Intel blocks Nvidia from running SLI on Conroe platforms

[burningrave101]

Prefers ATI, it seems

By Fuad Abazovic: Tuesday 27 June 2006, 14:08
WE GOT some interesting input on Intel not supporting SLI on its Conroe-supporting motherboards. Up until now, we, and our, sources have blamed it all on Nvidia but it turns out we might be wrong about that.

There is a big chance that Intel doesn't want to allow Nvidia to run SLI, as it doesn't want to make a big thing about SLI on its own Conroe machines.

Intel is in the bed with ATI and signed a cross-licensing agreement quite some time ago, the upshot of which is that it officially supports ATI's Crossfire on Intel 975/965 boards. We hear that Intel doesn’t want to let Nvidia's SLI to run on its boards, at least not officially.

There will no-doubt be a leaked driver that will allow such a scenario, but even if the high-end tweakers society might be happy about it, none of the system integrators or OEMs will make such a machine as the driver would never be official and WHQL.

It is a funny old game but we will try to get to the bottom of it. µ

Can a single chipset even efficiently support both SLI and Crossfire both? I dont think Intel is trying to block nVidia and SLI because Intel knows how popular SLI is. I think since Intel and ATI have close ties however that they will likely market Crossfire on the Intel chipsets but that doesn't stop nVidia from releasing SLI enabled chipsets themselves for Conroe. I heard that Intel also didn't plan to support Crossfire on future chipsets and is going to leave the high-end SLI/Crossfire enabled chipsets up to nVidia and ATI themselves as a way to open up the market more to third party chipset makers and pull their attention away from AMD.

 

[Poncho]

Can a single chipset even efficiently support both SLI and Crossfire both? I dont think Intel is trying to block nVidia and SLI because Intel knows how popular SLI is. I think since Intel and ATI have close ties however that they will likely market Crossfire on the Intel chipsets but that doesn't stop nVidia from releasing SLI enabled chipsets themselves for Conroe. I heard that Intel also didn't plan to support Crossfire on future chipsets and is going to leave the high-end SLI/Crossfire enabled chipsets up to nVidia and ATI themselves as a way to open up the market more to third party chipset makers and pull their attention away from AMD.

It has nothing to do with Intel.... as long as there are dual x8 slots then the chipset can support SLI or Crossfire. It's 100% up to ATI/nVidia to release drivers to make it work. Intel doesn't, nor can they really, block out one or the other... and long as you have dual x8 slots.

 

[KennyT]

It has nothing to do with Intel.... as long as there are dual x8 slots then the chipset can support SLI or Crossfire. It's 100% up to ATI/nVidia to release drivers to make it work. Intel doesn't, nor can they really, block out one or the other... and long as you have dual x8 slots.

not true. there are ways of diabling the chipset fuctions threw the intel drivers or even bios locks...

 

[Rishi M.]

Poncho is right. It's the video card drivers that are locking out Intel chipsets, not the other way around. Personally, I think Nvidia knows that SLI is the market leader in multi-GPU configurations and is trying to use that market share to sell nForce 5 for Intel boards. ATI, on the other hand, needs to sell Crossfire any way it can and can't afford to lock Intel out. Nvidia's strategy is actually quite reasonable if nForce 5 for Intel shapes up as a viable competitor for 975X/G965. nForce 4 for Intel was crap, let's hope nForce 5 doesn't turn out the same way,

BTW: Fuad is full of crap. Sometimes I'd really like to punch that guy in the face because he must know better - he just spews garbage all the same.

 

[Poncho]

not true. there are ways of diabling the chipset fuctions threw the intel drivers or even bios locks...

Yes and no... the real question though is why would Intel do it? They wouldn't. It costs them nothing to allow it... and they lose out if they do.

 

[BinarySynapse]

not true. there are ways of diabling the chipset fuctions threw the intel drivers or even bios locks...

Chipset Drivers and BIOS's have know way to know if two nVidia cards are going to be SLI'd or just used to run 3 or 4 monitors. Intel would have to shut down 8 or 16 (an entire slot) PCIe lanes to block SLI. If that happens you can be damn sure that people will sue and Intel will lose more market share because those two nVidia cards work just fine in an AMD or non-Intel chipset motherboard.

 

[Anemone]

True there is no way to have Intel block it physically. However, they can block it legally. And if Nvidia refused to sign any kind of a licensing agreement (sound familiar?) then Intel can sue Nvidia if Nvidia doesn't make reasonable attempts to block SLI from working on Intel chipsets.

Why would Nvidia not allow it? Because of chipset sales? Honestly they make far more on a gpu sale than a chipset sale, so allowing it would open them up to more profit not less. However, it probably isn't enough profit to justify a "licensing payment". For ATI the licensing payment is justified by the sheer need to be in the dual card market at all, even if such a license eats up the profits on being in that market.

I mean think about it. Do you think Intel wants a Nvidia motherboard in a Dell machine, just so it can do SLI? No. But Intel doesn't make a lot of profit on chipsets really, and Nvidia is a competitor so honestly this is one way to simply put them a bit further away from the pie. It begins to makes sense when you think about Intel getting into the gpu business. Wouldn't it be nice in 2007 if Intel could offer its own dual card solution that works on 975 chipsets and above? What kind of a potential market would they have if Nvidia was already in all those potential customer machines already?

The very likely behemoth in all this is Intel. It's not guaranteed, because Nvidia has been known to be utterly stupid. But I doubt they are so incredibly dumb as to ignore what selling a 2nd card could mean to all the 975 owners. And they are probably smart enough to not want to tangle with Intel's legal department.

Anyway the end round is that it doesn't serve the end user at all. The end user doesn't get a simple choice that is physically possible on the machine. That very point, smacks of an Intel strategy. Intel is never in it for the customer. They are always looking for where they can make money and keep the customer on a leash and a planned upgrade path.

So the signs point to this being Intel's fault. We are just mistaken if we look at it from a hardware capability angle only.

 

[$BangforThe$]

It has nothing to do with Intel.... as long as there are dual x8 slots then the chipset can support SLI or Crossfire. It's 100% up to ATI/nVidia to release drivers to make it work. Intel doesn't, nor can they really, block out one or the other... and long as you have dual x8 slots.

Not true poncho Intel can block SLI. Why would Intel block SLI . Because NV didn't allow Sli to work on intel M/B's If Nvidia can stop Sli on Intel chipsets. Your saying Intel can't block sli from working on its chipsets is just plain wrong Intel can stop sli in software. Intel has had a problem with suppling chipsets is this not so. So blocking SLI won't hurt Intel who has a problem suppling chipsets.

As for intel getting out of the high end chipset market and leaving it to NV and ATI . You will have to explain to me why Intel is coming out with the Bad AXE II M/B. The Bad AXE is doing pretty good right now.

 

[$BangforThe$]

Chipset Drivers and BIOS's have know way to know if two nVidia cards are going to be SLI'd or just used to run 3 or 4 monitors. Intel would have to shut down 8 or 16 PCIe lanes to block SLI. If that happens you can be damn sure that people will sue and Intel will lose more market share because those two nVidia cards work just fine in an AMD or non-Intel chipset motherboard.

Ya right your going to sue Intel because they don't allow Sli on their chipsets. So why aren't people sueing NV for the same reason . I least present a resonable argument.

Your mult. Monitors argument doesn't work.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Ya right your going to sue Intel because they don't allow Sli on their chipsets. So why aren't people sueing NV for the same reason . I least present a resonable argument.

Your mult. Monitors argument doesn't work.

I woudln't sue. I'm not a sue happy type of person, and I'm smart to find out if something is going to work with what I've got before I spend a bunch of money on it. However the average joe consumer out there who just bought a new computer and wants to upgrade the video subsystem to run in SLI, but has an Intel chipset probably wouldn't be as observant of things ike that.

That being siad. Intel is more likely to be sued than nVidia because Intel has no competeing graphics card line. nVidia on the other hand is a company that build GPUs and Chipsets. There arguement in a suit could easily be that "nVidia design a chipset and GPU solution that combined gives outstanding performance. We do not design the Intel chipsets and cannot gaurantee a satisfactory end user experience. So we do not support SLI configuration on non nVidia chipset." Intel on the other hand wouldn't have much ground to stand on and would look extrememly anti-competitive in a lawsuit

Also how does my multi monitors argument not work? The only way I can think of that Intel might be able to lock out SLI is to completely disable one of the PCIe-x16 slot if it detects two nVidia cards in the system. If someone has two cards and isn't running SLI but want the extra monitors (and there are people out there who do this), then an entire video isn't going to work. When the test the card in the other slot it works. SO they research it on the internet and find out "Oh, f@$#ing Intel decided that I couldn't have two nVidia cards in my siystem." Then Intel's got a runaway snowball in the bad publicity department.

 

[Yraen]

If Intel is blocking SLI from running on their chipsets, why can Dell (and others) sell Intel systems with SLI and Quad-SLI?

The people out there running SLI on an Intel chipset are running it with older or hacked nVidia drivers, not Intel chipset drivers.

It's nVidia who is stopping SLI from working on any other chipset save their own. Why? 3 Million Chipsets. That's a lot of cash to get.

 

[BinarySynapse]

If Intel is blocking SLI from running on their chipsets, why can Dell (and others) sell Intel systems with SLI and Quad-SLI?

The people out there running SLI on an Intel chipset are running it with older or hacked nVidia drivers, not Intel chipset drivers.

It's nVidia who is stopping SLI from working on any other chipset save their own. Why? 3 Million Chipsets. That's a lot of cash to get.

Dell doesn't use an Intel chipset on their SLI systems They use an nVIdia chipset

 

[$BangforThe$]

I woudln't sue. I'm not a sue happy type of person, and I'm smart to find out if something is going to work with what I've got before I spend a bunch of money on it. However the average joe consumer out there who just bought a new computer and wants to upgrade the video card to run in SLI, but has an Intel chipset probably wouldn't be as observant of thing l ike that.

That being siad. Intel is more likely to be sued than nVidia because Intel has no competeing graphics card line. nVidia on the other hand is a company that build GPUs and Chipsets. There arguement in a suit could easily be that "nVidia design a chipset and GPU solution that combined gives outstanding performance. We do not design the Intel chipsets and cannot gaurantee a satisfactory end user experience. So we do not support SLI configuration on non nVidia chipset." Intel on the other hand wouldn't have much ground to stand on and would look extrememly anti-competitive in a lawsuit

So your saying NV argument would be that there chipsets are better than INTELS. LOL LOL LOL.. Intel by most peoples logic would look OK . Because it is NV that blocked sli on Intel chipsets . The fact that ATI allowed its XF to work on Intel chipsets . Either proves your argument false about Intels chipset capabilities . Or the that NV is nor capable of making drivers capable of running on Intel chipsets. You see ATI running XF on Intel chipsets destroys your argument and also exposes the true villian here NV.

 

[BinarySynapse]

So your saying NV argument would be that there chipsets are better than INTELS. LOL LOL LOL.. Intel by most peoples logic would look OK . Because it is NV that blocked sli on Intel chipsets . The fact that ATI allowed its XF to work on Intel chipsets . Either proves your argument false about Intels chipset capabilities . Or the that NV is nor capable of making drivers capable of running on Intel chipsets. You see ATI running XF on Intel chipsets destroys your argument and also exposes the true villian here NV.

I've been saying that it's NV doing the locking to begin with. And their reason for doing it is more 'sound' than Intel's reason would be. Please go back and re-read my posts and use a little reading comprehension with some hypothetical evaluation.

I'm not saying that either company would be right for doing so. Just saying that one reason sounds better than the other.

 

[Donnie27]

True there is no way to have Intel block it physically. However, they can block it legally. And if Nvidia refused to sign any kind of a licensing agreement (sound familiar?) then Intel can sue Nvidia if Nvidia doesn't make reasonable attempts to block SLI from working on Intel chipsets.

Why would Nvidia not allow it? Because of chipset sales? Honestly they make far more on a gpu sale than a chipset sale, so allowing it would open them up to more profit not less. However, it probably isn't enough profit to justify a "licensing payment". For ATI the licensing payment is justified by the sheer need to be in the dual card market at all, even if such a license eats up the profits on being in that market.

I mean think about it. Do you think Intel wants a Nvidia motherboard in a Dell machine, just so it can do SLI? No. But Intel doesn't make a lot of profit on chipsets really, and Nvidia is a competitor so honestly this is one way to simply put them a bit further away from the pie. It begins to makes sense when you think about Intel getting into the gpu business. Wouldn't it be nice in 2007 if Intel could offer its own dual card solution that works on 975 chipsets and above? What kind of a potential market would they have if Nvidia was already in all those potential customer machines already?

The very likely behemoth in all this is Intel. It's not guaranteed, because Nvidia has been known to be utterly stupid. But I doubt they are so incredibly dumb as to ignore what selling a 2nd card could mean to all the 975 owners. And they are probably smart enough to not want to tangle with Intel's legal department.

Anyway the end round is that it doesn't serve the end user at all. The end user doesn't get a simple choice that is physically possible on the machine. That very point, smacks of an Intel strategy. Intel is never in it for the customer. They are always looking for where they can make money and keep the customer on a leash and a planned upgrade path.

So the signs point to this being Intel's fault. We are just mistaken if we look at it from a hardware capability angle only.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2322&p=1

If you have been following the news, some very strange things are going on with the nVidia nForce4 chipsets. About six weeks ago, MSI showed an nForce4 ULTRA motherboard with a regular x16 PCIe slot, plus an open-ended x4 PCIe slot. Those who saw the demos said that MSI was running two matched video cards in what they called a "semi-SLI mode", which ran at about 90% of the performance of normal nVidia SLI. This was an interesting development because nF4 Ultra chipsets are cheaper than nF4 SLI chipsets....................Just as quickly, we learned that nVidia was not happy with this "SLI hack" and they changed their drivers quickly so that "semi-SLI would not work with current and later Forceware drivers." It appears that the later Forceware drivers check the chipset ID and if the driver sees "Ultra", then SLI is not enabled. MSI decided to kill the "semi-SLI" board because it would be a nightmare supporting a board that would only run with older nVidia SLI drivers.

http://www.techgage.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-676.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nvidia
Nvidia will not enable SLI support for Intel chipsets. Intel chipsets do not provide enough bandwidth to support SLI.

Sean Cleveland
Technical Marketing Manager
Platform Product Reviews
NVIDIA Corporation

Always Intel's fault uh?

When a certain Person Cracked/Hacked the drivers for SLI, so they would work on i975. Who went after him and said they'd sue.
A. NVIDIA
B. Intel

If you answer B then Fad and the rest of the Intel bashing gang at the Inquirer would be correct. If you answer A, then of course they are FOS as usual. Intel and NVIDIA did sign a License agreement and NVIDIA finally admitted to blocking SLI on i975 or any other Intel chipset. NVIDIA said "We only certify our SLI drivers for Dual 16X operation". Since Intel uses two 8X slots, it’s blocked.

http://205.177.13.145/sendto_friend.x/7643/
Intel and NVIDIA sign cross-license agreement
09:27 am, November 19, 2004

Now with all of that said, Intel would be phucking IDIOTS to allow nVidia an open end license for their tech while nvidia continually does the opposite. nVidia’s blocking of SLI is a joke BTW. The smoothness of how and why they’re doing it will be seen as a classic years later. They even threayened to Sue to keep them blocked, there’s at lease one more person in Israel Intel should hire, wink!

 

[Donnie27]

I've been saying that it's NV doing the locking to begin with. And their reason for doing it is more 'sound' than Intel's reason would be. Please go back and re-read my posts and use a little reading comprehension with some hypothetical evaluation.

I'm not saying that either company would be right for doing so. Just saying that one reason sounds better than the other.

No it's not IMHO. nVidia knows damned well they wouldn't have that Dell deal if they'd not locked Intel out SLI Driver wise=P Dell, just like many of us, like Intel chips better=P It can't build better so it needs a leg up in another way. Yes, it is a sound reason alright.

 

[$BangforThe$]

I've been saying that it's NV doing the locking to begin with. And their reason for doing it is more 'sound' than Intel's reason would be. Please go back and re-read my posts and use a little reading comprehension with some hypothetical evaluation.

I'm not saying that either company would be right for doing so. Just saying that one reason sounds better than the other.

Ry. I know what you said its your argument that isn't sound. NV blocked Intel . Why shouldn't intel do the same? Intel already has a supply problem with chipsets . Blocking sli won't hurt Intel at all. NV has there own chipset . If NV is so good with chipsets this should be a none issue.

 

[$BangforThe$]

No it's not IMHO. nVidia knows damned well they wouldn't have that Dell deal if they'd not locked Intel out SLI Driver wise=P Dell, just like many of us, like Intel chips better=P It can't build better so it needs a leg up in another way. Yes, it is a sound reason alright.

Whats Dell got to do with anything were talking about here. That reasoning is so weak its unbeleavable.

 

[Jason711]

NVIDIA said "We only certify our SLI drivers for Dual 16X operation". Since Intel uses two 8X slots, it’s blocked.

if thats true then my epox board that is locked to 8x isnt officially supported.

 

[Yraen]

Dell doesn't use an Intel chipset on their SLI systems They use an nVIdia chipset

You're right Ryan, my mistake. I did some more searching, just to verify what you said and came up with some interesting things.

Whats Dell got to do with anything were talking about here.

What Dell has to do with it is what we're talking about, chipsets.
nVidia and Dell partner on SLI x16 chipset.
Another

The reasoning is simple. Dell produces more computers than anyone else right now. If your chipset is in this line, you're going to make more money.

For most of the people who read these types of forums, this isn't an option so we tend not to think about it. For most people who want a gaming system though, the Dells of the world are the major option. They simply want a machine they can just turn on and go, no tweaking, no testing different drivers, no figuring out the best overclock they can achieve.

The volume shipping they do to the Dells of the world is where their bread is buttered. To enable SLI on Intel chipsets would mean that Dell and other builders wouldn't carry nVidia chipsets and that would ensure that a nVidia chipset was only an option if you were building an AMD system. By denyign this on Intel, they ensure that most people will get a nVidia chipset motherboard to run SLI if they are going to buy or build an Intel system.

 

[BinarySynapse]

So in conclusion ....

If nVidia locks SLI to nVidia only chipsets they gain the upper hand in the gaming market.

For nVIdia to lock SLI into nVidia only chipset means more business for them from the OEM's who make up a massive percentage of the market.

If Intel locks SLI out of Intel Chipsets they shoot themselves in the foot.

For Intel to lock their hardware out of 45-50% of the gaming market does not make much business sense even if they are having a supply problem (which I don't know how that would affect things if it wre true since there was no link supporting it)

 

[pxc]

NVIDIA said "We only certify our SLI drivers for Dual 16X operation". Since Intel uses two 8X slots, it’s blocked.

That's nonsense from nvidia. nvidia made 2 models of NF4 SLI chipsets, one made to run SLI at 8x/8x (AMD:NF4 SLI and Intel:NF4 SLI XE) and one for 16x/16x (NF4 SLI X16). I've owned 2 of the 8x/8x boards (Gigabyte GA-K8N-SLI and Abit AN8-SLI) and both are still supported for SLI. http://www.nvidia.com/page/nforce4_family.html

nvidia wants market share and less support requests for 3rd party chipsets it seems.

 

[Poncho]

Your saying Intel can't block sli from working on its chipsets is just plain wrong Intel can stop sli in software.

I'm not saying that Intel can't block it, but it would have to be with software. All of the information to make it work with hardware is out there for nVidia to make it work. THey can get a hold of intel's PCIe spec if they like. Now... that only leaves software and that could put intel into an interesting legal situation, it would have to specifially target nVidia cards and disable them otherwise you would lock out crossfire as well... it's just not worth it since allowing SLI does not hurt Intel in ANY way. Repeat that please.... SLI on Intel chipsets will not hurt them in any way, shape, or form. Bottom line with this is that SLI on Intel chipsets will only hurt nVidia since who in their right mind would buy a nForce board when you can get SLI on Intel chipsets? Yea, nobody.

Why would Intel block SLI . Because NV didn't allow Sli to work on intel M/B's

This argument makes no sense. Intel, AMD, ATI, nVidia are business' and they will do what they can to make money. It's not like this forum where people do things becuase they are loyal !!!!!!s. Again... it's about the money. Paul Otellini isn't sitting at his desk plotting about how Intel is going to get back at nVidia since they were mean to Intel. Look at it from a money perspective and it'll all make sense. Sli on Intel Chipsets will make INtel more money and cause nVidia to lose money. So... who's blocking SLI again?

 

[Donnie27]

That's nonsense from nvidia. nvidia made 2 models of NF4 SLI chipsets, one made to run SLI at 8x/8x (AMD:NF4 SLI and Intel:NF4 SLI XE) and one for 16x/16x (NF4 SLI X16). I've owned 2 of the 8x/8x boards (Gigabyte GA-K8N-SLI and Abit AN8-SLI) and both are still supported for SLI. http://www.nvidia.com/page/nforce4_family.html

nvidia wants market share and less support requests for 3rd party chipsets it seems.

Yup just as I tried mine, Asus A8N SLI with two 8X that works perfectly so I know they're FOS!

 

[$BangforThe$]

You're right Ryan, my mistake. I did some more searching, just to verify what you said and came up with some interesting things.



What Dell has to do with it is what we're talking about, chipsets.
nVidia and Dell partner on SLI x16 chipset.
Another

The reasoning is simple. Dell produces more computers than anyone else right now. If your chipset is in this line, you're going to make more money.

For most of the people who read these types of forums, this isn't an option so we tend not to think about it. For most people who want a gaming system though, the Dells of the world are the major option. They simply want a machine they can just turn on and go, no tweaking, no testing different drivers, no figuring out the best overclock they can achieve.

The volume shipping they do to the Dells of the world is where their bread is buttered. To enable SLI on Intel chipsets would mean that Dell and other builders wouldn't carry nVidia chipsets and that would ensure that a nVidia chipset was only an option if you were building an AMD system. By denyign this on Intel, they ensure that most people will get a nVidia chipset motherboard to run SLI if they are going to buy or build an Intel system.

The NV hardcore sliers will buy NV chipset ether way.Major Majority of them anyway.

Ati hardcorers will XF with the ATI chipsets. That leaves Intel forcing some nv faithful to Intel with that person insisting on Intel chipset for Conroe . It also makes the ATI fan happy because they have a choice as they played nice with Intel.

Intel caught NV tring to stack the deck . Now its payback time.

 

[$BangforThe$]

I'm not saying that Intel can't block it, but it would have to be with software. All of the information to make it work with hardware is out there for nVidia to make it work. THey can get a hold of intel's PCIe spec if they like. Now... that only leaves software and that could put intel into an interesting legal situation, it would have to specifially target nVidia cards and disable them otherwise you would lock out crossfire as well... it's just not worth it since allowing SLI does not hurt Intel in ANY way. Repeat that please.... SLI on Intel chipsets will not hurt them in any way, shape, or form. Bottom line with this is that SLI on Intel chipsets will only hurt nVidia since who in their right mind would buy a nForce board when you can get SLI on Intel chipsets? Yea, nobody.



This argument makes no sense. Intel, AMD, ATI, nVidia are business' and they will do what they can to make money. It's not like this forum where people do things becuase they are loyal !!!!!!s. Again... it's about the money. Paul Otellini isn't sitting at his desk plotting about how Intel is going to get back at nVidia since they were mean to Intel. Look at it from a money perspective and it'll all make sense. Sli on Intel Chipsets will make INtel more money and cause nVidia to lose money. So... who's blocking SLI again?

Poncho that a poor law argument . NV locked out Sli on Intel chipsets Intel threw software can allow NV single cards or double cards for Multi. displays to function But can lockout sli from operating. legally and threw software. You or I can make sli work But Dell won't beable to. Since were a minority . We don't mean a whole lot.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Poncho that a poor law argument . NV locked out Sli on Intel chipsets Intel threw software can allow NV single cards or double cards for Multi. displays to function But can lockout sli from operating. legally and threw software. You or I can make sli work But Dell won't beable to. Since were a minority . We don't mean a whole lot.

Number One: it's through, not threw.
Number Two: i believe it's against the rules to double post the way you have many times in this thread alone.
Number Three: It's not a poor law arguement since Intel lawyers are probably well aware that it would be quite illegal for Intel allow Company A to work properly on their product, but blocks Company B through intentional and direct action. It's called anticompetitive

and

Number Four: How can Intel use software to block SLI working without affecting non SLI double card solutions? They don't write the OS or the drivers for the video cards.

 

[Poncho]

Poncho that a poor law argument . NV locked out Sli on Intel chipsets Intel threw software can allow NV single cards or double cards for Multi. displays to function But can lockout sli from operating. legally and threw software. You or I can make sli work But Dell won't beable to. Since were a minority . We don't mean a whole lot.

Ok... let me ask this one more time. What does Intel lose if they allow SLI? What does nVidia lose if SLI works on Intel's chipsets? Who has more to lose by allowing SLI? Who gains from SLI on Intel's chipset? Answer these questions and logic will dictate who is responsible for not having SLI on Intel's chipsets.

 

[$BangforThe$]

Ok... let me ask this one more time. What does Intel lose if they allow SLI? What does nVidia lose if SLI works on Intel's chipsets? Who has more to lose by allowing SLI? Who gains from SLI on Intel's chipset? Answer these questions and logic will dictate who is responsible for not having SLI on Intel's chipsets.

Poncho Intel loses nothing if they allow sli. Thats not the point . In my personal life I try to deal with people who have princples. I think the correct thing for Intel to do in this instances even if it hurts them slightly is to say . Fuck you nvidia. Thats just my feelings on the matter. NV locked Intel chipsets out. Now that Intel has the best processor NV will want the sells also from conroe. Intel should just slide NV the middle finger. Thats what nv did to all of us. I guess I would like intel to do for all of us what we can't do to NV.

 

[$BangforThe$]

Number One: it's through, not threw.
Number Two: i believe it's against the rules to double post the way you have many times in this thread alone.
Number Three: It's not a poor law arguement since Intel lawyers are probably well aware that it would be quite illegal for Intel allow Company A to work properly on their product, but blocks Company B through intentional and direct action. It's called anticompetitive

and

Number Four: How can Intel use software to block SLI working without affecting non SLI double card solutions? They don't write the OS or the drivers for the video cards.

number one you understood I meant threw .
number two the double post were mistakes.
number three. If nv can lock out Intel chipsets on sli . Intel should be allowed to do the same. I didn't know the law allowed for double standards. So you admitt NV has been breaking the law for some time and has taken choice away from us users. Thats I good first step for you when in denial.

 

[drizzt81]

Number One: it's through, not threw.

*rotfl* you are trying to theach $BFT$ spelling. lols. Never going to happen. After you read 2 of his posts you should know that he intentionally spells wrong, because it must be cool or something.

On a different note:
nVidia has a much easier time blocking SLI on non-nV board, since they are the ones writing the GFX driver. as the link from Anandtech explains, they have done it before.

 

[BinarySynapse]

number one you understood I meant threw .
number two the double post were mistakes.
number three. If nv can lock out Intel chipsets on sli . Intel should be allowed to do the same. I didn't know the law allowed for double standards. So you admitt NV has been breaking the law for some time and has taken choice away from us users. Thats I good first step for you when in denial.

using reading comprehension I've deduced that the word through as in "through the gate" is what you should have said instead of threw and in "threw the ball"

you've double posted in every time you make a post. It's called edit.

Nvivdia makes they're own graphics gpu solution that works on their own chipsets. They don't have to provide a means for it to work on EVERY chipset as long as they don't single out a single company's product like you're saying Intel has done. No double standard.

Here's a quick example.

I make a two products that work together. Those products were designed for each other. I have no responsibility or liability to make sure my products work with your products. I can team up with another person and make my product work with their product and that's fine.

What I can't do however is make a product and allow everyone else's products to work with mine, then turn around and say "No, I don't like you, I'm going to intentionally block ONLY your product from working with mine, but allow everyone else's to work." That's anticompetitive. and therefore illegal.

 

[$BangforThe$]

using reading comprehension I've deduced that the word through as in "throught the gate" is what you should have said instead of threw and in "threw the ball"

you've double posted in every time you make a post. It's called edit.

Nvivdia makes they're own graphics gpu solution that works on their own chipsets. They don't have to provide a means for it to work on EVERY chipset as long as they don't single out a single compnay's product like you're saying Intel has done. No double standard.

I don't know what your problem is here . NV graphics cards work fine with intel chipsets.

Sli is locked out by NV now. If nv wants to unlock SLi for Intel chipsets now . Intel can leagally block it without breaking the law. NV is the bad apple here not Intel not ATI . Nvidia is the spoiler. Spin it which ever way you want its just spin. NV chipsets suck any way . NV products actually are sucky . read this and comprehend.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32809

 

[BinarySynapse]

I don't know what your problem is here . NV graphics cards work fine with intel chipsets.

Sli is locked out by NV now. If nv wants to unlock SLi for Intel chipsets now . Intel can leagally block it without breaking the law. NV is the bad apple here not Intel not ATI . Nvidia is the spoiler. Spin it which ever way you want its just spin. NV chipsets suck any way . NV products actually are sucky . read this and comprehend.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32809

I don't have a problem, and nVidia graphics cards work great on Intel chipsets, yes. BUT SLI doesn't. Yes you can hack the driver's to make it work, but good luck geting nVidia's help if you happen to have a problem.

I've been saying this whole time that nVidia is the one doing the blocking. I've also been giving reason why Intel CAN'T block SLI

and I'm not spinning anything. Everything I've said is so straight forward that my wife understands the concept. And she has no idea what I'm talking about.

EDIT: i'm sorry but I'm not about to waste my intellect reading some garbage that the Inquirer has posted. If that's where you get your information it's no wonder you can't grasp the concepts I'm laying out.

 

[$BangforThe$]

This is funny another smart guy.

[ Quote ] Ryan

EDIT: i'm sorry but I'm not about to waste my intellect reading some garbage that the Inquirer has posted. If that's where you get your information it's no wonder you can't grasp the concepts I'm laying out.

I understand what your saying completely . The thing you don't understand or refuse to believe. Is that the law is not that short sited. Look nv can allow sli on Intel chipsets. By law Intel can do what has been done to it. So long as a single nv gpu works on the intel chipset thats all that matters. As for the rest of your argument read this.I decided because its an inquire article you don't care that intel is coming out with a VC. So no link

 

[BinarySynapse]

This is funny another smart guy.

[ Quote ] Ryan

EDIT: i'm sorry but I'm not about to waste my intellect reading some garbage that the Inquirer has posted. If that's where you get your information it's no wonder you can't grasp the concepts I'm laying out.

I uberstand what your saying completely . The think you don't understand or refuse to believe is that the law is that short sited. Look nv can allow sli on Intel chipsets. By law Intel can do what has been done to it. So long as a single nv gpu works on the intel chipset thats all that matters. As for the rest of your argument read this.

I've read this four times now hoping to get something to grasp a hold of to help me to understand what the hell you just said. All I have to say is "WHAT?"

I don't read the Inquirer because every time I've read one of their most enlightening articles I've walked away feeling much much dumber. They spout garbage and collect money from the advertising.

 

[$BangforThe$]

Fixed

 

[BinarySynapse]

.I decided because its an inquire article you don't care that intel is coming out with a VC. So no link

You don't know me well enough to say what I care about. All I've said is the if it's coming from the INQ, then it's most likely BS. If you can break aways from you love affair with the INQ long enough to find an actual link to a CREDIBLE site, I'l lbe more than glad to read it.

 

[Poncho]

Poncho Intel loses nothing if they allow sli. Thats not the point . In my personal life I try to deal with people who have princples. I think the correct thing for Intel to do in this instances even if it hurts them slightly is to say . Fuck you nvidia. Thats just my feelings on the matter. NV locked Intel chipsets out. Now that Intel has the best processor NV will want the sells also from conroe. Intel should just slide NV the middle finger. Thats what nv did to all of us. I guess I would like intel to do for all of us what we can't do to NV.

Since when does "principals" apply to business? It's ALL about money..... nothing more, nothing less. You are looking at this all wrong. If Intel can increase it's market share, even half a percent without doing a damn thing then they will.

 

[$BangforThe$]

Since when does "principals" apply to business? It's ALL about money..... nothing more, nothing less. You are looking at this all wrong. If Intel can increase it's market share, even half a percent without doing a damn thing then they will.

Time for the world to change or there won't be one!