Going to War With NVIDIA

[PorscheMaD911]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Well being as it's against the rules,

What's against the rules? Me pointing out that you're acting like another member?

I think not.

You made the inference that I'm saying you're Rollo but that (false) inference is your problem, not mine.

I will remain on my position that nVidia should have Vista drivers when Vista is available.

That's fine but I never got an admission from you that the card isn't Vista ready and therefore nVidia were falsely advertising.

You can't claim it's okay for nVidia to ship drivers on Jan 30th while stating the card is Vista ready now.

That's where the problem with your argument is - you're trying to have it both ways.

That's madness. Just because drivers aren't Vista ready doesn't mean the card's not! Besides, why should there be drivers for Vista when it's not out yet?

 

[PorscheMaD911]

Originally posted by: lopri
While it's not likely to happen, but I do agree with the OP's point of view. PCI-E is an open industry standard. That means, a PCI-E graphics card should work in a PCI-E supporting motherboard. Think about it. That's why we can use ATI graphics card on NForce boards, and that's why we can use NV graphics card on Intel boards. Is NV graphics chips/drivers NV's intelectual property? Absolutely. But they still work on ATI boards that support PCI-E, don't they? What would happen, say, if NV attempted to keep all other chipsets/boards but NForce boards from running their graphics cards?

Of course NV wouldn't be so stupid, but imagine IF (this is a big 'IF', btw) Intel came out with high-end graphics card 3 years from now and locked all other graphics cards out of their chipsets/boards? Would that still be Intel's intelectual property (GPU) + Intel's intelectual property (chipset)? This example is an extreme but the underlying assumption is the same.

The bottom line is, as long as chipsets/motherboards abide by PCI-E specification which is an industry standard and has multiple PCI-E slots, SLI should work in theory and in practice. NV themselves know this, so when asked why they wouldn't let SLI viable on 975X, their answer was the pathetic "Intel chipset doesn't have enough bandwidth for SLI". They couldn't possibly say "We won't give up our final card".

Said that, it's a sad truth that technology isn't just about technology like everything else in life. It's about economics, politics, and whatnot. But I'd like to show my greatest respect to the OP and his courage.

When SLI was done in the past, ie with Voodoo 2s, these kind of problems didn't exist right?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: PorscheMaD911

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Well being as it's against the rules,

What's against the rules? Me pointing out that you're acting like another member?

I think not.

You made the inference that I'm saying you're Rollo but that (false) inference is your problem, not mine.

I will remain on my position that nVidia should have Vista drivers when Vista is available.

That's fine but I never got an admission from you that the card isn't Vista ready and therefore nVidia were falsely advertising.

You can't claim it's okay for nVidia to ship drivers on Jan 30th while stating the card is Vista ready now.

That's where the problem with your argument is - you're trying to have it both ways.

That's madness. Just because drivers aren't Vista ready doesn't mean the card's not! Besides, why should there be drivers for Vista when it's not out yet?

To make all the people using MSDN, hacked, bootlegged, or corporate users of Vista happy. There is not false advertising as many are saying here. The CARD is Vista ready or DX10 ready. Nvidia just needs to get the drivers out when Vista officially launches.

 

[Mr Fox]

Thank You to Everyone that has contributed to the thread so far !!



I would like to take this time to thank Nelsieus for spreading the word on this issue to this forum :

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36761&page=2

I'm glad to see you getting the word out !!


I found your other posts there informative.


As were your posts here :


http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware...aftopic-193107-days0-orderasc-200.html

 

[Zstream]

I find it funny how he stated that Nelsieus claimed to never own a Nvidia card. Sounds way to much like a NV cheerleader to never own a card before.

 

[josh6079]

That's fine if you want to continue conspiring such thoughts, but as long as you're basing it off "posting-style," then I'm fairly comfortable you'll be taken with little merit.

Is he supposed to base it off anything else?

Besides, he's not saying you are Rollo, just that you are acting like him. Not just here but in other threads such as the Vista one where you fall easily to Nvidia's advertising. (Vista is ready and is being sold, just not on consumer levels. But, you buy in to their "We'll support Vista when it's launched" without thinking about the buisness owners who may want the advertised support now since they have both a legit copy of Vista and an 8800)

It's the same fall you made here when you thought that everything in you're computer has to be SLI-Ready in order to operate in SLI.

So apprently there is a SLI Ready Logo that tells consumers whether or not what they purchase is SLI Ready or not.

By those standards, you would have to use this type of RAM in order to have SLI then. If you didn't have this type of RAM, would your SLI setup be supported and legit? You're too subject to hype.

Well being as it's against the rules...

"Put up or shut up". You still have yet to point out where this supposed "witch-hunting" is against any rules. Not to mention BFG10K isn't so much witch-hunting as he is pointing out negative simularities. The fact that you think he's meaning you are either Rollor or AEG is your summarization alone, not his claim.

NVIDIA has all the right in the world to make SLI exclusive to SLI labeled motherboards

Link? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but I honestly don't know if it is their "right" or not. Is there any place where we can see a law designating if they do indeed have that "right"?

Furthermore, if it is their "right", why haven't they slapped Intel with a lawsuit for being able to use SLI on GeForce series GPU's prior to the 8 series and with drivers of 88.55 or lower? Wouldn't that be a breech in their "right"?

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but, frankly, this was something that needed to happen.

Everyone in the industry has behaved in a puerile fashion where PCI-e and multi card scalable graphics solutions are concerned (I was particuarly unimpressed by nvidia purchasing ULi and then refusing to allow *their own IP* to utilise SLi) - and it is high time the nonsense was stomped on from a great height.

We never saw this sort of nonsense with ISA, VESA, PCI, AGP and hopefully we will never see it again.

Gstanfor, that has to be one of the most un-biased and well-respected posts I've seen from you in a LONG time. I agree 100%, especailly on the ULi nonsense.

For the consumers, this is nothing but good news. I don't see why some don't want it to happen.

Same goes for ATI. Last time I checked, SLI was not supported on ATI chipsets. Perhaps this is the anti-trust case that the DOJ is reviewing both nVidia and ATI...

Perhaps, and if so why would this be bad? More options for us.

Jesus, it was only one comment from him, and suddenly he's Rollo?

I think it's the several comments from him that have been nothing more than a consumer swallowing Nvidia's PR without logical thought.

Besides, why should there be drivers for Vista when it's not out yet?

It is out, just not on our levels. Those who have already required a legit version of Vista and an 8800 series GPU from Nvidia still don't have the support they were told they would have.

The CARD is Vista ready...

How? Where are the drivers? What if I'm a buisness man who has a purchased version of Vista and a G80, what drivers do I use?

Not that I feel complete sympathy for the current Vista users, but the fact remains that Nvidia said that it is supported but have yet to do so.

I can understand those who feel that SLI is an Nvidia-only feature that is completely subject to their products. However, how do we know if (by law) this is true? If it was some sort of "law", why hasn't Nvidia taken issue with Intel for being able to run SLI on some of their chipsets with older drivers and hardware? Is SLI less of a licensed feature the older the drivers and hardware gets?

Also, if their SLI is protected by "law", why isn't ATi's CrossFire? If ATi is / was trying to compete so closely with SLI (even going as far as making their own internal "SLI-like" bridge), why isn't their CrossFire technology specific to their products alone? Especailly with them being more or less AMD now, Intel's competitor, I would see more of a reason for them to "lock-out" CrossFire on Intel based platforms but that isn't the case.

 

[Cookie Monster]

For one 3DFX came up with the SLi cncept. Later on nVIDIA carried on with the SLi concept. Who bought out 3DFX? nVIDIA. So i do believe nVIDIA has all the right in the world to do anything with SLi technology because they own the technology. Making it an open standard i.e allowing it work on other core logics not nVIDIA based is up to their choice.

Josh, i dont think ATi has done anything to promote its dual GPU solution. Unlike nVIDIA, the marketing side of things for ATi really is lacking. Not many game promotions with crossfire, no this and that, i think nVIDIA has already gained the mindshare for the enthusiasts looking to buy the dual GPU solutions. SLi is everywhere from PSUs, to even a SLi certified case! The difference is night and day it seems so ATi has no choice but to allow crossfire to work on other core logic. Another reason could be because ATi is lacking on the core logic market (a full top to bottom setup). RD600 may sound nice but the entire roadmap seems delayed and feels disorganised. I mean, whats the mid range core logic from ATi? I have no clue!

 

[Nelsieus]

Originally posted by: Mr Fox
As were your posts here :[/b]


http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware...aftopic-193107-days0-orderasc-200.html

I'm very proud of my positions in that thread (I'm Gamer-369, not the OP of that thread). If you didn't notice, most of what I said regarding G80 came true (not everything, most was speculative). And GreatApes points that G80 "was the old way," didn't hold true at all. But it's always fun to read thoughts before something came out and then compare it to what happened in reality, so thanks for finding that for me.

But to shift gears, I'm thinking a mod will soon close this thread, just like Kyle did when you posted this exact same thing in Hardforums. I guess since nobody bought your claims there, you had to come sell them over here, eh?

Nelsieus

 

[schtuga]

I understand how the op feels and do sympathise with him.I don't know much about U.S. anti trust laws that I can't say anything as fact. But laws have so many loopholes that sometimes it is impossible to win.

1)when he bought his system originally it worked as intended.The question is ,if he was still using this sytem today would it still work as intended.

2)by switching /upgrading,did he then put himself in a position that changed the parameters of his argument?after all,if he goes back to original equiptment/drivers,would he still have the system functioning as was intended?

I think that when nv released sli,there was no competition, so they left it open, because if you wanted multi gpu system,you had to use nv. But when x-fire came out,they changed it to protect their investment,marketshare whatever.Do I agree with this.yes and no. I own a business and if someone came along and offered something,I used to have exclusivity on,I would have to make changes.I still don't want to lose customers,but I have to guarantee holding on to what I have/had. I'm all for more options and I wish him the best of luck,but I don't see this winning,or not to the extent that the op intends.I can also understand why nv has done this.Business is business.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
For one 3DFX came up with the SLi cncept. Later on nVIDIA carried on with the SLi concept. Who bought out 3DFX? nVIDIA. So i do believe nVIDIA has all the right in the world to do anything with SLi technology because they own the technology. Making it an open standard i.e allowing it work on other core logics not nVIDIA based is up to their choice.

Josh, i dont think ATi has done anything to promote its dual GPU solution. Unlike nVIDIA, the marketing side of things for ATi really is lacking. Not many game promotions with crossfire, no this and that, i think nVIDIA has already gained the mindshare for the enthusiasts looking to buy the dual GPU solutions. SLi is everywhere from PSUs, to even a SLi certified case! The difference is night and day it seems so ATi has no choice but to allow crossfire to work on other core logic. Another reason could be because ATi is lacking on the core logic market (a full top to bottom setup). RD600 may sound nice but the entire roadmap seems delayed and feels disorganised. I mean, whats the mid range core logic from ATi? I have no clue!

You do not understand SLI or crossfire it seems. SLI and Xfire is the name used by NV and ATI, these features are part of the PCI-E standard.

The reason why they have to use the cable/or the special PCB card when it first came out was due to the limitations of the PCI-E bandwith. The reason is because it has to deal with the GPU/CPU and slave components which hampers the bandwith.

PCI-E version 2.0 will handle the bandwith problems

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: josh6079

The CARD is Vista ready...

How? Where are the drivers? What if I'm a buisness man who has a purchased version of Vista and a G80, what drivers do I use?

Josh remember that OMG SOFTWARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE...so the card IS apparently ready....we just sort of have to stare at the screen and pray that something happens.

Not that I would ever go SLI or Crossfire, but I think choice is always good so you shouldn't be locked down to certain chipsets. I also remember that ULI/NVidia business....that was ridiculous...they owned ULI and still refused to allow SLI...I think they wanted to keep an "image" more than anything. Ideally we could use ANY 2 cards for multi GPU but driver support would be a nightmare for that.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Nelsieus

Originally posted by: BFG10K
No, I'm trying to imply you're behaving like him and I'm not the only one that thinks so.

Don't think so. You referenced to him, and that was uncalled for. And I believe Munky is the only other person who feels the same way as you.

Actually after witnessing Rollo's escapades last year, and juxtaposing them to yours, yes, I would agree that you have a similar mentality compared to Rollo.

Mr. Fox, power to you man, there obviously is some BS going on. I could see if nvidia doesn't SUPPORT SLi on another chipset, that would be up to intel to make sure it was operable. But to completely lock out another company from making a solution is lame.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: BFG10K

BFG. Who the F cares what members posting style Nelsius may resemble. Jesus, it was only one comment from him, and suddenly he's Rollo? You need to either: 1. Get Rollo back here so you can have your sentimental chats (because obviously you just can't let him go) or 2. Ask him out on a date.

Get over it.

PM him if you're not going to contribute to the thread.

Originally posted by: hemmy
Wreckage makes the most sense, and as I stated in the H forums, NVIDIA has all the right in the world to make SLI exclusive to SLI labeled motherboards

Why can't another company make a motherboard that meets SLi specification? As stated earlier, for a motherboard to "support" SLi, all it needs are 2 16x PCIE slots.

 

[CKXP]

http://www.thensr.com/article.asp?ID=33

From a manufacturer perspective, dual is good. Instead of making ever larger processors, manufacturers can simply slap two of them together. SLi and Crossfire only require an extra connector, a switch flipped, and suddenly there?s more horsepower. Even small graphics player S3 jumped in with MultiChrome. Plus, to enable dual graphics, most consumers must go out and purchase new motherboards. These overpriced enthusiast motherboard chipsets are made by the same graphics players, nVidia and ATi, and they make even more profit. nVidia has also locked support for SLi to their own solutions, preventing Intel chipsets from being SLi capable. Now, users are forced to buy nVidia if they want SLi. The whole SLi licensing scheme doesn?t stop with nVidia products. Power supply, graphics card, and motherboard manufacturers pay to have the SLi-ready logo on their boxes. For nVidia, SLi is pure marketing genius.

personally i don't like it but hey....more power to them, it's called business and business has been good to NV.

Why can't another company make a motherboard that meets SLi specification? As stated earlier, for a motherboard to "support" SLi, all it needs are 2 16x PCIE slots

any motherboard manufacture can do so, but SLI is a trademark of NVIDIA.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: CKXP
http://www.thensr.com/article.asp?ID=33

From a manufacturer perspective, dual is good. Instead of making ever larger processors, manufacturers can simply slap two of them together. SLi and Crossfire only require an extra connector, a switch flipped, and suddenly there?s more horsepower. Even small graphics player S3 jumped in with MultiChrome. Plus, to enable dual graphics, most consumers must go out and purchase new motherboards. These overpriced enthusiast motherboard chipsets are made by the same graphics players, nVidia and ATi, and they make even more profit. nVidia has also locked support for SLi to their own solutions, preventing Intel chipsets from being SLi capable. Now, users are forced to buy nVidia if they want SLi. The whole SLi licensing scheme doesn?t stop with nVidia products. Power supply, graphics card, and motherboard manufacturers pay to have the SLi-ready logo on their boxes. For nVidia, SLi is pure marketing genius.

personally i don't like it but hey....more power to them, it's called business and business has been good to NV.

Why can't another company make a motherboard that meets SLi specification? As stated earlier, for a motherboard to "support" SLi, all it needs are 2 16x PCIE slots

any motherboard manufacture can do so, but SLI is a trademark of NVIDIA.

I agree with this, but one of the arguments in this thread was that nvidia shouldn't have to provide support for another company... and I agree. But blocking SLi actually required nvidia to go out of their way.

 

[Praxis1452]

I like this thread!

 

[josh6079]

Josh, i dont think ATi has done anything to promote its dual GPU solution.

That's irrelevant. I could care less how ATi / Nvidia promote their multi-GPU solutions, I'm talking about how Nvidia based SLI's functionality from a software lock-out instead of a hardware limitation. How they market it is a different issue.

It can / was / is working on certain chipsets that are not made by Nvidia, but Nvidia hasn't taken any agressinve action to ensure even their older GPU's aren't thrown in SLI with older drivers. That's why the whole, "They have the right to protect their feature" argument seems shaky. If it was a feature that they had the right to protect, wouldn't they be doing that on the systems that are using it without an nForce chipset?

Instead they cornerd any current SLI capabilities to their chipsets alone, monopolizing what is, apart from its name, an industry standard.

Josh remember that OMG SOFTWARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE...so the card IS apparently ready....we just sort of have to stare at the screen and pray that something happens.

lmao!!

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
BFG. Who the F cares what members posting style Nelsius may resemble. Jesus, it was only one comment from him, and suddenly he's Rollo? You need to either: 1. Get Rollo back here so you can have your sentimental chats (because obviously you just can't let him go) or 2. Ask him out on a date.

Get over it.

*edit
Amen to that but of course this should not be addressed only to BFG10k..
But that's not the problem. EVERY thread that involves similar content is ending up as a personal battle/juxtaposition between some members.. This is becoming ridiculous and meaningless.
I do agree with BFG10k's position on the issue in this thread and disagree on the "marketing Vista ready" argument, about a consumer unreleased product... A businessman on the other hand? What does a serious businessman want with a G80 ATM? And who is going to rely on an immature operating system to base his pro work ATM? And even IF he does that there are tweaked drivers for making G80 work in 2D mode.. Unless he wants to play with his G80 in 3D..Cmon ppl this is becoming funny..

To make all the people using MSDN, hacked, bootlegged, or corporate users of Vista happy. There is not false advertising as many are saying here. The CARD is Vista ready or DX10 ready. Nvidia just needs to get the drivers out when Vista officially launches.

Well that's the spirit..

 

[BFG10K]

That's madness. Just because drivers aren't Vista ready doesn't mean the card's not!

G80 doesn't function on Vista because it has no Vista drivers and because it doesn't function it can't possibly be "Vista Ready".

Again I don't mind the fact that the drivers won't be out until Jan 30 per-se, my problem is with nVidia labelling the card as Vista ready now.

Also whether Vista is limited to MSDN subscribers and businesses is totally irrelevant to this "Vista ready" claim.

Josh remember that OMG SOFTWARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE...so the card IS apparently ready....we just sort of have to stare at the screen and pray that something happens.

LOL!

What was it again? "The OS draws the pixels to the screen, not the driver"?

LMAO!

 

[ronnn]

Nvidia drivers are always so controversial. Hell if they just released decent drivers, we could end half this conversation. Is true that sli only being on nvidia chipsets is becoming a hindrance to nvidia sales - as their chipsets are not the best sometimes. Anyways is their choice - as I suppose if intel really cared - they would just refuse to license nvidia chipsets.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Again I don't mind the fact that the drivers won't be out until Jan 30 per-se, my problem is with nVidia labelling the card as Vista ready now.

I don't see any Vista ready now label on my box or at Nvidia's site...
The problem is your perspective on the issue..
Is Vista for consumers out? NO
So why do you need the drivers for man?

All the remaining affected individuals have absolutely NO NEED of a G80 gpu..
Or at least as I said through tweaking of existing drivers they can work in 2D mode..

*EDIT

Does anyone ever thought that maybe M$ has a silent agreement that neither side can release drivers until the actual product is launched?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Josh remember that OMG SOFTWARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE...so the card IS apparently ready....we just sort of have to stare at the screen and pray that something happens.

LOL!

What was it again? "The OS draws the pixels to the screen, not the driver"?

LMAO!

I think it had something to do with the BIOS...haha but please don't quote me on that.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
BFG. Who the F cares what members posting style Nelsius may resemble. Jesus, it was only one comment from him, and suddenly he's Rollo? You need to either: 1. Get Rollo back here so you can have your sentimental chats (because obviously you just can't let him go) or 2. Ask him out on a date.

Get over it.

*edit
Amen to that but of course this should not be addressed only to BFG10k..
But that's not the problem. EVERY thread that involves similar content is ending up as a personal battle/juxtaposition between some members.. This is becoming ridiculous and meaningless.
I do agree with BFG10k's position on the issue in this thread and disagree on the "marketing Vista ready" argument, about a consumer unreleased product... A businessman on the other hand? What does a serious businessman want with a G80 ATM? And who is going to rely on an immature operating system to base his pro work ATM? And even IF he does that there are tweaked drivers for making G80 work in 2D mode.. Unless he wants to play with his G80 in 3D..Cmon ppl this is becoming funny..

To make all the people using MSDN, hacked, bootlegged, or corporate users of Vista happy. There is not false advertising as many are saying here. The CARD is Vista ready or DX10 ready. Nvidia just needs to get the drivers out when Vista officially launches.

Well that's the spirit..

Exactly. What company is going to use an 8800 on Vista to do basic office functions? Hellsome of the companies I do some work for still use ATI Rage 8MB chips to Radeon 7000 & GeForce2 MX cards on Windows 2000/XP. They aren't interested in Vista until it's proven itself and it becomes financially viable.

nVidia is not reqired to open up SLI to competitors products but they could license it to Intel etc for say $1 a chip. They'd still make money and everyone would be able to use SLI (provided they had 2 8x/16x PCI Express slots).

Personally I view this all as rather frivolous and isn't going to change how companies operate. I actually hope it reamins locked out of ATI/Intel etc Core Logic as it could give nVidia more problems driver side and i'd much rather they fix game compatability instead of working to get other chipsets working properly.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Err, what? This thread is about the inability to run SLI on non-nVidia chipsets. Nitromullet then posted a link demonstrating this was possible in the past.

On a server board. We're talking consumer components right here.

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here: I assume you're referring to Mr Fox with those comments?

No, it wasn't directed at you .

Originally posted by: redbox
DFI's LanParty Ultra NF4 chipset had two physical pci-e 16X slots. In fact people where able to mod those motherboards to allow SLI.

Yes, I know all about those mods, and in fact, I own one of those boards. It's currently being used in my Media/File Server . Original non-SLi boards did not all have nor were required to have dual-16x PCI-E slots. The DFI board is marketted as being able to support two independent GPUs though.

If I recall, it was ASUS who originally found out that you could allow SLi on non-SLi chipsets (the Ultra version), and they ended up stopping this practice of allowing it (I believe from pressure from nVidia).

Oh and since someone asked, I looked at my 8800GTX box. It doesn't list any requirements for SLi. I could look in the manual if you want?

Oh and Josh, something being marked as "ready" in today's society seems to mean that it is capable of features but not quite ready to be used. It's like HD-Ready meaning that the set can display HD resolutions, but doesn't have an HD tuner. Now don't get me wrong, I think there should be Vista drivers out, but I'm just trying to see if it's possible that the idea of something being "ready" applies across spectrums.

 

[Praxis1452]

If ATI locked out cards from being able to be used on intel chipsets it would anti-competetive practices. If Nvidia locks their SLI function out of Intel Chipsets because they want to redefine SLI then I think that's wrong. If ATI wanted to reduce crossfire effectiveness on SLI chipsets then that's wrong.

Sure they want to make money but why do you want to "support" the company? y'know they have SLI ready cases but you don't need those to run SLI. Think for yourselves. Do you want to option to run SLI on intel chipsets? The answer is yes. More options are better for the consumer and unless you own much stock in Nvidia then you'll want this to happen. If ATI did this or AMd for that matter I'd want them to open it up as well.

They have no right to disable features on ANOTHER'S chipset. I'm not very well versed in anti-trust laws but that somehow seems wrong. Am I right? who's a lawyer in here?