What if Intel or AMD locked Nvidia out....?

[Gikaseixas]

It's still not the same thing. PCIe is a standard and if you follow the standard, it should work. Otherwise it wouldn't be a standard, so if Intel/AMD follow that standard they can't lock out Nvidia. SLI is a licensed technology owned by Nvidia, if you don't follow their rules, it doesn't work.

PCIe is a standard and yet if i buy a SLI or CF motherboard and want to use multiple cards i'm forced to buy one brand or another. Following that logic AMD or Intel could very well make mb chipsets that aren't compatible with Nv cards. I mean, it's possible to do it correct?

 

[digitaldurandal]

How do you feel about the SLI situation then? There is nothing preventing a Crossfire motherboard from doing SLI except a single BIOS string.

If nVidia is able to vendor lock a standard interface (multiple PCIe slots) for SLI how is that different than AMD/Intel chipsets vendor locking nVidia out?

Once again you are not understanding the differences in these scenarios. The motherboard creator is not locking out Nvidia. Actually Nvidia is locking themselves out. The motherboard must be licensed to have functional SLI. It is a fee paid to Nvidia. You cannot force them to pay the fee for every motherboard, or indeed any.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Or post about a silly hypothetical situation on Anandtech, because you are frustrated, comparing apples to oranges.

Hey it's a valid point i think. If you don't like it don't post at all, just ignore. Moving along...

 

[digitaldurandal]

PCIe is a standard and yet if i buy a SLI or CF motherboard and want to use multiple cards i'm forced to buy one brand or another. Following that logic AMD or Intel could very well make mb chipsets that aren't compatible with Nv cards. I mean, it's possible to do it correct?

You're not forced to do anything. The two cards are not designed with common drivers, the two companies could choose to work together to create drivers that would work together. There actually is a company that has done this although it does quite a poor job of it. I can't recall the name but it is a licensed technology that would allow you to use multigpu from many vendors. Anand did a story on it I believe. Hardocp definitely did a story on it.

Again the answer is no - not if they want to use PCIE. They could create a motherboard that doesn't use PCIE, but who would buy their products?

It is very likely that they are not even allowed to go that far. Any time you are talking about locking a company out of a market that is considered anticompetitive.

Please read the following paragraph twice:

Nvidia is NOT LOCKING AMD out of any market - AMD is welcome to compete in the physics processing market.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Hey it's a valid point i think. If you don't like it don't post at all, just ignore. Moving along...

Your question is valid and it has been answered.

The situation that you are posting about is not possible because it involves anti-competitive monopolistic behaviors where you deny access to a specific company in a market.

All of your posts after that trying to show a similar situation have failed to show where company A locks company B out of a market. You're comparing different things.

If I own a baseball bat I can either let you use my bat or tell you that you cannot. What I cannot do is tell you that you cannot make your own.

 

[Seero]

Hey it's a valid point i think. If you don't like it don't post at all, just ignore. Moving along...

It is valid and not hypothetical. Name a motherboard that use AMD chipset and support SLI please?

 

[digitaldurandal]

It is valid and not hypothetical. Name a motherboard that use AMD chipset and support SLI please?

Please read my post about SLI licensing. Nvidia has locked themselves out of those motherboards - not AMD locking out their technology.

It is valid, hypothetical, and answered.

 

[tannat]

Why would they? PC standards have been built around replaceable parts from different vendors from the beginning. The port standards are changing over time: ISA, AGP, PCI, Pci-e etc. The only vendor who lock out others or take extra money for basic pci-e compatibility so far has been nvidia. They are in their full right to do so but it has never been part of the tradition of compatibility the PC has built on. This system has worked fine over 25 years. Why mess with it?

However, CPU bus systems and connections are not compatible between intel and amd. That's an obvious HW divider. No $ for software limitations though to my knowledge.

Nvidia has an obviously different strategy from the traditional PC build by implementing software limitation and licence fees as SLI, and PhysX . They have any right to do so of course. Problem is that it takes market domination to make this successful long term while you certainly loose market fragments by doing so short term.

Maybe Intel would have tried such a path unless they weren't so scrutinized by monopoly regulators in different countries. Maybe they remember or honor the way they became market leading in the beginning when PC compatibility was called IBM compatibility. Anyway they don't do it to my knowledge.

 

[Gikaseixas]

There actually is a company that has done this although it does quite a poor job of it. I can't recall the name but it is a licensed technology that would allow you to use multigpu from many vendors

It's called Lucid Hydra and in its second version it performs much better (still not at the same level)

The leading mobo maker is adopting it for a reason:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/05/12/asus-crosshair-iv-to-use-lucid-hydra/1

 

[NoQuarter]

Once again you are not understanding the differences in these scenarios. The motherboard creator is not locking out Nvidia. Actually Nvidia is locking themselves out. The motherboard must be licensed to have functional SLI. It is a fee paid to Nvidia. You cannot force them to pay the fee for every motherboard, or indeed any.

I understand your point, and I do know it would be entirely illegal. But your point relies on the chipset vendor being the neutral party - why is it nVidia can lock themselves out from a chipset? Can't the chipset vendor lock themselves out from nVidia and be taking an equal ethical position? (I know the position is not supported by the law or by standards commissions who actually designed the standards under the pretense that they be accessible - which is why I find Rambus to be a deplorable company)

 

[golem]

I understand your point, and I do know it would be entirely illegal. But your point relies on the chipset vendor being the neutral party - why is it nVidia can lock themselves out from a chipset? Can't the chipset vendor lock themselves out from nVidia and be taking an equal ethical position? (I know the position is not supported by the law or by standards commissions who actually designed the standards under the pretense that they be accessible - which is why I find Rambus to be a deplorable company)

My take.

What Nvidia is doing is locking out SLI from any chipset maker regardless of brand if they are not licenced for SLI. For it to be the same situation with the chipset maker, they would have to lock out all GPU makers unless some condition was met, and not just Nvidia. It actually might not even be as narrow as all GPU vendors and expand to all PCIe cards.

Actually, the PCIe standard itself probably prohibits you from locking out a vendor if their card follows the PCIe specs.

 

[Gikaseixas]

It is valid and not hypothetical. Name a motherboard that use AMD chipset and support SLI please?

ATI released the first chipset that supported CF, not AMD. Nvidia had a significant lead with it SLI mb's so ATI started manufacturing it's own chipsets. Remember the golden days when everybody wanted to match a SLI board with a Athlon 64 cpu? Hope that helps ya

 

[digitaldurandal]

I understand your point, and I do know it would be entirely illegal. But your point relies on the chipset vendor being the neutral party - why is it nVidia can lock themselves out from a chipset? Can't the chipset vendor lock themselves out from nVidia and be taking an equal ethical position? (I know the position is not supported by the law or by standards commissions who actually designed the standards under the pretense that they be accessible - which is why I find Rambus to be a deplorable company)

Well, when I say that Nvidia has locked themselves out of the AMD chispet market regarding SLI. I mean that it will be a cold day in hell before AMD purchases a license for their motherboard - but technically they could.

I suppose AMD or another chipset could create a technology relating to speeding up graphics cards somehow and license it on motherboards so that Nvidia would have to purchase the license to use it. However completely blocking the function of the competitors card is something that just is not going to happen.

Mainly because they do not own PCIE anyway.

They could perhaps create a new type of connection, but I doubt the FCC would stand for it.

Again Nvidia is limiting itself in the AMD chipset SLI question. It is a stupid thing to do but they believe they will continue to dominate market share and thus push motherboard creators to license their technology.

AMD is welcome to limit themselves, but not to limit others.

 

[digitaldurandal]

My take.

What Nvidia is doing is locking out SLI from any chipset maker regardless of brand if they are not licenced for SLI. For it to be the same situation with the chipset maker, they would have to lock out all GPU makers unless some condition was met, and not just Nvidia. It actually might not even be as narrow as all GPU vendors and expand to all PCIe cards.

Actually, the PCIe standard itself probably prohibits you from locking out a vendor if their card follows the PCIe specs.

Well stated.

 

[OCGuy]

I thought Physx was worthless?

 

[digitaldurandal]

I thought Physx was worthless?

Mostly. Nice stuff on batman though.

 

[golem]

Well stated.

Thanks, it was mostly what you had previously written from a slightly different angle.

 

[digitaldurandal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcpEc6kC0HM kind of neat stuff in mafia ii.

 

[NoQuarter]

Well, when I say that Nvidia has locked themselves out of the AMD chispet market regarding SLI. I mean that it will be a cold day in hell before AMD purchases a license for their motherboard - but technically they could.

I suppose AMD or another chipset could create a technology relating to speeding up graphics cards somehow and license it on motherboards so that Nvidia would have to purchase the license to use it. However completely blocking the function of the competitors card is something that just is not going to happen.

Mainly because they do not own PCIE anyway.

They could perhaps create a new type of connection, but I doubt the FCC would stand for it.

Again Nvidia is limiting itself in the AMD chipset SLI question. It is a stupid thing to do but they believe they will continue to dominate market share and thus push motherboard creators to license their technology.

AMD is welcome to limit themselves, but not to limit others.

You and golem have great points and I agree with you. I'm not positive that nVidia would actually license to ATI/AMD though.


Remember the history of SLI is that SLI only 'worked' on nVidia chipsets and all the other chipset manufacturers were clamoring for licenses that nVidia refused to sell. The other motherboards were capable of SLI by using old drivers or bios hacks but nVidia locked them out through drivers later. Clearly nVidia has the choice of who to sell licenses to and I think the cold day in hell goes both ways

 

[ArchAngel777]

Dedicated PhysX cards do not sell. This has been attempted, how many people do you know with one.

Nonsense! It was attempted before there was any software support. There were less than 3 games out that utilized hardware physx during Ageia's reign... That is like building an electric car with only three recharge stations in the united states and calling it a failure in both past, present and future.

Fast forward to 2050 - "We tried an electric car back in 1998, it just didn't sell well. It won't work..."

 

[Keysplayr]

No one gives a flying crap about PhysX not running on AMD hardware. They care when nVidia restricts the function on it's OWN GPU when an AMD card id the primary graphics card.

The OP seems to care. Very, very much.

 

[ArchAngel777]

The OP seems to care. Very, very much.

I think you misread Badboy's post. People are not upset that AMD does not have Physx. They are upset that a video card they purchased from nVidia which stated "Physx!!!" does not work when they decided to upgrade their graphics card to AMD and attempt to use their older card as a dedicated Physx card. That is a pretty fair complaint. Seems that only someone extremely biased would call that an unfair complaint.

 

[Arkadrel]

I thought Physx was worthless?

its okay on the 13 or so pc games that can make use of it, its not done equally well on all of them, but a few of the games its pretty well used in.... such as batman.

 

[busydude]

The OP seems to care.

you should have seems the numerous threads here at anandtech about this subject. ATI users\fanboys where pissed

??

 

[Seero]

Please read my post about SLI licensing. Nvidia has locked themselves out of those motherboards - not AMD locking out their technology.

It is valid, hypothetical, and answered.

That was not my question. Maybe you are trying to explain why I can't find such motherboard, but I never ask why.

Since you are on it, I might as well play along by asking questions. Can you explain how did Nvidia locked themselves out again please?

Vidia's mom : "Vidia, what the f are you doing?"
Vidia : "Mom, I locked myself out by accident with your boards."
Vidia's mom : "Again?"
Vidia : "Mom, help first, then yell please."