• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Why is intel seemingly giving nvidia the shaft?

Tengis

Tengis

Supreme [H]ardness
2FA
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
6,536
Seems Ive read a lot recently about nvidia getting blackballed from doing anything with X intel chipsets on their new X processors (X = new chipset and/or processor name).

What is the purpose of this? I havent really seen anything specific saying WHY they are trying to give it to nvidia with no lube.
 
Well, if they (Intel) are the only one making chipsets for their new (and very popular) CPUs, they sell more chipsets. Now, obviously I have no facts to back this up, but it would seem likely that they earn more by selling their own chipsets rather than licensing to a third party. If they'd earn more by licensing, I'm sure they'd do it.
 
Intel and nVidia are having a little corporate squabble, although I'm not really sure why. I'm surprised they even got SLI going on the X58 platform, because it's sort of nasty between the two from what I have seen.

That being said, the new Intel chipsets seem to be very good in my experience. I'm not too worried about it. If nVidia's focusing on doing what they do best (video cards), then we're not really losing out.
 
tvih said:
Well, if they (Intel) are the only one making chipsets for their new (and very popular) CPUs, they sell more chipsets.
Click to expand...
Licensing wars always boil down to this very issue, no matter which way you look at it: if you don't allow any competitors to access technology only you have and the whole market wants, you'll make a truckload of money more by not letting anyone else make the thing.

Unless we're talking about niche market segments that need some parts of the technology that are very profitable and readily available, and some that are too expensive to make (or have low profit margins). Like the high-end 4-socket server market: for a while, AMD didn't have a good chipset for that segment, but NVIDIA had. AMD wasn't very worried about the chipset (it's a niche market, after all), but it still got to sell CPUs for it...

mrmylanman said:
Intel and nVidia are having a little corporate squabble, although I'm not really sure why.
Click to expand...
Money. And probably the fact NVIDIA said a while back the future of computing won't need CPUs... :D

mrmylanman said:
I'm surprised they even got SLI going on the X58 platform, because it's sort of nasty between the two from what I have seen.
Click to expand...
NVIDIA and Intel might be throwing everything they've got at each other right now, but NVIDIA is not dumb. Also, SLI, as much as NVIDIA wants you to believe otherwise, is NOT architecture dependent, it's driver-enforced.

First, NVIDIA knows that SLI can (and will) work on just about any motherboard with two PCIe slots (though the 16+4 configuration might yield sub-par results).

Second, enabling SLI depends solely on driver coding, which means NVIDIA doesn't even need to talk to Intel about it: manufacturers pony up the licensing fee, and presto, a BIOS string will tell the driver it's OK to enable SLI on that motherboard. Since Intel has nothing to do with enabling SLI on the newer motherboards, NVIDIA would actually be very dumb NOT allowing SLI if it can't/won't build chipsets for the high end market (where large profits are possible).

Now, one thing that irks me a little is WHY Intel is keeping so closed about allowing third-party chipsets. Money is always a good answer, as I said in the beginning, but there is one thing that eludes me.

Consider this: X58 is a VERY simple chip, since it's only a signal routing chip. It has QPI on one side, 8+8+8+8 PCIe 2.0 lanes on the other, and 4 PCIe 1.1 lanes in a corner, to enable the DMI connection to the Southbridge. Connectivity is the only concern, then, for X58. X48 is much more complex than this, since there is a memory controller in there.

P55 (and the whole x5x series, as well as ICH10R) is actually a bit more complex than X58, Southbridges (the x5x PCHs are little more than ICH10 variants, except for the H and Q variants, which have the extra FDI interface) have much more stuff going on than simple signal routing: DMI on one side, PCIe lanes on the other, along with SATA and USB controllers, NIC and HD Audio connections, etc..

All in all, however, these are still rather simple chips to produce (when compared to CPUs), and while Intel can make quite a profit from selling them (P55 is slightly cheaper than X48 but more than twice the price of ICH10R, while being more like ICH10 than X48), it seems to me producing these chips is such large quantities may limit the amount of other components (mainly CPUs on the 45nm node) that could be built, which bring higher overall profit.

And yes, I know Intel is still building on older nodes (65nm and even 90nm and 130nm), and I also know newer nodes are not implemented on all factories at the same time. But, since CPUs are hoarding more and more functions each generation, it seems rather weird clinging so tightly to interconnect technology (DMI and QPI) that does so little to influence performance nowadays...

Cheers.

Miguel
 
Saying Laramie was going to suck didn't help them either! :p ...even if they were right ;)
 
mrmylanman said:
What happened with that anyway? That didn't turn into the current integrated GPUs did it?
Click to expand...

It sucked so bad that they dropped it and said they'll work on it later. I was supposedly competitive with the highend cards from, like, three generations ago (which would make highend Larrabe about as fast as today's midlevel cards).
 
NoForgiveness said:
Can AMD buy nVidia?
Click to expand...

Definitely not now since along with ATI I definitely can see Intel calling it out as AMD trying to build a monopoly, even though Intel's share will still likely be bigger. But there were various reason why AMD didn't try to buy Nvidia before, going from issues on who would be on top to the amount of debt AMD had depending on the time period.
 
^^^ OMG, AMD buying Nvidia would make Intel think twice but then again if something like that would happen I don't see much creativity brewing after that point, or as fast as we would like it to be. Intel should just buy Nvidia and continue from there period! AMD then would really need to step up there game.
 
NoForgiveness said:
Can AMD buy nVidia?
Click to expand...

As was already posted that would be a monopoly in high end video segment. Although I think that Intel would still ahve more video on the market so depending on how the lawyers spin it..

This being said intel has to play nicely with nVidia.. Otherwise it would be possibly for AND to make there own next gen cards in a propitiatory video format that intel doesn't have rights to make chipsets that support. & Then ATI & nVidia both make there highest cards for this new slot & it would eliminate Intel from the Gaming & Enthusiast market. Lots of If's there, but I always love seeing the Bully thats messing up the PC market get screwed..
 
AMD could buy Nvidia if they had the cash - they don't, their acquisition of ATI put them in a hurt not so soon forgotten. They are in debt up to their eyeballs, but 2009 was a good year for AMD and that streak may continue!
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/StockNet/Income10.aspx?Country=USA&Symbol=AMD

There would be no lawsuits or monopoly issues because there are other vendors.

The reason Intel is upset with Nvida is that Nvidia's CEO is a dbag. He mocks and belittles Intel at every chance he gets for the last couple years in public statements, saying stuff like Intel's video processor has no chance of succedding, the future of PCs is GPUs and not CPUs, and Nvidia could make a better processor than Intel if they wanted. I own Nvidia stock and hate Nvidia's cocky attitude. I wish I didn't own their stock for the last two years, but hate to sell it at a loss. If Nvidia management was smart they would have bed intel from the time that AMD bought ATI and so they could at least have a strategic alliance rather than waring both sides. If Intel refuses to cooperate with Nvidia completely that will really hurt Nvidia as a company...With the fermi being a borderline disappointment the outlook may be overcast!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top