They did and Apple dumped Intel's chipsets for them. Intel just won't allow anyone else to build chipsets for their chips anymore. Nvidia would have to make their own CPUs.
nVidia would be foolish to spend millions of dollars developing new chipsets they might never be allowed to sell. It's far smarter to spend their time and money developing a new product.
So if they lose in court they'll already have a new business to take the place of the PC chipset one.
If they win in court they can decide whether it's worth it to go back into competition with Intel in the chipset business. They've proven in the past that they can make better chipsets than Intel and make good profit on them so it wouldn't take long to make up for lost time.
Remember people getting everything from one company without competition is always better.
Are you serious?!?! Competition encourages businesses to provide better products/ services... while trying to become the most efficient, thus reducing costs/ prices.
If you got everything from one company without competition, they wouldn't feel compelled to make anything better, and they'd jack up the price because you wouldn't have other choices.
They did and Apple dumped Intel's chipsets for them. Intel just won't allow anyone else to build chipsets for their chips anymore. Nvidia would have to make their own CPUs.
Or put AMD CPU's in bed with nVidia... Can you hear the screaming yet?
This is Nvidia confidently committing full support to ARM vs an immediate shutdown of support to x86 (AMD's included w/ Intel).
Nvidia probably's already won sockets on the new iTablet (ARM) and when that iTablet ships, the performance gap (speed and efficiency) between ARM/iTablet and x86/Mac will likely be very noticeable.
Nvidia is just doubling down on ARM and Intel will cry uncle soon afetr the iTablet testbed numbers are published.
And this effect roll out of new products, or present production, how?
This will not affect anything Apple currently uses (the 9400M chipset). It means that Nvidia will not make any chipsets for future Intel processors (i3/i5/i7), something we already knew.
So, come next year, it will be back to Intel integrated graphics for the Mac mini and Macbook.
Or put AMD CPU's in bed with nVidia... Can you hear the screaming yet?
Nvidia and AMD used to be big partners, but NV hasn't done much work on modern chipsets for AMD since AMD merged with ATI. Supporting AMD would be supporting their chief graphics competitor, and so far they have refused to do it.
This will not affect anything Apple currently uses (the 9400M chipset). It means that Nvidia will not make any chipsets for future Intel processors (i3/i5/i7), something we already knew.
So, come next year, it will be back to Intel integrated graphics for the Mac mini and Macbook.
Or, the introduction of the MacBiggie which has a real upgradeable cards instead of discrete graphics. The MacBiggie will be 10x10x4, have 2x HDMI and quad-core for $1199. It's gonna be awesome. I saw it on the internet.
Wrong, actually... It's not nearly dead, or on the way out or anything.
Yes it is.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Steam seems to be doing fine
i don't play as much games as before, but there is more quality and less quantity these days. unlike consoles
Intel should be like "Hey, look what Nvidia is doing with our chipset! Turning it into gold! That's sweet, they're helping Intel to look better than what we can ourself. Win-win!"
Are you serious?!?! Competition encourages businesses to provide better products/ services... while trying to become the most efficient, thus reducing costs/ prices.
If you got everything from one company without competition, they wouldn't feel compelled to make anything better, and they'd jack up the price because you wouldn't have other choices.
Please tell me you were being sarcastic
I was being sarcastic. It just has parallels with another situation close to us.
Intel should be like "Hey, look what Nvidia is doing with our chipset! Turning it into gold! That's sweet, they're helping Intel to look better than what we can ourself. Win-win!"
Reading through the thread it seems some folks are confused about what is going on with the lawsuit. This graphic gives a decent outline of what intel is doing to change their architecture with Westmere. IMO Intel is purposely leaving Nivdia out of the mix. The key point being Nivdia will no longer provide a northbridge controller/GPU for Westmere.
The second question is how does that affect Apple. Apple was using the 9400M to improve graphic performance in their designs which didn't use discrete graphics so we need to compare the next gen intel Graphics vs Nividia's solution. Intel was licensing SLI from Nvida so any system with discrete graphics will see little change from the current situation.
The Imac and Macbook pro have included the option for discrete graphics so this really affect the Mac Mini and Macbook of the future. If your buying those machines you probably are not looking at a graphics powerhouse. If nothing else, there is a die shrink involved, though not all the way to 32nm. While Westmere processors will be 32nm, the graphics, and other functions that used to be done by the northbridge, will be made on a 45nm process. The smaller transistors enable much higher performance. While G45 had 10 shader cores, the new intel GPU increases that to 12. A number of performance limiting issues have now been resolved, so we should see much more competitive performance from Intel's graphics vs 9400M.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
As mentioned, PC games, and console games for that matter, are moving to digital distribution. The reason store shelves are filled with console games is because the used game market makes the retailers more money, and you can't resell a PC game.
Quote:
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
Less powerful than what, exactly? I'm sure a single Nehalem core can beat a single Xenon core any day of the week. Or a single core of any other consumer processor.
Quote:
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
As I'm sure you know, even the initial Core Duo processors were faster per clock than the PPC970, and the SPEs of the Cell are certainly not comparable to a fully featured core. The graphics cards in the consoles are almost four generations old. Frankly, it's silly to expect a $200 box to be able to outperform a $1000 gaming PC.
Quote:
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
Perhaps so, but that is a different market segment. Why would a gamer trend toward a netbook? They're a cheap novelty.
Quote:
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
Not unless you're still living in 2002. The current trend is for consoles to act as media extenders and/or media hubs.
Quote:
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Really? I can put together a computer for less than $500 that can beat today's consoles on performance, crappy console ports aside. Remember, the Xbox 360 and PS3 play at low to medium resolutions.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
Steam seems to be doing fine
i don't play as much games as before, but there is more quality and less quantity these days. unlike consoles
Several things here.
Steam has a very limited game selection and only offer the PC versions of games that had Mac versions. Also there is issue of the verification method Steam uses for those games.
MacTrippe is right in that console gaming has stomped PC gaming into the ground. Go to Best Buy, Hastings, GampStop, or even Walmart and compare the number and type of console games PC games.
Go online and the reality that Sturgeon's Law is alive and well in the PC gaming market is obvious especially if you look at the cheap game market of Flash/game creation program. The good to crap ratio is just as bad int he PC world as on the console--you just don't see it as much in the brick and mortar store as they will go with what sales. So you get a mixture of hits with casual 'why did they make this' thrown in.
Intel isn't suing nVidia over the MCP79, nor are they suing nVidia over any licensed property that nVidia already has products out for. nVidia has a license to produce chipsets utilizing Intel's FSB technology, but what they do NOT have licenses to are Intel's new QPI and DMI buses which are utilized in Intel's newer bloomfield and lynnfield processors, respectively.
nVidia announced a while back that they felt they did have a license to produce products utilizing Intel's DMI bus, and would release products based on that bus in the near future. Intel felt otherwise, and sued - halting nVidia from releasing new products on the new bus.
Again, this doesn't mean nVidia can't continue pumping out MCP79 or any other product that utilizes FSB - they just can't make any products utilizing DMI or QPI. It is extremely doubtful that nVidia will ever have a license for QPI, but I would be surprised if nVidia and Intel can't ink some sort of cross licensing deal over DMI. Personally, I think Intel wants something from nVidia in exchange for the DMI (or maybe even QPI) licenses, but nVidia doesn't want to give it up, whatever it may be (my guess is access to some GPU IP).
Don't worry, this will blow over. I can't see nVidia just shutting down their once successful chipset business overnight..especially considering all the R&D that they put in to MCP79 and future iterations we haven't even seen yet..
On another note, though there is no actual performance data yet, the integrated on package graphics chip that Intel will be debuting does appear at least on paper to be pretty formidable. I would expect (and hope) for graphics performance similar to what we already have with MCP79..
Comments
Cry Baby's. Build a better chipset.
They did and Apple dumped Intel's chipsets for them. Intel just won't allow anyone else to build chipsets for their chips anymore. Nvidia would have to make their own CPUs.
You obviously cannot read.
nVidia would be foolish to spend millions of dollars developing new chipsets they might never be allowed to sell. It's far smarter to spend their time and money developing a new product.
So if they lose in court they'll already have a new business to take the place of the PC chipset one.
If they win in court they can decide whether it's worth it to go back into competition with Intel in the chipset business. They've proven in the past that they can make better chipsets than Intel and make good profit on them so it wouldn't take long to make up for lost time.
I was referring to intel.
Remember people getting everything from one company without competition is always better.
Are you serious?!?! Competition encourages businesses to provide better products/ services... while trying to become the most efficient, thus reducing costs/ prices.
If you got everything from one company without competition, they wouldn't feel compelled to make anything better, and they'd jack up the price because you wouldn't have other choices.
Please tell me you were being sarcastic
They did and Apple dumped Intel's chipsets for them. Intel just won't allow anyone else to build chipsets for their chips anymore. Nvidia would have to make their own CPUs.
Or put AMD CPU's in bed with nVidia... Can you hear the screaming yet?
Nvidia probably's already won sockets on the new iTablet (ARM) and when that iTablet ships, the performance gap (speed and efficiency) between ARM/iTablet and x86/Mac will likely be very noticeable.
Nvidia is just doubling down on ARM and Intel will cry uncle soon afetr the iTablet testbed numbers are published.
And this effect roll out of new products, or present production, how?
This will not affect anything Apple currently uses (the 9400M chipset). It means that Nvidia will not make any chipsets for future Intel processors (i3/i5/i7), something we already knew.
So, come next year, it will be back to Intel integrated graphics for the Mac mini and Macbook.
Or put AMD CPU's in bed with nVidia... Can you hear the screaming yet?
Nvidia and AMD used to be big partners, but NV hasn't done much work on modern chipsets for AMD since AMD merged with ATI. Supporting AMD would be supporting their chief graphics competitor, and so far they have refused to do it.
This will not affect anything Apple currently uses (the 9400M chipset). It means that Nvidia will not make any chipsets for future Intel processors (i3/i5/i7), something we already knew.
So, come next year, it will be back to Intel integrated graphics for the Mac mini and Macbook.
Or, the introduction of the MacBiggie which has a real upgradeable cards instead of discrete graphics. The MacBiggie will be 10x10x4, have 2x HDMI and quad-core for $1199. It's gonna be awesome. I saw it on the internet.
PC 3D gaming is nearly dead anyway in favor of consoles.
Wrong, actually... It's not nearly dead, or on the way out or anything.
They did and Apple dumped Intel's chipsets for them. Intel just won't allow anyone else to build chipsets for their chips anymore.
Seems a tad anti-competative.
Wrong, actually... It's not nearly dead, or on the way out or anything.
Yes it is.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Yes it is.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Steam seems to be doing fine
i don't play as much games as before, but there is more quality and less quantity these days. unlike consoles
Seems a tad anti-competative.
You think?
Are you serious?!?! Competition encourages businesses to provide better products/ services... while trying to become the most efficient, thus reducing costs/ prices.
If you got everything from one company without competition, they wouldn't feel compelled to make anything better, and they'd jack up the price because you wouldn't have other choices.
Please tell me you were being sarcastic
I was being sarcastic. It just has parallels with another situation close to us.
Intel should be like "Hey, look what Nvidia is doing with our chipset! Turning it into gold! That's sweet, they're helping Intel to look better than what we can ourself. Win-win!"
Or they're thinking, "that money could be ours".
The second question is how does that affect Apple. Apple was using the 9400M to improve graphic performance in their designs which didn't use discrete graphics so we need to compare the next gen intel Graphics vs Nividia's solution. Intel was licensing SLI from Nvida so any system with discrete graphics will see little change from the current situation.
The Imac and Macbook pro have included the option for discrete graphics so this really affect the Mac Mini and Macbook of the future. If your buying those machines you probably are not looking at a graphics powerhouse. If nothing else, there is a die shrink involved, though not all the way to 32nm. While Westmere processors will be 32nm, the graphics, and other functions that used to be done by the northbridge, will be made on a 45nm process. The smaller transistors enable much higher performance. While G45 had 10 shader cores, the new intel GPU increases that to 12. A number of performance limiting issues have now been resolved, so we should see much more competitive performance from Intel's graphics vs 9400M.
Hopefully this all comes with a lower price
Yes it is.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
As mentioned, PC games, and console games for that matter, are moving to digital distribution. The reason store shelves are filled with console games is because the used game market makes the retailers more money, and you can't resell a PC game.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
Less powerful than what, exactly? I'm sure a single Nehalem core can beat a single Xenon core any day of the week. Or a single core of any other consumer processor.
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
As I'm sure you know, even the initial Core Duo processors were faster per clock than the PPC970, and the SPEs of the Cell are certainly not comparable to a fully featured core. The graphics cards in the consoles are almost four generations old. Frankly, it's silly to expect a $200 box to be able to outperform a $1000 gaming PC.
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
Perhaps so, but that is a different market segment. Why would a gamer trend toward a netbook? They're a cheap novelty.
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
Not unless you're still living in 2002. The current trend is for consoles to act as media extenders and/or media hubs.
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Really? I can put together a computer for less than $500 that can beat today's consoles on performance, crappy console ports aside. Remember, the Xbox 360 and PS3 play at low to medium resolutions.
Yes it is.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Steam seems to be doing fine
i don't play as much games as before, but there is more quality and less quantity these days. unlike consoles
Several things here.
Steam has a very limited game selection and only offer the PC versions of games that had Mac versions. Also there is issue of the verification method Steam uses for those games.
MacTrippe is right in that console gaming has stomped PC gaming into the ground. Go to Best Buy, Hastings, GampStop, or even Walmart and compare the number and type of console games PC games.
Go online and the reality that Sturgeon's Law is alive and well in the PC gaming market is obvious especially if you look at the cheap game market of Flash/game creation program. The good to crap ratio is just as bad int he PC world as on the console--you just don't see it as much in the brick and mortar store as they will go with what sales. So you get a mixture of hits with casual 'why did they make this' thrown in.
nVidia announced a while back that they felt they did have a license to produce products utilizing Intel's DMI bus, and would release products based on that bus in the near future. Intel felt otherwise, and sued - halting nVidia from releasing new products on the new bus.
Again, this doesn't mean nVidia can't continue pumping out MCP79 or any other product that utilizes FSB - they just can't make any products utilizing DMI or QPI. It is extremely doubtful that nVidia will ever have a license for QPI, but I would be surprised if nVidia and Intel can't ink some sort of cross licensing deal over DMI. Personally, I think Intel wants something from nVidia in exchange for the DMI (or maybe even QPI) licenses, but nVidia doesn't want to give it up, whatever it may be (my guess is access to some GPU IP).
Don't worry, this will blow over. I can't see nVidia just shutting down their once successful chipset business overnight..especially considering all the R&D that they put in to MCP79 and future iterations we haven't even seen yet..
On another note, though there is no actual performance data yet, the integrated on package graphics chip that Intel will be debuting does appear at least on paper to be pretty formidable. I would expect (and hope) for graphics performance similar to what we already have with MCP79..