Intel Larrabee story

[thilanliyan]

http://www.brightsideofnews.co...ee-story-revealed.aspx

 

[GaiaHunter]

Just to say it was an interesting reading.

And good news for AMD and either good news or ok news for nvidia - if the GT300 takes really loads of time till it hit the stores cause of all that GPGPU stuff they put on to fight Larrabee.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Intel filed a suit against nVidia in Delaware court [naturally, since both companies are incorporated in the "Venture Capital of the World" state], claiming that nVidia doesn't hold the license for CPUs that have integrated memory controller. nVidia didn't stand back, but pulled a counter-suit, but this time around, nVidia wanted the cross-license deal annulled and to stop Intel from shipping products that use nVidia patents.

If you wonder why this cross-license agreement is of key importance for Larrabee, the reason is simple: without nVidia patents, there is no Larrabee. There are no integrated chipsets either, since they would infringe nVidia's patents as well. Yes, you've read that correctly. The Larrabee architecture uses some patents from both ATI and nVidia, just like every graphics chip in the industry. You cannot invent a chip without infringing on patents set by other companies, thus everything is handled in a civil matter - with agreements. We heard a figure of around several dozen patents, touching Larrabee from the way how frame buffer is created to the "deep dive" called memory controller. If you end up in court, that means you pulled a very wrong move, or the pursuing company is out to get you. If a judge would side with nVidia, Larrabee could not come to market and well can you say - Houston, we have a problem?

While I knew this was going to happen, for some reason it hadn't even dawned on me that Intel wouldn't be able to sell any graphics chips once they played hard ball with nVidia. nV being more then willing to leave the chipset business makes a lot more sense in this context, every Intel system sold will be forced to use a discrete graphics card. That will result in significantly more revenue then their chipset business and be well worth the trade off.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Intel filed a suit against nVidia in Delaware court [naturally, since both companies are incorporated in the "Venture Capital of the World" state], claiming that nVidia doesn't hold the license for CPUs that have integrated memory controller. nVidia didn't stand back, but pulled a counter-suit, but this time around, nVidia wanted the cross-license deal annulled and to stop Intel from shipping products that use nVidia patents.

If you wonder why this cross-license agreement is of key importance for Larrabee, the reason is simple: without nVidia patents, there is no Larrabee. There are no integrated chipsets either, since they would infringe nVidia's patents as well. Yes, you've read that correctly. The Larrabee architecture uses some patents from both ATI and nVidia, just like every graphics chip in the industry. You cannot invent a chip without infringing on patents set by other companies, thus everything is handled in a civil matter - with agreements. We heard a figure of around several dozen patents, touching Larrabee from the way how frame buffer is created to the "deep dive" called memory controller. If you end up in court, that means you pulled a very wrong move, or the pursuing company is out to get you. If a judge would side with nVidia, Larrabee could not come to market and well can you say - Houston, we have a problem?

While I knew this was going to happen, for some reason it hadn't even dawned on me that Intel wouldn't be able to sell any graphics chips once they played hard ball with nVidia. nV being more then willing to leave the chipset business makes a lot more sense in this context, every Intel system sold will be forced to use a discrete graphics card. That will result in significantly more revenue then their chipset business and be well worth the trade off.

The downside is an increase in heat and price, keeping them out of certain markets where AMD will be more than happy to fill. It'll be a lose-lose for nVidia and Intel if they don't straighten out their problems.

 

[Genx87]

That article makes it sound like the Merced project from the 90s. Also they make it sound like Nvidia has Intel over the couch with their patents.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The downside is an increase in heat and price, keeping them out of certain markets where AMD will be more than happy to fill.

Tegra2 will be G92 based, that could easily destroy Intel's integrated solution performance wise using even less power and for almost the same price.

It'll be a lose-lose for nVidia and Intel if they don't straighten out their problems.

Problem there would be that people would need to be willing to swap to AMD based systems, which I'm sure this would help AMD out a decent amount, but even if Intel only managed to hold half the market it would be a staggering boost to both nVidia and AMD. Right now 50% of all graphics chips are Intel based, given nV's market share they could push between double and tripple the amount of GPUs they are moving now if Intel decides not to back down(AMD would also benefit hugely in this situation with comparable gains for their ATi division and likely some decent gains for their platform and CPU side too.

I saw licensing hard ball coming when nV didn't even want to fight over the chipset side, I just failed to comprehend properly how much more they had over Intel then the other way around.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The downside is an increase in heat and price, keeping them out of certain markets where AMD will be more than happy to fill.

Tegra2 will be G92 based, that could easily destroy Intel's integrated solution performance wise using even less power and for almost the same price.

It'll be a lose-lose for nVidia and Intel if they don't straighten out their problems.

Problem there would be that people would need to be willing to swap to AMD based systems, which I'm sure this would help AMD out a decent amount, but even if Intel only managed to hold half the market it would be a staggering boost to both nVidia and AMD. Right now 50% of all graphics chips are Intel based, given nV's market share they could push between double and tripple the amount of GPUs they are moving now if Intel decides not to back down(AMD would also benefit hugely in this situation with comparable gains for their ATi division and likely some decent gains for their platform and CPU side too.

I saw licensing hard ball coming when nV didn't even want to fight over the chipset side, I just failed to comprehend properly how much more they had over Intel then the other way around.

How long until all this is ironed out in the courts?

 

[Genx87]

I'd expect years unless Nvidia can get an injuction on Intel. Then I would imagine it gets ironed out pretty damn fast.

 

[sandorski]

From a purely Fanboy perspective: Anything that hurts Nvidia or Intel is fine by me. If they decide to hurt each other at once is just more than one can ask for.

From a more reasoned Consumer perspective: I doubt much will come of this, except Intel eventually giving into Nvidia. Most important though is that it will continue to ensure reasonably priced CPUs/GPUs. So either way I win!

 

[BenSkywalker]

How long until all this is ironed out in the courts?

nV seemed to be pretty confident in 1H '10. I am assuming at this point it means that there is some sort of legal reason for that. They are pretty much in a no lose situation based on the terms of the contracts by the looks of it.

nV owns not only their very extensive patent collection, they also own all of 3dfx's, everything from the Voodoo1 forward they have patents on, there is no way Intel can dance around that much IP. The same would be true of nV/ATi but they long ago realized that that was the case and they cross license each others IP so they can continue to make products. Intel and AMD also have extensive cross licensing agreements, including x86, so those are safe for them. The only thing Intel has to offer nV is a chipset license, apparently when Intel decided to play hard ball they didn't think it all the way through, this has the capability of getting ugly for Intel in a hurry.

From a purely Fanboy perspective: Anything that hurts Nvidia or Intel is fine by me.

If you are an AMD fanboy you should be pulling for this not to come to settlement and for nVidia to win(which it should easily based on their approach). Nothing could help AMD more then to have Intel removed from the low end market- really think of the implications of this. With nV not being allowed to make chipsets and Intel not allowed to make graphics chips, AMD would pretty much take over the notebook segment by default. They would also be in a very strong position to remove Intel from the low end sector that they currently dominate. Only at the high end would the impact not make much of a difference for AMD.

If they decide to hurt each other at once is just more than one can ask for.

Overall if things go perfectly for AMD, nVidia will get a huge net gain out of this. Worse case scenario for AMD is what I likely see nVidia pushing for- full cross licensing including x86. Will Intel be willing to go that far? Hard to say, it could possibly come down to nVidia demanding a certain dollar amount per chip using their IP, which would put them into a posiition where they could stop making anything at all and still rake in the money.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

How long until all this is ironed out in the courts?

nV seemed to be pretty confident in 1H '10. I am assuming at this point it means that there is some sort of legal reason for that. They are pretty much in a no lose situation based on the terms of the contracts by the looks of it.

nV owns not only their very extensive patent collection, they also own all of 3dfx's, everything from the Voodoo1 forward they have patents on, there is no way Intel can dance around that much IP. The same would be true of nV/ATi but they long ago realized that that was the case and they cross license each others IP so they can continue to make products. Intel and AMD also have extensive cross licensing agreements, including x86, so those are safe for them. The only thing Intel has to offer nV is a chipset license, apparently when Intel decided to play hard ball they didn't think it all the way through, this has the capability of getting ugly for Intel in a hurry.

From a purely Fanboy perspective: Anything that hurts Nvidia or Intel is fine by me.

If you are an AMD fanboy you should be pulling for this not to come to settlement and for nVidia to win(which it should easily based on their approach). Nothing could help AMD more then to have Intel removed from the low end market- really think of the implications of this. With nV not being allowed to make chipsets and Intel not allowed to make graphics chips, AMD would pretty much take over the notebook segment by default. They would also be in a very strong position to remove Intel from the low end sector that they currently dominate. Only at the high end would the impact not make much of a difference for AMD.

If they decide to hurt each other at once is just more than one can ask for.

Overall if things go perfectly for AMD, nVidia will get a huge net gain out of this. Worse case scenario for AMD is what I likely see nVidia pushing for- full cross licensing including x86. Will Intel be willing to go that far? Hard to say, it could possibly come down to nVidia demanding a certain dollar amount per chip using their IP, which would put them into a posiition where they could stop making anything at all and still rake in the money.

Ya, I'm not much of a Fanboy anymore. I'm more just a Habitual User of AMD/ATI.

 

[yacoub]

Fascinating story, thanks for linking it.

 

[Phynaz]

Why do people give anything Theo Valich writes any credence?

 

[BenSkywalker]

Why do people give anything Theo Valich writes any credence?

Most of the conversation in this thread so far has been around the upcoming IP dispute between Intel and nVidia. This has been reported in the mainstream press, I have made numerous comments about it in the past about how it relates to Larrabee, I just for some reason never even realized that the patents could also be applied to Intel's integrated solutions(which has been obvious, just his comment made it click in my head for some reason).

The focus of his article was about how badly Larrabee development is going, we all have known that for a long time.

 

[Tempered81]

Great read, thanks thilan.

 

[Schmide]

Best snip from the article.

In the article by: Theo Valich
Lower-level employees start dissing the competition on Internet forums

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Why do people give anything Theo Valich writes any credence?

Because, as I see it, he knows how to write in the hypothetical. Only a fanboi would dismiss questions and evidence to declare it incredible. The best thing an article can do is make you think and give you some perspective on how to do so.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The strained relationship between the two got into a state of war when Intel started talking to OEMs and claiming that nVidia does not have the right to create chipsets for Nehalem [QPI - Quick Path Interface] and Lynnfield [DMI - Digital Multimedia Interface]. Upon request, we were shown a cross-license deal between Intel and nVidia. I am not going to disclose which side showed it to me, since technically - the source did something it wasn't supposed to do.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Intel filed a suit against nVidia in Delaware court [naturally, since both companies are incorporated in the "Venture Capital of the World" state], claiming that nVidia doesn't hold the license for CPUs that have integrated memory controller. nVidia didn't stand back, but pulled a counter-suit, but this time around, nVidia wanted the cross-license deal annulled and to stop Intel from shipping products that use nVidia patents.

If you wonder why this cross-license agreement is of key importance for Larrabee, the reason is simple: without nVidia patents, there is no Larrabee. There are no integrated chipsets either, since they would infringe nVidia's patents as well. Yes, you've read that correctly. The Larrabee architecture uses some patents from both ATI and nVidia, just like every graphics chip in the industry. You cannot invent a chip without infringing on patents set by other companies, thus everything is handled in a civil matter - with agreements. We heard a figure of around several dozen patents, touching Larrabee from the way how frame buffer is created to the "deep dive" called memory controller. If you end up in court, that means you pulled a very wrong move, or the pursuing company is out to get you. If a judge would side with nVidia, Larrabee could not come to market and well can you say - Houston, we have a problem?

While I knew this was going to happen, for some reason it hadn't even dawned on me that Intel wouldn't be able to sell any graphics chips once they played hard ball with nVidia. nV being more then willing to leave the chipset business makes a lot more sense in this context, every Intel system sold will be forced to use a discrete graphics card. That will result in significantly more revenue then their chipset business and be well worth the trade off.

My only thoughts about this sounds like how royally lame, pahtetically fucked up is our patent system?

 

[n7]

Awesome read.

I don't care if it's not all true, that was entertaining to read

 

[her209]

Of course, Intel could buy nVidia.

 

[faxon]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Why do people give anything Theo Valich writes any credence?

Because, as I see it, he knows how to write in the hypothetical. Only a fanboi would dismiss questions and evidence to declare it incredible. The best thing an article can do is make you think and give you some perspective on how to do so.

couldnt have put it better myself tbh

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Why do people give anything Theo Valich writes any credence?

What about the article is false? If you know, please let us know.
I myself had a strong feeling that Larrabee would not be here for a long while yet, and when it does arrive, it's not going to be what we thought it would be. E.G. a competitor to AMD/NV.
Maybe the value low midrange.
I guess Intel just doesn't have the know how. Even with all their money, they can't just whip up a competitor in 4 years to compete with companies that have been at it for the better of two decades. So, I kind of expected this despite the massive hype around Larrabee.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Intel filed a suit against nVidia in Delaware court [naturally, since both companies are incorporated in the "Venture Capital of the World" state], claiming that nVidia doesn't hold the license for CPUs that have integrated memory controller. nVidia didn't stand back, but pulled a counter-suit, but this time around, nVidia wanted the cross-license deal annulled and to stop Intel from shipping products that use nVidia patents.

If you wonder why this cross-license agreement is of key importance for Larrabee, the reason is simple: without nVidia patents, there is no Larrabee. There are no integrated chipsets either, since they would infringe nVidia's patents as well. Yes, you've read that correctly. The Larrabee architecture uses some patents from both ATI and nVidia, just like every graphics chip in the industry. You cannot invent a chip without infringing on patents set by other companies, thus everything is handled in a civil matter - with agreements. We heard a figure of around several dozen patents, touching Larrabee from the way how frame buffer is created to the "deep dive" called memory controller. If you end up in court, that means you pulled a very wrong move, or the pursuing company is out to get you. If a judge would side with nVidia, Larrabee could not come to market and well can you say - Houston, we have a problem?

While I knew this was going to happen, for some reason it hadn't even dawned on me that Intel wouldn't be able to sell any graphics chips once they played hard ball with nVidia. nV being more then willing to leave the chipset business makes a lot more sense in this context, every Intel system sold will be forced to use a discrete graphics card. That will result in significantly more revenue then their chipset business and be well worth the trade off.

My only thoughts about this sounds like how royally lame, pahtetically fucked up is our patent system?

How so?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Why do people give anything Theo Valich writes any credence?

What about the article is false? If you know, please let us know.
I myself had a strong feeling that Larrabee would not be here for a long while yet, and when it does arrive, it's not going to be what we thought it would be. E.G. a competitor to AMD/NV.
Maybe the value low midrange.
I guess Intel just doesn't have the know how. Even with all their money, they can't just whip up a competitor in 4 years to compete with companies that have been at it for the better of two decades. So, I kind of expected this despite the massive hype around Larrabee.

Keys remember with Intel its not just how to make the product, its how to make the product such that it commands >50% gross margins.

The feet of Intel's decision makers are held to a different kind of fire versus pretty much everyone else in the semiconductor industry, the same is true of Microsoft versus just about every other software company in that industry.

If they can't convince themselves that a product/market is capable of sustainably delivering >50% GMs then they abstain from that market until such time they feel they have such a product angle or the market itself has fundamentally changed. Look at their initial mobile (cellphone) efforts, or their earlier HDTV efforts.

AMD can walk into an investor conference meeting and report 30% gross margins on graphics segment products and no one bats an eye, same with NV.

But if Intel released Larrabee today and it dominated the HD5870 performance-wise but only carried a 30% gross margin Intel's stock price would be shredded on a future EPS PE ratio basis and the existing decision makers responsible for dragging Intel's shareholders into a non-viable (from PFO and GM standpoint) marketspace would be hoisted out onto the street by the BOD. (rip Gelsinger)

If and when Intel ever releases Larrabee you can rest assured that regardless the performance level of the product its release timeline will have essentially been driven by the gross margins story (of which performance determines the market price of course).

From Merced to Netburst to GMA I think we can safely conclude the only time Intel concerns itself with producing a technically superior product over that of the competition is when the gross margins story commands such (Core, SSD, Beckton), otherwise the decision makers have aptly demonstrated they have no problem taking a hit to their pride in exchange for an ever fatter wallet.