Nvidia’s Huang chimes in on FTC’s Intel suit

In case you missed the big news, the Federal Trade Commission sued Intel yesterday for anti-competitive behavior. The suit covers some of the same ground as complaints from previous regulatory bodies—namely that Intel coerced PC vendors into limiting their use of competing microprocessors—but it treads new ground by claiming Intel’s unlawful activities extend into the GPU market.

Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang sent out a long memo to his employees about the subject yesterday, and the guys at CNet News have relayed it for everyone to see. The memo sums up the FTC’s charges and delivers some pep talk, but it also includes this tasty nugget:

Intel is fully aware that great graphics have become one of the most important features for consumer PCs, the fastest-growing segment of the PC market. Even more alarming to Intel is the revolutionary parallel computing technology in our GPUs that is being adopted by software developers across the world. The more successful we became, the bigger threat we were to Intel’s monopoly. Instead of creating competitive GPU solutions and competing on the merits of their products, Intel has resorted to unlawful acts to stop us. The FTC announced today that this isn’t acceptable.

To what unlawful acts is Huang alluding? CNet News put together another story delving deeper into the matter. Reportedly, the FTC complaint looks at Intel’s pricing of Atom processor and chipset bundles in particular—something Nvidia publicly complained about in May. At the time, Huang said Intel charged $45 for Atom CPUs but only $25 for Atom CPU and chipset bundles, making it harder for Nvidia to market its Ion integrated graphics chipset. Intel CEO Paul Otellini later stated about the topic, “We have historically offered better pricing to people that buy more products. Nothing new there.”

CNet quotes the FTC’s complaint as saying, “To combat [Atom] competition, Intel charged [PC makers] significantly higher prices because they used a non-Intel graphics chipset or GPU. Intel would offer the bundled pricing only to OEMs that would then use the Intel chipset in the end product–and not use a competitive product.”

The FTC’s focus on GPUs may have another angle to it, though. As part of its settlement with Intel last month, AMD agreed to “withdraw all of its regulatory complaints worldwide,” so it’s probably not going to turn around and testify against Intel for the FTC. On top of that, George Mason University law school professor (and former FTC scholar) Joshua D. Wright told CNet, “It would be really hard to sell the public on expending resources to take Intel through administrative proceedings when it had already paid over a billion dollars to AMD.”

Comments closed
    • YeuEmMaiMai
    • 10 years ago

    Retarded nVidia CEO should keep his mouth shut and worry about his own company’s failure to deliver a new product in a timely mannor….

    • pogsnet
    • 10 years ago
    • oldog
    • 10 years ago

    So, gents, I guess the question I have is whether any technology will come along that will disrupt the x86 juggernaut?

    Can another architecture ever compete?

      • loophole
      • 10 years ago

      It would be nice to think so but if Intel can’t even move the industry beyond x86, I’d say it looks doubtful. But hell, if we’re basically running everything in the cloud in 10 years time who knows 😛

      Maybe ARM’s attack from the bottom can change the landscape?

      One of the high-end players is still IBM with their Power line, and Power7 does look fairly good with it’s SMT4 and eDRAM, but who’s to know how it will compare with Nehalem-EX.

      Who else is left at the high-end? SPARC, with no more Rock? Maybe one day the quad core Itanic, Tukwila will get released…

      But it could be worse – at least the x86 architecture has been evolving.

      Here’s a bit of interesting commentary about the effect Itanium had on the industry:
      §[< http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2339629,00.asp<]§

    • WaltC
    • 10 years ago

    I think this is certainly nVidia’s particular perspective on the matter, but what’s got me scratching my head is the close timing between Intel’s announcement that it was killing “Larrabee” as a product and the subsequent FTC announcement that it had been unable to get a settlement out of Intel and so was going to sue Intel to force the company to see things its way.

    Intel has been investigated in the past by the FTC and has always managed to “settle” with the FTC and walk away without facing the FTC in court. Such negotiations during the investigation phase are ongoing and protracted, so there’s no doubt Intel was attempting to settle with the FTC at the time it canceled Larrabee.

    Pure speculation, but I’m wondering if Intel believed that a Larrabee cancellation would be enough to get the FTC to settle–and if so–obviously it wasn’t. This makes me think that the FTC’s interest in Intel’s real (JHH’s complaints) and announced (Larrabee) incursion into the gpu space might be somewhat broader than nVidia believes. The timing between Larrabee’s cancellation and the announcement of the FTC suit is intriguing, but hardly revelatory, either.

    /[

      • MadManOriginal
      • 10 years ago

      Not that the speculation isn’t fun but I think you’re reading too much in to it. Product development cycles are very long but so are pre-lawsuit investigations. So more than likely Intel cancelled Larabee 1 for real reasons and the FTC lawsuit just happened to be filed around the same time.

        • WaltC
        • 10 years ago

        Very true…but you know…about Larrabee’s “product development cycle”…Did Intel ever actually do a “demo” of the Larrabee tech that wasn’t actually being run on software? That is, a software model of what Larrabee “would do” if it ever actually made it to hardware? That’s what’s puzzled me about the entire Larrabee saga, tell the truth. The whole thing just strikes me as bizarre and always has…

          • MadManOriginal
          • 10 years ago

          Considering they’re using Larabee 1 chips by sending out development kits, which from what I understand have hardware, I’d say there’s no need to speculate that it was a fake product.

            • WaltC
            • 10 years ago

            OK, that’s interesting–but really, I thought the developer kits they were sending out were software emulators–sort of like the initial xBox 360 development kits that were distributed. I guess what sticks out for me was hearing the guy presenting the last Larrabee demo prior to the product cancellation say during the presentation that what was being viewed were frames running on a Larrabee software simulator.

            It’s not a big deal–I was just curious as to whether the project had ever made it to hardware.

    • thecoldanddarkone
    • 10 years ago

    This is from green from awhile ago and it’s much, much more believable than the nonsense some of you guys are spilling out.

    Intel is not discounting for volume, they are selling a pair of chips (CPU + Chipset) for cheaper than one (CPU alone)
    no, they aren’t. for orders of 1,000:

    Atom 230 = $29
    Atom 330 = $43

    Atom 230 + 945gc + ICH7R = $52
    Atom 330 + 945gc + ICH7R = $66

    bit of re-arranging would imply:

    945gc + ICH7R = $52 – Atom 230 = $23
    945gc + ICH7R = $66 – Atom 330 = $23

    of course intel gives discounts on the cpu when bundling
    but interestingly enough though:

    Celeron 430 = $34
    Celeron 440 = $44
    Celeron e1200 = $43
    Celeron e1500 = $53
    Pentium e2140 = $64
    C2D e4300 = $113

    Celeron 430 + 945gc + ICH7R = $57
    Celeron 440 + 945gc + ICH7R = $67
    Celeron e1200 + 945gc + ICH7R = $66
    Celeron e1500 + 945gc + ICH7R = $76
    Pentium e2140 + 945gc + ICH7R = $87
    C2D e4300 + 945gc + ICH7R = $136

    945gc + ICH7R = $57 – Celeron 430 = $23
    945gc + ICH7R = $67 – Celeron 440 = $23
    945gc + ICH7R = $66 – Celeron e1200 = $23
    945gc + ICH7R = $76 – Celeron e1500 = $23
    945gc + ICH7R = $87 – Pentium e2140 = $23
    945gc + ICH7R = $136 – C2D e4300 = $23

      • NeelyCam
      • 10 years ago

      Help me out here… could it be that… NVidia is full of s**t, and they have no case?

      • djgandy
      • 10 years ago

      …And you make the assumption that all the discount is taken from the CPU.

      If something is bundled, we should spread the discount evenly across all products.

      The case is stupid imo. Are we going to stop OEM’s selling full systems cheaper than they sell the individual parts for?

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 10 years ago

        Happily, there is not one dominant OEM so all the OEMs can pretty much do whatever they want. In the case of Intel, their little discount had the effect of marginalizing a comparatively tiny competitor who had a superior product. This is clearly an example of a monopoly working against the interests of consumers.

        • thecoldanddarkone
        • 10 years ago

        Umm, that’s what huang did goofy. I agree the discount is on all 3. I also pointed that earlier in one of my posts, with a few other things.

        It’s not like the current intel chipset+southbridge is difficult to make. The 945 has been made for 4.5 years, that means they probably have golden yeilds.

    • Krogoth
    • 10 years ago

    Let’s get this over with.

    Nvidia, just focus on getting Fermi out. Stop being so butthurt over your chipset division. It couldn’t compete in the Intel arena. The SLI card didn’t work. Perhaps, making a solid chipset without any stupid, stupid issues would help instead of adding more gimmicky kitchen sink BS. Crying over licensing agreements for QPI/DMI doesn’t help either.

    The lack of any real word on Fermi is disturbing on its own.
    You are starting to make Charlie’s baseless flames look like creditable evidence. 1.7% yields? A1/A2 problems? Mock demo units at PRs/social sites?

      • MadManOriginal
      • 10 years ago

      Yeah I agree. Unless the FTC wants to go way out of bounds and try to dictate technological advances outright by saying ‘Hey Intel, you can’t have an integrated Northbridge, Southbridge I/O, or GPU’ NV should just take a different tack on their ‘integrated’ solutions and make them simply GPUs. This would save them any R&D and production costs from, for example, traditional Northbridge functions. NV would actually be ‘sticking to what they know’ like they say Intel should. If they wanted to they could do some value add like USB3, or sound although that would take away some of the advantages of trimming it down.

      I would totally get behind a fully Intel NB+SB+IGP CPU with a switchable discrete ‘IGP’ (or discrete card obviously) from NV. Switchable graphics is already well-developed for laptops and although it’s sad NV gave up on them for their own chipsets on the desktop it would be nice to see it reappear on desktops with Intel IGP+NV GPU.

    • Vasilyfav
    • 10 years ago

    Intel is just doing bundling. It’s a standard business practice in any form of market, be it perfect competition, oligopoly or monopoly. It is also not an abuse of market power.

    I mean it’s not like Ion and atom+chipset are the same product. If they were and Intel was constantly undercutting nvidia, then I could see potential for concern, but atm it’s nothing.

    • ClickClick5
    • 10 years ago

    ….Maybe Intel tried to buy Nvidia…then when Huang said no, Intel designed their latest chips with the memory controller built in to shove it in Nvidia’s face? I know that would be a massive, massive stretch, but what if….?

      • loophole
      • 10 years ago

      Intel would never have continued on with their aging FSB architecture as it was really hurting their performance in the multi-socket server space. Especially after they got to see what an integrated memory controller and a point-to-point interconnect gave AMD when they moved from the Athlon MPs to the Opterons.

      And now that they’ve waited a lot of the NUMA issues that plagued the original socket 940 Opteron platform have been sorted out.

      So in reality it’s probably just a nice side effect for Intel that moving to QPI for the high-end and DMI for the mid-range and low-end basically kicks nVidia out of the Intel chipset business 😉

    • SomeOtherGeek
    • 10 years ago

    Explain this like I’m a 6 year old: FTC is suing Intel because a bundled product is cheaper than a standalone product, so they are going to force them to rise the price? Sounds stupid to me.

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 10 years ago

    Huh. I’m starting to think that as soon as Intel paid off AMD, nVidia decided to put the pressure on…

      • NeelyCam
      • 10 years ago

      NVidia has no case – they are a sinking ship desperately trying to stay afloat as long as possible.

        • Madman
        • 10 years ago

        I honestly hope they’re not.

        They are the company that innovates the most in graphic field. Most OpenGL extensions have been added by Nvidia, and the way they work to improve programming is very inspiring.

        And even though ATi has some new 1 ft long cards that are faster, Nvidia does have very good cards available in a form of 2xx series. And so far, they are more than enough, especially since 8800GT can handle anything you trow at it.

    • SoulSlave
    • 10 years ago

    The longer people, and companies, keep endorsing and buying proprietary technology, the longer they will suffer with problems like, different extensions for the x86 instruction set from the different vendors, monopolistic behavior, and lack of competition in general.

    • albundy
    • 10 years ago

    “for anti-competitive behavior”

    how is this different from monopolistic behavior? or is it just word play to tone it down a notch…at least until a verdict is made.

    • mcnabney
    • 10 years ago

    From the article: “We have historically offered better pricing to people that buy more products. Nothing new there.”

    Yeah, $45 for Atom, $25 for Atom and graphics. That isn’t better pricing, that is negative pricing. If Atom is $45, that would require the chipset to be -$20. I can’t think of any product that the ‘bundle’ price is lower than the individual price. All they are doing is making competing products much more expensive. And the result to the consumer is that Atom-equiped netbooks are all incapable of HD video since Ion netbooks are just now getting into a competitive range.

    • NeronetFi
    • 10 years ago

    I hate when I forget to hit reply

    • Shining Arcanine
    • 10 years ago

    I think Nvidia should learn to compete rather than whining about how difficult it is for them to compete. Their attitude toward Intel seems to have become Opera’s attitude toward Microsoft, rather than investing money (in engineering and advertising, more advertising than engineering) in actually competing for marketshare, they just want marketshare handed to them.

      • Hattig
      • 10 years ago

      “I think Nvidia should learn to compete”

      They are competing, but because Intel has blocked them out in pretty much every way now (apart from making PCIe attached GPUs with I/O functions, aka Ion 2) they’ve got no options for chipsets going forward. Intel is probably chuffed with itself about that, tying up the chipset market for itself, and hence the majority of the integrated graphics market. No wonder Larrabee was cancelled – there’s no need for the technology when other companies cannot make better chipsets. GMA for life.

      However NVIDIA have an option, and it’s called Tegra. They’re throwing their towel in with the ARM ecosystem. There’s a lot of competition, so prices will be low, and functionality high. If it takes off, and with dual-core 2GHz Cortex A9 systems it should do, Intel’s Atom ecosystem is at threat. Microsoft might say they won’t do Windows 7 for ARM, but if the market appears, they’re not going to be too proud not to.

      See how allowing competition would have allowed Intel’s systems to succeed, but by being anti-competitive they have allowed a non-Intel option to grow and expand, and threaten a lot more than it would have with a healthy chipset alternative.

        • wibeasley
        • 10 years ago

        It sounds like AMD has locked Nvidia out of their chipset business too, but Nvidia isn’t vocal about that.

          • loophole
          • 10 years ago

          Now this is actually something that I’m interested in too: has AMD actually locked nVidia out of the AMD chipset business, or has nVidia just looked at AMD’s current and immediate-future chips and come to the conclusion that it’s not worth the design effort for them, especially now that AMD has their own desktop and now server chipsets?

          And if nVidia has been locked out of this market how did AMD do this (beyond just being able to offer whole platforms to their customers), considering that HyperTransport technology is governed by a consortium that includes both companies?

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            Well that’s kind of an interesting point. If AMD hasn’t done anything to lock them out, and as far as I know they haven’t, and yet NV ignores developing AMD chipsets but then gets all twisted in the panties over Intel chipsets it’s a little strange.

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            Nothing strange here. AMD couldn’t pay what Intel could pay. Classic case of a frivolous lawsuit.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            *grabs popcorn*

            • Ikeoth
            • 10 years ago

            It seems like a matter of market share. AMDs float around 20-25% (i think) and Intel has the rest (pretty much) so if you had to fight why fight for 20 when you can go after 80. I would guess Nvidia is mad at Intel for 2 things. 1) They perceive Intel as canceling its licensing agreement for the QPI/DMI CPU interface probably after they dropped money into getting a chipset ready for the i7 launch and wants the rights to the bus or the cash back from that loss… 2) Intel threatened them on their turf with GPGPU so they are gonna bad mouth them as much as possible (within the law) so when Intel comes back to the GPGPU table they can use the past and hopefully keep people from Intel products…cause lets face it with the losses they are taking trying to get GT300 to the masses (Feb-March release date..) they have to get profit from somewhere.

            I mean think about this, when Nvidia knew GT300 silicon was over 6 mos away they banked on getting DMI/QPI chipsets sales but Intel cut them out and caused them to go in to panic mode so they wouldn’t bleed too many $$$ before GT300 so they cut all chipset business and even their (obviously) unprofitable GT200s (285,260 or whatever else they didnt make what they wanted on). They had a lot of money in Intel QPI/DMI.

            Now some say Intel couldn’t make a GPGPU and Nvidia is howling with fact that Intel seems to have failed but remember this Nvidia has also not came out with a x86 processor and that’s where the old money is..consumer systems. maybe Intel will get sued for not giving Nvidia a license to x86 next but in the end Nvidia only gains form these proceedings against Intel and they know it

        • StashTheVampede
        • 10 years ago

        NVidia is truly penning their hopes on ARM based laptops. ARM “netbooks” are coming in full force — especially with ChromeOS. The more the user moves off a Windows install, the more likely Nvidia will have a foot in the production of said netbook.

      • Madman
      • 10 years ago

      Funny you say that. Nvidia should compete…

      The last time I checked, Intel graphics was shit, no, sorry, is shit, somewhere light years behind. The one sole reason why I despise affordable laptops with powered by craptactic Intel integrated graphics.

      The faster Intel disappears from graphics market the better, they don’t innovate much there and they make sure that gaming companies cannot rely on all PCs being able to play something like Crysis, because most regular Joes notes have shitty graphics. Therefore it’s easier to say, buy Xbox or PS3 because they play all games.

      Consoles lag behind a light year by now, but because the PC restrained by Intel Xtreme Graphics they have become a natural choice.

      If Intel cannot make a good product, they should at least allow others to make them.

      And, heck, even Nvidia 6800 is better than that Intel graphics crap.

    • bdwilcox
    • 10 years ago

    /[

      • mcnabney
      • 10 years ago

      Nope. Once the FTC filed the suit against Intel the libel/slander threat disappears.

        • bdwilcox
        • 10 years ago

        A – No it doesn’t because the FTC has only produced allegations of criminal activity. No criminal activity has been proven but nVidia’s CEO has stated that it has. That’s quite the baseless accusation.

        B – Libel and slander aren’t what I was referring to, anyway. Instead, such a statement opens one up to much more aggressive subpoenas and depositions than would normally be the case. Questions and discovery of things like, “What was the criminal activity you’re referring to, when did you know it, how did you know it, and why didn’t you report it when you first found out about it?”

        If nVidia is found to have been aware of criminal activity on Intel’s part and failed to report it while at the same time partnering with Intel, they could be considered accessories or co-conspirators.

          • ludi
          • 10 years ago

          A lawsuit is a civil action, not a criminal action. And given that Jen-Hsun Huang has been griping bitterly about Atom bundling since at least last May, was Nvidia was going to do anything less than turn over the store to the FTC? A store which, if it were used in the suit, would be available for Intel’s council to examine anyway?

    • jdaven
    • 10 years ago

    Well Nvidia doesn’t have to worry about Intel charging less for chipset+CPU bundles anymore since Intel has totally withdrawn the license for making chipsets for integrated memory controller CPUs from Nvidia. Even with the low price of $25, Nvidia was still selling Ion chipsets since Intel’s IGP sucks so bad. So what does Intel do? Not compete with a better product. No, they just forced Nvidia out of the market by taking away their license.

    This is the most classic example of anti-competitive monopoly behavior in the modern age. Step 1) Own all the IP you can, Step 2) build up a huge market share through illegal marketing tactics, Step 3) make everyone dependent on your products, Step 4) license some IP out in an effort to make more money and share and make it look like you are being fair, Step 5) withdraw said license if the third party makes a better product than you.

    Intel fanbois, don’t apologize, please for this behavior. It is what it is. Japan agrees, South Korea agrees, the EU agrees and now the US agrees. Why not you?

      • tfp
      • 10 years ago

      Take away or just not give a license for the new bus? Intel should get something out of the deal they shouldn’t give anything away.

      • NeelyCam
      • 10 years ago

      You, sir, are a dumbass. Intel couldn’t “withdraw” a license that’s agreed upon in legal agreements. Intel simply didn’t offer a license for their new bus. NVidia has no fundamental right demanding Intel to give them a license to a proprietary technology that Intel spend a lot of time and money developing (and to which NVidia didn’t contribute any money/resources).

      What, they want a free lunch?? Get lost! If NVidia wants to make chipsets, they should develop their own damn CPU with their own proprietary buses and chipsets.

      It’s funny to me that people are constantly bitching about Intel blocking out competition, but nobody seems to mind that Apple is selling their OS only with their horribly overpriced hardware, and sues anyone who dares install it on non-apple hardware? Talk about anti-competitive behavior…

        • jdaven
        • 10 years ago

        Aww, Neelycam. I know you couldn’t resist.

        So where in my post to I assert anything about fundamental rights? Where do I go into the philosophy of rights in general? You are mad. You can’t believe your favorite company is being attacked from so many sides that you don’t even read my actual post. You just write wants in your mind with regard to Intel critics. There are two facts I base my post after:

        Fact) Nvidia had a license for FSB

        Fact) Intel did not extend this license to DMI/QPI

        With these two facts, I and the United States Federal Trade Commission have concluded that Intel has begun to assert its monopoly power in the GPU space after doing so in the CPU space.

        Intel can do whatever it wants with its technology. But since we live in the real word in which you don’t, Neelycam, Intel must abide by the rules of society.

        You can peddle your laissez faire economic politics all you want but the simple matter is, AMD sued Intel and won some concessions. Japan FTC is still investigating Intel and might bring charges. South Korea FTC found Intel guilty and fined them. The EU found Intel guilty and fined them. Now the US FTC has found them in violation and is taking them to court.

        The world’s governments agree with my assertion that Intel is a monopoly, has abused the market and is anti-competitive. So you can take your undying Intel loyalty and extremely poor economic sense somewhere else.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 10 years ago

          The previous findings were for the special deals and payments Intel did to keep AMD out of OEM machines. That’s separate from anything they did with the GPU. The Atom pricing issue is not that they bundle with an overall discount, they sell the bundle for more then the CPU alone, it’s that they may have done something similar with chipsets/IGPs by only offering special pricing if the OEMs don’t use other chipsets at all.

          Say I want to build some Atom systems and use some with Intel chipsets and some with NV chipsets. If I can get the bundle price for my Atom+Intel purchase and the regular CPU price for my Atom+Ion purchase there isn’t anything wrong with that (as long as the ‘Intel sells the bundle for less than the price of the CPU alone’ isn’t true which it does not seem to be, Huang’s funny math notwithstanding.) However if I’m denied the bundle pricing altogether simply for using my regular price Atoms with Ion or other chipsets that’s a problem because it’s using the bundle pricing as an incentive to keep out competing chipsets entirely. It’s not clear whether this happened but that’s what the court case is for.

            • jdaven
            • 10 years ago

            You are right. The past investigations and legal matters had to do with AMD only and did not include the recent events surrounding the GPU. The US FTC might not have a case here but we shall see what they come up with.

            Intel definitely screwed AMD over the last decade but most of this is water under the bridge especially now that AMD settled with them. As for Nvidia encroaching on the more general computing space with GPU-like technology, Intel might repeat past abuses towards AMD but now in the GPU space. The US FTC wants checks in place to make sure this does not happen and that the market reaps the full potential of GPU computing without any anti-competitive shennigans on behalf of Intel. Time will tell of course but I give the US FTC the benefit of the doubt given Intel’s past transgressions.

    • Sahrin
    • 10 years ago

    I’m surprised he didn’t come forward and say nVidia had an affair with Tiger, too. Prime’s absolutely right – nVidia is looking at the expense of the Fermi launch so far, and the slow adoption of CUDA and GPU Compute and thinking “We could use a massive settlement, too.” Remember, this kind of posturing is exactly what AMD did before they filed suit in 2005.

    • jinjuku
    • 10 years ago

    I for one thought the market was better when VIA/ATI/NVIDIA et al were in the market place providing solutions for AMD/Intel.

    Anyone remember nVidia’s soundstorm?

    Intel does have some sins to answer for…

      • NeelyCam
      • 10 years ago

      What I remember is VIAs sh*tstorm chipset drivers that wouldn’t even support USB2.0 – the #1 reason why I switched to Intel from AMD.

      I for one believe we’re all better off with Via out of the chipset business.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        wrong reply

          • NeelyCam
          • 10 years ago

          right reply

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 10 years ago

    Really if intel even tried to look like it was playing fair this wouldn’t happen. Intel made this bed, now it gets to sleep in it. I think my favorite part of these proceeding is people will here for the first time in major new outlets the proclamation that Intel doesn’t make the best GPU’s. That has been a nerd secrete for way to long.

      • kvndoom
      • 10 years ago

      /[

        • NeelyCam
        • 10 years ago

        Lol 🙂 +1

    • PRIME1
    • 10 years ago

    NVIDIA just wants some AMD style hush money.

    I guess this news has already sent their stock to a year high.

      • StashTheVampede
      • 10 years ago

      Intel has probably seen the writing on the wall for quite some time with what they’ve done.

      They first grant licenses to the P4 bus so makers can make chipsets. Once Intel sees them as a threat, they change the chip+chipset so that they have different tech and rendering the previous license agreement invalid.

      Now Intel is combining the CPU+GPU on a single die — without the ability to decoulple them on the most desired platform for end users: laptops.

      • nafhan
      • 10 years ago

      They want some access to Intel’s QPI. Intel is doing their best to effectively cut Nvidia out of the Intel chipset business.
      Unfortunately, these issues probably won’t be resolved for several years, and by then, Intel’s plans may have already worked anyway (i.e. Nvidia not making chipsets with good integrated graphics).

        • Krogoth
        • 10 years ago

        More like they want “free” access to QPI. They don’t want to deal with licensing and the incurring “fees”.

          • StashTheVampede
          • 10 years ago

          This is WAY more the truth! Nvidia wants their current agreement (with current terms) to work with the new chips. Intel went with R&D to eliminate the potential of the old contract — no P4-like bus in Nehalem.

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            Intel went with R&D to make a better solution to replace the old and feeble FSB. They spent a lot of time, effort and money to develop the solution, and chose not to give the fruit of their labor to NVidia for free.

            And the child that NVidia is, they threw a temper tantrum and started whining. FTC in their infinite wisdom took this seriously, and is wasting taxpayer money pursuing this fraudulent charge.

            Good job, guys.

            • Krogoth
            • 10 years ago

            So what?

            Intel can do it whatever it wants with its platform. They set the rules. If you don’t like it? Too bad.

            That is the precisely why proprietary platforms are “never” good.

            Besides, Nvidia tried to pull the same BS on the software front with developers. “The Way it is meant to be Played” and PhysX.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            Dude you forgot SLI, the biggest anti-competition lockout BS that nvidia ever pulled and just about the only way they could get people to buy their error-prone chipsets. And it was purely done in drivers, there was no hardware incompatability with AMD or Intel chipsets that could do Crossifre.

            • Krogoth
            • 10 years ago

            It is no longer a big deals these days.

            Thanks to BIOS hacks and Nvidia throwing the towel in the chipset market. They were forced to release “SLI certifications” for P55 and X58 chipsets. These certifications are BIOS-level bits. They can be applied to a larger range of chipsets. The drivers will never know the wiser. 😉

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            So which one of the multiple past tense verbs in my post made you think I was talking about right now?

    • sledgehammer
    • 10 years ago

    whats wrong with intel?

      • 5150
      • 10 years ago

      You’re not even trying anymore.

      • SHOES
      • 10 years ago

      Not one thing they are a perfect example of how business should be conducted.

        • Hattig
        • 10 years ago

        Abuse of monopoly is certainly not how a business in a capitalist society operates. Competition is how capitalism thrives.

        Anyway, Ion 2 looks to be a GPU + southbridge on a chip that connects via PCIe, probably with a memory bus for local graphics memory. Or maybe it’s just a low-end discrete GPU.

        Hopefully the facts will be discovered in due course, and any punishments, if any, are meted out so that the consumer, i.e., us, benefits.

          • NeronetFi
          • 10 years ago

          l[

          • NeelyCam
          • 10 years ago

          Consumer doesn’t benefit from having a shit company like NVidia around. How many times have they tried to trick consumers by rebadging components? Or having cards with chips popping out?

          Dude – wake up. The only thing this could accomplish is that Intel will hike CPU prices to compensate for the potential legal costs, while Nvidia will still design crap that never works. Great story, and consumers will get hurt.

            • Madman
            • 10 years ago

            Good fanboy’ism. I bet you use Intel IGP to play tetris on your PCs.

            Even though Nvidia lags behind in performance field, they are still producing very good products.

            And rebranding is done by most companies in one way or another. It’s not very cool, as I’d expect the cards from one generation to have similar capabilities, like, say, DX level, but on the other hand, who cares if entry level cards are being rebranded. And it’s the whole industry of mess that uses all these weird numbers you can’t follow anymore, not ATi not Nvidia not Intel not AMD.

          • NeelyCam
          • 10 years ago

          EDIT: Double post WTF?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This