Going to War With NVIDIA

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

"Witch-hunting" is prohibited in this board, and unless you have evidence to back-up your claims, you could potentially be reported to the mods.

Funny, that's what Trollo used to say right before he was banned as an AEG agent.

WOW. I haven't been around these forums for a while... I'm not surprised to see it happen though, it seemed obvious enough to me that he was a shill of some sort.

As for this thread, I think that it is a valid complaint. NV advertised the requirements of SLI, sold multiple GPUs based upon those advertisements, and then later changed the requirements to lock out the competition, even though they met the advertised requirements. It seems like a purely anti-competive move to me. Indeed just recently I had a friend with a pair of 6600's, wondering why they wouldn't work in SLI mode on his Intel-based mobo. Thanks to this thread I've found the answer: NV locked them out.

 

[josh6079]

Indeed just recently I had a friend with a pair of 6600's, wondering why they wouldn't work in SLI mode on his Intel-based mobo. Thanks to this thread I've found the answer: NV locked them out.

They should still work with certain drivers. Just not some of the newer ones.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
For the other issues brought up in this thread- Intel requires a license in order to produce chipsets that support their processors. This is perfectly legal. They charge money to allow people to make platforms that support their CPUs- nVidia has every legal right to do the exact same thing with any product they make.

While true, your comparison is not equivalent. Intel's CPU bus is patented. No-one can produce CPUs or core logic compatible with it without a patent license. But NVidia makes GPUs that are compatible, not with a patented bus that they own, but an industry-standard bus, called PCI-Express. (I'm not saying that there aren't patents covering PCI-E, I don't know. But they are freely licensed to everyone AFAIK.) A very apples and oranges comparison.

The primary problem that I can see is that NV advertised one set of requirements, and that helped to sell cards, and then at some later date they instituted more restrictive requirements that locked out other vendor's core-logic chipsets.

Does Ford have a right to open gas stations across the country, and then a year later, refuse to sell gas to Chevy owners?

 

[jakedeez]

Originally posted by: Mr Fox
I-Tunes is being sued in a similar fashion for tying and lock-in

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4207

http://www.consumerist.com/consumer/itu...pod-software-is-crippleware-226032.php


PDF of the Complaint :

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/library/applesuit.pdf


Apple Computer's Motion To Dismiss :

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/library/applemotion.pdf


Judges ruling on Motion :

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/library/appleorder.pdf


This just goes to show that the companies can do what they want... But it does not make it Legal.

This is exactly what I was talking about... Mr. Fox, while your efforts maybe noble and your cause may or may not be just, the way you say things, and the things you say make it seem like your trying to sell a used car...


"I-Tunes is being sued in a similar fashion for tying and lock-in"

nVidia is not being sued for tying nor lock-in!


Your post:

UPDATE : The Anti-Trust Price Fixing Littigation that started this overall investigation:


http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/nvidamd.pdf


If these companies conduct buisness in this manner nothing is beyond them.

Between the AEG/HR Viral marketing schemes. (pyramid marketing for the new millenium)

The price fixing at 400/500 Dollars.

The vendor Lock-in, feature lock out, this is an industry that is in for a wake-up call.

They have gone unchallenged for too long.

Not one time in that document is there a mention of lock-in, or tying. So why do you insist on that angle? Did you even read the complaint?

nVidia and AMD/ATi are bing looked at now, after a class action complaint for price manipulation was filed. These events may or may not be related, but your complaint about lock-in and tying are feckless... Did you just not understand that, or are you just trying to confuse the issue?

BTW - to those who have suggested that Mr. Fox maybe a lawyer involved in this, that can not be right. If he does have something to gain from this, I can not conceive of what it could be other then getting better functionality and drivers ect... I think he is entirely justified to be upset about not having them, and well within his right to demand them, I just don't think its anti-trust... but like I said, there is no way he is legal counsel any party involved in these proceedings, his posts would do nothing for either side of the issue.

Although nVidia and AMD/ATi may well be guilty of collusion, price fixing, and anti-completive behavior, which are anti-trust issues... just not the ones Mr. Fox is talking about.

 

[jakedeez]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Does Ford have a right to open gas stations across the country, and then a year later, refuse to sell gas to Chevy owners?

Sure.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
For the other issues brought up in this thread- Intel requires a license in order to produce chipsets that support their processors. This is perfectly legal. They charge money to allow people to make platforms that support their CPUs- nVidia has every legal right to do the exact same thing with any product they make.

While true, your comparison is not equivalent. Intel's CPU bus is patented. No-one can produce CPUs or core logic compatible with it without a patent license. But NVidia makes GPUs that are compatible, not with a patented bus that they own, but an industry-standard bus, called PCI-Express. (I'm not saying that there aren't patents covering PCI-E, I don't know. But they are freely licensed to everyone AFAIK.) A very apples and oranges comparison.

The primary problem that I can see is that NV advertised one set of requirements, and that helped to sell cards, and then at some later date they instituted more restrictive requirements that locked out other vendor's core-logic chipsets.

Does Ford have a right to open gas stations across the country, and then a year later, refuse to sell gas to Chevy owners?

What if nvidia is using an enhanced version of PCI-e? For instance with nforce2 & GF4 and greater, the AGP slot runs at 12x. For other (non nvidia)graphics cards its limited to AGP 8x. The BR2 chip that is used to convert GF-FX tho PCI-e and 7600/7800/6600 etc to AGP runs at 16x agp (twice the industry standard speed - which is why there is no performance loss from the translation - you effectively get PCI-e's two way communication on AGP). Point being nvidia products are designed to "talk to" each other more optimally while still remaining compatible with an industry standard. Its entirely possible SLI works in a similar fashion.

 

[BFG10K]

Point being nvidia products are designed to "talk to" each other more optimally while still remaining compatible with an industry standard. Its entirely possible SLI works in a similar fashion.

None of this is relevant because (a) we've had successful SLI on non-nVidia chipsets in the past and (b) SLI works fine on nVidia chipsets with only 8 lanes available to each card.

The current situation is nothing more than vendor lock-out.

 

[Gstanfor]

You have had SLi on non nvidia chipsets, yes, but was that SLI full blown SLI or a cutdown subset of SLI? Does nvidia want to support cut down subsets on SLI on 3rd part chipsets?

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
You have had SLi on non nvidia chipsets, yes, but was that SLI full blown SLI or a cutdown subset of SLI? Does nvidia want to support cut down subsets on SLI on 3rd part chipsets?

There's a difference between not supporting and intentionally locking out a competitor's chipsets via drivers.

 

[BFG10K]

There's a difference between not supporting and intentionally locking out a competitor's chipsets via drivers.

Agreed. Also it's one thing not to want to support SLI on other chipsets - fair enough - but another to block the likes of Crossfire on your chipsets.

 

[Gstanfor]

There is nothing stopping ATi from writing their own nForce drivers if they REALLY wanted crossfire on nForce platforms.

What I was hinting at above is nvidia is likely IMHO to state if challenged that (supported) SLI depends upon features in the nforce chipset and upon driver support (the driver support may change from driver revision to driver revision).

I'd also expect them to state that their nForce SLI motherboards service all current CPU platforms in any case, therefore there is no reason to provide SLI support to 3rd party chipsets.

 

[josh6079]

There is nothing stopping ATi from writing their own nForce drivers if they REALLY wanted crossfire on nForce platforms.

Yes there is. ATi doesn't have a problem with supporting CF on nForce chipsets, somebody else does. - Click

Rage3D

Question: Why can Crossfire not work on SLI capable motherboards?

Answer:Please ask nVidia

If they could, they wouldn't tell you to ask the company supplying the chipset.
Also, they have stated here that they would love to have CF capable on as many platforms as possible:

Xbit

FiringSquad: With your upcoming merger with AMD expected to close at the end of this year, are you concerned that Intel may attempt to lockout the CrossFire platform on upcoming chipsets beyond today?s P965 and 975X?

Godfrey Cheng ATI: Pretty sneaky Brandon. Your question is really around open platforms. Certainly both ATI and AMD believe in open platforms and open competition and choice for the customer. Speaking for ATI, we want customers to pick the best CPU, GPU and Chipset ? we welcome open competition. CrossFire has been an open platform from the beginning and it will continue to be an open platform even after our merger to AMD closes. CrossFire will continue to support Intel chipsets and Intel has given no indication that they will lock out ATI graphics in the future. Closed platforms, or platforms that tie GPUs and Chipsets together, are archaic and out-of-place in the modern PC. People should demand open platforms to give them greater choice.

It's not a hardware limitation as you saw with the purchase of ULi and then the lockout they gave them with SLi. It's a marketing strategy that does not benefit the consumer.

 

[Gstanfor]

nvidia has no obligation whatsoever to make nForce boards work with crossfire.

Goods have to be
(1) Fit for the purpose they were sold for and
(2) Work as advertised.

nvidia has never said or advertised that their nForce boards are crossfire capable - there is absolutely no obligation on their part to make them so.

If crossfire on nForce is important to ATI, then they should develop their own nForce drivers that permit that functionlity! No-one else will do it for them!

 

[josh6079]

nvidia has no obligation whatsoever to make nForce boards work with crossfire.

Just like how they don't have the right to lock them out, especially when they didn't develope the PCI-E bus and if CF is capable of meeting those scaling requirements.

Goods have to be
(1) Fit for the purpose they were sold for and
(2) Work as advertised.

Did you miss the OP? Because the advertisement the OP was given stated that one only needed two SLi capable GPU's and a motherboard that supported two PCI-E slots. Later, nVidia changed that requirement off the basis of profit and made software the limiting factor.

Click

An NVIDIA SLI system requires a PCI Express motherboard that supports two physical connectors that are capable of having two NVIDIA-based PCI Express graphics cards plugged into them.

As advertised, you don't need an nForce chipset. All one needs is a PCI-E motherboard with two PCI-E slots capable of two PCI-E graphics cards.

nvidia has never said or advertised that their nForce boards are crossfire capable - there is absolutely no obligation on their part to make them so.

It should be their obligation considering preventing it is vendor-lock in.

If crossfire on nForce is important to ATI, then they should develop their own nForce drivers that permit that functionlity! No-one else will do it for them!

I'm sure they would if they could. nForce software can not be legally written by just any company.

edit: fixed link

 

[Gstanfor]

As advertised, you don't need an nForce chipset. All one needs is a PCI-E motherboard with two PCI-E slots capable of two PCI-E graphics cards.

That's not nvidia's advertising. It appears to be BFG's advertising, so the complaint should be directed to BFG and not nvidia.

nvidia has never said or advertised that their nForce boards are crossfire capable - there is absolutely no obligation on their part to make them so.


It should be their obligation considering preventing it is vendor-lock in.

Once again, nvidia has never advertised that nforce boards are crossfire capable. Products are only required to work as advertised from a legal standpoint. There is no obligation on a company to make life easier for its competition.

 

[Gstanfor]

Oh, and there is nothing preventing ATI (or anyone else for that matter) writing their own drivers for nForce chipsets. They simply are not allowed to use any of nvidia's patented/copyrighted/trademarked technologies that may be present in nForce chipsets without a license. They can either apply for a license or develop software workarounds for the technologies in question.

 

[BFG10K]

There is nothing stopping ATi from writing their own nForce drivers if they REALLY wanted crossfire on nForce platforms.

This is a joke, right? What else is ATi supposed to do? Write a custom BIOS for the motherboard? :roll:

nvidia has no obligation whatsoever to make nForce boards work with crossfire.

Right, that's ATi's job. The problem here is nVidia is actively blocking ATi from doing so. That's vendor lock-out.

There is no obligation on a company to make life easier for its competition.

We're not asking them to make it easier, we're asking them to not go out of their way to block it.

 

[Wreckage]

SLI is a feature that NVIDIA has every right to do with as they please. There is nothing illegal or even wrong about it.

 

[BFG10K]

SLI is a feature that NVIDIA has every right to do with as they please.

But they have no right to actively block Crossfire.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

SLI is a feature that NVIDIA has every right to do with as they please.

But they have no right to actively block Crossfire.

In order to enable crossfire on their chipsets they would either have to write the driver themselves or open up their driver code to ATI.....why would they do that? No one would do that.

 

[BFG10K]

In order to enable crossfire on their chipsets they would either have to write the driver themselves or open up their driver code to ATI.....why would they do that?

What the hell are you talking about? Have you been paying any attention to what is being discussed here?

nVidia actively blocks Crossfire on their chipset. They have put in specific code (probably in the chipset drivers) to stop non-SLI solutions from working on their chipsets.

That's vendor lock-out since it stops competing solutions.

It would be like Microsoft putting in code into Windows that disables all browsers except IE. Would you happy with that?

 

[Gstanfor]

This is precisely the same as prepaid mobiles sold by one telco blocking networks from another telco until the contract period the user signed for expires or the user pays an unlock fee (this is but one example among millions).

There is ***nothing*** illegal about limiting features on your product to other products of your own or excluding competing products. Cry all you like about it

 

[BFG10K]

This is precisely the same as prepaid mobiles sold by one telco blocking networks from another telco until the contract period the user signed for expires

Uh-huh, and when does the "contract" on my nVidia chipset expire? When I throw it out and buy a new motherboard? :roll:

 

[Gstanfor]

First of all nvidia never promised or advertised you could access "other networks" (competing multi GPU solutions) when you bought your motherboaerd.

The "unlock fee" (ATi written nForce drivers) would apply here.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
First of all nvidia never promised or advertised you could access "other networks" (competing multi GPU solutions) when you bought your motherboaerd.

The "unlock fee" (ATi written nForce drivers) would apply here.

lol how can you even post with the way you think? I swear your a idiot.