Intel to prevent Nvidia from making Nehalem chipsets

D

defiant007

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,497
Initially thought this should go in the motherboard section, but probably has more to do with the implications for SLI.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7713&Itemid=1

Nvidia's Director or PR, Derek Perez, has told Fudzilla that Intel actually won't let Nvidia make its Nforce chipset that will work with Intel's Nehalem generation of processors.

We confirmed this from Intel’s side, as well as other sources. Intel told us that there won't be an Nvidia's chipset for Nehalem. Nvidia will call this a „dispute between companies that they are trying to solve privately“ but we believe it's much more than that.

We all know that Jensen, Nvidia’s CEO, officially stated that Intel stepped over the edge with its comments about Nvidia. Ever since Nvidia entered the chipset license with Intel, Graphzilla was concerned with Intel's history of competing, and they would be naive not to.

If you are old enough, you will remember that Intel killed VIA’s Pentium chipset business even though VIA had a legitimate license. Intel was cool towards Nvidia until recently, up until the point when Intel realized that graphics card might be used for more than gaming and after Nvidia’s bold decision to keep SLI for itself. It was a tough decision to go against Intel but if Intel got the SLI for its X58 chipset or any previous Intel’s chipset, business will be good as dead, or things would get much tougher then they are.

At this point Intel simply doesn’t want to honour its commitments toward he chipset license deal.

Nvidia has confirmed that it is officially becoming a victim of what VIA, AMD and many other companies have felt for a long time, as Intel tends to repress competition when threatened by superior products and technologies.

Nvidia is not the cleanest player around, but without a Nehelem chipset their chipset business unit might actually suffer some heavy losses, and obviously this is not what Nvidia wants.

Despite the fact that Nvidia has a license, Intel simply decided to cut Nvidia off. Intel is playing dirty as Nvidia is the only company that has something that Intel really wants, and cannot get.

It’s a catch 22 situation as Nvdia wants SLI support for itself while Intel would love to get SLI for its Nehalem chipset but Nvidia refuses to give it away.

Intel was always the bully and they simply won't let Nvidia make Nehalem chipsets, which is not really fair and honest way of playing the game. At least Jensen and the rest of Nvidia are not sitting and waiting for mercy; they are all locked and loaded for the biggest fight of their careers.

Let’s not forget that Nvidia said that “Intel's attempt to unilaterally and publicly interpret a contract between the two companies is unprecedented and unsupportable both legally and commercially.”

This Nvidia vs Intel dispute is simply becoming more interesting by the hour.
Click to expand...

Yes its fudzilla, but I have seen this posted previously on other more reputable websites.
 
It would constitute restraint of trade. But I find it hilariously IRONIC that the worst company out there for "restraining trade" is about to get a dose.

I'd love to see Intel slapped for antitrust violations AND Nvidia sue and win and cut thier own anticompetitive throats in the process.

I'll then use thier own caselaw cite against them when I decide to make my own motherboards based on thier chipset and MAKE them sell me the chipset at a fair price.

THAT would be poetic justice. :eek::rolleyes::p
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
It would constitute restraint of trade. But I find it hilariously IRONIC that the worst company out there for "restraining trade" is about to get a dose.

I'd love to see Intel slapped for antitrust violations AND Nvidia sue and win and cut thier own anticompetitive throats in the process.

I'll then use thier own caselaw cite against them when I decide to make my own motherboards based on thier chipset and MAKE them sell me the chipset at a fair price.

THAT would be poetic justice. :eek::rolleyes::p
Click to expand...

Uhm, nVidia has been locking intel out of SLI licensing, why can't intel lock nVidia out of Nehalem licensing?
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
It would constitute restraint of trade. But I find it hilariously IRONIC that the worst company out there for "restraining trade" is about to get a dose.

I'd love to see Intel slapped for antitrust violations AND Nvidia sue and win and cut thier own anticompetitive throats in the process.

I'll then use thier own caselaw cite against them when I decide to make my own motherboards based on thier chipset and MAKE them sell me the chipset at a fair price.

THAT would be poetic justice. :eek::rolleyes::p
Click to expand...

Hardly constitutes restraint of trade when intel's chipset business constitutes such a tiny segment in comparison to all their other businesses.
 
Who cares? The bottleneck is the GPU. We can do fine with AMD cpu's. That's why Intel will sell the Nehlem QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) to Nvidia. Relax - Nvidia has the upper hand here.
 
Nah Fud is a lot better towards Nvidia by far and they seem to have a legit insider on their hardware info. They have no clue about ATI hardware or anything at all though
 
Fine with me. nVIDIA makes the most pathetic chipsets available. Now if Intel would release some graphic cards...
 
LOL, that ignorant fuad rant took a long time to get posted here. :p

nvidia has a P4/Core 2 (GTL+) bus license. Nehalem uses a new bus (QuickPath), which is why nvidia and Intel were in negotiations. Intel wanted a SLI license in exchange and nvidia wouldn't budge. The funny thing is that Intel probably won't care about an SLI license in another 2 years.

About the only thing fuad got partially right was that VIA's P4 bus license was temporarily revoked for no good reason. Intel claimed that VIA would need a new license because Intel increased the FSB speed. It seemed to be more of a minor pain because VIA was "granted" a renewal shortly after (2003 IIRC) and VIA was already shipping faster FSB speed chipsets anyways. I think I read that the license expired last year and VIA seems to have exited out of the 3rd party chipset business, no longer developing new AMD or Intel chipsets.
 
It would be a very bad move for Intel if they locked nvidia out of Nehalem. The same market that goes for the Extreme Editions is the same one that goes for the dual/tri/quad SLI - and if they can't get it from Intel, I'd bet they would be just as happy to get it from AMD. Graphical power > CPU power (for games).
 
kllrnohj said:
It would be a very bad move for Intel if they locked nvidia out of Nehalem. The same market that goes for the Extreme Editions is the same one that goes for the dual/tri/quad SLI - and if they can't get it from Intel, I'd bet they would be just as happy to get it from AMD. Graphical power > CPU power (for games).
Click to expand...

It would be equally bad for nVidia is the new nehalem boards weren't able to use nVidia chipsets... nVidia's entire enthusiast motherboard market would dwindle.
 
They have to get this worked out some how, especially nVidia. They could sue, but that would take to long probably. My guess is that they'll have to cough up some extra cash or something to keep SLI to themselves. Otherwise SLI is useless and pointless.
 
Well, considering it was proven that 4 9800GX2 (8 GPU's) were more powerful than 300 C2D's by multitudes, I think NVIDIA using CUDA (and soon RapiHD) has the upper hand. :cool:

The nice thing is, SLI isn't even required for CUDA operations in a multi-GPU environment.

Now if only AMD/ATI would make a comeback... ATI cards are used for folding though, so they definitely have their uses, and AMD processors still have a nice price/performance ratio.
 
The problem is that CUDA instructions aren't x86! It will probably be well after our lifetimes that X86 goes away. There's just too much invested in x86, CUDA is just a lab experiment. Plus CUDA is not really a replacement for a general purpose CPU, not yet anyway.

And Intel is going to get into the GPU market. Who knows, in a few years nVidia may go the way of 3DFx.
 
It would be a very bad move for Intel if they locked nvidia out of Nehalem. The same market that goes for the Extreme Editions is the same one that goes for the dual/tri/quad SLI - and if they can't get it from Intel, I'd bet they would be just as happy to get it from AMD. Graphical power > CPU power (for games).
Click to expand...

Given that AMD is getting curbstomped by enthusiasts currently, I would not count on this. If AMD can not produce a competitive chip to go against Nehalem, Nvidia will effectively be out of the motherboard business. Then they either need to cough up SLI to Intel, or start making extremely powerful single slot solutions. Enthusiast would push further to ATI as Crossfire solution took all the benchmark crowns, and Nvidia would suffer further, and be begging Intel to use their SLI tech.
 
so intel thinks nvidia will eventually evolve into a cpu company? and nvidia is worried that amd is already an 'all-in-wonder' company? and amd is worried they woke up from the honeymoon and gas is $4 a gallon? let them battle it out, eventually pc's will be completely proprietary and non-upgradeable anyway... but who cares because you can stick that cute little matchbox just anywhere!!!
 
heatlesssun said:
The problem is that CUDA instructions aren't x86! It will probably be well after our lifetimes that X86 goes away. There's just too much invested in x86, CUDA is just a lab experiment. Plus CUDA is not really a replacement for a general purpose CPU, not yet anyway.

And Intel is going to get into the GPU market. Who knows, in a few years nVidia may go the way of 3DFx.
Click to expand...

CUDA is being used a lot for research purposes since it's a lot cheaper than buying supercomputer time. ;)
 
I get most of my rumor mill stuff from Fudzilla and I never though of them as being anti nvidia what so ever.
 
nvidia should give intel and SLI license, then lock them out with a driver update.
 
Good, I hope the nForce series dies. They are crap, they have been crap since nForce4 (4 was OK, but the gigabit nic is flakey). I would be running SLI right now if it didn't mean running an nForce board.
 
Good. nForce is trash and everyone knows it. SLI would be more common (read: NV would sell more cards) if they just released it.
 
When the memory controller moves on to the cpu die, Nvidia's chipset problems will be gone.
 
Red Falcon said:
Well, considering it was proven that 4 9800GX2 (8 GPU's) were more powerful than 300 C2D's by multitudes, I think NVIDIA using CUDA (and soon RapiHD) has the upper hand. :cool:

The nice thing is, SLI isn't even required for CUDA operations in a multi-GPU environment.

Now if only AMD/ATI would make a comeback... ATI cards are used for folding though, so they definitely have their uses, and AMD processors still have a nice price/performance ratio.
Click to expand...

8GPUs > 300 CPUs in a restricted problem domain, this is not representative for the set of all problem domains.

I wouldn't go see my family doctor for brain surgery.
 
SLI is not a big market. It is surely the smallest market with reference to graphics cards. If I were Intel, I wouldn't even negotiate. I simply wouldn't give it to them with the way nVidia has been. Integrated graphics is the largest market, and Intel is already number one. Maybe in nVidia's wildest dreams they'll sell as many chipsets with integrated video as Intel does. After that, single card graphics is still a far bigger market than multi-card graphics solutions. Catering to a niche segment isn't really worth while in this case.
 
devman said:
8GPUs > 300 CPUs in a restricted problem domain, this is not representative for the set of all problem domains.

I wouldn't go see my family doctor for brain surgery.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that CUDA won't be able to start doing things in other environments such as x86 or x64. This will be used for the RapiHD encoder using the GPU (way faster than any quad-core in existence) for H.264 or MP3 encoding via the GPU.

Soon you may be able to go to your family doctor for brain surgery! ;)
 
Red Falcon said:
That doesn't mean that CUDA won't be able to start doing things in other environments such as x86 or x64. This will be used for the RapiHD encoder using the GPU (way faster than any quad-core in existence) for H.264 or MP3 encoding via the GPU.

Soon you may be able to go to your family doctor for brain surgery! ;)
Click to expand...

How many things do you do that are multi-threaded in normal, day-to-day operation? Most people I know surf the web, use an office suite, maybe listen to some music - none of which are highly threaded and would therefore run like crap in CUDA. Until a single thread on a GPU is faster than a single thread on a CPU (or is at least fast enough to do whatever is common at the time), the CPU is in no real danger. It will also likely need to support x86, and be able to stand on its own (or at least not require the CPU to continually feed it with information and manage it).
 
I will say this again
SLI is dead. NV did this to themselves.I have an Asus 975 Board that says "SLI Ready" NV never gave up the BIOS update for that Intel Board. NV deserves this
 
I would rather Intel give more support for Crossfire/X rather than obsessing over SLI. Its already supported on a bunch of their boards, its an open standard, and it scales better than SLI.

Nvidia chipsets are hot garbage (literally) and SLI isn't that widespread to begin with. I'm especially sick and tired of hearing how awesome the 790i is (Maximum PC? I'm looking at you) despite that its eating your data out from under you (Google '790i' and 'data corruption' to see what I'm talking about).
 
So whats going to happen now now that Intel isn't going to support NVIDIA's chipset? Thats going to be bad news for most NVIDIA users. Its funny that Intel is going to support Crossfire while AMD owns ATI, so that leaves NVIDIA out in the cold. I guess NVIDIA better start producing their own motherboards then, unless they get this shit resolved.
 
THUMPer1 said:
I will say this again
SLI is dead. NV did this to themselves.I have an Asus 975 Board that says "SLI Ready" NV never gave up the BIOS update for that Intel Board. NV deserves this
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is funny about the 975X "SLI" boards. I have a couple Abit AW9D-Max boards that came with SLI bridges. :p I guess Intel expected nvidia to play ball a couple of years ago.
---

It's not so much that Intel "supports" Crossfire as ATI simply doesn't lock out any motherboards that have the required capabilities. nvidia is really shooting itself in the foot now, sad because nvidia is otherwise a very well run corporation.
 
pxc said:
Yeah, it is funny about the 975X "SLI" boards. I have a couple Abit AW9D-Max boards that came with SLI bridges. :p I guess Intel expected nvidia to play ball a couple of years ago.
---

It's not so much that Intel "supports" Crossfire as ATI simply doesn't lock out any motherboards that have the required capabilities. nvidia is really shooting itself in the foot now, sad because nvidia is otherwise a very well run corporation.
Click to expand...

Good news for ATI none the less.
 
John Vuong said:
I guess NVIDIA better start producing their own motherboards then, unless they get this shit resolved.
Click to expand...

Nvidia needs to start producing their own CPUs*. If they are not planning to pull that off, they better get ready to jump back in bed with Intel.
 
Anyone see an AMD/ATi+NVIDIA Merge to take on intel? or at least a considerably closer relationship...

:)
 
kllrnohj said:
How many things do you do that are multi-threaded in normal, day-to-day operation? Most people I know surf the web, use an office suite, maybe listen to some music - none of which are highly threaded and would therefore run like crap in CUDA. Until a single thread on a GPU is faster than a single thread on a CPU (or is at least fast enough to do whatever is common at the time), the CPU is in no real danger. It will also likely need to support x86, and be able to stand on its own (or at least not require the CPU to continually feed it with information and manage it).
Click to expand...

If everyone is just doing single-threaded tasks, then why is everyone using dual/triple/quad core processors. From what you just said, multicore processors aren't necessary on a daily basis, when in all reality, they are. Try encoding a DVD while surfing the web and listening to music while torrenting and viewing a PDF file on a single-core processor. It can be done, but with terrible results.

I never said that the CPU was in danger. I also don't have a problem with single to multicore processors at all. It's their functionality to perform cetain tasks that bother me (such as video editing).

I understand that one GPU core is not nearly as powerful as one CPU core. But when I go to do a job that can run from multiple processors (i.e. video rendering/encoding), I would rather have LOTS of cores (8 to 128+) than just 2/3/4.

RapiHD H.264 GPU encoding is coming out soon for the Adobe Premiere Pro line and utilizes CUDA to work properly.

An HD video took the GPU about 30 seconds to render, whereas the CPU (Intel Q6600) took over 20 minutes to produce the same thing.

Now granted, I doubt the GPU will ever replace the traditional CPU, but the potential that GPU's have in the future is huge.

Why WOULDN'T you want that capability in your machine.

I agree (as I said in my above post) that it will need to support x86 and/or x64, otherwise there will be no mainstream market for it other than super-computing.


EDIT: There's that old boyscout saying: "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."
 
MrGuvernment said:
Anyone see an AMD/ATi+NVIDIA Merge to take on intel? or at least a considerably closer relationship...

:)
Click to expand...

Why?

What does nVidia have that AMD/ATI needs? At this rate, they can just sit back and watch as nVidia flops around like a dying fish out of water.
 
Red Falcon said:
If everyone is just doing single-threaded tasks, then why is everyone using dual/triple/quad core processors. From what you just said, multicore processors aren't necessary on a daily basis, when in all reality, they are. Try encoding a DVD while surfing the web and listening to music while torrenting and viewing a PDF file on a single-core processor. It can be done, but with terrible results.
Click to expand...

Seriously... GET A GRIP!

The average person (read: 90% of the consumer desktop market) does not do all that. Most people dont do more than aim, internet, and music at the same time. Where in that do you need multi-core capabiliites? Even if you play a video game all you need is one core.

Fact of the matter is theres still a rather large base for single core pcs out there and if you seriously think the gpu is going to replace the cpu then you're dreaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top