[H]ardOCP: GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

[KillBoY_UK]

AMD is a social responsible company, and that differs it to nVidia and Intel who are just in the seek of more profits with any possible dirty or not so dirty business practices.

Oh dear, the marketing has worked I guess.... even if it was true do you really think it would stay that way if they had a monopoly on ether GPU's or CPU's ?

 

[Satchfanuk]

CPU's: K8 days, no competition on the high end so prices where up not far Intel's at the time especially on the FX's at the time, AMD CPU prices didn't drop dramatically until they had to (Core 2). When 9700/9800 dominated GPU's they prices didn't move much until there was good competition, minor bumps like the 9800XT at even higher prices. The 7950/7970 commanded high prices until Kepler showed up.

If you think AMD would release more and better GPU's with good pricing if they had a monopoly you are mistaken, they are a business like any other. Same would go for Intel and Nvidia.

Leave any company alone with a monopoly slows down innovation and raise prices.

AMD have never had a monopoly though. Raising prices to similar levels to their competition when they have products that compete is perfectly understandable.

As for 'Same would go for Intel and Nvidia' - they have done it, no would about it.

 

[melmac]

AMD is a social responsible company, and that differs it to nVidia and Intel who are just in the seek of more profits with any possible dirty or not so dirty business practices.

What? I think you have been reading too many AMD marketing slides without any filters. They are a large company who exist to make money. They have to be social and nice and go with open source stuff at the moment because they haven't the resources to do anything different. AMD have had their share of dirty tricks through the years. they were sued recently for lying about their Llano processors to inflate stock prices. so, don't be so naïve.

CPU's: K8 days, no competition on the high end so prices where up not far Intel's at the time especially on the FX's at the time, AMD CPU prices didn't drop dramatically until they had to (Core 2). When 9700/9800 dominated GPU's they prices didn't move much until there was good competition, minor bumps like the 9800XT at even higher prices. The 7950/7970 commanded high prices until Kepler showed up.

If you think AMD would release more and better GPU's with good pricing if they had a monopoly you are mistaken, they are a business like any other. Same would go for Intel and Nvidia.

Leave any company alone with a monopoly slows down innovation and raise prices.

While I agree with what you are trying to say, AMD never had a monopoly. AMD had some good competition with Intel, but, they were still far behind in terms of sales. The 9700/9800 might have dominated in performance but Nvidia dominated in Sales during those years. When the 9700 pro was king, Nvidia gained market share for 6 quarters in a row.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

AMD have never had a monopoly though. Raising prices to similar levels to their competition when they have products that compete is perfectly understandable.

As for 'Same would go for Intel and Nvidia' - they have done it, no would about it.

That is true, they have not had a monopoly It is understandable, any business would do the same, If you have a dominating top product you will charge the most for it. 4K8KW10 seems to think AMD are not a business doing business things and are some benevolent being. I was just trying to demonstrate that when they have be dominant or market leading they have upped there prices and slowed down development until they challenged or are behind again, again typical business behaviour.

So for him to say things would be better for us all in a AMD monopoly seems ridiculous to me, no disrespect to 4K8KW10.


Not to mention the shady stuff AMD/ATI (mainly ATI) have done in the past, not quite wide spread as GPP though.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

What? I think you have been reading too many AMD marketing slides without any filters. They are a large company who exist to make money. They have to be social and nice and go with open source stuff at the moment because they haven't the resources to do anything different. AMD have had their share of dirty tricks through the years. they were sued recently for lying about their Llano processors to inflate stock prices. so, don't be so naïve.



While I agree with what you are trying to say, AMD never had a monopoly. AMD had some good competition with Intel, but, they were still far behind in terms of sales. The 9700/9800 might have dominated in performance but Nvidia dominated in Sales during those years. When the 9700 pro was king, Nvidia gained market share for 6 quarters in a row.

Agreed Healthy competition between AMD/Nvidia/Intel is the ideal. Think how much better it be if all three had CPU and GPU's fighting against each other for our cash.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

AMD have never had a monopoly though. Raising prices to similar levels to their competition when they have products that compete is perfectly understandable.

As for 'Same would go for Intel and Nvidia' - they have done it, no would about it.

If they're going to raise prices when they have products that compete, imagine what they'll do if they have a monopoly!
What that's saying is they pushed prices as high as competition would allow them to. But we're talking about if there was no competition to stop them going higher...

Didn't AMD release the FX-9590 at something like £1200?
Obviously they couldn't keep it at that because of the competition from Intel. But what if there was no competition from Intel? Why do we think they would have lowered the price?

 

[TheRealDeal]

The past had shown AMD that low balling prices were getting them no where bar in more debt. They arguably had better cards that offered more over the years. In some segments this was not the case but in the main I believe they did. The highest end was mainly where it was not the case. This lead to them being classed as the budget brand so under cutting Nvidia was just hurting them more.

In the Cpu world Intel were just better by to much for AMD to compete from core2 on and it only got worse until Ryzen.

The FX-9590 was not really a viable chip nor a good one. Most likely heavily cherry picked hence the price. I seen it as another attempt to get rid of the budget brand. Needed to be a much better chip to do so like Ryzen is yet they ain't pricing it overboard.

What would AMD do with a monopoly? We don't know as they have never came close. What we can answer is what happened the more share Intel and Nvidia managed to get. Higher prices for less gains. So I don't want any of them having to much power.

 

[Satchfanuk]

If they're going to raise prices when they have products that compete, imagine what they'll do if they have a monopoly!
What that's saying is they pushed prices as high as competition would allow them to. But we're talking about if there was no competition to stop them going higher...

Didn't AMD release the FX-9590 at something like £1200?
Obviously they couldn't keep it at that because of the competition from Intel. But what if there was no competition from Intel? Why do we think they would have lowered the price?

So you're saying that they should have sold their competing product at vastly lower cost just because it would look better? The market price was set by Intel who were the market leader. AMD created a competitive CPU to match Intel's best and priced it accordingly.

We can't exactly judge AMD on what they 'might' do if they had a monopoly and I think they likelihood of them ever being in that position is extremely optimistic

 

[chrcoluk]

I think you've maybe misunderstood what happened. The flaw was reported to NVidia and Nintendo under the voluntary 'responsible disclosure' policy which allows hardware/software vendors 90 days to investigate and come up with a fix.

Unfortunately, in this case, there doesn't seem to be a fix. Since the flaw is apparently quite easy to expose, it was inevitable that some other hackers would find it and release information about it.

This is what has happened now and so all details have been released. It was only a day before the 90 days expired anyway. Obviously during the 90 days, these hackers have been working on customising the firmware etc.

*** This is heading off topic, there is a thread in the consoles section related to this if you want to continue discussing there

The story I read was different.

She had an agreement with nvidia to "never" disclose it providing it wasnt disclosed/found by another party. In the event it was she would disclose it, and she did.

A 90 days to fix or we will disclose is hardly reasonable anyway when its not fixable.

There is never an inevitability someone will find a flaw, there is likely undiscovered flaws in decade's old software today.

If the story I read is true (indefinite silence providing no one else finds) I maintain she could easily arrange for someone else to find the flaw so she could break the disclosure and release her firmware.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

So you're saying that they should have sold their competing product at vastly lower cost just because it would look better? The market price was set by Intel who were the market leader. AMD created a competitive CPU to match Intel's best and priced it accordingly.

We can't exactly judge AMD on what they 'might' do if they had a monopoly and I think they likelihood of them ever being in that position is extremely optimistic

The conversation started because someone said they'd be good if they were a monopoly. They couldn't know that either!

 

[Silent_Scone]

Sorry, I must have missed that, when exactly did AMD have a monopoly on CPU's and had the highest prices? I certainly don't remember them ever being in a position like you describe.

You obviously don't remember being bent over by FX CPUs, or either too young to remember.

The internet, in all matters and disputes, tends to forget very, very quickly.

 

[ubersonic]

So you're saying that they should have sold their competing product at vastly lower cost just because it would look better? The market price was set by Intel who were the market leader. AMD created a competitive CPU to match Intel's best and priced it accordingly.

The thing is though, it wasn't "a competitive CPU to match Intel's best" nor was it priced accordingly. It was priced against Intel's best because it was AMDs best, then when they realised not even the hardcore fanboys were going to pay more for less performance just to get an AMD logo they made the price more realistic.

 

[chrcoluk]

The 9590 is a hideous cpu, stories on the net of people having to underclock the cpu just to get it stable, how often do you hear that about a cpu? and only 2 or so AMD boards could even utilise it due to the massive power draw. Difficult to cool as well as it has a low thermal limit, how they even thought they could price it a premium I dont know.

My friend gave me his 9590 rig to fix, basically its barely 18 months old, used 2 or 3 times a week for gaming, and has managed to suffer enough voltage degradation that I had to underclock it to get it stable. I couldnt increase the vcore because the voltage delivery hardware wasnt capable. That was on its limit at the stock cpu configuration.

The parts in the rig are high end as well. Top end asus board etc.

 

[LambChop]

Yea just blackmailed pretty much. Join or we will take away all the benefits you as a partner have had for years. That's about as forced as it gets.

Give me all your money or I'll terrorize your partner/family for ever. I know what your answer would be, you don't have to answer.

My statement is still factually correct. Those companies have threw any morals they ever had out the window, they caved.

 

[BubbySoup]

Give me all your money or I'll terrorize your partner/family for ever. I know what your answer would be, you don't have to answer.

My statement is still factually correct. Those companies have threw any morals they ever had out the window, they caved.

Since when did companies have morals? They haven't caved, they've made the choice they think will benefit their shareholders and make them money. If they thought for a moment that being outside of the GPP would benefit them more, then they would have not joined.
If GPP collapses under the legal stress it may get put under, then nVidia will still see the companies that joined up in a favourable light.

 

[spoffle]

Give me all your money or I'll terrorize your partner/family for ever. I know what your answer would be, you don't have to answer.

My statement is still factually correct. Those companies have threw any morals they ever had out the window, they caved.

Why are you even trying to defend them? Also, my answer to you would be to **** right off if said that, because you're just some random guy making empty threats.

When it comes to corporate coercion and control, it's not the same thing.

 

[Rezident]

So which companies went along with this again?

 

[TheRealDeal]

So which companies went along with this again?

Asus, Msi and Gigabyte along with Nvidia's own partners which were obviously going to join.

 

[Rezident]

Just got a random email from AMD:

Gamers live in a vibrant, inclusive and unique community. Radeon™ graphics exists to preserve it.

At AMD, we believe that freedom of choice in PC gaming isn’t a privilege. It’s a right.

Our pledge to you – the gamer – is to “push the industry openly, transparently and without restrictions ...

I wonder who they could be talking about

 

[bru]

The email links to this page.

LINK

Its a standard fluff piece, we are good, they are not.