Vendor lockout of GPUs? *spawn*

[Lurkmass]

Now that Intel has entered the discrete graphics market, I cannot see how it will be politically acceptable for their CPUs to retain compatibility with GPUs from other competitors in the future. In order to gain any genuine traction it would have to come at the expense of their competitors so conditions would need to be changed in following that line of thought ...

The question now is when graphics acceleration will be exclusively tied with the same CPU vendors ?

 

[DavidGraham]

The question now is when graphics acceleration will be exclusively tied with the same CPU vendors ?

Never, that never happened before, and will never happen in the future, laws prohibit such things.

 

[P_EQUALS_NP]

Now that Intel has entered the discrete graphics market, I cannot see how it will be politically acceptable for their CPUs to retain compatibility with GPUs from other competitors in the future. In order to gain any genuine traction it would have to come at the expense of their competitors so conditions would need to be changed in following that line of thought ...

The question now is when graphics acceleration will be exclusively tied with the same CPU vendors ?

My guess is when engineers are no longer able to shrink the transistor, is when we will see a big decline in discreate gpu's. at this point APU's may become preferment enough that the added un-core performance of shared memory, cache coherency, ect, out way the raw performance you get with throwing more shaders on too the gpu.

after all architecture begins where engineering ends!

 

[Lurkmass]

Never, that never happened before, and will never happen in the future, laws prohibit such things.

What law ? As far as everyone can see a similar situation I hypothesized is already unfolding where hardware vendors like Apple who control their own platform can dictate whatever terms for interop that everybody else has to abide by without ever needing to seek out consent from others in the industry. There is no legally binding commitment that Intel must be obligated to indefinitely subscribe to PCI-SIG standards and never invent their own standards. I imagine it's in Intel's self interest to block compatibility with other graphics vendors just so their entire Xe project doesn't become redundant. Intel doesn't have to gain approval from the others since they virtually have the power to make any rules however they feel is necessary. Downstream is always at the mercy of whoever is controlling upstream ...

 

[DavidGraham]

There is no legally binding commitment that Intel must be obligated to indefinitely subscribe to PCI-SIG standards and never invent their own standards

If they did, anti trust laws would prohibit them from locking out other vendors, they will be forced to allow other vendors access to that interface.

Anti trust laws prevent Microsoft from forcing users to only use Internet Explorer/Edge on their OS, and that's a software company, where rules are often looser, rules on hardware companies are even worse.

 

[trinibwoy]

What law ? As far as everyone can see a similar situation I hypothesized is already unfolding where hardware vendors like Apple who control their own platform can dictate whatever terms for interop that everybody else has to abide by without ever needing to seek out consent from others in the industry. There is no legally binding commitment that Intel must be obligated to indefinitely subscribe to PCI-SIG standards and never invent their own standards. I imagine it's in Intel's self interest to block compatibility with other graphics vendors just so their entire Xe project doesn't become redundant. Intel doesn't have to gain approval from the others since they virtually have the power to make any rules however they feel is necessary. Downstream is always at the mercy of whoever is controlling upstream ...

Intel doesn’t control the PC platform. Sure they can go create their own proprietary thing like Apple but nobody will care and nobody will use it.

 

[Lurkmass]

If they did, anti trust laws would prohibit them from locking out other vendors, they will be forced to allow other vendors access to that interface.

Anti trust laws prevent Microsoft from forcing users to only use Internet Explorer/Edge on their OS, and that's a software company, where rules are often looser, rules on hardware companies are even worse.

Vendor lock-in often isn't an illegal practice and happens virtually all the time through out the industry. The DG1 for example is only compatible with Intel CPUs so it's an open possibility that the other way can happen ...

Also what court would even rule that a corporation has to forcefully share what is likely to be patented technology ? Just how realistic do you think is it for a court to revoke patent exclusivity ?

 

[Lurkmass]

Intel doesn’t control the PC platform. Sure they can go create their own proprietary thing like Apple but nobody will care and nobody will use it.

They practically have the largest desktop/server CPU market share so ignoring their power would be ridiculous. Tons of people would care since there might not be any alternatives so I can see Intel defacto controlling the most graphics market this way. I Wonder what their main x86 competitor would do as well. Would they use the same strategy or are principled enough to still open themselves to competition ? I seriously doubt the latter ...

 

[pcchen]

They practically have the largest desktop/server CPU market share so ignoring their power would be ridiculous. Tons of people would care since there might not be any alternatives so I can see Intel defacto controlling the most graphics market this way. I Wonder what their main x86 competitor would do as well. Would they use the same strategy or are principled enough to still open themselves to competition ? I seriously doubt the latter ...

They can tie their GPU to their CPU of course, but the reverse is much more difficult. How do you prevent someone using an Intel CPU from pairing it with a NVIDIA or AMD GPU?

 

[DavidGraham]

Vendor lock-in often isn't an illegal practice and happens virtually all the time through out the industry.

It is، when it leads to monopoly and could bankrupt other companies and result in less competition.

The DG1 for example is only compatible with Intel CPUs so it's an open possibility

It's a prototype GPU made compatible with only certain motherboards from Intel, not the other way around.

 

[Bondrewd]

The DG1 for example is only compatible with Intel CPUs

Because it literally had no pins to load in its BIOS from the onboard ROM.
You needed a special mobo BIOS to do that.

It's strictly a technical fuckup.

 

[trinibwoy]

They practically have the largest desktop/server CPU market share so ignoring their power would be ridiculous.

Yes, in the current market that follows PC standards. Are you suggesting that intel creates new standards for GPU interfaces or that they artificially block their GPUs from being used with non-Intel CPUs? How will either of those things help Intel?

Tons of people would care since there might not be any alternatives so I can see Intel defacto controlling the most graphics market this way.

What would stop people from using AMD and Nvidia hardware? Or from using Intel CPUs with any other GPU.

I Wonder what their main x86 competitor would do as well. Would they use the same strategy or are principled enough to still open themselves to competition ? I seriously doubt the latter ...

The PC market is based on an assumption of broad hardware and software compatibility. Any attempt to create walled gardens will likely fail miserably.

 

[nutball]

I Wonder what their main x86 competitor would do as well.

Laugh all the way to the bank.

BTW you're ignoring the interests of another party - a small company HQ'd in Redmond, Washington.

 

[arandomguy]

You wouldn't need to go immediately to a hard lock in (or lock out) or even ever have to be able to leverage competitive advantage.

Ignoring the technical side in terms of user experience a base strategy that will likely be employed (and commonly has, AMD has already done this with their CPU/GPUs) is to simply leverage bundling to gain market share across both segments. This is limited to targeting OEMs either to simply adopt all Intel (or AMD in the other case) platforms for their products or even system integrators but can even target the DIY retail market (AMD has run CPU/GPU bundling promos before. Imagine a future GPU or CPU only shortage, requiring you to purchase bundles the non short component in a bundle as a hypothetical).

Technical marketing promoting the "synergy" of one ecosystem could be employed as well. This can range from purely "fluff" to having legitimate advantages in the end user space that is actually restricted to the ecosystem. See AMD's efforts with RNDA2's launch and SAM as an example that sits in the middle.

Another thing to consider is in the gaming sphere we do already have vendor lock-in for both the GPU/CPU with the consoles. Due to the multiplatform nature of gaming nowadays this has a indirect bleed over effect in terms of both marketed and real advantages.

The focus shouldn't just be on the consumer space either. How much of a factor will vertical integration play into for large scale deployments for super computers or enterprises?

 

[Lurkmass]

Yes, in the current market that follows PC standards. Are you suggesting that intel creates new standards for GPU interfaces or that they artificially block their GPUs from being used with non-Intel CPUs? How will either of those things help Intel?

Well standards don't need to be controlled by more than one party to succeed if we take a look at Microsoft with their Windows APIs. If Intel wants to seek "dominance" then they must be compelled to restrict others from providing graphics acceleration. It's simply a zero sum race where competitors are trying to oust each other as much as possible to be able to build a monopoly so what I described is absolutely the fastest way to achieve this end result. By limiting the reach of other vendors, customers with Intel CPUs will have to buy their GPUs from Intel if they want graphics acceleration!

What would stop people from using AMD and Nvidia hardware? Or from using Intel CPUs with any other GPU.

Do you truly think it is in AMD's political interests to keep another one of their competitor's alive ? Both AMD and Intel stand to gain billions by blocking each other along with all of their competitors out ...

Nvidia once used to produce nForce chipsets with integrated graphics for AMD/Intel processors but politics soon changed that and they were not permitted to do so anymore. Do you honestly believe that Intel won't use every chance that they get to block their competitors ? AMD has been competing in the discrete graphics market for years now and with Intel's entry as well so things must change again in order to reflect the natural order of politics once more ...

The PC market is based on an assumption of broad hardware and software compatibility. Any attempt to create walled gardens will likely fail miserably.

Software compatibility ? Sure. Hardware compatibility ? Not so much hence the many dead or irrelevant hardware vendors in the PC space ...

As far as graphics technology is concerned, as long as the hardware is compatible with Direct3D then it really doesn't matter which vendor the hardware came from a consumer perspective. In the end, the high-end gaming/graphics industry will move on because there's no replacement for x86 CPUs. I'd argue that GPUs are less valuable than CPUs even in gaming because software design is far more entrenched to the latter. Graphics programming by comparison is fickle in nature since the industry will change APIs from time to time so I don't imagine that they placed a whole lot of value in GPU hardware compatibility. The industry will tolerate changing graphics code over CPU code ...

 

[DavidGraham]

but politics soon changed that and they were not permitted to do so anymore

Back then NVIDIA sued them and took almost a billion $ in settlement from them. Intel had to settle quickly because NVIDIA's position was strong.

Do you honestly believe that Intel won't use every chance that they get to block their competitors

They can't, NVIDIA holds the largest collection of graphics patents/IP out there, Intel holds almost none comparatively, NVIDIA will simply block them from producing GPUs in the first place.

 

[Lurkmass]

Back then NVIDIA sued them and took almost a billion $ in settlement from them. Intel had to settle quickly because NVIDIA's position was strong.

Nvidia's lawsuit with Intel wasn't about anti-trust violation. It was a subject of a misunderstanding in a contract and IP infringement IIRC. Intel still managed to block Nvidia from producing nForce chipsets and that outcome hasn't reversed at all in the leading conclusion ...

They can't, NVIDIA holds the largest collection of graphics patents/IP out there, Intel holds almost none comparatively, NVIDIA will simply block them from producing GPUs in the first place.

Hence why Intel settled with Nvidia and entered a 6-year cross-lisencing agreement for graphics IPs. Intel owes Nvidia some cash. They don't owe them anything else including compatibility for their hardware platforms. Intel has blocked competitors before and they'll likely do it again ...

 

[trinibwoy]

Well standards don't need to be controlled by more than one party to succeed if we take a look at Microsoft with their Windows APIs. If Intel wants to seek "dominance" then they must be compelled to restrict others from providing graphics acceleration. It's simply a zero sum race where competitors are trying to oust each other as much as possible to be able to build a monopoly so what I described is absolutely the fastest way to achieve this end result. By limiting the reach of other vendors, customers with Intel CPUs will have to buy their GPUs from Intel if they want graphics acceleration!

You’re not explaining why customers will accept moves by Intel to fragment the established PC ecosystem. Intel has no leverage to enable them to do this. Windows isn’t a relevant example because it wasn’t competing in an established market.

Do you truly think it is in AMD's political interests to keep another one of their competitor's alive ? Both AMD and Intel stand to gain billions by blocking each other along with all of their competitors out ...

AMD has nothing to gain by trying to create its own walled garden to compete with Intel. On the other hand AMD has everything to gain (i.e. massive increases in mind share and market share) if Intel tries something as stupid as trying to create an “Intel only” PC.

As far as graphics technology is concerned, as long as the hardware is compatible with Direct3D then it really doesn't matter which vendor the hardware came from a consumer perspective. In the end, the high-end gaming/graphics industry will move on because there's no replacement for x86 CPUs. I'd argue that GPUs are less valuable than CPUs even in gaming because software design is far more entrenched to the latter. Graphics programming by comparison is fickle in nature since the industry will change APIs from time to time so I don't imagine that they placed a whole lot of value in GPU hardware compatibility. The industry will tolerate changing graphics code over CPU code ...

It’s really unclear what you’re proposing. So the hardware will be compatible with current PC operating systems and graphics apis but not interoperable with other hardware supporting those same apis? That would amount to artificial incompatibility and pointless fragmentation of an existing ecosystem. Why would the market accept this?

Or are you suggesting that Intel should come up with its own hardware interfaces for discrete graphics, abandon industry standards like PCIe and somehow convince Microsoft and other major software players to go along with it?

 

[trinibwoy]

Ignoring the technical side in terms of user experience a base strategy that will likely be employed (and commonly has, AMD has already done this with their CPU/GPUs) is to simply leverage bundling to gain market share across both segments. This is limited to targeting OEMs either to simply adopt all Intel (or AMD in the other case) platforms for their products or even system integrators but can even target the DIY retail market (AMD has run CPU/GPU bundling promos before. Imagine a future GPU or CPU only shortage, requiring you to purchase bundles the non short component in a bundle as a hypothetical).

Bundling has been around forever though and its impact is already factored into current market dynamics. And of course bundles only work if customers feel like they’re getting decent value. If Arc GPUs are any good then Intel will certainly gain a lot of OEM market share. But only if they’re any good. And they won’t need to artificially fragment the market to do that.

Another thing to consider is in the gaming sphere we do already have vendor lock-in for both the GPU/CPU with the consoles. Due to the multiplatform nature of gaming nowadays this has a indirect bleed over effect in terms of both marketed and real advantages.

Consoles started off as closed, vertically integrated systems where each player was expected to have unique hardware and unique gaming experiences. Customer expectations are actually moving in the opposite direction as consoles start using more commodity hardware and apis. Cloud gaming is going to break down those walls even further.

 

[Lurkmass]

You’re not explaining why customers will accept moves by Intel to fragment the established PC ecosystem. Intel has no leverage to enable them to do this. Windows isn’t a relevant example because it wasn’t competing in an established market.

What exactly do you mean by "no leverage" ? Developers will have to follow suit because how will they run the graphics kernel driver that's used to enable graphics acceleration or the game logic code without the CPUs ? If the developers don't really have a choice then where else are they going to develop high-end graphics applications ? Are they going to target a platform like Linux which are even more hostile to compatibility by far than Intel locking graphics acceleration to their GPUs ?

At least Intel can still use Direct3D meaningfully while it becomes virtually useless to other hardware vendors without access to x86 CPUs so they'd have to stick to Khronos APIs which don't have a great track record ...

AMD has nothing to gain by trying to create its own walled garden to compete with Intel. On the other hand AMD has everything to gain (i.e. massive increases in mind share and market share) if Intel tries something as stupid as trying to create an “Intel only” PC.

AMD wants walled gardens as much as anyone else does and they would've been closer to one if Intel truly decided to stick to their new Itanium architecture. Intel entering the discrete graphics market means that politics must change once more. I don't see how AMD opening themselves up to competitors can politically work out because if Intel decides to blacklist Nvidia then AMD will have a far stronger negotiating position for themselves. AMD will very likely demand that Nvidia must pay fees or royalties to AMD on every graphics card that's compatible with their chipset. On second thought, I don't see Jensen agreeing to AMD's conditions ...

AMD won't just straight up unconditionally accept other vendors because the politics won't allow it anymore ...

It’s really unclear what you’re proposing. So the hardware will be compatible with current PC operating systems and graphics apis but not interoperable with other hardware supporting those same apis? That would amount to artificial incompatibility and pointless fragmentation of an existing ecosystem. Why would the market accept this?

Or are you suggesting that Intel should come up with its own hardware interfaces for discrete graphics, abandon industry standards like PCIe and somehow convince Microsoft and other major software players to go along with it?

The market will accept it because that's going to be the new political reality and it doesn't change much for them ? Whatever Intel's solution is whether it's a new hardware interconnect interface (happened before since they created the AGP standard) or some other proprietary interface Microsoft or the other software vendors don't have much bargaining power over the hardware vendors politics. Microsoft prides themselves really hard on maintaining compatibility so blacklisting both AMD/Intel isn't an option for them if they don't want to interact nicely with the others and the others software vendors aren't really interested in changing CPU architectures either ...