NVidia's Dispute over Nehalem Licensing - SLI not involved

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by Jawed, Jun 1, 2008.

  1. dizietsma

    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    13
    X58 with an extra chip from nvidia .. soudns expensive. Also I have read that Intel will not be supporting motherboard manufacturers who do that.

    Best for nvidia to put the SLi on the card and have dual gpu cards so they can forget about Sli on intel chipsets.
     
  2. hoom

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    487
    Interacting with still images? Awwrite, I need that GT280 NOW :lol:









    Yes, I do realise they are referring to the upcoming GPU accelerated Photoshop, its just a poor use of words.
     
  3. Thorburn

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    UK
    Okay, digging back a little way I know, but this clearly illustrates that people calling nForce 200 a PCIe switch are dead wrong.

    It's more like a PCIe hub :runaway:
     
  4. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    London
  5. AlexV

    AlexV Heteroscedasticitate
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,528
    Likes Received:
    107
    Yes they are.
     
  6. INKster

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Io, lava pit number 12
    Not quite.
    Digitimes says that mainstream LGA 1160 is a go for Nvidia-designed chipsets.
    The trouble of developing one for the high-end might not be worth it to them (and it would be difficult to achieve sufficiently differentiating performance in an QPI-enabled integrated memory controller architecture), or perhaps it would collide with their own strategy of downplaying the role of the CPU in modern high-end gaming.
     
  7. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    London
    OK, seems like we're going to have to wait for the Analysts' conference call or a press release to get to the bottom of this...

    Jawed
     
  8. ^M^

    ^M^
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    6
    I thought KGA 1160 chipset were supposed to have a more cost friendly DMI interface for the chipset (and integrated PCI 16X to make without a northbridge) ?
     
  9. bowman

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes.

    That doesn't stop Nvidia from doing their own ***-tastic southbridge for it, or perhaps just renaming the PCH, adding the so-called 'SLI processors' to that one as well and market it as the 'less expensive CPU, more expensive GPU' 'balanced PC' solution they've been touting.
     
  10. Fox5

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,674
    Likes Received:
    5
    What's your problem with triple buffering? The increased latency? Isn't that somewhat counteracted by being able to run at say 50fps instead of 30fps?
     
  11. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    vsync on double buffering is ideal but you can only reasonably use it on older games where the framerate is locked. Else the framerate always suddenly gets cut in half, then doubles again etc. ; I hate it, it's very jerky. I don't get how using something better is an heresy!
    for me it's vsync off with a refresh rate of 85Hz or higher. the 60Hz limitation of LCD is the heresy.
     
  12. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    London
    Nvidia respods to Intel chipset court filing

    Popcorn time!

    http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12120&Itemid=1
    Jawed
     
  13. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,429
    Likes Received:
    430
    Location:
    New York
    I hope good ole JHH knows wtf he's doing. The AMD-Nvidia-Intel love/hate triangle is really fascinating.
     
  14. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    London
    I don't understand why Intel is the one doing the filing. The press release:

    http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20041119corp.htm

    says "Additionally, the companies signed a multi-year chipset agreement for NVIDIA to license Intel's front-side bus technology."

    Nehalem doesn't have an FSB, therefore NVidia doesn't have a licence. So, why is Intel filing?

    Jawed
     
  15. Thorburn

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    UK
    I don't see how turning 1 x 16x into 2 x 16x helps in any way, you aren't magicing bandwidth out of thin air, bar some data which is sent to both cards and I'll admit I have no idea how much that is.

    I believe testing with X58 Tri-SLI has shown a native X58 solution to be faster than one using BR04.

    Edit: Holy crap I quoted something from about 8 months ago :runaway:
     
    #75 Thorburn, Feb 18, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2009
  16. INKster

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Io, lava pit number 12
    Just because there's no formal "front-side bus", it doesn't necessarily mean that it did away with all remnants of the "front-side bus technology".
    Even Intel itself officially names the DDR3 memory controller, Quickpath Interconnects and L3 cache as the "uncore" part of the CPU design...
     
  17. rpg.314

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    /
    Is the court case referred to above about the QPI license?
     
  18. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    London
    :lol: I'm not going to argue with you - leave that to the lawyers, that's why it's ended up in court it seems.

    Jawed
     
  19. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,859
    Likes Received:
    2,277
    Is this related (yes i'm being lazy not reading the entire thread)

    Intel filed a lawsuit against NVIDIA last night, reports bit-tech.net, saying the CPU giant is suing the GPU giant over NVIDIA's license to create motherboard chipsets, alleging their agreement does not cover current and future Intel CPUs, including the Nehalem family. The report states NVIDIA claims this filing does not impact any of their currently shipping products.
    http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/02/18/intel-files-lawsuit-against-nvidia/1
     
  20. INKster

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Io, lava pit number 12
    Think about it.
    Why would Intel sue over something that doesn't exist yet (Nehalem-ready chipsets from Nvidia) ?
    And how could Nvidia have started development unless they had been given direct access to Intel's brand new tech, including sensitive trade secrets ? Who guards those secrets ? Intel, of course.
    Notice how Intel didn't start suing VIA over their P4-bus chipsets until they were pretty well into their market life cicle.

    It's pretty obvious, isn't it ? It's a preemptive strike, a scare tactic if you will, but i doubt JHH will back off this one.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...