No, what you've written here is an opinion of a program written through the lense of how you think it works. it's coloured by your own preference for nVidia which comes out clearly in your article. It's an optimistic piece. There's nothing wrong with that but your article is notably absent of any supporting data.
Do you know for sure that the contract allows sub-branding or is that just what you envision it allows based on optimism? i think it's based on optimism as contracts are typically complex, and since nVidia is clearly trying to control something with respect to brands by another company, that suggests your wrong. why? Because it's not at if any customer buying a GPU ever had a problem determining if they were buying a GeForce or Radeon before hand, so what's the point of the specifications regarding branding when it was never a problem in the first place? That's the crux of the issue, why is nVidia trying to dictate through a contract, which was stated to be complex and already has multiple interpretations, when there is no historical reason to support the change. Why go through the trouble of aggrivaring market partners when there is no underlining problem that need to be addressed. Yet here you are claiming sunny days when a contract is required. c
Contracts require lawyers and have penalties involved... so why bother when is just makes business more expensive?
If you're asking what can you do to support your opinion (because that's what you wrote at there is no evidence) than my obvious answer would be to add evidence. If it's an innocuous contact as you claim, than post it. Let's see the wording of this friendly contract that doesn't seem to change or modify the business practices of another company.
From a realistic perspective, what you're saying cannot possibly be true because there's a contract involved. Contrscts like this are either predatory or defensive by nature, because it's unusual for one company to dictate who another does buisness during a time when business is great, and for nVidia business is great. nVidia enjoys a technical advantage, a product stock advantage, a market penetration advantage, a product review advantage, a market preference advantage, a pricing advantage, an AI advantage, and a sociological advantage with gamers. There is simply no further advantage that nVidia needs in order to sell its products, its the preferred choice. So this whole thing is unnecessary. All of their partners are already hanging on every word coming out of nVidia, because it's the preferred product.
If there's no reason for it, than it's predatory by nature, so your claim that its not is unlikely. nVidia is spending money on this, WHY? If it's not too gain marketshare through market manipulation then the program won't result in more sales or more revenue, so why spend the money? You never addressed why there's a program, why nVidia is going through the effort and the expense involved with respect to this program.
So let's see this contract. There's no reason for nVidia to hide the wording, there's nothing to hide if what you're saying is true.
As I mentioned above, the docs and contracts will be under strict NDA with the companies themselves and we're not going to be given them, nor would we be able to publish them for the public.
Affiliate programs themselves are not unusual, and will always involve contracts between the parties entering into the agreement. That's especially true when you're talking about this sort of traditional financial marketing assistance being given to the partners.
Yes, Nvidia are trying to control the subsequent branding of their own GPUs, but from what I've been told they're not doing it to the total exclusion of the competition. And certainly not in any way that's likely to affect consumer choice.
I do totally get that it'd be a more juicy story if there were some antitrust activities being posited, but they'd be crazy to try it after what's been going on with AMD and Intel, and their billion dollar payout. What I've written above isn't an opinion based on personal optimism about the program, it's based on my talking to the people involved in it. It's also not based on any personal bias - as a long-time tech journo I'm in the privileged position of being able to use AMD, Nvidia, and Intel hardware depending on which performs best for my needs ;)
Unfortunately, like the HardOCP piece, I'm not able to reveal my sources, but I'm hoping they'll soon be as explicit publicly as they have been to me.
Obviously you can choose to believe that I am making this up, but I can assure you it's based on doing some digging into it myself. Of course the folk involved could be lying directly to us, but they've always been very straight with me.
What is it you feel needs clearing up?
The digging I've done, speaking to the people involved in the program, has been very explicit in showing that there is nothing in the GPP that suggests a GPU partner cannot continue to sell AMD graphics cards under a gaming brand.
The only thing GPP does say on the subject is that a company can't have a single gaming brand that contains both Nvidia and AMD cards, they have to be separated. Which doesn't mean they can't have an AMD gaming brand, it just makes it clear which of their ranges is Radeon and which is GeForce-powered.
I also doubt the contentious phrase has come from a contract, it's likely just from some documentation around the program. But we're not going to see those documents as the companies involved will be under strict NDAs.
> "For anything else tho, you save like $200 by getting Ryzen 7 1700 that has pretty much equal multi-threaded performance"
A Ryzen 7 1700 scores 13,750 with 8 cores on cpubenchmark (13,750/8=1,719 per core), while a 8700K scores 16,139 with only 6 cores, which is a score of 16,139/6=2690 per core.
So not only does the 6 core score substantially better than the 8 core Ryzen 7 1700, when you look at the score per core the Ryzen 7 1700 is nowhere near what you consider "pretty much equal multi-threaded performance", quite the opposite actually.
The 8700k is an overclocked overheated CPU that most likely has a short shelf life due to that. It also isn't worth spending an arm and a leg on a new Intel motherboard when you can get one for Ryzen and then swap out the CPU in 2020 for a 7nm Ryzen.... Something that Intel can't do.. You know the upgrading a CPU and moving to a smaller node... Intel can't do that with their massive CPU's.
AMD's CPU's are so cheap, they made it the single most cost effective manner to upgrade a computer. Swap out the CPU. And here you are telling people to buy something huge, slow, expensive, with absolutely no chance to updgrade in the future.
Intel isn't only the more expensive choice, it's the slower choice.