Why no nforce for intel?

[gsiener]

Recently, I was thinking about what a great product nforce boards for overall value and performance (please no flames). Since the xbox is a modified p3 running on an nforce board, why are there no p4 nforce boards out there? Is microsoft not allowing it? Or is it AMD (I find this hard to believe)?

Any info or knowledge?

Thanks

 

[bigshooter]

nivida said that the cost of licensing the p4 bus from intel was too high. I'm sure we'll see one soemtime, especially if hammer sucks.

 

[chizow]

They also see the Athlon market as wide-open. No dominant chipset maker, OEMs prefer Intel chipsets for P4 systems. Nvidia figures that if they can capture the AMD chipset market, they can use their market presence to have an Nvidia chipset and GPU in the majority of AMD systems (even though its a small overall share of the PC market, still a nice revenue stream).

Chiz

 

[bgeh]

imho, intel doesn't want nvidia to enroach on its integrated chipset business
that's why intel charges high licensing costs
just my .02

 

[Adul]

it thought it was intel that was the roadblock.

 

[Actaeon]

I am pretty sure also the intergrated graphics from Nvidia in nForce-like motherboards sorta scares Intel away from giving them the license. As Nvidia is clearly superior in that aspect... it will sorta "steal" potentional customers away...

 

[Tab]

Well, Intel doesnt like nVidia making chipset for AMD. They only want nVidia making it for them, so they made the price of getting a licence insane.

 

[CZroe]

But using the P4 bus license to scare away motherboard chipset competition is anticompetitive and monopolistic. I'm not sure that it is high enough to be judged as such. One thing is for sure: If nVidia does eventually make P4 boards, Intel better pick up the pace to remain competitive! How long have we waited for the ICH4 southbridge w/ USB2.0 on i850-derived motherboards?!

 

[Swanny]

Either because they didn't want to pay for a license or because Intel wouldn't give them one. I can't really remember.

 

[bigshooter]

if they do make one, we'll just have to see how the memory controller compares to Intel's. That's probably where the big performance increases will come from. The integrated aspects will probably be good for system integrators, but who knows if the performance will actually be better when you don't use the integrated video and sound.

 

[OuiKikUrAzz]

Originally posted by: gsiener
Recently, I was thinking about what a great product nforce boards for overall value and performance (please no flames). Since the xbox is a modified p3 running on an nforce board, why are there no p4 nforce boards out there? Is microsoft not allowing it? Or is it AMD (I find this hard to believe)?

Any info or knowledge?

Thanks

it's quite simple, the licensing fee is a killer for nvidia and nvidia doesn't have any licensing for the p4 (or any way around it like via claims)

 

[LH]

But using the P4 bus license to scare away motherboard chipset competition is anticompetitive and monopolistic

Uh its Intels product, they DONT have to license it to anyone. Its not anticompetitive or monompolistic. They dont have to license it to anyone but they do, for a hefty price which is reasonable, seeing as its their product.

 

[Macro2]

Intel likes to control everything. EOM.

 

[majewski9]

Hmm I dont think Intel wants to have Nvidia cut out its own Intel branded graphics 845g series. Intel graphics are a joke when compared with the might of Nvidia.

now with Nforce2 Nvidia has positioned itself to be the number 1 Athlon chipset maker. So Nvidia now can cut out Via out of every segment in the market. Intel doesnt want to see a strong chipset maker like Nvidia cut Intel out of the performance segment. Honestly I dont see why Intel has let SIS by with so much slack but I am sure SIS is paying high liscense fees. It really makes no sense that Nvidia will ever develop an Intel chipset until Intel lets other companies in on Intels chipset market domination.

Yeah and Nvidia is developing a Hammer chipset as well so I dont think that they are going to abandon AMD anytime soon.

 

[microAmp]

Originally posted by: Swanny
Either because they didn't want to pay for a license or because Intel wouldn't give them one. I can't really remember.

IIRC, it was that nVidia didn't want to pay for the license. I think it was $5.00 per chip made.

 

[microAmp]

CPU Zone :

And never mind that Huang is about to bet a big part of Nvidia's future on a hotshot new chipset, the Nforce--without being able to sell it to makers of the latest Intel-based PCs that by next year may have 80% of the entire market. Huang, bolstered by a grim resolve to maintain the company's 38% gross profit margins, balked at paying Intel for a license to let the Nforce work with the Pentium 4 microprocessor. He felt that Intel was demanding too much; such license fees run an estimated $5 on each $20 chipset. Nvidia's rivals ATI Technologies, Acer Laboratories and others paid up and could outrace Nvidia in next-generation PC graphics.

...

That bravado hasn't worked on Intel. "The royalty they are charging others was too rich for our blood," Huang says. He hopes to strike a deal but insists that Intel respect the intellectual-property value of Nforce. "I know that one of these days they're going to see that they ought not to be afraid of us," he says. Intel, afraid? It's a fantasy worthy of a videogame.

http://www.forbes.com/global/2002/0415/032.html

 

[Jhhnn]

Intel has to license somebody to not appear to be anti-competitive and monopolistic, so they got SiS onboard, now they can shut everybody else out with high fees. We'll see how their suit against Via works out- even if they lose, it's been a very effective FUD campaign, having the desired effect.

Business as usual for Intel- if you can't beat 'em with technical brilliance, sic the lawyers on 'em....