NVIDIA using ULi acquisition to pressure ATI

[Cookie Monster]

Link

With the acquisition of ULi now complete, DigiTimes reports that NVIDIA plans on scaling down production of ULi's M1575 South Bridge in May in order to discourage motherboard manufacturers from using ATI chipsets:

Although ATI is pushing to beef up its southbridge product offerings and development, Nvidia's anticipated termination of sales of its ULi Electronics southbridge have prompted Taiwan motherboard makers to worry about ATI-based motherboard platforms from May, according to industry players.

Following the acquisition of ULi in early 2006, Nvidia has accelerated the pace of shutting down the ULi chipset brand in order to discourage sales of ATI chipsets in the channel, the industry players indicated.

ATI's current SB450 South Bridge is woefully outdated in comparison to today's latest offerings, lacking support 300MB/s Serial ATA and suffers from poor USB performance. As a result, most motherboard manufacturers had turned to ULi's M1575 South Bridge on their latest ATI-based CrossFire Xpress 200 and Xpress 3200 motherboards. With M1575 production slated to end in a matter of months, these manufacturers could be forced to rely on SB450. But the DigiTimes article reports that these chips are in short supply.

 

[firewolfsm]

makes sense, very brutal...I like it!

 

[xtreme26]

thats ghey, I can't wait for the SB600 to come out, apparently its coming out in the middle of 06

 

[GTaudiophile]

I think this will put pressure on ATI to produce a really good SB in a timely manner. I have faith they'll come through without ULI. Competition should bring out the best in them.

 

[RobertR1]

This is no shocker. I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner to be honest but I guess nvidia wanted to recoup some of the R&D costs put into the Ati southbridge and then terminate production. Good move on their part.

 

[FalllenAngell]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think this will put pressure on ATI to produce a really good SB in a timely manner. I have faith they'll come through without ULI. Competition should bring out the best in them.

ATI has been trying to make a decent Southbridge for many years, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Golgatha]

I've often wondered why ATI or nVidia just doesn't buy all the GDDR3 RAM up on the market and force the other to have a shortage.

On topic: I suppose there's always 975X as an alternative for Intel users.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: FalllenAngell

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think this will put pressure on ATI to produce a really good SB in a timely manner. I have faith they'll come through without ULI. Competition should bring out the best in them.

ATI has been trying to make a decent Southbridge for many years, I'll believe it when I see it.

Well, considering the SB450 is their second (or maybe third?) SB design, and it works pretty well other than the USB performance issue, I'd say they have a decent shot at the SB600 being pretty damn good. That said, the proof is in the pudding, and they have yet to produce a real knockout southbridge.

I've often wondered why ATI or nVidia just doesn't buy all the GDDR3 RAM up on the market and force the other to have a shortage.

1) That could potentially cost quite a lot. GDDR3 isn't cheap.

2) The memory manufacturers probably wouldn't want to put any of their potential customers out of business. It's in Samsung et al.'s best interest to have NVIDIA and ATI competing for their high-speed memory, which keeps prices high. They would likely refuse to sell all their output to one company, at least over the long term.

3) If they somehow "convinced" the memory manufacturers to go along with them, that would be a grossly anticompetitive tactic and could get the company trying to pull it off sued. The suit might not succeed without hard evidence of collusion or bribery, but it would generate a lot of negative publicity.

 

[jasonja]

Buying up all the ram could leave you with a load of outdated junk if something new comes along (which often happens when something is in short supply).

 

[TheRyuu]

They should contiue to supply it, just change the name to something with nvidia in it

So, I guess if you want a (good) RD580 board, you better act fast.

Edit: (added "good" part)

 

[Munky]

Why can't Crossfire work on SLI boards? Is there some physical hardware on the CF board that's required, or was it just a business decision?

 

[nitromullet]

I bet future driver support for ULi M1575 is going to be just awesome as well...

I know that my response is just playing into NV's hand, but I'm glad I'm not running a CrossFire rig anymore after hearing this. It's a shame too that ATI hasn't come out with a competative SB because the performance of CrossFire as a video solution is fantastic and the pricing and availability of their top end cards is way better than NV's. NV can force people onto their products all they want, but it's worthless for them (and us) if they can't keep their cards in stock. We won't buy what isn't available.

...as a side note: this whole thing could turn around if Intel's Conroe is really as kick ass as AT's preview made it look. If Intel was to become a viable gamer's platform, we might not have to worry about the squabbling between ATI and NV in the chipset market. As much as I do like the AMD platform, I'd have no hesitation whatsoever to hop on board with a comparably performing Intel platform that supported both CrossFire and SLI.

 

[Sable]

Originally posted by: munky
Why can't Crossfire work on SLI boards? Is there some physical hardware on the CF board that's required, or was it just a business decision?

Business decision. It's all locked out at driver level.

 

[Corporate Thug]

and here come the anti trust lawsuits...

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
and here come the anti trust lawsuits...

I don't think they would have a leg to stand on... ATI makes a southbridge which the board makers could use, but their board partners choose to use the ULi SB. I imagine that there probably is some VIA SB out there that they could probably use as well if they were so inclined.

I am curious, however, how their mutual partners will respond to this. I'm sure that Asus will not at all be pleased with NVIDIA if they cripple their sales of the A8R32-MVP Deluxe, especially considering they have a temporary monopoly on Xpress 3200 mobos right now.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
and here come the anti trust lawsuits...

Nvidia isn't a monopoly by any stretch wrt ATI, so I don't see how this is an illegal anticompetitive behaviour.

 

[Stoneburner]

It actually looks like anti-competitive practice. Anti-trust laws are more complicated than you might think.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
and here come the anti trust lawsuits...

Nvidia isn't a monopoly by any stretch wrt ATI, so I don't see how this is an illegal anticompetitive behaviour.

I'm not sure if he was referring to the suggestion for NVIDIA to buy out all the GDDR3 (which would be anticompetitive if they colluded with Samsung and the other memory manufacturers to do so), or with them discontinuing the ULI southbridge (probably not anticompetitive by itself).

You can't force NVIDIA to keep selling 'third-party' ULI SB chips; they have their own chipset line and are not under any particular obligation to provide support or parts to their competitors. The FTC must have already approved NVIDIA purchasing ULI despite ATI being partially reliant on them at this time in their chipset business.

 

[Killrose]

I guess ATI was pretty confident they could release a decent SB before the ULi M1575 chip dies got smashed once nvidia aquired ULi. I find it hard to beleive ATi did not at least buy the M1575 chipset rights before the buy-out.

 

[dfloyd]

This could go either way still. Will have to wait and see as right now it looks like Nvidia is sitting pretty playing their idol (Intel) and doing what Intel has always done best (Which imo is not good for consumers at all, Intel is a bad company, Nvidia is starting to act like a bad company. Instead of providing plenty of new high end and very advanced tech they are starting to result to cheap under handed tactics to compete, not good for me, you, or anyone).

Hopefully this will come back to bite Nvidia big time. I would love nothing more than to see Ati come out with a super good SB and make Nvidia regret the underhanded tactics. I know its all business but there are different degrees, and imo its pretty obvious whos playing the low handed game at the current time. Intel did it for years and look where it got them, AMD is on top (At least in performance) and only continuing to get better. So keep it up Intel, pay close attention to your idol and continue to act like them. Hopefully both of you will end up where you deserve

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
and here come the anti trust lawsuits...

Nvidia isn't a monopoly by any stretch wrt ATI, so I don't see how this is an illegal anticompetitive behaviour.

I'm not sure if he was referring to the suggestion for NVIDIA to buy out all the GDDR3 (which would be anticompetitive if they colluded with Samsung and the other memory manufacturers to do so), or with them discontinuing the ULI southbridge (probably not anticompetitive by itself).

You can't force NVIDIA to keep selling 'third-party' ULI SB chips; they have their own chipset line and are not under any particular obligation to provide support or parts to their competitors. The FTC must have already approved NVIDIA purchasing ULI despite ATI being partially reliant on them at this time in their chipset business.

Actually, NVidia doesn't have to be a monopoly to exhibit monopolistic practices. Afterall, Intel isn't technically a monopoly (it's an olygopoly technically, since there's AMD), and it's still getting slapped by anti-competitive lawsuits from AMD.

The acquisition of ULi, a known supplier for ATi, should be fine with the FTC. However, this hinges on the fact that NVidia won't use that to hurt compeitition. This action taken by NVidia is similar, in a way, to the situation if Intel said to AMD today, "Sorry, but we're buying out NVidia and stopping production on the nForce chipsets." This is the same situation as "You can't force Intel to keep selling 'third-party' NVidia chipsets; they can make their own chipset line (and still has ATi) and are not under any particular obligation to provide support or parts to their competitors."

The fact is simple: ULi still makes money on those SBs. There're no conflicting interests in terms of NBs, since ULi doesn't really make any NBs. And since the primary business of ULi in the chipset business is selling SBs, their goal is to sell more SBs...and since their SBs are mainly used in NVidia and ATi boards, it makes no sense to stop selling to one of their biggest customers. Unless, of course, this is anti-competitive behavior.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: dunno99
Actually, NVidia doesn't have to be a monopoly to exhibit monopolistic practices.

I hope I didn't imply they did.

The acquisition of ULi, a known supplier for ATi, should be fine with the FTC. However, this hinges on the fact that NVidia won't use that to hurt compeitition. This action taken by NVidia is similar, in a way, to the situation if Intel said to AMD today, "Sorry, but we're buying out NVidia and stopping production on the nForce chipsets." This is the same situation as "You can't force Intel to keep selling 'third-party' NVidia chipsets; they can make their own chipset line (and still has ATi) and are not under any particular obligation to provide support or parts to their competitors."

I feel those situations are different.

ULi southbridges, while used fairly widely, are not the only option; VIA also makes standalone SB chips, and ATI has their own as well (although these are not quite as good from a technical perspective right now).

Easily 75% of AMD-based systems use NForce chipsets; removing them from the market would be crippling to AMD's sales, at least in the short term.

You've got to have some pretty skewed market circumstances IMO to force one company to basically prop up its competitor. I don't see it here. If ATI was 100% reliant on ULi southbridge chips, the situation would be different.

The fact is simple: ULi still makes money on those SBs. There're no conflicting interests in terms of NBs, since ULi doesn't really make any NBs.

But NVIDIA does, and would want to push people towards using their chipset solution rather than buying a NB from someone else and only a SB from NVIDIA/ULi.

Just looking at the situation, I don't feel there is enough here for an antitrust suit, especially given that the story is pretty much relating complaints from some unnamed 'industry sources'. But IANAL, and you can sue just about anybody for anything these days...