Nvidia to unlock SLI for AMD 990 series chipsets [vr-zone]

[RobertPters77]

Except the average consumer could do this now with a 4 or 6 core....and isn't.

I have to disagree with you there. It's true that Intel does sell more than Amd. But, I've seen salesmen in bestbuy,staples, b&h, etc convince people to buy Amd notebooks by pushing the 'All Amd' angle.

 

[taltamir]

So here is the million dollar question.

Will we be able to take the 990fx "key" and patch/hack it into all existing AMD boards so all new Nvidia drivers reconize our boards as a 990fx and allow sli?

That would be great!

that is impractical, it involves hacking the bios which needs to be done on a per mobo basis and is not the easiest of tasks...
What people do is hack the drivers to hack the DRM code. Those exist on the web... Yes it needs to be done for every single driver version, but it is still way less work and more practical then hacking every single mobo's bios.

I am more than a little curious about its legal repercussions. Its not piracy since nvidia already provides the drivers to you for free. It is like jailbreaking... but will courts see it that way?

 

[OCGuy]

I have to disagree with you there. It's true that Intel does sell more than Amd. But, I've seen salesmen in bestbuy,staples, b&h, etc convince people to buy Amd notebooks by pushing the 'All Amd' angle.

Which proves my point. The "All AMD" angle already exists, so BD isn't going to be some new marketing front.

AMD is so terrible at branding to the mass market, that they can even put out a better product than Intel (looking at you, Netburst era) and they still cant pick up much marketshare.

And this is all assuming that BD is going to be a hit with the non-enthusiast crowd, that really wont benefit from a 6-8 core system.

 

[3DVagabond]

AMD is so terrible at branding to the mass market, that they can even put out a better product than Intel (looking at you, Netburst era) and they still cant pick up much marketshare.

I can't believe you are painting that as AMD's fault. Intel used bribery and strong arm tactics to maintain their market share. If you don't truly have a superior product you threaten those you can and pay off those you can't. This isn't exclusive marketing tactics for only Intel, to be fair. It goes on every day. It's certainly not AMD's fault though that the schoolyard bully beat them up.

 

[taltamir]

I can't believe you are painting that as AMD's fault. Intel used bribery and strong arm tactics to maintain their market share

Thats baloney. Yea yea, intel gave discounts to companies to make sure they only sold intel products. big deal. Companies have always made exclusivity deals, still do. Look how many video card makes are exclusively nvidia or AMD?

And its not like STORES ever got that... Dell or HP might have been intel only, but bestbuy carried both AMD and intel.

 

[3DVagabond]

Thats baloney. Yea yea, intel gave discounts to companies to make sure they only sold intel products. big deal. Companies have always made exclusivity deals, still do. Look how many video card makes are exclusively nvidia or AMD?

And its not like STORES ever got that... Dell or HP might have been intel only, but bestbuy carried both AMD and intel.

By your version Intel did nothing wrong and it was all AMD's fault. By my version AMD got $1.25 billion from Intel. Which one is reality?

 

[taltamir]

By your version Intel did nothing wrong and it was all AMD's fault. By my version AMD got $1.25 billion from Intel. Which one is reality?

Settling out of court =! admission of guilt.

Besides, I didn't say that intel has done nothing wrong.
I said that your argument is balony. Your argument was that AMD failure to market their superior product (athlonXP vs intel P4) was because of intel exclusivity contracts.

Look at AMD and nVidia... Fermi gen shows exactly what happens when companies have exclusivity for an inferior product. BFG left the market and everyone else dropped their exclusivity. IIRC it was the then CEO of HP (I think it was HP) who said they stuck with the intel exclusivity because AMD was unable to deliver them the number of chips they needed (else they would have used that to hammer a "our PCs are better then dell's! look at these benchmarks!"). I find that plausible. Especially in light of the fermi effect on exclusivity.

 

[badb0y]

Settling out of court =! admission of guilt.

What? if Intel thought they were right why wouldn't they go to court?

 

[3DVagabond]

Settling out of court =! admission of guilt.

Besides, I didn't say that intel has done nothing wrong.
I said that your argument is balony. Your argument was that AMD failed to marker their superior product (athlonXP vs intel P4) because of intel exclusivity contracts.

Look at AMD and nVidia... Fermi gen shows exactly what happens when companies have exclusivity for an inferior product. BFG left the market and everyone else dropped their exclusivity.

No, you are saying that. I'm saying that Intel was guilty of anti competitive business practices that manipulated the market illegally and AMD was the victim.

nVidia doesn't control enough of the market to do what Intel did.

 

[taltamir]

No, you are saying that. I'm saying that Intel was guilty of anti competitive business practices that manipulated the market illegally and AMD was the victim.

then you are randomly saying things unrelated to any argument that anyone else was having.
I am glad to see you agree with me that AMD's failure to market a superior product was not due to intels pathetic interference attempt.
The intel practice was a half hearted anti competitive attempt. It wasn't the worse they could do, but they were trying to skirt the law rather then outright break it. Yet they still broke it. And all they really had to do was give discounts based on bulk shippings rather then on whether AMD chips were sold or not for the same net effect. It was, nonetheless, an anti-competitive attempt to stifle competition via corrupt and anti-capitalist (anti free market) means.

 

[OCGuy]

What? if Intel thought they were right why wouldn't they go to court?

This is getting a little OT and is probably a CPU sub-forum discussion, but if you really want to know why it is in Intel's best interest to pump some liquid into AMD every couple years, so they don't get broken up like Bell and Standard Oil.........


My point about AMD CPUs was in response to someone who said that BD might magically bring AMD some advantage because they can package their systems together at the big-box retail level. I was pointing out that they can already do this, and it doesn't seem to be effective.

 

[badb0y]

then you are randomly saying things unrelated to any argument that anyone else was having.

Wouldn't it be easier to go to court and prove your innocence rather than pay 1.25 billion dollars for something you didn't do?

This is getting a little OT and is probably a CPU sub-forum discussion, but if you really want to know why it is in Intel's best interest to pump some liquid into AMD every couple years, so they don't get broken up like Bell and Standard Oil.........

Makes sense I guess in an odd way...

 

[3DVagabond]

then you are randomly saying things unrelated to any argument that anyone else was having.

You're right, OC guy said that it was AMD marketing's fault. You just jumped into it and said I was wrong. I assumed that you would be agreeing with his position.

Besides, it doesn't matter. The record is clear enough on the matter. I just don't like seeing victims painted as the village idiot to defend what was done to them.

 

[taltamir]

Wouldn't it be easier to go to court and prove your innocence rather than pay 1.25 billion dollars for something you didn't do?

Wouldn't it be better to go to court and get a larger payout for a real wrongdoing?
Both intel and AMD have calculated that there is a very real chance that they will lose, and that regardless of who wins they will both pay a lot to lawyers. So they settle. If either was 100% sure they would win then they wouldn't settle...

And you are still going off on a tangent that does not address the actual issue you supposedly responded to.

Is AMDs failure to market their superior product at the time the fault of intel's exclusivity contracts or their own failure. AMD's success against fermi is just one example showing us that it was AMD's failure in combating the P4

I just don't like seeing victims painted as the village idiot to defend what was done to them.

Village idiot? AMD dropped the ball... they learned from it. they managed to push a superior product and demolish an enemy's exclusivity with fermi, they managed to leverage new branding of "all AMD" product and "fusion" to gain mindshare with consumers who don't know better. Failing once and then actually learning from your mistakes doesn't make you an idiot.

 

[badb0y]

Wouldn't it be better to go to court and get a larger payout for a real wrongdoing?
Both intel and AMD have calculated that there is a very real chance that they will lose, and that regardless of who wins they will both pay a lot to lawyers. So they settle. If either was 100% sure they would win then they wouldn't settle...

And you are still going off on a tangent that does not address the actual issue you supposedly responded to.

Is AMDs failure to market their superior product at the time the fault of intel's exclusivity contracts or their own failure. Fermi is just one example showing us that it was AMD's failure


Village idiot? AMD dropped the ball... they learned from it. they managed to push a superior product and demolish an enemy's exclusivity with fermi, they managed to leverage new branding of "all AMD" product and "fusion" to gain mindshare with consumers who don't know better. Failing once and then actually learning from your mistakes doesn't make you an idiot.

Almost misinterpreted that because I think AMD did very good in capturing market share and mind share with the HD 5000 series.

 

[taltamir]

Almost misinterpreted that because I think AMD did very good in capturing market share and mind share with the HD 5000 series.

heh . I totally agree with you there.
I edited it for clarity.

 

[3DVagabond]

This is getting a little OT and is probably a CPU sub-forum discussion, but if you really want to know why it is in Intel's best interest to pump some liquid into AMD every couple years, so they don't get broken up like Bell and Standard Oil.........


My point about AMD CPUs was in response to someone who said that BD might magically bring AMD some advantage because they can package their systems together at the big-box retail level. I was pointing out that they can already do this, and it doesn't seem to be effective.

Their CPU's are inferior. They can't get around that. They did try the "marketing the system approach". Remember Spider, Dragon, Leo? Unfortunately, Phenom isn't competitive. It's kind of hard to say, "Use your AMD card with an AMD chipset/cpu and enjoy superior performance", when they look at it and the AMD card will actually give you better performance with an Intel system.

Hopefully Bulldozer will change that a bit. Although, I think for the avg. gamer Intel will still perform better. I think that Bulldozer can, and will, be faster in heavily threaded tasks (Greater than 4 threads). I think it will be a while yet though before that will include games.

 

[notty22]

I can't believe you are painting that as AMD's fault. Intel used bribery and strong arm tactics to maintain their market share. If you don't truly have a superior product you threaten those you can and pay off those you can't. This isn't exclusive marketing tactics for only Intel, to be fair. It goes on every day. It's certainly not AMD's fault though that the schoolyard bully beat them up.

You seem to 'feel bad' for AMD, and so they get their money from Intel, it seems Nvidia was harmed more from Intel, they got more money !
Poor Nvidia
edit: This was said jokingly. Businesses do the same thing at our supermarkets. They ask for the end of the aisles or a little more floor space. Or line of sight placing. This is mainly what Intel was found guilty of . Yes it did pad their % share, I'm sure.

 

[3DVagabond]

You seem to 'feel bad' for AMD, and so they get their money from Intel, it seems Nvidia was harmed more from Intel, they got more money !
Poor Nvidia
edit: This was said jokingly. Businesses do the same thing at our supermarkets. They ask for the end of the aisles or a little more floor space. Or line of sight placing. This is mainly what Intel was found guilty of . Yes it did pad their % share, I'm sure.

Intel operates as a virtual monopoly, because of their market share. There are some things that are typically acceptable in business that Intel can't do. M$ at times has the same problem. It's better than the alternative, though. Ask AT&T.

 

[FalseChristian]

All we need now is for AMD to get off their asses and support PhsyX.

 

[1h4x4s3x]

"Get off their asses", elaborate?

If anything, they should 'get off their asses' and continue to push non-proprietary APIs instead of paying for a semi-dead technology.

 

[notty22]

"Get off their asses", elaborate?

If anything, they should 'get off their asses' and continue to push non-proprietary APIs instead of paying for a semi-dead technology.

Its not dead yet,
NVIDIA PhysX Technology Adopted for Funcom's Dreamworld Engine

Game Engine Is the First to Feature Server-Side PhysX Support, Enabling Major Speedup of In-Game Physics Calculations for Massively, Multiplayer Online Games

 

[taltamir]

All we need now is for AMD to get off their asses and support PhsyX.

PhysX is owned by nvidia, it is a closed proprietary format that only nvidia may use.

http://www.ngohq.com/ started work on hacking physX to run on AMD cards, they asked nvidia and AMD for help and both companies were against it for different reasons.

nVidia is against it because they are foolishly trying to exploit a monopoly that does not exist yet. They should first build it up and create a monopoly before trying to exploit it, everything they do about physX shows that in their disconnect from reality they believe it to be an actual monopoly, fail.

AMD is against that because as long as it is a closed standard owned by nvidia it will leave them at nvidia's mercy, as nvidia optimizes it for their cards and to run like crap on AMD cards.

Furthermore, AMD is not legally allowed to support it without a license from nvidia to do so, thanks to the corrupt and ineffective patent laws we current have.

 

[RobertPters77]

Any one else think that Intel might be worried because of Nvidia's move? It sends signals that either Bulldozer is something to worry about.

 

[Joseph F]

Which proves my point. The "All AMD" angle already exists, so BD isn't going to be some new marketing front.

AMD is so terrible at branding to the mass market, that they can even put out a better product than Intel (looking at you, Netburst era) and they still cant pick up much marketshare.

Obvious troll is obvious.