Intel files lawsuit against Nvidia

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Idontcare
"At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

It must be fun being delusional :laugh:

Deep down you know he's right. First games were only CPU, then we shifted to GPU. Folding @ Home was all CPU, and now the majority of units are processed by GPU. OpenCL is in the works, and Microsoft is working on a DirectX version of OpenCL. Video coding can now be done on the GPU.

The CPU will probably never die, but it's less and less important every day. My two year old E6600 will run Fallout 3 just as well as your i7 will, and it's all because lots of tasks can be shifted to the GPU. If all floating point operations could be done by my graphics card, the CPU would almost never need upgrading. I could just use the same CPU over and over again and upgrade the graphics card. Gaming already works like this, and Intel is in serious trouble if most other tasks shifted in that direction.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Idontcare
"At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

It must be fun being delusional :laugh:

Deep down you know he's right. First games were only CPU, then we shifted to GPU. Folding @ Home was all CPU, and now the majority of units are processed by GPU. OpenCL is in the works, and Microsoft is working on a DirectX version of OpenCL. Video coding can now be done on the GPU.

The CPU will probably never die, but it's less and less important every day. My two year old E6600 will run Fallout 3 just as well as your i7 will, and it's all because lots of tasks can be shifted to the GPU. If all floating point operations could be done by my graphics card, the CPU would almost never need upgrading. I could just use the same CPU over and over again and upgrade the graphics card. Gaming already works like this, and Intel is in serious trouble if most other tasks shifted in that direction.

Interesting... FPGAs were doing for many years prior what GPUs are doing today. In fact, wasn't Fusion originally supposed to include "coprocessor" support using FPGAs?

I digress... GPU's are nothing more than an extension of existing specialized technology slowly going backwards to their CPU roots. Folding and Graphics both started in the software realm, and then once theory became practice, hardware began to evolve up around the specific tasks. If anything, I would say the push is on that moves the GPU towards a more general purpose processor that CPU's take on. It's not that everything is shifting to the GPU, rather it's the GPU that's shifting towards general computing.

I think NVIDIA at this point would love nothing more than to get an x86 license, slap a few integer ALU's on a GTX200, and call it a CPU. I think the only thing that's holding them back right now from doing that is the lack of the x86, and the prohibitive cost of trying to market a platform without x86 compatibility (eg: trying to woo Microsoft to port Windows and the x86 world to a brand new platform). Otherwise NVIDIA wouldn't have any reason to care about QPI or Intel at all.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Idontcare
"At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

It must be fun being delusional :laugh:

Deep down you know he's right. First games were only CPU, then we shifted to GPU. Folding @ Home was all CPU, and now the majority of units are processed by GPU. OpenCL is in the works, and Microsoft is working on a DirectX version of OpenCL. Video coding can now be done on the GPU.

The CPU will probably never die, but it's less and less important every day. My two year old E6600 will run Fallout 3 just as well as your i7 will, and it's all because lots of tasks can be shifted to the GPU. If all floating point operations could be done by my graphics card, the CPU would almost never need upgrading. I could just use the same CPU over and over again and upgrade the graphics card. Gaming already works like this, and Intel is in serious trouble if most other tasks shifted in that direction.

It sure won't run UT3, GTA4, or FSX as well. It won't run Photoshop CS4 as well either. I don't have a list on hand but there are tons and tons of other examples. Saying the gpu is going to take the place of the cpu as the most important component of the pc is quite the statement.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Methinks nVidia has already developed a chipset for i7 and Intel is moving to block them from releasing it to the market. And that's gonna hurt, all those research dollars down the toilet...

How could they have developed an i7 chipset unless Intel gave them all the technical specs they'd need to do so?

To do what you are implying, Intel would have had to give them everything they needed to know in order to develop a chipset at the very time Intel thinks NV doesn't have a license to such technology. I don't see it happening.

NV wanted the documents so they could produce a chipset, Intel said sit on it and rotate they don't have a license for the docs or the chipsets, NV probably threatened to sue for the docs in closed-door meetings, Intel said we'll see you in court first.

 

[Idontcare]

nm

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Denithor
Methinks nVidia has already developed a chipset for i7 and Intel is moving to block them from releasing it to the market. And that's gonna hurt, all those research dollars down the toilet...

How could they have developed an i7 chipset unless Intel gave them all the technical specs they'd need to do so?

To do what you are implying, Intel would have had to give them everything they needed to know in order to develop a chipset at the very time Intel thinks NV doesn't have a license to such technology. I don't see it happening.

NV wanted the documents so they could produce a chipset, Intel said sit on it and rotate they don't have a license for the docs or the chipsets, NV probably threatened to sue for the docs in closed-door meetings, Intel said we'll see you in court first.

This is interesting point. If you are correct about Intel not sharing i7 chipset info with NV why do they need to sue NV? shouldn't NV be suing Intel instead for breach of contract for not providing the technical info? Intel would have no groud of suing NV at all. I think NV must have something they can use and is planning on using for the designing the chipset that would make more sense here.

 

[Idontcare]

Nvidia said it ''has been attempting to resolve the disagreement with Intel in a fair and reasonable manner for over a year.''

http://www.eetimes.com/news/se...ml?articleID=214500516

Here we are getting to the meat of it - Intel wants the court to rule that NV breached the existing license agreement:

Intel is also asking the court "to rule that Nvidia has breached the agreement by falsely claiming that it is licensed" to produce such chips, company spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.

http://www.marketwatch.com/new...9EEE%2D530B69CD3EF7%7D

If it is anything like the cross-licensing agreement with AMD, if the court rules in Intel's favor then NV must cease selling all products that previously fell under the licensing agreement. All those LGA775 chipsets, gone. Atom chipsets, gone. And Intel gets to continue using the NV IP that it gained access to in the cross-license agreement.

Intel is going for the jugular here.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Truth. When does the x86 patent expire? Gotta be coming up sometime.

Supposedly soon... but what good is an 8bit x86 CPU with none of todays extensions? No MMX, SSE, whatever, forget 64bit, it would not even have 32 or 16bit.
By the time THOSE expire they would be as obsolete.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
If it is anything like the cross-licensing agreement with AMD, if the court rules in Intel's favor then NV must cease selling all products that previously fell under the licensing agreement. All those LGA775 chipsets, gone. Atom chipsets, gone. And Intel gets to continue using the NV IP that it gained access to in the cross-license agreement.

Intel is going for the jugular here.

RIP ION.

Back to crappy 945GC netbooks FTL.

This is why we like competition. Otherwise it's going to be the same ol' shit for years to come.

 

[taltamir]

why would nvidia lose its old license if the courts rule that it does not apply to the new format?
I could MAYBE see how it would mean the death of coupling it with the atom... but no reason why they must discontinue their 775 chipset family.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: taltamir
why would nvidia lose its old license if the courts rule that it does not apply to the new format?

Because that is what Intel is apparently asking the court to rule on - that NV breached the agreement that made that license possible.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: taltamir
why would nvidia lose its old license if the courts rule that it does not apply to the new format?

Because that is what Intel is apparently asking the court to rule on - that NV breached the agreement that made that license possible.

Yeah, I read that part and this is what immediately came to mind. NVIDIA must have really pissed off Intel... they just stuck their hands and head into the wasp's nest. They might come away from this with a very significant portion of their business going away.

I think this is Intel's way of saying "You think the GPU is going to take over general purpose computing? Go for it."

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: taltamir
why would nvidia lose its old license if the courts rule that it does not apply to the new format?

Because that is what Intel is apparently asking the court to rule on - that NV breached the agreement that made that license possible.

I don't get it. 'Intel is also asking the court "to rule that Nvidia has breached the agreement by falsely claiming that it is licensed" to produce such chips, company spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.'

So if Intel wins then Nvidia has to stop falsely claiming that it's licensed to produce chipsets for nehalem. How would that require nvidia to stop selling chipsets for lga775?

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: magreen

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: taltamir
why would nvidia lose its old license if the courts rule that it does not apply to the new format?

Because that is what Intel is apparently asking the court to rule on - that NV breached the agreement that made that license possible.

I don't get it. 'Intel is also asking the court "to rule that Nvidia has breached the agreement by falsely claiming that it is licensed" to produce such chips, company spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.'

So if Intel wins then Nvidia has to stop falsely claiming that it's licensed to produce chipsets for nehalem. How would that require nvidia to stop selling chipsets for lga775?

Breach of contract can render the contract null depending on what the judge decides and what Intel requests. If there's no contract, that means there's no license. If there's no license, that means NVIDIA isn't allowed to "use" any of the Intel technology described in the contract. That would mean no more GTL+ FSB for NVIDIA, which means they can't legally sell any more chipsets for Intel CPU's.

 

[magreen]

I see, jugular indeed. But what's the likelihood of a judge nullifying a contract, as opposed to instructing the parties to abide by the contract? Is this a one-in-a-million shot that intel is shooting for?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: magreen
I see, jugular indeed. But what's the likelihood of a judge nullifying a contract, as opposed to instructing the parties to abide by the contract? Is this a one-in-a-million shot that intel is shooting for?

I'm no contract lawyer, but I believe all Intel is seeking from the court is a ruling declaring that yes NV breached contract.

Once that is a matter of official/judicial record then it is up to Intel to exercise their right at any point in time going forward to nullify the contract for reasons of the documented breach.

The judge actually has nothing to do with declaring the contract nullified.

Once Intel nullifies the contract it is then up to NV to counter-sue for improper cancellation of the contract if they feel they can convince a judge of this.

As for likelihood, history is littered with cases spanning the entire spectrum, there is no way to assign it a probability of success. They can be ruled in favor of, it would not be without precedence. We won't really know what is going on until this thing settles out of court as they seem to always do in the tech industry.

 

[Denithor]

It sounds to me like Intel might just be fishing for a way to tie up a lot of nVidia's resources in the court system for years. Intel has a much larger bankroll so they can afford the court time more easily than can nVidia.

I think I'd add arms, shoulders and torso to the "head & hands in a hornets' nest" analogy.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Idontcare
"At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

It must be fun being delusional :laugh:

Deep down you know he's right. First games were only CPU, then we shifted to GPU. Folding @ Home was all CPU, and now the majority of units are processed by GPU. OpenCL is in the works, and Microsoft is working on a DirectX version of OpenCL. Video coding can now be done on the GPU.

The CPU will probably never die, but it's less and less important every day. My two year old E6600 will run Fallout 3 just as well as your i7 will, and it's all because lots of tasks can be shifted to the GPU. If all floating point operations could be done by my graphics card, the CPU would almost never need upgrading. I could just use the same CPU over and over again and upgrade the graphics card. Gaming already works like this, and Intel is in serious trouble if most other tasks shifted in that direction.

I wonder if eventually once enough software has migrated to CUDA-like platforms if we will even need x86 processors any more, or if it will facilitate a very easy migration to a different platform altogether. Perhaps people could get by with an Atom-like CPU just to boot up the OS, then the GPU could process absolultely everything using CUDA.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Could this have anything to do with future GPU plans being MIMD rather than SIMD? Would the GPU be able to execute software that emulates x86 on the GPU? If NV has that software stack in development, Intel should be quaking in their boots. No wonder they would go for the jugular, if NV is going to unleash a GPU x86-killer soon.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Could this have anything to do with future GPU plans being MIMD rather than SIMD? Would the GPU be able to execute software that emulates x86 on the GPU? If NV has that software stack in development, Intel should be quaking in their boots. No wonder they would go for the jugular, if NV is going to unleash a GPU x86-killer soon.

You mean like transmeta emulates x86 - but for GPU ?

why not?

i think intel is going to lose this one -= big time

Nvidia wins the battle for the soul of the PC
- the GPU becomes AS important in a PC as the CPU

. . . it is *my* prediction

.. you can hold me to it
:Q

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: magreen
I see, jugular indeed. But what's the likelihood of a judge nullifying a contract, as opposed to instructing the parties to abide by the contract? Is this a one-in-a-million shot that intel is shooting for?

I'm no contract lawyer, but I believe all Intel is seeking from the court is a ruling declaring that yes NV breached contract.

Once that is a matter of official/judicial record then it is up to Intel to exercise their right at any point in time going forward to nullify the contract for reasons of the documented breach.

The judge actually has nothing to do with declaring the contract nullified.

Once Intel nullifies the contract it is then up to NV to counter-sue for improper cancellation of the contract if they feel they can convince a judge of this.

As for likelihood, history is littered with cases spanning the entire spectrum, there is no way to assign it a probability of success. They can be ruled in favor of, it would not be without precedence. We won't really know what is going on until this thing settles out of court as they seem to always do in the tech industry.

and lets say that nvidia DOES sue and win... by the time they win they will be out of business...

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: magreen
I see, jugular indeed. But what's the likelihood of a judge nullifying a contract, as opposed to instructing the parties to abide by the contract? Is this a one-in-a-million shot that intel is shooting for?

I'm no contract lawyer, but I believe all Intel is seeking from the court is a ruling declaring that yes NV breached contract.

Once that is a matter of official/judicial record then it is up to Intel to exercise their right at any point in time going forward to nullify the contract for reasons of the documented breach.

The judge actually has nothing to do with declaring the contract nullified.

Once Intel nullifies the contract it is then up to NV to counter-sue for improper cancellation of the contract if they feel they can convince a judge of this.

As for likelihood, history is littered with cases spanning the entire spectrum, there is no way to assign it a probability of success. They can be ruled in favor of, it would not be without precedence. We won't really know what is going on until this thing settles out of court as they seem to always do in the tech industry.

and lets say that nvidia DOES sue and win... by the time they win they will be out of business...

Kind of like AMD's lawsuit plan. Man I hope they don't go under.

 

[apoppin]

and lets say that nvidia DOES sue and win... by the time they win they will be out of business...

or intel might become 2nd rate if they lose their momentum and x86 if the rulings ultimately go against them
- AMD steps in .. so do other companies

intel is a much bigger prize to eliminate as competition
- they have more to lose in this battle that Nvidia will win

 

[Keysplayr]

Question. If. I say again "if" AMD went bankrupt and was liquidated, would Intel then suddenly become a monopoly? And, would the US govt. then force them to make available an x86 license to another receptive company? I.E. Nvidia? Or am I totally off my rocker thinking this way?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Question. If. I say again "if" AMD went bankrupt and was liquidated, would Intel then suddenly become a monopoly? And, would the US govt. then force them to make available an x86 license to another receptive company? I.E. Nvidia? Or am I totally off my rocker thinking this way?

no you are not off your rocker

BUT the US government has a history of ignoring "anti trust"
- for over 8 years

Now it may well change .. so you have a shot at being right

i think Nvidia actually succeeds in making the GPU as important as the CPU

a friend emailed me this - today - by coincidence, i guess and he says it better than i do ,, almost poetically:

that is the cpu simply isn't that interesting to the user of a computer. It just processes logic and numbers. Its the I/O chips that make a computer system special as the Commodore C64 and Commodore Amiga demonstrated (and the Atari 400/800 before them). Back in those days there were other computers that competed, but lacked the sophisticated I/O chips - they never had marketshare like the Commodores did.

Due to our senses, humans care about what we can see, hear and touch. its how we interact with the world, and a pc that recognises this will be more popular with people than one that doesn't. This is something Intel has never understood.

i agree

Jensen is more visionary .. it IS the battle for the SOUL of the PC

vision wins