NFORCE 5 SLI for Intel

[KF]

Is Intel only allowing nvidia to make SLI chipsets? If so, cancel what I am about to say.

Obviously a chipset maker would rather pitch sales to 85% of the market than 15%. The only reason nvidia makes AMD chipsets at all is that Intel completely refused to let them make Intel chipsets for anything but the XBOX. Nvidia had already designed a chipset for the XBOX to go with the Intel CPU, likely believing that they could expand to the general market later. Nvidia management probably had convulsive seizures when it turned out Intel couldn't be budged. If Intel is now giving nvidia permission, nividia will relegate AMD to second class, just like SIS and VIA do, and new, first class AMD chipsets by nvidia will be very late in coming, or even phased out.

Intel chipsets are already first class. They don't need nvidia for that. Intel already has some cut-rate chipsets from other manufactures too. So they don't need nvidia for that. Nvidia could provide a higher performance integrated video chipset.

If AMD CPUs are outperforming Intel CPUs, then AMDs strategy has worked as best as could have been planned. There were a lot of skeptics about this when A64s showed up while the chip industry was still depressed. (Like: Who needs 64 bit? SOI in a mass-market CPU?) Intel has ALWAYS has had a plan B waiting when this has happened in the past, and not more than around 6 months has been enough to get back, at super high prices and limited availablity, which is all you need for a flagship. What that has always done to AMD is to collapse their pricing ability. You have noticed that AMD is getting pretty good prices for their CPUs, haven't you? Good news for AMD; not that wonderfull for us cheap smucks. Unless AMD can pop out an unlikely twin-spin to match Intel's likely plan B, AMD will be "backin its place," where Intel wants and needs it. Intel does not know how to play second, but it has not had to.

Yeah I know people worry about AMDs finances, but they have always gotten through very well in close-second place in the past, and I see nothing to change that ability, if that's the way it should go. Customers like low prices. All of AMDs creditors have gotten and are getting paid on time, and paid handsomely. Stock speculators don't mind this kind of uncertainty/volatility either; it gives them an opportunity to exersize their superior risk-managment skills. That's how they make the big bucks, while others settle for a safe, lower return.

 

[Showtime]

This is happening because it's supposed to benefit both companies. Nvidia gets to sell more SLI chipsets and Intel get a performance boost that should equate to more cpu sales. Competition is good. The price gouging that was going on with nf4 mobos was because of supply and demand and lack of competition. competition = good for consumer.

-show

 

[ribbon13]

I pray they both survive... competition is where innovation comes from.

And KF brings up the excellent point that the real money is in the mass market, not the gamer market. However, I doubt nVidia would relegate AMD to a 'second hand citizen' status because they can make Intel chipsets. I think it's been demonstrated in the past the Intel can't really tell anyone to not make a chipset for thier processors. I forgot exactly what I'm thinking of, but I recall that VIA or Sis made a chipset without Intel's permission.

Either way, the amount of time and money they put into the Crush chips (nF Pro 2200/2050) doesn't make it seem like they are leaving AMD behind.

edit: grammar.

 

[Zebo]

I hope AMD starts hurtin again so I can get $44 processors again. I liked them much better when hanging on by a shoestring. This leading performance crap making them get all uppity charging insane prices like Intel. Screw that!!! I'll take 5% less performance for rock bottom prices.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
I think it's been demonstrated in the past the Intel can't really tell anyone to not make a chipset for thier processors. I forgot exactly what I'm thinking of, but I recall that VIA or Sis made a chipset without Intel's permission.

Yes, and Intel pretty-much sucessfully was able to keep it off of the market, at least in the US, because it violated Intel's patents on the P4 bus interface. Intel has been very sucessful in keeping those that it doesn't want to make chipsets for their CPUs away, at least that I've seen. I think that SiS paid Intel for a bus license, but Via couldn't get one. I'm not certain why. So Via bought up Cyrix, which had some sort of patent-license agreement with Intel, thinking that would "make them legal" to make/sell P4 chipsets. I forget exactly what happened, but I think that Via was able to finally get a non-distriminatory patent license from Intel, due to a court decision. (Probably as a gesture of goodwill, to get the gov't off of their back. It wasn't nearly as widely reported as the Microsoft case, but Intel too, was (is?) under a federal anti-trust investigation.)

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Either way, the amount of time and money they put into the Crush chips (nF Pro 2200/2050) doesn't make it seem like they are leaving AMD behind.
edit: grammar.

I think that they would be foolish to withdraw from one of the markets that they currently have a large share in, that would just be business suicide - unless - Intel gives them some sort of secret quid-pro-quo, that could make it all worthwhile. There was an article on TheInq some time ago, about the fact that NV may have recieved special treatment from Intel, and was able to get a no-cost license to the P4 bus, which would obviously give NV a market advantage for selling P4-compatible chipsets compared to all of the other 3rd-parties, which still have to pay a license fee to Intel for every chipset made, which cuts into their profits. NV would essentially reap the benefits of being an almost 1st-tier chipset maker. (Like Intel themselves.) Clearly, if that is true, then there might well have been some concessions in there as part of the deal, and, considering that NV's engineering is, in a fairly large part, one of the only things that allowed the AMD CPU market to be so sucessful - if NV pulled out from the AMD-compatible chipset market, it could hurt AMD's CPU market-share. But that could be risky too, if Via and SiS rush in to fill the void left by the hypothetical exit of NV from the market. The AMD platform might not falter at all (I don't really think that it would - support is already there by and large), and then all NV would have suceeded in doing, is reducing their market-share and revenues from that portion of the market. Considering how high their costs/losses have been in some recent prior quarters, with regards to production costs and availability problems of their GPUs, then I don't think that they can financially afford to simply up and drop the AMD-compatible chipset market right now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I hope AMD starts hurtin again so I can get $44 processors again. I liked them much better when hanging on by a shoestring. This leading performance crap making them get all uppity charging insane prices like Intel. Screw that!!! I'll take 5% less performance for rock bottom prices.

Yeah, I remember those days. In fact, it's kind of amazing, the price that I paid for my XP1800+ TbredB over two years ago - the price hasn't dropped significantly at all! A retail-box XP2000+ (what I OCed it to), is still about the same price. So at the lowest end, at least, the pricing has been pretty flat in the market.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I think this is very bad news for AMD. nVidia is not going to outright drop chipset development for AMD. But what will most likely happen is nVidia will develop and release their newest tech for Intel first. And from a business standpoint it makes sense to do things this way. Developing for your 85% market first, then releasing the same tech on lower volume platforms is a smart way to do business. AMD has/is making a critical mistake by not develping their own chipsets. Relying on third parties to do it for you is great, until your best partner signs a deal with your mortal enemy.

 

[justly]

I actually hope nVidia does switch their chipset priority to an Intel platform for competition reasons. First off is to promote competition on the AMD platform (seems as if everyone is always saying "competition is good" but when was the last time any of you recomended any chipset for the AMD platform besides nVidia?). Enthusiasts give tier 1 motherboard manufactures little reason to even try a SiS or ULi chipset because they know no enthusiast will give it a chance, so the few companies that do use them dont put forth the effort to make them appealing to the enthusiast crowd (kind of a self fulfilling prophecy, don't you think). Its not like the current SiS or even ULi chipsets aren't competitive from a performance standpoint(from what I have seen SiS chipset performance is on par with nVidia, and ULi is right on VIAs heals if not on par with them). Heck, the only reason VIA even has the market shar they do is because they have supported AMD from the get-go (so they have market recognition). If the AMD chipset market was more balanced we might see faster inovations from the other chipset manufacures. Secondly Intel needs a company with strong name recognition (like nVidia has) to compete with. Sure there is SiS and VIA chipsets available for Intel but neither of them have the name recognition that that is needed to compete with Intel. Now eveyone repeat after me "competition is good", thats right, how do we promote competition? change, right again, and how can we make competition even more intense? put them on equal footing, so I say let nVidia bring SLI to the Intel platform and give SiS and ULi a fighting chance on the AMD side of the house.

Disclaimer: I realize that some people hear at Anadtech don't blindly follow the example outlined above and for those people I appoligize, but to be honest I would never start one of those "tell me what you think of this system" threads because I know that I would hear more personal bias than analytical reasoning.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: carlosd
Intel is not going to beat AMD iwith dual core CPUs. AMD has been working for a long time in their dual core design, intel just changed their mind recently. Besides the A64 desing will lead to a better dualcore desing than intel. Intel will have lots of trouble putting two PIV cores in a single wafer due to thermal losses, and you have to consider that they would have to run at a higher clockspeed than their AMD counterpart to be competitive. The dothan core is not competitive overall with A64 so intel wont be putting dual dothans in a dual core desing.

Not according to roadmaps. Intel has their dual core on tap in Q2 of 2005, while AMD just recently moved up their dual core chips to Q3 2005.

link

The roadmap is the roadmap, The reality is the reality, 130W TDP!!! in dual cores, not even in their dreams JA JA JA! (Besides 130W is still to HOOOOOOOT!!!!!!)

 

[friedrice]

The important thing to note, is that it's not the motherboards that hurt Intel, it's Intel themselves. Amd and Intel just make the procs. This basically means that this will not effect AMD at all. People who will get Intel will pay more and get Intel, people who want a faster cheaper gaming chip will get AMD. Well, that's my thoughts anywho.

And on a side note, dual core seems over-rated at the moment. Especially for the avg. user. Heck, even for the avg. gamer

 

[ribbon13]

Average user?

If that includes the ever expanding asses of the soccer moms of the world, all Maxis needs to do is release an SMP optimized version of the Sims 2 and your statement will be rendered incorrect.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Originally posted by: justly
I actually hope nVidia does switch their chipset priority to an Intel platform for competition reasons....... Now eveyone repeat after me "competition is good"

How does this make for better competition? If nVidia puts AMD into a low priority or basically ignores them, there is actually less competion in the AMD chipset sector, not more. Your reasoning is backwards.

 

[clarkey01]

SLI isn?t really a huge issue, well to me, it?s a niche market but its not the holy grail that its made out to be. Only a few thousand enthusiastic will shell out for it.

It depends what gets paired with it, weather Smithfield (2 prescotts) or Yanoh (correct me on name, dual core Pentium m). I would like to stress that Smithfield is little more then two Preshots on one die with some tweaks, I?m willing to be AMD?s solution is little more then two Winchesters( revision e?s) stuck together with some tweaks, but that?s all it needs to be.

Gaming performance should stay the same in AMD?s favour, Smithfield doesn?t seem to be anything revolutionary and I?m not sure where the Pentiums M gaming performance is at, either case its AMD?s field for a good few years. I believe its due to a math calculation advantage in the chips design

 

[friedrice]

SLI is over-rated, at least at this point. I'm guessing that most of us can't afford it. For the for who have money but don't have a hole burning in their pockets to spend, SLI isn't really worth it. I brought up this point on a post before. Basically got slammed by the people who have SLI. The people who don't agreed with me go figure

 

[Leper Messiah]

intel has good chipsets, its just that their procs suck. Until they get rid of the furnace that is the P4 (227 load watts for a 3.7EE!), they just can not compete. I'm suprised that greenpeace hasn't come after intel for their massive energy wasting. Nvidia really only caters to the enthuisast market anyways...wait a minute, there are intel enthuiasts? whats wrong with you guys!

 

[imverygifted]

its all about the processor to begin with, a chipset can only increase performance so much look at the hl2 cpu benchmarks- same graphics cards used

 

[Rich85]

wrong post