Nvidia CEO Wants Further Action Against Intel
Nvidia's CEO says that additional measures need to be taken against Intel.
Even though Intel must now shell out a whopping $1.25 billion USD to rival AMD, Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang says that there needs to be further action taken against Intel. It's not the first time Nvidia has spoken out against the CPU giant: its complained about Intel's business practices for years, especially in the mobile sector.
As it stands, Intel currently owns 53-percent of the GPU market share, followed by a distant 24-percent with Nvidia. In the notebook integrated market, Intel commands a hammering 80-percent of the market. Nvidia claims that the latter number stems from Intel's "bundling" tactics, and that the company is impeding competition on two chipset fronts.
"Intel's tactics with Ion have been the most aggressive we've seen from a competitor. They have offered the Atom [a total of three chips] for $25, but when the one-chip Atom is used with Ion, it sells for $45," Nvidia CEO Jen Hsun Huang said in a statement provided to CNET. "A customer can't even choose to resell the chipset and use Ion instead. What's the point of Nvidia getting an Intel bus license if it's impossible to overcome Intel's pricing bundles?" he asked, referring the licensing fee that Nvidia pays Intel.
Huang told CNET that Nvidia will certainly keep growing as a company, but further action needs to be taken to protect the valued customer. Intel, according to CNET, disputes Nvidia's claims, saying that its a trick of numbers, a mix of apples and oranges. "We have scrubbed and continue to scrub our pricing practices as it relates to chipsets and processors," a spokesperson for Intel said. "It's all above cost. And that meets the legal standard worldwide."
Follow me on twitter to get inside scoops and updates even faster!
- Dell Gets Official with Android-powered Phone
- Apple Scores Big in Case Against Psystar
- Office 2010 Beta Leaks Onto Torrent Sites
- Artist Creates Pentium 1.0 Shoes From Old Chips
- Microsoft: Mac OS X Did NOT Inspire Windows 7
- Dell Launches Tiny, Little Inspiron Zino HD
- Sneak Peek: Tom's Holiday Photo Shoot
- Microsoft Now Recruiting for Windows 8
- YouTube Announces Plans to Stream 1080p Video
- Windows 7 Desktops Will Host 3rd-Party Ads
- Report: Asus Contemplating Toshiba Acquisition
- Valve Makes TF2, L4D2 Holiday Greeting Cards
- Company Snatches Pirate Bay Logo as its Own
- Monday Deals: Win 7 OEM, SSD, Gaming Mouse
- Google Makes Translate Better With New Features
- CNN Titles Apple Tablet as 'The Everything Killer'
- Apple to Offer 25% Off Macs on Black Friday
- Microsoft Co-founder Diagnosed With Cancer
how is bundling so bad? if Intel is offering a better product/package, Nvidia will have to make a more competitive product or lose out. frankly, Nvidia's accusations are crap. offering a bundle is merely offering people more product at a lower price, it isn't anti-competitive, just competitive. All Nvidia is looking for a cut like AMD got.
how is bundling so bad? if Intel is offering a better product/package, Nvidia will have to make a more competitive product or lose out. frankly, Nvidia's accusations are crap. offering a bundle is merely offering people more product at a lower price, it isn't anti-competitive, just competitive. All Nvidia is looking for a cut like AMD got.
+1.
Anyways, companies need to stop bi***ing and concentrate on making better/competitive products. Now where are those G3xx cards....
How does Atom+Chipset for $25, but Atom by itself for $45, not appear 'bad' to you? How is anyone suppose to sell a chipset for Atom with pricing like that.
I still hate nV, but the point they raise here is quite valid.
Its bad business practice if they bundle their products at a loss, with the sole purpose of forcing competing companies out of business.
How does Atom+Chipset for $25, but Atom by itself for $45, not appear 'bad' to you? How is anyone suppose to sell a chipset for Atom with pricing like that. I still hate nV, but the point they raise here is quite valid.
It seems Intel is selling the bundle at lower margins to push the platform. Why would Intel refrain from getting a better margin for the benefit of NVIDIA? That makes no sense.
Intel is a giant madoff that is yet to see it's colossal pyramid scheme implode.
Cheepstuff: what's wrong with the 'conservative' agenda. In quotes because it's pro big business- not actually conservative. It is an illegal tactic, but until late Intel didn't really fear being prosecuted for it.
PS There's nothing good about unfair business practices guy, learn some damn history.
Intel is a giant madoff that is yet to see it's colossal pyramid scheme implode.
guess you need to stop buying Intel products... your specs tell me everything...
Cheepstuff: what's wrong with the 'conservative' agenda. In quotes because it's pro big business- not actually conservative. It is an illegal tactic, but until late Intel didn't really fear being prosecuted for it.
PS There's nothing good about unfair business practices guy, learn some damn history.
but it isn't an unfair business practice. bundling is compiling several products together at a discount. it is a new product that is more attractive than any of the individual parts because it is cheaper for the buyer. please explain why it is unfair for intel to make a good deal.
but it isn't an unfair business practice. bundling is compiling several products together at a discount. it is a new product that is more attractive than any of the individual parts because it is cheaper for the buyer. please explain why it is unfair for intel to make a good deal.
Simple. What Intel is doing is beyond bundling for a discount.
Atom + Intel chipset = $25
Atom alone = $45
(Atom + Intel chipset) - (Atom alone) = -$20
How on Earth is it fair that the Intel chipset costs NEGATIVE $20!
Selling bundled products for a discount is fine. Inflating the cost of the processor alone so as to drive out competition is not!
Simple. What Intel is doing is beyond bundling for a discount.
Atom + Intel chipset = $25
Atom alone = $45
(Atom + Intel chipset) - (Atom alone) = -$20
How on Earth is it fair that the Intel chipset costs NEGATIVE $20!
Selling bundled products for a discount is fine. Inflating the cost of the processor alone so as to drive out competition is not!
dude, it's their product , they made it, they own it, and they can give it any price they want. if what they are doing is an out rage, people will stop buying it and get their teck somewhere else. they aren't a monoply, and if they are doing something unfair, it is your choice as the consumer to stop buying their products and go with the alternatives.
the negative $20 your talking about is the discount, that is the price they gave it, and if that is unfair, dont buy atoms. simple as that.
I see Nvidia likes to kick a man while he's down
I don't see nVidia complain about Intel bundling onboard video on their desktop mobos. Make your ion platform + atom cpu x2 better than intel offering then charge accordingly and stop whining.
It's only good business to dominate the market so that over the long term you can lead the consumer and the industry by the nose down the road you want to go, letting everyone else follow, where you are first to market with every new advance. Since people always want the newest tech first, they'll always follow intel. It's a good strategy but sometimes intel makes crap stuff, remember the i820 chipset and the Rambus fiasco? If intel is going to continue to dominate indefinitely, all competition will disappear and we'll be paying $500 for a loaf of bread (brought to you by intel).
Ion will not do too well as the atoms are going to keep on changing thus when larrabee comes out ion should be dead by then.... the size and potential of larrabee would detirmine how fast the ion will whither away... Nvidia has already lost in the onboard battle with its motherboard gpus and not since the great 680's did we see their onboard gpus do well.... I guess hybrid SLI was a good idea and I wonder why Nvidia chose to take it out of their pipeline as it actually saves energy and resources as well as GPU lifespan....
How does Atom+Chipset for $25, but Atom by itself for $45, not appear 'bad' to you? How is anyone suppose to sell a chipset for Atom with pricing like that. I still hate nV, but the point they raise here is quite valid.
The points are valid conceptually, but not legally. $25 is still above cost for Intel, and Intel is allowed by law to set their own profit margins. Massive discounts are very normal for bundling company items together, be it insurance, internet/tv/phone plans, etc.
Businesses are free to sell whatever combo of chips they want (AMD, ATI, Nvidia) and the customer decides what they like and what they will pay. Currently Intel's prices are very competitive and their products are top notch. It's true that it can be "unfair" but it's the rules of capitalism... and honestly it is just as bad to penalize a successful business for taking risks and doing well as long as it is not an anti trust issues, and currently it is not.
It would be different if no other options were available, but Intel partners have deemed the price/benefit ration of Intel's offerings are superior.
Atom + Intel chipset = $25
Atom alone = $45(Atom + Intel chipset) - (Atom alone) = -$20How on Earth is it fair that the Intel chipset costs NEGATIVE $20!
You are misunderstanding. $25 is not the price of Atom AND the chipset together. It is the price of Atom when bundled WITH a chipset... they did not specify the price of the total atom/chipset bundle.
It's a $20 discount.
As if Nvidia hasn't been anticompetitive as well. Cough cough Ageia...
Ion will not do too well as the atoms are going to keep on changing thus when larrabee comes out ion should be dead by then.... the size and potential of larrabee would detirmine how fast the ion will whither away...
Ions are targeted mostly for netbooks and the like (hense why it is used with Atom).
Larrabee is a discrete GPU and used in desktops.
Completely different target platforms.
Atom and especially it's chipset are complete garbage anyways, it's only right that they PAY YOU to use the chipset.
PS: AMD Congo/Yukon/Tigris got it right, to hell with netbooks... Netbooks set computing performance back 10 years, when I buy a new laptop in the year 2009, I don't want it running neck-and-neck with my Celeron 500mhz I had in the late 90's...
As I am typing on a Netbook right now, I know the kind of potential the Atom has and how great it is.
I think Intel it's within its rights to put those prices, but it also has a negative counter part to us users.
This kind of attitude is not good for us, because it makes impossible to companies that are not buying the combo to use the Atom. I would love to see an improvement in the Atom platform, may be the ones who can bring that improvement are Nvidia/Ati, and not Intel but with this mechanics of pricing nor Nvidia nor Ati will be able to get handy on the Atom. Many people said something about nVidia creating a better product to be competitive against the Atom, and that's not even been realistic, Nvidia does not do CPUs they work on existent CPU platforms... what are they going to do start producing Processors to equip with their chipsets and GPUs??
I just hope the new AMD processors can go up and fight their way against the Atom, just to see improvements in this exiting and very low consuming tech.
Simple. What Intel is doing is beyond bundling for a discount.Atom + Intel chipset = $25Atom alone = $45(Atom + Intel chipset) - (Atom alone) = -$20How on Earth is it fair that the Intel chipset costs NEGATIVE $20!Selling bundled products for a discount is fine. Inflating the cost of the processor alone so as to drive out competition is not!
tell Intel to let me chose if I want something cheaper or if iI want something more expensive an also better
but it isn't an unfair business practice. bundling is compiling several products together at a discount. it is a new product that is more attractive than any of the individual parts because it is cheaper for the buyer. please explain why it is unfair for intel to make a good deal.
Sorry for the previous post
Tell Intel to let me chose if I want something cheaper or if iI want something more expensive an also better, maybe I do not want to bundle the Atom with an Intel Chipset
OMG!? 'As it stands, Intel currently owns 53-percent of the GPU market'?!?! With so much market share with such crappy GPU's?! HOW!?! And why?
OMG!? 'As it stands, Intel currently owns 53-percent of the GPU market'?!?! With so much market share with such crappy GPU's?! HOW!?! And why?
Its called IGPs. Most people do not need a super GPU like we do. Most people use a PC for work, school and light gaming. Intels IGPs are cheap and do what is needed to be done.
Thus intel owns the GPU market because their IGPs are so cheap compared to nVidias or ATIs.
Kinda funny how nV says Intel stiffles competition yet they didn't back when SLI was only on their chipsets.....
I'm kinda confused here, so a company isn't allowed to sell its own product with another one of its own products for whatever price they want? If nvidia wants to use Intel's stuff they are going to need to buy it.
I am going to expect to pay a premium for a better integrated gpu, as a matter of fact I was picking parts to build a blu ray player/web browser for my bro's hdtv, and there was no way I was going to buy the crap Intel gpu and then have to buy discrete one, when I can get the convenience of a atom/ion combo and have a smaller/slimmer platform.
There just seems to be a lot of Intel hate here, I do agree what Intel did with Amd was dirty, but it wasn't Amd trying to use Intel hardware.
Jen-Hsun Huang can just flex his biceps in front of Paul Otellini and the guy will cough up another fine. Huang is built.
And that is why they need to partner with VIA, well if VIA could put out a chip that actually competes with the Atom anyway an can sell it to NV cheaper.
Well, look at it this way - if lets say Ford were to tell you that if you bought a car - the escape for example, it would cost you $75000. However, if you buy the escape with the extended warranty and 5-years of oil changes then it will cost you the more appropriate price of $40000, would you be pissed? What if the only 3 car companies were Ford, Porsche and Yugo? What if Yugos were only serviced at Ford and they wouldn't service them unless you bought the escape with for $75000? How mad would you be then? But of course you have to drive, so you get a Ford with the warranty and the oil changes anyway and be done with the headache.
And that is why they need to partner with VIA, well if VIA could put out a chip that actually competes with the Atom anyway an can sell it to NV cheaper.
via has recently announced a system-on-chip that can do 1080p , so they arent exactly looking to go nvidia's way . this soc doe not need ion . a netbook platform with intel and ion , now , and its good for the consumers.
As if Nvidia hasn't been anticompetitive as well. Cough cough Ageia...
Are you sure you are reading it correctly??
Read it again: