Report: Intel on verge of settlement with FTC and nVidia

[Hard Ball]

http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/07/19/intel.to.get.mild.regulation.in.ftc.lawsuit/
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-close-to-final-accord-on-antitrust-suit.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-up-as-intel-reportedly-settles-with-ftc-2010-07-19
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4LTZ2tOh8U

A settlement that will "extend changes according to the [November settlement with AMD]", presumably to other competitive markets.

Reuters reported earlier today that Intel and the FTC had reached a preliminary agreement that wouldn’t include a fine against the company. The preliminary deal would limit Intel’s use of volume discounts for its central processing units, the main chips in personal computers, as well as chips that run graphics, Reuters said.

Details are a bit scanty at the moment; perhaps it's time to make some predictions about what the settlement would actually involve. Let's give the poll a whirl, to see which ones of us would come close. Given that the full details would likely be laid out tomorrow, this poll will only be good for several hours.

***Settlement Deadline Extended to August 5th by FTC***
More time for negotiating terms, as details will take more time to work out than until tomorrow (Thur, July 22).

***Settlement reportedly reached between FTC and Intel***
As reported very early on Wed, Aug 4, 2010.

 

[ModestGamer]

To much romur to speculate but Intel has been cuaght again with its hand in the cookie jar. I wonder if they might move to buy nvidia.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Taaaacoooooooosssssss!!!!!

 

[Hard Ball]

Apparently, there will be no fine in the equation:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/667e8706-93a5-11df-bb9a-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss

The agreement, which is expected to be finalised by next week, will not include fines because the FTC does not have the authority to issue civil penalties. But it will force Intel to make changes to its marketing.

But this probably does not preclude a cash settlement with nVidia before it's said and done.

 

[3DVagabond]

I didn't think Intel did anything wrong.

 

[jvroig]

I voted for the bag of tacos just because it made me laugh, even though I believe the most likely outcome is "Nothing significant, intel simply gets a slap on the wrist." The FTC might have had a chance to win big, but that chance essentially evaporated the moment AMD "forgot" about their complaints against Intel.

 

[lifeblood]

I suspect something far more insidious. Intel will license DMI and QPI to nVidia so they can start competing in the chipset market. In return, nVidia licenses a bunch of graphics IP to Intel so Intel can meet AMD's Fusion APU with an equivilent product.

Yea, I'm grasping at straws, but it sounds good.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

I suspect something far more insidious. Intel will license DMI and QPI to nVidia so they can start competing in the chipset market. In return, nVidia licenses a bunch of graphics IP to Intel so Intel can meet AMD's Fusion APU with an equivilent product.

Yea, I'm grasping at straws, but it sounds good.

Chipsets are going to gradually disappear in the next few years anyways. Plus if nV gives Intel the tech to make their own Fusion competitors they won't be able to sell their integrated graphics platforms for those cpus anyways.

 

[bryanW1995]

jhh is going to open up a can of whoop ass on the ftc!

 

[akugami]

I fail to see how this really helps nVidia. From the Newsweek link this would be geared more towards CPU's with a small line on GPU's. If you'll note the Electronista link, you get a slight clarification and it deals with Intel stifling competition by actually making offering Atom at cheaper prices if you bundle it with a graphics chipset vs just the Atom CPU. What happens when Intel moves most of its lower end lineup to CPU's with integrated GPU's? AMD will also be doing the same. The best that can be said is that Intel will price their CPU's that have no integrated GPU's more fairly.

When the CPU+GPU chips come out then I'm going to say that all low end and a good portion of the mid end will not bother using an ATI or nVidia chipset. This will result in more nVidia chipsets being used but only until Intel really starts gearing up the CPU+GPU integrated chips.

Intel and nVidia's suits against each other vs GPU licensing terms is a separate issue from Intel stifling competition with unfair bundling prices.

 

[MrK6]

That's just Intel playing hard ball, and that's something you get to do when you're as big as they are. I don't know why NVIDIA thinks they have a chance in this business. Just like they were shut out of chipsets, they probably will be shut out of integrated graphics too. Why would Intel "play nice" and lose sales to NVIDIA when it's more than big enough to do everything in-house? I'll be interested to see what the final result is.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

The way I see it is that even if nV can make chipsets with graphics they are too late for the current gen so they would probably have something for sandy bridge. But after that with every generation the chipsets are more and more going to become just the SB and with integrated on package(or on die) graphics for all the low and mid range volume segments. Really by giving Intel any IP they can use long term they are going to help them for maybe 2 generations of making chipsets with graphics that are going to be unnecessary for 80% of the market? (low end are fine with intel graphics and high end to mid high end want discrete graphics anyways).

 

[DrMrLordX]

I voted for the bag of tacos

Gir would approve (I voted the same way).

 

[Nemesis 1]

I voted nothing sig.

But I am betting next week when its finalized . The NV fans will be moaning and groaning.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Just like they were shut out of chipsets, they probably will be shut out of integrated graphics too. Why would Intel "play nice" and lose sales to NVIDIA when it's more than big enough to do everything in-house?

They may want to 'play nice' due to the fact that if they lose the right to nV's IP, they can no longer make any graphics chip with a TMU(a ton of other features too, nV owns all the old 3Dfx patents plus their own). This particular FTC case isn't about the graphics patents Intel is in danger of losing rights too, but they may decide it is better to settle and give up 10% of their chipset business(random number pulled out of thin air) then lose 100% of their integrated graphics and SoC business. Larrabee's design in part failed so shockingly because they were trying to get around nV's IP, even then they realized they couldn't get around the TMU IP, it just won't work with any technology we currently have.

 

[Genx87]

I was about to say the same thing. Intel is in danger of having the a huge smack down on them if they dont play nice. Imagine if Nvidia got an injuction on Intel graphics? AMD and Nvidia will need to fill that huge void.

 

[WelshBloke]

I was about to say the same thing. Intel is in danger of having the a huge smack down on them if they dont play nice. Imagine if Nvidia got an injuction on Intel graphics? AMD and Nvidia will need to fill that huge void.

I cant see that happening, Intel doesnt really do more than desktop stuff with its current graphics chips.

It would certainly stop them making 3D accelerators but Intel seem to be doing fine without that anyway.


Dark4ng3l made a good point with

Chipsets are going to gradually disappear in the next few years anyways. Plus if nV gives Intel the tech to make their own Fusion competitors they won't be able to sell their integrated graphics platforms for those cpus anyways.

Nvidia may be better standing their ground and denying Intel their IP and just eating the loss on chipsets.

 

[IntelUser2000]

It's hard to see apart from making glorified southbridge chips and inferior products, how Nvidia will make ANY impact on the processor graphics market.

Even Intel's graphics which are widely regarded as nothing more than running only Aero, has enough horsepower to compete with the modern integrated chips today. If they can do 2x or more with their Sandy Bridge, Nvidia won't have technical merits either.

There an inherent advantage of processor graphics(the new term for GPU integrated with CPU) that Nvidia won't be able to have. There will be a magnitude of difference in speed it can ramp power management, and resources that can't be shared unless its on the same die with the CPU. Even if Nvidia gets what they want its inevitable that they will be forced out due to other issues like what I mentioned above.

About the FTC settlement: It doesn't seem anything much to do with Nvidia. It's about the way they are pricing bundles such as Atom products and such.

 

[BenSkywalker]

It would certainly stop them making 3D accelerators but Intel seem to be doing fine without that anyway.

Every graphics chip Intel has made since the i740 is a 3D accelerator. Every integrated graphics solution Intel has ever made, and every on CPU die GPU that Intel has ever made has 3D acceleration. Every one of them uses IP nV owns. As of right now, nV has nothing to lose as they have already exited the chipset business. If Intel were to lose the right to utilize nV's IP then they lose all of their existing graphics chips which due to nV being out of the chipset business puts them in a very dangerous position in relation to AMD. The biggest potential winner in the whole nV/Intel debacle is AMD by a rather huge margin. If Intel can't ship anything that uses nV's IP they are out of the low end market altogether, their Notebook market is almost completely gone instantly and they would be forced to stop shipments on a good chunk of their current processors. nV would gain nothing in that instance, AMD would gain more marketshare overnight then they could possibly deal with and be supply limited for quite some time(sending their ASP and stock soaring). The best nV can hope for is a return to a very small market they had carved out a small niche in. Intel's ideal situation is that a judge is going to force nV to share their IP without Intel being forced to share theirs. Given everything currently building up against Intel, that doesn't seem like a terribly likely outcome.

There an inherent advantage of processor graphics(the new term for GPU integrated with CPU) that Nvidia won't be able to have.

There is also the shockingly huge downside of their terrible bandwidth available to CPU/GPU combo setups. Put dual GTX 480 chips on a 64 bit bus and you'll have a part that gets smoked by a 5770. It's a limitation that we aren't going to get around for a long time.

Even if Nvidia gets what they want its inevitable that they will be forced out due to other issues like what I mentioned above.

What nVidia wants may be Intel out of the graphics market altogether. That would remove them from competition with Tegra which at this point is a larger market for them then chipsets thanks to Intel's brilliant legal move. It isn't like Intel hasn't used its' x86 IP to dominate the CPU business for decades, nVidia could very easily leverage its' graphics IP to keep Intel out of the market and decide to simply share it with AMD. I'm not saying that is what they will do, but from a long term business perspective the idea has its' merits.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Where is also the shockingly huge downside of their terrible bandwidth available to CPU/GPU combo setups. Put dual GTX 480 chips on a 64 bit bus and you'll have a part that gets smoked by a 5770. It's a limitation that we aren't going to get around for a long time.

Right, because a dual GTX480 is a integrated graphics chip.

Nvidia's main complaint is that they can't license the bus so they can make the integrated chip. Processor graphics will use the same system memory that integrated chipsets would use so what you are saying has absolutely no merit here. But the processor graphics can share resources and the integrated chipset from Nvidia can't.

When the processor based graphics are in full force, they'll have advantages that integrated graphics chipsets not on CPU die from other companies like Nvidia can only dream of. The advantage Nvidia gains from being able to make Intel integrated chips will be short lived.

 

[nenforcer]

Does anybody know if nVidia was forced out of the AMD chipset market like they were the Intel chipset market (refused a license for the QPI/DMI chipset link)?

I was under the impression they voluntarily left the AMD chipset market so as to not benefit there chief competitor in graphics since the AMD/ATI merger.

Ever since AMD got back into the server and desktop chipset market its made me wonder.

They did announce / release the 980A chipset so I am not sure.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Ever since AMD got back into the server and desktop chipset market its made me wonder.

They did announce / release the 980A chipset so I am not sure.

It's kinda like how AMD pulled chipset for Intel processors after they acquired ATI.

 

[Piotrsama]

jhh is going to open up a can of whoop ass on the ftc!

Hehe, he's been quiet lately.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Right, because a dual GTX480 is a integrated graphics chip.

Hmm, I think what I was saying went way over your head there. My point was that on CPU graphics are going to be horribly limited by bandwidth no matter how much BS hype surrounds the 'advantages' they all pale in comparison to the fact that they are going to be crippled, badly, by the miniscule amount of bandwidth available for rasterization.

But the processor graphics can share resources and the integrated chipset from Nvidia can't.

The processor graphics must share bandwidth with the CPU, nothing in the forseeable future is going to have on die graphics looking remotely close to dedicated graphics cards. Processor graphics are a cost cutting measure, they offer no other benefit and are inferior in some aspects to a decently implemented 'normal' integrated solution(an integrated chipset with its' own bandwidth>processor graphics).

When the processor based graphics are in full force, they'll have advantages that integrated graphics chipsets not on CPU die from other companies like Nvidia can only dream of.

I think JHH did dream of it, it was a horrible nightmare that almost gave him a heart attack, but I heard he did have a dream of graphics comparable to the best Intel can do

 

[Lonyo]

Hmm, I think what I was saying went way over your head there. My point was that on CPU graphics are going to be horribly limited by bandwidth no matter how much BS hype surrounds the 'advantages' they all pale in comparison to the fact that they are going to be crippled, badly, by the miniscule amount of bandwidth available for rasterization.

The processor graphics must share bandwidth with the CPU, nothing in the forseeable future is going to have on die graphics looking remotely close to dedicated graphics cards. Processor graphics are a cost cutting measure, they offer no other benefit and are inferior in some aspects to a decently implemented 'normal' integrated solution(an integrated chipset with its' own bandwidth>processor graphics).

I think JHH did dream of it, it was a horrible nightmare that almost gave him a heart attack, but I heard he did have a dream of graphics comparable to the best Intel can do

At the high end, they are obviously not going to come close, but Intel has triple channel memory capable of 25GB/s currently, while something like the DDR2 HD5550 and the middle HD5450 have 12.8GB/s
Both of those cards are faster than currently integrated graphics solutions. I think people are talking about AMD integrating something of the HD5550 level with their CPU.

If they do push ahead and get say quad channel memory and as speeds increase, it won't magically make them as fast as regular discrete cards, but they will become useful.
Obviously not all of the bandwidth is GPU-only (so that 25GB/s on a triple channel is best case with nothing for the CPU), but is it that far away from the low end discrete cards?
Triple vs Dual has no performance hit in most cases, so that's an easy 9GB/s of bandwidth (~16 for the CPU, ~9 for the GPU) vs 12.8 on a discrete card.
Currently dual channel from AMD offers 20.8GB/s total for its integrated GPUs.