nVidia to make Intel chipsets?

[Slappi]

7:08AM ATI Tech downgraded at Wedbush Morgan (ATYT) 12.88: Wedbush Morgan downgrades to Hold from Buy based on valuation as well as increasing competition from INTC in notebook integrated chipsets and NVDA in integrated chipsets for both desktop and notebook; firm expects INTC's mkt share to increase significantly next spring in integrated notebooks, and are now more convinced about the probability that NVDA will enter a license agreement with INTC to sell integrated chipsets for desktops and notebooks.




I wonder?

[Uttar]

Sure, nVidia explained the situation pretty well a few months ago in a conference call.
Before nForce 2, they were small players in the chipset market. Now, they are the accepted performance leader and they are beggining to gain more and more marketshare.

So, originally, negociations about the Intel license price were absolutely out of the question. Now, however, they most certainly aren't, so nVidia will likely figure out a deal acceptable to "both parties" ( read: They'll get a nice discount. )

So it's very likely such a deal will happen, probably this year I'd even advance. The question is much more: From the time it's accepted, when will we have an Intel CPU running on a chipset designed by nVidia in our hands?


Uttar

[Geforce4ti4200]

isnt that called the nf2? :confused:

[Hanners]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
isnt that called the nf2? :confused:

You can't buy an nForce2 chipset for Intel processors though.

The closest we ever got to that was the chipset used on the X-Box.

[Reaper106]

Yup Xbox was their first Intel chipset, and im sure not their last.:D

[gokickrocks]

i dont see a need for a nforce2 chipset for intels, except for competition...but for nvidia, they wont really have any advantage over the competition (with amd, they had the locked agp/pci)...

the intel chipsets have more options included (gigabit lan and raid)

[reever2]

Originally posted by ricercar
I've heard the NVIDIA CEO speaking fervently a few times, saying that Intel demanded an obscene price for the Pentium4 FSB license required for Intel nForce. Each time JenHsun didn't expect Intel to come down in price, not did he expect NVIDIA to pay the non-profitable license that Intel demanded.


Just like how they said Futuremark was expensive huh?:rolleyes:

[ricercar]

Originally posted by reever2
Just like how they said Futuremark was expensive

Check your basic assumptions. NVIDIA dropped out of the Futuremark Beta program because 3DMark03 did not represent 3D games, not because it was too expensive.

[reever2]

Originally posted by ricercar
Check your basic assumptions. NVIDIA dropped out of the Futuremark Beta program because 3DMark03 did not represent 3D games, not because it was too expensive.

Its not an assumption, they said the beta program cost too much money

[ricercar]

Originally posted by reever2
Its not an assumption, they said the beta program cost too much money Actually what NVIDIA said was
The primary goal of any benchmark is to arm the consumer with the right information to make the best possible purchase decision. As the gamers' benchmark, 3DMark 03 must emulate as closely as possible the kind of experience that the gaming enthusiast will expect on their machine. It must exercise graphics hardware in the same manner that consumer games will. The graphics features, rendering paths, and effects must all emulate games, or the consumer will be misinformed and their expectations misguided.

3DMark 03 combines custom artwork with a custom rendering engine that creates a set of demo scenes that, while pretty, have very little to do with actual games. It is much better termed a demo than a benchmark. The examples included in this report illustrate that 3DMark 03 does not represent games, can never be used as a stand-in for games, and should not be used as a gamers' benchmark.

The ultimate injury to the consumer of such a benchmark is three-fold. First, of course, the consumer is misguided. A purchase decision based on ineffectual data will lead consumers to wrong conclusions. Second, it causes graphics hardware manufacturers to focus attention and engineering resources on optimizing for artificially fabricated cases that are a-typical of games. Such optimizations generally do nothing to improve real game performance, and provide no benefit to the consumer. Finally, the extra engineering effort focused on such benchmarks reduces the effort available for activities beneficial to consumers--improving the actual gaming experience.
http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2003q1/3dmark03-story/index.x?pg=2
NVIDIA's big-picture complaints can be summed up in two points:

3DMark03 is a bad benchmark — This is a big point with lots of little sub-points, but the complaints all fall easily under this banner. NVIDIA's key contention is that 3DMark03 isn't representative of actual games. Near as I can tell, that means not now, nor ever in the future, although there is some ambiguity on this point. NVIDIA's specific technical criticisms seem to bounce around from talking about now and talking about the future without much discernible pattern. NVIDIA suggests synthetic benchmarks are not a useful component of a graphics performance test suite, and recommends testing only with "actual games."

Wasted resources — Optimizing for 3DMark03, says NVIDIA, pulls critical software engineering resources away from other tasks. Because 3DMark03 isn't representative of actual games, optimizations for 3DMark are in no way beneficial for actual games. What's more, online reviewers and editors who choose to use 3DMark in their performance evaluations create an irresistible need for NVIDIA to keep wasting resources optimizing code paths never used by real applications.

No one seems to be talking about the expense of the FutureMark Beta program except you. :confused:

[GlowStick]

Intel has a history of makeing smart decisions of only letting companys that will do a worse job than intel have the correct licences.

Eg, SiS, their p4 chipssets look like crap compared to intel ones, and that exactly what intel wanted, to make their chip sets look like the best thing since sliced bread.

I cant see intel allowing someone to step in that has a Possibility of makeing a better chipset.

[ricercar]

Originally posted by GlowStick
Intel has a history of makeing smart decisions of only letting companys that will do a worse job than intel have the correct licences.

Thanks for bringing us back on topic.

I read ATI has recently licensed Intel P4 FSB. I've never read a review of ATI chipset. How are ATI's chipsets compared to VIA and SiS? What level of GPU is in the ATI version IGP northbridge?

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by ricercar
Thanks for bringing us back on topic.

I read ATI has recently licensed Intel P4 FSB. I've never read a review of ATI chipset. How are ATI's chipsets compared to VIA and SiS? What level of GPU is in the ATI version IGP northbridge?

I dont think ATi has ever made a chipset before (unless for something really old).

Anyways, the top chipset makers (in quality) would definatly go something like this. Ive used a ALi board and they are misreble, i had one go out with in 3 monhts, rma'ed it, and in a week it went out again. Bought a VIA board, and it still works today.

Intel
Nvidia
Via



HUGE DROP IN QUALITY
ALi
SiS

[ricercar]

Duh. I guess I can do my own homework.
ATI's integrated chipset page. (http://mirror.ati.com/products/integrated.html)

[Richthofen]

I am not that convinced that Nvidia will built Intel chipsets anytime soon.
Well i must admit that i hope they don't :)

nForce2 is what makes AMD the best home user plattform.
Full of features und very good performance.
I still hope Nvidia with its innovations will be a AMD supplier only.
I don't want Intel to gain any market share at this point.
They are far to big anyway.

As far as the NV Intel chipset story goes i have to say the following.

The Intel chipset business is a very dagerous one. There is only one company making big profits in this business and that is Intel istself.
Why should Intel allow a very dangerous competitor with a very strong brand to grab market share from Intel?

What is Intel doing? Well they have to allow competitors to built chipsets from a competition standpoint. Otherwise they run into legal issues because of a monopoly.
But does Intel have to give a licence to all the competitors?
No they don't have.

So what are they going to do?
Well they will give those guys a licence who are no threat.
Once any of those competitors gets too successfull with his chipsets Intel will bring up some legal issues or change some parts of the basic architecutre like FSB and so on and the competitors will need a new licence.


Looking back the last 10 years Intel always managed with pretty questionable behaviour and tactics that the competition stays small and that they don't have much room to breeth.

My advise to Nvidia is:
Stay away from that business. To dangerous. Better push the AMD plattform. With AMD64 the oppurtunity that Intel is going to loose market share is pretty big and that will drive Nvidias chipset busiess to growth.
Workstation, Desktops, Servers, Notebooks. More than enough business opportunities for Nvidia.
Besides that a good thing for the consumer.
In about 3 to 5 years i want to see Intel at the 60% market share point and not even one percent more :)

[Hanners]

Just to play devil's advocate, Intel might look at it from a different perspective - I don't think anyone can argue that nForce has become a good, well respected, established brand name, and has very probably played a big part in helping AMD reach the market share they currently have. Intel might well feel that getting nVidia on board to make nForce chipsets for the P4 would:

a. Take the wind out of AMDs sails by making sure nForce is no longer an AMD-only perk.

b. Win back current AMD users to the nVidia fold, and thus increase Intel's share in the CPU market further.

It would probably be a big gamble, but one Intel could probably afford to try.

[Richthofen]

well but Nvidia can't.
If you have ressources left over you think about where you can get the most out of them in the long term.

And you can't do that while doing business with Intel.
Sure they can sell some nForce2 P4 chipsets.
But what about the long term prospects?
If you get to dangerous Intel will start some not very nice business tactics.
Look at the VIA and SIS numbers.
No or very low profits.

VIA was too successfull so Intel brought up some legal issues that VIA does not have a P4 licence.
VIA lost a lot of market share in the Intel chipset business.
Instead SIS was very successfull.
But then too successfull for Intels needs and so they allowed VIA to again sell P4 chipsets.

Now both of them will fight each other and Intel is laughing.
Stay away from that business and keep going with AMD.
Thats all i have to say.
Its about time that Intel looses some ground to AMD.

Best thing what can happen.

[StealthHawk]

You must be joking. NVIDIA may have a large portion of the AMD market, but AMD controls a small part of the CPU market. NVIDIA has a lot more to gain by making Intel chipsets than it does to lose. Not to mention the fact that Intel and thier integrated graphics are a threat to NVIDIA. Better we have NVIDIA integrated graphics installed in machines than junk Intel integrated.

[Richthofen]

Intels intgrated chipset business really a thread to Nvidia?

According to a Nvidia research stated in a conference call - i think it was the last one or the one before - only about 30% of Intels integrated chipsets sold are used for graphics output.

For the 70% left OEMs put graphics cards in the PC besides Intels integrated chipset.
One could think what a waste. But is it really a waste?
The intel integrated chipsets have the same price like the ones without graphics.
So no extra pay for that.

Nvidia should keep going with AMD. AMD has the products in the pipline to gain market share and this time in the high margins segments. I am not talking about some lousy low end home user PCs. I am talking about Servers, Workstation and Notebooks.

64 Bit from top to bottom pretty soon. Time for Intel to start loosing market share. I hope so. They are too big.
Nvidia has a strong brand, especially in the workstation segments. Together with AMD64 and their quadro series there are more than enough opportunities to grow business.

[GlowStick]

Intel actually sells alot of graphics chips, more than ATi. They arent 'bad' for 2d work, but they are a joke at gameing.

I do agree, intel may let nvidia make chipsets for some time, but if intel feels they need to kick nvidia out, they will do it with some legual crap.

[reever2]

Originally posted by ricercar
Intel integrated graphics are a joke. They're always at least a performance generation behind, e.g. no threat to NVIDIA IGP chipsets. An Intel IGP couldn't compete if NVIDIA had a P4 FSB license, even in the corporate mindshare.

And who buys computers with Intel IGP's in them? People who are likely not going to use their computer for gaming and just wants whats cheap. They couldnt care if their computer didnt have an AGP slot or if they need to build their own computer to get a computer without an Intel IGP and an agp slot for under 800 bucks

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by ricercar
Intel integrated graphics are a joke. They're always at least a performance generation behind, e.g. no threat to NVIDIA IGP chipsets. An Intel IGP couldn't compete if NVIDIA had a P4 FSB license, even in the corporate mindshare.

Yeah, I agree. As I said though, NVIDIA not having an IGP for Intel platforms does not help them. It is basically free market share for Intel, unless ATI captures that market share with their new motherboard. Which might be even worse for NVIDIA, since it would mean a direct competitor gaining market share.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Richthofen
Intels intgrated chipset business really a thread to Nvidia?

According to a Nvidia research stated in a conference call - i think it was the last one or the one before - only about 30% of Intels integrated chipsets sold are used for graphics output.

This is untrue. Intel has 32% of the total market share. Hardly insignificant, considering that NVIDIA has 27% and ATI has 21%! These are the latest figures from Mercury Research.

NVIDIA still retains it's stranglehold on discrete graphics, at 64% of that market. ATI- 28%.

[Geforce4ti4200]

so how good is that intel graphics? like a geforce2mx?

[extreme_dB]

I found an interesting article by the Register from April 2002. Presumably, Intel infringed on ATI's IP in graphics, and rather than face a lawsuit, settled with a cross-licensing agreement.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3312