Intel is paying when we're talking Intel Branded motherboards. I'm not talking about 3rd party boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonelmore
Printable View
Intel is paying when we're talking Intel Branded motherboards. I'm not talking about 3rd party boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonelmore
I thought Intel-branded motherboards were actually manufactured by Foxconn..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I'm no fan of Nvidia based chipsets for intel cpus personally but I think Nvidia should be allowed to fail miserably, if thats the case, trying to produce a product rather than being locked out all together.
I really don't know the dealings behind the scenes as far as licensing agreements but I'm sure we all have an idea of how Intel would like things to be.
If Intel simply refuses to license Nvidia to make chipsets for i7 they have simply locked them out, there may not even be an issue with charging a fee at all.
Anyways I guess we'll have to wait and see what a judge decides on the matter or things settle out of court.
Foxconn used to make them, I'm not sure who makes them now. Yet those costs are passed to Intel no matter who their subcontractor might be. Again Mutual Agreements are based on if License fees are used or not. AMD and Intel and IBM have that arrangement. Once any of them start charging, the other will respond in kind. This has saved both AMD and Intel Millions in Court Costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firestrider
A OWA pointed out, nothings stopping nVidia from paying for a license.
Intel's large market share of CPU's sold reminds me of the kind of monopoly that the Windows OS holds. For example, Windows can package a browser (Internet Explorer) with its OS to get market share in the browser sector. Similarly, Intel can do this with chipsets. Just change FSB/QPI enough to be considered "different", and Intel can hold exclusive rights on the next chipset.
The point is: QPI is different from FSB,you have license for FSb if FSB is different from QPI then your license doesn't extend to the QPI technologyQuote:
Originally Posted by jt1
But haven't them discussed this matter for more than a year without any success? It's not that easy. I think by insisting on "integrated memory controller functionality", Intel is planning to kick Nvidia out of their chipset market forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
It's nVidia's fault for annoying Intel, I've seen some topics around here where they attacked Intel's image. Guess Intel wasn't amused with their statements.
Yes. I DON'T KNOW why the talks failed and all I have to go on are nVidia's past actions. Intel had agreed with nVidia and Intel wasn't the one who added the "Cookie" or the "NF200". This was after Intel have given them the go-ahead for nVidia based Intel motherboards FREE. It is kind of funny here that some folks have forgotten that nVidia got not only FSB but all of the standards FREE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vozer
This has the largest affect on our DIYer market until you start talking about Atom. I don't think Intel wants Fanboys who love nVidia Cards to go with AMD Chipsets exclusively. This fight will be good for AMD. More nVidia Fanboys will lean toward an AMD platform. Most Intel Fanboys will dump nVidia and go with AMD video cards:up: Key, I said most-more, not all. Either way, AMD comes out smelling like a Rose.
Instead of just i5, I'm thinking it might have more to do with Atom. nVidia proposes taking a cheap slow CPU to run the system and having the Video Card provide the muscle. Intel and even AMD will loose money if nVidia could pull that off. Intel can't block x86 that nVidia has a license for but with no BUS, that becomes moot.;)
ahhh the economy goes down the drain and out comes a fresh lawsuit
With the AMD\ATi merger you'd think that Intel and nVidia would be closer together, not trading blows :shrug:
Yepp!:yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oj101
You missed my point. I'm concerned about Intel using its CPU marketshare to dominate the chipset marketshare. When monopolistic behavior goes unchecked, we all lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMH
There's not much to earn with southbridges. More and more will go On-die. So what's left? For instance PATA, SATA and USB...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vozer
Well, not the first time that a company blocks it's own ways with past decisions. NVIDIA needs a x86 chip for the future or all what's left will be graphic cards for enthusiasts...Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz
Has anyone seen Larrabee involved in all of this? :D IMHO, Intel's ultimate goal behind these actions is to weaken Nvidia and lessen their influence, making it easier to dethrone them in the GPU market later.
Hey, nomatter who wins...Nvidia could choose to stop Intel's SLi licence...
Intel - SLi = Poo.
Yes, X58(?) still has ATI XFire but what intel enthusiast wants parts that have AMD silkscreened to the GPU PCB for their lovely Intel rig?
Intel is kinda retarded for doing this.
Nvidia's sales will now decline and Intel's will too. We will soon see nvidia halting chipset's to become GPU only, and SLi will go where? Maybe AMD!
That wouldn't work if nVidia's not charging for NF200 and the "Cookie". Plus other moves that created bad blood that was mentioned here:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Vozer
I hope intel win. QPI is not FSB. nVidia are at their age old tricks again. Who cares if NV go down? I sure as hell don't. Not with intel planning to make serious GPUs to rival what ATi and NV do. However I don't agree with intel having such a monopoly with CPUs/chipsets AND (eventually) GPUs. With a big player like that, it almost makes you hope M$ step up and start making their own GPUs...
I don't think Intel forgot to make a contract with NVIDIA ;) Of course there could be some exit-clauses in it but I don't think Intel is that stupid to risk losing SLI.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Nah. Someone with bigger pockets. Samsung anyone :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ket
If anyone is going to make 3rd party i# chipsets I would wan't VIA back in the game :D
@ post above mine: you think intel is risking losing SLI? :rofl: nvidia NEEDS intel to have SLI, otherwise they are gonna lose more sales than even their deep pockets can handle.
SLI or Crossfire is still a tiny minority of the market really, single card dual gpu solutions offer the same functionality without needling a fancy mb.
So in that regard its not like nvidia would be loosing allot of sales considering single gpu's are the vast majority anyways.
EDIT: But nvidia shoots itself in the foot for not making SLI more accessible like Crossfire. Still not many will go dual gpu but just having the option there for more people means theres a good chance more people might try it out just because the ability to do it is already in place.
without SLI capabilities on a platform nvidia couldn't claim the performance crown as easily. That said SO many people buy a card saying "oh, well I'll add another later" even if they do or not its still a selling point for their products that once again they would lose.
Nvidia needs Intel more than Intel needs Nvidia, not that Intel needs Nvidia at all. Why should Intel give Nvidia their tech for free while Nvidia wants to charge Intel? At the end of the day to your average consumer that has problems with their pc due to a crappy Nvidia chipset Intel is at fault. Screw Nvidia and their buisness tactics. I got burned on a 780i and Im glad no one will have to go through what I did again.
... seems like intel is pushing nvidia away, as they get closer to releasing their own GPU solution(larabee, integrated video processor on their 32nm westmere)
If Intel wins, does that mean that Nvidia will be forced to allow SLI on all intel chipsets ?