NVIDIA is hosting a website that covers legal cases against Intel Corporation for anti-competitive practices. The site is clearly part of NVIDIA's PR campaign against Intel as the spat between both companies over rivaling technology continues to grow.
The site has extensive details from legal cases brought against Intel, including cases brought by the European Union, the Federal Trade ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
Certainly not good unless Intel REALLY has a chance at gaining gamer support since ATI is now owned by AMD. Supposedly, Intel even considered a hostile (if necessary) takeover of nVidia a while back. "Larrabee" is Intel's supposed answer to ATI/nVidia's GPU dominance, but even that has been found to be HIGHLY questionable...and Intel has had fairly low standards for graphics performance for YEARS. They seem to think decent performance at 640x480 is still sufficient.
Ever since the merger of ATI and AMD I've worried that there would be a conflict of interest should a manufacturer want to use AMD slots and nVidia chipsets and their technology. I really hope not (and so far all has been well).
Intel at the very least has been open about their graphics cards specifications for a very long time, allowing fully-working open source drivers to be developed for Linux. As far as their GL extensions support it probably is lacking a little bit, but only because Intel would probably prefer to only support OFFICIAL extensions, not vendor-specific ones (although a lot of games (and the few big ones that get made with an OpenGL back-end; some Valve games) rely upon vendor-specific ones).
What this tells me is Nvidia is a little frightened of the idea of the merger between CPU and GPU, which I think is a good idea if done right. Intel and AMD are both very capable of making such a CPU/GPU soon, and if Nvidia has nothing to respond with, I don't think a loyal fanbase will even save them (I am pretty loyal fan). I did hear a rumour Nvidia was planning to make an x86 CPU a while ago. It appears that is the direction they need to go.
ANTIC was the first GPU, made in the 70 for Atari Computers. Nvidia would like you to believe there where no GPU's prior to 1999.(talking about a boasting ego) i guess that's why i never really like Nvidia.
@DXR88:
Ah, but carefully reading the first sentence in their answer reveals the truth. GPUs weren't "first developed" in 1999, but they were "first developed by NVIDIA" in 1999. I'm sure they worded it ambiguously like that on purpose though.
Originally posted by xnonsuchx: Certainly not good unless Intel REALLY has a chance at gaining gamer
What? lol.
I mean if you're just talking about the GPU market then yea I see where you are coming from. But if you are talking about the Processor market? Then Intel HAS more then enough support from gamers. I mean if you are a self respecting gamer and putting a couple grand into a rig, you're using Intel.
Beside, I really don't think Intel even gives a damn about the gaming market. Intel makes crazyyyy more money then AMD even dreams of making.
On another Processor note, You guys should look into the ARM processor, looks promising.
They are going up against Atom processor. And they are soooooooooooo much better. I think they use like a 10th of the power a Atom does. Pretty impressive.
There is alot of talk about Google using a ARM processor for their netbook.
