Why no nVidia chipset Pentium 4 mobos?

[FacelessNobody]

Do nVidia and Intel hate each other for some reason? I'd think an nForce 2 type mobo using P4s would be an excellent system. Also, anyone have any news on future VIA P4 chipsets? I like their P4X chipsets a lot (mine behaves much differently than the older, AMD based KTXXX mobos I've used! ). Thanks!

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think it's something to do with the whole Xbox agreement.

 

[FacelessNobody]

bumpage

 

[ctk1981]

Either that or they dont want to pay for the P4 license to make the motherboards?

 

[KF]

Intel refused to give nVidia a P4 bus license. nVidia begged an begged.

Intel evidently underbid AMD for the MS contract for the CPU in the Xbox and went along with the use of an nVidia chipset in the Xbox only.

Intel also refused VIA a P4 bus license, but VIA claims it somehow has the rights anyway. Intel and VIA are battling it in the courts. Very few (zero?) motherboard makers will manufacture a P4 motherboard with a VIA chipset because of Intel's threats against them.

Why would Intel, or anyone, want to boost their competitors? nVidia or VIA would be serious competition.

Intel did give SIS a P4 bus license. Why? SIS has been a very minor player for the last several years. I would guess that SIS has contract with a low quantity limit, so as not to take much of Intel's market share. Since SIS has been so invisible, that would be acceptable for them.

 

[touchmyichi]

Intel is just to afraid to have nvidia school them.

 

[magomago]

yeah, isn't Sis the ONLY one to have a P4 liscense? Freaking stupid of Intel to take that approach - competition promotes advancement

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: touchmyichi
Intel is just to afraid to have nvidia school them.

Partly the reason, but it would mean less $$$ for Intel.

 

[mroptimistic]

i probably sound like a complete dumbass for saying this, but if for example they stopped giving sis a license, could they be considered a monopoly. If only they have license to make motherboards for the intel processors, and they wont give the license to anyone else, they are basically forcing you to buy their item if you want to use the common intel processor. On the other hand, could it be argued that it isn't a monopoly cuz people can choose amd processors and moboards? Eh, if i sound like a complete tard just ignore me.

 

[Doh!]

Having a patent on a particular technology is not monopoly. By the way, Sis is getting the license for an intel chipset, not for a motherboard. There are numerious motherboard manufacturers making Intel motherboards based on either Intel's or Sis' P4 chipset. Even if Intel cancels its agreement with Sis, no monopoly will take place since there will be many different flavors of motherboards from different manufacturers (although all will share the same chipset).

 

[codehack2]

Originally posted by: FacelessNobody
Do nVidia and Intel hate each other for some reason? I'd think an nForce 2 type mobo using P4s would be an excellent system. Also, anyone have any news on future VIA P4 chipsets? I like their P4X chipsets a lot (mine behaves much differently than the older, AMD based KTXXX mobos I've used! ). Thanks!

Unlike AMD, chipset development and sales is a core competency for Intel, and they have no need to rely on another vendor to fill any gaps. It's not just a matter of "Nvidia schooling intel"... it's a matter of economics. Company's are driven by one thing and one thing only... sales/profits. Intel has to ask themselves, Will having an NVidia chipset make me more $$... The answer is no for multiple reasons 1) NVidia offerings will not fill any gaps not currently covered in the P4 chipset market, thus not enabling the P4 to breach into new market segments. 2) Having NVidia based P4 boards in the marketplace will directly cut into Intel chipset sales, which is a big $ maker for them.

CH2

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: mroptimistic
i probably sound like a complete dumbass for saying this, but if for example they stopped giving sis a license, could they be considered a monopoly. If only they have license to make motherboards for the intel processors, and they wont give the license to anyone else, they are basically forcing you to buy their item if you want to use the common intel processor. On the other hand, could it be argued that it isn't a monopoly cuz people can choose amd processors and moboards? Eh, if i sound like a complete tard just ignore me.

They couldn't be considered to have a monopoly over motherboards because you can still buy an AMD chip with a VIA or nVidia chipset motherboard.

 

[Vette73]

One of the biggest reasons is nVidia had the Dual channel DDR memory North bridge way before the SiS655 or GB. So what do you think would have happened to the 845 sales if for about the same price you could get a Dual Ch system. This would also, at the time, probable killed the 850 chipset sales.

So intel did the smart thing. They still need at leats one person to make a Intel chipset as a back up, hence SiS is sold a license. Just like during the P3 days VIA had a license and at the time it saved Intels azs when they had all those Rambus problems, and the VIA 694 chipset keep sales of P3's up while intel came up with the 815 chipset. And alos keep major companies, like Dell, from having to use AMD. Remember that Gateway use to use AMD as they couldn't get enough CPU's at one time.

 

[FacelessNobody]

Yeah I suppose I should have figured that Intel would lose chipset market share for their own processors if they had any real competition. SiS is doing a good job, but Intel still dominates the Pentium 4 market. If they could sell one chipset per desktop processor they sell, they stand to make a ton of money (like they do now). It'd be nice to see Intel, VIA, SiS, ALi, nVidia, and ATi chipsets available for Pentiums, but then I remember that Intel is after our money, not our approval.

 

[Zap]

Didn't ALi end up with a P4 license as well?

 

[PhoenixOfWater]

Originally posted by: KF
Intel refused to give nVidia a P4 bus license. nVidia begged an begged.

Intel evidently underbid AMD for the MS contract for the CPU in the Xbox and went along with the use of an nVidia chipset in the Xbox only.

Intel also refused VIA a P4 bus license, but VIA claims it somehow has the rights anyway. Intel and VIA are battling it in the courts. Very few (zero?) motherboard makers will manufacture a P4 motherboard with a VIA chipset because of Intel's threats against them.

Why would Intel, or anyone, want to boost their competitors? nVidia or VIA would be serious competition.

Intel did give SIS a P4 bus license. Why? SIS has been a very minor player for the last several years. I would guess that SIS has contract with a low quantity limit, so as not to take much of Intel's market share. Since SIS has been so invisible, that would be acceptable for them.

so there is a Intel chip in the X-box using a nVidia chipset?

 

[batmanuel]

so there is a Intel chip in the X-box using a nVidia chipset?

Yes, basicially the Xbox is using an PIII-based Nforce motherboard with an upgraded IGP that has hardware-based DX 8 support (probably a lot lower performance than a GF3Ti200, but for 720x480 resolution you don't need much).

Also, I think Intel is afraid of giving NVidia a P4 license for the Nforce chipsets because of the damage it would do to the 845G/GL line of motherboards, which are their real breadwinners. Remember, that although we may shun integrated graphics as being crappy, they work pretty well for the majority of PC users. (Look at the 810 chipset. It may have sucked performance wise, it was a great success as far as OEM sales). So if there was an Nforce IGP motherboard available for the P4, would Dell be still buying the 845GL motherboards by the truckload to power their $699 PC bundles? Intel is afraid that they wouldn't be, and that would destroy Intel's motherboard business.

The Nforce series motherboards have been a really good thing for AMD because for nearly all of the Athlon's existence it has lacked a really good integrated chipset. (We'll try to pretend that the KM133's never happened). Hopefully the Nforce2 IGP motherboards will change that somewhat. I also hope Nvidia will be there with an IGP solution when Hammer arrives, so it gets a good chance at a bigger market share.

 

[Viper96720]

Wouldn't more boards that use intel processors mean more processors sold.

 

[Soulkeeper]

no it just means more choices of chipsets for the number of processors sold
which means Intel would lose money because competitors would be eating into their chipset marketshare

 

[Jadow]

intel should just buy Nvidia while its stock is in the crapper.

I hope this doesnt happen, but if I was a big wig at Intel, I would be looking at acquiring Nvidia.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: batmanuel

so there is a Intel chip in the X-box using a nVidia chipset?

Yes, basicially the Xbox is using an PIII-based Nforce motherboard with an upgraded IGP that has hardware-based DX 8 support (probably a lot lower performance than a GF3Ti200, but for 720x480 resolution you don't need much).

Actually the Xbox uses essentially a GeForce 4 for graphics. It was an updated GF3-like 3d core with two DX8 engines (hmmm, GF4 anyone?).