News - AMD exec says NVIDIA neglecting gamers

[Rollo]

As Lucid is heavily funded by Intel and Intel are facing another round of lawsuits for uncompetitive behaviour it seems more likely that they would ask for the chip to be shelved as they are the ones responsible for trying to push Nvidia out of the chipset business, but blind prejudice cannot see the obvious it seems.

Curse NVIDIA! Always pushing little companies like Intel around.......errrr......hmmm.......

[MouseMonkey]

Curse NVIDIA! Always pushing little companies like Intel around.......errrr......hmmm.......

It's always amusing watching the Ati/AMD fanboys (and girls) going off half cocked. Back on topic, have AMD come forward yet with any proof that they did indeed provide the code that Eidos asked them for?

[mercyground]

As Lucid is heavily funded by Intel and Intel are facing another round of lawsuits for uncompetitive behaviour it seems more likely that they would ask for the chip to be shelved as they are the ones responsible for trying to push Nvidia out of the chipset business, but blind prejudice cannot see the obvious it seems.

Push NV out of the chipset business? Thats a good one. I think they managed that themselves.

Pissed off Intel and thus are refused a licence. (and seriously folks... telling Intel you can do it better without putting your ducks in a row was just retarded)
Dropped/fell behind AMD chipsets. (Thou tbh... Soundstorm and the NF2 was the peak. NF3 sucked in comparison)

NV should be praying for Lucid to get it properly working. Might be able to sell more GFX cards. Its got better scaling than straight SLI.

[MouseMonkey]

Push NV out of the chipset business? Thats a good one. I think they managed that themselves.

Pissed off Intel and thus are refused a licence. (and seriously folks... telling Intel you can do it better without putting your ducks in a row was just retarded)
Dropped/fell behind AMD chipsets. (Thou tbh... Soundstorm and the NF2 was the peak. NF3 sucked in comparison)

NV should be praying for Lucid to get it properly working. Might be able to sell more GFX cards. Its got better scaling than straight SLI.

Yeah, silly me. If Nvidia felt that Intel was pushing them out of the chipset business they would have filed a lawsuit surely, oh wait they did!

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news...n-schedule.ars

[nightkhaos]

I could tell you that a manager at NVIDIA told me they've never even seen Hydra, much less tried to block it coming to market. (true)

Prove it. Get someone at NVIDIA to give their offical position on NVIDIA then. Lars is yet to reply to Richard, and Richard is let to reply to Lars. We need some kind of break to the statemate we have no reached, and if changing topics to Lucid does it... well let's do it.

If you're in contact with a manager at NVIDIA surely you can make this happen.

Oh and finally, a manager is hardly conclusive when it comes to a company as large as NVIDIA. The left hand does not know what the right foot does now does it?

Yeah, silly me. If Nvidia felt that Intel was pushing them out of the chipset business they would have filed a lawsuit surely, oh wait they did!

Linkage

Thanks, we are well aware of the Intel/NVIDIA suit going on at the moment. If Intel are being anti-competitive, that does not excuse NVIDIA. That's like saying "we should excuse Bob from stealing Alice's TV because Charlie stole Bob's DVD player."

Let's look at the state of play so far.

Are Intel being anticompetive by dropping NVIDIA out of the chipset market? Yes, if proved true.

Are NVIDIA being anticompetive by dropping Lucid out of the multi-GPU load balancing market? Yes, if proved true.

Are NVIDIA being anticompetive by preventing consumers using a dedicated PhysX card when their primary display adapter is not NVIDIA? Yes, if proved true.

Are NVIDA being anticompetive by locking out AMD from supplying AntiA code for Batman AA? Yes, if proved true. Also are AMD trying to underhanded tactics to hide the fact they failed to produce and provide AntiA code for Batman AA? Yes, if proved true.

Are NVIDIA being unfair to consumers by proving poorly build modules that cannot handle multiple thermal cycles that will cause instablity and failure in systems after prolonged use shorter than a reasonable product lifetime, or constant cycling through the thermal cycle such as in laptops, which reduces the effective product lifetime even futher, and not offering replacements when they do fail? Yes, if proved true.

So those are the current points of contention. My view based upon the evidence posted to these this thread thus far.

NVIDIA v Intel; Re: Chipsets = True
NVIDIA v Lucid = Contention, evidence points towards True
NVIDIA PhysX = True
NVIDIA v AMD; Re: Batman AA = Contention
NVIDIA GPUs thermal lifecycle = True

[Rollo]

Prove it. Get someone at NVIDIA to give their offical position on NVIDIA then. Lars is yet to reply to Richard, and Richard is let to reply to Lars. We need some kind of break to the statemate we have no reached, and if changing topics to Lucid does it... well let's do it.

If you're in contact with a manager at NVIDIA surely you can make this happen.

Oh and finally, a manager is hardly conclusive when it comes to a company as large as NVIDIA. The left hand does not know what the right foot does now does it?



Thanks, we are well aware of the Intel/NVIDIA suit going on at the moment. If Intel are being anti-competitive, that does not excuse NVIDIA. That's like saying "we should excuse Bob from stealing Alice's TV because Charlie stole Bob's DVD player."

Let's look at the state of play so far.

Are Intel being anticompetive by dropping NVIDIA out of the chipset market? Yes, if proved true.

Are NVIDIA being anticompetive by dropping Lucid out of the multi-GPU load balancing market? Yes, if proved true.

Are NVIDIA being anticompetive by preventing consumers using a dedicated PhysX card when their primary display adapter is not NVIDIA? Yes, if proved true.

Are NVIDA being anticompetive by locking out AMD from supplying AntiA code for Batman AA? Yes, if proved true. Also are AMD trying to underhanded tactics to hide the fact they failed to produce and provide AntiA code for Batman AA? Yes, if proved true.

Are NVIDIA being unfair to consumers by proving poorly build modules that cannot handle multiple thermal cycles that will cause instablity and failure in systems after prolonged use shorter than a reasonable product lifetime, or constant cycling through the thermal cycle such as in laptops, which reduces the effective product lifetime even futher, and not offering replacements when they do fail? Yes, if proved true.

So those are the current points of contention. My view based upon the evidence posted to these this thread thus far.

NVIDIA v Intel; Re: Chipsets = True
NVIDIA v Lucid = Contention, evidence points towards True
NVIDIA PhysX = True
NVIDIA v AMD; Re: Batman AA = Contention
NVIDIA GPUs thermal lifecycle = True

You may not believe this, but me telling NVIDIA staff "Some guy on the forums demands you prove you had nothiong to do with Lucid!" may not send them scrambling to put together a staement on the subject.

Even if they did, you wouldn't believe them most likely- you apparently think it's a crime of some sort for them to protect their IP on the Batman AA, and want them to pay for QA to test ATi products so their competitors can benefit from the work and expense they have put in to PhysX.

[nightkhaos]

You may not believe this, but me telling NVIDIA staff "Some guy on the forums demands you prove you had nothiong to do with Lucid!" may not send them scrambling to put together a staement on the subject.

I doubt I am the only one who is asking for comment, and yes I am aware that if it were just me asking, NVIDIA wouldn't need to comment. But if they want to be an open company who cares about gamers, as this entire thread is dedicated to proving or disproving, would it not be a wise, in terms of personal representation, for the company to take 5 minutes of their time to comply and give an offical statement on the issues outlayed here to HEXUS?

Even if they did, you wouldn't believe them most likely- you apparently think it's a crime of some sort for them to protect their IP on the Batman AA, and want them to pay for QA to test ATi products so their competitors can benefit from the work and expense they have put in to PhysX.

It's not a crime, if in fact AMD were given to oppertunity AND ability to submit their own AntiA code, which thus far we have not seen proof off. You seem to have completely ignored this fact, NVIDIA are not at fault by protecting their IP, but they are at fault if they used any tactic, technically, monotary, or otherwise, to prevent AMD submiting their own IP to achieve the same purpose on their hardware.

That is why I said that this particular issue is in contention. In order words, in light of the evidence, I see no wrong doing by either party, but we do not have the complete picture. Something else I would like cleared up, by either of the 3 parties involved. So here is what I have been waiting around intently to know, so let's ask these questions directly shall we:

Richard, did you infact submit code for review, and if so, why was it rejected? If not, why have you not done this?

Lars, did your company put forward any limitation to AMD submiting their own AntiA code, be it a legal clause in the licensing agreemnt with Eidos, a technical limitation by your code, or by paying for exclusivity rights with Eidos?

[Perfectionist]

I cannot find the thread on the Official Batman: AA forums....

Is it me being blind or has nVidia forced it's removal?

I wouldn't be surprised if Eidos hid it off their own bat, they are as guilty here as accomplices to anti-competitive practices as nVidia. With the stuff in the news recently about anti-competition suits being brought against Intel they are probably running scared from justice - quite ironically appropriate really given what the game where things got worse is.

I think the EU and US should be investigating nVidia after these physX and anti-aliasing shenanigans, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other manipulations of developers are uncovered ("the way it's meant to be played" bribing of developers has after all been going on for a LONG while now).

Added bold is mine, saw something on IRC recently and thought I just must share.

[ajones]

Even if they did, you wouldn't believe them most likely- you apparently think it's a crime of some sort for them to protect their IP on the Batman AA, and want them to pay for QA to test ATi products so their competitors can benefit from the work and expense they have put in to PhysX.

1. Nobody is expecting nVidia to supply ATi with free IP for their Batman deliverables. We want to know whether AMD collaboration was in some way blocked or did not exist.
2. Your comment regarding PhysX is ridiculous! If I thought I could purchase a cheepo nVidia card to run PhysX on (IF I wanted PhysX) along side a decent ATi card, then I would consider it. However, I'm not at this present time going to risk purchasing an nVidia card for PhysX processing if there is a chance that nVidia drivers will break the configuration. In other words, no one is complaining about PhysX being nVidias IP.

Why would I want to partner an nVidia card for PhysX with an AMD graphics card? Because quite frankly, AMDs cards *at this current moment in time* are better, assuming you are not interested in nVidia proprietary features.

[Zhaoman]

OK nobody post any more crap, nightkhaos has it pretty much wrapped up in 2 posts so we just need answers now. And I hope we get them.

[Phage]

OK nobody post any more crap, nightkhaos has it pretty much wrapped up in 2 posts so we just need answers now. And I hope we get them.

No more crap ?
Sheeeesh - There goes my whole persona...

[dadan]

In truth Intel, AMD and Nvidia are all "greedy" by this notion and I have NO issue with this as they are so valuable to the US economy and to computing in general. Their contributions allow computing to grow and for the US to be strong, so as far as I am concerned more power to all companies concerned!


____________________

[Zhaoman]

In truth Intel, AMD and Nvidia are all "greedy" by this notion and I have NO issue with this as they are so valuable to the US economy and to computing in general. Their contributions allow computing to grow and for the US to be strong, so as far as I am concerned more power to all companies concerned!


____________________

OK this 'greedy' business has been dealt with before. All companies are 'greedy' and strive to make the most profits but there is a difference between being competitive (good for the market and consumers) and anti-competitive (bad for the market and consumers). There is evidence to suggest nVidia are guilty of the latter so that is really not good news for us, whether you like your companies 'greedy' or not. For elaboration please read the Hexus article.

And why on earth did you include a link to truck parts with your post?? I daren't suggest the S word because it's being branded around a lot lately but maybe just maybe...

[GoNz0]

look at his other posts, its just a spammer