**thread name change* Nvidia and AMD moral and immoral business practices

[Madcatatlas]

I dont even know what that means. But go ahead with your talking, ill leave you to it so as not to get this anymore offtrack than getting assaulted by Keys.

 

[Scali]

He is not a VGA forum moderator and he did not post as a moderator and should in all honesty calm down and stop flinging personal attacks around. Im friends with him for PM reasons for starters. Why he does this is beyond me...

While he may not *moderate* the video forum, he is still a staff member, and can point out that members need to obey the rules and display some common decency.

I also don't think you are in any position to complain about personal attacks being flung around...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nope. As a member. I don't moderate video anymore. As a member, I have a right to post as such and request an end to the character assassination and get to the point. Which I did.

Why did you quote me? What did I do to gain your angst this time? I was replying to IDC, trying to better explain myself.

 

[Keysplayr]

He is not a VGA forum moderator and he did not post as a moderator and should in all honesty calm down and stop flinging personal attacks around. Im friends with him for PM reasons for starters. Why he does this is beyond me...

Just the counter points please.

 

[Keysplayr]

Why did you quote me? What did I do to gain your angst this time? I was replying to IDC, trying to better explain myself.

What the? Sorry about that. I have no idea how I did that. Corrected. :thumbsup:

 

[apathy_next2]

Which company is only making money off of PC gaming?

The simple answer is AMD!

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

They actually wanted to support AMD with implementing their own back-end for PhysX.
Problem is, AMD refused.
Apparently the only thing AMD wants is for nVidia to do ALL the work for them, and make an OpenCL implementation.
AMD doesn't want to do anything, they just want a free ride.

And yet, Nvidia then removed PhysX support for ATI+Nv combinations.

Do you really think Nvidia's "offer" was out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not - Nvidia (rightfully from their standpoint) wanted leverage, and AMD (rightfully from their standpoint) refused.

 

[Idontcare]

I know we have JFAMD in the CPU section, he is open about his affiliation and I think most would agree that his posts add to the forum.

As far as undercover people posting pro-AMD, well, I wouldn't be shocked if there indeed were such posters, but have any ever been found?

Maybe I should clarify a bit. The problem I had with Rollo's posts were that he didn't just make a suggestion of an Nvidia product when someone made a 'What card shoudl I buy' post. That wouldn't have bothered me too much. But he would push Nvidia so hard to that person and throw half truths out there to try and sway someone to buy the part when it clearly wouldn't be the best option. It'd be one thing for an AMD/Nvidia affiliated person to provide a link to a suitable option. But it's another to start a 100+ post flame war bickering with those who explain why that option isn't the better one and are just trying to help the person asking the question.

The search here is limited to only 500 posts, I wish I could find some of his better work, especially some of his GeForce FX era posts. I think there is a good reason why he is banned from so many technical forums.

*edit - I should add, I wouldn't have a problem buying an Nvidia part if they had what I wanted when I was looking. Saving money and/or making a smart purchase is far more important to me than not buying Nvidia because of Rollo's posts from years ago.

I don't know if he was a unique viral marketer poster, or if he just happened to get caught. But it had more to do with his style of posting while representing Nvidia for many of us, I think.

Oh yeah, without a doubt, we've got some high caliber contributors who don't take issue with letting their real-life affiliations be known and associated with their online persona as well.

In the CPU forum there are quite a few of them, from both AMD and Intel.

Likewise in the memory and storage forum. Reps frequently visit there too.

But I was more specifically referring to just this sub-forum, VC&G, which is about the only technical forum here at AT where we get all this "anti-shill" vibe.

I find it noticeable that unlike the other sub-forums, here we have zero members here willing to acknowledge their real-life affiliations with AMD/ATI in the graphics dept.

So I am either expected to believe that there are none, seems rather implausible tbh, or I am compelled to believe they are here but choose to keep their real-life affiliations a secret from the rest of the community.

Regardless, you hit the nail on the head, which is to say we really don't care what real-life associations any given member has, what we do care about is what kind of a forum member they are.

Whether rollo was nvidia employed or not, his antics were the source of irritation and angst.

And whether or not JFAMD was employed by AMD it is his civility and professional decorum in the forum that leaves us with the sense that he adds value to our community regardless what he does in real-life.

I think it is rather telling that we don't see Intel petitioning us to boot JFAMD out of the CPU forum.

The only reason I felt compelled to mention it was because your post implied you thought it was pretty shadowy of rollo to hide his real-life affiliation when, if you think about it, basically 99% of your fellow forum colleagues do the same thing.

 

[busydude]

The simple answer is AMD!

Care to elaborate?

 

[exar333]

To be honest, I am fine with NV creating any proprietary physics, CUDA, etc. software they want to work only with their systems. If people care enough about these features, then they will buy NV and AMD will need to compete to stay relavent.

If MS was to create third-party support for a similar feature and make it available to everyone, then it is likely that it would outlast proprietary software that does the same thing (although not guaranteed).

The anti-NV fanatics on this board that think NV should "build for the greater good" are getting a little rediculous. Would one single solution to link two video cards be great? Yes. Would a physics engine that works for both be great? Yes. Will all of these happen? No. Get real.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

To be honest, I am fine with NV creating any proprietary physics, CUDA, etc. software they want to work only with their systems. If people care enough about these features, then they will buy NV and AMD will need to compete to stay relavent.

If MS was to create third-party support for a similar feature and make it available to everyone, then it is likely that it would outlast proprietary software that does the same thing (although not guaranteed).

The anti-NV fanatics on this board that think NV should "build for the greater good" are getting a little rediculous. Would one single solution to link two video cards be great? Yes. Would a physics engine that works for both be great? Yes. Will all of these happen? No. Get real.

Heh, I posted the same sentiments a few days ago. :thumbsup:

People seemed to disagree with me, though.

 

[Gikaseixas]

only reason I felt compelled to mention it was because your post implied you thought it was pretty shadowy of rollo to hide his real-life affiliation when, if you think about it, basically 99% of your fellow forum colleagues do the same thing.

and isn't that correct? to think that rollo hide his real life affiliation was shady??? He had an agenda and was being paid. Till someone finds proof that we have a AMD rollo version let's just please chill... i mean, why mention it? Hard to swallow i know but Nv is shady by doing so and was caught.

On topic, i admire Nv more so than AMD when it comes to advances in the industry. Nv is really driven and commited to excell at what they're doing. I think their contribution to the whole game industry is second to none.

Having said that, Fermi could do it with less heat, power, etc. In my opinion AMD won this round because they executed on time and had a excellent product.

 

[Scali]

And yet, Nvidia then removed PhysX support for ATI+Nv combinations.

Which wouldn't have been a problem if AMD GPUs could run PhysX themselves.

Do you really think Nvidia's "offer" was out of the goodness of their hearts?

Uhhh, no... why would you think that I think that? Did I even *remotely* imply anything like that?
I'm a levelheaded guy, unlike a lot of people 'commenting' on PhysX, I know that nVidia is trying to run a business (as are AMD and Intel), and I have a reasonable idea of what it takes to run a business, make profit, where their priorities would lie etc.
But I really don't see why you should bring that up in the first place. Why do you (and various others) have to 'point out' that nVidia may not be 'a nice company'?

 

[SirPauly]

The anti-NV fanatics on this board that think NV should "build for the greater good" are getting a little rediculous. Would one single solution to link two video cards be great? Yes. Would a physics engine that works for both be great? Yes. Will all of these happen? No. Get real.

There is a saying I use virtually every day when things get ridiculous, " Don't allow idealism to be the enemy of good!" While one waits for ideal, one passes up so much good in life.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Which wouldn't have been a problem if AMD GPUs could run PhysX themselves.



Uhhh, no... why would you think that I think that? Did I even *remotely* imply anything like that?
I'm a levelheaded guy, unlike a lot of people 'commenting' on PhysX, I know that nVidia is trying to run a business (as are AMD and Intel), and I have a reasonable idea of what it takes to run a business, make profit, where their priorities would lie etc.
But I really don't see why you should bring that up in the first place. Why do you (and various others) have to 'point out' that nVidia may not be 'a nice company'?

Try asking people about AMD's patch for FarCry and the fact that they lied about it being 64-bit exclusive and if that was a 'nice' move...and then observe the silence.

When infact they did it to promote their AMD64...on a utterly false basis.
It seems there are 2 sets of rules in places.

 

[Scali]

Try asking people about AMD's patch for FarCry and the fact that they lied about it being 64-bit exclusive and if that was a 'nice' move...and then observe the silence.

When infact they did it to promote their AMD64...on a utterly false basis.
It seems there are 2 sets of rules in places.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in pointing fingers like that.

 

[badb0y]

I don't care of nVidia doesn't allow PhysX in AMD cards, I do care if they block PhysX from their own cards when the primary card is AMD.

 

[railven]

I don't care of nVidia doesn't allow PhysX in AMD cards, I do care if they block PhysX from their own cards when the primary card is AMD.

Out of stupidity on my behalf - does PhysX really get blocked if you have an AMD IGP?

Yesterday, or Monday, I realized my girlfriend has an AMD 790GX board with an what is it a 4200 IGP on it?

Well, I'm glad she isn't into eyecandy if this is true haha. I don't think either of us even realized?

 

[Lonbjerg]

To be honest, I'm not really interested in pointing fingers like that.

It wasn't a real suggestion...just a clarification off that people pointing fingers at NVIDIA won't comment on it.

Why I leave up to people to jugde for themself.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Which wouldn't have been a problem if AMD GPUs could run PhysX themselves.

That is a retort which doesn't address the point at all.

Uhhh, no... why would you think that I think that? Did I even *remotely* imply anything like that?
I'm a levelheaded guy, unlike a lot of people 'commenting' on PhysX, I know that nVidia is trying to run a business (as are AMD and Intel), and I have a reasonable idea of what it takes to run a business, make profit, where their priorities would lie etc.
But I really don't see why you should bring that up in the first place. Why do you (and various others) have to 'point out' that nVidia may not be 'a nice company'?

I'm sorry, that was a rhetorical question. I thought you would see that, but sometimes things don't translate well from thought to text. :\

Edit: BTW, I said nothing about whether Nvidia is "nice" or not. I have no idea how you inferred that from my comments. I did say, however, that re: the PhysX issue, both Nv & AMD did what they felt was right for themselves.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Out of stupidity on my behalf - does PhysX really get blocked if you have an AMD IGP?

Yesterday, or Monday, I realized my girlfriend has an AMD 790GX board with an what is it a 4200 IGP on it?

Well, I'm glad she isn't into eyecandy if this is true haha. I don't think either of us even realized?

As long as she's not using the IGP for her graphics, then it's not a problem.

 

[happy medium]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madcatatlas
Blastingcap already highlighted the FUD part. I dont need to requote every line, do I?

It doesnt feel like adding that much to the discussion.

Adding to what looks like you trying to wiggle your way out of your own words, IS worthwhile, since your opinions seem to come out very clearly as being biased.

If your not biased, good for you, im saying you come across as very biased. (And im sure i do aswell if you want to play it like that, but im not bothered with being confronted about it)

Also, i dont demand any answers from you in my post. All im sharing is my opinion of your opinion. And it looks like its ontopic too.

I think we've had quite enough of your character assassination attempt of Scali. Now that we are past this requirement of yours, how about now actually addressing his points with COUNTER points. Because that's what I'm looking at. Not at your attempt to tear his character down.
Now, if you please, counter his points with your points if you have any to offer.
-Thanks.

Are we going to get counter points?
I was also waiting.

 

[railven]

As long as she's not using the IGP for her graphics, then it's not a problem.

Thanks. And nope on using the IGP. She is a hardcore Green (AMD/nVidia) girl. She only got that board because it was in our price range for her AM3 upgrade.

 

[Keysplayr]

I don't care of nVidia doesn't allow PhysX in AMD cards, I do care if they block PhysX from their own cards when the primary card is AMD.

Isn't that like Nvidia giving a PhysX license to AMD for nothing? I have a feeling that AMD would have to pay a license fee for something like that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Isn't that like Nvidia giving a PhysX license to AMD for nothing? I have a feeling that AMD would have to pay a license fee for something like that.

But if the user is willing to pay money for an Nvidia part, shouldn't everyone be happy? Nvidia sold a card. AMD sold a card. The gamer has a configuration they want. AMD gets Physx if the user is willing to buy an Nvidia part. Physx adoption just became that much broader. And Nvidia doesn't piss off all those people that bought a card that was working for Physx before the blocked it.