MSI's Lucid board delayed.

invisik

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2008
2,476
0
19,810
MSI's Lucid based board being delayed! Nvidia is getting on my nerves lately.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/11/04/nvidia-crushes-msis-lucid-based-board/

"update" crap sorry made this into a question meant to be a discussion.
 

The MSI Big Bang Fuzion (Hydra 200) hardware is ready. Currently Lucid is optimizing the driver for Windows 7 so that it works stable and in all configurations (Including Mix & Match mode). Because MSI is dedicated to bring high quality and stable product on the market we decided to postpone the Big Bang Fuzion (Hydra 200) pending the MSI internal qualification assurance test. The Big Bang Fuzion (Hydra 200) will be released when it’s driver is finished which is most likely Q1 2010
How does this have anything to do with Nvidia?
 
just one thing in my mind though. even if Lucid able to put both ATI and nvidia cards works together will it able to make nvidia PhysX working? because with the new driver the PhysX should be disabled whenever ATI cards are present in the system. (assuming that win 7 patch to make PhysX working with presence of ATI cards are not applied or anything patch or hack to make it work with other version of windows)
 

invisik

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2008
2,476
0
19,810
"Nvidia is very protective of it's SLI 'technology', if you define technology as blacklisting those who don't tithe in the drivers. They use it as a blunt weapon to tax users and enthusiasts, not to mention to bring in money. We heard through the grapevine at IDF that Nvidia was not happy about Lucid, and was going to break Lucid's Hydra chip at the driver level to protect its SLI tax."

Seems like nvidia doesnt want to lose money for sli licensing.
 
The roumer (again, I stress the roumer part) is that NVIDIA forced the issue on MSI. Basically, this kills their nforce200 chip business, so NVIDIA won't want this to ever see the market.

Of course, AMD could always pick it up; look at if from their point of view:
Intel supports SLI + CF
AMD supports CF
AMD doesn't have much of a price premium on CF

So imagine if they picked up Hydra: The hurt nforce200 sales (hurting NVIDIA), all their new mobos get SLI (via hydra) (hurting Intel), and they likely increase sales of their own cards due to NVIDIAs lack of new cards (increased market share + profit).

So my question is this: If NVIDIA is putting the squeeze on, why wouldn't AMD gobble this up?
 
It's good to know who believes the ranting of the heavily biased Charlie and those who can read an article in it's entirety and come to a (slightly) different conclusion whilst still not taking into account the update to the article which states that MSI are the ones whe put it on hold not Nvidia, but hey why let facts get in the way of mindless prejudice eh?
 

Harrisson

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2007
506
0
18,990

AMD wont pick up Hydra as default chip for multi-gpu solution EVEN if it would be a better solution than CF (I'm not saying it is) simply because its owned by Intel, AMD will never risk it. Even if it wouldnt be owned by Intel, it makes little sense to rely on 3rd party for the crucial CF support.


Charlie is biased, nonetheless he is often right lately, sometimes he posts inside info a year before anyone else. That said, its not clear yet if he is wrong or right about MSI Lucid, tbh I expected for MSI to send such update before I even saw it ;) Its usual neutral PR spin (not saying its right or wrong either, we dont know yet, but we will soon). Also its obvious MSI technically put it on hold, because Nvidia doesnt own MSI ;) Still it would be strange to deny behind the scene influence, its like saying Ubisoft removed DX 10.1 from AC, therefore Nvidia have nothing to do with it :lol:
 

Harrisson

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2007
506
0
18,990

Near future will show who is right, one can simply use inside sources and deduction. Asking undeniable proof is demanding for Nvidia with MSI to come forward and say "Nvidia doesnt like Hydra, therefore offered incentives we couldnt refuse so we pulled the plug on it!" :lol:
 

I just prefer factual evidence as opposed to knee jerk accusations, but that's me.
 

Harrisson

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2007
506
0
18,990

Nothing wrong with wanting factual evidence. Now how do you get it in such case? You dont. Nvidia or MSI will NEVER tell you about behind the table deals (if there are any). So either you believe companies PR and automatically reject what Charlie or w/e say, or you examine with common sense and see if such scenario is believable, especially if companies has a track record of similar behavior.
 

If you just wish to believe the rantings of a heavily biased individual then so be it, I'll wait for the facts to surface.
 

Harrisson

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2007
506
0
18,990

I never said I believe blindly Charlie, on the other hand I dont blindly reject him either, just because he is biased doesnt mean he is always wrong (lately he is often gets facts right). The facts about MSI Hydra probably wont surface, lets say Hydra gets canned as Charlie suggested (or will be released in limited quantities and silently die), PRs will spin it (bugs, change of focus, w/e), you will probably think its true, I would think Charlie got this right, since pretty great Hydra product was replaced with analog with Nvidia chip. Even in this case we wont know FACTS, just interpretations.
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator

Most of Charlie's articles do, however, I came to the same conclusion. NVIDIA barely got a mention other than a reference to nForce 200 until the end. The title of the article doesn't reflect the content.
 

Then I shall interpret it as Intel having a quiet word as they are the ones who would benefit by using the Lucid chip so they could stop Nv from making chipsets for the i5 and i7's but as they are facing another lawsuit for uncompetitive behaviour from AMD, having Nv bringing one for the chipset side is not the best of timing, so they (Intel) decided to put the mockers on the Lucid chip as it then seems that they are not standing in the way of Nv's chipset business, seems entirely plausible to me especially as Intel won't grant Nv an x86 licence.
 

invisik

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2008
2,476
0
19,810
If you haven't been reading the new it seems as if nvidia doesn't want to share any of its technology with ati. Physics as well as the aa being disabled in Batman. It doesnt seem they would be okay with lucid because they don't want to pair there technology with ati cards. What would they gain from lucid? Maybe a bit more marketshare, but i think ati would benefit a lot more.
 


Try reading some news yourself, Intel have more at stake here than your prejudice against Nvidia is letting you see.


This is a company that has the rights to the x86 licence that it will not share with Nvidia to allow them to make their own CPU or a gpGPU that can use x86 code and I don't see AMD jumping up and down to give an x64 licence to NV either, but I suppose that's OK by you and in no way wrong or uncompetitive in any way shape form or fashion.
 
OK, heres what I know.
nVidia involvement just isnt there, other than the possible driver block.
It does seem lately, if anything bad can be attributed to nVidia, it happens.
Driver blocking is bad, and hopefully both ATI and nVidia allow for this, as weve seen enough blocking lately.
Which brings this back around to nVidia again. If youve been the bad guy, then again the bad guy, and going further back, the bad guy, even when the opposition too may have done some as well, even tho its been awhile for that older activity, doing it too often and for along time, it puts it up there as plausible.
nVidia didnt do this, and tell me, if Lucid was truly ready, whats stopping MSI from having an exclusive here, possibly making for fantastic sales?
Also, for design wins, youd want your product solid, for the OEMs.
While I dont excuse nVidias recent or late past actions, this is piling on, and to me doesnt fit in the pile of nVidias questionable activities IMHO
 

When you start getting upset about the lack of x86 licence that Nv don't have , you know the one that AMD and Intel both have , the one that they won't share, then I might agree that NV should share, until then it's a one way bias being shown as far as I'm concerned.
 
Hey, Im the guy defending AMD left and right, saying the 86 licensing is overblown anyways.
While I dont think it should come freely, there should be no restrictions on it at all, other than for security reasons, but make those security reasons known, and not hide behind them as well.
Weve seen enough collusion lately, and adding in the Pols is the worse.
Im trying to deflect this as being a nVidia issue, other than driver block, and also trying to respect IP, and in the middle trying to make everyone happy, be it the IP owner, other potential solution cadidates, or us, the consumers.
If it doesnt get fixed, something/one has to give. When it happens alot, as in Intels reluctance of GF, or the removal of Physx from a ATI soluton, something or anything to me, being done, is a better solution, and that the honus lies on the IP bearer IMHO