IronRyan21
Distinguished
- Oct 14, 2008
- 241
- 0
- 18,680
- Status
Wow... let me try the first sentence again...
The instruction set that is known now as "x64" is really an abbreviation; it's full designation is "x86-64" as it is a superset of Intel's "x86" IP. In other words, "x86-64" is really an extension of the "x86" instruction set.
The instruction set that is known now as "x64" is really an abbreviation; it's full designation is "x86-64" as it is a superset of Intel's "x86" IP. In other words, "x86-64" is really an extension of the "x86" instruction set.
Noobster15
Distinguished
- Jul 26, 2009
- 176
- 0
- 18,710
I am actually excited, i think the CPU business really needs another company to really improve pricing and competition.
This is where rapid innovation will make its way over to us consumers.
Of course Nvidia will need a pretty impressive CPU solution for people to want to switch from the normal.
Good Luck!
This is where rapid innovation will make its way over to us consumers.
Of course Nvidia will need a pretty impressive CPU solution for people to want to switch from the normal.
Good Luck!
[citation][nom]Drag0nR1der[/nom]As a system builder (for personal use) I really don't look forward to having to choose my cpu, gpu and chipset from a single manufacturer, I think this may actually be bad for competition in the long run. Inter-operability of various pieces of hardware is what a pc is all about. We had systems that were all integrated on one board, then they started to split in to compnent pieces and we have much more choice, now it looks like it may be going the other way... to my mind that is not progress[/citation]
Originally you bought all pieces separately. With the ATX specification came integrated audio and video, followed by integrated wired network chipsets, then wireless network chipsets. You actually have less choice now, than the PC market has had in the last 10 years. Unless you build a server, you're stuck with integrated audio and networking.
[citation][nom]weilin[/nom]Wow... let me try the first sentence again...The instruction set that is known now as "x64" is really an abbreviation; it's full designation is "x86-64" as it is a superset of Intel's "x86" IP. In other words, "x86-64" is really an extension of the "x86" instruction set.[/citation]
An extension or not, AMD still owns rights to "AMD64", aka x86-64. Given nVidia's past statements, I doubt AMD will be too willing to simply hand over a license to nVidia.
Originally you bought all pieces separately. With the ATX specification came integrated audio and video, followed by integrated wired network chipsets, then wireless network chipsets. You actually have less choice now, than the PC market has had in the last 10 years. Unless you build a server, you're stuck with integrated audio and networking.
[citation][nom]weilin[/nom]Wow... let me try the first sentence again...The instruction set that is known now as "x64" is really an abbreviation; it's full designation is "x86-64" as it is a superset of Intel's "x86" IP. In other words, "x86-64" is really an extension of the "x86" instruction set.[/citation]
An extension or not, AMD still owns rights to "AMD64", aka x86-64. Given nVidia's past statements, I doubt AMD will be too willing to simply hand over a license to nVidia.
[citation][nom]Noobster15[/nom]I am actually excited, i think the CPU business really needs another company to really improve pricing and competition. This is where rapid innovation will make its way over to us consumers. Of course Nvidia will need a pretty impressive CPU solution for people to want to switch from the normal. Good Luck![/citation]
In the case of a processor, "rapid innovation" can be extremely costly....especially if you venture into the corporate market. Given nVidia's problems getting "GT300" to market, going after the CPU market would be a bad move at this point. Also, nVidia tends to attack their competition any time they feel threatened, so they've given Intel and AMD plenty of reason to fight any attempt they make at developing an x86 or x86-64 processor....and we all know a 32bit, x86 processor won't be competitive in the current market even if Intel loses the patent on x86. Does anyone really care to go backwards?
In the case of a processor, "rapid innovation" can be extremely costly....especially if you venture into the corporate market. Given nVidia's problems getting "GT300" to market, going after the CPU market would be a bad move at this point. Also, nVidia tends to attack their competition any time they feel threatened, so they've given Intel and AMD plenty of reason to fight any attempt they make at developing an x86 or x86-64 processor....and we all know a 32bit, x86 processor won't be competitive in the current market even if Intel loses the patent on x86. Does anyone really care to go backwards?
Well I see GPGPU possibilities on modern PCs as general purpose enhancements for computation like math co-processors were for the 386 back in the day. Serious calculation work can be done with either ATI's or Nvidia's GPUs. Nvidia may simply want control over the whole chipset graphics and CPU hardware to produce a more integrated and optimized product in certain markets like set top boxes, mobile internet devices, smart phones, netbooks etc. It will be a long time before an Nvidia x86 CPU based high end gaming machine will dethrown Intel or AMD.
megamanx00
Splendid
- Sep 3, 2008
- 8,216
- 2
- 31,465
I'm pretty sure they would need a license for X86 CPUs. Even if they just stick with what's come off patent they'd have what, the Pentium I instruction set? Any 64-bit X86 extensions would have to come from a cross licensing with AMD for one. Could be a start if there were just looking at the embeded market for now or something.
thomaseron
Distinguished
- Nov 4, 2007
- 154
- 0
- 18,680
Evening having former Transmeta employees doesn't help them in this situation. Those employees know Transmeta "technology", which all belongs to Intel. Those employees would have to come up with a completely new architecture, based on completely new "technology"....then they'd have to learn to make it competitive in the consumer market. Transmeta was king of the embedded market for a time....they've never competed against Intel or AMD in the consumer market.
I honestly think nvidia is trying their hardest to diversify there products outside of PC gaming as much as possible. GPU powered mainframes, x86 chips, etc.
While the gaming community seems to think Nvidia is crumbling, and indeed, they have been losing against ATI in terms of gaming value at most price points.
They are shifting their focus for one big reason; the PC gaming market is shrinking. I'm a PC gamer, and this bothers me as much as the next guy.
I find it strange to see so many professional articles (not this one) claiming Nvidia might fall apart and disappear because ATI is beating them so badly.
yes, Nvidia is losing (lately) in the tiny PC gamer market.
But there is so much more money to be made in the corporate/government office, server, and super computer environments... thousands of times more money. Those markets are HUGE.
and if PC gaming continues to shrink, there will be less money to be made of strictly gaming hardware.
i just think its funny the criticisms i see of nvidia, saying they are struggling to keep pace with ATI. nvidia is struggling to tap other markets than gaming, their losses to ATI is merely a side effect.
they have chosen to shift focus, while this is a bad thing for gamers (less competition), you can't fairly say that Nvidia is crumbling as a business.
While the gaming community seems to think Nvidia is crumbling, and indeed, they have been losing against ATI in terms of gaming value at most price points.
They are shifting their focus for one big reason; the PC gaming market is shrinking. I'm a PC gamer, and this bothers me as much as the next guy.
I find it strange to see so many professional articles (not this one) claiming Nvidia might fall apart and disappear because ATI is beating them so badly.
yes, Nvidia is losing (lately) in the tiny PC gamer market.
But there is so much more money to be made in the corporate/government office, server, and super computer environments... thousands of times more money. Those markets are HUGE.
and if PC gaming continues to shrink, there will be less money to be made of strictly gaming hardware.
i just think its funny the criticisms i see of nvidia, saying they are struggling to keep pace with ATI. nvidia is struggling to tap other markets than gaming, their losses to ATI is merely a side effect.
they have chosen to shift focus, while this is a bad thing for gamers (less competition), you can't fairly say that Nvidia is crumbling as a business.
eccentric909
Distinguished
- Oct 4, 2006
- 388
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]tipoo[/nom]I still vote IBM come into the x86 space and F!@# the S!@# out of everybody.[/citation]
Like how they did with the IBM/Cyrix 6x86 processor? >< Ouch.
Though, at the time, it was Cyrix designing the processor, and IBM manufacturing it. It was always odd to me to see IBM 6x86 on a processor.
Like how they did with the IBM/Cyrix 6x86 processor? >< Ouch.
Though, at the time, it was Cyrix designing the processor, and IBM manufacturing it. It was always odd to me to see IBM 6x86 on a processor.
NVidia will be new in the business, having to bounce up against AMD and intel, in price and performance!
Especially hard since AMD and Intel already have years of expertise in the company, and have gone through a vast amount of improvements, failures and successes.
They most likely will focus on the lower end to create ATOM rivals,as they don't have sufficient experience to go head on with AMD and Intel's higher end models.
I'm not expecting much, most likely netbook solutions with better graphics cards and slightly higher performing single core chips (I don't even expect Nvidia to add a form of hyperthreading to their chips); but if we're lucky see the chips with a dynamic overclocking utility; but even
Especially hard since AMD and Intel already have years of expertise in the company, and have gone through a vast amount of improvements, failures and successes.
They most likely will focus on the lower end to create ATOM rivals,as they don't have sufficient experience to go head on with AMD and Intel's higher end models.
I'm not expecting much, most likely netbook solutions with better graphics cards and slightly higher performing single core chips (I don't even expect Nvidia to add a form of hyperthreading to their chips); but if we're lucky see the chips with a dynamic overclocking utility; but even
... (some reason my post got posted before finishing the sentence)..
"...if we're lucky see the chips with a dynamic overclocking utility; but even that is questionable..."
"...if we're lucky see the chips with a dynamic overclocking utility; but even that is questionable..."
Doomsy2006
Distinguished
- Sep 4, 2009
- 32
- 0
- 18,530
Maybe they are doing away with x86 or x86-64 altogether and going straight to x86-128 for the next versions of Software OS etc. which I would imagine could run instruction sets for x86 and x86-64. If they could develop the x86-128 instructions then it could pave the way for the rest of the developers to pitch in.
hannibal
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2004
- 2,881
- 252
- 21,190
Well, well... not an easy task, but competition is good. Just hope that Nvidia does not sink with this... I don't like to loose players in this game. Intel is fearsome foe in CPU front at this moment. Competitiors like Nvidia and AMD need small miracles to compete, but it's not imposible.
If Nvidia does enter the CPU market I hope they build fast single core cpu's. GPU's are generally CPU limited for starters and far better at parallel tasks anyway while CPU's are better in single threaded applications it's always been like that.
Amd and Intel have pretty much forgotten about and given up on performance single core CPU's which is the segment which best caters to Nvidia and graphic users in general.
Amd and Intel have pretty much forgotten about and given up on performance single core CPU's which is the segment which best caters to Nvidia and graphic users in general.
hannibal
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2004
- 2,881
- 252
- 21,190
The most propable target segment is Intel i3 and AMD buldoser like system. A budget cpu or two with integrated GPU. Nvidia can compete in high end and middle range systems with their normal GPU production, but they will lose the low end system with on board integrated GPU because they are not needed because GPU goes to the same chip as CPU. That is the reason why Nvidia needs their own CPU.
I can be even slover than AMD and Intel versions, if it has good enough GPU part, so that you can surf in the net, play your DVD and BD-disks and play some simple games in low resolution. So low end systems with very small price is what they need to make.
Heavy gamers will buy normal video-cards many years until CPU-GPU combinations are fast enough. Some day it may be so, but so far every competitior is aiming to low end sector with their upcoming CPU-GPU combinations.
I can be even slover than AMD and Intel versions, if it has good enough GPU part, so that you can surf in the net, play your DVD and BD-disks and play some simple games in low resolution. So low end systems with very small price is what they need to make.
Heavy gamers will buy normal video-cards many years until CPU-GPU combinations are fast enough. Some day it may be so, but so far every competitior is aiming to low end sector with their upcoming CPU-GPU combinations.
toms-viewer-1996
Distinguished
- Aug 6, 2009
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
I think what really has us locked into x86 and Intel is Microsoft Windows.
I wonder what the viability for a new CPU company would be if Linux (which supports many CPU instruction sets like RISC, ARM, SPARC) were more mainstream?
A business could design an alternative CPU's, update the Linux Kernel, and use TSMC or Global Foundries to manufacture those CPU's using the latest manufacturing process. Then they could use as many transistors in the chips as Intel or AMD if they wanted to.
I wonder what level of Linux adoption would have to be met in order for this to happen?
Right now it is at 1% of consumer desktops :-( That's probably not enough to devote resources to a CPU that is entirely for Linux PC's.
I wonder what the viability for a new CPU company would be if Linux (which supports many CPU instruction sets like RISC, ARM, SPARC) were more mainstream?
A business could design an alternative CPU's, update the Linux Kernel, and use TSMC or Global Foundries to manufacture those CPU's using the latest manufacturing process. Then they could use as many transistors in the chips as Intel or AMD if they wanted to.
I wonder what level of Linux adoption would have to be met in order for this to happen?
Right now it is at 1% of consumer desktops :-( That's probably not enough to devote resources to a CPU that is entirely for Linux PC's.
I think you all are forgetting that aside from its graphic cards, AMD is in deep financial trouble - if NVidia were willing to offer to license the x64 tech, AMD maybe couldn't afford to refuse.
Also, NVidia doesn't need to develop a complete x86 or x64 chip - it only needs to develop those parts of the core that execute OS, business, and home apps more efficiently (from both an engineering and cost-to-develop standpoint)on hardware than in emulation. Transmeta's emulation tech can help find that sweet spot, and the core (or cores) could be integrated with the GPU - not a separate chip at all.
Also, NVidia doesn't need to develop a complete x86 or x64 chip - it only needs to develop those parts of the core that execute OS, business, and home apps more efficiently (from both an engineering and cost-to-develop standpoint)on hardware than in emulation. Transmeta's emulation tech can help find that sweet spot, and the core (or cores) could be integrated with the GPU - not a separate chip at all.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question should i put the new 3050 lp in a sff hp g3?- Started by jordanbuilds1
- Replies: 14
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram