Nvidia CEO Wants Further Action 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!

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
41 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • 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.
    29
  • Its bad business practice if they bundle their products at a loss, with the sole purpose of forcing competing companies out of business.
    15
  • cheepstuffbut 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!
    11
  • Other Comments
  • 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.
    -22
  • cheepstuffhow 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....
    -21
  • 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.
    29