1 reason that nvidia might not make cpu's..*reply*

Hmmm... Nvidia would have to base a core of the old 8086 chip. Bring that old core upto date. Also have to work with almost every OS that is made. Too much work for nvidia. They can always get a older core like the 6x86 or 5x86 and work with that. Then x86 in 8 or 10 years is at end of life. IA64 based processors will run the show. Well with Code Morthing you can emulate x86 instructions. Itanium is have a problem doing that but a pure 64-bit mode nutting can stop it. Well AMD's hammer is a x86 that can read 64bit of data. IA64 is faster then amd technology but IA64 still years away from mainstream PC users. Well when MRAM hits the market IA64 will be standard by most chips from Intel, AMD, Via-Cyrix will be based of. IA64 is good design and have a wonderful life span like IA32 and IA16. Well IA128 is atleast 20+ years away.

Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
20 answers Last reply
More about reason nvidia make reply
  1. Bah. that all false information you should know what your talking about. Well maybe you should stop trying to start flaming post.

    ! Member of the Intel Triple Threat w/ Fugger and AMDmeltdown !
  2. Bowser your becoming boring. Everyone just reply to my post above and have a good talk about it.

    Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
  3. 1) I doubt that nVidia will enter the CPU market, what's the point? CPU's are becoming more & more of a commodity market, 1Ghz for ~$150 is crazy, profit margins aren't there for a new entrant. nVidia (USD 6,668 million) merging with AMD (USD 8,708 million) is a whole different story. The right deal with Microsoft and anything could happen.

    2) I think personal 64bit adoption may happen sooner than we expect. XP-64 is ready to go, Compaq has committed, RedHat is keen. The corporate adoption rate is likely to be quite quick. 2003 could see XBox2 as a nVidia/AMD64 combo wih easy upgrade path!

    3) I can't see 128bit ever being used for general CPU's, people who have been using 64bit for years like Sun and IBM are not doing any hard work on 128bit. 64bit has always been the ideal as it is a fast and functional width while still being practical to manufacture.

    <font color=blue> The Revolution starts here... as soon as I finish my coffee </font color=blue> :eek:
  4. yeah the thing is AMD64 bit coding is slower then IA64 in a pure 64-bit mode. Only thing is amd is doing is support x86 till it dies out naturally. AMD will goto IA64 in future. Well worked out every possible bug out of it. R & D work alot of overtime to get it right. Well why compaq and the Alpha "one of the best chips ever produce" dump the hole thing a goto IA64 boat. Well time will show IA64 is the next generation that the PC world needs. Yes i heard a rumor of IA128 in 20+ years.

    Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
  5. get a life and stop talking thru your RRse, you have NO facts to back up your bullshit about IA64 (currently Itanium)
    being superior to X86-64 so get lost dick head
  6. chill man.
    run Win95 vs WinNT.
    NT is true 32bit, most apps run faster on it.
    go for a more specific change, keep it backwards compatible or change everything.
    Full IA64 code is going to be cleaner than x86-64, they've been discussing doing away with x86 for years to clean up the code and make it more efficient, but we're going to lose the capability to run old apps.
    keep this in mind, depending on the OS, say Win98 for instance, you can take old programs written for 8088 and run them.
    286 software runs on current computers.
    now, forget all of that.
    Personally, I'd rather have the backwards compatibility, but IA64 will probably work better as a standard than x86-64.
    Remember the days when Alpha's started coming out, they were the new processor, going to revolutionize the world.
    they make good servers, but I don't know anyone that owns one for general use...
    and rcf, please make your speculation a little LESS opinionated, its easier to start a discussion without stepping on peoples toes.
    you can't compare emulated x86-64 to a working IA64 processor. it doesn't work that way.

    Independant thought is good.
    It won't hurt for long.
  7. My contention is simple (if somewhat ineligantly) put.

    The man offers no proof that IA64 is superior to X86-64, and neither do you incidentally, I have been using 32 bit and 64 bit OS's for a while so I need no education on win9X 16/32 bit or NT4/2K 32 bit or Solaris 64 bit.

    I only infrequently get so pissed off that I feel obliged to correct these WALLYS who speculate about IA64 without practical experience. If you want a logical discussion about the relative merits of IA64 and other 64 bit processors then I'm afraid aces is your site. IMHO you are wrong about IA64 predominating in the future if technical merit has any influence on the products selected .. unfortunately ignorance and crap prevail all too often in this world

    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by frikkie on 07/03/01 10:45 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  8. >unfortunately ignorance and crap prevail all too often in this world

    you're the poster child for "ignorance and crap".

    "AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"
  9. Coming from someone of your amazing intellectual superiority i find myself totally chastened Yebo !
  10. What really will drive the market in the near
    future is whether or not companies decide
    that they want to keep their existing apps and
    migrate slowly (in which case x86-64 takes it)
    or radically change their apps (in which case
    IA64 takes it). My guess is that most of the
    companies probably aren't too keen on spending
    money on new license for IA64 built software.
    In that respect I believe that AMD has the better
    solution regardless of which one actually runs
    64bit code faster.

    In time, the horizon will change, as 32bit apps
    are phased out (just like 16bit apps were) we're
    going to hit a cross-roads where software developers
    are going to have to decide whether to build for IA64
    or x86-64. That future is still cloudy and I predict
    will largely be determined by whomever has the
    largest install base of 64bit processors (Intel or
    AMD). Sun has its own software so its out of this
    dicussion. Of course if MS has its way with .NET
    then this becomes fairly moot since all you'd need
    to do is compile for the runtime libraries and MS
    can produce one set of libraries for IA64 and one
    for x86-64


    Intel Components, AMD Components... all made in Taiwan!
  11. oh, and I probably wouldn't want to see Nvidia
    go into the chip business.. Nvidia is a specialist
    company, they should do what they do best, graphic
    cards.. of course they could end up the way of
    Creative Labs in that they could release a product
    in which they could not release a better one (SB Live!)
    but graphic chips are still relatively young in
    terms of their potential so I think Nvidia shouldn't
    bother with making CPUs.


    Intel Components, AMD Components... all made in Taiwan!
  12. ROFL!!!!!

    Itanium owns x86-64 "software simulator". GG BWAHAHAHAHAHA



    Notice, Intel in the #3 position. outranking SGI. a few clusters in development dwarf these current computational giants. IBM and SGI/Cray dominate the list.

    Note, these clusters are built on many operating systems, in return effects performace of unit as a whole. SGI is breaking new ground with 512 processors on 1 OS, and soon 1024 processors on one OS. this may mean nothing to you but it will dramaticly effect scores
  13. Creative can't release a better sound card because they have their heads up their arses. Aureal has been bankrupt for over a year and you can still buy thier cards, which put the Live Platinum 5.1 to shame. I should know, I own both. The Aureal sounds better, uses less overhead, and has better built in features. Creative put them out of business with frivolous lawsuites that cost Aureal too much to defend. Then to add insult to injury they bought their assets out of bankrupcy. They did that so they could bury the technology, as they do not plan on using it, but continuously outbid everyone else just so no one else could have it. Then following their plan to kill the remaining cards on the market, they sealed up the drivers so no one else could develop them. Great company, I hope their production plant explodes and takes the corporate execs with it!

    Cast not thine pearls before the swine
  14. alright then, answer me this.
    your experience with a 64bit OS, for its applications, would you trade it for anything?
    my simple point is the backwards compatability of the x86-64 will slow it down some <b>if</b> Intel does a good job on the IA64 system. It has been brought up on more than one occasion "the death of x86", because new and better systems should prevail. Again, the Alpha line is awesome for servers, but I've yet to see it at home, which brings me to my little bit of speculation. I will readily say MY OPINION is just that, an opinion. I don't go around shouting BS as fact, so slow down and back off.
    [opinion] IA64 is out now(sorta)and in development on the actual hardware. It will have a head start, hence more optimizations and experience in writing for it. The x86-64 won't be that much slower than the IA64, I don't feel there is that much wrong with x86 in general. Due to Microsoft's headstart programming for IA64, it will be farther along sooner than the x86-64. x86-64 will prevail among small companies and home users that want backwards compatability(the majority of computers) and IA64 will handle the big dog servers. I don't expect to run into any IA64 systems for a few years. I won't be surprised to see an x86-64 at work or in my home soon. Obviously, the x86-64 will be more popular for awhile due to its much higher speed at running old 32bit software, I can't say either will die off, I don't think they will. The entire industry seems to ward off big changes like that as if it were the plague. [opinion]

    personally, I prefer the x86-64, if for nothing more than because I use old software now, I imagine I'll do the same in a few years.

    Independant thought is good.
    It won't hurt for long.
  15. Agreed, it would take too much money for Nvidia to develop a decent CPU. With the profit margins on chips shrinking the way they have been, it just doesn't make good business sense. And Nvidia seems to be fairly competent when it comes to financial decisions.

    <b>P</b>eople for the
    <b>E</b>ating of
  16. Well reply here cuz here is the info

    <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1</A>

    Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
  17. But wouldn't it be interesting if they did come out with a CPU? After all, who expected them to make a chipset? Sure, they had a lot of help (money) from Microsoft, but it looks like they will have a winner with nForce.

    The GForce3 is more complex then anything either AMD or Intel has designed. Could Nvidia make a CPU? I'd bet that they can.

    Here is the scenario:

    In time, the nForce becomes the standard chipset for AMD products, grabbing the marketshare from VIA. VIA files for chapter 11, and gets bought by Nvidia. Nvidia drops all VIA products except for the CPU division, and designs the Nvidia CPU, a true 64 bit machine that puts both AMD and Intel to shame.


    <font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
  18. I have no problems with what you say I tend to agree with most of it.

    In answer to your questions my experience of 64 bit (Sun running Solaris) is that most of the applications I have written run faster on a 700 Mhz Duron than on a Sparc, this could be for a variety of reasons (disk speeds, RAM, Operating system.. Solaris is slow but reliable). It is very rare to require 64 bit operations in practise, and even floating point has been rare until recently. I have heard that Alpha is the superior 64 bit processor but have not been lucky enough to try one. I run Win2k pro & advanced server and Red Hat 7.1 on my home machines. I know that some applications (multimedia, voice recognition etc) can benefit from SSE2 and/or better floating point but these are rarely run on 64 bit machines currently. Discussion on Aces has been quite critical of the design of Itanium as compared with other 64 bit architectures so why should it succeed? but then again the best products don't always win do they.
  19. Guess what its going to win. No way can delay a processor for 2 years. Well i think all the bugs are worked out of IA64.

    Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
  20. Actually as soon as they got the contract for the XBox, plenty of people, my self included, were speculating that they would go into the chipset business.

    I think nVidia has what it takes to make CPU's but as others have already pointed out, its not just that lucrative tight now, with the prices spiraling down.

    Via don't seem to be doing too well with the Cyrix platform. If they ever want to offload it, you never know, nVidia might jump to the oppotunity.

    <font color=red><i>Tomorrow I will live, the fool does say
    today itself's too late; the wise lived yesterday<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by holygrenade on 07/04/01 01:54 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Core x86 Nvidia