Nvidia gets anti-competitive with unsavory GeForce Partner Program

[wiyosaya]

I tend to believe this as, at least from my viewpoint, nVidia has been driving higher prices for their products for years. It shows in Quadro, and also in the fact that they have crippled DP compute power in most of their latest generation parts unless you go to Tesla or the Titan series. For instance, GTX 580 DP compute is on par with GTX 1060 DP compute. For most in the consumer market, that will not matter, however, charging more for the extra DP compute is one of those "value added" things that many companies will use to increase the end-user (at whatever level) cost of a card.

At one point, though I was not a high-end user, you could use the consumer series cards for pro CAD programs like Solid Works, but not any longer. I get it - about the driver support and all that stuff, but for a small shop that depends on CAD, the difference in price between pro and consumer cards that perform equally might be a bank-breaker.

The only thing I can say is that if this is true, we can only hope that AMD will actually become competitive in the discrete GPU market with nVidia again and restore pricing sanity to a market that it quickly getting out of hand price-wise.

 

[Rygar]

One of the most well known investors in the world, Warren Buffett, says one of his main principles in selecting a company to invest in is finding one that has built a "moat" around itself (I.e. a company that has figured out a way to gain enough market share as to become a monopoly, or well on it's way, and then does what it takes to defend that position.)

That is exactly what Nvidia is doing here. The benefits FAR outweigh any possible fines. As an investor in Nvidia (with a hedge investment in AMD) I fully expect this and applaud this. This is a public company making money for investors. This is the #2 performing stock on the S&P 500.

Intel and AMD team up and try to shut Nvidia out of the gaming laptop market. Nvidia works to shut AMD even further out of the desktop GPU market (which Intel isn't in) and then reacts defensively to protect itself in the gaming laptop market by providing monetary incentives to partners. This is business as usual for all three companies.

 

[wiyosaya]

One of the most well known investors in the world, Warren Buffett, says one of his main principles in selecting a company to invest in is finding one that has built a "moat" around itself (I.e. a company that has figured out a way to gain enough market share as to become a monopoly, or well on it's way, and then does what it takes to defend that position.)

That is exactly what Nvidia is doing here. The benefits FAR outweigh any possible fines. As an investor in Nvidia (with a hedge investment in AMD) I fully expect this and applaud this. This is a public company making money for investors. This is the #2 performing stock on the S&P 500.

Intel and AMD team up and try to shut Nvidia out of the gaming laptop market. Nvidia works to shut AMD even further out of the desktop GPU market (which Intel isn't in) and then reacts defensively to protect itself in the gaming laptop market by providing monetary incentives to partners. This is business as usual for all three companies.

At some point, though, it is entirely possible that nVidia will ruin their own market. It has happened with "arrogant" companies before, such as Compaq that was killed by high prices on its own products and readily available PC components that were easily assembled into comparable computers for far less than what Compaq was charging. Compaq is now a shadow of its former self.

I think that we are currently seeing crApple going through the process with their latest outrageously priced iPhone - who's sales are, as I understand it, significantly less than that previous generation.

It may not happen right away, but once customers start the migration away a company with monopolistic practices, it may be too late for them to change.

 

[Rygar]

One of the most well known investors in the world, Warren Buffett, says one of his main principles in selecting a company to invest in is finding one that has built a "moat" around itself (I.e. a company that has figured out a way to gain enough market share as to become a monopoly, or well on it's way, and then does what it takes to defend that position.)

That is exactly what Nvidia is doing here. The benefits FAR outweigh any possible fines. As an investor in Nvidia (with a hedge investment in AMD) I fully expect this and applaud this. This is a public company making money for investors. This is the #2 performing stock on the S&P 500.

Intel and AMD team up and try to shut Nvidia out of the gaming laptop market. Nvidia works to shut AMD even further out of the desktop GPU market (which Intel isn't in) and then reacts defensively to protect itself in the gaming laptop market by providing monetary incentives to partners. This is business as usual for all three companies.

At some point, though, it is entirely possible that nVidia will ruin their own market. It has happened with "arrogant" companies before, such as Compaq that was killed by high prices on its own products and readily available PC components that were easily assembled into comparable computers for far less than what Compaq was charging. Compaq is now a shadow of its former self.

I think that we are currently seeing crApple going through the process with their latest outrageously priced iPhone - who's sales are, as I understand it, significantly less than that previous generation.

It may not happen right away, but once customers start the migration away a company with monopolistic practices, it may be too late for them to change.

As a very recent investor in Apple (alongside Warren Buffett) I was happy to see Apple stock hit another all-time high today. iPhone sales in total were less, however the margin per phone was more meaning Apple suffered no measurable loss in profit on the iPhone. (I should also mention that today Nvidia is trading at an all-time high as well.)

Now personally, I will never buy Apple products, nor AMD products for that matter. Regardless I have invested in both, though I'm starting to regret bothering with AMD at all as an investment.

Also, it's important to remember that the recent high prices for GPU's are not the product of nVidia or AMD pricing, which has remained the same throughout. Its entirely due to the boom in crypto and now both companies are missing out on those profits. Blame the crypto-boom for your price gouging, not these companies.

If you want to focus on companies that are creating REAL monopolies that will affect a much larger swath of middle-America, focus your attention on Amazon and Google.

 

[Evernessince]

This looks like a total non-story. The whole article relies on this: "which Bennett read but decided not to publish. This component states that GPP partners must have their “gaming brand aligned exclusively with GeForce”." which is clearly a direct contradiction of Nvidia's published statement.
So we have an unsupported claim by a news generator (aka agent provocateur) versus a published statement from Nvidia. I think the first thing any investigation (or even a reputable tech blog), would do is find out if the unsupported claim is in fact correct.

If you read the article, that's exactly what they did. They even have statements from anonymous AIB partners. You saying this is an insult not only to the story's original author but to TechSpot, as if they don't validate the articles they product first.

 

[PaddyTheFirst]

My thoughts on GPP.

1: Exclusivity

1a) GPP isn't exclusive at all
Conclusions:
- No downsides
- Improved efficiency of Nvidia graphics cards duo to improved co-operation between Nvidia and GPP partners.
- Consumer is more informed as to which add-in card and system partners are set up to make the best Geforce Graphics cards.

Evidence for: Nvidia Publically says "The program isn't exclusive".

Evidence showing one strickly can not work with both Nvidia and AMD, none.

1b)GPP Partners can still make Graphics cards with other companies but the gaming brand they use with Nvidia GPUs can only be used with Nvidia GPUs under the Geforce brand.
Conclusions:
- Seems fair since the reputation of the Graphics cards using Nvidia GPUs is tied to the reputation of the gaming brand.
It would seem unfair if the ROG brand using Nvidia GPUs for years were then to be used with AMD GPUs.
If ROG got a good reputation from the efficiency of the Nvidia GPUs it could then use that reputation to boost AMD GPU sales by using the same brand.
Keeping Geforce brand with Nvidia GPUs makes it more transparent. The AIBs and OEMs can still be consistent with the brand name used with AMD GPUs, in fact they are more likely to do so now, helping transparency.

-Unhealthy if the AIBs & OEMs are only allowed one gaming brand each and that has to be aligned with either Nvidia or not.
Of course then their brand with AMD just has to not call itself a gaming brand, but its still bad. Either way there are zero hardware or software limitations, only branding.

Evidence:
Nvidia: "This transparency is only possible when NVIDIA brands and partner brands are consistent."

Nvidia: "They see the benefit of keeping brands and communication consistent and transparent."

ALLEGEDLY-> Kyle: "its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." <- ALLEGEDLY

He doesn't prove this, he has no facts to back it up and has no on the record interviews.
Its an unsubstantiated claim from someone who claims his "lawyers have signed off on going forward", who claims to have "read documents with this requirement" that is "the The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP"
and yet he does not provide any documents to prove it. It is within his own interests to share any facts or on the record information he has and yet he hasn't shared any, it is also within his interests to leak new information and
get his article views. So Kyles claim may be untrue.


2: Transparency:

2a) Who is part of GPP?
No offcial answer yet.

IMO: Nvidia are probably waiting until AIBs + OEMs are no longer joing "fast" before making a public announcement of them all together for the sake of clarity and fairness. It puts less pressure on the OEMs and AIBs to decide quickly.
This would explain why the people Kyle approached couldn't talk about it, yet. There is probably a non disclosure agreement until the announcement.

(though Nvidia should probably have stated they would announce who is part of the GPP later so that witch-Hunt Journalists couldn't try to pressure them like Kyle is)

In the case where Nvidia are withholding an announcement until partners stop joining "fast" (which makes perfect sense to me and is common practise).
The OEMs & AIbs in the GPP would have agreed to not leak any information on this until after Nvidia have made an announcement.

-This would make things more transparent then they were before GPP since AIBs & OEMs were working with Nvidia & AMD but the consumers were never told how they were co operating or how closely.
-This seems like the first formal announcement of who is helping who, how and by how much rather than all of it being done under the table away from the consumers eyes.
-If they do announce the GPP partners it should be more clear what versions of GeForce Graphics cards to buy. Tranparency incoming I would guess.


2b) GPP providing transparency on how Nvidia and its partners co-operate.
Conclusions:
- Should improve the quality of GeForce graphics cards.
- This may help consumers have more clarity on the specs of the different GeForce Graphics cards from the different GPP partners
- Perhaps different AIBs & OEMs will specialise in different areas giving the consumer more effective choice within the GeForce line-up

Evidence:
Nvidia "GPP partners will get early access to our latest innovations, and work closely with our engineering team"


Nvidia "full transparency into the GPU platform and software they’re being sold"



I am seeing a lot of people reacting to this story with hate or distrust towards Nvidia after reading from Kyles article.
Kyles article included no on the record interviews or facts. Please think critically yourselves and form your own opinions. Imo Kyle was unprofessional and biased and seemingly his biases have effected others.

Kyles own conclusion negates his own article.

Kyle: "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.
However, with the information that was presented to us by AMD, there was no story to be told, but it surely pointed to one that was worth looking into. There needed to be some legwork done in collecting facts and interviews."

He then goes on to collect zero facts and zero on the record interviews to back any facts up.

Then he proceeds to present us with "this story" However, with the information that was presented to us by (Kyle), there was no story to be told. But then he tells us anyway since his aligned biases with AMD (or possibly money).

Feel free to check through yourselves for on the record interviews and proven facts.


Next up, the Monopoly argument:
Consumers don't like monopolies.

Nvidia have 85% of the gaming GPU market.

GPP can't be blamed for Nvidia having 85% of the GPU market. Nvidia have had ~85% of the market before GPP existed.

OEMs & AIBs are already putting themselves in a disadvantageous position if they do not co operate with the manufacturer of 85% of the sold GPUs, GPP doesn't really change that.


Since Nvidia take up 85% of the market, that means that 85% of the graphics cards may be improved by the increased efficiency of co-operation from GPP.
So statistically for GPU hardware this is probably good news, no?


My responses to the remaining arguments against Nvidia ive seen:


"Nvidia should invest a tonne of money into making better products":
In fairness Nvidia have already invested a tonne of money into making better products. That is why they make the best GPUs and why "aspects of their technology are ahead of the nearest competitor"


Hair works cripples AMD GPUs:
The Hair works argument seems fair. Was there any game that did not let one turn Hair works off?

AMD clearly concerned/shopping the story:
Well of course. 85% vs 10%, AMD trying to tarnish the reputation of their competitor.

Competition is healthy. With 85% vs 10% Id say competition is not healthy in the GPU market. If your meant in general, yes I agree, hence why consumers don't like monopolies.

Nvidia "let" AMD optimise graphics in PUBG despite Nvidia being partners with PUBGs developers and Nvidia having more money. Which is some evidence for them allowing competitive fairness despite having the means to prevent it more.
Which is extra relevant since PUBG is hugely popular and is a large part of the market gap between Nvidia and AMD.

 

[Evernessince]

"Technically a larger company would still be able to sell AMD GPUs under a non-gaming brand or run parallel promotions and push two brands, though evidently that would translate into higher costs and the gaming brands are almost always the most attractive to gamers."

I know that branding is always pushed in our faces when it comes to new gaming hardware. But in my experience Gamers are more performance orientated than they are brand orientated. As a gamer I will always select the hardware of best performance. (which does happen to be Nvidia right now)

I can only pity AMD (and other lesser known brands) because of Nvidia's tactics on this. But ultimately complaining and forcing and investigation into Nvidia is only going to go so far. If AMD really want to hurt Nvida they will need to offer a product that completely outstrips their competition.

As proven many times in the past and by Nvidia's current GameWorks program, you can easily cripple the competition's performance. Nvidia have been doing this by adding an insane amount of Tessellation to GameWorks and by offloading PhysX to the CPU when an AMD GPU is in use.

AMD could offer a superior product and Nvidia would simply use the GameWorks program more.

AMD has no market share and sells all of it's gpus to miners lol, what are we supposed to do? wait until 2020 until they release gpus to compete with the 10 series?

Nvidia is doing the same thing.

"Technically a larger company would still be able to sell AMD GPUs under a non-gaming brand or run parallel promotions and push two brands, though evidently that would translate into higher costs and the gaming brands are almost always the most attractive to gamers."

I know that branding is always pushed in our faces when it comes to new gaming hardware. But in my experience Gamers are more performance orientated than they are brand orientated. As a gamer I will always select the hardware of best performance. (which does happen to be Nvidia right now)

I can only pity AMD (and other lesser known brands) because of Nvidia's tactics on this. But ultimately complaining and forcing and investigation into Nvidia is only going to go so far. If AMD really want to hurt Nvida they will need to offer a product that completely outstrips their competition.

Gamers are most certainly brand oriented. It's why MSI and co stick "Gamer" everywhere they can, it's why the Hyper 212 is still the best selling CPU cooler despite it not being the best budget cooler anymore, and it's why "Gaming Headphones" sell better than actual quality headpones.

It's a story. Sounds a bit like sour grapes.
No one is stopping anyone from buy anything. It's called marketing. .

You clearly didn't read, this program prevents AIBs from even making Gaming cards for another brand, so it does prevent people from buying.

The second hand market has zero impact. Everyone likes to believe that somehow eBay has some major impact. But when you consider that MAYBE a dozen or so second hand gpu's are sold on eBay each week, this is actually a drop in the OCEAN in a world wide GPU market.

I don't know anyone who waste money on a second hand burned out mining GPU with no warrantee.

Dealer stock is different. There are dealers on eBay and they are approved dealers selling NEW stock.

That's a major under-estimation of how many video cards are moved on eBay but it's especially true if you are talking about people selling their mining cards. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of cards being dumped on the 2nd hand market. Who is going to buy Nvidia's latest when you can get a 1080 Ti for $350?

One of the most well known investors in the world, Warren Buffett, says one of his main principles in selecting a company to invest in is finding one that has built a "moat" around itself (I.e. a company that has figured out a way to gain enough market share as to become a monopoly, or well on it's way, and then does what it takes to defend that position.)

That is exactly what Nvidia is doing here. The benefits FAR outweigh any possible fines. As an investor in Nvidia (with a hedge investment in AMD) I fully expect this and applaud this. This is a public company making money for investors. This is the #2 performing stock on the S&P 500.

Intel and AMD team up and try to shut Nvidia out of the gaming laptop market. Nvidia works to shut AMD even further out of the desktop GPU market (which Intel isn't in) and then reacts defensively to protect itself in the gaming laptop market by providing monetary incentives to partners. This is business as usual for all three companies.

The difference being that Intel/AMD did so legally, Nvidia is not. FYI this is not a defensive move to protect itself in the laptop market. AIBs don't mean squat in the laptop market and this move won't change anything. Nvidia's move only targets the desktop market. For being an investor, you need to brush up.

 

[Evernessince]

My thoughts on GPP.

1: Exclusivity

1a) GPP isn't exclusive at all
Conclusions:
- No downsides
- Improved efficiency of Nvidia graphics cards duo to improved co-operation between Nvidia and GPP partners.
- Consumer is more informed as to which add-in card and system partners are set up to make the best Geforce Graphics cards.

Evidence for: Nvidia Publically says "The program isn't exclusive".

Evidence showing one strickly can not work with both Nvidia and AMD, none.

1b)GPP Partners can still make Graphics cards with other companies but the gaming brand they use with Nvidia GPUs can only be used with Nvidia GPUs under the Geforce brand.
Conclusions:
- Seems fair since the reputation of the Graphics cards using Nvidia GPUs is tied to the reputation of the gaming brand.
It would seem unfair if the ROG brand using Nvidia GPUs for years were then to be used with AMD GPUs.
If ROG got a good reputation from the efficiency of the Nvidia GPUs it could then use that reputation to boost AMD GPU sales by using the same brand.
Keeping Geforce brand with Nvidia GPUs makes it more transparent. The AIBs and OEMs can still be consistent with the brand name used with AMD GPUs, in fact they are more likely to do so now, helping transparency.

-Unhealthy if the AIBs & OEMs are only allowed one gaming brand each and that has to be aligned with either Nvidia or not.
Of course then their brand with AMD just has to not call itself a gaming brand, but its still bad. Either way there are zero hardware or software limitations, only branding.

Evidence:
Nvidia: "This transparency is only possible when NVIDIA brands and partner brands are consistent."

Nvidia: "They see the benefit of keeping brands and communication consistent and transparent."

ALLEGEDLY-> Kyle: "its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." <- ALLEGEDLY

He doesn't prove this, he has no facts to back it up and has no on the record interviews.
Its an unsubstantiated claim from someone who claims his "lawyers have signed off on going forward", who claims to have "read documents with this requirement" that is "the The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP"
and yet he does not provide any documents to prove it. It is within his own interests to share any facts or on the record information he has and yet he hasn't shared any, it is also within his interests to leak new information and
get his article views. So Kyles claim may be untrue.


2: Transparency:

2a) Who is part of GPP?
No offcial answer yet.

IMO: Nvidia are probably waiting until AIBs + OEMs are no longer joing "fast" before making a public announcement of them all together for the sake of clarity and fairness. It puts less pressure on the OEMs and AIBs to decide quickly.
This would explain why the people Kyle approached couldn't talk about it, yet. There is probably a non disclosure agreement until the announcement.

(though Nvidia should probably have stated they would announce who is part of the GPP later so that witch-Hunt Journalists couldn't try to pressure them like Kyle is)

In the case where Nvidia are withholding an announcement until partners stop joining "fast" (which makes perfect sense to me and is common practise).
The OEMs & AIbs in the GPP would have agreed to not leak any information on this until after Nvidia have made an announcement.

-This would make things more transparent then they were before GPP since AIBs & OEMs were working with Nvidia & AMD but the consumers were never told how they were co operating or how closely.
-This seems like the first formal announcement of who is helping who, how and by how much rather than all of it being done under the table away from the consumers eyes.
-If they do announce the GPP partners it should be more clear what versions of GeForce Graphics cards to buy. Tranparency incoming I would guess.


2b) GPP providing transparency on how Nvidia and its partners co-operate.
Conclusions:
- Should improve the quality of GeForce graphics cards.
- This may help consumers have more clarity on the specs of the different GeForce Graphics cards from the different GPP partners
- Perhaps different AIBs & OEMs will specialise in different areas giving the consumer more effective choice within the GeForce line-up

Evidence:
Nvidia "GPP partners will get early access to our latest innovations, and work closely with our engineering team"


Nvidia "full transparency into the GPU platform and software they’re being sold"



I am seeing a lot of people reacting to this story with hate or distrust towards Nvidia after reading from Kyles article.
Kyles article included no on the record interviews or facts. Please think critically yourselves and form your own opinions. Imo Kyle was unprofessional and biased and seemingly his biases have effected others.

Kyles own conclusion negates his own article.

Kyle: "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.
However, with the information that was presented to us by AMD, there was no story to be told, but it surely pointed to one that was worth looking into. There needed to be some legwork done in collecting facts and interviews."

He then goes on to collect zero facts and zero on the record interviews to back any facts up.

Then he proceeds to present us with "this story" However, with the information that was presented to us by (Kyle), there was no story to be told. But then he tells us anyway since his aligned biases with AMD (or possibly money).

Feel free to check through yourselves for on the record interviews and proven facts.


Next up, the Monopoly argument:
Consumers don't like monopolies.

Nvidia have 85% of the gaming GPU market.

GPP can't be blamed for Nvidia having 85% of the GPU market. Nvidia have had ~85% of the market before GPP existed.

OEMs & AIBs are already putting themselves in a disadvantageous position if they do not co operate with the manufacturer of 85% of the sold GPUs, GPP doesn't really change that.


Since Nvidia take up 85% of the market, that means that 85% of the graphics cards may be improved by the increased efficiency of co-operation from GPP.
So statistically for GPU hardware this is probably good news, no?


My responses to the remaining arguments against Nvidia ive seen:


"Nvidia should invest a tonne of money into making better products":
In fairness Nvidia have already invested a tonne of money into making better products. That is why they make the best GPUs and why "aspects of their technology are ahead of the nearest competitor"


Hair works cripples AMD GPUs:
The Hair works argument seems fair. Was there any game that did not let one turn Hair works off?

AMD clearly concerned/shopping the story:
Well of course. 85% vs 10%, AMD trying to tarnish the reputation of their competitor.

Competition is healthy. With 85% vs 10% Id say competition is not healthy in the GPU market. If your meant in general, yes I agree, hence why consumers don't like monopolies.

Nvidia "let" AMD optimise graphics in PUBG despite Nvidia being partners with PUBGs developers and Nvidia having more money. Which is some evidence for them allowing competitive fairness despite having the means to prevent it more.
Which is extra relevant since PUBG is hugely popular and is a large part of the market gap between Nvidia and AMD.

-----
"1b)GPP Partners can still make Graphics cards with other companies but the gaming brand they use with Nvidia GPUs can only be used with Nvidia GPUs under the Geforce brand.
Conclusions:
- Seems fair since the reputation of the Graphics cards using Nvidia GPUs is tied to the reputation of the gaming brand.
It would seem unfair if the ROG brand using Nvidia GPUs for years were then to be used with AMD GPUs."

What?! ROG isn't an Nvidia brand, it's an ASUS brand. You're claim here is ridiculous as it's been used with AMD for years.
-----

-----
"Keeping Geforce brand with Nvidia GPUs makes it more transparent. The AIBs and OEMs can still be consistent with the brand name used with AMD GPUs, in fact they are more likely to do so now, helping transparency."

/facepalm The Geforce brand has always been Nvidia only, that isn't even what this article is about.
-----

-----
"Evidence for: Nvidia Publically says "The program isn't exclusive"."

That isn't evidence, otherwise Charles Manson would have gotten away by simply making an untrue statement. Can you imagine if public statements = evidence?
-----

-----
"-Unhealthy if the AIBs & OEMs are only allowed one gaming brand each and that has to be aligned with either Nvidia or not.
Of course then their brand with AMD just has to not call itself a gaming brand, but its still bad. Either way there are zero hardware or software limitations, only branding."

The article specifically states that the gaming brand have to be aligned with Nvdia. This is exactly what is happening. No hardware / software limitations? Yeah, that's a separate program called Nvidia GameWorks.
-----

-----
"2: Transparency:

2a) Who is part of GPP?
No offcial answer yet.

IMO: Nvidia are probably waiting until AIBs + OEMs are no longer joing "fast" before making a public announcement of them all together for the sake of clarity and fairness. It puts less pressure on the OEMs and AIBs to decide quickly.
This would explain why the people Kyle approached couldn't talk about it, yet. There is probably a non disclosure agreement until the announcement."

Grasping at straws for Nvidia does not change the fact that this is the exact opposite of "Transparency".

Nvidia have already been caught lying that this program does not require exclusive brands when it does in fact.
-----

-----
"Imo Kyle was unprofessional and biased and seemingly his biases have effected others."

Do you even have any evidence to support this claim? Coming from the guy who thinks public statements are "evidence", that's rich.
-----

-----
"Kyles article included no on the record interviews or facts."

If you read the article, he very well did interview AIBs and got an anonymous statement.
-----

-----
"Kyles own conclusion negates his own article.

Kyle: "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.
However, with the information that was presented to us by AMD, there was no story to be told, but it surely pointed to one that was worth looking into. There needed to be some legwork done in collecting facts and interviews.""

Where exactly is the negating part? AMD complained and Kyle did all the legwork. What, somehow AMD complaining makes the information he dug up invalid? BS.
-----

-----
"Nvidia "let" AMD optimise graphics in PUBG despite Nvidia being partners with PUBGs developers and Nvidia having more money. Which is some evidence for them allowing competitive fairness despite having the means to prevent it more.
Which is extra relevant since PUBG is hugely popular and is a large part of the market gap between Nvidia and AMD."

This is ironic in 2 ways. First, you are putting out the idea that Nvidia in engaging in Anti-competitive measures by preventing AMD from being able to optimize for games, which is messed up and illegal. Second, that Nvidia should take credit for AMD's work. I doubt you have any proof that Nvidia "let" AMD do anything.
-----

 

[Puiu]

The second hand market has zero impact. Everyone likes to believe that somehow eBay has some major impact. But when you consider that MAYBE a dozen or so second hand gpu's are sold on eBay each week, this is actually a drop in the OCEAN in a world wide GPU market.

I don't know anyone who waste money on a second hand burned out mining GPU with no warrantee.

Dealer stock is different. There are dealers on eBay and they are approved dealers selling NEW stock.

I'm talking about major dumps of GPU in the thousands or tens of thousands once mining becomes too expensive to be profitable.

 

[Puiu]

My thoughts on GPP.

1: Exclusivity

1a) GPP isn't exclusive at all
Conclusions:
- No downsides
- Improved efficiency of Nvidia graphics cards duo to improved co-operation between Nvidia and GPP partners.
- Consumer is more informed as to which add-in card and system partners are set up to make the best Geforce Graphics cards.

Evidence for: Nvidia Publically says "The program isn't exclusive".

Evidence showing one strickly can not work with both Nvidia and AMD, none.

1b)GPP Partners can still make Graphics cards with other companies but the gaming brand they use with Nvidia GPUs can only be used with Nvidia GPUs under the Geforce brand.
Conclusions:
- Seems fair since the reputation of the Graphics cards using Nvidia GPUs is tied to the reputation of the gaming brand.
It would seem unfair if the ROG brand using Nvidia GPUs for years were then to be used with AMD GPUs.
If ROG got a good reputation from the efficiency of the Nvidia GPUs it could then use that reputation to boost AMD GPU sales by using the same brand.
Keeping Geforce brand with Nvidia GPUs makes it more transparent. The AIBs and OEMs can still be consistent with the brand name used with AMD GPUs, in fact they are more likely to do so now, helping transparency.

-Unhealthy if the AIBs & OEMs are only allowed one gaming brand each and that has to be aligned with either Nvidia or not.
Of course then their brand with AMD just has to not call itself a gaming brand, but its still bad. Either way there are zero hardware or software limitations, only branding.

Evidence:
Nvidia: "This transparency is only possible when NVIDIA brands and partner brands are consistent."

Nvidia: "They see the benefit of keeping brands and communication consistent and transparent."

ALLEGEDLY-> Kyle: "its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." <- ALLEGEDLY

He doesn't prove this, he has no facts to back it up and has no on the record interviews.
Its an unsubstantiated claim from someone who claims his "lawyers have signed off on going forward", who claims to have "read documents with this requirement" that is "the The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP"
and yet he does not provide any documents to prove it. It is within his own interests to share any facts or on the record information he has and yet he hasn't shared any, it is also within his interests to leak new information and
get his article views. So Kyles claim may be untrue.


2: Transparency:

2a) Who is part of GPP?
No offcial answer yet.

IMO: Nvidia are probably waiting until AIBs + OEMs are no longer joing "fast" before making a public announcement of them all together for the sake of clarity and fairness. It puts less pressure on the OEMs and AIBs to decide quickly.
This would explain why the people Kyle approached couldn't talk about it, yet. There is probably a non disclosure agreement until the announcement.

(though Nvidia should probably have stated they would announce who is part of the GPP later so that witch-Hunt Journalists couldn't try to pressure them like Kyle is)

In the case where Nvidia are withholding an announcement until partners stop joining "fast" (which makes perfect sense to me and is common practise).
The OEMs & AIbs in the GPP would have agreed to not leak any information on this until after Nvidia have made an announcement.

-This would make things more transparent then they were before GPP since AIBs & OEMs were working with Nvidia & AMD but the consumers were never told how they were co operating or how closely.
-This seems like the first formal announcement of who is helping who, how and by how much rather than all of it being done under the table away from the consumers eyes.
-If they do announce the GPP partners it should be more clear what versions of GeForce Graphics cards to buy. Tranparency incoming I would guess.


2b) GPP providing transparency on how Nvidia and its partners co-operate.
Conclusions:
- Should improve the quality of GeForce graphics cards.
- This may help consumers have more clarity on the specs of the different GeForce Graphics cards from the different GPP partners
- Perhaps different AIBs & OEMs will specialise in different areas giving the consumer more effective choice within the GeForce line-up

Evidence:
Nvidia "GPP partners will get early access to our latest innovations, and work closely with our engineering team"


Nvidia "full transparency into the GPU platform and software they’re being sold"



I am seeing a lot of people reacting to this story with hate or distrust towards Nvidia after reading from Kyles article.
Kyles article included no on the record interviews or facts. Please think critically yourselves and form your own opinions. Imo Kyle was unprofessional and biased and seemingly his biases have effected others.

Kyles own conclusion negates his own article.

Kyle: "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.
However, with the information that was presented to us by AMD, there was no story to be told, but it surely pointed to one that was worth looking into. There needed to be some legwork done in collecting facts and interviews."

He then goes on to collect zero facts and zero on the record interviews to back any facts up.

Then he proceeds to present us with "this story" However, with the information that was presented to us by (Kyle), there was no story to be told. But then he tells us anyway since his aligned biases with AMD (or possibly money).

Feel free to check through yourselves for on the record interviews and proven facts.


Next up, the Monopoly argument:
Consumers don't like monopolies.

Nvidia have 85% of the gaming GPU market.

GPP can't be blamed for Nvidia having 85% of the GPU market. Nvidia have had ~85% of the market before GPP existed.

OEMs & AIBs are already putting themselves in a disadvantageous position if they do not co operate with the manufacturer of 85% of the sold GPUs, GPP doesn't really change that.


Since Nvidia take up 85% of the market, that means that 85% of the graphics cards may be improved by the increased efficiency of co-operation from GPP.
So statistically for GPU hardware this is probably good news, no?


My responses to the remaining arguments against Nvidia ive seen:


"Nvidia should invest a tonne of money into making better products":
In fairness Nvidia have already invested a tonne of money into making better products. That is why they make the best GPUs and why "aspects of their technology are ahead of the nearest competitor"


Hair works cripples AMD GPUs:
The Hair works argument seems fair. Was there any game that did not let one turn Hair works off?

AMD clearly concerned/shopping the story:
Well of course. 85% vs 10%, AMD trying to tarnish the reputation of their competitor.

Competition is healthy. With 85% vs 10% Id say competition is not healthy in the GPU market. If your meant in general, yes I agree, hence why consumers don't like monopolies.

Nvidia "let" AMD optimise graphics in PUBG despite Nvidia being partners with PUBGs developers and Nvidia having more money. Which is some evidence for them allowing competitive fairness despite having the means to prevent it more.
Which is extra relevant since PUBG is hugely popular and is a large part of the market gap between Nvidia and AMD.

I'm sorry... I know others already answered you (mostly to debunk everything you said), but I'll be short:
PFFfffffff hahaha this is just too funny dude! I can't stop laughing at what you wrote Thanks for making my day. It's not often that I find such rare gems in the comments section

 

[dj2017]

People are shouting all over the place for Nvidia's business practices for years. PhysX was one of the most serious examples of Nvidia trying to create a monopoly. Others where calling them AMD fanboys. People where shouting to tech sites, not use double standards in their articles. Most sites where extra friendly to Nvidia, they where attacking AMD at any given opportunity.

Well, there is nothing to say really. People who where worshiping Nvidia all those years, are already starting to see the slow down in GPU performance, and sites that see how the CPU market was come back to life thanks to Ryzen, I bet, wonder how much more visitors would have, if there was not an almost monopoly in the GPU market. Everyone that supported Nvidia those last years, lost.

 

[PaddyTheFirst]

Debunked? one person replied and misinterpreted everything they replied to.

I think my initial post is clear enough for them to re-read and understand that, saving me time in not having to reply to each case.

 

[NightAntilli]

This looks like a total non-story. The whole article relies on this: "which Bennett read but decided not to publish. This component states that GPP partners must have their “gaming brand aligned exclusively with GeForce”." which is clearly a direct contradiction of Nvidia's published statement.
So we have an unsupported claim by a news generator (aka agent provocateur) versus a published statement from Nvidia. I think the first thing any investigation (or even a reputable tech blog), would do is find out if the unsupported claim is in fact correct.

It is not a contradiction....

They claim the partners can continue to sell and promote products from anyone, but in reality, it is a clear manipulative statement to let themselves be seen as good and benevolent, while they really aren't. The statement is stated in such a way, as if the partners can continue to sell and promote gaming products from anyone just as well. But this is not a reasonable thought. Since the gaming brand must be used exclusively with Geforce, they are no longer allowed to sell and promote products from anyone that right now would use the same gaming brand.

In other words... Joining the program means that AMD can no longer be advertised as a gaming product at all under the popular gaming brands. nVidia would definitely want the whole ROG gaming brand by Asus, the whole Gaming brand by MSI, the whole AORUS + Windforce brand by Gigabyte, all for themselves. AMD's cards would have to be sold under Radeon only, practically.
Even more striking.... That also means no more motherboards with those brands. Taking Asus as an example, it would mean that AMD and Intel are restricted to the inferior Prime brand compared to ROG, making nVidia seem better than the rest, while in reality they are simply restricting their competition from being built in conjunction with quality components.

And what would happen with other peripherals? No more ROG laptops that does not have an nVidia GPU in it. Even ROG Mice are out of the picture, despite nVidia having to do nothing with that market.

 

[Rygar]

As proven many times in the past and by Nvidia's current GameWorks program, you can easily cripple the competition's performance. Nvidia have been doing this by adding an insane amount of Tessellation to GameWorks and by offloading PhysX to the CPU when an AMD GPU is in use.

AMD could offer a superior product and Nvidia would simply use the GameWorks program more.



Nvidia is doing the same thing.



Gamers are most certainly brand oriented. It's why MSI and co stick "Gamer" everywhere they can, it's why the Hyper 212 is still the best selling CPU cooler despite it not being the best budget cooler anymore, and it's why "Gaming Headphones" sell better than actual quality headpones.



You clearly didn't read, this program prevents AIBs from even making Gaming cards for another brand, so it does prevent people from buying.



That's a major under-estimation of how many video cards are moved on eBay but it's especially true if you are talking about people selling their mining cards. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of cards being dumped on the 2nd hand market. Who is going to buy Nvidia's latest when you can get a 1080 Ti for $350?



The difference being that Intel/AMD did so legally, Nvidia is not. FYI this is not a defensive move to protect itself in the laptop market. AIBs don't mean squat in the laptop market and this move won't change anything. Nvidia's move only targets the desktop market. For being an investor, you need to brush up.

Well the reason I included laptops is that "gaming" laptops also come branded by their partners in the same way as their GPUs, I.e. Asus Republic of Gamers. I realize fully what products are being discussed here. I've been a gamer for most of my 42 years.

Not to mention this report shows no proof, so this is simply a claim of an action that may be illegal. Everything based on rumor... who knows exactly what the details are??? AMD??? lol... ok.

I got in on Nvidia when it was $116.00/s. Thanks for the investing tip.

 

[wiyosaya]

As a very recent investor in Apple (alongside Warren Buffett) I was happy to see Apple stock hit another all-time high today. iPhone sales in total were less, however the margin per phone was more meaning Apple suffered no measurable loss in profit on the iPhone. (I should also mention that today Nvidia is trading at an all-time high as well.)

Now personally, I will never buy Apple products, nor AMD products for that matter. Regardless I have invested in both, though I'm starting to regret bothering with AMD at all as an investment.

Also, it's important to remember that the recent high prices for GPU's are not the product of nVidia or AMD pricing, which has remained the same throughout. Its entirely due to the boom in crypto and now both companies are missing out on those profits. Blame the crypto-boom for your price gouging, not these companies.

If you want to focus on companies that are creating REAL monopolies that will affect a much larger swath of middle-America, focus your attention on Amazon and Google.

If you are currently earning money with your investments, more power to you.

I will only agree in part with your assessment that the current pricing of GPUs is entirely due to mining. While I will give no argument that at least part of the current pricing for GPUs is due to mining demand, nVidia, in particular, has been doing things to raise the value of its cards for many years. See my post above for a few examples.

 

[Rygar]

Well the reason I included laptops is that "gaming" laptops also come branded by their partners in the same way as their GPUs, I.e. Asus Republic of Gamers. I realize fully what products are being discussed here. I've been a gamer for most of my 42 years.

If you are currently earning money with your investments, more power to you.

I will only agree in part with your assessment that the current pricing of GPUs is entirely due to mining. While I will give no argument that at least part of the current pricing for GPUs is due to mining demand, nVidia, in particular, has been doing things to raise the value of its cards for many years. See my post above for a few examples.

No doubt, but almost every successful company has to figure out a way to increase margins on their products in order to maintain growth and profitability. The Crypto market is basically 99.9% at fault for your 1080ti prices going up. I bought my Aorus 1080ti (best one available at the time) for $799.00 I believe. Its now going for $1,250 or more depending on the site. Nvidia never once raised their prices to their partners - their partners and re-sellers like Newegg have allowed the Crypto-mining market to determine what a card is worth based on it's mining proficiency - hence why you see the huge markups. Should AMD and Nvidia, which just saw these massive price increases on their cards, not profit from this? Should they leave all that money on the table for partners and Newegg? Short answer: No - they are a publicly traded company and #1 priority is making investors money.

Right now - the fact of the matter is Nvidia is a darling of Wall Street. Smart companies figure out a way to build a mote around themselves and enforce it. Is their method truly illegal? Well, we may find out one day, but history has proven zillions of times it's better to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Like it or not, this is the way all three companies would play each other given the chance - all three have investors to answer to.

 

[Evernessince]

Well the reason I included laptops is that "gaming" laptops also come branded by their partners in the same way as their GPUs, I.e. Asus Republic of Gamers. I realize fully what products are being discussed here. I've been a gamer for most of my 42 years.

Not to mention this report shows no proof, so this is simply a claim of an action that may be illegal. Everything based on rumor... who knows exactly what the details are??? AMD??? lol... ok.

I got in on Nvidia when it was $116.00/s. Thanks for the investing tip.

If you read the original article it is not simply rumor, there are statements directly from the AIBs. What more proof do you want? A signed letter by Nvidia admitting guilt?

No doubt, but almost every successful company has to figure out a way to increase margins on their products in order to maintain growth and profitability. The Crypto market is basically 99.9% at fault for your 1080ti prices going up. I bought my Aorus 1080ti (best one available at the time) for $799.00 I believe. Its now going for $1,250 or more depending on the site. Nvidia never once raised their prices to their partners - their partners and re-sellers like Newegg have allowed the Crypto-mining market to determine what a card is worth based on it's mining proficiency - hence why you see the huge markups. Should AMD and Nvidia, which just saw these massive price increases on their cards, not profit from this? Should they leave all that money on the table for partners and Newegg? Short answer: No - they are a publicly traded company and #1 priority is making investors money.

Right now - the fact of the matter is Nvidia is a darling of Wall Street. Smart companies figure out a way to build a mote around themselves and enforce it. Is their method truly illegal? Well, we may find out one day, but history has proven zillions of times it's better to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Like it or not, this is the way all three companies would play each other given the chance - all three have investors to answer to.

Trying to re-write history? It's never better to ask forgiveness than for permission. The numerous beheaded monarchs of France can tell you that. Don't know where you got your answer from but history says the exact opposite.

Yes a company's job is to make as much money as possible but it's also true than any company that does that abject of morals or social consensus will not end up in a good place. For example, EA has done nothing but pursue money the last 7 years. It most certainly has not done well for them though. Or what about "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli? Did his incessant money grabbing win the day? Nope, and he was just sentence to 7 years in prison. Any ***** can sit their with a hand out asking for your money and that's the line of thinking you are promoting here. In reality the number one goal for any company should be producing the best product / service possible.

 

[Rygar]

You seem angry bro... maybe less Redbull?

The funny thing is you compare Nvidia to EA or Martin Shkrelli. Do you even know what Pharma bro is going to jail for, cause it sure isn't for raising the price of Daraprim (Greed). Look it up. He may have drawn the ire of investigators by pissing all over our elected representatives, but they busted him for a 100% unrelated fraud.

Nvidia has consistently released amazing cards, wiping the floor with AMD and the recent 1080ti released for the same price as the previous 980ti. I have been a customer of Nvidia for far longer than I've been an investor. They make the best products, far and away the best software/drivers. added things like easy recording and instant replay. I made the mistake of buying an R9-280x and while the card was fine, the drivers were always crap. Nvidia and AMD aren't even playing in the same league. Varsity and JV.

In no way, shape or form does Nvidia compare - in customer appreciation - to EA or Martin Shkrelli. So your comparison is pointless.

Do I advocate for people like Shkrelli? No. Do I believe this article from Techspot 100%? No.
You have 0 proof. An unnamed source from an unnamed partner. If you are going to go on the record and accuse a company as large as Nvidia of "illegal' practices, a little more is required than simple he said, she said imho.

Ask yourself this: Why is AMD shopping this story around to... wait where am I... Techspot? Why isn't AMD "shopping" this story to Federal Regulators? Why is this not reported anywhere else than... Techspot? Did they just get the Wall Street Scoop of the year?? Doubtful.

 

[Rygar]

BTW, check the stock price for EA games. 3 Months ago they were at around $105/s. They closed today $128.12/s. Check the 3 month, 6 month, 1 year and 5 year charts. They are highly profitable, regardless of what you or I think about them as a company.

 

[Rygar]

Let me know if you need any other stock tips I'm happy to reciprocate.

 

[Evernessince]

You seem angry bro... maybe less Redbull?

The funny thing is you compare Nvidia to EA or Martin Shkrelli. Do you even know what Pharma bro is going to jail for, cause it sure isn't for raising the price of Daraprim (Greed). Look it up. He may have drawn the ire of investigators by pissing all over our elected representatives, but they busted him for a 100% unrelated fraud.

Nvidia has consistently released amazing cards, wiping the floor with AMD and the recent 1080ti released for the same price as the previous 980ti. I have been a customer of Nvidia for far longer than I've been an investor. They make the best products, far and away the best software/drivers. added things like easy recording and instant replay. I made the mistake of buying an R9-280x and while the card was fine, the drivers were always crap. Nvidia and AMD aren't even playing in the same league. Varsity and JV.

In no way, shape or form does Nvidia compare - in customer appreciation - to EA or Martin Shkrelli. So your comparison is pointless.

Do I advocate for people like Shkrelli? No. Do I believe this article from Techspot 100%? No.
You have 0 proof. An unnamed source from an unnamed partner. If you are going to go on the record and accuse a company as large as Nvidia of "illegal' practices, a little more is required than simple he said, she said imho.

Ask yourself this: Why is AMD shopping this story around to... wait where am I... Techspot? Why isn't AMD "shopping" this story to Federal Regulators? Why is this not reported anywhere else than... Techspot? Did they just get the Wall Street Scoop of the year?? Doubtful.

Yeah and Capone didn't go to jail for half his crimes either, doesn't make them any less relevant.

"He may have drawn the ire of investigators by pissing all over our elected representatives, but they busted him for a 100% unrelated fraud. "

Same thing happens more than you would think. If you think the same couldn't happen to Nvidia, you'd be dead wrong.

"Nvidia has consistently released amazing cards"

Drink enough kool-aid or just too young to remember pre-700 series cards?

"They make the best products, far and away the best software/drivers"

Nvidia's drivers aren't "far and away the best" by any means. They are good but so are AMDs. If by software you meant GameWorks, it it utter trash. You aren't even trying to appear unbiased here.

"They make the best products, far and away the best software/drivers. added things like easy recording and instant replay. I made the mistake of buying an R9-280x and while the card was fine, the drivers were always crap. Nvidia and AMD aren't even playing in the same league. Varsity and JV."

You do realize that AMD has those features as well. Oh, expect on AMD they have Radeon Chill, FRC, built-in overclocking, and an in-game overlay among other features. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here but comparing drivers on a feature by feature basis like you are, AMD wins hands down.

"In no way, shape or form does Nvidia compare - in customer appreciation - to EA or Martin Shkrelli. So your comparison is pointless."

Well first, I didn't even mention "customer appreciation" but since you brought it up: Nvidia charges an average of $200 extra for a G-Sync display, FreeSync costs $0. Nvidia charged $100 extra for the "Founders Edition" cards telling customers it had "premium components" when it reality it was just a regular blower card. Nvidia lied about the specifications of the GTX 970 and was successfully sued for it. Nvidia crippled GTX 700 series cards performance on many GameWorks titles (especially Crysis 2) when it loaded them up with far too much tessellation that heavily favored Maxwell, their latest architecture at the time. Nvidia and customer appreciation don't belong in the same sentence, they are scummy. Period. And I say that owning a 1080 Ti.

"Ask yourself this: Why is AMD shopping this story around to... wait where am I... Techspot? Why isn't AMD "shopping" this story to Federal Regulators? Why is this not reported anywhere else than... Techspot? Did they just get the Wall Street Scoop of the year?? Doubtful."

/facepalm

This is literally being reported about everywhere, even in non-tech related websites. What did you say the same thing when the Intel spectre/meltdown news broke as well? You can enjoy your imaginary universe.

 

[Evernessince]

BTW, check the stock price for EA games. 3 Months ago they were at around $105/s. They closed today $128.12/s. Check the 3 month, 6 month, 1 year and 5 year charts. They are highly profitable, regardless of what you or I think about them as a company.

Stock price != Profit

Economics 101

 

[Flebbert]

This sucks for two really good reasons.

1. No real competition in the GPU market means worse products and all this is going to do is give NVidia more of a monopoly.

2. Nvidia are already delaying the release of cards and we are going to see more and more paper launches as a result. I don't how I can emphasis this enough to people.

The stupidity to use the argument that "daaaaa Nvidia are faster so who cares" is short sighted and will only see things get a whole lot worse.

Nvidia 1000 series was released in mid 2016 and Jensen Huang himself said they are in no hurry to release new cards due to AMDs lack of performance........ August paper launch and December we will see cards

The thoughts that we are going to see a second hand market influx of GPUs is unrealistic as well, there just wont be one.

Really screw AMD and Nvidia for doing what they have to the market, they both are hugely to blame.

 

[mrjgriffin]

AMD has the technology to KILL the GPU AIB market. A small taste of this is happening with Intel Kaby-G: i7-8809G Processor with Radeon RX Vega and Intel Core i7-8709G Processor with Radeon RX Vega.

If AMD were to release say an 8 core 16 thread Ryzen 2000 processor in the same package with maybe 2 7nm Vega gpus and 8gb HBM2 VRAM that would be the end of GPU Add in Boards.

The reduction in electrical path latency ALONE would see that Ryzen/Vega APU outperforms anything nVidia has on top tier.

AMD is probably concerned that the perceived disruption in the GPU AIB market would hurt them more than it helped, but Intel doesn't have to see it that way when they launch their own version of KABY-G with Intel HD graphics and lock out BOTH nVidia and AMD.

Intel has been eager to eliminate the PCIe bus for at least 10 years and in fact this was prohibited by the FTC in the ORDER by the FTC in the Intel vs AMD Settlement Agreement Docket no. 9431 until at least 2018.

If you think I am wrong, the why didn't Intel use nVidia GTX silicon for it's Kaby-G?

Still do not believe? Read this "Design and Analysis of an APU for Exascale Computing" published Feb 2017.

from here: http://www.computermachines.org/joe/publications/pdfs/hpca2017_exascale_apu.pdf

One final point, AMD does not dominate the console market because of it's graphics, but rather the economical combination of it's Jaguar CPU and Radeon graphic cores into a heterogeneous Accelerated Processing Unit. All for less than $125.00.

That level of performance just can not be provided by either Intel nor nVidia. Or it would have been.

not sure if I'm right here but I think you just answered my question I've had for a very long time but moreso now. "how can a 500 dollar console with native 4k compete with 1500 dollar + pc in terms of framerate and graphic quality while gaming at 4k?!" I know there is still some eye candy the pc can show vs these consoles but by my eye its not a miraculous difference in terms of quality. of course the pc can achieve better/more stable framerate also but still....

 

[Rygar]

If and when this story goes from, "a report alleges" to "Federal Regulators are looking into Nvidia" maybe it will show up on some investment sites, which will be a big break for stock pickers looking to pick up Nvidia on the dip, especially since it traded all day today right around all-time high.

Kind of like the road-bump EA stock experienced during the Starwars Battlefront 2 saga. Did you look at those charts? I don't own any, but very profitable... regardless of the fact that they were repeatedly awarded the "Most Evil Company in America" title on every tech/gamer forum there is.

Kind of like the road-bump Intel stock had with the "spectre meltdown" or unfair practices against AMD.

If AMD is, in your mind, better than Nvidia at hardware, software, drivers, etc ALL AT A CHEAPER PRICE - then why are 75%+ players on Steam using Nvidia? AMD is not a bad company. I've invested in them as well. I just don't try to kid myself and pretend these two play in the same league.

All this is because of unfair competitive practices? Is that what you are telling yourself?