HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Bit-Tech is reporting that Intel has filed a lawsuit against NVIDIA. While the details at this point are limited, it appears that the lawsuit is over chipset licensing.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Intel Files Lawsuit Against Nvidia
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
GilmourD
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2004
- Messages
- 11,185
nVidia: Hey, Intel. We'll be nice. Here, you can have SLI.
Intel: We's gunna sues you's guys anyway!!! RAWR!!!
Intel: We's gunna sues you's guys anyway!!! RAWR!!!
Mine's AMD anyways. Benchmark the two all you want, but realistically, who cares? lol
Vermillion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,415
Why would Intel care if their chipsets support SLI or not?
It certainly didn't stop them from selling X38/X48 and P35/P45 based motherboards since the C2D and C2Q slaughtered everything AMD had at the time.
It was nVidia's own fault SLI wasn't available on Intel based 775 chipsets.
One of the things that makes Intel so good is their chipsets, they always work right the first time.
I never understood why anybody would want to put a Intel cpu on anything other than an Intel chipset.
Go through the [H]forums and you will find many issues across a wide range of Nvidia chipsets.
Bash Intel all you want, they make the best stuff.
Intel's had their shares of screw ups just like anyone else.
I don't want a buggy piece of shit nvidia chipset... i want the CHOICE to have a buggy piece of shit nvidia chipset.
I'll buy whoever can provide the best performance for the cheapest price. It just so happens to be AMD at the moment because of the pricing on Intel motherboards (apparently intentional pricing by Intel at that).
"We'll sell the CPU cheaper, charge more for the chipset needed to run it. That'll make us look like the cheaper choice when people decide on their CPU, yet we still make just as much as if we had the higher CPU price. What? Nvidia wants to make chipsets because of a 4 year contract? Sue them! If they get to make them then we have competition and that's unfair no matter what agreement we made before!"
"We'll sell the CPU cheaper, charge more for the chipset needed to run it. That'll make us look like the cheaper choice when people decide on their CPU, yet we still make just as much as if we had the higher CPU price. What? Nvidia wants to make chipsets because of a 4 year contract? Sue them! If they get to make them then we have competition and that's unfair no matter what agreement we made before!"
Simpson5774
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,937
Okay, lets see if I get this right.
Nvidia, signs an agreement with intel, allowing nvidia to produce chipsets w/ memory controllers for intel cpus, nvidia starts producing said chipsets. Time goes by, intel changes the socket, and changes removes the memory controller from the process, intel then rejects nvidia's desire to produce chipsets for this new socket / processor. But on top of that, intel is suing nvidia for this same reason? What chipset has nvidia produced i7 for intel to be suing them for?
Nvidia, signs an agreement with intel, allowing nvidia to produce chipsets w/ memory controllers for intel cpus, nvidia starts producing said chipsets. Time goes by, intel changes the socket, and changes removes the memory controller from the process, intel then rejects nvidia's desire to produce chipsets for this new socket / processor. But on top of that, intel is suing nvidia for this same reason? What chipset has nvidia produced i7 for intel to be suing them for?
Silent.Sin
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 969
Actually it might. Any potential user that wants to have the option of SLI would have to move to a different motherboard. Intel wants as many people to be able to use its motherboards as possible obviously. I think that's the reason they actually went ahead and licensed SLI for their "Smackover"
board. That's the high end enthusiast board and those users want every option under the sun available, even if they don't wind up using it.You guys are pointing fingers at Intel for trying to bully NVidia? Really it's NVidia doing the bullying. Why make people buy licenses for features that ALREADY WORK on the chipset? That really only winds up costing the consumer more money in the end. The X58 can get by just fine without any necessary input from NVidia, yet you need a "license" in order to legally support it, or the NF200 chip which is actually slower than the native X58 solution. Seems to me it's just another shady act from NVidia trying to milk money that caused this suit, not Intel.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
In other new rock sues roll.
Vermillion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,415
Actually it might. Any potential user that wants to have the option of SLI would have to move to a different motherboard. Intel wants as many people to be able to use its motherboards as possible obviously. I think that's the reason they actually went ahead and licensed SLI for their "Smackover"
You guys are pointing fingers at Intel for trying to bully NVidia? Really it's NVidia doing the bullying. Why make people buy licenses for features that ALREADY WORK on the chipset? That really only winds up costing the consumer more money in the end. The X58 can get by just fine without any necessary input from NVidia, yet you need a "license" in order to legally support it, or the NF200 chip which is actually slower than the native X58 solution. Seems to me it's just another shady act from NVidia trying to milk money that caused this suit, not Intel.
But multi-gpu systems are a small niche market and even smaller in this case since Crossfire functions on Intel 775 chipsets meaning only those dying for SLI would be SOL. I think Intel would rather worry about the mass market then the small amount of people looking for an SLI solution. Even here on the [H] there are many people that would rather have a fast single card solution versus a multi-gpu solution that may or may not cause them grief.
And every company does shady crap. Intel has done their fair share but I don't think this new lawsuit is shady. I see it more as payback for having to license the NF200.
I see where NVIDIA is coming from in their response further up the page. After playing with ION hands-on and seeing what a good integrated GPU with a low power CPU can do I can understand Intel freaking out.
Intel is already doing what I consider to be illegal tying (I am not a lawyer, so YMMV). In order to get a good deal on Atom, you must also buy the Intel turd-stain chipset to go with it. If you are an OEM and want to build an Atom rig that doesn't suck ass (IE: ION) you either pay for a chipset you will never use or pay WAY more for the CPU all by itself.
Intel can't do graphics. That is clear. They consistently ride the short-bus to fail-town every time they try. So to compensate they do shit like tie their crap graphics to their CPUs and sue those who can do graphics to prevent them from working in the lucrative chipset space. Margins on most CPUs are very thin. The money is in the chipsets. This is just another anti-competitive move to exclude nvidia from that market.
Intel is already doing what I consider to be illegal tying (I am not a lawyer, so YMMV). In order to get a good deal on Atom, you must also buy the Intel turd-stain chipset to go with it. If you are an OEM and want to build an Atom rig that doesn't suck ass (IE: ION) you either pay for a chipset you will never use or pay WAY more for the CPU all by itself.
Intel can't do graphics. That is clear. They consistently ride the short-bus to fail-town every time they try. So to compensate they do shit like tie their crap graphics to their CPUs and sue those who can do graphics to prevent them from working in the lucrative chipset space. Margins on most CPUs are very thin. The money is in the chipsets. This is just another anti-competitive move to exclude nvidia from that market.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I would think that Intel better stop this crap or eventually anti-trust will catch up with them. People get on Microsoft all the time about being a convicted monopolist and yet Intel is no doubt a monopoly and they are doing nothing but shutting out their best competition in the chipset business.
Maybe they just want nVidia to pony up some more money for a new license but I can't see them shutting them out for long before Intel brings anti-trust law on top of itself.
Maybe they just want nVidia to pony up some more money for a new license but I can't see them shutting them out for long before Intel brings anti-trust law on top of itself.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,601
That's not going to happen: AMD is still big enough to be seen as a major competitor, and more power to them. I want to go AMD on my next build just because of Intel's BS.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,601
I was simply asking a question. So, no, not a joke.
I read the linked article and I am unsure how this applies to NVIDIA's situation. Please explain to me.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,601
Funny that NVIDIA is upset about not being able to produce products for a decaying CPU business. NVIDIA is done for if AMD holds on. It is grasping at straws.
These two love to fight Intel/Nvidia. Over the years each has cross licensed various parts of the others tech. I do believe that we are headed toward a more GPU centeric world, and Intel is feeling a pinch. But there is really no threat there. Intel still has the fastest x86 chip on the market. I doubt Nvidia will ever be able to build a decent x86 chip, not mention the licensing. Both companies should look backwards at each's install base, the Intel grant Nvidia a x86 licenses, and Nvidia give SLI to all the older Intel Chipsets, x38,x48,P35,P45 etc. This would make the vast majority of users very happy. Just my two cents
Nvidia said:
Is it just me or has Nvidia been smoking a lot of crack lately?
Ever since they started their campaign of, what can only be described as schoolyard smacktalk, last summer I have become increasingly disillusioned with their position.
I'm not sure Intel is the one with the decaying business here.
It's most likely a quality control thing. After the i690 chipset, Intel doesn't want nVidia screwing up Intel's "name" any worse than they already did.
..and BTW, it's nVidia that tried to bully Intel. They wanted to at first make the NF100 a requirement for SLI and charge for it, but no one went for it and the [H] even proved the NF100 doesn't do shit but make the boards more expensive.
..and BTW, it's nVidia that tried to bully Intel. They wanted to at first make the NF100 a requirement for SLI and charge for it, but no one went for it and the [H] even proved the NF100 doesn't do shit but make the boards more expensive.
They're smoking something,that's for sure.Their profits have taken a nosedive,they've had problems with faulty GPU's in laptops,their chipsets are junk,and ATI is finally giving them serious competition.Intel,on the other hand,has practically cornered the CPU market,the i7 platform is a big success,and the X58 gives people a far superior choice for a board with both SLI and Crossfire support.Nvidia clearly started this feud,did they think Intel was going to just sit there and take all the smack they were spouting?
Are you kidding me???? So what would you consider when NV locked out SLI from Intel chipsets back in the day?? Just so we could buy their POS chipsets............
Exactly. I have no sympathy for nVidia. They did this shit to themselves, and now they are the odd company out with no platform, no CPU, and no x86 license.
Good Luck nVidia.
Look, I don't get access to confidential info or anything but I can read news articles and I have acquaintances who are engineers at Nvidia.
There's a battle royale brewing. Intel is eventually going to have 32 or 64 cores on a CPU, and they want to convince the world that with this newfound parallel power that discreet GPUs are obsolete. To some extent, in basic devices, that could be true. For gamers and 3D purposes, Intel is living under the delusion that they will be able to start raytracing and eliminate the dedicated GPU. To that end, they want to force Nvidia off their chipsets so they can corner the market themselves.
Nvidia on the other hand sees the convergence from the other direction. Their GPUs become more and more like CPUs every day, but they are in a better position to win the graphics war. With hundreds of programable stream processors, they will go hybrid rendering whenever they have to, then to full raytracing. The difference? By the time Intel is ready to claim raytracing capability in a few years, Nvidia will likely be bringing many hundreds of parallel stream processors to the fight. Intel can do whatever they want with a 64 core CPU but it will never have the graphics power of 500 parallel stream units.
So my crystal ball says that five years from now we are still where we are now with dedicated GPUs still being the answer, we will just have another leap in rendering quality.
Intel traditionally fails in everything they do outside of core CPU production. I love their CPUs but they are still smoking the good stuff if they think this course will win them the graphics war.
And AMD/ATI? They're hurting bad. My crystal ball says they'll be gone as we know them in less than 12 months. Nvidia has the cash reserves to survive a year or two of horrible economy. AMD does not.
There's a battle royale brewing. Intel is eventually going to have 32 or 64 cores on a CPU, and they want to convince the world that with this newfound parallel power that discreet GPUs are obsolete. To some extent, in basic devices, that could be true. For gamers and 3D purposes, Intel is living under the delusion that they will be able to start raytracing and eliminate the dedicated GPU. To that end, they want to force Nvidia off their chipsets so they can corner the market themselves.
Nvidia on the other hand sees the convergence from the other direction. Their GPUs become more and more like CPUs every day, but they are in a better position to win the graphics war. With hundreds of programable stream processors, they will go hybrid rendering whenever they have to, then to full raytracing. The difference? By the time Intel is ready to claim raytracing capability in a few years, Nvidia will likely be bringing many hundreds of parallel stream processors to the fight. Intel can do whatever they want with a 64 core CPU but it will never have the graphics power of 500 parallel stream units.
So my crystal ball says that five years from now we are still where we are now with dedicated GPUs still being the answer, we will just have another leap in rendering quality.
Intel traditionally fails in everything they do outside of core CPU production. I love their CPUs but they are still smoking the good stuff if they think this course will win them the graphics war.
And AMD/ATI? They're hurting bad. My crystal ball says they'll be gone as we know them in less than 12 months. Nvidia has the cash reserves to survive a year or two of horrible economy. AMD does not.
like it or not, but...
x86 is x86 is x86, no matter the memory controllers
SLI is altogether something different than x86
so TS Eliot
kraemer007
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 120
Intel will "give up" on graphics like they have many times in the past. Intel apparently has not learned lessons from itanium, LCOS HDTV, or the old i740 graphics chip. They even had an MP3 player (the intel pocket concert) before apple shipped the 1st ipod. Talk about short sighted.
nVidia is having to fight to stay relevant. And then, all of a sudden, one of their allies has decided it's not going to play nice anymore. I hope nVidia has a business plan that involves more than classic gpus and chipsets, because I see this space disappearing in the next five years.
The Core I7's buss is Intel's intellectual property just like the all the rest of Intel's designs were. The CPU buss is not an open standard, it's proprietary unlike standards like PCI, AGP, USB, etc. Intel spent the R&D on designing it and they have a right to say who they share it with and at what price.
..and besides you have two other platforms from competing companies to choose from, you have AMD and you have VIA. Kinda sounds like the opposite of anti-trust violations to me.