What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Give a Genuine Gibson Guitar for $99 (Price, Not a Typo) view!
bestbuy.com - World-class starter guitar--sweet sound, killer craftsmanship and yeah, you read that price right.
74 Comments
- cogentspirit, on 02/22/2009, -4/+39Just freaking merge all ready! Geez there's more tension between these two than a pair of horny teenagers at band camp. We get it, now stop fighting and start making sweet sweet chip love.
- kronix2, on 02/22/2009, -2/+25Intel's chipsets are by far the most stable and reliable. For the last three years, motherboards based on Intel's chipsets have been the most sought after. Nvidia has a long history of problems with its chipsets, both for Intel and AMD CPUs.
- cogentspirit, on 02/22/2009, -1/+23You do know ATI and AMD merged don't you?
I think most technologists realize that on die CPU and GPU cores is absolutely an inevitable part of the future. Why? Because it's going to be a lot more efficient to do it that way. Once multi-threading becomes the norm, making cores handle different types of tasks, say one for physics and a few for GFX, just makes sense, and it will be far cheaper for the consumer in the long run.
I would rather have Nvidia be a part of that future than have them die what will be a slow and painful death. - pyrates, on 02/22/2009, -13/+26Well I know I won't be upgrading to the Core i7 until NVidia creates a compatible chip set for it. I don't like your chip sets much intel, I much prefer NVidia's chip sets.
- zeth006, on 02/22/2009, -1/+13A merger between the two where Intel doesn't try to screw Nvidia over would introduce antitrust issues.
It's best to have this kind of competition to keep prices low and quality high.
Remember back in the 90s when Intel's rate of improvement through its Pentium lineups was snail-slow? Look what happened to the pace of upgrading after AMD Opteron came along. That's the time we saw Intel starting to pour money into where it should've been pouring it: making good CPUs.
My hope is that the graphics, chipset, and CPU will always be separately made by at least 2 companies. Marketing Centrino as a marketing scheme to sell the CPU, chipset, and wifi together was a nice try on Intel's part, but this consumer isn't pleased. - sicilian890, on 02/22/2009, -2/+13This is a very big deal for Apple and Open CL.
- smacksaw, on 02/22/2009, -2/+12Hands-down, this is the best article on this subject in the past few days it's been news. It kept my interest, flowed well, explained the situation perfectly. From introduction, examples and summing it all up, this article was nails. I hope people don't skip reading this just because it's a few days late. Even though I understand what is going on, the way this article put it gives me a good way to explain it to less technical people.
- inactive, on 02/22/2009, -0/+10Sick my Bulls?
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -0/+9nVIDIA chipsets are for 'enthusiasts' or those who want SLI. But kronix2 is right, they are the most stable and reliable around. Never had driver issues on any operating system (Windows, Linux) and compatibility is assured with just about everything.
I went with an ATi chipset on an old Socket 478 motherboard. Driver incompatibilities galore. Had SiS before and even VIA, but nothing beats Intel for reliability. They support and regularly update their drivers which is why all the big OEMs are using their chipsets.
When Intel [chipset] boards are cheaper, I can't see why you'd want anything else. - inactive, on 02/22/2009, -5/+13you mean
iCare - Motocompo, on 02/22/2009, -2/+10They both make good chipset's although I would hate to see Nvidia's compatibility compromised.
- smacksaw, on 02/22/2009, -0/+8This affects us in the Linux world as well. Or are you using an old PPC-based clone?
- zero, on 02/22/2009, -3/+9I'm a staunch FLOSS supporter but dude get a life
- worldstoaster, on 02/22/2009, -0/+6Informative and well written article. So refreshing to see this rather than "LOL FIREMAN ATE A KITTEN" or "Facebook let's you watch the Oscar's!"
- NidStyles, on 02/22/2009, -1/+6Nvidia is far from dying. They sell more GPU unit's than any other manufacturer on the planet. When it comes to GPU technology, and GPGPU technology they are the top dog.
- MatzahMan, on 02/22/2009, -7/+11i care
- zeth006, on 02/22/2009, -2/+6Oh? And just how would that benefit their shareholders? Try feeding Steve Jobs a speech on how avoiding i7 was a way to to help mankind (i.e. consumers) for the greater good.
- BungDiddy, on 02/22/2009, -0/+4what is it you like about Nvidia chipsets, exactly? is it the heat or the data corruption?
- bjornski, on 02/22/2009, -1/+5Intel is betting on the Larrabee.
Intel doesn't want to merge with Nvidia, they want to make them irrelevant. - pineutrino, on 02/22/2009, -0/+4Yes, at the moment that's definitely true, but as cogentspirit points out, as it becomes the norm for CPUs to have more and more cores, each of which can be assigned different tasks, the need for a separate, dedicated graphics card vanishes. If Nvidia doesn't adapt to this over the next few years, it's screwed.
- etx313, on 02/22/2009, -0/+4I only buy boards with intel chipsets.
- SirBruce, on 02/22/2009, -0/+4Sack my beets.
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -0/+4nVIDIA have a market cap of $4bn. Intel have a market cap of $70bn. They are both in the same industry. nVIDIA will vanish long before Intel ever do.
- cogentspirit, on 02/22/2009, -0/+4I think that's part of my point. Intel needs Nvidia, I'm not saying that Intel is the better of the two chip makers, because quite frankly my 285gtx is a stone cold assassin for games, but we will be better off as a consumer, if Intel could put the cores from Nvidia onto the same die as the CPU.
- zeth006, on 02/22/2009, -0/+3I HIGHLY doubt Nvidia has the cash reserves to buy up Intel. I think you're trying to draw a parallel with the AMD/ATI alliance. The problem is that the scenario can't be duplicated since Nvidia would have to be in the position to be the buyer. Last I checked, Nvidia was NOT sitting on $70 billion.
- Lynxpro, on 02/22/2009, -0/+3Cogentspirit:
The PC Engine/TurboGrafx-16 wasn't the only 8-bit system that relied on powerful custom chip/co-processors to give a multimedia performance boost.
Go back to 1979 with Atari's debut of the 400/800 computer line which included custom graphics and sound co-processors to assist with the basic MOS 6502 CPU. That was why the Atari machines outdid the Apple II line since those co-processors were originally developed for Atari's arcade machines.
This design philosophy was also picked up by Commodore which was especially evident with their SID sound chip in the Commodore 64.
Jay Miner, the father of the Atari 400/800 line also extended it with the Amiga.
The Atari and Commodore philosophies never really found a foothold in the IBM/Intel/Microsoft Windows cosmos which has mainly relied upon expansion cards and/or weak assed integrated solutions offered on the motherboard chipset as an after thought.
Our industry would be better off had the Atari and Commodore 16/32-bit platforms survived to this day. - ethana2, on 02/22/2009, -0/+3"LOL FIREMAN ATE A KITTEN"
Look, when you get stuck up in some tree and everyone starts calling the fire department because of it, that's just what you get. The fireman, Phuoc Xuan, reports that the kitten was delicious, and that he only ate it on site because it looked healthy and clean enough for that be safe. He advises others to cook the creature when in doubt, and always check for a tag first. - abrasion, on 02/22/2009, -3/+6LOL
Intel is infamous for stable, reliable chipsets, they normally have the most features by far.
The few times competing chipsets have rivalled intel were nvidia chipsets but if I recall they were for AMD platforms.
You know the saying, no one ever got fired for buying intel, it's simple and it works, nvidia might be cheaper or .05% faster but do I need SATA driver problems causing corruption?
When it comes to chipsets on intel, stick to intel. - warriorscot, on 02/22/2009, -0/+3There is very little between the two companies chipsets. Intel has generally in recent days been the better choice for an intel system in terms of speed and stability. But Nvidia is still the best pick on a lot of AMD systems and if you want SLI the choice is fairly simple.
- smacksaw, on 02/22/2009, -0/+3@ cogentspirit
Flip it around the other way. What if NVIDIA put the cores from an Intel processor in a 9xxx? That eliminates the bottleneck by doing it this way...
@ bjornski
I agree. But I think at this point, we're down to three scenarios, right? #1 is they go on as they are now. #2 is that they supplant NVIDIA (or vice-versa). #3 is that there's a merger or takeover. I don't think we're going to see #1. One is going to get leverage over the other. #2 is possible, and the loser will be relegated to irrelevance. #3 is that one weakens the other to the point that it brings me to...
@ zeth006
Not only that, I'm sure NVIDIA's market cap is far less than Intel's. However, let's say Intel loses this battle and we see the market transition from CPU-based systems to GPU-based systems, Intel is hurting bad there. Factor in the UMPC and mobile phone market - Intel is doing good with Atom, but it only goes so far on it's purpose and design. If Intel is running up a lot of debt and loses a ton of market share, why wouldn't/couldn't NVIDIA buy them out? - smacksaw, on 02/22/2009, -2/+5Why merge when NVIDIA can beat them? They're right - the GPU is the future, not the CPU. It's like having a pop star and their manager. While you need a good manager, the heavy lifting is done by the sexy artist. They're the one with all of the talent.
Read the writing on the wall...NVIDIA's integrated chipset will eventually BECOME the CPU!
What if NVIDIA could take over Intel instead of merge with them? If they were in a position of market dominance, it could very well happen. Intel is fighting for their lives here. They think everything should be on the CPU and NVIDIA thinks it should be on the GPU. NVIDIA has the better philosophy. I think about the old PC-Engine/TurboGrafx-16. It had a very weak 65C02 8-bit processor and a more robust 16-bit graphics system which produced excellent results. - inactive, on 02/22/2009, -0/+3You're high off your ass if you prefer Nvidia chipsets to Intel chipsets.
Or you're just taken in by marketing hype.
nVidia chipsets have one advantage only, and that's SLi. And now X58 supports it as well, negating the only thing nVidia had going for it on it's boards.
nVidia on the other hand has had a vast array of reliability and compatibility issues. Just ask ANYONE who EVER tried to use a SATA optical drive and a SATA hard drive at the same time on a 780i. - 1hrSleep, on 02/22/2009, -1/+3It's appleinsider. Did you expect anything else?
- Ratteler, on 02/22/2009, -0/+2Yeah nothing future proofs you like a lock in to old hardware. /s
- inactive, on 02/22/2009, -3/+5And have nothing useful on the high end?
i7 is an absolute beast for ANY high end CPU task. Namely content creation. A.K.A. Exactly what nearly EVERY mac user has a mac for.
AMD is in the ***** right now. Phenom II is designed to be competitive on the mid-level market, for systems from HP and compaq that no serious user would ever buy. They're not bad chips, by any means, but on the high end it's all i7. - Elranzer, on 02/23/2009, -0/+2NVidia sells the most GPUs... on expansion cards. Intel by far sells the most GPUs in general.
- bradleyland, on 02/23/2009, -0/+2I hope Intel gets bitchslapped back to 1991 for this anti-competitive *****. This is nothing but straight up greed. AMD kicked Intel's ass in the move to x64, forcing Intel to license AMD's innovation. This is nothing less than a smite toward AMD, and the primary sufferers will be the end-user.
I hate being forced to choose products based on principle, rather than objective performance, but if Intel keeps this ***** up, I'm buying all AMD until they get their head straight. - 7aji, on 02/22/2009, -0/+1To be honest, after reading the article, I wonder why each of those computer giants don't have special little armies to fight each other ;)
- draculthemad, on 02/22/2009, -3/+4Because nobody is going to buy macs if they are less cpu per dollar, right?
If they just resorted to using multi-cpu installs of older-gen cores to complete, it wouldn't be the first time. - Lynxpro, on 02/22/2009, -0/+1Well, historically they were. A 66 Mhz 80486 couldn't outperform a 33 Mhz Motorola 68030.
Imagine what could have been had IBM selected the Motorola 68000 as their CPU for the IBM PC and insisted that the platform also be licensed to AMD and Intel. Then all of the subsequent millions (possibly billions) spent by Intel and AMD over the years fixing the inadequacies of x86 could have been spent on a better platform and who knows the amount of power we'd have on the average desktop (and laptop) today. The 680x0 line was meant for ambitious things like telecom equipment and Tomahawk cruise missiles while x86's original purpose was to control Coca Cola vending machines. - Ratteler, on 02/23/2009, -0/+1BluRay sucks. I refuse to pay for and DRMed Media, so until BD blank media is down to $.05 per Gigabyte, and I can burn an entire 50GB BD disk in about hour, I have no use for it.
- JayRD, on 02/23/2009, -0/+1Oh, they do. Round these parts, we call them consumers.
- Lynxpro, on 02/22/2009, -0/+1Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.
I seem to recall the days when 3dfx was the 3D graphics king and Nvidia was the upstart. Back then, Nvidia pushed for 32-bit graphics over actual image quality and other barely implemented graphical features at the expense of high frame rates. Yet Joe PC Game Consumer chose Nvidia's solutions over 3dfx which ended in that company's bankruptcy and Nvidia taking over their assets.
GLide still has not been open sourced. And call me crazy but I don't think Nvidia ever did anything with 3dfx's tile-based rendering API either. - TrancePhreak, on 02/22/2009, -0/+1The i7s are actually not that expensive.
- SOS84, on 02/22/2009, -3/+4Yeah, it is quite hysterical. This author has at many times likened Cupertino and the fruit themed toy maker to some ivory tower and Redmond to the 7th layer of Hades (aka Alabama). Nobody is saying that M$ et al don't participate in anti-competitive behavior, but most of Job's Mob and more significantly, Apple themselves, claim to be above this nonsense when they are in fact more guilty of it than anyone. It's called hypocrisy.
- dsmx, on 02/22/2009, -0/+1Except that nvidia seem to be heading towards making the GPU more of a genral processor than just a GPU. Nvidia is probably researching at this very moment combining a cpu and gpu together.
- BabyWookie, on 02/22/2009, -0/+1Read the NewEgg motherboard reviews some time. All the 5 star rated mobos, with the least amount of user complaints, are Intel chipset based. The reviews for all the overpriced nForce mobos are full of complaints. The eVGA motherboard in my last system was based on the nForce 4 chipset and had given me multiple problems over the years. The PoS finally died recently, giving me an excuse to build a new Core i7 system. The Intel x58 chipset on my current Asus mobo seems very solid.
- bjornski, on 02/22/2009, -4/+5I ***** HATE the Nvidia ***** grafted to this computer motherboard.
I'll never buy another. - chochazel, on 02/22/2009, -1/+2No in this article the author is saying that all companies engage in these activities including Apple. Read the quote again. Maybe you've read other things that are "hysterical" in the way you describe, but this one goes out of its way not to single out companies for attack but rather say it's standard corporate behaviour.
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is