Nvidia feels small compared to Intel/AMD

[Rottie]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
I t will be a sad day for the computer industry and us gamers if Nvidia was out of the picture.

Did they sad when Cyrix CPU was out of picture long time ago?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Personally I would like to see PC games designed with mid-range integrated graphics in mind. Integrated audio has mostly overtaken add-in soundcards, and I see no reason why the same could not happen in the GPU market. I'm getting tired of video card prices and power consumption. If Nvidia is reduced to a bit player in the market as result, it'll be no skin off my nose.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Genx87
Their fears arent unwarranted. With a common platform Intel and AMD can simply push Nvidia out of the majority of the market, relegating them to high end gaming graphics.

I don't know where you got that idea. Eliminating the traditional graphics bus and having direct architectural integration of the GPU isn't just for grandma and grandpa. There's no way even a high end card would be able to compete. Particularly when you consider the superior manufacturing process resources AMD and particularly Intel have available that nVidia does not have.

I really cannot see where nVidia is going to go after the GeForce 9. They will have to get very clever.

AMD outsourced the building of video chipsets (just like ATI did before the acquisition, and just like NVidia does now). But there was a rumour AMD would outsource some of its processor production to outside fabs.
AMD is NOT in a position to build video chipsets in its fabs - those are hardly keeping up with processor production

 

[Cogman]

I kind of see AMD tanking before Nvidia does (heaven help us if that happens). Nvidia is doing well right now, and has been for a long time. ATI has never really had much over Nvidia that I can remember. So to say that they would be so inflexable as to completely tank because of integrated graphics is just rediculus.

Heck. Look at MoBo sales for example. If you want a good AMD motherboard, what chipset do you go with? Nvidia. How about Intel? Nvidia again (not so big, intel's on chipset is really good). I just don't see Nvidia dieing within the next couple of years (but thats what we said about voodoo)

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Personally I would like to see PC games designed with mid-range integrated graphics in mind. Integrated audio has mostly overtaken add-in soundcards, and I see no reason why the same could not happen in the GPU market. I'm getting tired of video card prices and power consumption. If Nvidia is reduced to a bit player in the market as result, it'll be no skin off my nose.

I disagree. The intended purpose of current on board chips and discrete cards are entirely different. The on board chip is designed to be inexpensive and provide the user with video output for their desktop whereas the discrete graphics card is designed to provide the end user with additional functionality, whether that be gaming, a tv tuner, or 3D rendering for CAD/CAM etc...

The users that need/want that additional functionality are still a relatively small subset of the market, so it really wouldn't be fair to those that aren't interested in that to have to pay more for an on board chip that attempts to be everything to everyone. Also, more powerful on board chips would probably not be ideal for certain situations like ultra portable notebooks where battery life is a primary concern or ultra low priced laptops where solid basic functionality and low cost are the goal.

On the flip side, on board graphics also isn't upgradeable like a discrete card, so even if they chip was decent for gamers when it was new, you'd end up with gamers owning systems with the pricey on board chip that it came with disabled and a discrete card in its place after about a year. I find the option to remove and re-use or sell my high priced graphics card a much better option when it comes time to upgrade the graphics card in an otherwise capable PC.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: nitromullet


On the flip side, on board graphics also isn't upgradeable like a discrete card, so even if they chip was decent for gamers when it was new, you'd end up with gamers owning systems with the pricey on board chip that it came with disabled and a discrete card in its place after about a year. I find the option to remove and re-use or sell my high priced graphics card a much better option when it comes time to upgrade the graphics card in an otherwise capable PC.

But it will be cheap like current onboard graphics card. Basically added to the cost of boards at a minimum price. Onboard graphics are upgradeable maybe not laptops but whenever you feel the need to have better graphics you can always drop another one in through PCI-E.

At least the PC industry is changing where there is a standard of minimum with these GPU onboard. Currently there is no such thing. So some games come out looking like crap and some games you need a $500 card to play it properly.

In the end this is good for the consumer. Not for companies like Nvidia.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Cogman
I kind of see AMD tanking before Nvidia does (heaven help us if that happens). Nvidia is doing well right now, and has been for a long time. ATI has never really had much over Nvidia that I can remember. So to say that they would be so inflexable as to completely tank because of integrated graphics is just rediculus.

Heck. Look at MoBo sales for example. If you want a good AMD motherboard, what chipset do you go with? Nvidia. How about Intel? Nvidia again (not so big, intel's on chipset is really good). I just don't see Nvidia dieing within the next couple of years (but thats what we said about voodoo)

AMD tanking? I really doubt it. I don't see Nvidia going anywhere either any time soon but they need innovate if they want to stay where they are.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: nitromullet


On the flip side, on board graphics also isn't upgradeable like a discrete card, so even if they chip was decent for gamers when it was new, you'd end up with gamers owning systems with the pricey on board chip that it came with disabled and a discrete card in its place after about a year. I find the option to remove and re-use or sell my high priced graphics card a much better option when it comes time to upgrade the graphics card in an otherwise capable PC.

But it will be cheap like current onboard graphics card. Basically added to the cost of boards at a minimum price. Onboard graphics are upgradeable maybe not laptops but whenever you feel the need to have better graphics you can always drop another one in through PCI-E.

At least the PC industry is changing where there is a standard of minimum with these GPU onboard. Currently there is no such thing. So some games come out looking like crap and some games you need a $500 card to play it properly.

In the end this is good for the consumer. Not for companies like Nvidia.

I really disagree. If they put a cheap graphics solution in there it will just be a cheap graphics solution. They aren't going to be willing or able to put something high end in there for low cost. They could potentially pull a few tricks to get more from less since they can work with the motherboard chipset and processor more directly, but unless they want to up the price of the base level motherboard...you're still going to have bottom rung graphics in there.

Lets face it, most computers sold are not gaming machines outside of some simple games. They don't need highend GPU chipsets that add cost. So there is always going to be a big segment of the market that won't pay for that extra graphics hardware. If intel refuses to provide a cheap motherboard with cheap integrated graphics, AMD will...and consumers will take the only course they can. Consumers don't want to pay an extra $200 for a graphics card on a machine they use to write books, shuffle excel spread sheets or even do photoshop work.

There may be a current minimum...but that will be whatever pathetic card can run aero-if that. And that minimum is currently pretty much the same crap ass integrated solutions we already have.

 

[AzN]

The graphics will be embedded (part of the motheboard) and will perform much better than current trend of onboard graphics that's just added on top of motheboards. It will be in the performance in line of medium range graphic cards today at least this is their goal. If they add $20 to the cost of motherboard I think this is a good thing for the PC industry. 3D not as an option but a reality for any PC sold.

Whether you like it or not. This is reality. You have no choice in the matter. Only choice you would have is buying a higher end card and sticking into the mobo.

 

[soonerproud]

Nvidia is going to survive the integrated CPU/GPU simply because graphics are quickly outdated by advancements in software. People tend to keep a PC for four or five years, so the best way to extend the life of a PC for gaming is by upgrading a discreet graphics solution.

I think many of you are missing the point of the integrated CPU/GPU processor. Improved graphics is only one reason both AMD and Intel are looking to combine the GPU and the CPU. It has been known for some time that the GPU excels at certain types of computing that X86 falls short in. By adding the GPU to a current X86 CPU, it will make the X86 market more competitive with RISC and Itanium in the server space. This is much more than about better graphics for the average computer.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: nitromullet


On the flip side, on board graphics also isn't upgradeable like a discrete card, so even if they chip was decent for gamers when it was new, you'd end up with gamers owning systems with the pricey on board chip that it came with disabled and a discrete card in its place after about a year. I find the option to remove and re-use or sell my high priced graphics card a much better option when it comes time to upgrade the graphics card in an otherwise capable PC.

But it will be cheap like current onboard graphics card. Basically added to the cost of boards at a minimum price. Onboard graphics are upgradeable maybe not laptops but whenever you feel the need to have better graphics you can always drop another one in through PCI-E.

At least the PC industry is changing where there is a standard of minimum with these GPU onboard. Currently there is no such thing. So some games come out looking like crap and some games you need a $500 card to play it properly.

In the end this is good for the consumer. Not for companies like Nvidia.

Do really think that Intel would put massive development into creating an on board solution that performs say like an 8800GTX so they could sell it for cheap?

Ok, sure if by the use of some magical ferry dust it even becomes possible to build a $150 motherboard with an onboard chip that even comes close to rivaling the 8800GTX, I'd buy one... Why not..? However, that isn't even a remotely realistic possibility with the technology we currently have. Do you really think that NVIDIA put out a high end card that is almost a 1 foot long and requires dual 6-pin power connectors because they thought it made their card look cool? No, they did it because the gpu is a frikken beast that takes a lot of juice to run and puts off a lot of heat.

Intel has definitely entered the gaming arena as of late, but not because they want to provide inexpensive, high power gaming rigs to all the good little boys and girls of the world. If Skulltrail is any indication of where they are heading on the high end, it certainly isn't cheap...

The graphics will be embedded (part of the motheboard) and will perform much better than current trend of onboard graphics that's just added on top of motheboards. It will be in the performance in line of medium range graphic cards today at least this is their goal. If they add $20 to the cost of motherboard I think this is a good thing for the PC industry. 3D not as an option but a reality for any PC sold.

Sure, it would be great for the end user... However, where is the incentive for a company to sink millions of dollars into developing a product that they can only sell for $20 (with maybe a $5 profit) when they can already charge just as much for their crappy on board chips plus an additional $100-200 for a mid-range add on card for those who want the additional performance?

 

[AzN]

You are missing the whole picture. 8800gtx performance? Who says anything about 8800gtx performance? We are talking about onboard graphics here. More in the lines of midrange cards like 8600gt level. Lot of people do not need 8800gtx. People who buy 8800gtx are a minority like you. What Intel and AMD wants to do is bring PC industry onboard graphics to a level where there's a standard. They will also be selling higher end cards. So this whole low budget and midrange graphic cards will not be necessary anymore. Intel has their own fabs. Building embedded chips would be whole lot cheaper than what Nvidia is charged for budget cards. Cards also cost more money than a gpu embedded on to the mobo. So that $20 add on cost is not out of the question.

Just look at xbox 360 solution. Back when it was first released it had graphics giving PC gamers a boner. If Intel and AMD can incorporate that kind of technology onto PC that would be great for the PC industry.

 

[armacham]

Having decent integrated graphics sounds ok to me in a perfect world, and given the low lifespan and high cost of video cards why not? But it just seems so console-like to me, sure you are somewhat limited with what you can do with motherboards as they are currently, but at that point, why bother having the option to upgrade cpu, ram, and everything else? Thinking about that, I guess that what a mac is?

Could both things be possible? For example you buy a motherboard with integrated graphics, and later upgrade it by adding some card/device that worked with the integrated graphics rather than disabling it? I remember sega had the 32x thing you could plug into the top of it, and nintendo 64 had something similar. Anyways, I dunno if I'm in favor of this idea or not. If its done cheaply and can be upgraded without buying a new computer I dont care, though I dont think it is possible.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Nvidia needs to buyout or merge with Via. I think "NVia" could be very competitive with both AMD and Intel, especially in the mobile arena.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Azn
You are missing the whole picture. 8800gtx performance? Who says anything about 8800gtx performance? We are talking about onboard graphics here. More in the lines of midrange cards like 8600gt level. Lot of people do not need 8800gtx. People who buy 8800gtx are a minority like you. What Intel and AMD wants to do is bring PC industry onboard graphics to a level where there's a standard. They will also be selling higher end cards.

The point remains the same... What makes you think it will be cheap? The math is simple, if there was an on board solution that came out tomorrow, that was cool running, but performed like an 8600GT it would cost you just as much or more than an 8600GT. Why would anyone give you a midrange card when they could sell you one?

The other side of this would be that they drop this midrange solution on every motherboard, so the vast majority of users that don't even need/want a midrange card are forced to buy one. Should these people be forced to shoulder the cost of your on board gaming card? Discrete graphics is the 'fairest' way to implement this. Those who want and can afford more advanced graphic adapters pay for them. They aren't subsidized by individuals that don't.

That doesn't even take into account the business world... Do you think businesses are going to want to pay even $20 extra per machine so their employees will have computers that can play games?

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
Nvidia needs to buyout or merge with Via. I think "NVia" could be very competitive with both AMD and Intel, especially in the mobile arena.

I actually thought about that earlier... I think the biggest advantage would be that VIA also makes x86 processors, which NVIDIA can not legally do due to licensing. I don't know much about VIA as a company, but I think they are probably a bigger bite than NVIDIA can swallow.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
Nvidia needs to buyout or merge with Via. I think "NVia" could be very competitive with both AMD and Intel, especially in the mobile arena.

I actually thought about that earlier... I think the biggest advantage would be that VIA also makes x86 processors, which NVIDIA can not legally do due to licensing. I don't know much about VIA as a company, but I think they are probably a bigger bite than NVIDIA can swallow.

Size isn't everything, Market Cap is. Nvidia is currently worth ~$21.7B, and Via is worth ~$904M ($29.5B TWD). If AMD could swallow ATI, then I don't think Nvidia would have a problem with Via.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
Nvidia needs to buyout or merge with Via. I think "NVia" could be very competitive with both AMD and Intel, especially in the mobile arena.

I actually thought about that earlier... I think the biggest advantage would be that VIA also makes x86 processors, which NVIDIA can not legally do due to licensing. I don't know much about VIA as a company, but I think they are probably a bigger bite than NVIDIA can swallow.

Size isn't everything, Market Cap is. Nvidia is currently worth ~$21.7B, and Via is worth ~$904M ($29.5B TWD). If AMD could swallow ATI, then I don't think Nvidia would have a problem with Via.

That's really interesting. I'm sure that hasn't gone unnoticed by the green team. I'm certainly far from being a legal expert, but I think that an acquisition of VIA would enable NVIDIA to produce x86 cpus. Anyone more versed in this area care to chime in?

 

[aka1nas]

I've heard from others previously(Viditor?) that VIA and AMD's X86 licenses are non-transferable and wouldn't be usable if another company bought them out.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Azn
You are missing the whole picture. 8800gtx performance? Who says anything about 8800gtx performance? We are talking about onboard graphics here. More in the lines of midrange cards like 8600gt level. Lot of people do not need 8800gtx. People who buy 8800gtx are a minority like you. What Intel and AMD wants to do is bring PC industry onboard graphics to a level where there's a standard. They will also be selling higher end cards.

The point remains the same... What makes you think it will be cheap? The math is simple, if there was an on board solution that came out tomorrow, that was cool running, but performed like an 8600GT it would cost you just as much or more than an 8600GT. Why would anyone give you a midrange card when they could sell you one?

The other side of this would be that they drop this midrange solution on every motherboard, so the vast majority of users that don't even need/want a midrange card are forced to buy one. Should these people be forced to shoulder the cost of your on board gaming card? Discrete graphics is the 'fairest' way to implement this. Those who want and can afford more advanced graphic adapters pay for them. They aren't subsidized by individuals that don't.

That doesn't even take into account the business world... Do you think businesses are going to want to pay even $20 extra per machine so their employees will have computers that can play games?

Why wouldn't it be cheaper than slapping a pcb with a gpu than cutting cost by embedding graphics on to the mobo? I don't know about you but I think it would cost less to fabricate a gpu onboard than having a separate video card. Cost to produce chips are damn pretty cheap especially if you build you own fab like Intel does. Intel sells celerons for $50 and they still make a profit. Mass producing a GPU onto every mobo would make them billions even if $5 was their profit margin.

Do you really think business world needs a sound onboard on a mobo when all they do is work on spreadsheets? Of course not. Having a standard is a good thing. Not a bad one for the consumer. If Intel or AMD is trying to completely wipe out separate video cards I would understand this is bad for the consumer but that's not the case here.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
Nvidia needs to buyout or merge with Via. I think "NVia" could be very competitive with both AMD and Intel, especially in the mobile arena.

I actually thought about that earlier... I think the biggest advantage would be that VIA also makes x86 processors, which NVIDIA can not legally do due to licensing. I don't know much about VIA as a company, but I think they are probably a bigger bite than NVIDIA can swallow.

Size isn't everything, Market Cap is. Nvidia is currently worth ~$21.7B, and Via is worth ~$904M ($29.5B TWD). If AMD could swallow ATI, then I don't think Nvidia would have a problem with Via.

Why doesn't Nvidia just swallow AMD if that was the case? amd is worth only 7.8 billion by market cap. I don't think it's all about market cap far as how much the company is really worth.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
Nvidia needs to buyout or merge with Via. I think "NVia" could be very competitive with both AMD and Intel, especially in the mobile arena.

I actually thought about that earlier... I think the biggest advantage would be that VIA also makes x86 processors, which NVIDIA can not legally do due to licensing. I don't know much about VIA as a company, but I think they are probably a bigger bite than NVIDIA can swallow.

Size isn't everything, Market Cap is. Nvidia is currently worth ~$21.7B, and Via is worth ~$904M ($29.5B TWD). If AMD could swallow ATI, then I don't think Nvidia would have a problem with Via.

Why doesn't Nvidia just swallow AMD if that was the case? amd is worth only 7.8 billion by market cap. I don't think it's all about market cap far as how much the company is really worth.

Until AMD bought ATI there was no reason for Nvidia to even consider buying AMD (or Via, for that matter). You might even notice that AMD is worth less and Nvidia is worth more today than they were just one short year ago, so that was even less of a possibility until recently.

 

[nitromullet]

Why wouldn't it be cheaper than slapping a pcb with a gpu than cutting cost by embedding graphics on to the mobo? I don't know about you but I think it would cost less to fabricate a gpu onboard than having a separate video card. Cost to produce chips are damn pretty cheap especially if you build you own fab like Intel does. Intel sells celerons for $50 and they still make a profit. Mass producing a GPU onto every mobo would make them billions even if $5 was their profit margin.

Do you really think business world needs a sound onboard on a mobo when all they do is work on spreadsheets? Of course not. Having a standard is a good thing. Not a bad one for the consumer. If Intel or AMD is trying to completely wipe out separate video cards I would understand this is bad for the consumer but that's not the case here.

You aren't getting it.

Yes, it would be better for consumers, but it wouldn't be better for Intel, NVIDIA, or AMD... They won't give you a cheap on board solution that rivals a mid-priced discrete solution simply because they aren't running a charity. The mid-range card is a market segment that both AMD and NVIDIA are already in... It would make more sense for Intel to simply produce a product that they can sell in an existing market segment as opposed to spending millions to develop a solution they practically gave away for free. My point is that while you might some day see relatively high powered on board gpus, they won't be as cheap as they are today because it simply doesn't make sense to practically give a product away that they know people will pay for.

 

[AzN]

Did you ever think you aren't getting it?

Why wouldn't it be good for Intel? If every mobo sold made them more money? It might not be good for Nvidia but it sure as hell would be good for Intel and AMD. Cut cost of PCB and memory means less money to produce. Imagine using system memory like video ram running at 1066mhz ddr3. Less money to produce means cheaper price for the consumers.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Azn
Did you ever think you aren't getting it?

Why wouldn't it be good for Intel? If every mobo sold made them more money? It might not be good for Nvidia but it sure as hell would be good for Intel and AMD. Cut cost of PCB means less money to produce. Less money money to produce means cheaper price for the consumers.

Or they could develop a chip that they could sell for just slightly less than an equivalent discrete card (which they could afford to do)... Why would they sell an on board chip that rivals a $100+ discrete card for $20? They wouldn't... That's just dumb. Competition breeds price drops, cheaper manufacturing enables companies to compete.