Are you joking? Do you not see that Intel pushed Nvidia out because Intel couldn't compete with the performance of Nvidia chipsets/GPUs? What happened was Nvidia had a license and had been winning the battle with big contracts by Apple and other computer manufacturers. Since Intel couldn't compete, it claimed Nvidia's license wasn't valid for Nehalem based CPUs. Nvidia certainly didn't expect this as it was developing two new chipsets to compete and support Core i-series CPUs like mobile Arrandale. Intel played BULLY and sued Nvidia to stop, solely because INTEL COULD NOT COMPETE! Since it couldn't compete fairly, it pushed Nvidia out. It was OBVIOUS to everyone except Intel stakeholders that Intel was acting anti-competitively.
I'll agree that Intel had issues with competing against nVidia when it came to GPUs (although in reality, Intel's sales for IGPs are still tremendous, and in regards to the discrete GPU market, Intel still has more of a take-it-slow approach). However, I think it's hard to argue that in areas such as the desktop chipset market, that Intel's chipset performance was worse than nVidia's. The only reason people really considered nVidia's Intel chipset products was for SLI support. Otherwise, in terms of general performance, stability, etc., Intel's offerings were generally always more highly-regarded.
As the former owner of both 600- and 700-series nVidia chipset products (they were the only option at the time for SLI with the Core 2 series), I could go on and on about the stability issues I experienced with it. And I know quite a few individuals who had similar problems. nVidia's best chipset solutions were the old nForce 2 and 3 series for the Athlons. Anyone remember SoundStorm? It was amazing.
In the end, Intel will lose and Nvidia will be able to make chipsets for Intel CPUs again. However, until Intel is slapped on the wrists and told it must compete fairly, Intel will be forcing its chipsets on PC manufacturers. Unfortunately, CONSUMERS LIKE US ARE THE LOSERS! We are forced to use inferior products because Intel has the most money.
Honestly, I'm leaning more towards Intel likely winning the argument in regards to licensing for designing chipsets. Intel's original agreement, from 2004, basically covered DMI and support for external memory controllers. With Nehalem (and ultimately Atom revisions), Intel moved away from DMI and over to QPI, with integrated memory controllers, and QPI is different enough from DMI that I wouldn't expect it be covered by the original agreement. It seems more that nVidia is trying to claim that its agreement is a blanket licensing arrangement, but I don't know enough about that to say whether it is or not. cmaier would be a good one to comment in response to that
Now, that having been said, I do fully support there being as many available options in the chipset business, whether good or bad, as it helps to provide competition. X58 is a very excellent chipset though (albeit one that runs fairly hot).
The problem with all of these scenarios is that the DOJ doesn't get involved early enough, and the bully has enough time to catch up with the real innovation of the smaller company that's forced out of the game. By the time Intel loses in court, Nvidia will have been out of the chipset business long enough to no longer compete as Intel will have caught up with the Nvidia chipsets. Nvidia will not have had the money for R&D during the period when it couldn't manufacture the chipsets, and it will be incredibly difficult to compete again when the cycle completes.
Well, in this regard, I don't think the DoJ/FTC is getting involved in regards to the licensing agreement, but rather how Intel has been trying to only allow Atom to be bundled with its own chipsets to vendors (at least in regard to the nVidia portion; AMD is a whole different matter, although with the Intel-AMD agreement it's unlikely AMD will offer much help to investigators).
This is a serious problem. I hardly believe it when people act like Intel has every right to force its products on people. In the CPU business, Intel has competed well. When it comes to chipsets and graphics, Intel is crap! So Intel just forces its chipsets and graphics through playing big bully and acting extremely anti-competitively. Most of these people acting like Intel has every right to deny competition are STAKEHOLDERS... for the rest of us it's common sense that Intel is in the wrong.
Intel Chipsets =/= crap. Intel GPUs are what they are - basic offerings ideally suited for non-power users who simply do basic office productivity and light media usage (and honestly, that's the majority of users, whether on a Mac or a PC).
Is Intel in the wrong for trying to force product bundling on vendors so as to thwart competition? Yes, most definitely. Is Intel wrong for threatening to withdraw financial support from vendors who wanted to offer AMD products? Yes (although a bit murkier I believe). Is Intel wrong for not necessarily licensing its IP so other companies can develop chipsets? Honestly, I don't think so, but I'm not an expert in that area, so I can't say for sure. People often point out that there's nothing wrong with Apple restricting access to its technologies, but yet some how Intel is "bad" or "evil" for wanting to do the same in regards to its tech portfolio. However, Apple does have another option to go with for processors/chipsets: AMD. And outside of the Mac Pros or i5/i7-based iMacs, Apple still relies heavily on the Core 2 lineup, which Phenom could fairly easily replace. There is choice in this regard. It's simply that everyone's favorite company chooses to stick with Intel.
Apple will be best off to eliminate Intel from its Macs. In the long run, I believe Mac computers will be using an alternative "APPLE" CPU. It will take some time, but I believe Apple understands that partnering with Intel is not in the best interest of Apple stakeholders, which include its customers!
The problem is that Intel provides both the top-performing CPUS (Nehalem-based) and the greatest options for both timely updates and cost. Apple's acquisition of PA Semi was a good movie in terms of getting themselves into designing low-power offerings and packages, but ultimately you're kidding yourself if you honestly think Apple is anywhere close to being able to provide desktop products equivalent to what Intel or even AMD provide. I honestly don't see them ever entering that area. Apple's total net income for 2009 was what, around $8 billion? Intel is planning to spend almost $7 billion on research and development alone this year. There's just no way Apple can compete with that.
The real constraints in today's computers has nothing to do with the CPUs. We would be fine with C2D for years. We can speed up user experiences by improving software, graphics hardware, and drive controllers bandwidth. It's just that Intel has everyone believing the only way to increase the speed to the end user is by making faster CPUs...
This all depends on what individuals are using their systems for. If all they're using them for are basic internet usage, office productivity, etc., then yes, that's perfectly true. But in reality, a lot of those users, aren't upgrading that regularly anyway. What's the average upgrade rate for the standard consumer, like once every 3-4 years? Technology evolves considerably in that time, and only helps to improve one's experience. And the reality is, processors are able to execute data faster, more reliably, with fewer "misses" during execution. Cache has improved, etc. That all results in faster and more stable performance that is directly experienced by the user. Is the Core 2 series more than adequate for most users? Yes, but those users aren't likely to upgrade for a number of years anyway, and by the time they do, advancements to the OS, applications, etc., will provide with a noticeable increase in the overall user experience.
it's really backwards if one thinks about the constraints of today's computers. It's just too bad people don't understand this, and these people just accept that Intel must be correct and we all need a Core-i7 CPU. As long as people remain out of the loop, they're going to keep believing buying a computer with a new CPU will best speed up their performance experience.
But all companies advertise their products in such a way as to make users want to upgrade, not just Intel. Look at Apple: every time a product refresh occurs, you see them talking about the performance increases, the reduction in time it takes to complete tasks, and how "this is the fastest Mac yet", and how much you want it. Do most Mac users need to upgrade? Of course not. But Apple makes it sound like you should. The iPhone is another example - for most iPhone users, I'd honestly believe the original model would suffice, or otherwise the 3G. Yet Apple wants you to upgrade to the latest model, not because in reality you'll experience that much more, but because they want you to buy their product so they make money. That's the name of the game, and every company does it.
