Why does nvidia cheat so much?

[Seero]

...Let's just fight facts with facts.

I like arguing with you already.

 

[96Firebird]

I like arguing with you already.

:thumbsup:

I just wish, after faced with the facts, the posters admit they were wrong...

Can't have everything though. :'(

 

[blastingcap]

Fight fire with fire, seems more fitting. That said, I hope that it doesn't come down to the two GPU (or CPU) manufacturers relying on noncompetitive practices. We'll both be the losers if that occurs.

Actually NV did approach ATI to price-collude and apparently ATI didn't immediately say "no," though it's not clear what they did say...

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Nvidia-ATI-lawsuit-antitrust,6421.html

 

[Anarchist420]

Neither company is ethical (nvidia is now providing the DoD with Teslas and AMD is a beneficiary of iP and anti-trust). Nvidia's products are better, but that isn't what makes them unethical.

 

[Will Robinson]

Do you post this in the comment section of every AMD GPU article you read as well?

Implying that if the author of the review article gives the AMD GPU a thumbs-up or a best-buy rating that they are biased because the gear was free to them?

How many members do you suppose we have here posting in these forums that receive free AMD kit? I know a few without even putting much effort into tabulating it.

Oh really?
Please feel free to name them.
You can add the links to the posts where they admit receiving.."free kit" from AMD and or any supporting documentation.
Can't wait to see the long and interesting list.

 

[Grooveriding]

The part in bold, I'm not aware of this being the purpose of the Nvidia Focus Group. To me, this part of your post reads as being an assumption on your part in regards to the purpose/intent of the focus group.

Be that as it may, what purpose/intent do you suppose exists as the motivation for seeding reviewers with free samples of hardware? And how does that purpose differ from that which you assume to be the purpose of the NV focus group?



Correct on the latter, have no idea why you would go to the extra effort involved to state the former.

I'm not aware of my having defended Keysplayr anymore so than I have endeavored to defend multitudes of other forum members who were being harassed in a disrespectful manner that reflected poorly on the stature of our community as a whole.

Hard to really say what the current purpose of the nvidia focus group is now. But it is a spin-off of what was before a viral-marketing effort done by nvidia. Some of what little history is around about it.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=26199

http://consumerist.com/2006/02/nvidia-focus-group-member-details-hidden-program.html

http://consumerist.com/2006/02/did-nvidia-hire-online-actors-to-promote-their-products.html


An important takeaway from the first thread, comments from Nvidia and AEG, the company they hired to viral market:

Apparently NV is one of their clients. Of that relationship, they say:

Quote:
AEG has developed a unique campaign of community outreach and involvement to build strong enthusiast support for NVIDIA products and software.

Derek Perez of NV, says of them in turn:

Quote:
AEG serves a pivotal role in helping us to build and manage online buzz for NVIDIA products. AEG’s online community outreach programs have been extraordinarily successful in improving public perception of our company and its products. So much so that we've recently expanded AEG's role into some of our other product lines. AEG plays an essential role in our marketing and public relations programs. In our opinion, they’re the best-of-breed experts in the field of online PR and community management.

Rollo who got banned from here several times and now I guess for good was initially part of the stealth viral marketing they were doing for nvidia. When they got caught out, it flipped to the 'focus group'.

As to whether or not it still serves the same purpose, who knows.

As to whether or not nvidia still uses viral marketing below the radar, who knows. I'd be inclined to say they definitely do, why would they stop when they did it in the past, in these forums and others around the web.

 

[SirPauly]

Yeah, I remember that and talked through posting everyday at SlackerCentral. It was ChrisRay and Ailuros that did come clean at Beyond3d. I felt betrayed because Ailuros was my friend and didn't like the secret nature; it was wrong.

Sadly, ChrisRay isn't with us anymore but was one of the most passionate gamers I've ever had the pleasure to know on forums. Always tried to help and enjoyed talking about immersion and gaming experiences.

These focus members were not professionals but gamers that posted for years before they were asked to be part of nVidia's focus team. I know Ailuros helped voiced his views to improve nVidia's filtering and how important it was.

It sickens me that I have to read more conspiracy, innuendo and conjecture, and is an insult to ChrisRay's legacy and I will not stand for it.

 

[Barfo]

Just because someone kicked the bucket doesn't mean he didn't participate in shady practices while he was alive.

 

[SirPauly]

I'm overly sensitive because he was my friend.

 

[Firestorm007]

I'm overly sensitive because he was my friend.

Chris was a good a guy. It was sad to seem him go at such a young age.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Is source code your prerequisite for everything. I understand the need for evidence but this seems a very high standard of proof to expect from a forum poster. Anecdotally Blackened has been providing plenty of evidence for Nvidias wrong doing, I think we can all agree they're a disreputable company.

No, no and no.

I don't know the poster, I like facts...no arms...no cookies.

 

[badb0y]

DirectX is exclusive to Microsoft Operating System which is also known as PC. There are many other OSes, like OSX, and linux, but they don't support DirectX. OpenGL on the other hand is cross-platform. Did Dx11 changed the way games are being designed with as tessellation API calls?

Please read what I said, you won't have "Nvidia only" games or "AMD only" games. They will love to, but they don't have anything that have enough traction to change the momentum of the tech trend. No one will integrate this tech. However, if AMD come up with a new set of API calls that can simply maps all existing games that are writing with DirectX calls to itself and run 10x faster with only 10% of foodprint on resources, then people will use it, even if it doesn't work on Nvidia. Unfortunately, such technology does not exist, yet.

Windows is practically a monopoly. 89.7% marketshare says you can do whatever you want. Especially when you bundle it with the OS.

If I'm making a game, and a company calls me up and says, "Hey, we want to add some features to your game that will make it run better on our cards"-

Option 1) Provide some of my customers with a better experience at no cost to myself or my customers

Option 2) @MD W7F PWnZ jOOOO!!!!111!!!11

Hmmm, tough choice there.



That is why IndirectY dominates the PC market. Most people on these forums are probably too young to recall, but a company that used to be around called Microsoft once tried to launch a 100% proprietary API called DirectX. Luckily, IndirectY came along and saved the day for us all

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/windows-drops-below-90-market-share
Windows practically has a monopoly on this. Why do you think IE is the most used browser even though Firefox/Chrome are arguably better? I was unaware that nVidia had 90% of the GPU market.

What do you call Glide and DirectX?

PhysX and Havoc are changing gaming by introducing real physics to the experience.

Same as above. I meant GPU Physx specifically because CPU PhysX can obviously be utilized by everyone. So far GPU PhysX has like 5 games a year under it's belt and it's best implementation is smoke and spark. Nice Physics brah.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Same as above. I meant GPU Physx specifically because CPU PhysX can obviously be utilized by everyone. So far GPU PhysX has like 5 games a year under it's belt and it's best implementation is smoke and spark. Nice Physics brah.

Not this FUD again.
There is an API called PhysX.
It runs on Cell CPE, PPU, x86, NVIDIA GPU, IBM Xenon ect.

There is no difference in the code...only performance.
You might as well complain that there is only 2-3 games making any real use of tessellation..and thus declare DX11 a FUD.

The world dosn't work that way though and PhysX is the most used physics API.

But if we where to use your logic, AMD is really a big time looser.
Talk about GPU physics since 2006 and still not a single game...talk about empty talk.

Odd to blame NVIDIA for actually delivering and in the same breath be silent about AMD's obvious lackings...:whiste:

 

[BFG10K]

With DirectX any vendor can come along and implement a hardware accelerated path without licensing or permission from Microsoft. This is exactly the same as OpenGL. The same doesn’t apply to PhysX.

Also with the case of hardware acceleration on nVidia’s GPUs, the driver explicitly locks out configurations with non-nVidia hardware.

Given these two points, it’s hard to understand how anyone could call PhysX an open standard, at least as far as hardware acceleration goes.

 

[BenSkywalker]

With DirectX any vendor can come along and implement a hardware accelerated path without licensing or permission from Microsoft.

With PhysX any software vendor can manipulate the API outside of intended parameters to get the results they desire. This is expressly forbidden and not allowed by MS when using DirectX.

Given these two points, it’s hard to understand how anyone could call PhysX an open standard, at least as far as hardware acceleration goes.

Much more difficult to call DirectX an open standard. With PhysX every single owner of an AMD card is free to run it as they wish, even with full support from nVidia, they just don't have GPU level acceleration. How is MS supporting DirectX under Mac OS? Of course that is stupid to even suggest, nVidia is expected to go far beyond what MS will support, perhaps because people think they are a bigger, more powerful company? The fact is, nVidia DOES support more systems and configurations with their software then MS does, at least when comparing DirectX to PhysX(partial support>>>>no support).

Windows practically has a monopoly on this. Why do you think IE is the most used browser even though Firefox/Chrome are arguably better? I was unaware that nVidia had 90% of the GPU market.

This is why DirectX can be called anti competitive and PhysX can't hope to be. I would think people that have completed beyond a third grade education would able to wrap their heads around why a company that is positioned significantly below plurality in a market can't hope to take part in anti competitive practices when they don't have a monopoly in *any* market or anything close to it. Using your money to give your product an edge over the competition is known in the business world as not being an inbred retarded donkey.

Isn't that being released in late 2012/2013? Front line news indicate its signifigantly delayed. The quad core version will not be released until late 2013

Charlie get an account here at AnandTech? The part is already shipping. The one you are trying to say isn't going to ship for over two years? Yeah, it has been shipping for months

The AMD designed counterparts are doing extremely well, raking in billions in revenue. Of course, AMD decided to be their usual selves and sell it off for $65 Million right before it exploded. If AMD would be a little bit smarter with the game industry we'd see things a bit more balanced right now.

BTW- If you guys saw what nVidia was going in the UP sector you'd probably have a heart attack compared to what they do on the PC side. They are paying for full ports of entire games to run exclusively on their hardware, and they are doing it frequently. In the gaming industry outside of the "A7I 4 LIF3" crowd this is commonly known as 'business as usual'.

 

[Creig]

I would think people that have completed beyond a third grade education would able to wrap their heads around why a company that is positioned significantly below plurality in a market can't hope to take part in anti competitive practices when they don't have a monopoly in *any* market or anything close to it.

ANY company can engage in anti-competitive practices, no matter what size they are or how much of the market they control.

 

[BenSkywalker]

ANY company can engage in anti-competitive practices, no matter what size they are or how much of the market they control.

No, any company can compete in competitive practices which is precisely what nVidia is doing. In order for it to be anti competitive a company must be doing something that its' competition is not capable of doing. That isn't remotely close to being the case here. AMD is more then capable and Intel is far *more* capable of it then nVidia. If Intel were to buy up all the makers of PC games and make them only run on Intel hardware *that* would be anti competitive as AMD and nVidia are not capable of doing so and Intel is only capable due to its financial leverage gained in their nigh monopoly on desktop CPUs.

 

[Genx87]

Isn't that being released in late 2012/2013? Front line news indicate its signifigantly delayed. The quad core version will not be released until late 2013, this
is per their roadmap pictured on their website. Also, what does a smartphone/tablet chip have to do with anything?

Try by the end of this year we will have products that are using that chip.

 

[KCfromNC]

The 5th core is innovative and surprising -- examples of aggressive and being a predator.

Heterogeneous multiprocessing has been around for decades.

 

[Keysplayr]

Heterogeneous multiprocessing has been around for decades.

So, no credit for innovation then. Would be the same if the 5th core wasn't there then.

 

[KCfromNC]

The part in bold, I'm not aware of this being the purpose of the Nvidia Focus Group.

One of the purposes of the focus group is to spread nVidia PR. [n]Rollo's summary of the program is in this post http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=25306093&postcount=7.

 

[KCfromNC]

So, no credit for innovation then. Would be the same if the 5th core wasn't there then.

Is that a question or a statement?

Assuming the former, no, they don't get credit for "innovating" a feature that has been used for decades. Why would they?

 

[Keysplayr]

Is that a question or a statement?

Assuming the former, no, they don't get credit for "innovating" a feature that has been used for decades. Why would they?

Gotcha.

 

[SirPauly]

Is that a question or a statement?

Assuming the former, no, they don't get credit for "innovating" a feature that has been used for decades. Why would they?

It's why would you give them credit for innovation? The answer is no -- there are already many, many articles about this from the Wall Street Journal to the AP, that disagree with you.

 

[Idontcare]

Oh really?
Please feel free to name them.
You can add the links to the posts where they admit receiving.."free kit" from AMD and or any supporting documentation.
Can't wait to see the long and interesting list.

My post wasn't meant to be a tease, if I was "free" to name them then I would have done so at the outset. I am not free to name them, even if they gave me their approval of me releasing confidential info I would not do it because I no more want to see them publicly crucified and vilified than I wish to see Keysplayr vilified.

(its the same with employees of companies that intentionally seek to remain unaffiliated, I know some of them privately and I would not "out" them even if they gave me their OK to do so...but yes there are AMD employees in our midst here, and they hide for good reason because there are some truly ugly hateful members in our community, on both sides of the fence)

If you are unwilling to simply take my word on it then you are basically saying I am untrustworthy and a liar, in which case if you really feel that way about me then you should probably be ignoring my posts anyways as there is little to be gained by interacting with me in that case.

If you truly believe that AMD does not give anyone free gear then I don't know what to tell you.

Consider for the moment the fact that the ONLY reason you are aware of Keysplayr being a member of the NV Focus Group is because it is a requirement of the NV Focus Group that he "out" himself. It is not a requirement of the AnandTech Forums (ATF).

As such we (ATF) also do not have a policy regarding members of parallel organizations on the AMD side of the fence to "out" themselves, that is between them and the policies of their organization just as is the case with the NV focus group.

Hard to really say what the current purpose of the nvidia focus group is now. But it is a spin-off of what was before a viral-marketing effort done by nvidia. Some of what little history is around about it.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=26199

http://consumerist.com/2006/02/nvidia-focus-group-member-details-hidden-program.html

http://consumerist.com/2006/02/did-nvidia-hire-online-actors-to-promote-their-products.html


An important takeaway from the first thread, comments from Nvidia and AEG, the company they hired to viral market:




Rollo who got banned from here several times and now I guess for good was initially part of the stealth viral marketing they were doing for nvidia. When they got caught out, it flipped to the 'focus group'.

As to whether or not it still serves the same purpose, who knows.

As to whether or not nvidia still uses viral marketing below the radar, who knows. I'd be inclined to say they definitely do, why would they stop when they did it in the past, in these forums and others around the web.

^ thanks for the background. That does speak to the credibility of the members of the focus group who were engaging in those practices at the time when those practices were policy. But Keysplayr was not a member then, and that is no longer the purpose of the focus group.

At some point the community needs to recognize that organizations change, people change. The US military of the 1940's detained US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, a heinous act committed against the very citizenry for which the military had sworn to protect.

Today's US military has the same name as the one that existed in WWII, but it is composed of entirely different people and has policies that have changed (don't ask/don't tell, etc) since the era of WWII...it would be wrong of me (or anyone else) to hold it against a member of the military today the actions of the military from years ago when that military member did not even belong to the military then.

I view the situation with the NV Focus Group no differently, at a symbolic level, the organization has the same name but to my understanding that is about all that it has in common with the organization that existed with the same name years ago. And again, the deplorable actions committed by members of that group at the time certainly have proven their integrity to be lacking, no question about that, but members who have joined since that time have not done anything to deserve the treatment they receive at the hands of some posts IMO.