway
Nvidia came out with the GPP and it got lambasted and Nvidia had to bury it. Nvidia then say to themselves "How didnt we get away with this" and the answer was that someone had leaked it and once leaked it spread like wildfire. So Nvidia's answer to this issue is "Ok so we stop all the leaks so no-one can do this again". I think they are putting this in place to stop those leaks and once in place they will drag the GPP out of it's shallow grave and do it again....But this time no-one who signed an NDA will be able to report on it. The GPP will go ahead and we will hear nothing about it until those gaming brands start to disappear again.
In In downplaying anything because there is nothing to downplay.
It is a completely standard NDA that has been sent out to reviewers because Nvidia are about to release their new cards. That is the only interesting aspect of this story.
Nvidia came out with the GPP and it got lambasted and Nvidia had to bury it. Nvidia then say to themselves "How didnt we get away with this" and the answer was that someone had leaked it and once leaked it spread like wildfire. So Nvidia's answer to this issue is "Ok so we stop all the leaks so no-one can do this again". I think they are putting this in place to stop those leaks and once in place they will drag the GPP out of it's shallow grave and do it again....But this time no-one who signed an NDA will be able to report on it. The GPP will go ahead and we will hear nothing about it until those gaming brands start to disappear again.
In In downplaying anything because there is nothing to downplay.
It is a completely standard NDA that has been sent out to reviewers because Nvidia are about to release their new cards. That is the only interesting aspect of this story.
They aren't saying anything of substance beyond what Heise said. Just more baseless hysteria. The NDA reads completely normal to me, and I readNDA frequently.
Of course confidential information is provided for the benefit of the entity providing it. They wouldn't provide it if it wasn't goes to be beneficial. Doesn't stop a reviewer writing a scathing review or report the truth
Yes, TPU spends a great deal of words on saying it doesn't stop negative reviews.
And it doesn't. Claiming otherwise is wrong and its easy for them or anyone else to see.
They spend zero words about this; a section I have transcribed because the original is a picture of the text:
Use Restrictions. Recipient shall use Confidential information soley for the benefit of NVIDIA and shall not (a) post news stories based on Confidential Information; (b) post Confidential Information regarding NVIDIA invitations and special press events; (c) post Confidential Information on public or private forums or user discussion websites; (d) post videos "predicting" or "hypothesizing" about future announcements using Confidential Information as a basis for a story; (e) post to social media channels and Confidential Information or "conjecture" based on Confidential Information; (f) threaten to expose Confidential Information, unless paid in cash or ad dollars; (g) sell or broker Confidential Information or products before, during or after a launch; (h) disclose confidential login information for a system to allow others to gain access to Confidential Information.
Any confidential information that is not blessed by Nvidia is now toxic to anyone signing the NDA. These terms did not exist before because the GPP exposure would have been impossible under these terms.
Any leaked confidential information is forbidden to be published, any confidential information from a third party is forbidden to be reported on, absolutely no claiming or suggesting anything based on knowledge of same.
Spectacular level of head in sand if you think this is normal for a journalist to agree to only report on officially released information. They have to sign for financial reasons of course and it is in exchange for some of their independance.
No, the signing of NDAs at your non-journalistic work is not the same thing and does not compromise you in the same way.
Public perception of NVIDIA has already taken a beating in the wake of the GPP controversy, and it's the duty of press to point out similar misadventures by the company, but maybe not based on misinterpretations of internal documents. We feel that Heise is overreacting and possibly looking to become a martyr, by just following the trend of bashing NVIDIA.
That closing sentence is stupid. Heise isn't a small time reviewer, as someone has already posted, they are a large company who probably make more in a month than TPU makes in a year. A company of that size isn't going to make itself a martyr for internet points and to appease fanboys.
I'm sure that they have an army of well paid lawyers who poured over this document and advised them before they went public. There is a chance that it is a misinterpretation but the chances of that happening is highly unlikely.
Yes, TPU spends a great deal of words on saying it doesn't stop negative reviews.
And it doesn't. Claiming otherwise is wrong and its easy for them or anyone else to see.
They spend zero words about this; a section I have transcribed because the original is a picture of the text:
Use Restrictions. Recipient shall use Confidential information soley for the benefit of NVIDIA and shall not (a) post news stories based on Confidential Information; (b) post Confidential Information regarding NVIDIA invitations and special press events; (c) post Confidential Information on public or private forums or user discussion websites; (d) post videos "predicting" or "hypothesizing" about future announcements using Confidential Information as a basis for a story; (e) post to social media channels and Confidential Information or "conjecture" based on Confidential Information; (f) threaten to expose Confidential Information, unless paid in cash or ad dollars; (g) sell or broker Confidential Information or products before, during or after a launch; (h) disclose confidential login information for a system to allow others to gain access to Confidential Information.
Any confidential information that is not blessed by Nvidia is now toxic to anyone signing the NDA. These terms did not exist before because the GPP exposure would have been impossible under these terms.
Any leaked confidential information is forbidden to be published, any confidential information from a third party is forbidden to be reported on, absolutely no claiming or suggesting anything based on knowledge of same.
Spectacular level of head in sand if you think this is normal for a journalist to agree to only report on officially released information. They have to sign for financial reasons of course and it is in exchange for some of their independance.
No, the signing of NDAs at your non-journalistic work is not the same thing and does not compromise you in the same way.
how do you know these terms didn't exists before have you seen an older NDA? You really think this NEW NDA would some how prevent the TOP info leaking, when this NDA already leaked within days?
of course any freaked confidential information is illegal to be published,that is the whole point of an NDA. If Nicosia tells you the release date under NDA, but some other reviewer tells you the release date as well, the terms of the NDA are still in place. Even when the information is made public the NDA is still binding until stipulated otherwise. That is all absolutely standard.
that list is use restrictions is complete common sense. That is the whole point of an DNA - do t share confidential information in any way shape or form, no matter how you received it.
how do you know these terms didn't exists before have you seen an older NDA? You really think this NEW NDA would some how prevent the TOP info leaking, when this NDA already leaked within days?
of course any freaked confidential information is illegal to be published,that is the whole point of an NDA. If Nicosia tells you the release date under NDA, but some other reviewer tells you the release date as well, the terms of the NDA are still in place. Even when the information is made public the NDA is still binding until stipulated otherwise. That is all absolutely standard.
that list is use restrictions is complete common sense. That is the whole point of an DNA - do t share confidential information in any way shape or form, no matter how you received it.
Yes, TPU spends a great deal of words on saying it doesn't stop negative reviews.
And it doesn't. Claiming otherwise is wrong and its easy for them or anyone else to see.
They spend zero words about this; a section I have transcribed because the original is a picture of the text:
Use Restrictions. Recipient shall use Confidential information soley for the benefit of NVIDIA and shall not (a) post news stories based on Confidential Information; (b) post Confidential Information regarding NVIDIA invitations and special press events; (c) post Confidential Information on public or private forums or user discussion websites; (d) post videos "predicting" or "hypothesizing" about future announcements using Confidential Information as a basis for a story; (e) post to social media channels and Confidential Information or "conjecture" based on Confidential Information; (f) threaten to expose Confidential Information, unless paid in cash or ad dollars; (g) sell or broker Confidential Information or products before, during or after a launch; (h) disclose confidential login information for a system to allow others to gain access to Confidential Information.
Any confidential information that is not blessed by Nvidia is now toxic to anyone signing the NDA. These terms did not exist before because the GPP exposure would have been impossible under these terms.
Any leaked confidential information is forbidden to be published, any confidential information from a third party is forbidden to be reported on, absolutely no claiming or suggesting anything based on knowledge of same.
Spectacular level of head in sand if you think this is normal for a journalist to agree to only report on officially released information. They have to sign for financial reasons of course and it is in exchange for some of their independance.
No, the signing of NDAs at your non-journalistic work is not the same thing and does not compromise you in the same way.
That closing sentence is stupid. Heise isn't a small time reviewer, as someone has already posted, they are a large company who probably make more in a month than TPU makes in a year.
If they existed before then why the uproar? It's pretty obvious this was shoehorned in as a result of nvidia's pathetic little gpp project getting **** on before they could fully roll it out.
I was watching gamers nexus video which focused on the rumour mills.
I see where NV are coming from, if you see last week news...
Atm this NDA is if they tell you something confidential eg the future launch date or the GPU it will be Volta or Pascal refresh, you cannot say it for 5 years (which is the weird part).
However this rumour mill about the 1180 is ongoing since last year. Big headlines every few weeks that the card is coming out in February, March, April, May, July, August.
That it will be Volta, Turing, Pascal refresh....
That in effect (and can be seen here), creates the mentality on the people not going to buy a current GPU since the next GPU is out so soon.....
That rumour mill affects sales, to the extend that NV had 300,000 GPUs returned to them from one of Asus/MSI/Gigabyte because they are full stock....
<sarcasm>
So from all above, we should conclude that these 300K GPUs returned to NV were very painful to some pockets....
</sarcasm>
Yes, TPU spends a great deal of words on saying it doesn't stop negative reviews.
And it doesn't. Claiming otherwise is wrong and its easy for them or anyone else to see.
They spend zero words about this; a section I have transcribed because the original is a picture of the text:
Use Restrictions. Recipient shall use Confidential information soley for the benefit of NVIDIA and shall not (a) post news stories based on Confidential Information; (b) post Confidential Information regarding NVIDIA invitations and special press events; (c) post Confidential Information on public or private forums or user discussion websites; (d) post videos "predicting" or "hypothesizing" about future announcements using Confidential Information as a basis for a story; (e) post to social media channels and Confidential Information or "conjecture" based on Confidential Information; (f) threaten to expose Confidential Information, unless paid in cash or ad dollars; (g) sell or broker Confidential Information or products before, during or after a launch; (h) disclose confidential login information for a system to allow others to gain access to Confidential Information.
Any confidential information that is not blessed by Nvidia is now toxic to anyone signing the NDA. These terms did not exist before because the GPP exposure would have been impossible under these terms.
Any leaked confidential information is forbidden to be published, any confidential information from a third party is forbidden to be reported on, absolutely no claiming or suggesting anything based on knowledge of same.
Spectacular level of head in sand if you think this is normal for a journalist to agree to only report on officially released information. They have to sign for financial reasons of course and it is in exchange for some of their independance.
No, the signing of NDAs at your non-journalistic work is not the same thing and does not compromise you in the same way.
If you are going to transcribe something try actually transcribing it rather than saying something completely different.
Also have you actually read the TechPowerUP article fully, because you say they don't mention the use of confidential information and they certainly do, the whole section that mentions the Coca Cola recipe for example, it is a perfect situation that needs confidentiality to be upheld.
And yes I do think this NDA sounds rather harsh, but I will say yet again, without seeing previous ones or ones from other companies we cannot make fair and just comments about this one. but don't let that stop you bashing NVidia anyway.
If you are going to transcribe something try actually transcribing it rather than saying something completely different.
Also have you actually read the TechPowerUP article fully, because you say they don't mention the use of confidential information and they certainly do, the whole section that mentions the Coca Cola recipe for example, it is a perfect situation that needs confidentiality to be upheld.
And yes I do think this NDA sounds rather harsh, but I will say yet again, without seeing previous ones or ones from other companies we cannot make fair and just comments about this one. but don't let that stop you bashing NVidia anyway.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
