View Full Version : NVidia announces x86 chip?
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/248/1051248/nvidia-announces-x86-chip
NVIDIA ANNOUNCED AN x86 CPU – you know, those things that don't matter – yesterday at a Morgan Stanley conference.
Can anyone be bothered to listen to find out if that's really what happened?
Jawed
rendezvous
04-Mar-2009, 12:58
I can bother, and I'll try to summerize.
The question was if or when Nvidia would go in to the CPU market.
Paraphrased
"Some day, 2-3 years, it would make sense to take the same level of integration as tegra to the x86 market."
Doesn't say much at all, no mention of nvidia deveoping their own x96 blocks.
Found other audio streams of the event here
http://finance.aol.com/event/nvidia-corporation/nvda/nas/conference-calls
You call that announcing an x86 CPU? Gosh, Charlie must really be out of headlines. rendezvous' summary is pretty much spot on. The only thing they say is that it would make sense for MIDs and Netbooks in 2-3 years. I completely agree it implies they're interested in the market, but that doesn't even necessarily mean they're investing in it today - especially from an in-house R&D point of view. Heck, I suspect their handheld group would disagree that market makes any sense anyway given the R&D budget required.
It feels much more logical to me that this would indicate they've been talking with VIA about collaborating on a SoC on 28nm with a revenue sharing scheme or something like that. It's not impossible that they've got a project at the very early concept stage, but I'm not convinced. I'm pretty sure they had something in an early concept stage in 2H06/1H07 based on what Jen-Hsun said once, but given their change in tone later they probably canned it long, long ago.
I'd rather see them license those new out-of-order execution SMP ready ARM cores and integrate one (or more) into GPU architecture. Cell, your time is out.:lol:
Charlie is so antagonistic that he makes himself look like a total fool.
In any case, the real question is whether or not Nvidia will survive long enough for this to see the light of day. We have our doubts. Given that it was anounced at an investor conference, it is likely a shallow attempt to prop up the stock.
So he spends the first half talking about how he is right they are going to build an x86 chip, then the seconds saying they are just saying it to prop up stock and implying they are not going to build the chip.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/03/04/nvidia-reveals-plans-for-x86-cpu/1
In my view this piece makes it quite clear that NVidia is going to do x86. Indeed for a 3 year timescale NVidia would have to have the project underway already, I'd say.
An alternative, of course, is simply to licence x86 from Intel, say, and build a SoC with x86/Geforce all on the same bit of silicon. All done at TSMC.
The fact that Intel has just launched this capability sounds like quite an interesting match, no?
Jawed
rpg.314
04-Mar-2009, 14:55
Somehow, I doubt that Intel will give nv an x86 ip core or otherwise license. Going with VIA seems a more probable route
BTW, just thought I'd emphasize this: these statements are like 10x less conclusive than what Jen-Hsun said in early 2007 in a CC. And apparently not much came out of that, did it? And an in-house R&D program (versus a deal with VIA) makes no sense given Michael Hara's claim in the same CC that lowering OpEx further would compromise revenues, implicitly in the short/mid-term rather than speculative just long-term. This is all BS, sorry Charlie.
INKster
04-Mar-2009, 17:54
Maybe they'll just gonna put a few thousand of these (http://www.nvidia.com/page/uli_m6117c.html) on a single die and call it the day... ;)
Silent_Buddha
05-Mar-2009, 18:22
R&D into a possible entry of Nvidia into the x86 market would certainly make sense when combined with earlier statements by Jen-Hsun that they would greatly increase R&D funding this year.
And as Jawed said, if they are trying for something, they would have to have already started R&D on it...
Of course the counter to that is all the vitriol that Jen-Hsun has been saying towards CPUs in general and how their importance was waning.
Regards,
SB
Of course the counter to that is all the vitriol that Jen-Hsun has been saying towards CPUs in general and how their importance was waning.
On the other hand, unified shading was teh suck according to Nvidia all the way until they were first to the market with such a GPU.
On the other hand, unified shading was teh suck according to Nvidia all the way until they were first to the market with such a GPU.
Same thing with AA back then, remember all the "would you rather have AA and low res or a very high res with no AA" statements.
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/tough-times-ahead-for-nvidia-part-two-587706?artc_pg=2
Will the company eventually be forced to somehow get in on the x86 game and produce a CPU core of its own?
Here, Nvidia is currently putting out mixed messages. Perez dismisses the idea, saying, "We didn't need x86 for our first 15 years and we won't need it for our next 15."
Jawed
Blazkowicz
27-Mar-2009, 22:26
Maybe they'll just gonna put a few thousand of these (http://www.nvidia.com/page/uli_m6117c.html) on a single die and call it the day... ;)
very interesting!
It appears to be the ancestors of DM&P's x86 SoCs (the vortex86 series).
They make tiny PCs from them that can make cheap, low power thin clients
http://www.dmp.com.tw/
http://www.compactpc.com.tw/ebox-3300.htm
INKster
28-Mar-2009, 14:25
Follow-up.
A way around (http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20090327PD204.html) the Intel x86 license ?
If i understand it correctly, all the Cyrix-derived x86 IP is Intel licensing-free because it's clean reverse engineering work, and VIA can order production to any foundry with a previous x86 license (IBM, TI, etc), so... ;)
VIA has been using all kinds 'a foundries, TSMC, Fujitsu..
Maybe a Cel..GeForce with a Nano core (or two), some shader clusters, a HyperTransport bus and some GDDR5 controllers on it? :shock::grin:
@inkster wouldnt they then have to reverse engineer all the sse instructions
and how willing would amd be to license amd64
INKster
30-Mar-2009, 01:42
@inkster wouldnt they then have to reverse engineer all the sse instructions
and how willing would amd be to license amd64
VIA's Nano/CN x86 CPU already supports those at least up to SSSE3 and x86-64.
Nvidia could (like AMD with the only partially SSE4-compatible future SSE5, vs Intel's future AVX) just fork it from here, and use their experience in small floating point units to their advantage, i suppose.
The main concern, proper x86/x64 software compatibility, has been addressed already by Centaur/VIA.
What amazes me the most is that the Centaur subsidiary can design such a complex thing as the Nano CPU with a "mere" 100 or so engineers...
3dilettante
30-Mar-2009, 13:21
It's more understandable given how long it's taken that team to make a moderate-performance OoO x86 CPU, and how that design was rarely seen at all in the months (a year?) since it's been announced.
INKster
30-Mar-2009, 14:58
It's more understandable given how long it's taken that team to make a moderate-performance OoO x86 CPU, and how that design was rarely seen at all in the months (a year?) since it's been announced.
I believe they have been having issues with Fujitsu's 65nm process technology. Therefore, a move to TSMC for the 40/45nm dual-core version seems like a reasonable choice, given enough time to port it.
3dilettante
30-Mar-2009, 19:49
That is more an indication that Via cannot engineer its way through process issues, but must skip a process node for a moderate-performance x86 design. An uninspiring result that makes the small team size loom large.
I think the most desired outcome when hitting process problems would be to have the resources to engineer a solution, instead of punting the whole design rollout down a process node and a different fab and negating all tentative design plans by customers.
That must be a misunderstanding - they did fix the issue, and it's either in mass production right now or ready for mass production. I suspect INKster simply meant that this negative experience will push them to go for another foundry on the next generation...
Although I have no idea where INKster got the idea that VIA didn't need an Intel license - they definitely got one, and had more than a few issues (to say the least) back in the early 00s when they didn't have an official one. And it can't be transfered in a purchase, so my favorite strategy is still for NVIDIA to "license" some GPU IP to VIA for a SoC; i.e. they really do all the design work and can work as much together as they want, but legally speaking the money goes to VIA first which then transfers large royalty payments (presumably proportional to the GPU's die size rather than the IP's apparent value like in the handheld world) back to NV.
That must be a misunderstanding - they did fix the issue, and it's either in mass production right now or ready for mass production. I suspect INKster simply meant that this negative experience will push them to go for another foundry on the next generation...
Although I have no idea where INKster got the idea that VIA didn't need an Intel license - they definitely got one, and had more than a few issues (to say the least) back in the early 00s when they didn't have an official one. And it can't be transfered in a purchase, so my favorite strategy is still for NVIDIA to "license" some GPU IP to VIA for a SoC; i.e. they really do all the design work and can work as much together as they want, but legally speaking the money goes to VIA first which then transfers large royalty payments (presumably proportional to the GPU's die size rather than the IP's apparent value like in the handheld world) back to NV.
That sounds like a really good deal. I really hope an improved IPC Dual Core Nano come through. Intel have been forcing us with crap chipset and IGFX for far too long.
What do you mean? I never had a single problem with any Intel chipset, as opposed to pretty much every chipset for nV, VIA or AMD.
INKster
07-Apr-2009, 13:50
What do you mean? I never had a single problem with any Intel chipset, as opposed to pretty much every chipset for nV, VIA or AMD.
I think he meant relative 2D/3D graphics performance... ;)
What do you mean? I never had a single problem with any Intel chipset, as opposed to pretty much every chipset for nV, VIA or AMD.
And despite such glowing reviews I have had trouble with intel chipsets on and off since my abit BH6 which was undoubtedly perferct for me. I am certainly relieved to have finally got rid of my Asus p5b based on an intel chipset as it was ridiculously unstable.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.