Howdy, stranger! Ready to join the community? [log in]

Is NVIDIA preparing a Nehalem chipset?

Robert Hallock August 20, 2009 11:05 AM ET in Tech

nvidiaDespite ongoing legal proceedings designed to block NVIDIA from producing Nehalem-compatible chipsets, big green is allegedly working to do just that.

A report from the Chinese tech website HKEPC suggests that NVIDIA is preparing two IGP chipsets for Nehalem and Westmere CPUs. The first, codenamed MCP99, is said to be a single-chip solution employing DMI, which means it is being prepared for the upcoming crop of 45nm Lynnfield chips which we have previously discussed. MCP89, meanwhile, will offer a similar set of features in a lesser performance profile for the more budget-conscious amongst us.

The MCP85 is also mentioned as a SoC solution which condenses the GPU, northbridge and southbridge functionality down into a single chip to simplify boards and cut costs.

NVIDIA has predictably refused to comment on unconfirmed chipsets, but the wily NVIDIA chief exec Jen-Hsun Huang was cryptic and suggestive as usual.

“We’re not necessarily building chipsets for future Intel buses. We’ve not commented anything on that and so you are just going to have to wait to see what we come up with,” he said during a July 26 analyst call. “Our company is…pretty darn clever. There is a lot of ways to skin the cat.”

Share |

11 Comments:

  1. Cliff_Forster
    Keepin it real
    20 Aug '09, 11:59 am

    And yet another reason why I can't buy Intel products in good conscience. Intel's attempt to block Nvidia from making chip sets for their processors is nothing short of anti competitive and its bad for consumers.

    Obviously AMD does not want you to buy an Nvidia based chip-set for their microprocessor architecture firstly knowing that its not going to make a penny on the chip set, and second knowing that its likely going to drive you to choose Nvidia graphics over ATI. Has there been any discussion about blocking Nvidia from developing on AMD's architecture? None that I am aware of. Its simple, if AMD wants to sell their chip-set and graphics to match with their CPU, they had better develop and market something compelling. In a way, I think the long standing AMD/Nvidia relationship has driven AMD to offer a broader range of more compelling chip sets and graphics products. The competition has been great for their platform.

    Forgive me for being a little fanboy, but this is the kind of thing I like to point out when I am ridiculed for choosing AMD, when clearly "the i7 that I pretend to own pwns you noob"...

    I just find Intel to be a giant evil bloated corporation capable of the most reprehensible anti competitive practices, and I for one will not support it.

  2. Robert Hallock
    Cad
    20 Aug '09, 12:04 pm

    The legal case is this:

    NVIDIA signed a 4-year contract with Intel to produce Intel-compatible chipsets. Intel says that the terms of the contract does not include Nehalem, Lynnfield and Westmere.

    I wouldn't characterize this as anti-competitive, rather confusion over the terms of a contract. It happens all the time.

  3. Snarkasm
    The Photographer.
    20 Aug '09, 12:09 pm

    Cliff, I swear to God.

    They're not trying to block nVidia from making Nehalem chipsets - they're trying to get them to license the ability to do so, which they believe nVidia is not currently licensed for.

    Quoting Ars

    The argument between the two companies centers on whether or not NVIDIA has the right to produce chipsets for Nehalem-class microprocessors. Intel has requested summary judgement in a filing with the Court of Chancery in the state of Delaware and issued a statement saying, "Intel has filed suit against Nvidia seeking a declaratory judgment over rights associated with two agreements between the companies. The suit seeks to have the court declare that Nvidia is not licensed to produce chipsets that are compatible with any Intel processor that has integrated memory controller functionality, such as Intel’s Nehalem microprocessors and that Nvidia has breached the agreement with Intel by falsely claiming that it is licensed.

    Link (You need to be able to link in quote titles, damnit.)

    They're not trying to prevent nVidia from making Nehalem chipsets, they're trying to prevent them from doing it illegally, in their view.

    Take your freaking blinders off for 3 minutes and see the world how it actually is, please. You're absolutely bonkers sometimes.

    Meanwhile, the i7 DOES still pwn you, noob.

  4. Cliff_Forster
    Keepin it real
    20 Aug '09, 12:43 pm

    And why exactly is there confusion over the terms of the contract? A license to make chip-sets over the next four years, unless we change out architecture in such a way that screws you out of that?

  5. Snarkasm
    The Photographer.
    20 Aug '09, 12:49 pm

    Sorry, a license shouldn't prevent technological progress, and on-chip memory controllers are technological progress. They also weren't part of the original license.

    They can still make chipsets for Core2. They can still make chipsets for anything else Intel makes. They're just not licensed for chipsets surrounding processors with on-chip memory controllers.

    Your argument is like saying there's a CDMA iPhone that's available and a ton better than the iPhone 3G, but because AT&T wouldn't be able to use it, Apple canned it.

  6. Cliff_Forster
    Keepin it real
    20 Aug '09, 1:01 pm

    Ok Snark,

    So I'm going to make a deal with you. Snark, you are now my partner supplier of bullshit for the next four years. (a highly lucrative occupation I might add). So you pay your fee's and set up shop for what you figure will be a mutually lucrative partnership.

    A couple years pass, I decide, horseshit is the new bullshit, so Snark, you need to re up that contract and pay me again, but you say, hey, I still have a couple years left on my contract, whats up with that, and I say, horseshit my friend, horseshit, bullshit is so 2008.....

    I'm sorry if I would prefer the world to be a simpler fairer place. Just because I want that does not make me any less hip to the reality that its not, still, all the lawyers and fancy fine print in the world can't convince me that Intel is not just trying to screw Nvidia as Intel prepares the market for their own total platform solutions next year.

  7. Snarkasm
    The Photographer.
    20 Aug '09, 1:07 pm

    Your analogy is flawed.

    You set me up as a partner in your bullshit department (and it IS highly lucrative). Meanwhile, your R&D department continues their good work and develops your new product, horseshit (twice as powerful and even more lucrative). You don't stop selling bullshit, so I still make money (perhaps a little less, but only 1%--a number you love to toss around SO MUCH--have adopted your super-high-performance horseshit, so I'm still making good money), but I haven't licensed the new horseshit technology yet, so I'm not your partner in that arena yet.

    Would you want to put a lot of hard-earned R&D into your horseshit and then just give me the tools to leverage it for free just because I have a bullshit license? No. You'd give me an upgrade license, perhaps--though you hate those, too, don't you--but you wouldn't give it to me for free.

    I don't understand what you don't understand about this. You're an ATi fanboy, but not happy that Intel's hassling nVidia. You're a businessman, so I know you understand licensing, but refuse to see the picture.

    What's the key that you're missing here?

  8. Cliff_Forster
    Keepin it real
    20 Aug '09, 1:18 pm

    Snark,

    Don't you at least wonder where the misunderstanding on what the license terms stems from? Are we saying that a company like Intel would never intentionally make an obtuse agreement that they could shape to their advantage later on? I think this has been well documented. Are you so sure Nvidia did not feel that they had the legal right per the fee's they have paid thus far to make Nehalem-compatible chip sets? Are we saying there is absolutely no way that Nvidia could have a legitimate beef with Intel?

  9. MAGIC
    NFNF
    20 Aug '09, 1:19 pm

    Its all lies. Can you tell im bored at work?

    But, seriously. i had a big arguement typed up... but snark pretty much copied me, but beat me to the submit button. So, i second him.

    If there is a document, that says "intel said this, but actualy did this" i would like to see it.

  10. Cliff_Forster
    Keepin it real
    20 Aug '09, 1:23 pm

    Magic, I am both infuriated and laughing hysterically at the same time. I concede, plus two points for creative burn.

  11. Snarkasm
    The Photographer.
    20 Aug '09, 1:31 pm
    Quoting Cliff_Forster

    Are we saying there is absolutely no way that Nvidia could have a legitimate beef with Intel?

    I am saying--and you should be too--that without seeing the agreement myself, I have no way of knowing what should and shouldn't be allowed under the agreement. In the meantime, I have no real judgment on it, but if the contract says what everybody covering this topic says it says, then it sounds simply like nVidia is saying "Yeah but we paid for some stuff" and ignoring the part where they forgot they didn't pay for the new stuff.

Hey, be nice. Icrontic is full of good people, we promise.

New Features on Icrontic: