• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Is Intel cutting off it's nose to spite it's face?

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
As most here know, (and if you don't, here's an article) Intel has effectively stopped Nvidia from producing chipsets for any of the "i" platforms (i7, i5, and i3)...BTW, this includes the Mac platforms (which are currently all Nvidia) and the Atom platforms.

My question of the day is, do you think that will effect Intel's sales, or will they be able to step up their IGP platforms so that they're more competitive?

 

stipalgl

Member
Jul 17, 2008
118
0
0
If I'm not mistaken, Intel is investing its hopes into Larrabee, which uses several of Nvidia's patents I believe.

Therefore if Intel wants to absolutely lock Nvidia out of the chipset market, Nvidia can most likely counter by preventing any further use of their patents for Intel's graphics. Really a no win situation for both.

So yes, if they continue down this path, I see the move hurting Intel's sales by a sizeable amount in the long run.
 

the kernel

Junior Member
Jul 1, 2008
19
0
0
I think you are missing the point by a country mile on this. The cross licensing agreement between nVidia and Intel at the very least CAN be interpreted such that nVidia has the right to make i7 chipsets. So why did nVidia give up before there is a legal resolution on the matter? The answer is of course obvious: Clarkdale and Arrandale.

nVidia added huge value by providing a modern chipset in a one chip solution with the 9400M/Ion and got some great design wins out of it. However, the 'Dales will provide good enough graphics within a package that nVidia can't compete with (still one chip chipset, but vastly simpler as everything but the I/O has been moved onto the chip package). nVidia cannot compete with the value of these solutions.

Worse still is the Intel deal with TSMC surrounding Atom. This deal isn't about fab capacity (Intel has plenty of that), it's about providing a TRUE one-chip solution for Atom customers to compete with the likes of ARM. See the reason that Intel still has a chipset at all for the 'Dales is because I/O needs to be flexible and can't require a new chip to update, especially since different customers will have different I/O requirements. However, with the TSMC deal Intel will allow customers to integrate custom I/O logic onto the Atom package (or perhaps even the die itself like ARM does) thereby negating ARM's chief advantage at this point (true system-on-a-chip designs).

Sure nVidia can still produce more powerful video chipsets than Intel PowerVR licensed parts (for now at least) but they are basically discreet parts at that point and that's not going to get them anything but the premium laptop market.

So to answer your question, no I don't think Intel is making the wrong decision here at all, it is simply the inevitable byproduct of merging the CPU and graphics.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
Originally posted by: stipalgl
If I'm not mistaken, Intel is investing its hopes into Larrabee, which uses several of Nvidia's patents I believe.

Therefore if Intel wants to absolutely lock Nvidia out of the chipset market, Nvidia can most likely counter by preventing any further use of their patents for Intel's graphics. Really a no win situation for both.

So yes, if they continue down this path, I see the move hurting Intel's sales by a sizeable amount in the long run.
Ya gota link for that . because I sure would like to see it . Its pretty much been dished NV is making claims and I know what your saying . NV says alot of things Like they have 300 parts up and coming , NV owns all gpu IP not. ever think when intel Nv made the chipset deal that NV didn't give up something . Intel more than likely outmanuvered NV . Intel like was more specific about what they could use chipset with and NV slipped up .

It seems NV is easy to out manuver . as you'll see with Apple .

 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: the kernel
I think you are missing the point by a country mile on this. The cross licensing agreement between nVidia and Intel at the very least CAN be interpreted such that nVidia has the right to make i7 chipsets. So why did nVidia give up before there is a legal resolution on the matter? The answer is of course obvious: Clarkdale and Arrandale.
Since Intel and Nvidia are currently in court over this very question, I can't say I agree with your assumption...
However Nvidia has flat out said that they are stopping all development for Nehalem based products until the case is resolved next year, so I think that there is also the possibility that they just want to avoid being sued.
The only difference between the Dales and current IGPs from Intel is that the Dales are on-die (but it's basically the same chip)...let's face it, Intel graphics suck wind. :)
Certainly Apple isn't about to use Intel graphics on their systems, so they will either have to use discrete graphics, or just avoid the "i" series altogether.

One other point...remember that Intel's idea of "acceptable" in graphics isn't always the same as everyone else...
There's still the ongoing class action suit against Intel because their "Vista Ready" motherboards couldn't even run Aero graphics on the operating system...

 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,127
55
81
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: the kernel
I think you are missing the point by a country mile on this. The cross licensing agreement between nVidia and Intel at the very least CAN be interpreted such that nVidia has the right to make i7 chipsets. So why did nVidia give up before there is a legal resolution on the matter? The answer is of course obvious: Clarkdale and Arrandale.
Since Intel and Nvidia are currently in court over this very question, I can't say I agree with your assumption...
However Nvidia has flat out said that they are stopping all development for Nehalem based products until the case is resolved next year, so I think that there is also the possibility that they just want to avoid being sued.
The only difference between the Dales and current IGPs from Intel is that the Dales are on-die (but it's basically the same chip)...let's face it, Intel graphics suck wind. :)
Certainly Apple isn't about to use Intel graphics on their systems, so they will either have to use discrete graphics, or just avoid the "i" series altogether.

One other point...remember that Intel's idea of "acceptable" in graphics isn't always the same as everyone else...
There's still the ongoing class action suit against Intel because their "Vista Ready" motherboards couldn't even run Aero graphics on the operating system...
I guess the first question that we'd need to answer/determine here is: What would an NV IGP/chipset solution for Clarkdale/Arrandale provide for the customer that Intel's own solution will not?

Is 14fps for an NV solution versus 12fps for the Intel solution really providing discernible value to the customer if they chose the NV solution.

Bear in mind we don't know what the MCM'ed IGP performance really is, but that shouldn't prevent us from attempting to make rational estimates of it.

Not sure if I am making my point very well here, I am just trying to say that for the market segment that Apple sells their "i" to, are those folks really going to notice that there rigs aren't performing at some level just because its all Intel under the hood?

Intel doesn't get to decide what is "good enough graphics", the customers do, and marketing tells the customers what to think, so in the absence of choices what is there for marketing to tell everyone they are missing out on?

My expectation is that the IGP market segment will no more miss the lack of NV alternatives any more than the markets missed the lack of on-die cache on early celerons (they still sold a buttload of those, at excellent margins) or the on-die L3$ on K6-3's if you instead chose to buy a K6-2...people make choices all the time that result in them deciding a lower-performing part is quite adequate for them at the price-point of interest to them.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,289
0
0
Intel's prominence drives the market. The Intel 'brand' is ubiquitous.

Even when they are not the 'best' they are still dominant.

Enthusiasts can be fickle, and occasionally viral, but 90%+ of the 'market' is indifferent.

Because of all the 'problems' I kinda felt the Apple/nVidia allegiance was doomed anyway.

And what about Lucid Hydra? Would that not make an SLI work on Intel chipsets for the enthusiasts who demand it? Will nVidia drag LucidLogix into litigation?









 

NXIL

Senior member
Apr 14, 2005
774
0
0
Hi Viditor!

Hey, are you a John Peddie-phile?

Intel has 50% of the graphics market--all IGPs unless I am mistaken. They do just fine in the graphics market, and are already very competitive.

http://jonpeddie.com/press-rel...also-show-great-gains/

Intel has 100% of the market for IGP for the low end processors, i.e. Atom despite "ION" from Nvidia--their IGP offering is just too cheap. (They bundle it with the Atom CPU is a very compelling way--like an offer you can't refuse.)

Intel got its point in the integrated graphics processor (IGP) segment, obviously, and consumers skip portables containing the premium NVIDIA IGP parts for the cheaper Intel-based options. It's also likely that netbooks are another factor, where, despite the enthusiasm behind NVIDIA's Ion platform, Intel has 100 percent of the IGP marketshare.
http://arstechnica.com/hardwar...-share-from-nvidia.ars

Again, I'm not sure whether IGPs will disappear (actually just migrate onto the CPU, like the memory controller has), but regardless, Intel's economies of scale: their profit last quarter was higher than AMDs total sales, and their profit was more than double Nvidia's total sales ($664 million) in the most recent quarter I could find, May 09:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1241728875943.html

Nvidia stopping chipset sales? That was pretty much Intel's decision, if that tells you anything: they said to 'piss off', in so many words. 'Seeya'. 'Don't let the door hit you on the way out'. I read that may be due to Nvidia's attitude about SLI--Nvidia chips only?--and some other things they did that irritated Intel.

NX

Addendum:

John Peddie thinks that the IGP will dissappear by 2013:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=129561

Great in theory, but I suppose I would need to see the actual products in service, and their prices compared to the old CPU/IGP model before believing this.
 

NXIL

Senior member
Apr 14, 2005
774
0
0
Viditor wrote:

let's face it, Intel graphics suck wind.
Hey Viditor,

I agree with your there, that Intel graphics suck, unless you are just word processing, surfing the web, doing spreadsheets, and so on--for the average user, especially the average LAPTOP user, they are just fine--in fact, better than discrete graphics, since they use so little battery power. That's why Intel sells MILLIONS of them. MILLIONS.

For the gamers and videophiles here on AT? They are a joke. But, how big a market segment are the users here?

Idon'tcare said:

I guess the first question that we'd need to answer/determine here is: What would an NV IGP/chipset solution for Clarkdale/Arrandale provide for the customer that Intel's own solution will not?
100% true that: and when Intel sells the C/A units to Dell and HP and Lenovo at a discount, you're going to hear crickets at the Nvidia shipping center.

Viditor wrote:

Certainly Apple isn't about to use Intel graphics on their systems, so they will either have to use discrete graphics, or just avoid the "i" series altogether.
Well, they have before; there's no reason they won't again, especially if the C/A combo is compelling.

Hey, who would have thunk they would use Intel CPUs? (Remember when PowerPC chips were 5X as fast according to Apple? Then when they switched to Intel, they were '5X as fast as PowerPC'--there was a little joke column in Macworld that reported that "this impossible logic loop destroyed part of the universe".)

Because of all the 'problems' I kinda felt the Apple/nVidia allegiance was doomed anyway.
True dat; and, Viditor, you will like this:

http://theappleblog.com/2009/0...series-graphics-cards/

Looks like Nvidia pissed Apple off with their unreliable chips--the ones that melted like the Wicked Witch.

NX


 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,807
2,921
126
Probably Intels' way of buying NVidia on the Cheap. Sue them to the edge of Bankruptcy, Buy them at a bargain basement Price, finally have a worthy GPU to Market.

[/tinfoil hat]
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,127
55
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably Intels' way of buying NVidia on the Cheap. Sue them to the edge of Bankruptcy, Buy them at a bargain basement Price, finally have a worthy GPU to Market.

[/tinfoil hat]
Intel action threatens Digital's PCs

Digital's Palmer faces an unsettled future after Intel settlement

Worked last time, only they won't bother to buy the business outright, but rather they will just settle out of court to get the goodies they want and then leave the rest for the vultures circling around in the background.
 

Ayah

Platinum Member
Jan 1, 2006
2,512
1
81
I believe some sources were saying that it's cheaper to buy an Atom and Intel chipset, than it is to buy a single unbundled atom.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,127
55
81
Originally posted by: NXIL
Digital's Palmer faces an unsettled future after Intel settlement
Well, not so unsettled, since they promptly went out of business, after a strong 40+ year run:

Fate:

Assets were sold to various companies. What remained was sold to Compaq.

Successor

Hewlett-Packard
(2002-Present)

Compaq
(1998-2002)

Founded 1957
Defunct 1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D..._Equipment_Corporation
That was just the title of the linked article, the relevant part was in the link in which the settlement details of the then ongoing litigation was discussed.
 

NXIL

Senior member
Apr 14, 2005
774
0
0
Worked last time, only they won't bother to buy the business outright, but rather they will just settle out of court to get the goodies they want and then leave the rest for the vultures circling around in the background.
Hi Idontcare!

I 100% agree w/ you--just thought is was ironic that the 1997 article linked said "uncertain future", and, by 1998, DEC was no more.

I was just contrasting that 1997 headline with DEC's 1998 demise.

NX
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,127
55
81
:thumbsup: I'm with you now, DEC's rapid rate of demise near the end took a lot of industry folks by surprise. But it just goes to show all bets are off when folks look to NV vs. Intel in current litigation, the sky is the limit as to how this could all turn out. (same with AMD and the anti-trust lawsuit against Intel)
 

SmCaudata

Senior member
Oct 8, 2006
553
576
136
With more of the chipset functions moving on the die there is little need for variety in chipsets. Also, with more and more games being console ports the push for PC graphics has slowed down. You have low-mid level cards that can run many games at decent settings on a 23" monitor with the exception of a handful of games. Intel's "good enough" graphics may indeed be that even for most gaming. The need for high powered chipsets is nearly gone already. There just isn't much that an third party chip could offer other than a lower price, which is not beneficial to Intel or the company forced to sell for very poor profit margins.
 

the kernel

Junior Member
Jul 1, 2008
19
0
0
Originally posted by: Viditor
Since Intel and Nvidia are currently in court over this very question, I can't say I agree with your assumption...
But they still shut down their Nehalem chipset development now didn't they?

However Nvidia has flat out said that they are stopping all development for Nehalem based products until the case is resolved next year, so I think that there is also the possibility that they just want to avoid being sued.
They are already in court over this very issue, avoiding being sued isn't the problem here.

The only difference between the Dales and current IGPs from Intel is that the Dales are on-die (but it's basically the same chip)...
Where are you getting this information? It is still a PowerVR derived core, but all the information I've seen suggests it is at least 50% faster than the ones in the G45.

EDIT: Found some early benchmarks which are right in line with this. Slower than 9400M but not enough to matter.

http://news.softpedia.com/news...nchmarked-119858.shtml

let's face it, Intel graphics suck wind. :)
No, they are just fine for the target market.

Certainly Apple isn't about to use Intel graphics on their systems, so they will either have to use discrete graphics, or just avoid the "i" series altogether.
You are clearly ignorant of history. Apple has used Intel integrated graphics before in several of their products and will do so again. The only reason that they switched to nVidia was because they offered a unique value at the right price--don't expect Apple to stay loyal to any particular hardware vendor. The Intel integrated graphics will be fine for the Mac Mini, low end iMac, low end Macbook/Macbook Pros while discreet graphics can be added for the higher spec machines.

Also if you knew anything about this subject, you'd know Apple is even more sensitive to Bill of Materials than the rest because they have to maintain ridiculous margins to keep Wall Street happy and justify their 35+ P/E ratio.

One other point...remember that Intel's idea of "acceptable" in graphics isn't always the same as everyone else...
No but given their market share in the GFX market it's clear that it's good enough for most people. I would not personally use integrated graphics for most builds, but I'm not so deluded into thinking that I am somehow the norm.

There's still the ongoing class action suit against Intel because their "Vista Ready" motherboards couldn't even run Aero graphics on the operating system...
Which is only relevant if the 'Dale graphics can't run Aero which is clearly not the case.

 

NXIL

Senior member
Apr 14, 2005
774
0
0
There's still the ongoing class action suit against Intel because their "Vista Ready" motherboards couldn't even run Aero graphics on the operating system...
The lawsuit is against Microsoft, not Intel:

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/352442_vista23.html

In a blow to Microsoft Corp., a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit late Friday alleging that Microsoft unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even when they could only run a bare-bones version of the operating system, called "Vista Home Basic."
As I recall, Intel was sort of appalled by this...

And, as for:
No but given their market share in the GFX market it's clear that it's good enough for most people.
"Good enough" is a big theme of late.

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/m...ne/17-09/ff_goodenough

Michael Dell dissed the netbook--but it's good enough to do what it needs to do, and, it's not a frigging disaster if it gets broken, stolen, dunked, or stepped on. He thinks netbook sales will tank; others think they will continue to sell in huge quantities.

Note: Intel is selling a lot of Atoms....

NX

 

the kernel

Junior Member
Jul 1, 2008
19
0
0
Originally posted by: NXIL
"Good enough" is a big theme of late.
Indeed, and it's good for us enthusiasts too in many ways. I just built an Atom 330 system with a tiny SSD and 4x Gigabit ports in a package the size of a router and it's damn near silent. I use the system to run Untangle 7.x which handles all my home security appliance needs in a way totally out of spec for the low price I paid for the components.

There are of course many uses for "good enough" hardware beyond a primary PC for the enthusiast.
 

the kernel

Junior Member
Jul 1, 2008
19
0
0
Originally posted by: Idontcare
:thumbsup: I'm with you now, DEC's rapid rate of demise near the end took a lot of industry folks by surprise. But it just goes to show all bets are off when folks look to NV vs. Intel in current litigation, the sky is the limit as to how this could all turn out. (same with AMD and the anti-trust lawsuit against Intel)
Actually no, the best nVidia could hope for is to win the case, but what does that get them? The ability to make graphics chipsets for a system that MUST ship with integrated graphics by default? They already do that, it's called discreet graphics. In my opinion the only reason they are bothering with this lawsuit is because they think it might be relevant at some point in the future and a $5 million litigation (I'm guessing here, but that's the average for a patent dispute) isn't going to be missed.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,249
1,839
136
Originally posted by: the kernel
The only difference between the Dales and current IGPs from Intel is that the Dales are on-die (but it's basically the same chip)...
Where are you getting this information? It is still a PowerVR derived core, but all the information I've seen suggests it is at least 50% faster than the ones in the G45.
That's incorrect, the C/A uses G45 arch-derivative core. The only PowerVR tech they use is the GMA500 used with Atom chips.

If you want some proof: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3648&p=6

"This isn't Larrabee (yet), it's a direct descendent of the graphics in G45. While G45 was built on a 65nm process, the 'dale graphics is built on a 45nm process."

Nvidia would be better developing QPI chipsets with IGP for S1366, rather than DMI for S1156. The low bandwidth of the DMI(that's shared with rest of the I/O) will kill the integrated graphics.
 

ilkhan

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2006
1,120
1
0
IntelUser2000: AFAIK nVid has no experience with multi-CPU chipsets, and developing for just the i7 9xx market would be far from cost effective.

Their core business is graphics; and graphics are rapidly losing margins while GPUs are becoming more complex to develop and less relevant to the market. With on-socket graphics, there's no need for a separate IGP, its just duplicating functionality, one meager performing part (nVid) in addition to a slightly more meagerly performing part (Intel). If there was a bigger performance delta required, it'd be different, but if you need a bigger performance delta, you need a discrete board. Theres no logical reason for nVid to continue *wanting* to develop chipsets. Kind've the same reason that nVid NEEDS GPGPU to take off, without it they're dead. nVid knows that without the margins of tesla and quadro they can't compete against AMD and Intel on discrete GPU sales alone. Eventually tegra will be replaced by an Intel part or a better performing ARM derived part, and they'll be left with nothing.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,564
1
0
Originally posted by: Viditor
As most here know, (and if you don't, here's an article) Intel has effectively stopped Nvidia from producing chipsets for any of the "i" platforms (i7, i5, and i3)...BTW, this includes the Mac platforms (which are currently all Nvidia) and the Atom platforms.

My question of the day is, do you think that will effect Intel's sales, or will they be able to step up their IGP platforms so that they're more competitive?
Won't be affected.

I don't know many gamers who buy a low end nVidia chipset just for it's integrated graphics performance.
If I was to buy a computer for my mom or grand parents, I wouldn't give a rats butt what integrated GPU it comes with.
Similarly, I am building a system for myself within a month. I don't care about integrated graphics and already know that dedicated graphics are better.
It's either all or nothing. The 2-5 FPS difference is not worth paying $10-20 more for the integrated chipset over an Intel one.

I almost forsee nVidia either becoming bankrupt, bought by another company, being taken over by a group of venture capitalists, or becoming a small insignificant company within the next 10-15 years if they don't do something drastic to change course.
They've been locked out of Intel chipsets, they will be locked out of AMD chipsets soon enough, and their graphics are not competitive to AMD. I don't expect Fermi to blow the pants of ATI 5870 because it will be more expensive to manufacture and if it does indeed blow the pants off, ATI can always lower the price to compete. The current generation of nVidia cards were a loss leader for them. According to some people, they made no profit from them which is why they're discontinuing them.
Doesn't motherboard chipset sales bring in 30% of revenue(or is it profit?) for nVidia?
30% is no chump change. They have everything to lose and Intel has little to lose.

The only thing that can save them now is if they pulled a rabbit out of a hat.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,564
1
0
Originally posted by: NXIL
There's still the ongoing class action suit against Intel because their "Vista Ready" motherboards couldn't even run Aero graphics on the operating system...
The lawsuit is against Microsoft, not Intel:

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/352442_vista23.html

In a blow to Microsoft Corp., a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit late Friday alleging that Microsoft unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even when they could only run a bare-bones version of the operating system, called "Vista Home Basic."
As I recall, Intel was sort of appalled by this...

And, as for:
No but given their market share in the GFX market it's clear that it's good enough for most people.
"Good enough" is a big theme of late.

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/m...ne/17-09/ff_goodenough

Michael Dell dissed the netbook--but it's good enough to do what it needs to do, and, it's not a frigging disaster if it gets broken, stolen, dunked, or stepped on. He thinks netbook sales will tank; others think they will continue to sell in huge quantities.

Note: Intel is selling a lot of Atoms....

NX
I always laugh when Dell executives say such stupid things.
No wonder they're being overtaken by HPQ and Acer in market share.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY