Nvidia’s GeForce Partner Program May Hurt PC Gamers (And AMD)

According to Nvidia, the GeForce Partner Program benefits everyone in numerous ways. Manufacturers that produce Nvidia GPUs receive early access to new technologies. They also receive extended support and marketing services. On the other hand, gamers are supposed to see more transparent companies and superior products. The official GPP announcement may have left a few details out of the situation, though. It turns out Nvidia may be the only winner in this entire situation.

What Joining The GPP May Mean

New claims suggest that GeForce Partners must dedicate their “Gaming” brands to Nvidia alone. Currently, many GPU manufacturers assign their “Gaming” designation to both Nvidia and AMD graphics cards. This includes companies like MSI, Asus, and a handful of others. If a company joins the GPP, then they must reportedly give that branding exclusively to Nvidia. How this benefits Nvidia is obvious. Still, not everyone may realize how it hurts AMD, and more importantly, consumers.

How This Setup Hurts A Lot Of People (And Companies)

When consumers build high-end PCs, they often opt for the “Gaming” variants of those GPUs. Of course, these variants aren’t leagues beyond similar options, but the “Gaming” designation makes a difference nonetheless. Manufacturers in the GPP will spend more marketing efforts on Nvidia GPUs rather than AMD GPUs. Consumers may not know which AMD alternatives are comparable to the Nvidia GPUs. This confusion and ensuing lack of brand recognition could easily hurt consumers above all else.

Consumers will eventually feel the pain because Nvidia GPUs are always more expensive than comparable AMD GPUs. In some cases, they provide better performance, but not everyone prioritizes performances over price. AMD could lose its ability to compete in the high-end GPU market thanks to the GeForce Partner Program. Other consequences from the GPP could include less innovation from AMD and less consumer choices. With that in mind, the GPP is anticompetitive at least and a huge blow to transparency and consumers at worst.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *