Slashdot Mirror
Nvidia Is Trying To Make an x86 Chip
Slatterz writes with a story from PC Authority which says that "Word has reached us that Nvidia is definitely
working on an x86 chip and the firm is heavily recruiting x86 engineers all over Silicon Valley. The history behind this can be summarised by saying they bought an x86 team, and don't have a licence to make the parts. Given that the firm burned about every bridge imaginable with the two companies who can give them licences, Nvidia has about a zero chance of getting one."
Except that Intel and AMD hold vital patents to the set of technologies that are part of the x86 architeture.
You realize patents only last 20 years, right? Some of those "vital" x86 components must have expired or be pretty close.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What about Via?
I would imagine that NVidia also has a fairly large patent portfolio where they could find many cases of Intel and AMD/ATI infringing in some way.
Also, how does VIA have a license to make x86 chips? I would imagine they don't have the ability because Intel and AMD decided to be nice to a competitor so, they must have done a patent swapping deal or paid a lot of money.
I can think of a few reasons why nVidia might want a bunch of x86 engineers on-board, and they're not all "to design an x86 chip". nVidia have been pushing the GPGPU model for a while so having people around who know CPU architecture would be very useful, especially if they're looking at ways to emulate x86 assembler on their GPU architecture (which, for a few apps, would be an awesome feature).
The article is full of assumptions and conjecture. And it comes across as incredibly bitter toward nVidia. Did they turn the author down for a job or something?
http://twitter.com/onion2k
They have to cross license because they depend on each other, but they have no obligation to license to NVidia.
It is pure speculation that they would not want to license to nVidia, and pure speculation that they would be able to decline. If two companies join forces to use patents to shut out a third competitor, do you really think that would swing with a judge?
Sounds like pretty weak speculation.
You can't, at least officially, patent an aspect of the instruction set itself. In terms of more general patents over processes useful in producing the chips, there's no reason why NVidia couldn't have acquired equally 'vital' patents themselves. Plus Intel and AMD are both in the graphics business too - do they already have suficiently broad cross licensing agreements with NVidia? I don't know and I suspect you don't either.
The question in these situations often comes down to whether companies are really willing to go nuclear and risk having the courts reject a lot of the crap with which they would otherwise intimidate smaller companies. If NVidia are willing to call their bluff then there's every chance they'll succeed. Being seen to use patents to prop up a duopoly isn't necessarily anything that Intel wants to be seen doing anyway.
Except nVidia probably has a multitude of graphics patents that AMD(ATi) and Intel certainly violate.
Also, I really don't remember when "not having a license" was an impediment (remember Cyrix?? What about VIA?)
how long until
If you have the cash, intel doesnt need cash AMD does.
While Intel and PS4 are pretty much wild speculation - based on logic (Intel is specialist in cheap chip production, something Sony urgently needs for its PS3), the nVidia and x86 are based on hirings.
While I will not go as far as to say that nVidia is attempting to implement whole CPU, it could be that they are trying to put CPU emulator/accelerator on to GPU. Scrapping the shader language and allow to write/compile plain C/etc which can be run unmodified on both CPU and GPU is a huge step forward to allow hybrid/partial acceleration, scaling the technology from lowest-end to highest-end.
Both moves have logic behind them. Both are speculations. First was already denied. But let the soap opera run for few more episodes^W the Inquirer articles more.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
I think we're at the point where x86 licensing is honestly kind of silly. For the sake of competition, I believe nVidia will find the right buttons to press and get at least enough breathing room to build parts.
Saying that x86 is a technology that allows Intel or AMD chips to run very powerful software is completely off-target. x86 is a vast software market, which chip makers continually convoluted their designs in order to have the ability to serve.
In other words, it's quite clear that x86 is not a technology anymore and has become more like a standard, which all companies should have some fair access to.
"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
Unlikely. The summary is right, nVidia burnt that bridge: I remember hearing that nVidia backed out of its VIA+GeForce plans to pursue its Ion platform.
Now, why the hell you'd want to give up the Nano, is beyond me. nVidia, get your ass in gear: VIA Nano + 9400GS chipset = killer combo.
Yes, because the whole point of a patent is that you get a temporary monopoly.
Hmm? The Over Nine Thousand meme stopped being funny the first time it was used.
Not a typewriter
If you want to get rid of cruft, you don't start with x86. Many assembly programmers have weaped themselves to sleep over its backwards memory address model.
Not a typewriter
Of course, most software doesn't use any of these extensions
Actually, any software that needs to support them does.
Any 3D game, art program, or media encoder will definitely support most (if not all) of those extensions.
Hell, we're even seeing Photoshop use CUDA.
There is a simple way around this problem, however. They can get IBM to fab the chips. IBM have done this for other x86 manufacturers in the past, and it's covered by the cross-licensing agreements that they have with Intel and AMD.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is basically the "I want it really badly so you should be forced to give it to me" argument used by people to justify entertainment piracy. You dressed it up a lot nicer, though. You should take it out to dance.
Most earth movers only use about 50 horsepower or less. (Think about stuff you see in the city or on a farm.) Most small cars have much more than that. A lightweight sports car will boast 300 horsepower.
The older architecture is quite capable of moving mountains especially since there is a lot of existing software that is already available. Using the latest technology for a complete computer on a single chip only makes sense for the manufacturing processes, not the logic.
I still use my Pentium Pro machine. It is able to perform nicely at non-gaming tasks, well other than nethack, and most web surfing.
Cheap, reliable computing is more important than powerful computing for many applications.
Phil
Laugh, it's good for you!
Yes, but x86 has been around far longer.
IA-16 - 1978
IA-32 - 1985
NVidia, or anyone for that matter, should be permitted to make x86 processors without a license. At this point x86 is the de-facto instruction set the world uses, and intel has profited greatly from it. Extensions are just another example of abuse of monopoly powers to prevent any meaningful competition in the market.
You're forgetting that Windows has a HAL and Microsoft will be very happy to get Windows running on another arch if you pay them enough.
This could be a system to run x86 legacy apps without emulation and more modern apps on a super-fast GPU based processor.
Usually licensing agreements are set to be terminated if ownership of the licensee passes to a third party, so NVidia might even get a total of zero licenses if it buys Via.
So why didn't the cross licensing agreement terminate when National Semi bought Cyrix? Or when VIA bought Cyrix from National? Your speculation flies in the face of actual events.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
That is my understanding as well. Current Via chips are extensions of the Centaur design. Cyrix was a technological dead end that didn't even own any fabrication facilities. Name brand had to be the only valuable thing they had.
You're confusing chip design with licensing agreements. VIA sells the Centaur IDT chip design under the Cyrix licensing agreement. Cyrix' "name brand" was worthless compared to their real asset, which was a full x86 cross-licensing agreement with Intel.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Actually I was speaking on a much less technical, and more human level. My point was that something that we all use and that has become a backbone of our society has essentially become public domain by nature of its own success.
That's not how patents work. The McCoy automatic oiler saved milions of dollars in labor back in the age of steam locomotives. The fact that just about every locomotive had an oiler and that railroads were the backbone of our transportation system in the 19th century in no way affected McCoy's patent on it.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Ummm...yes? One's correct and one's incorrect. If you're going to do something, do it right...
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
What would happen if you pushed turbo on THAT thing?
You'd go plaid.
It was funny? Ever?
Like most things from 4-chan, no.
Intel, Nvidia, AMD, and ATI have known for some time that the worlds of x86 general purpose CPUs and proprietary special purpose GPUs are converging. This was the motivation behind AMD's 2006 purchase of ATI. Instead of purchasing Nvidia, Intel has decided to development its own roadmap for convergence: Larrabee. Nvidia is now scrambling for a piece of the game by developing its own x86 technology. Not only are they late, but they are also in a precarious legal position without the required x86 licenses.
My money's on Intel.
Back in the day (yes, you're old -- just look at your UID), a friend of mine gave me a Baby-AT desktop case with an LED display, which he'd been using for awhile.
It was jumpered to say "HI".
This seemed at the time (and indeed now) to be the most useful function of such a thing. I left it that way.
Kid-proof tablet..
I think part of the problem is that graphics cards are rather superfluous "bling" accesories, especially at the high end, that really don't serve much of a purpose. I haven't come across a game I can't play on "high" or "ultra" setting with my $80 video card (attached to a Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz box, w/ 6BG RAM) except Crysis. But still the market somehow supports $800 behemoths that aren't really useful to anyone but kids who think $100 UV activated piping makes their computer faster, and perhaps high end video people.
I think most people are sick of needing to spend half the price of their computer on video cards, where a simple console costs less, and somehow pulls the same graphics.
An $800 video card gets you very little improvement over a $100 one, over a span of five years, really. Its sort of like buying a super-computer to play Microsoft Solitaire on. You just need the extra processing power to show you can afford it, not that it actually is useful.
The really amusing thing is that most PC games are cheap ports of console games these days, but somehow people think they need 10x the consoles GPU to play. There are very few games made for the high end.
Yes, I speak only of games, but what are you actually using that big $800 GPU for?
BTW: GPUs are like CPUs, not like full mobos, all the other crap is separate.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey