NV will soon start a new massive campaign where they're going to point out that you can better buy a GPU than an expensive CPU. They're directly targeting Intel with this. I don't think Intel will be too happy about this and I wouldn't be suprised if this means that Intel won't ever support SLI on their chipsets.
Will intel ever support SLI?
- Thread starter slapnutz
- Start date
Interesting - so those marketing presentations from both sides were just the beginning...
FWIW, I think most people at NV would laugh at Intel's response and characterize it as misguided.You do realize NVIDIA would prefer it if Intel had no interest in trying to get SLI on their chipsets without buying a chip from NV, right?
The only real thing I ponder here is - does this mean NV already has a QuickPath licensE? I mean, would they be crazy enough to be doing this if they didn't have a QuickPath license?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
However, Intel also has quite a bit of leverage at least until AMD can get competitive again in the high performance CPU market again.
If Intel were to decide not to allow Nvidia access to to the necessary patents to support future Intel CPUs, they would be in a similar boat to VIA with regards to supporting Intel CPUs.
That would pretty much cripple Nvidia's chipset business if that were to happen. And leave them dependent on AMD for their chipset business.
However, as long as Nvidia doesn't impact Intels core business then they don't feel a threat, and Nvidia helps Intel gain marketshare in the enthusiast space. Not as relevant as in past years when AMD was ahead or at least competitive.
Business relationships are always interesting things to look at. As long as you remember one thing. At the end of the day it's all about how to maximize profits. So even your biggest competitor is often also your closest business partner.
Regards,
SB
While the AMD 790FX has Xpress something which looks like each 16 lanes have a fast path between each other i.e x8 link #0 and #1 have a fast interconnect, so do #2 and #3, unfortunatly I forget where I saw that
I bumped into it :smile:. http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/mainboard/amd-770-790-chipsets.html (halfway down)
Could also be NVIDIA is just trying to make gamers aware that GPU>>>>CPU in most gaming applications, and the money is better spent on graphics.
This would benefit NVIDIA and gamers, so I don't see the problem.
If more CPU was the key factor in gaming I'd expect Intel and AMD to note that in their marketing, and hopefully review sites would be illustrating that as well.
How many CPU scaling charts have we all seen where the difference between the slowest and fastest chip on the board is 2-3fps if the game is set at 16X10 4X16X?
I think NVIDIA is just trying to say if your finances pick one or the other, and gaming is your goal, the cash is better spent on higher end video or SLi.
jimmyjames123
Regular
Bingo. You can see this in Ujesh Desai's recent comments in a press release about the GPU being the centerpiece of high end gaming PC's today, and in JHH's recent comments too.
I see you linked to just that in your post above. Of course, Intel hasn't been shy with words recently either in the GPU vs CPU debate
Bingo. You can see this in Ujesh Desai's recent comments in a press release about the GPU being the centerpiece of high end gaming PC's today, and in JHH's recent comments too.
I see you linked to just that in your post above. Of course, Intel hasn't been shy with words recently either in the GPU vs CPU debate
More attacks, with pretty pictures of a VIA "EPIA-NR" Nano-ITX motherboard (i think that's the right form-factor, but i'm not sure)
:
Source: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11452
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Actually ATI and Intel had a "relatively" close relationship prior to ATI being aquired by AMD.
Afterwards, either AMD decided not to renew/upgrade licensing for the new 1333 FSB to support newer Intel CPUs or Intel refused to renew/upgrade it.
If it was AMD that decided not to pursue Intel chipsets. That was a bloody bad business move. If it was Intel, then that's somewhat to be expected.
Regards,
SB
One word: Puma. It looks like it's going to be a big success, and if a version of the 780G had been available for Intel platforms that might not have been the case...
aaronspink
Veteran
Oh god, on the first page, when you start the configurator, it says Geforce GPUs have 32, 64 or 112 "cores".
Um, you would think that Nvidia wants to give away free cash the way their marketing department is putting things out there. I humorously await the class action lawsuit: "I bought this on the claims they had 112 cores when in fact they only have 1/8th that number, therefore I want 7/8th of my money back!"
Nvidia's legal department must either be nervous or oblivious.
Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I'm not quite clear on how a version of 780G for Intel Platforms would have impacted plans and development of Puma?
Granted 780G is part of the foundation for Puma, but being able to boost operating income by continuing to sell chipsets for Intel based CPU's would have helped ease investor uncertainty and increased the funds available for R&D.
Although it is true that at some point they would have to cut those ties in order to make it platform specific ala. Centrino.
I'm assuming here that you are implying that it was most likely AMD that cut those ties with Intel. Rather than Intel cutting ATI off due to the takeover by AMD.
Regards,
SB
AMD having a superior notebook platform in terms of graphics allows them to sell more CPUs. If the same platform was available for Intel, that might lose them some notebook CPU sales. This is about strategy & politics, not technology or R&D.
And just look at what happened to ATI's Intel chipsets post-acquisition; sales fell off a cliff, because OEM confidence crashed. It'd have been pretty hard to get some momentum back in that market either way.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
True about that crash, however, that was caused mostly by lack of announcements from either Intel or AMD as to whether support for those chipsets would be carried into the future.
With both camps being tight lipped most just played it safe and assumed the worst (which is how things turned out) that either AMD or Intel would cease/block sales of chipsets targeted towards future CPUs.
OK, I can certainly see the political reasoning. However, while there would have been some overlap, I still feel AMD would have been better off financially to have continued selling ATI branded chipsets for Intel CPUs, even if no new ones were developed following the adoption of PUMA.
Regards,
SB
With both camps being tight lipped most just played it safe and assumed the worst (which is how things turned out) that either AMD or Intel would cease/block sales of chipsets targeted towards future CPUs.
OK, I can certainly see the political reasoning. However, while there would have been some overlap, I still feel AMD would have been better off financially to have continued selling ATI branded chipsets for Intel CPUs, even if no new ones were developed following the adoption of PUMA.
Regards,
SB
