NVIDIA Halts Development of Core i5 & Core i7 Chipsets

[Jstn7477]

Yeah, in the AMD world I can defintely see Nvidia leading chipset sales with their Nforce 6100/6150 as well as 7025/7050 chipsets (410 and 630 I believe). These chipsets can be seen all around in prebuilt machines even today. However, this is an s939/AM2 chipset, and so you hardly ever see Phenoms (or Phenom IIs) using these. I'd still say I see more AMD prebuilts with Dual Core Athlon X2s than Phenom/Phenom II/Athlon II systems combined.

I wish that OEMs would stop using the 6100/410, 6150/430, and the 7050/630 chipsets, and upgrade to the likes of the GeForce 8200 or 9400 (intel). The 6xxx (MCP51) series is 4+ years old, and the performance can be easily best by Intel's newest IGPs. Then you got retailers like Best Buy pushing: "GeForce 6150: For extreme visual quality and gameplay". C'mon, I owned a DV6000 back in early 2007 with the 6150/430 and overclocking the IGP to 600MHz (and overclocking my Turion X2 to 2GHz/DDR2-800 thanks to nTune) only got me around 300 3Dmark06 points at 1024*768 resolution. These IGPs only have one vertex shader, two pixel shaders, and one ROP, making their performance laughable. Some people buying a computer today expect better graphics performance than their last machine. The 6150 can barely even do Aero without lagging, even moving the mouse over the icons lagged (the gray transparent square that appears when hovering over desktop icons).

[/ RANT]

 

[btarunr]

AM2(+) is where the action (sales volume) is. I won't doubt NVIDIA's claims, at least on the ground. Every hardware store here is sure to offer you a GeForce 8000 chipset based board with an AMD processor (in combo discounts). The layman thinks "GeForce" is the name of a motherboard first, and graphics card later.

 

[1Kurgan1]

Its kinda of interesting that now their main chipset sales will be leaning on the direct competition.

 

[suraswami]

AM2(+) is where the action (sales volume) is. I won't doubt NVIDIA's claims, at least on the ground. Every hardware store here is sure to offer you a GeForce 8000 chipset based board with an AMD processor (in combo discounts). The layman thinks "GeForce" is the name of a motherboard first, and graphics card later.

I wouldn't agree with it entirely. Frys and Microcenter has more choices with AMD chipset than NVidia chipset. NV 8000 series is hard to find now a days. I favour Nvidia chipsets especially for their RAID choices, better hdd transfer speeds etc over AMD chipset, I am really getting sick and tired of SB600/700 slow HDD transfer speeds. Planning to move my server to NV platform this weekend.

 

[TheMailMan78]

That isn't true for total price vs performance, or in fact... at all.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? I'm confused.

 

[sideeffect]

Apparantly they don't plan new AMD chipsets either. http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15852/69/.

It seems that Nvidia are pulling out of less profitable highend products so they can focus their efforts on more profitable areas like netbook and mobile phone chipsets.

It is bad news for the PC consumer though.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Apparantly they don't plan new AMD chipsets either. http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15852/69/.

It seems that Nvidia are pulling out of less profitable highend products so they can focus their efforts on more profitable areas like netbook and mobile phone chipsets.

It is bad news for the PC consumer though.

That article is older than the front page one on TPU. I think this was more of a rumor on fudzillas part than fact.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

What did they do wrong? The dick move of locking PhysX if ATi hardware is detected? Well it was a direct responce to ATi locking native support for PhysX on their hardware, then everyone bitches and moans when nVidia completely locks out ATi. One dick move after another from both sides. So get off your high ATi horse, and open your eyes. Both sides have pulled dick moves. You didn't bitch when ATi blocked native support for PhysX, so obviously PhysX isn't important to you, so why bitch about it now?

AMD/ATI blocked PhysX because they had to. Nvidia owed it as a propriety property and AMD/ATI was never given permission to use it on their own cards. But the deal was if you bought one of the still selling Aegis PhysX cards or (now recently) a Nvidia GPU to run as a dedicated PhysX card, everything was fine. Now they are saying that is a no go too. AMD has done its fair share of dick moves, but PhysX was not one of them.

I just wanted to say this is a little worse than blocking support of a feature like PhysX. Intel is block all possibility to make chipsets for their processors which is unfair business practice. It is like AMD suddenly saying ATI graphics cards will only work with AMD chipsets and detected AMD processors. If you ATI, you buy the whole package which would be unfair.

All this back stabbing crap needs to stop.

 

[eidairaman1]

Intel has always been greedy, they fit in there with Microsoft, Nvidia seems to be that way with the Physx stuff. Seriously NV is getting hurt, they need to start back with AMD as of chipset making since they wont allow SLI on AMD chipsets etc.

 

[newtekie1]

AMD/ATI blocked PhysX because they had to. Nvidia owed it as a propriety property and AMD/ATI was never given permission to use it on their own cards. But the deal was if you bought one of the still selling Aegis PhysX cards or (now recently) a Nvidia GPU to run as a dedicated PhysX card, everything was fine. Now they are saying that is a no go too. AMD has done its fair share of dick moves, but PhysX was not one of them.

You should really read up on PhysX and CUDA more. PhysX, despite being owned by nVidia, is free to use, develope for, and support. You don't need nVidia's permission to use it on your hardware, it is completely free to do. So your argument is flawed. ATi blocked native support for PhysX and CUDA on their hardware. Yes, nVidia really only wanted it to spread CUDA and PhysX, because they know the only way CUDA/PhysX would be successful is if it ran natively on both ATi and nVidia hardware. The problem is that support needed to be added to the ATi driver, and ATi refused to help in this area, essentially blocking native PhysX/CUDA support.

This crap about nVidia requiring a licencing fee, or charging ATi needs to stop. This was never the case, CUDA and PhysX are both completely free. Any hardware manufacturer can adapt their hardware use support it free of charge, they just have to write the drivers to support it. ATi didn't even have to do that, a 3rd party was willing to do all the driver developement for them, they just had to include the additions in the driver, and they still refused.

 

[erocker]

You should really read up on PhysX and CUDA more. PhysX, despite being owned by nVidia, is free to use, develope for, and support. You don't need nVidia's permission to use it on your hardware, it is completely free to do. So your argument is flawed. ATi blocked native support for PhysX and CUDA on their hardware. Yes, nVidia really only wanted it to spread CUDA and PhysX, because they know the only way CUDA/PhysX would be successful is if it ran natively on both ATi and nVidia hardware. The problem is that support needed to be added to the ATi driver, and ATi refused to help in this area, essentially blocking native PhysX/CUDA support.

This crap about nVidia requiring a licencing fee, or charging ATi needs to stop. This was never the case, CUDA and PhysX are both completely free. Any hardware manufacturer can adapt their hardware use support it free of charge, they just have to write the drivers to support it. ATi didn't even have to do that, a 3rd party was willing to do all the driver developement for them, they just had to include the additions in the driver, and they still refused.

And it works regardless. In Windows 7 anyway. I hope Nvidia gets back into the chipset business once they have their newer hardware settled and ready.

 

[1c3d0g]

Haha very true
let Nvidia do what their good at

Maybe now they can focus on making a SoundStorm 2 PCIe card... oh my, did I say that out loud?!?

 

[KainXS]

And it works regardless. In Windows 7 anyway. I hope Nvidia gets back into the chipset business once they have their newer hardware settled and ready.

Thats true and praise be to the hackers, but I will still stick with what I said, If you buy a Nvidia 8600GTS to go with a AMD card you shouldn't need a hack to get it to run when its supposed to in the first place unless you remove your AMD card.

I don't even have AMD hardware right now but Its not right and I'm never going to agree that it is right, I could go deeper than that but I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[e6600]

umm
this is news?

 

[Bundy]

Well it's in the news section and is the most popular article for the day - I'd say so.

 

[Flyordie]

I wouldn't agree with it entirely. Frys and Microcenter has more choices with AMD chipset than NVidia chipset. NV 8000 series is hard to find now a days. I favour Nvidia chipsets especially for their RAID choices, better hdd transfer speeds etc over AMD chipset, I am really getting sick and tired of SB600/700 slow HDD transfer speeds. Planning to move my server to NV platform this weekend.

SB700 fixed the SB600 issues. Jeeze AMD, unlock the SB700's hidden potential, just because it MAY in a 1 in 1billion to the power of 2 cause a BSOD if you are running more than 20TB on the controller doesn't mean its that big of a deal for current power users.

 

[Rakesh95]

wow, that's a pretty inflamatory 1st post you made there.
When they come hunting for your head, you're on your own buddy, I covered my back, LOL!

Haha no probs budddy, just saying what i think, im sure a lot of people will agree.
it isnt the kinda first post you expect is it

 

[DarthCyclonis]

The last chipset's from Nvidia sucked. They know it, everyone knows it. Since they licensed SLI to intel on their P and X58 chipsets there was not reason for them to have their own. They need to stick to investing money into into perfecting their GPU's and the manufacturing process before they get involved again in the chipset business. Without good GPU's chipsets fore Nvidia are irrelevant.

 

[hat]

Gotta love Nvidia bitching about Intel's unfair business tatics. Maybe, Nvidia, you need to look in the mirror and think about buggering the drivers to disable physx support when an ATI card is around...

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Gotta love Nvidia bitching about Intel's unfair business tatics. Maybe, Nvidia, you need to look in the mirror and think about buggering the drivers to disable physx support when an ATI card is around...

Have a read

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105793

 

[MN12BIRD]

LOL - Core i5 chipset?
What's inside?
No MC needed, no PCIe controller needed!

What kind of development? Fancy heat sink ?

LOL that's what I was thinking. One big ass heatsink with a big NVIDIA logo on top of a tiny NForce200 chip hahahha. God I hate NVidia chipsets. Stick with GPUs guys no one cares about your chipsets anymore.

 

[Bo_Fox]

LOL that's what I was thinking. One big ass heatsink with a big NVIDIA logo on top of a tiny NForce200 chip hahahha. God I hate NVidia chipsets. Stick with GPUs guys no one cares about your chipsets anymore.

+1!!!!!!!!!!!

NF2 was awesome with Soundstorm, NF4 was awesome even though it was missing out on Soundstorm, and then all of the buggy and power-hungry chipsets after that just did not capture the same attention that NF2/3/4 did. We do not seem to be complaining about the lack of NForce chipsets for Corei7's (at least I definitely am not, enjoying my Intel ICH10R).

 

[inferKNOX]

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? I'm confused.

I'm quite definitely in opposition

Intel is block all possibility to make chipsets for their processors which is unfair business practice. It is like AMD suddenly saying ATI graphics cards will only work with AMD chipsets and detected AMD processors. If you ATI, you buy the whole package which would be unfair.

That would leave us in a world with 3 companies: Apple, AMD & Intel. Brrrr... what a chilling thought. That would of course be until Microsoft decides to make it's own computers, then they'd all be bought over by Sky Net, then the computers would be and we'd be , ha ha ha!
No seriously though, that's the way things are headed:shadedshu (buy it'd be Sky Vision [ISP] instead of Sky Net, lol, kiddin again...sigh).