Going to War With NVIDIA

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Gstanfor

Banned
Oct 19, 1999
3,307
0
0
No, I'm simply capable of seeing things from a business point of view as well as a consumer point of view.

Of course it would be warm, cuddly and delightful if companies always co-operated with each other and didn't obstruct the consumer. But that isn't how it works. It isn't how the real world works at any level.

Get real folks.
 
Wreckage

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: 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?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

Crossfire\SLI requires more than just the graphics driver. It requires a chipset driver and bios support. It's not a lockout if NVIDIA chooses not to support it.
 
lopri

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,310
687
126
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?
Click to expand...
Hi,

I can testify that current 975X is in no way a cut-down for SLI even compared to 680i. Gary also has mentioned SLI working more efficiently on RD600 using old drivers.

7900GTO SLI on 975X WITHOUT the SLI bridge
10324 3DMark06
 
Praxis1452

Praxis1452

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,197
0
0
Nvidia has added into the chipset drivers I believe an overwrite into the registry so that CF cannot be enabled. This is not a hardware limitation but a software implementation. CF simply requires PCI-E specs which is NOT owned by nvidia. Therefore nvidia has no right to disable it. However I do hope this case progresses.

Gstanfor you claim to see things from a consumer and business standpoint however unless you either own a lot of nvidia stock or are part of the business the only aspect you should see is the consumer. How is blocking CF a "good" thing for consumers. If you pick the corporation over yourself then your simply a tool unless the above mentioned applies to you.

Why should the consumer care about the business? Both sides will work towards their own ends. It's your job as a consumer of nvidia products to open of CF. That is unless you simply have a love for the corporation which is not only illogical but incredibly stupid because you derive no real benefit from it. Though you do derive self satisfaction from it it's only because you view nvidia as a friend and you like to see the success of a friend. Metaphor. However if you acquire satisfaction from others then it seems that you have a need for glory. Either way life's a play. Act your part.
 
G

Gstanfor

Banned
Oct 19, 1999
3,307
0
0
Well, I own a business, so seeing a business point of view comes fairly naturally to me.

As for what has been done in nvidia's drivers - it's merely an oversight on nvidia's part that the software block wasn't there from the start.

Remember, nvidia advertises SLI capability for nForce, not PCI-e multi GPU capability.
 
N

Nelsieus

Senior member
Mar 11, 2006
330
0
0
Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Nvidia has added into the chipset drivers I believe an overwrite into the registry so that CF cannot be enabled.
Click to expand...
You believe, or you're assuming? Or did your mom's uncle's aunt's friend's cousin here it around the block?

Originally posted by: Praxis1452CF simply requires PCI-E specs which is NOT owned by nvidia. Therefore nvidia has no right to disable it.
Click to expand...
But nVidia isn't disabling CF on PCI-E lanes in general - just their own core logic, which they've spent money researching, designing, and developing, making it....there's.

Originally posted by: Praxis1452Why should the consumer care about the business?
Click to expand...

Aren't you the one who attacked nVidia for having a sweepstakes / contest and tried to make an ordeal about it? I guess that doesn't give you much credibility with this statement.

Nelsieus
 
Praxis1452

Praxis1452

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,197
0
0
Originally posted by: Nelsieus
Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Nvidia has added into the chipset drivers I believe an overwrite into the registry so that CF cannot be enabled.
Click to expand...
You believe, or you're assuming? Or did your mom's uncle's aunt's friend's cousin here it around the block?

Originally posted by: Praxis1452CF simply requires PCI-E specs which is NOT owned by nvidia. Therefore nvidia has no right to disable it.
Click to expand...
But nVidia isn't disabling CF on PCI-E lanes in general - just their own core logic, which they've spent money researching, designing, and developing, making it....there's.

Originally posted by: Praxis1452Why should the consumer care about the business?
Click to expand...

Aren't you the one who attacked nVidia for having a sweepstakes / contest and tried to make an ordeal about it? I guess that doesn't give you much credibility with this statement.

Nelsieus
Click to expand...
It was expressed in the OP's post. Care to tell him he's a liar? Perhaps I must reference better and mention it more often.

Their overwriting in the registry. Last I checked they didn't write that section.

I attacked nvidia asking whether it was an illegal lottery. Then Evilrage and someone else I forget his name came and mentioned it could still be an illegal lottery. Either way it's a lie that it requires no purchase. If I made an ordeal about it what would be so bad? Wreckage has made ordeals about ATI. God wreckage is my idol. :eek:. Now you all finally know.


That statement taken out of context as you and wreckage so often do means nothing. The consumer should not "care" about the busniness in the sense taht it should not want the business succeed even if their practices are wrong. That was exmplified by the context in which I used it. Atleast quote a few sentences sourrounding it.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. The Nazi's took Nieztche's ideas and used them to influence people in creating the grand aryan race however it is still very much a wrong and poisonous interpretation of his work.


 
BFG10K

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,002
126
First of all nvidia never promised or advertised you could access "other networks" (competing multi GPU solutions) when you bought your motherboaerd
Click to expand...
Microsoft never promised you can run browsers other than IE so is it okay for them to block Firefox et al?

The "unlock fee" (ATi written nForce drivers) would apply here.
Click to expand...
:roll:
 
BFG10K

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,002
126
Crossfire\SLI requires more than just the graphics driver. It requires a chipset driver and bios support. It's not a lockout if NVIDIA chooses not to support it.
Click to expand...
Oh really? The explain why SLI stopped working on ULi/Intel after nVidia updated their ForceWare drivers?

It's not that nVidia didn't want to support it (as it clearly didn't even need their support since it worked with the PCIe spec), it's because they took active steps to disable it.

Let me explain it to you in simpler terms.

I write a program and compile it on an Intel processor but I don't test it on AMD (or any other x86) processors. Even though I choose not to support those processors by not testing on them my program should still run on any x86 compatible CPU. That's fine.

Now if on the other hand I put in specific code that stops that program from running on non-Intel processors that's vendor lock-out, especially since there's no good reason why my program can't run on other x86 processers. Even worse is if my program worked fine before and now a new version blocks other processors.

Not supporting a platform is not the same thing as actively blocking it.
 
BFG10K

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,002
126
Uh, it was a hypothetical example designed to demonstrate the flaws in your reasoning.
 
C

Creig

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,170
13
81
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Microsoft never promised you can run browsers other than IE so is it okay for them to block Firefox et al?
Click to expand...
Got a link that backs that up?

Didn't think so...
Click to expand...

He was making a HYPOTHETICAL statement there, Greg. Obviously Microsoft isn't blocking Firefox. But if it's okay for Nvidia keep SLI from working on non-Nvidia motherboards (their system), then it must be okay for Microsoft to block Firefox from Windows platforms (their system).
 
G

Gstanfor

Banned
Oct 19, 1999
3,307
0
0
I'd love it if M$ were to attempt it actually. More fuel for their goose cooker.

ATi can have crossfire on the nForce platform any time they like. All they need do is write the appropriate drivers...
 
J

josh6079

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2006
3,261
0
0
Let's pretend that Nvidia released a new driver series for their 8800 line tomorrow. Let's pretend that that driver series only allowed the 8800 series cards to work on nForce chipsets and nothing else, whether they're are in SLi or not. Only nVidia GPU's could be used on nVidia chipsets.

How would that be different?
 
G

Gstanfor

Banned
Oct 19, 1999
3,307
0
0
You can live in fantasy land if you like Josh. I'm happy in the real world.

Now, other than the 7950GX2 which could not be used with certain chipsets due to limitations of their PCI-e implimentation (i.e. could not recognise a PCI-e switch as a valid device in a PCI-e 16x slot) can *you* show where any nvidia GPU has failed to work in a chipset not made by nvidia?
 
M

Mr Fox

Senior member
Sep 24, 2006
876
0
76
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
You can live in fantasy land if you like Josh. I'm happy in the real world.

Now, other than the 7950GX2 which could not be used with certain chipsets due to limitations of their PCI-e implimentation (i.e. could not recognise a PCI-e switch as a valid device in a PCI-e 16x slot) can *you* show where any nvidia GPU has failed to work in a chipset not made by nvidia?
Click to expand...




7950GX2 never passed PCI-SIG certification.

7900 GTX was the last NV card to pass. 8800 has not certified at this point either. The Integrator List was updated Dec 15 2006.

http://www.pcisig.com/developers/compli...gram/integrators_list/pcie/pcie/#addin




 
jdoggg12

jdoggg12

Platinum Member
Aug 20, 2005
2,685
11
81
This thread is funny... i love how when people give hypothetical examples on this board and 500 people try to tear apart the example rather than see it for what it is. It really IS true about what they say about arguing over the internet...

Anywho, carry on. I like having something to read at work. :)
 
J

jakedeez

Golden Member
Jun 21, 2005
1,100
0
0
You know whats really funny, your "hypothetical example" are actually very close to being reality. Part of the anti-trust claim against MS was the bundling of IE, and their settlement in Europe, included releasing copies of Windows there, without IE.
 
DeathReborn

DeathReborn

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2005
2,786
789
136
Originally posted by: jakedeez
You know whats really funny, your "hypothetical example" are actually very close to being reality. Part of the anti-trust claim against MS was the bundling of IE, and their settlement in Europe, included releasing copies of Windows there, without IE.
Click to expand...

They still have IE (they can't just remove it) but it doesn't have Windows Media Player installed. It has reportedly completely failed to attract customers (OEM or Public).
 
J

jakedeez

Golden Member
Jun 21, 2005
1,100
0
0
Originally posted by: DeathReborn
Originally posted by: jakedeez
You know whats really funny, your "hypothetical example" are actually very close to being reality. Part of the anti-trust claim against MS was the bundling of IE, and their settlement in Europe, included releasing copies of Windows there, without IE.
Click to expand...

They still have IE (they can't just remove it) but it doesn't have Windows Media Player installed. It has reportedly completely failed to attract customers (OEM or Public).
Click to expand...

More recently yes, but I am pretty sure a while back they had to release a copy of windows without IE.... you might be right though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom