Going to War With NVIDIA

[josh6079]

It'd be like if I sued Microsoft because my Xbox 360 game couldn't run on my PS3.

That's how much legitimacy this complaint has.

I bet you would if some of your Xbox 360 games *had* been running on your PS3.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nelsieus
It'd be like if I sued Microsoft because my Xbox 360 game couldn't run on my PS3. :roll:

That's how much legitimacy this complaint has.

Nelsieus

your obvious lack of understanding ... and attempt to ridicule what you don't understand ... has nothing to do with the legitimacy of this complaint.

it just makes you look worse

try "researching" this subject ... i am sure someone can help you

 

[jakedeez]

Originally posted by: apoppin
try "researching" this subject ... i am sure someone can help you

With your suggestion of "researching" and reference to getting someone to help, I assume you?re talking about to me.

I am getting lumped in here as supporting nVidia, though I am not. The thing is, I was never saying there is no claim against nVidia, I think there maybe a bad faith claim. (Although it would be tough to litigate) I was just saying that it isn't and antitrust claim and that Mr. Fox comes off sounding ridiculous for the way he suggests it is.

This claim holds no water as an anti-trust claim. You would need to do more then read a wikipedia article to understand.

However even by reading just that wiki article you should be able to understand that they are guilty of neither tying nor vendor-lock in.

Vendor-lock in? You can just buy an ATi cards. So for that matter could BFG.

Tying? You can buy an nVidia GPU and use it with Intel core logic, perhaps you can't fully utilize it, however for most purposes it will work fine. Not to mention the fact that SLi, and the technology that makes it work is nVidia's IP. If they want to restrict its use to their products, that is not against the law. It may be a bad decision in terms of their market share, or customer base, but it is their decision.

Please understand, I am not saying I think they are doing the right thing, I am just saying it's not against the law.

You guys however seem convinced that it is anti-trust, so even though it is not, I will just drop it.

My point about Mr. Fox trying to jump in and act like gods gift to the consumer will be born out as he will continue to do it on other issues until it become obvious to everyone. And if I am wrong, which I hope I am, he will simply go away eventually or at least stop acting like someone leading a crusade.

 

[jakedeez]

Originally posted by: Zstream
Dude shutup, each socket is owned by a company.

AMD owns AM2,939 etc...

Intel owns 775 etc...

The PCIE is not owned by anyone! Therefore your whole argument is mute.

However nVidia does own SLi...

 

[apoppin]

no ... i wasn't talking about you

i am convinced it is 'anti competitive'

as long as what Mr Fox does and acts is within the rules of the forum ... i am interested in his Topic and any 'eventuality' that may come of his efforts ...

 

[SilentRunning]

A future conversation between a father and his son

Son: "Daddy?"

Father: "Yes Timmy."

Son: "Why won't both cores of my processor work with my SLi?"

Father: "Well Timmy, you see, Nvidia decided they didn't want to support Sli on competitors' motherboards."

Son: "But we purchased two Nvidia cards and an Nvidia motherboard."

Father: "Now, now Timmy that did work in the past."

Son: "So why won't it work now?"

Father: "You see Timmy, when Nvidia decided to not 'support' SLi on other motherboards, Intel and AMD decided to no longer 'support' dual cores on Nvidia motherboards."

Son: "So that means I can't have SLi AND dual cores."

Father: "Yes Timmy, that is correct."

Son: "Oh NUTS!"



EDIT: Oh, and before anyone says that wouldn't be fair.

To use an argument that has already been used. It is not anti-competitive because Nvidia could still run a dual core processor, they just wouldn't be able to use both cores together. Just like using an Sli video cards, you just can't use both cards together.

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: jakedeez

Originally posted by: Zstream
Dude shutup, each socket is owned by a company.

AMD owns AM2,939 etc...

Intel owns 775 etc...

The PCIE is not owned by anyone! Therefore your whole argument is mute.

However nVidia does own SLi...

Right, so AMD/ATI or another video card maker can not make a card that uses SLi. That deals with the communication and rendering between two GPUs. So you will not be able to use, for example, one Nvidia card and one ATI card together in SLi.

 

[BFG10K]

It'd be like if I sued Microsoft because my Xbox 360 game couldn't run on my PS3.

Uh, no. PS3 is a totally different and incompatible architecture to XBox 360. PCIe OTOH is an open industry standard that every PCIe card must follow.

Vendor-lock in? You can just buy an ATi cards.

Not if you want to run SLI in any form.

Not if you want you want to run Crossfire on your nVidia chipset.

 

[Nelsieus]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

It'd be like if I sued Microsoft because my Xbox 360 game couldn't run on my PS3.

Uh, no. PS3 is a totally different and incompatible architecture to XBox 360. PCIe OTOH is an open industry standard that every PCIe card must follow.

First off, it's not incompatible, hence why there are games available for both console systems. And nForce core logic is a totally different architecture to an Intel chipset.

Nelsieus

 

[jakedeez]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

It'd be like if I sued Microsoft because my Xbox 360 game couldn't run on my PS3.

Uh, no. PS3 is a totally different and incompatible architecture to XBox 360. PCIe OTOH is an open industry standard that every PCIe card must follow.

Vendor-lock in? You can just buy an ATi cards.

Not if you want to run SLI in any form.

Not if you want you want to run Crossfire on your nVidia chipset.

Yeah I understand that, but there is anti-trust protection in the "SLi" market, because there isn't an SLi market place. The market place is GPUs. SLi is a feature of a product in the GPU market, and is a competitive advantage...

Following the logic that their restriction of it is anti-competitive would mean any participant in a competitive market that developed a proprietary method or product would have to share their IP with their competitors...

You make the point in this post... you say it is fine that the PS3 / 360 model isn't valid, because they use different technology, while PCIe OTHO is open. nVidia's cards do work in PCIe slots regardless of core logic... their proprietary SLi technology however doesn't. Should the make it, I think so, but they don't have to.

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: Nelsieus

Originally posted by: BFG10K

It'd be like if I sued Microsoft because my Xbox 360 game couldn't run on my PS3.

Uh, no. PS3 is a totally different and incompatible architecture to XBox 360. PCIe OTOH is an open industry standard that every PCIe card must follow.

First off, it's not incompatible, hence why there are games available for both console systems. And nForce core logic is a totally different architecture to an Intel chipset.

Nelsieus

And therefore Intel should not make their dual and quad core CPUs support nForce's different core logic.

Hint: The ability to reprogram the PCIe bus does not require a totally different architecture.

 

[BFG10K]

First off, it's not incompatible,

This is a joke, right?

hence why there are games available for both console systems.

That's because the games are written from scratch for both consoles. Or what, you think you can plop in a XBox 360 CD into a PS3 and it'll magically run?

And nForce core logic is a totally different architecture to an Intel chipset.

And? It's still required to follow industry standards like PCIe. That's the whole point of industry standards on the PC and why your PS3 vs XBox 360 comparison is comical at best.

 

[BFG10K]

Yeah I understand that, but there is anti-trust protection in the "SLi" market, because there isn't an SLi market place.

Like I said before I don't really have an issue with nVidia keeping SLI on their chipsets, my main problem is them blocking the likes of Crossfire.

Again if ATi wants to bear the burden of supporting Crossfire on nVidia's chipsets that's not nVidia's problem and they shouldn't be actively blocking it.

By doing so nVidia are blocking competition and locking the user into SLI if they want multi-GPU on their chipsets.

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: jakedeez
Yeah I understand that, but there is anti-trust protection in the "SLi" market, because there isn't an SLi market place. The market place is GPUs. SLi is a feature of a product in the GPU market, and is a competitive advantage...

In the "GPU market," Nvidia markets a multi-GPU solution which locks out competing motherboards.

In the "SLi market," Nvidia locks out competing graphics makers from interfacing with their SLi video cards.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: jakedeez
I think there maybe a bad faith claim.

And what is that? How is it different?

Originally posted by: jakedeez
However nVidia does own SLi...

But not the technology allowing it. (PCI-E)

Originally posted by: jakedeez
I was just saying that it isn't and antitrust claim and that Mr. Fox comes off sounding ridiculous for the way he suggests it is...This claim holds no water as an anti-trust claim. You would need to do more then read a wikipedia article to understand.

Then what is an "antitrust claim"? You keep saying that it isn't but don't provide us examples of what is. If you think Wikipedia is wrong, "correct" them.

Originally posted by: jakedeez
Vendor-lock in? You can just buy an ATi cards.

No one said you couldn't, but that doesn't mean that they're not participating in Vendor Lock-in.

The definition of Vendor Lock-in wasn't that there is only one vendor but that the cost in switching to another would be excessive or overbearing:

Wiki:
Vendor lock-in - Is a situation in which a customer is so dependent on a vendor for products and services that he or she cannot move to another vendor without substantial switching costs, real and/or perceived.

The fact that you can buy ATi cards is irrelevant when you would not only have to buy the cards, but another motherboard as well.

Originally posted by: jakedeez
Tying? You can buy an nVidia GPU and use it with Intel core logic, perhaps you can't fully utilize it, however for most purposes it will work fine.

Perhaps you were too concentrated on Mr. Fox and his "ego", but this thread isn't debating the usages with single GPU's and differing chipsets. It is focused on dual GPU's and differing chipsets.

However, *what if* you could only use a single nVidia GPU with an nVidia chipset. How would that be different?

Originally posted by: jakedeez
Not to mention the fact that SLi, and the technology that makes it work is nVidia's IP.

The technology that makes it work is the PCI-E bus, which is *not* nVidia's property - Click

Wiki:
NVIDIA reintroduced the SLI name in 2004 and intends for it to be used in modern computer systems based on the PCI Express (PCIe) bus.

If anything SLi should work on Intel and nVidia chipsets since Intel gave them and ATi both PCI-E - Click

Wiki:
PCIe is supported primarily by Intel, which started working on the standard as the Arapahoe project after pulling out of the InfiniBand system...NVIDIA uses the high bandwidth data transfer of PCIe for its newly developed Scalable Link Interface (SLI) technology, which allows two graphics cards of the same chipset and model number to be run at the same time, allowing increased performance. ATI has also developed a dual-GPU system based on PCIe called CrossFire.

Originally posted by: jakedeez
If they want to restrict its use to their products, that is not against the law.

The PCI-E bus is not their product.

Originally posted by: jakedeez
Please understand, I am not saying I think they are doing the right thing, I am just saying it's not against the law.

They're governing a technology they didn't create in order to corner a buyer into three of their products. If that isn't against the law then it should be.

Originally posted by: jakedeez
You guys however seem convinced that it is anti-trust, so even though it is not, I will just drop it.

That's what I'm hoping since your "evidence" indicating it isn't antitrust is pure semantics.

Originally posted by: Nelsieus
And nForce core logic is a totally different architecture to an Intel chipset.

Please...:roll:

The limiting factor is not the chipset since SLi does work on certain Intel boards with SLi-capable GeForce cards utilizing drivers 88.55 or lower.

We're talking about a driver lock-out that has disabled a PCI-E capability for the sake of profit.

Originally posted by: jakedeez
Following the logic that their restriction of it is anti-competitive would mean any participant in a competitive market that developed a proprietary method or product would have to share their IP with their competitors...

Nvidia didn't make multi-GPU scalability a possibility, Intel did. This is why Intel *should* have the right to use it. SLi is only a name and one used solely for marketing.

Think about it, if nVidia did invent multi-GPU scalability, wouldn't they support CrossFire on their chipsets since ATi would be using "their IP"?

Following the logic that this isn't an antitrust behavior would mean that it's okay for nVidia to make their GPU's exclusive to only their chipsets.

Originally posted by: jakedeez
nVidia's cards do work in PCIe slots regardless of core logic... their proprietary SLi technology however doesn't.

SLi isn't a technology that is based off of anything nVidia made but rather on something Intel made. Why is it difficult to understand?

Can we all at least agree that an investigation (if it ever comes to this specifically) isn't going to hurt anything and that as far as we - the enthusiast / gamers who do not work for Intel, DAMiT, or Nvidia - are concerned a change in this would only be for the better? Is that something we all can come to terms with? Or are there any those who think that more options and better flexibility are a negative to have in a market?

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: jakedeez


You make the point in this post... you say it is fine that the PS3 / 360 model isn't valid, because they use different technology, while PCIe OTHO is open. nVidia's cards do work in PCIe slots regardless of core logic... their proprietary SLi technology however doesn't. Should the make it, I think so, but they don't have to.

SLI technology will work with other core logic at least it used to i.e. intel chipsets. The problem is Nvidia broke that with their newer drivers. People say that it's fine for Nvidia to keep SLI exclusive on their core logic...ok....but why don't they allow Crossfire on their core logic? They don't own it. It's pure vender lock out.

SilentRunning is making the most sense. Let Intel dissable one of their cores on a chipset other than intel and AMD can do the same. People would be crying foul all over the place. It's the same concept.

 

[jakedeez]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: jakedeez


You make the point in this post... you say it is fine that the PS3 / 360 model isn't valid, because they use different technology, while PCIe OTHO is open. nVidia's cards do work in PCIe slots regardless of core logic... their proprietary SLi technology however doesn't. Should the make it, I think so, but they don't have to.

SLI technology will work with other core logic at least it used to i.e. intel chipsets. The problem is Nvidia broke that with their newer drivers. People say that it's fine for Nvidia to keep SLI exclusive on their core logic...ok....but why don't they allow Crossfire on their core logic? They don't own it. It's pure vender lock out.

SilentRunning is making the most sense. Let Intel dissable one of their cores on a chipset other than intel and AMD can do the same. People would be crying foul all over the place. It's the same concept.

It isn't however vendor lock in.

Listen I am not saying its right, or a good idea on the part on nVidia, I am just saying it's not an antitrust violation.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jakedeez

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: jakedeez


You make the point in this post... you say it is fine that the PS3 / 360 model isn't valid, because they use different technology, while PCIe OTHO is open. nVidia's cards do work in PCIe slots regardless of core logic... their proprietary SLi technology however doesn't. Should the make it, I think so, but they don't have to.

SLI technology will work with other core logic at least it used to i.e. intel chipsets. The problem is Nvidia broke that with their newer drivers. People say that it's fine for Nvidia to keep SLI exclusive on their core logic...ok....but why don't they allow Crossfire on their core logic? They don't own it. It's pure vender lock out.

SilentRunning is making the most sense. Let Intel dissable one of their cores on a chipset other than intel and AMD can do the same. People would be crying foul all over the place. It's the same concept.

It isn't however vendor lock in.

Listen I am not saying its right, or a good idea on the part on nVidia, I am just saying it's not an antitrust violation.

"anti trust" is a catch all phrase ... it includes "anti competitive"

and it doesn't matter - one bit - what you or i 'think' ...

IF the case has merit it may get consideration ... and it may give nvidia another black eye ...they have survived worse.

i can't see this possible action as anything but 'good' for the consumer -- even if it is just 'education'

 

[josh6079]

It isn't however vendor lock in.

I am just saying it's not an antitrust violation.

Originally posted by: jakedeez
You guys however seem convinced that it is anti-trust, so even though it is not, I will just drop it.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Nelsieus

Originally posted by: Mr Fox

Your Bias is obvious. You are discrediting yourself.

I would almost belive you to be an AEG type.

Your attempt to incite personal attacks to attempt to get this thread locked is a joke.

Either add usefull info to the thread... or exit stage right.

You can Call Me an Asshole all you like... just do it in a seperate thread...

Thanks !

Mr. Fox, this is starting to get annoying. And attacking someone's credability to cover up for your own lack of competance isn't an "effective way" to get your voice heard, either.

This thread deserves to be locked, just like it was at HardForums. :roll:

Nelsieus

No . This thread should be used as an AT article. It deserves wide spread att. Thank you Mr. Fox. Its about time someone tried to do something about this kind of behavior.
What NV has done is wrong and any reseanonable person can see that plain as day.
I have been reading AT for years but this is the first thread that drove me to join forum with a reply.

Nelieus. You do sound and write like Trollo. But I believe Trollo was wrongly banned.
He was very intertaining. So what if he got gifts for pushing a slanted point of view.
Shame on those of you who turned on him. Most supported him until the aeg thing came up. Than they felt betrayed because he duked them into believing his slanted point of view. He was a troll . A very good one and very entertaining. Its ashame he caused other good members to be banned. One I can't remember their name but was by far the most entertaing debater I have ever read.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Nelsieus

Originally posted by: Mr Fox

Your Bias is obvious. You are discrediting yourself.

I would almost belive you to be an AEG type.

Your attempt to incite personal attacks to attempt to get this thread locked is a joke.

Either add usefull info to the thread... or exit stage right.

You can Call Me an Asshole all you like... just do it in a seperate thread...

Thanks !

Mr. Fox, this is starting to get annoying. And attacking someone's credability to cover up for your own lack of competance isn't an "effective way" to get your voice heard, either.

This thread deserves to be locked, just like it was at HardForums. :roll:

Nelsieus

I saw this so...

You want AT to be like the H? Because the hard is such a great example of moderation...:disgust:

 

[Mr Fox]

To everyone that has contributed to this thread ... I would like to thank you !!

I appreciate the professionalism that you have all demonstrated in keeping the discussion on track. I am happy that we have shown that this issue is an NV issue only... It is due to the contributions of others that we learned that ATI's Crossfire is an open platform, and that the lock out in Multi-GPU is NV.

I will update this as the weeks go by and developments happen... I hope that we continue at this level as far as member contributions to the thread.


I would also like to Welcome Nemesis 1 to AT Forums !!


Thank you for your comments !

AT probably would not touch this with a ten foot pole for potential impact upon revenues.
NVIDIA is know to Blacklist anything that is considered to be a threat... Just check out NGOHQ... since they have been Blacklisted...the NVIDIA stuff has been minimal. This was after the ULI patch got a DMCA notice without even a nice E-mail.

But I could be wrong !! If we can continue to play well and contribute more as time goes by it is hard to ignore then... this thread was opened just prior to the holidays... so it will see better exposure as time goes by.

 

[lopri]

It looks like Intel is also counting on the second option (as well as developing their own GPUs).

Israeli GPU Company Receives Funding from Intel

Specifically, the graphics acceleration traffic organizing chip will connect up to four GPUs to the CPU in hardware while a driver divides the work load across the available GPUs. The operating system will see the multiple GPUs as a single graphics device with the proper driver installed. Essentially such technology allows for SLI or Crossfire to be a transparent operation.

In other words, if the above technology comes true, it will make the communication between GPU(s) and other hardware transparent to OS, so drivers will be totally irrelevant to multi-GPU platform. At that point, semi-true mix and match of GPUs will be possible, too. (even mixing AMD's GPU and NV's GPU, of course, within its limit)

I'm guessing they'll base their development on PCI-E 2 or even CSI, but however they do it, I am all for it. If it happens, we will less often see those platformization nonsense such as SLI motherboard, SLI memory, SLI Case(!), etc.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Nelsieus

Originally posted by: BFG10K

It'd be like if I sued Microsoft because my Xbox 360 game couldn't run on my PS3.

Uh, no. PS3 is a totally different and incompatible architecture to XBox 360. PCIe OTOH is an open industry standard that every PCIe card must follow.

First off, it's not incompatible, hence why there are games available for both console systems. And nForce core logic is a totally different architecture to an Intel chipset.

Nelsieus

Wow. You have no clue. Those games are completely incompatible. You are running a different executable with different libraries. It took some serious code wrangling to create a game for both platforms (old school was with IFDEF in mainline). That is like saying that Final Cut Pro (Mac OS only) should run on XP because other apps run on both XP and Mac OS X.

As for the whole 8800 in Vista argument, this is SOP for nVidia. They have previously released hardware for OS 'whatever' before the driver is ready. Sorry, but you just have to wait a little. Vista Business is available. And Vista Ultimate gold has been available for a month, but not in shrinkwrap.

ATI has done similar with advertised features link WMV acceleration (but nVidia advertised features they could not deliver, ever - read 6800 WMV acceleration). Welcome to marketing war hell. But nVidia seems to think they are Apple these days.

 

[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.