Nvidia to license Kepler to everyone who can pay

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
That's really shocking. Looks like that "We'll ship a bigger GPU" didn't work as advertised and Tegra/Shield backfired:

http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2013/0...ves-nvidia-room-to-expand-its-business-model/

Nvidia said:
The IT world is being upended.

PC sales are declining with the rise of smartphones and tablets. High-definition screens are proliferating, showing up on most every machine. Android is increasingly pervasive. Yesterday’s PC industry, which produced several hundred million units a year, will soon become a computing-devices industry that produces many billions of units a year. And visual computing is at the epicenter of it all.

The consequences of these changes are apparent everywhere. New industry leaders are emerging. Companies differentiate not only on products but on business models. Some create systems from industry-standard chips. Others are vertically integrated and build their own chips, systems, software and even services. Some do both.

For chip-makers like NVIDIA that invent fundamental advances, this disruption provides an opening to expand our business model. Not so long ago, we only made and sold GPU chips, albeit the world’s fastest ones. Five years ago, we introduced Tegra, a system on a chip. More recently, GRID – a complete system that streams cloud games and other graphics-rich content – as well as the SHIELD gaming portable have been unveiled.

But it’s not practical to build silicon or systems to address every part of the expanding market. Adopting a new business approach will allow us to address the universe of devices.

So, our next step is to license our GPU cores and visual computing patent portfolio to device manufacturers to serve the needs of a large piece of the market.

The reality is that we’ve done this in the past. We licensed an earlier GPU core to Sony for the Playstation 3. And we receive more than $250 million a year from Intel as a license fee for our visual computing patents.

Now, the explosion of Android devices presents an unprecedented opportunity to accelerate this effort.



NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture is the world’s most advanced, most efficient GPU.

We’ll start by licensing the GPU core based on the NVIDIA Kepler architecture, the world’s most advanced, most efficient GPU. Its DX11, OpenGL 4.3, and GPGPU capabilities, along with vastly superior performance and efficiency, create a new class of licensable GPU cores. Through our efforts designing Tegra into mobile devices, we’ve gained valuable experience designing for the smallest power envelopes. As a result, Kepler can operate in a half-watt power envelope, making it scalable from smartphones to supercomputers.

Kepler is the basis for currently shipping GeForce, Quadro and Tesla GPUs, as well as our next-generation Tegra mobile processor codenamed Logan. Licensees will receive all necessary designs, collateral and support to integrate NVIDIA’s powerful graphics cores into their devices.

We’ll also offer licensing rights to our visual computing portfolio. This will enable licensees to develop their own GPU functionality while enjoying design freedom under the best visual computing patent portfolio in the world.

This opportunity simply didn’t exist several years ago because there was really just one computing device – the PC. But the swirling universe of new computing devices provides new opportunities to license our GPU core or visual computing portfolio.

As the world leader in visual computing technology, we believe we’re uniquely positioned to benefit. We invest more in R&D in this area than any other company in the world – over $1 billion annually and more than $6 billion since our founding. The vast majority of our 8,500 employees are engaged in these efforts, and we have more than 5,500 patents issued and pending – the industry’s best visual computing patent portfolio.

But more importantly, more devices will have the potential to take advantage of our investments. That means more of the planet’s users will be able to enjoy our advanced graphics technologies. And that’s what really gets us excited here at NVIDIA.
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,601
2
81
Not necessarily. Nothing keeps them from licensing out their IP for certain market segments and at the same time still offer their Tegra SoCs.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
Not necessarily. Nothing keeps them from licensing out their IP for certain market segments and at the same time still offer their Tegra SoCs.

And then Tegra SoCs will have to fight against other ARM SoCs with Kepler GPU? What will be the competitive advantage of Tegra SoCs? Jensen smile on the marketing folder?
 

lefty2

Senior member
May 15, 2013
240
9
81
And then Tegra SoCs will have to fight against other ARM SoCs with Kepler GPU? What will be the competitive advantage of Tegra SoCs? Jensen smile on the marketing folder?
That is a good point. I think what will happen is they finally admit they can't compete with the likes of Intel and Qualcomm and that they will cancle Tegra 5 (Tegra 5 is the SoC that was to use Kepler). That makes sense because otherwise they would be directly competing with a third party SoC that uses their own IP. Also, consider that the head of Tegra segement was reciently fired, it all makes sense.
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,601
2
81
And then Tegra SoCs will have to fight against other ARM SoCs with Kepler GPU? What will be the competitive advantage of Tegra SoCs? Jensen smile on the marketing folder?

What does Nvidia care?
Company A wants Tegra in their products.
Company B doesn't want Tegra, maybe because thy want custom ARM-cores that Nvidia cannot provide (yet).

Before, Nvidia could only make money off company A. Now they can make money of A and B. Some companies always want to design their SoCs themselves like Apple and Samsung. Now they can get Nvidia GPU-IP too without Tegra.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
What does Nvidia care?
Company A wants Tegra in their products.
Company B doesn't want Tegra, maybe because thy want custom ARM-cores that Nvidia cannot provide (yet).

Before, Nvidia could only make money off company A. Now they can make money of A and B. Some companies always want to design their SoCs themselves like Apple and Samsung. Now they can get Nvidia GPU-IP too without Tegra.

Keep in mind that this isn't an opening to strategic alliances as you are implying, but Nvidia opening their IP for whoever wants to pay it.

The effects are something like that:

- Company A wants Kepler, but they have a custom SoC with Kepler that sells for less, so company A can pit Nvidia against company XYZ to get the best deal for their SoC. Either way, Nvidia earns a small cut of XYZ revenues or smaller margins on their Tegra sales.

I see this as a sign of weakness. Nvidia doesn't seem to have the strength to develop SoCs and fill all the market brackets they could with Kepler, so they are going to give away their tech to earn a small bite of other's revenues.
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,734
514
126
www.facebook.com
That's really shocking. Looks like that "We'll ship a bigger GPU" didn't work as advertised and Tegra/Shield backfired:

http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2013/0...ves-nvidia-room-to-expand-its-business-model/

I see it differently than you. Their royalty revenue will be ending with Intel in two years (or so) and the PS3 royalties will start to decline once the PS4 hits. They're looking to supplement or expand this upcoming loss in revenue. Also, being able to potentially tap Samsung, Apple, or any of the other in-house SoC makers would be monumental. Way, way more smartphones are sold than PS3's, and while the royalties would be less per SoC, the volume would easily allows earnings to skyrocket if the right deals are landed.

Also, I don't think Nvidia would have done this if there wasn't interest from other companies. Intel, who licenses GPU tech for their mobile products, would benefit massively by switching to Kepler or the upcoming Maxwell.

All in all, it's a great move by Nvidia. The overhead of developing their tech is covered with the selling of their own GPU's, so royalty revenue isn't 100% dependent upon like Imagination's.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,582
162
106
Keep in mind that this isn't an opening to strategic alliances as you are implying, but Nvidia opening their IP for whoever wants to pay it.

The effects are something like that:

- Company A wants Kepler, but they have a custom SoC with Kepler that sells for less, so company A can pit Nvidia against company XYZ to get the best deal for their SoC. Either way, Nvidia earns a small cut of XYZ revenues or smaller margins on their Tegra sales.

I see this as a sign of weakness. Nvidia doesn't seem to have the strength to develop SoCs and fill all the market brackets they could with Kepler, so they are going to give away their tech to earn a small bite of other's revenues.
What you're conveniently ignoring is the fact that the Tegra 4 is a major flop at this point in time & Nvidia doesn't have very many design wins with major OEM/ODM firms so in fact selling their GPU IP is a highly profitable move for them, not to mention that margin wise its actually better & that they'll eat into the market share of Imageon & ARM graphics based chips, so its a win win for Nvidia whatever way you spin it !
 
Last edited:

Imouto

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2011
1,241
2
81
Nvidia is just taking too much of its own medicine in the mobile market. Playing with Qualcomm, Samsung and the other guys isn't the same as beating the challenged AMD.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
Like mentioned above, I think this comes back to the fact that Tegra 4 has been a failure thus far. It has been delayed multiple times, and last I heard (Correct me if I am wrong) they have no major design wins for it.

This has caused them to fall back to licensing the tech to recoup R&D cost.

Also, AMD is entering the custom SoC market. They have announced they will custom design GPU's for anybody that wants one, and have just released their first ARM based chips (Server chips currently).

This means other OEM's can either license tech from nVidia, and design their own chips, or they can have AMD design a chip for them.
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
And then Tegra SoCs will have to fight against other ARM SoCs with Kepler GPU? What will be the competitive advantage of Tegra SoCs? Jensen smile on the marketing folder?

Tegra 'Logan' was already scheduled on the Tegra roadmap to arrive in 2014, and it was to be the first tegra powered by kepler arch. This offers Nvidia the opportunity for other companies to license the tech into their devices and pay Nvidia a royalty to do so.

There are two ways to 'win' in market share. Dominate the volume yourself or license your product and allow others to help you produce. Time will tell if this was a wise investment or not for Nvidia, but what other growth areas do they have? PC GPUs are not going to explode any time soon, they don't have x86 CPUs, and they are trying to get more of a foothold into the mobile area.

Seems like the OP has a axe to grind against NV somewhat on this issue...
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
I see it differently than you. Their royalty revenue will be ending with Intel in two years (or so) and the PS3 royalties will start to decline once the PS4 hits. They're looking to supplement or expand this upcoming loss in revenue. Also, being able to potentially tap Samsung, Apple, or any of the other in-house SoC makers would be monumental. Way, way more smartphones are sold than PS3's, and while the royalties would be less per SoC, the volume would easily allows earnings to skyrocket if the right deals are landed.

That's a different kind of agreement here. One thing is to license your tech to a partner, another thing is to license your tech to a potential competitor. Nvidia used to do the former, now they are going to the latter. It is a fundamental shift in their business model.

What you're conveniently ignoring is the fact that the Tegra 4 is a major flop at this point in time & Nvidia doesn't have very many design wins with major OEM/ODM firms so in fact selling their GPU IP is a highly profitable move for them, not to mention that margin wise its actually better & that they'll eat into the market share of Imageon & ARM graphics based chips, so its a win win for Nvidia whatever way you spin it !

I'm not conveniently ignoring anything. You are saying that they are doing this because they are in a weak position in the mobile market, exactly what I'm saying but not specifically mentioning Tegra 4.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Nvidia is just taking too much of its own medicine in the mobile market. Playing with Qualcomm, Samsung and the other guys isn't the same as beating the challenged AMD.

Nvidia didnt start by competing against AMD. They started by competing against Intel, ATI, Matrox, and 3DFX and other players in the discrete market. They entered the professional markets competing against high end professional cards. They got into HPC competing against Intel, AMD, PowerPC, MIPS.

Nvidia is a well run company so they understand the difficulties getting into new markets. The ultra mobile market is in its infancy. Nvidia knows this so will fund the project as long as it takes to turn it into a winner. Their track record is remarkably good all things considering. Especially when you look at other markets the tradional PC powers have utterly failed within.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Makes sense based on integration growth potential with compute products going from the PC 100's of millions to potentially billions and billions of SOC compute products.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
Makes sense based on integration growth potential with compute products going from the PC 100's of millions to potentially billions and billions of SOC compute products.

You can write off Apple, Samsung, Intel, and Qualcomm from this list as these have good GPU developments here and they count on it as competitive advantages. They also have the money to buy Nvidia N times if needed. Companies that don't need bleeding edge graphics will stick with Mali.

In the end the TAM Nvidia is aiming is *far* smaller than billions of SoCs.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
They do for now. The market changes over time. They may in the future decide the resources to develope a GPU to compete with a GPU company isnt worth their time. That list I can see Samsung and Apple being the first potential victims from the consolidation of the market. Qualcomm and Intel will attempt along with Nvidia to convince these two players it is in their financial interest to save the resources to develope GPU or SOCs for their devices and instead buy from them.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
They do for now. The market changes over time. They may in the future decide the resources to develope a GPU to compete with a GPU company isnt worth their time. That list I can see Samsung and Apple being the first potential victims from the consolidation of the market. Qualcomm and Intel will attempt along with Nvidia to convince these two players it is in their financial interest to save the resources to develope GPU or SOCs for their devices and instead buy from them.

I doubt Apple will be moving away from PowerVR anytime soon. nVidia would have to offer something far better than what they have been to get Apple to switch. PowerVR has been blowing nVidia out of the water in pure GPU performance.
 

Imouto

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2011
1,241
2
81
Nvidia didnt start by competing against AMD. They started by competing against Intel, ATI, Matrox, and 3DFX and other players in the discrete market. They entered the professional markets competing against high end professional cards. They got into HPC competing against Intel, AMD, PowerPC, MIPS.

Nvidia is a well run company so they understand the difficulties getting into new markets. The ultra mobile market is in its infancy. Nvidia knows this so will fund the project as long as it takes to turn it into a winner. Their track record is remarkably good all things considering. Especially when you look at other markets the tradional PC powers have utterly failed within.

nvidiategraq12014.jpg
 

Ibra

Member
Oct 17, 2012
184
0
0
I doubt Apple will be moving away from PowerVR anytime soon. nVidia would have to offer something far better than what they have been to get Apple to switch. PowerVR has been blowing nVidia out of the water in pure GPU performance.

Need to change "looks good on paper".

It looks good in pure GPU performance but in real world it's just 2 fps. :D

55610.png

(Qualcomm vs Nexus4)

Yes, being in more devices is big, big trouble.

Eat your own medicine, ..tard. :D



"Eat your own medicine, ..tard" is not acceptable and is a clear violation of the Forum Guidelines. Please refrain from such posting in the future.

Moderator jvroig
 
Last edited by a moderator:

beno619

Junior Member
Aug 19, 2012
12
0
0
I doubt Apple will be moving away from PowerVR anytime soon. nVidia would have to offer something far better than what they have been to get Apple to switch. PowerVR has been blowing nVidia out of the water in pure GPU performance.

+1

Its never going to happen every iPhone and IOS game has been nicely optimised for PowerVR architectures it would make 0 sense for Apple to change GPU supplier and have 80% of IOS games on the market run terribly on an Nvidia.

Also as a Tegra 3 HTC One X owner I can tell you that Nvidia have been a gigantic failure in the mobile soc market underperforming and overpromising. Htc will never go near another Nvidia part.
The only reason T3 did so well was it was cheap and the 1st quad core soc.
 

joshhedge

Senior member
Nov 19, 2011
601
0
0
+1

Its never going to happen every iPhone and IOS game has been nicely optimised for PowerVR architectures it would make 0 sense for Apple to change GPU supplier and have 80% of IOS games on the market run terribly on an Nvidia.

Also as a Tegra 3 HTC One X owner I can tell you that Nvidia have been a gigantic failure in the mobile soc market underperforming and overpromising. Htc will never go near another Nvidia part.
The only reason T3 did so well was it was cheap and the 1st quad core soc.

Bah Tegra 3 isn't horrific… It's just not great. You've just got to know which custom kernels and ROMs to use on the One X to unlock some decent performance and improved battery life.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
Need to change "looks good on paper".

It looks good in pure GPU performance but in real world it's just 2 fps. :D

55610.png

(Qualcomm vs Nexus4)



Eat your own medicine, ..tard. :D



"Eat your own medicine, ..tard" is not acceptable and is a clear violation of the Forum Guidelines. Please refrain from such posting in the future.

Moderator jvroig

Fro todays post. Apple and Qualcomm are on top in every single graph. nVidia is way down the list. Pretty sure the HTC One X is the fastest nVidia device on that list. Oh, and the Nexus 4 uses a Snapdragon, not nVidia. Not sure why you were comparing them?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7082/...-preview-qualcomm-mobile-development-tablet/5