Discussion Forums > Technology

Nvidia DMI chipset development on hold

<< < (2/6) > >>

Xtras:
I dunno, I don't see the practicality in pursuing development in how to compensate for lower end parts. In essence, if someone is going to buy hardware, open up their computer, and install that hardware, why not just replace the CPU instead of the GPU. A lot of the motherboards used for even the lower end processors in the past years since vista's release support up to quad core upgrades.

Also, in general I have seen great improvements in Gaming experience when I use higher end hardware. That experience however doesn't translate into viewing videos. Between the minimum needed to run 1080p without problems, and even the latest Alienware computers, I haven't seen much difference in video playback (although I will admit, when skipping around in videos, lower hardware does cause problems).

Nonetheless, I do feel Intel is being a bit of a jerk. It is a pretty clear indicator that they some kind of strategy up their sleeve for their next big move.

kureshii:

--- Quote from: Xtras on October 10, 2009, 08:29:27 PM ---I dunno, I don't see the practicality in pursuing development in how to compensate for lower end parts. In essence, if someone is going to buy hardware, open up their computer, and install that hardware, why not just replace the CPU instead of the GPU. A lot of the motherboards used for even the lower end processors in the past years since vista's release support up to quad core upgrades.
--- End quote ---
Do note that the release of new processors do not just affect us people who like to tinker with our hardware... OEMs use the same processors to build systems for the average Joe who just wants a ready-made Dell or HP.

These people constitute quite a significant portion of the market, and to them price is likely a bigger concern than how much L2 cache it has or what the memory CAS latency is. So price reduction is always an issue once you decide to target the mainstream market.

Admittedly, the P55 chipset is aimed more at the “performance” crowd (to distinguish them from the “enthusiast” crowd who are likely to go for the X-series chipsets), but do a quick google and you'll see what plans Intel has for the H55/H57 chipsets.

By leaving only the southbridge components off-die, they've kind of put Nvidia in a spot with regards to the mainstream crowd. This allows Intel to use only a DMI bus to link the processor and chipset; the motherboard essentially holds nothing more than the southbridge. And by squeezing Nvidia out using this new DMI license, their monopolistic intentions are made quite clear.

Hopefully this will be sorted out and Nvidia will suffer little more than a short delay in acquiring a license for this new DMI bus. Nevertheless, it's still an asshat move on Intel's part.

K7IA:
I am certainly not up-to-date with what is going on for the last 10+ years concerning computer technology, but shouldn't this chipset thing be a concern of the past?

I mean, they can put a billion+ transistors on a thumb sized die but still some vital components for the core architecture are off die. I can understand the North and South bridges were shared amoung different cpu architectures 10+ years ago, but they have their own architectures now, why still external??

It is really annoying, my 2 year old core2 duo machine has a bigger motherboard that my 15+ year old 386dx. Ok it has an embedded NIC and sound, but they are quite irrelevant these days. There is only a graphics card attached to the PCI-ex lanes (a non-technical approach :) ) and the rest of the box is filled with air and cables.

I want smaller form factor, SoC solutions. It is really unneccesary to blame Intel if they want to combine more into a single IC, and leave out 3rd party manufacturers, imo. I don't want the nVidians whining about how they can't agree with Intel about chipset production either. Nobody is whining about why the FPU is embedded to the CPU 15+ years ago.

kureshii:
[Discussion of x86 architecture will be assumed from this point on. Forgive the long post.]

You can already have your small-form-factor and/or SoC (System-on-Chip) solutions. If you want complete SoCs (i.e. CPU+GPU+Northbridge+Southbridge in a single chip), those do not exist yet; you’ll have to wait until Intel brings them out. but if a GPU+NB+SB SoC is fine with you, those have been around for quite some time, in the form of Nvidia's Geforce series chipsets.

With regards to small form-factor solutions, Nvidia recently released their ION platform, a mini-ITX form factor platform merging Intel’s Atom processor and Nvidia's Geforce 9400m chipset. You should take a look at that article, I’m sure you'll love it. Intel has nothing like that since they suck at making graphics chips graphics chipsets are not their forte.
And let’s not forget that VIA has been in the background quietly churning out their Eden and C7 embedded systems; in mini-ITX, nano-ITX and pico-ITX form factors.

But that does not mean multi-die systems are going to go away; such systems still provide more flexibility in incremental upgrading of a computer system, as well as better customisability of hardware to a consumer’s needs. (If the processor were mated to the controller hub, you’d have to make a separate chip for dual cores, dual cores with embedded graphics and quad cores, even if they are based around the same controller hub.) It is Intel’s anti-competitive practices in this segment that are the issue at hand.

Intel is taking a different approach with the Core i3/5 series of processors and P55/P57/H55/H57 series of chipsets, by merging the GPU and NB onto the CPU instead of the chipset. That is not an approach I abhor. In fact, it’s why I want a Lynnfield desktop, having held off from the Core 2 series and 4-series chipsets all this time.
The issue here is not that Intel wants to lock third-party chipset makers out by integrating more and more chips into a single die. (I would be quite interested to see a complete Intel SoC as well.) They’re trying to doing so by using anti-competitive practices, not by changing their architecture.

I should start by saying that I do not blame Intel for their business practices; business is business, and I can sort of understand the mindset of a competing organisation. But an organisation’s actions will reflect its attitude towards aspects of business, and such a move (intentionally holding up the licensing of a new bus to a third-party chipset maker) reflects an anti-competitive mindset that is unhealthy for the market.
Such practices have been going on for some time. Again, I will not comment on the “fairness” of such practices, but they definitely reflect an anti-competitive mindset (and perhaps some fear on Intel's part), and that takes them down a few notches IMO.

I’ll end off by giving teaser images of your “small form-factor board”:


That is Zotac's Nvidia 9300 board, compatible with Intel Socket-775 processors ;) If you want the Atom version (Nvidia ION platform) cheaper, tell Intel to stop selling Atom processors to third-party OEMs at such a high price.

(The Nvidia ION systems are available from Zotac pre-built as well. They will be pricier than they would otherwise be, though.)

K7IA:
Very informative post, always nice to read an expert opinion :)

Haven't read anything from Intel website since that 80 core die, if I recall correctly dating October 2006. I am glad to see that Intel has a solid plan and road-map for SoC solutions.

Concerning hw upgrade flexibility, owner's tendency to replace parts of a system has an inverse proportion to age (both) :) , for example why did you buy a totally new setup for CUDA, why could you not just upgrade?

Via C7 and mini-ITX brings back memories, from my first attempt to use a thin client to build my very own NAS, 3 years ago (seriously), ended up using a p3 1000 (still runs O.K.) because of the stupid price of the setup. Actually, I had found a good looking thin client from Fujitsu-Siemens for ~350$, (if I recall correctly)  but when I get to the shop, the guy told me that I had to buy 50 of them to get it at that price (stupid really).

Thanks again for the detailed info.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page