Intel Makes it Personal with Ion-Slamming Document
Posted 02/25/09 at 09:43:25 AM by Paul Lilly
Comments
Print
Email
Forget about a woman scorned - Hell hath no fury like Intel and Nvidia going at each other, both in and out of the courtroom. After being sued by Intel last week over a Nehalem chipset license, Nvidia president and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang responded by saying the suit was "clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business." And in a related press release, Huang pointed out how much better Nvidia's Ion platform is compared to Intel's current three chip design.
Now a week later, the latest episode of "As the Chipset World Turns" has Intel reportedly slamming Nvidia's Ion platform. According to news and review site Bit-Tech, Intel is sending out a document titled "Nvidia Ion Competitive Positioning Guide," which includes everything Intel sees wrong with the platform.
Taking a stab at the well publicized "abnormal failure rate" Nvidia experienced with some of its mobile GPUs, Intel warns that "despite Nvidia's continued execution and power problems with this chipset, Nvidia is partnering the same chipset with an Intel Atom processor and creating hype around what it calls the 'Ion Platform.'" Oh snap!
Intel had plenty more to say about Ion, claiming that so far there hasn't been any public interest from OEMs despite Nvidia's claims that many of them are exploring Ion. Intel goes on to attack Ion's HD playback capabilities, overall cost, power consumption, and more before concluding "Don't buy the hype around Nvidia Ion -- it offers no advantages that an Intel platform cannot provide relevant to the Netbook and Nettop market segments."
Your turn, Huang.
SLI really does not have
Submitted by rayatwork05 on Thu, 02/26/2009 - 5:26am
SLI really does not have much bearing on the computing world.
its not like 1 out of 3 people use SLI.....its like 1 out of 500 at best. very insignificant.
anyway...in response to this article....meh no big deal. im glad nvidia isnt bending over though.
In the grand scheme you are
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Thu, 02/26/2009 - 5:43am
In the grand scheme you are correct out of all the PC's in the united states all the thousands a very few have SLI. Those few out of all the millions of PC's in this country add up to many thousands. Most people do not play video games on their PCs. In fact most pc's aren't capable of playing any major 3D titles.
SLI does matter when it comes to gamers computers. A whole lot of people out there that use their computers for video gaming do indeed use SLI. In fact befor I got my GTX280 I was running SLI and I know a half dozen people in my neighborhood that run SLI. So SLI is a big thing. Just because you don't use SLI or think it's stupid does not mean everyone else thinks the same.
You maybe surprised by just how popular SLI is in the Computer Gaming and PC enthusiast communities.
And it does have alot of bearing because look at all the motherboards that support it. Look at the X58 motherboard that supports both SLI and Crossfire.
Hell I'm running a mid range motherboard with dual X16 PCIX 2.0 slots for full speed SLI on a budget. It's the Asus P5N-D with the Nvidia 750i SLI chipset. It cost $150bucks when I got it.
SLI and Crossfire is here to stay. It is a big deal. Maybe not outside of gaming though.
But your entitled to your opinion. ;)
Submitted by smkoerner on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 6:05am
I'm not so confident about SLI and Crossfire being here to stay. I think you're going to see a decrease in the number of machines running two cards because you can now get two processors on one card. Before this happened, you could argue that you needed two cards to run a 30" panel... now you have a strong argument against it. Also, in the overwhelming majority of games you won't see a noticeable difference in running two cards versus one. You aren't going to see a lot of games that will take advantage of two videocards because that market is so small. Multi-card support will only be around for as long as NVidia and ATI/AMD can make money on them, it has nothing to do with what is "better/faster."
Yeah, I just upgraded to the
Submitted by gatorXXX on Thu, 02/26/2009 - 12:17pm
Yeah, I just upgraded to the radeon 4870 sapphire Toxic OC edition with 1GB ram from 2 3870's in crossfire. I plan on getting another soon to run in crossfire as these 4870's are beasts! I do game, not all the time, but when I do I want the horse power. I want MORE MORE MORE!!!!
Submitted by lostcause64 on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 8:17am
The more companies like Intel, AMD, and Nvidia fight and compete, the better it is for the consumer. When they start working together, prices go up - remember the price fixing incident with Ati and Nvidia? But the more they compete, innovation and pricing improves. We wouldn't be were we are yet on the cpu front if it wasn't for AMD kicking Intel in pants a few years ago, both in performance and pricing.
John
Try to be smarter than the object you're working with! It will make things easier, and might just save your life...
You are so right
Submitted by spurdy on Thu, 02/26/2009 - 8:03pm
You are so right. Imagine how much a intel processor would cost if there were no AMD. Remember when AMD had the performance crown, Intel wasn't bashing much about anything back then. Hell, who would of thought that Linux could get Micro$oft to actually listen to their customers. Think about it, until Vista's flop and Dell & HP selling computers w/ Linux installed, M$ was the biggest bully on the block, and now,,,, well let's just say they might actually have learned something....Maybe. But back to your point it's all about the competition, we get better products for better prices:)
SP
Consumer Pays the Price
Submitted by One4yu2c on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 8:38am
Competition is one thing, but it's the consumer who ultimately pays the price when Nvidia and Intel are at war with each other. Look how long it took SLI to come to Intel chipsets, which was nothing more than a licensing dispute. And now the two are sparring over Intel's x86 license, which could affect whether or not Nvidia is allowed to make chipsets for Core i7. Anyone content with current X58 price points, which is the only game in town if you want to jump on Nehalem?
-Paul Lilly
Submitted by lostcause64 on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 11:41am
Personally, I'm not worried about any delay in something like SLI in Intel chipsets. As a rule, I'd rather have non-Intel hardware - excellent cpu's not withstanding. Myself, and most people I know, can't afford to, or don't care to, go so high end. For us, this sort of thing is very minor compared to the benefits we get from such warring competition.
John
Try to be smarter than the object you're working with! It will make things easier, and might just save your life...
Submitted by One4yu2c on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 12:32pm
"This sort of thing is very minor compared to the benefits we get from such warring competition."
And that's just it - there is no competition when these two are spatting over licensing agreements, which is what has them lobbing verbal assaults at each other. Your preference for "non-Intel hardware" is stifled when Intel refuses to allow Nvidia to make chipsets for Nehalem, just as Nvidia stifled competition in the mobo market by not licensing its SLI technology until recently (while you may not have been interested in SLI, plenty of others were). This isn't competition at its best, but an unfortunate game of tit-for-tat where the real loser is the consumer.
As it pertains to netbooks, Intel and Nvidia won't necessarily be going head-to-head. For the most part, Intel and Nvidia focus on different product segments (CPU and GPU), and Nvidia's Ion platform will still use Intel hardware (Atom CPU). It's the chipset that will be different, and depending on how successful Intel is in scaring away OEMs from Nvidia's manufacturing process, consumers looking for a more powerful netbook could end up with less choices.
When Intel makes a discrete GPU or Nvidia makes a x86 CPU, then by all means, go at each other's throats. But the way it is now is no better than if peanut butter and jelly were at war, with one holding a license for white bread and the other for whole wheat.
-Paul Lilly
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 12:50pm
I just don't get it. The idea a few days ago about the Ion supporting the Via Nano really sounds great as the Nano out performs the Intel Atom processor in every benchmark. I know that's not saying much that like saying I can see this paint is drying faster than the other.
I think the Nano with the Ion really really pissed off Intel. It appears to have really hurt Intel's feelings. If only Intel would release it's Larabee GPU then there would be less to laught about Intel.
But as I said befor if only Intel and Nvidia would sit at the table together and talk and match their technology they can go into technology ventures together and really advance technology. I think win Ray tracing GPU's really hit the table a consortium with Intel and Nvidia would really benefit the computing world.
And I just have to point this out. Intel gaming with any of Nvidia's IGP's are extremely possible and gaming with any Intel IGP is next to impossible. Sure their are like 2games that run it's just unlikely to find more than that. And it's not Nvidia's fault your IGP's suck Intel.
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 7:52am
Hey you Nvidia and Intel you both need to shake hands and work together to innovate and advance technology. You two are the best in your chosen products. Nvidia kicks ass at building GPU's and Intel you guys kick ass at making CPU's. Why not work together. Screw AMD/ATI. Work together and make a kickass system.
Submitted by gatorXXX on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 11:48am
"Screw AMD/ATI"? Ok man, now it's gettin a lil personal!..lol....I know AMD/ATI fall behind them in so called benchmarks and Intel/Nvidia make killer parts, I would rather loose a few FPS in a game or gain a few seconds in vid editing than take a butt kickin' at the bank!
Because they both want to
Submitted by I Jedi on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 8:08am
Because they both want to move into one another's territory. That's why they're fighting and that's why they'll continue to fight, especially Intel. Intel wants to make their own GPU/graphics (Which they have, but they suck.)... while Nvidia wants to make it's own CPU. Thing is, both are best at what they're doing, but they're fighting because they want more profits and domination.
Submitted by I Jedi on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 7:50am
Ah, the good old Intel Vs. Nvidia wars continue. I was a bit afraid these two had made up last week. o.0
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
Most Popular Articles
This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2009 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.