There's a lot of stuff to care about in regards to nvidia right now: new GPUs, supply and pricing concerns related to cryptocurrency mining, and antitrust law violations by way of GPP.
All they'll talk about are future driver features that might make reflections look slightly better though.
Was GPP that program where companies that controlled 81% of PC graphics and 100% of the CPU market colluded for two years(with many predatory monopoly fines levied for one of the companies at the table) and then swapped to brazenly push a smaller competitor out of the market?
No, wait, that was AMD and Intel, silly me.
GPP is the program where the company that controls a whopping 18% of the graphics market is offering promotional kick backs to partners for branding purposes to combat the collusion between the predatory monopoly and AMD.
There are many levels of stupid- antitrust laws exist for one reason- to stop monopolies from abusing their power- see the thing that AMD is helping Intel to do. The companies controlling 81% of graphics shipments and 100% of CPU shipments attempting to squeeze nVidia out- that is antitrust violation. Luckily for both AMD and Intel, their tech is so comically bad, even their predatory monopolistic business practices aren't enough to damage the little guy at this point.
..... what? I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say, that AMD and Intel working on a few projects together is going to kill "the little guy" Nvidia? The same Nvidia thats actually twice the size of AMD, and that has been working out deals with game companies to make games run worse on their competitors hardware, and that knowingly sold chipsets and GPU's that didn't meet the requirements that OEM's put forth, causing massive recalls? Sigh, troll be trolling I guess. I know none of these three companies are saints, but Intel and Nvidia have done far more shady shit than AMD ever has, and it doesnt bother me at all if all three of them get a slap in the face from time to time, sometimes its needed.
How something makes you feel, doesn't change the law.
In order to be guilty of anti trust violations- the company must be deemed a monopoly.
Intel and AMD control 81% of graphics shipments for PCs and 100% of CPUs. They represent a clearly defined and with stacks of case law to back it up- a monopoly. If they do something to push nVidia out of a market that is anti trust.
Nothing nVidia is capable of doing can possibly be deemed anti competitive because they control, at the high end, 19% of the market in play.
This isn't about how it makes you feel. Your opinion doesn't determine legal reality. AMD has been colluding with a predatory monopoly to hurt nVidia.
nVidia could pay game developers to not let their games run on anything but nVidia- not only would that not be considered anti competitive, it is considered standard practice in the gaming world. If *Intel* paid gaming companies to do the same thing, that *would* be anti competitive because they are a monopoly.
When a monopoly does it, it is anti competitive. When a huge underdog does it, it is considered competitive. This is an issue of the law, not your wittle weelings.
"Intel and AMD control 81% of graphics shipments for PCs and 100% of CPUs." Yes, but the vast number of GPU’s counted for this stat are not discrete. Nvidia continues to hold around 70-75% of the discrete GPU market. I'm saying everything you just wrote is based off poor data and is not true since Nvidia does control the discrete GPU market which is a different market than the APU market. I have no comment on who is doing anything anticompetitive.
Trying not to come off as extremely condescending here....
The PC market is a major industry and one that is vital to normal commerce throughout the world. Because of this, the players involved are closely monitored for possible anti trust violations. The numbers I used are the actual real numbers for the segment. They are not poor, they are the accurate numbers.
The numbers you are citing are for a sub section of add in parts for luxury(gaming) purposes that are encompassed within the actual data points. Your feelings may tell you they are the important numbers, but that is, to put it mildly, shockingly ignorant when discussing anti trust issues. For real world numbers, you need to use the actual numbers, not just a tiny subset of those numbers that prop up your point.
Anti trust laws don't exist to protect losers in luxury sub categories.
What smaller competitor did intel and amd push out of the market? Cyrix? That happened far, far before integrated graphics were actually implemented on CPU dies. There hasn't been another x86 competitor since VIA bought Cyrix and ran their processor division nearly into the ground.
The issue everyone is upset about with GPP is that whatever you might think, discrete graphics are definitely a seperate market from APU's. They are related, but the vast majority of integrated graphics is not used for the same purposes as discrete GPU's and are generally treated as a throw in feature that allows lower-end workstations to exist without the additional cost and power draw of a discrete graphics card.
Comparing discrete gpus to integrated offerings from either manufaturer is a stupid comparison at best. They don't occupy the same niche and don't perform the same function in actual use cases.
NVidia is forcing AMD out of all the luxury gpu brands from most major manufacturers if they want to *keep selling NVidia cards* under those same brands. Owned and built by those manufacturers, not NVidia. They are forcing the AIB manufacturers to play ball, or to lose the ability to sell NVidia chips. Blatant abuse of their market position to attempt to dominate a very high margin segment of computing hardware.
Your entire post is invalidated for anti competitive discussion by your own comment-
"They don't occupy the same niche"
Monopolies aren't about "niche" economics. For it to be anti competitive, it has to impact the segment. Like Intel forcing nVidia out of the chipset business- that was anti competitive. Intel was a monopoly, and used that leverage to force a competitor out of the segment(AMD doing the same thing to nVidia would *not* have been anti competitive because they lack anything close to a monopoly). With Intel and AMD combined- they hit the requisite numbers for monopoly of two key components for PCs- and are working in tandem to directly hurt nVidia. It is anti competitive- it would almost certainly hit the courts if the tech weren't so laughably poor.
If everything you are claiming nVidia was doing is true- and to say that as of right now is an absurd list of lies- none of it would be anti competitive by law anyway. nVidia would be *entirely* within their legal rights to tell the OEMs that they can't sell both nVidia and AMD GPUs. Nothing is indicating anything remotely in the league of that has actually surfaced- even Kyle's "evidence" only pertains to marketing dollars for exclusive product lines- all of the documentation provided indicates that companies can still have a line of products devoted to AMD *and* get their promotional dollar kick backs from nVidia.
AMD control 100% of the GPU market for GPUs that say "radeon" on the box. Dividing the market to discrete/integrated to support your point is silly, especially when we have discrete class AMD GPUs integrated into Intel CPUs now.
This is GTC, not the place for consumer announcements anyway. It either would've been at GDC last week or later this year (either dedicated event like with Pascal, or maybe Computex)
It's only reverse chronological when live. Now that it's over it's back to normal.
I seem to remember AT used to do the live in chronological too but my browser would refresh and kick me up to the top of the page every new post. It was 50/50 I could PgDn fast enough and read it before Ryan or whoever could write a new sentence :)
So, what about NVDLA, or was that not announced in the keynote?
I'm really interested in their strategy with that. All this talk about it being open source... are they planning to make money by selling TensorRT licenses for it, or something? Trained models? What's their angle?
Huang talked more about NVDLA at the Investor's Day. He said something along the lines of it was easy for them to make and they gave it away because they didn't see it as beneficial for them to try to build an ecosystem around it. He said it's available to be used for free, and the plan is that it will help others create IOT devices, which will create data that will need to be processed in data centers on NVIDIA's GPUs. He said ARM has picked it up for use in their AI chips (that has been sparsely reported on since the announcement by ARM a few days ago). So they aren't planning on directly monetizing the NVDLA in any way (except when it's sold in their own chips, I guess, such as Xavier).
I doubt the plan is to charge anything for TensorRT. TensorRT is part of what one gets when one buys NVIDIA hardware. TensorRT allows that hardware to be used more effectively for inference much like CuDNN allows it to be used for training neural networks and graphics drivers allow it to be used for playing games. NVIDIA supports the NVDLA in TensorRT and I'd assume they will continue to do so, as it sounds like the NVDLA might be comparatively useless without it, or some equivalent to it.
Sometime NVDIA NOT Support Rendering Software i'm designer i work daily basic NVidia should have to upgrade to improve rendering You can check here https://3danimationrendering.com/ my previews projects it's to heavy can you suggest me what can i do improve my speed?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
Back to Article
guidryp - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
Only one thing I care about: New GPUs...But sadly, with mining keeping prices high, and supply low, there is little incentive to offer us better performance/$.
willis936 - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
There's a lot of stuff to care about in regards to nvidia right now: new GPUs, supply and pricing concerns related to cryptocurrency mining, and antitrust law violations by way of GPP.All they'll talk about are future driver features that might make reflections look slightly better though.
BenSkywalker - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
Was GPP that program where companies that controlled 81% of PC graphics and 100% of the CPU market colluded for two years(with many predatory monopoly fines levied for one of the companies at the table) and then swapped to brazenly push a smaller competitor out of the market?No, wait, that was AMD and Intel, silly me.
GPP is the program where the company that controls a whopping 18% of the graphics market is offering promotional kick backs to partners for branding purposes to combat the collusion between the predatory monopoly and AMD.
There are many levels of stupid- antitrust laws exist for one reason- to stop monopolies from abusing their power- see the thing that AMD is helping Intel to do. The companies controlling 81% of graphics shipments and 100% of CPU shipments attempting to squeeze nVidia out- that is antitrust violation. Luckily for both AMD and Intel, their tech is so comically bad, even their predatory monopolistic business practices aren't enough to damage the little guy at this point.
artk2219 - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
..... what? I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say, that AMD and Intel working on a few projects together is going to kill "the little guy" Nvidia? The same Nvidia thats actually twice the size of AMD, and that has been working out deals with game companies to make games run worse on their competitors hardware, and that knowingly sold chipsets and GPU's that didn't meet the requirements that OEM's put forth, causing massive recalls? Sigh, troll be trolling I guess. I know none of these three companies are saints, but Intel and Nvidia have done far more shady shit than AMD ever has, and it doesnt bother me at all if all three of them get a slap in the face from time to time, sometimes its needed.BenSkywalker - Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - link
How something makes you feel, doesn't change the law.In order to be guilty of anti trust violations- the company must be deemed a monopoly.
Intel and AMD control 81% of graphics shipments for PCs and 100% of CPUs. They represent a clearly defined and with stacks of case law to back it up- a monopoly. If they do something to push nVidia out of a market that is anti trust.
Nothing nVidia is capable of doing can possibly be deemed anti competitive because they control, at the high end, 19% of the market in play.
This isn't about how it makes you feel. Your opinion doesn't determine legal reality. AMD has been colluding with a predatory monopoly to hurt nVidia.
nVidia could pay game developers to not let their games run on anything but nVidia- not only would that not be considered anti competitive, it is considered standard practice in the gaming world. If *Intel* paid gaming companies to do the same thing, that *would* be anti competitive because they are a monopoly.
When a monopoly does it, it is anti competitive. When a huge underdog does it, it is considered competitive. This is an issue of the law, not your wittle weelings.
FreckledTrout - Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - link
"Intel and AMD control 81% of graphics shipments for PCs and 100% of CPUs." Yes, but the vast number of GPU’s counted for this stat are not discrete. Nvidia continues to hold around 70-75% of the discrete GPU market. I'm saying everything you just wrote is based off poor data and is not true since Nvidia does control the discrete GPU market which is a different market than the APU market. I have no comment on who is doing anything anticompetitive.BenSkywalker - Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - link
Calling actual real numbers poor.....Trying not to come off as extremely condescending here....
The PC market is a major industry and one that is vital to normal commerce throughout the world. Because of this, the players involved are closely monitored for possible anti trust violations. The numbers I used are the actual real numbers for the segment. They are not poor, they are the accurate numbers.
The numbers you are citing are for a sub section of add in parts for luxury(gaming) purposes that are encompassed within the actual data points. Your feelings may tell you they are the important numbers, but that is, to put it mildly, shockingly ignorant when discussing anti trust issues. For real world numbers, you need to use the actual numbers, not just a tiny subset of those numbers that prop up your point.
Anti trust laws don't exist to protect losers in luxury sub categories.
d3mag0gu3 - Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - link
What smaller competitor did intel and amd push out of the market? Cyrix? That happened far, far before integrated graphics were actually implemented on CPU dies. There hasn't been another x86 competitor since VIA bought Cyrix and ran their processor division nearly into the ground.The issue everyone is upset about with GPP is that whatever you might think, discrete graphics are definitely a seperate market from APU's. They are related, but the vast majority of integrated graphics is not used for the same purposes as discrete GPU's and are generally treated as a throw in feature that allows lower-end workstations to exist without the additional cost and power draw of a discrete graphics card.
Comparing discrete gpus to integrated offerings from either manufaturer is a stupid comparison at best. They don't occupy the same niche and don't perform the same function in actual use cases.
NVidia is forcing AMD out of all the luxury gpu brands from most major manufacturers if they want to *keep selling NVidia cards* under those same brands. Owned and built by those manufacturers, not NVidia. They are forcing the AIB manufacturers to play ball, or to lose the ability to sell NVidia chips. Blatant abuse of their market position to attempt to dominate a very high margin segment of computing hardware.
BenSkywalker - Thursday, March 29, 2018 - link
Your entire post is invalidated for anti competitive discussion by your own comment-"They don't occupy the same niche"
Monopolies aren't about "niche" economics. For it to be anti competitive, it has to impact the segment. Like Intel forcing nVidia out of the chipset business- that was anti competitive. Intel was a monopoly, and used that leverage to force a competitor out of the segment(AMD doing the same thing to nVidia would *not* have been anti competitive because they lack anything close to a monopoly). With Intel and AMD combined- they hit the requisite numbers for monopoly of two key components for PCs- and are working in tandem to directly hurt nVidia. It is anti competitive- it would almost certainly hit the courts if the tech weren't so laughably poor.
If everything you are claiming nVidia was doing is true- and to say that as of right now is an absurd list of lies- none of it would be anti competitive by law anyway. nVidia would be *entirely* within their legal rights to tell the OEMs that they can't sell both nVidia and AMD GPUs. Nothing is indicating anything remotely in the league of that has actually surfaced- even Kyle's "evidence" only pertains to marketing dollars for exclusive product lines- all of the documentation provided indicates that companies can still have a line of products devoted to AMD *and* get their promotional dollar kick backs from nVidia.
rtho782 - Thursday, March 29, 2018 - link
GPUs is GPUs.AMD control 100% of the GPU market for GPUs that say "radeon" on the box. Dividing the market to discrete/integrated to support your point is silly, especially when we have discrete class AMD GPUs integrated into Intel CPUs now.
nevcairiel - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
This is GTC, not the place for consumer announcements anyway. It either would've been at GDC last week or later this year (either dedicated event like with Pascal, or maybe Computex)Mr Perfect - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
I think we should all chip in and buy Jen-Hsun a new jacket. Poor guy's only got that one.mode_13h - Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - link
LOLMikeMAN - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
So THIS is what Gavin Belson was talking about in creating Box 2.0 for Hooli.....JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
That's cool and all Jen-Hsun, but...Where da vidya cards at?
mode_13h - Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - link
Quadro V100 is a vidya card.Creig - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
Any signs of wood screws this time?stanleyipkiss - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
So disappointing.deepblue08 - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
I wish the order of posts was oldest to newest, otherwise I am reading from latest to the beginning.f4tali - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
It's only reverse chronological when live. Now that it's over it's back to normal.I seem to remember AT used to do the live in chronological too but my browser would refresh and kick me up to the top of the page every new post. It was 50/50 I could PgDn fast enough and read it before Ryan or whoever could write a new sentence :)
lane42 - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
What a way to run a company.............Ya sell a product that you don't have. No wonder the stock tanked today.
mode_13h - Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - link
Stock was hit because of self-driving-car backlash.mode_13h - Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - link
And they're primarily a chip company. In semiconductors, most of the sales cycle happens before you have working silicon.mode_13h - Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - link
So, what about NVDLA, or was that not announced in the keynote?I'm really interested in their strategy with that. All this talk about it being open source... are they planning to make money by selling TensorRT licenses for it, or something? Trained models? What's their angle?
Yojimbo - Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - link
Huang talked more about NVDLA at the Investor's Day. He said something along the lines of it was easy for them to make and they gave it away because they didn't see it as beneficial for them to try to build an ecosystem around it. He said it's available to be used for free, and the plan is that it will help others create IOT devices, which will create data that will need to be processed in data centers on NVIDIA's GPUs. He said ARM has picked it up for use in their AI chips (that has been sparsely reported on since the announcement by ARM a few days ago). So they aren't planning on directly monetizing the NVDLA in any way (except when it's sold in their own chips, I guess, such as Xavier).I doubt the plan is to charge anything for TensorRT. TensorRT is part of what one gets when one buys NVIDIA hardware. TensorRT allows that hardware to be used more effectively for inference much like CuDNN allows it to be used for training neural networks and graphics drivers allow it to be used for playing games. NVIDIA supports the NVDLA in TensorRT and I'd assume they will continue to do so, as it sounds like the NVDLA might be comparatively useless without it, or some equivalent to it.
mode_13h - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link
Thanks!mariajohn - Tuesday, December 18, 2018 - link
Sometime NVDIA NOT Support Rendering Software i'm designer i work daily basic NVidia should have to upgrade to improve rendering You can check here https://3danimationrendering.com/ my previews projects it's to heavy can you suggest me what can i do improve my speed?