Nvida & Intel: Motherboards?

[videobruce]

Just how has this deal last year between Wintel and nVidia affect motherboards with nVidia chipsets?
Are these nVidia or are they Wintel? I have had nVidia chipset MB's for the past 10 years.

FWIW, I did come across this;
Nvidia Wants to Make its Chips Inside Intel's Factories

(In case you haven't figured it out, I have little use for for anything associated with Wintel)

[RicheemxX]

I'm not even sure what your question here is but it sounds like you are confusing yourself with two different techs. Chipsets are the associated controllers on the motherboard Chipset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia basically the specialized controllers for graphics, memory ect. Intel, Nvidia, AMD ect all have their specialized designs with different controllers.

The "chips" Nvidia wants to make are either going to be their graphics processors or their actual Tegra 3 CPU's. AFAIK none of the cooperation involves intel manuf. the other chips they use for their motherboards.

(In case you haven't figured it out, I have little use for for anything associated with Wintel)

Just because you are using an Nvidia motherboard doesn't mean you aren't using Wintel tech unless of course you aren't using an Intel processor and Microsoft OS (which is all Wintel means)

edit: In terms of Nvidia and the chipset business I recall some time back they stopped production of boards for Intel based systems. I think they settled the case a couple years ago but Nvidia said it wouldn't re-enter the market. Nvidia CEO: Intel Ousted Company From Chipset Market | PCWorld Business Center

[videobruce]

I just referenced that article because it was recent.
I am referring to the MB chipsets: nForce 570 for example. Not necessary a MB made by nVidia, but AMD based MB's with nVidia chipsets on them.

I never owned a Wintel based MB. It's always been an AMD based platform.

[RicheemxX]

You crack me up with this Wintel, haven't even heard that term in forever. There really isn't a "Wintel" based motherboard out there. They are Intel boards or support Intel x86 cpu's they aren't specific to Windows though.

Modern usage of the term

In the strictest sense, "Wintel" refers only to computers that run Windows on an Intel processor. However, Wintel is now commonly used to refer to a system running a modern Microsoft operating system on any modern x86 compatible CPU, manufactured by either Intel or AMD

Like I said been ages since I've even heard someone use the term.

If that article I linked is correct then it sounds like Nvidia is totally out of the chipset business. I know the nForce 980a was the last product I saw them making and that came out some time ago. Now its down to just AMD and Intel designs.

[SoloCamo]

Not necessary a MB made by nVidia, but AMD based MB's with nVidia chipsets on them.

Doesn't exist. Nor do I see that happening any time soon at the moment.

[ShyguyXPC]

For starters STOP using "Wintel"

Its "Intel".

As Rich said Wintel is a reference to Intel and Microsoft Teaming up usually.

However, since Intel runs with Apples Software, Linux and others, its really unfair to keep using the whole "Wintel" moniker of nickname. Intel is Intel, plain and simple.


If anything it should be AMDtel, since Intel Still has a Licensing right to integrate ATI/AMD's CrossfireX features into its chipsets.

But its besides the point.


Nvidia Doesn't make anymore chipsets as far as I know, they kind of got out of that business. AMD's Socket AM3 boards were the last of them, with the Nforce 700 series chipsets.

They still make component chips for SLI, Networking and other features, as well as Mobile, but as far as whole encompassing chipsets go, its mainly the Mobile market with their Tegra and Ion Platforms.

Its the same route that 3DLabs went after their last high end workstation video cards, They got out of the Workstation card business, despite being the best most superior cards on the market for years, even better than Nvidia's, but went into the more profitable Mobile Platform market for Graphics and subsystems. Even changed their name from 3Dlabs which everyone knew them as.

I doubt Nvidia will do that any time soon, but going from Desktop/notebook Chipset market to mobile products allows them to not have to split their resources in both areas, and focus on the area that will yield the most amount of product and profit, right now, the mobile market is that area.

They still provide SLI chipsets for Intel and AMD boards, but only the SLI aspects of the chipsets, if only to support their bread and butter market of Consumer Video cards.


Intel has incorporated these SLI chips into their boards for years now, so really no reason not to buy one if your looking at getting one.

[ShyguyXPC]

You crack me up with this Wintel, haven't even heard that term in forever. There really isn't a "Wintel" based motherboard out there. They are Intel boards or support Intel x86 cpu's they aren't specific to Windows though.



Like I said been ages since I've even heard someone use the term.

If that article I linked is correct then it sounds like Nvidia is totally out of the chipset business. I know the nForce 980a was the last product I saw them making and that came out some time ago. Now its down to just AMD and Intel designs.

sorry my reply above I mentioned the 700 series as being last, but your right it was the 980a's which were last, I was thinking of one of the prior versions.

[videobruce]

it sounds like Nvidia is totally out of the chipset business. I know the nForce 980a was the last product I saw them making and that came out some time ago. Now its down to just AMD and Intel designs.

That is something I had no idea about.
Are you saying you either buy a MB with Intel chipsets or one with AMD chipsets based on which processor you prefer??

A beyond major change I will have to research.

BTW, I wish I had a dollar for every driver that was written for the Windows platform that wasn't tested properly or fully using a AMD processor. Sorry, the term "Wintel" is still valid!

[SoloCamo]

BTW, I wish I had a dollar for every driver that was written for the Windows platform that wasn't tested properly or fully using a AMD processor. Sorry, the term "Wintel" is still valid!

Well since I've owned AMD based processors since 2004 (and recently just built another 2 monthes ago) I'd be a very broke man by that logic. At least in my 8 year experience using them on windows 2000, xp, vista, 7, etc.

[videobruce]

Windows and Intel processors are designed to work together far more effectively than AMD which includes drivers for hardware, especially external devices that are video related. MS went out of their way (without being too obvious) to put AMD at a disadvantage for years.

How many times do you see for the requirements of a item a specific level of Intel processor, then "or equivalent". That tells me the product (software or hardware) was not tested with a AMD processor (which is the fault of that company).

Great you didn't have any trouble, but I and many others surely did. Granted, I haven't built or rebuilt a PC in probably 4 years and maybe things have changed, but 5 and more years ago, that was surely the case.

The 'tie' between the two companies is most obvious with Dell.

[Steve R Jones]

That tells me the product (software or hardware) was not tested with a AMD processor (which is the fault of that company).

And that would be AMD's fault and not Miscorsoft's

[videobruce]

Tell me exactly why it is AMD's fault that a software or hardware manufacture didn't test his product with Windows?

[RicheemxX]

Windows and Intel processors are designed to work together far more effectively than AMD which includes drivers for hardware, especially external devices that are video related. MS went out of their way (without being too obvious) to put AMD at a disadvantage for years.

Years ago in the OEM market Intel certainly did and that is why there were lawsuits and anti-trust complaints. This wasn't a "driver" support issue or even an MS one though. It was a price fixing scheme where Intel, Hp ect got together and some of the companies got kicked back on deals for not offering AMD products or not pushing them as much

How many times do you see for the requirements of a item a specific level of Intel processor, then "or equivalent". That tells me the product (software or hardware) was not tested with a AMD processor (which is the fault of that company

How is this even related? It's the job of the software/hardware company to test their products. It certainly isn't Intel's job or Microsoft's job to tell a software engineer to test his apps on an AMD machi and TBH unless we are talking about something ancient I can't think of any devices (software or hardware) that I've seen in the past 10-12yrs that didn't show both?

I've built numerous AMD machines over the years and aside from a few issues that AMD specifically had on their own end I can't think of anytime that there was an AMD/MS compatibility problem. Nor can I think of anytime that Intel was better (or AMD worse) supported out of the box for an MS product?

[ShyguyXPC]

Years ago in the OEM market Intel certainly did and that is why there were lawsuits and anti-trust complaints. This wasn't a "driver" support issue or even an MS one though. It was a price fixing scheme where Intel, Hp ect got together and some of the companies got kicked back on deals for not offering AMD products or not pushing them as much



How is this even related? It's the job of the software/hardware company to test their products. It certainly isn't Intel's job or Microsoft's job to tell a software engineer to test his apps on an AMD machi and TBH unless we are talking about something ancient I can't think of any devices (software or hardware) that I've seen in the past 10-12yrs that didn't show both?

I've built numerous AMD machines over the years and aside from a few issues that AMD specifically had on their own end I can't think of anytime that there was an AMD/MS compatibility problem. Nor can I think of anytime that Intel was better (or AMD worse) supported out of the box for an MS product?

I'm sitting here reading these posts and shaking my head...

Rich is right, up until 5 or 6 years ago, I have always had AMD systems, since 1998 or so, and aside from some COMMON problems with Windows and other MS software regardless of platform, I have never seen or experienced an Exclusive AMD only problem with MS software.

Even the AMD Dual Core Optimizer thing with Windows XP, I never had a problem with that and Dual cores, for some reason Windows recognized both CPU cores and used them fine before the fix, but just in case, I installed the fix anyways,

aside from that I have always had GOOD if not great support for AMD hardware on Windows or other MS products for as long as I can remember, since starting using my own builds and cease using the family's PC, which was around 1998.


This was through MS Windows 95b, 98, 98SE, ME, XP, 2K, XP MCE, and Win7 Beta, Win 7 Retail.


But even 5 years ago, back when you last built a PC, AMD was at least equal to Intel in System Requirements listings.

Sure they may list it as an AMD Compatible or Equivalent, but one of the reasons this is done is because the x86 hardware was originally Intel's Creation, with the first 8086 CPU's.

AMD was one of the few "knock-off's" back in the day that cloned Intel's hardware and succeeded, with out being sued to bankruptcy. a few others, like Cyrix and others managed to hang on for sometime, into the Pentium II era, but also disappeared from the scene with AMD being the only ones, with exception of VIA.

but by that time AMD had started to build their own from ground up on what they learned from cloning Intel's hardware (that was also the reason for Intel going with the Pentium Name, after the 486 series, seems they couldn't get a patent or copyright on a number for their products name or something, and started giving them an actual name. Luckily this was back in the day when the Patent and Copyright Office actually had competent and educated people, unlike now days where they let MS & Apple and others buy up patents and file lawsuit after lawsuit with their constant Patent and Copyright Trolling).

Since Intel is the original hardware, and they had been listing Intel Hardware for requirements on software since the dawn of time, its just natural to put theirs on the requirements listing, and others 2nd after that.

and since back in the Windows XP, AMD Athlon XP days, the XP's and Pentium 4's didn't run at same clock speeds, but AMD's ran slower and were capable of similar Data processing abilities as faster clocked Intels, that didn't help things with Software system requirements listings either.

back then, and with the first Athlon 64's AMD was on top of the world, even the first gen of AM2 CPU's were pretty good, but after that AMD started slipping and Intel caught up and surpassed them in performance again, and its been that way since.

But as rich said, its up to the individuals developing the software or hardware to list what it is compatible with and with what they have tested with, its neither Intel or Microsofts Fault.

[ShyguyXPC]

Before this ill informed topic continues any further, is there a specific reason why it was created or being asked, or what?

Asking before it continues to go round and round and round like one of the debate forums threads?

[videobruce]

But as rich said, its up to the individuals developing the software or hardware to list what it is compatible with and with what they have tested with, its neither Intel or Microsofts Fault.

I never said it was.

is there a specific reason why it was created or being asked, or what?

Yes, then just what are the choices for AMD based MB's for chipsets? Only AMD now?

[ShyguyXPC]

for current AMD hardware, yes, its only AMD Chipsets.

Though if your looking for a board in need of SLI Support, the AMD 990X and 990FX chipset boards can support SLI if the manufacturer makes a version with it, AMD has licensed SLI to be incorporated in some of its Chipsets, much like Intel Does.

but for most "gaming" motherboards with AMD or Intel Chipsets, they both currently support Crossfire out of the box (but SLI is optional and only supported on specific boards)

for example Most AMD 870, 890, 970, 990 series Chipset boards support Crossfire, some support both crossfire and SLI, some only support single Video cards.

Most Intel P38, X38, P45, X48, P55, P67, Z68, Z75, Z77, X58, & X79 chipsets (spanning Sockets 775, 1366, 1156, 1155 & 2011), support Crossfire, with some boards supporting Both SLI and Crossfire and some only a single card.

But for the most part, AMD platforms only have AMD chipsets available.

Intel's is only Intel Chipsets, and Nvidia Licenses out its chipset technology to both sides.

[videobruce]

for current AMD hardware, yes, its only AMD Chipsets

For the past 9 or 10 years all my boards were nForce, I wasn't prepared for this.

Nvidia Licenses out its chipset technology to both sides

Another fast buck for a select few while everyone else looses.

It's a full time, actually, 'time and one half' job just to keep up with all the technology, or should I say marketing changes of the PC industry.

[RicheemxX]

I've pretty much come to the conclusion you have no point to make here, you are just arguing a baseless point against a pretty much nothing. So I'll let you guys have fun.

[ShyguyXPC]

Another fast buck? Seriously Dude?

When Nforce came out it was a nice performance option to compete against AMD's own chipsets as well as those from Via, Cyrix, and who ever else was making ones.

The only REAL nice thing of the Nforce chipsets was the Soundstorm Audio that was a worthy Onboard competitor to Creative Labs Sound Blaster cards.

The Networking/Firewall sucked, and drive controllers were only so so.

early SLI was nice as well.

But now, Nvidia doesn't have to invest so much into R&D into the chipsets it once made, and it was a limited market where they were losing money anyways, so licensing SLI chips to AMD and Intel, they can still have their foot in the door, while the other two have to worry about the R&D and other stuff related to making the chipsets.


as to full time job to keep up... well, what do you expect when you've been out of the loop for 5 years?

you should know by now, there are major changes in the market every 6 to 9 months, up to 12.


There's nothing wrong with the Current AMD and Intel Chipsets.

I was always AMD, and 5 or so years ago, I switched to intel, since AMD had nothing that could compete for the price, I went with a Core 2 Duo, less than a year after I Updated to an AMD Socket 939 Dual core.

a year so later I went to a Core 2 Quad. A year or so after that I went to Intel Socket 1366 Core i7, and have actually been with it for 3+ years now, with out changing. Even my "newer" PC is another slightly better Core i7 on 1366. If I had the money I would of gotten Socket 2011 Core i7 this year instead, but that Income tax money needs to be used for other stuff.

as it was, AMD's socket AM2+/AM3 Athlon II and Phenom II, when they came out FINALLY was able to compete head to head with Intels Core 2 series in performance, in some cases besting them, but Intel already had Socket 1366 Core i7, 1156 Core i3, i5 & i7, and Socket 1155 Core i3, i5 & i7.

When AMD came out with the new AM3+ FX series, the CPU's were a flop, no more powerful than the prior gen, and uses more power. The 8 core was the only savior, with its 8 cores, but ONLY when you use all 8 cores for whatever.

as it is the base Intel Core i3 Dual core on 1155 matches and bests the base AMD Socket AM3+ FX Quad core, at about same price range.

So AMD has dropped the ball yet again, and further behind.

they have no budget CPU's now, and Intel offers Celeron Dual core and Pentium series (Dual core) of the Core i3's all the way down from $100 to $50 now.

So Intel is the only sane option for budget builds now as well.