Best offers
|
Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor... | $349.99 Dell Home More info |
|
Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad... | $195.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Core i5 750 Qaud Core Processor... | $199.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Core i7 Extreme Edition I7-975 Quad... | $1195.70 PC Connection More info |
|
Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad... | $204.32 PC Connection More info |
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE: Same Speed, Less Power
Today AMD is introducing a revision of its flagship Phenom II X4 965 processor rated at 125W, replacing the 140W part, as well as a new 3.1 version of its Overdrive overclocking software. We take a quick look at both to see what advantages they offer. Read More
-
Overclocked On Air: Intel's Core i5-750
Intel's new quad-core i5 and i7 CPUs for LGA 1156 deliver plenty of performance and impressive efficiency. But how far can they be overclocked? We take the entry-level model Core i5-750 as far as it'll go with a modest air cooler and benchmark it. Read More
-
Does Turbo Boost Help Or Hurt Core i5/i7's Power Efficiency?
Intel’s LGA 1156 processors serve up terrific new levels of performance to the mainstream. Now it’s time to look at how efficiency changed from Core 2 Quad to Core i5/i7. We found Turbo Boost technology to be a potential issue, despite its clear value. Read More
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
Interactive Buddy
Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
|
kids :
Bob
Throw bubbles so as to make the ones that appear in the game disappear. For this, use the Right / Left arrow keys to duck or move about, and the...
|
Sponsored links
Nvidia CEO Responds to Intel Lawsuit
Next news- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (16) |
- Share
Last Monday, Intel filed a lawsuit against Nvidia, which apparently stated that the chipset license agreement the two companies signed four years ago does not extend to Intel’s future generation CPUs with integrated memory controllers. While Nvidia responded with a statement and official press release last week week, CEO Jen-Hsun Huang spoke to Digitimes about the suit and explained why he thinks the suit is groundless.
The original agreement (made in 2004) allowed Nvidia to produce chipsets for Intel CPUs without integrated memory controllers. At the time however, Intel did not have any integrated memory controllers in its plans and so no stipulation was in place to forbid Nvidia from making chipsets for CPUs with memory controllers. Nvidia responded to the court filing with a release stating that “we are confident that our license, as negotiated, applies," and that "Nvidia has been attempting to resolve the disagreement with Intel in a fair and reasonable manner for over a year."
"The disagreement is over the fact that they (Intel) don't believe we have the right to design chipsets for CPUs with integrated memory controllers, which we do," said Huang. "Nvidia entered into an agreement in 2004 in order to bring platform innovations to Intel CPU based systems, and in return, Intel took a license to our rich portfolio of 3D, GPU, and other computing patents."
Huang told Digitimes that the agreement was Huang revealed that the agreement made with Intel is "broad" and does not go as far as to name specific technologies. He also said that the trigger Intel's "hostile action" seems to be the announcement of Nvidia's Ion platform.
Huang assured Digitimes that he is confident that the courts would find that the agreement does give Nvidia rights to produce chipsets that support Intel CPUs with integrated memory controllers and added that the company is not afraid of Intel and will not be backing down.
This case is about the future and Nvidia's ability to continue to innovate and make a difference in the industry by creating its own products, not just those that Intel allows it to create, Digitimes quotes Huang as saying.
Source : Tom's Hardware US





"Oh yeah?!? Well my lawyer costs more than yours!!"
Here's the reality. If nVidia is not allowed to manufacture chipsets (motherboards) that support Intel's future CPUs it takes a lot of options away from us, the consumer. Granted nVidia doesn't make the best motherboards for Intel chips currently, but it removes the option from consumers, and potentially takes a very large chunk of nVidia's revenue away.
If nVidia couldn't make SLI supporting Mobos for Intel CPUS, that would mean Intel's own chipsets which only support X-Fire would dominate, thus giving ATI/AMD a good edge.
I think it's better for all of us that nVidia wins this case.
Why would this even have to be a lawsuit? Lets say Intel is right (Though my opinion says otherwise) and Nvidia did a no-no. Its sounds more like a misunderstanding than anything and could simply be resolved by making a new and updated contract that both companies can come to a agreement.
Why would this even have to be a lawsuit? Lets say Intel is right (Though my opinion says otherwise) and Nvidia did a no-no. Its sounds more like a misunderstanding than anything and could simply be resolved by making a new and updated contract that both companies can come to a agreement.
That would require Nvidia paying Intel some more money, to buy the license for something Nvidia believes it already paid for before..i think
If intel wins this one ,there will no longer be any fun with the ati/nvidia war.ATI would kick nvidias ass because nvidia would lose most of the budget that it makes with the intel chipsets.
Why would this even have to be a lawsuit? Lets say Intel is right (Though my opinion says otherwise) and Nvidia did a no-no. Its sounds more like a misunderstanding than anything and could simply be resolved by making a new and updated contract that both companies can come to a agreement.
"No I didn't"
"Yes you did."
"No I didn't!"
That's why there is a lawsuit. Because they couldn't agree. The article says they've been trying to work this problem out for a year. Since they haven't come to an agreement and are still fighting over it, now Intel is going to sue and let a Judge decide who is right.
"...If nVidia couldn't make SLI supporting Mobos for Intel CPUS, that would mean Intel's own chipsets which only support X-Fire would dominate, thus giving ATI/AMD a good edge...
nVidia does(at least planed) to support SLI on Intel X58 chipset. "Nvidia backtracks to authorize native SLI technology support on Intel X58 motherboards (http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20080828VL200.html)"
The real reason is that Intel is losing chipset market shares to NVIDIA. At minimum, they lost the Macbook segment to NVIDIA. They also is about to lose some of their netbook segment market share to NVIDIA's Ion. Apple is reportedly going to go with NVIDIA for the new iMacs too. So, Intel is arguing that newer CPUs are different than the previous ones and therefore the license doesn't apply, in order to stop NVIDIA from competing with them in the chipset market. I doubt that Intel wins, but this lawsuit may cost NVIDIA the iMac win, because the new iMac is going to use the new Intel CPUs and the uncertainty may force Apple to change their plan to use NVIDIA chipset.
Isn't the solution obvious? Intel needs to make better chipsets.
"Oh yeah?!? Well my lawyer costs more than yours!!"Here's the reality. If nVidia is not allowed to manufacture chipsets (motherboards) that support Intel's future CPUs it takes a lot of options away from us, the consumer. Granted nVidia doesn't make the best motherboards for Intel chips currently, but it removes the option from consumers, and potentially takes a very large chunk of nVidia's revenue away.If nVidia couldn't make SLI supporting Mobos for Intel CPUS, that would mean Intel's own chipsets which only support X-Fire would dominate, thus giving ATI/AMD a good edge.I think it's better for all of us that nVidia wins this case.
Evga has an X58 intel chipset that supports SLI. Doesn't that mean that Intel has chipsets that support SLI? I think the chipsets that don't support SLI are intel's socket 775 ones. But yeah I agree, I'm happy with my nvidia 790i and it would take options away from consumers. Although.. I probably would have bought an intel chipset if it had lifetime warranty, did not want to go back to Asus with their 3 year warranty and them hiding their silly RMA page.
If Intel's chipsets weren't shit, they wouldn't have to play noncompetitive.
Hooray super win for AMD if Intel succeeds. Just the boost AMD needed. Intel shooting themselves in the foot so the only way to play on a PC with nVidia is to get an AMD machine, or use an AMD GPU.
think people. how did intel make an integrated chipset? they used nvidia patents to help develop their own tech. so intel has received there fair consideration, now nvidia still has theirs
nVidia should just turn around to AMD/ATI to stay in the business, no law suites and money will still flow.
For years, Nvidia refused to license SLI to Intel. In 2004, they decided that they wanted to make better MB chipsets, hence the cross-licensing. Now Nvidia wants to license x58 chipsets, and Intel says 'new chipset, new license'. Paybacks are a b1tch...
Intel sucks, never buy something from Intel, they want to ruin the PC market.
For years, Nvidia refused to license SLI to Intel. In 2004, they decided that they wanted to make better MB chipsets, hence the cross-licensing. Now Nvidia wants to license x58 chipsets, and Intel says 'new chipset, new license'. Paybacks are a b1tch...
Yeah, everyone ignores the fact that Nvidia pulled the same stunts on licenses.