Print 119 comment(s) - last by RHiNoX.. on Apr 17 at 11:35 AM

NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang lets everyone know his company is spending nearly a billion dollars each year ready to take on Intel's graphics offerings
Any notion that Intel and NVIDIA have common ground in the graphics industry can now be easily dismissed

NVIDIA's already candid CEO Jen-Hsun Huang had more than a few things to say during the company's financial analyst meeting today. An hour into the call Huang began to ad lib; clearly something was on his mind.

"We're going to open a can of whoop ass," he told analysts, who quickly broke out into laughter. 

For the past two weeks Intel and NVIDIA have been playing a game of cloak and dagger with technology press, complete with secret slide shows and secret slide show rebuttals. At the heart of this covert battle is the integrated graphics market, and some of the claims attached to it.

Intel senior vice president Pat Gelsinger fired the first volley at the Intel Developer Forum last week in Shanghai.  "First, graphics that we have all come to know and love today, I have news for you. It's coming to an end. Our multi-decade old 3D graphics rendering architecture that's based on a rasterization approach is no longer scalable and suitable for the demands of the future," he said.

Gelsinger's bold statement was an introduction to Intel's upcoming Larrabee graphics architecture, but it was enough to put NVIDIA on full alert.  Larrabee is Intel's first attempt at a discrete graphics processor in nearly a decade, with first samples expected to ship and stay competitive with NVIDIA and AMD graphic processors. 

Intel slide decks presented to media argue that spending money on CPUs and more CPU cores makes more sense than spending money on GPUs.  Intel presentations go on to detail that its integrated graphics will still satisfy consumers for years, adding that its upcoming Nehalem architecture will come in variants that integrate GMA 4500 (G45) graphics directly onto the CPU package.

NVIDIA's slide shows almost completely ignore Intel's Larrabee, and focus on IGP claims.  One of Intel's slide decks states GMA 3100 (G33) is more than enough to watch high definition videos. NVIDIA counters by citing my previous publication, AnandTech. "While the video capabilities of the [GMA 3100] will suffice for running Vista Aero, just about any office application, and a wide variety of non-3D based games, it is not up to the task of running the latest games, decoding 1080P HD content, or even providing decent video capabilities for a media station," AnandTech's Gary Key writes.

Huang argues that not only are Intel's integrated offerings "a joke," but that even if Intel manages increase graphics performance by ten times by 2010, that's barely up to par with current NVIDIA offerings.  He claims what passes for average graphics outside of the tech enthusiast crowd should be consider abysmal in the visual computing world.

Throughout the bulk of the conference call, Huang continued to lament Intel for poor graphics performance.  He hints at another Intel slide deck that claims Intel GMA 3100 is Windows Vista Premium compatible -- a claim which was debunked by Microsoft employees in a recent lawsuit

Intel fired back minutes later, sending emails to analysts detailing NVIDIA's poor track record when it comes to Vista crashes due to incomplete drivers.  Almost on cue, Huang responded once again.

"NVIDIA has to support several new titles every week," he said, alleging that Intel's graphics just have to support the basic office packages.  "You already have the right machine to run Excel. You bought it four years ago," he said.

The statement clearly struck a nerve with Huang, who paused for a second before adding "How much faster can you render the blue screen of death?"

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By fmriguy on 4/10/2008 4:20:55 PM , Rating: 5
"How much faster can you render the blue screen of death?"

Wow, that really sums it up there doesn't it?

By PICBoy on 4/10/2008 4:24:10 PM , Rating: 4
I was just about to comment that it was a great punch line.

By FITCamaro on 4/10/2008 4:33:56 PM , Rating: 5
Given how many BSoDs Nvidia drivers cause, they are the perfect company to answer that question.

By darkpaw on 4/10/2008 4:45:22 PM , Rating: 5
The only two things I've ever seen BSoD a Vista box:

1) Nvidias drivers
2) Overclocking

Too bad only one of those is optional if you happen to own Nvidia hardware!

They have gotten much better since launch, but still. I really wish ATI would get off their asses and release something competivie. They had nothing at all that could touch the $150 (AR) I paid for my 8800GT. I definately would have bought ATI this time if the price/performance was there.

By Tsuwamono on 4/10/08, Rating: 0
By Pirks on 4/10/08, Rating: -1
By RjBass on 4/10/2008 7:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, my 3870 works in Vista just fine. You may want to try investing in a better motherboard.

By Pirks on 4/10/08, Rating: -1
By daftrok on 4/10/2008 11:38:11 PM , Rating: 4
Because its clearly not working for you.

By Pirks on 4/11/2008 2:00:26 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly! Radeon 3870 with its lousy drivers is not working for me, but my Abit is working alright.

By just4U on 4/11/2008 7:36:29 PM , Rating: 4
The 3870 is a excellent card with very stable drivers. I've installed several of them and even own one. While there's always room for improvement they definitely have an edge over Nvidia in that regard. Especially when it comes to Vista.

By Targon on 4/10/2008 9:42:47 PM , Rating: 5
Strange that most people find the ATI cards a LOT more stable than NVIDIA under Vista. If you ran into problems with an ATI card, chances are that you either have older drivers(vid card or motherboard/chipset), or possibly a defective card.

By xphile on 4/11/2008 7:45:58 AM , Rating: 3
Dear god - just do yourself a really simple technical and financial solution and get rid of Vista. Then 99% of all cards work perfectly.

You guys spend all this money on top end hardware and then cripple it with a crapola software platform and blame the hardware. Then buy more expensive hardware to make the crapola software platform look better.

The road is gravel dude - buying the 2008 Ferrari over the 2007 Ferrari isn't going to make the road any less BS to drive on. Even if your lap times are 2 seconds faster you're still the sucker at the wheel.

By just4U on 4/11/2008 8:04:28 PM , Rating: 3
Your wrong.

First off No operating system can claim to be fault free. As many on these forums will tell you XP has it's fair share of install woes as well.. and yes, even today as mature as it is that holds true.

Plus your view held about Vista is no longer acurate. It is READY for the big show now and your going to see more and more enthusiasts recommending Vista64 over all others.

By jRaskell on 4/14/2008 12:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
and your going to see more and more enthusiasts recommending Vista64 over all others.

I'll believe THAT when I see it, but don't expect me to hold my breath waiting for it.

By just4U on 4/15/2008 4:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
It's just like XP. When they worked out the kinks and the drivers were mature enough it became the OS of choice. I think it's close enough to that point now that there is no longer a reason to purchase XP unless ofcourse your using/building a relatively low end computer. (Sub $600 with less then 2G of ram and poor Video)

By Samus on 4/11/2008 2:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
Every Vista BSOD I've seen on nVidia hardware was from a nForce6150 chipset.

God, they are horrible.

By subhajit on 4/11/2008 7:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
Vista home premium crashes every few minutes on my NForce4 Ultra motherboard.

By teldar on 4/11/2008 7:45:22 AM , Rating: 2
I have 32 bit vista ultimate on a DFI NF4 board with a 3650 as my htpc and it's stable as a rock. My only problem was that my hard drive died. When I replaced it, no more problems.


By sammitch on 4/13/2008 1:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's pretty funny that a lot of people have problems with Vista. I installed 32bit Ultimate (got a free version of 64bit Ultimate coming soon through Windows Survey thing), and I have had only one problem, and that was with asus onboard sound drivers.

I have an 8800GT and it runs everything perfectly. I've had no problems running crysis or anything else. No BSoD so far. My Vista runs faster than my XP Pro too, which is just weird to most people it seems like. My Vista experience has been amazing and I won't be going back to XP.

By sammitch on 4/13/2008 1:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I uninstalled the drivers from asus, and Vista had these onboard sound drivers ready and it works perfect now.

By orphen193 on 4/10/2008 5:11:43 PM , Rating: 4
funny cause I have a 7900GS with vista and never had a problem with it never got the BSOD and I have had it for like 2 months after release of vista

By HotdogIT on 4/10/2008 5:56:50 PM , Rating: 3
By seamonkey79 on 4/11/2008 12:16:21 AM , Rating: 2
Anecdote, meet semblance of proof:

<cough cough>Market share<cough cough>

By toonces on 4/11/2008 3:25:15 AM , Rating: 2
*cough cough*

so 300% more crashes while having a 65% larger market share than AMD is justified how?

By PlasmaBomb on 4/11/2008 7:11:39 AM , Rating: 2
Comparing it with intel is even more funny, NVidia has ~30% less market share but ~330% more vista crashes...

By Fallen Kell on 4/11/2008 4:29:11 PM , Rating: 3
Comparing it with intel is even more funny, NVidia has ~30% less market share but ~330% more vista crashes...

Too bad that Intel's version of graphics makes UT3 look like the following:

And even then with only 3-4 fps... Sure it doesn't crash... but, can you call a stable graphics card that doesn't produce any graphics better then one that might crash a little more, but at least produces the graphics you are trying to see?

By Locutus465 on 4/10/2008 10:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
I never had BSOD issues with my 7800GT, but I certainly ran into my share of nVidia issues early in vista's life cycle. My system would alternate between allowing me to play either F.E.A.R or Oblivion but never both games in a single release for the first few driver release (fustrating). Finally it seems like seriouse compatiblity issues have begun to settle out (if not entirly), but htere are still speed issues. My next platform will be all AMD (9850be 4x, Radeon 3870, 2GB DDR2 and just waiting for MB).

By robinthakur on 4/11/2008 12:16:54 PM , Rating: 1
Aww you're the 1 guy who's buying AMD still, I'm honoured to meet you. Having switched from the Opteron/Nforce/ATI covenant to Q6000/Intel/Nvidia I have no regrets, and it was cheaper! I've run Vista since before it was released with my nvidia 7800GTX (admittedly I never used it to game much) and its not crashed once...Maybe i'm just lucky.

By murphyslabrat on 4/11/2008 1:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
I am glad your got your jollies today, but would you kindly shut up. NVIDIA or AMD/ATI, it really doesn't make a whopping lot of difference. You get an average difference of maybe as many as 10 frames in the same price bracket, and with shifting prices and drivers, this changes constantly.

Boo-hoo, so He bought an AMD card, we are entitled to our choice of purchases. Oh, and about the subject matter, that "semblance of proof" seems to support what he's saying.

By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 2:09:12 PM , Rating: 1
A) Nvidia isn't cheaper these days for the same general performance braket

B). Stability matters more to me than absolut Performance, irroncally AMD/ATI is owning nVidia in the reliability category...

Thus I see all AMD giving the the best mix of reliability, affordability and performance. I've used vista since beta 2 and I've had a host of compatibility issues with nvidia drivers and even managed to completely kill several vista installations (all pre-release code). As noted, I've never managed an actual BSOD. At least not until fairly recently trying to install my x-fi card.

By FITCamaro on 4/11/2008 8:15:59 AM , Rating: 1
I wasn't necessarily talking about Vista. I've had multiple crashes on XP with Nvidia drivers. I had Nvidia drivers asking me if I wanted to enable SLI with an AGP GeForce 6200.

By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 9:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
BTW - I've been using Vista since the gold release was first published to MSDN (a little while before it was availble at retail). I can tell you with some certainty that

1) Your experience depneded upon your card, ironically we were lucky because we didnt' have an ultra high end 88 series card, consmers with the highest end nvidia cards had the worst experience.

2). But a couple of months after vista's release there were at least 2 or 3 driver releases. I think I was still alternating issues between fear and oblivion but many bugs had been addressed... Too bad there were still many more yet to be addressed.

By just4U on 4/11/2008 8:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
Since you mentioned your getting ready for a new build I'd like to make a suggestion. You might want to consider moving to 4Gig of DDR2 while it's still dirt cheap. Even on 32bit I found that Vista responded very well to the additional memory.

I use a 8800GTS/512 and have a 3870 on the Girlfriends system and both are running Vista64 fine. Still minor issues (to be expected and somewhat more with the 8800) but it's all more like a annoyance now rather then anything else. Nothing major.

By neothe0ne on 4/10/2008 6:23:40 PM , Rating: 1
The only time I've ever encountered a BSoD:

a) Creative drivers
b) Creative ALchemy

I haven't had any issues with NVIDIA drivers, although I did move to Vista pretty late. If you're complaining about BSoD's within the first month or two of Vista, I'd consider that to be pure BS trolling.

By murphyslabrat on 4/11/2008 1:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree with the above. Everyone knows that first half-year or so was really rough. To whine about it is just beating on a dead horse.

By Basilisk on 4/11/2008 1:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's a still-quivering horse: Vista HP was stable on one of my systems until about the time SP1 hit AND a new nvidia driver was pushed down by the Update process. Suddenly, frequent BSOD's began. To add insult to injury, it was an nvidia sATA driver failure -- on a system w/o any sATA drives. [My "fix" was to disable the two sATA port drivers.]

To the earlier poster: yeah, it's a 6150 system, but one that had been a rock for ages.

By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 3:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yah, horse isn't quite dead yet. Had more nVidia driver crashing just last month with Sins of a Solar Empire.

By k4rma on 4/14/2008 11:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
I just read this in my Computer class at school, and just busted up laughing when I read that last line! I think everyone thinks I'm wierd now!

nVidia CPUs?
By ninjit on 4/10/2008 4:56:33 PM , Rating: 3
Considering AMD now have all bases covered with their aquisition of ATI...

And with intel ramping up their graphics division...

Will nVidia start developing CPUs as well? Can they afford not to?

RE: nVidia CPUs?
By ninjit on 4/10/2008 4:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
maybe they should purchase VIA to get a jump start...

RE: nVidia CPUs?
By shiznit on 4/10/2008 9:00:26 PM , Rating: 3
They can buy the CPU side of AMD once they go under.

RE: nVidia CPUs?
By dvinnen on 4/10/2008 11:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think they will ever enter the CPU market, but if they were that is the only way they could. Only a few people currently own x86 licenses.

RE: nVidia CPUs?
By KristopherKubicki on 4/10/2008 5:08:11 PM , Rating: 5
On the same call Huang said NVIDIA cannot compete with Intel for CPUs, and does not want to.

RE: nVidia CPUs?
By Amiga500 on 4/10/2008 5:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
Did they outline future long-term plans?

Like 5 to 10 years down the line?

RE: nVidia CPUs?
By KristopherKubicki on 4/10/2008 5:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
Not really, not yet anyway.

RE: nVidia CPUs?
By Amiga500 on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: nVidia CPUs?
By ajvitaly on 4/10/2008 7:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
I have no doubt Nvidia will bring multi-core CPU's to the market eventually, with one or more of the cores dedicated for graphical purposes. The lack of competition from AMD during the past year has allowed Nvidia to shift more of their research to this very cause.

Intel to Dominate Mid and Low Range Market
By MikeMurphy on 4/10/2008 8:01:54 PM , Rating: 3
Hi Folks,

It seems quite obvious to me that Nvidia and ATi enjoy their market share due to the fact that current IGPs are incapable of running any meaningful 3D tasks. Even if you want to play the simplest of 3D games you are forced by Intel to go shop for an Nvidia or ATi product.

By creating even a semi-respectable IGP Intel will not give cause for the everyday consumer to go out and purchase a dedicated 3D card. The result is a world of hurt for those companies offering dedicated 3D solutions which strangely enough also compete in Intel's core markets.

Watch as it unfolds…

RE: Intel to Dominate Mid and Low Range Market
By Donkey2008 on 4/10/2008 8:42:08 PM , Rating: 3

The IGP market is HUGE and Nvidia knows that. It is a profit driver well above selling discrete graphics cards. The 10% of users like us who buy high-end cards to play games pales in comparison to the vast majority of users who buy OEM systems with integrated graphics. That's why Intel is the #1 supplier of graphics chips in the world.

Nvidia's market is rapidly contracting as OEMs fail to build around their enthusiast chipsets and IGP graphics. Without an entire platform to sell to OEMs(chipset-CPU-IGP) they will inevitably fail outside of just making great discrete video cards. Nvidia's CEO can try to get these analysts fired up with fight'in words, but it is already too late - just check out Nvidia's stock price over the last 6 months.

And oh so quietly AMD lurks in the shadows, cutting deals with large OEMs to build Spiders with 780G stickers on them.

RE: Intel to Dominate Mid and Low Range Market
By JustTom on 4/11/2008 11:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
It is somewhat ironic using stock prices to disparage NVIDIA then in your next sentence praising AMD.

Stock price for NVIDIA 10/11/07 35.27
Stock price for NVIDIA 4/10/08 19.88
% of 10/11/07 value: 56%

Stock price for AMD 10/11/07 13.80
Stock price for AMD 04/10/08 6.27
% of 10/11/07 value: 45%

AMD stock has performed worse than NVIDIA stock over the last 6 months

By just4U on 4/11/2008 8:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
He does have a excellent point. Here we are reading about Nvidia and Intel trading verbal blows and pounding their chests and yet...

Amd with their 780G in hand sitting quietly looking on..

By geddarkstorm on 4/11/2008 12:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't Nvidia and ATI make IGPs on some motherboards? I don't think that's the full story. It's more like the two have always only had to compete with each other, and getting a third party involved and shaking things up bode ill for them.

By RHiNoX on 4/17/2008 11:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
the 780G from AMD takes any intel chipset and dominates.

If you are making a media center PC, not choosing the 780G makes you uninformed. just don't plug a 125 watt cpu, which would also make you uninformed.

By therealnickdanger on 4/10/2008 4:17:33 PM , Rating: 4
I love this! I've got an equal level of respect for both NVIDIA and Intel, so this article makes me very pleased to see that they are both so eagerly pursuing graphics technology. Intel is certainly not one to talk about drivers. NVIDIA may have caused the majority of Vista crashes, but at least they have drivers THAT WORK! Every single promise of Intel's for their IGPs thus far have completely fallen away. I have zero hope in IGP 4500, whereas any give NVIDIA IGP mops the floor with Intel.

I just hope relations don't sour, I like seeing them work together.

RE: Gold!
By Amiga500 on 4/10/2008 4:18:59 PM , Rating: 3
I like seeing them work together

I don't think Nvidia and Intel really do work together, they tolerate each other and that is about the height of it.

RE: Gold!
By therealnickdanger on 4/10/2008 5:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well, whatever the context, NVIDIA chipsets plus Intel CPUs tend to function very well. Throw in a discrete NVIDIA GPU and you've got the fastest rig on the planet (assuming the highest end of each company).

RE: Gold!
By darkpaw on 4/10/2008 5:10:30 PM , Rating: 1
Would be nice if they could actually you know fix the reference design for the MCP though so they don't run twice as hot as the CPU!

RE: Gold!
By eye smite on 4/10/2008 5:11:03 PM , Rating: 1
I've always had good luck with Nvidia cards. I think after reading this though, Huang should start his own comedy tech show. lol

By omnicronx on 4/10/2008 5:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
Intel makes the worst video drivers in the world, period! They can't even make fun of the lowly AMD when it comes to driver stability. Maybe they should work on the drivers of some of the products they have already released rather than claiming you are better than AMD and Nvidia. The hardware T&L for the X3000 card (hell the drivers in general) comes to mind =P

I won't even think about buying a discrete intel card until their drivers become at least somewhat stable, and actually perform the way you advertise. I for one am not going to hold my breath.

RE: drivers
By Donkey2008 on 4/10/2008 8:15:06 PM , Rating: 3
The comment about "lowly" AMD drivers makes no sense. I have owned just about every conceivable video card over the last 10 years and I can say with experience that Nvidia has released WORSE drivers over the last 5 years than ATI BY FAR. If the Nvidia/Vista fiasco isn't proof of that, then I guess you will never be convinced that almighty Nvidia has flaws like everyone else.

RE: drivers
By bfellow on 4/11/2008 10:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to agree to disagree. ATI drivers have been bad as well. Powerplay bug, the unknown white square, DX 10.1 functionality missing, stability issues, etc. Luckily I've got my 3870 and 2600XT running well now after 6-7 driver and hotfix updates later. I'm going to wait for official driver update for the powerplay bug.

RE: drivers
By shiznit on 4/10/2008 9:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about ATI's drivers being "lowly" (although that Control Center is ludicrous) but you have a point about their drivers. I have a G950 gfx laptop and it's good enough to play CS 1.6 but not at the native 1440x900. I want to use 960x600 or even 768x480 but there is absolutely NO WAY to add these resolutions anywhere in Vista or in the Intel drivers. I have tried PowerStrip but G950 isn't fully supported and I'm stuck with the default resolutions the driver allows. Larrabee drivers better not suck like this.

What cans do NVidia have in the fridge to open?
By Amiga500 on 4/10/2008 4:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
As above?

At the moment, it looks like they are going to come under increased pressure from RV770 (apparently its in pilot production already), AMD/ATI are happy to go toe-to-toe in price/performance if not in outright performance, and NVidia have a real problem emerging in the chipset markets, both IGP (good performance of AMD 780G) and discrete (poor performance of Nvidia 7X0).

So what are they gonna strike back with? A new GPU is not going to leave Intel seriously worried... are VIA a viable takeover prospect?

By cmdrdredd on 4/10/2008 4:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
the problem is that there are not any games on the horizon that warrant extra horsepower. The one game out there, crysis, failed IMO.

So I would like to see physics acceleration, hardware video decoding, HDMI audio streaming or decoding for HTPC usage,etc.

RE: What cans do NVidia have in the fridge to open?
By darkpaw on 4/10/2008 5:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
There is really a catch 22 here: Games that push high end hardware are doomed to commercial failure if they are not at least playable on average hardware.

Crysis is the only game that pushes modern high end hardware and it runs like crap on 99.9% of the systems in existance. That pretty much garunteed that it would look pretty, but be a complete commercial failure.

You can't make a commercially successful product if you limit the people that can actually use it down to almost nothing at all.

Doesn't help that (in my opinion) it was only a mediocre game as well.

By Silver2k7 on 4/12/2008 6:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
Crysis does hardly even run on a 30" 2560x1600, its got single digit frames like 5-9fps or something.

If they are opening the whopass can I would like some cards that cun run it at this resolution in a playable manner.. preferably even 75fps with sli.

I just can't help it...
By Aikouka on 4/10/2008 4:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
These articles just get me so flustered anymore. For a long time I've bought nVidia products, even when they weren't the fastest, because they were usually rock solid. You bought them and you knew you'd have a good time gaming through the stable and somewhat common driver releases.

I can't say this anymore and I don't know what to do. I own an 8800GTX and have for quite some time. I expected it to be buggy in the beginning; Not expecting that would have been silly of me and deserving of an eSlap in the face. But here we are... about a year and 5 months after I bought my 8800GTX (I think it was November 2006... sounds about right) and I still fight to this day with it.

I've spent more time trying to keep one step ahead of my drivers than gaming (this is an exaggeration). It's kind of a bad sign when I spend time figuring out which driver poses the least amount of livable issues... and note that livable refers to amount of blue screens in a week.

Please, for the love of God, baby Jesus, Buddha, Allah and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, open that jumbo can of extra-strength whoop ass on your driver division software engineers!

I should probably note that this is in Vista and I could point out the DT article where the most crashes were caused by nVidia drivers.

RE: I just can't help it...
By i3arracuda on 4/10/2008 5:05:56 PM , Rating: 3
This may be a side tangent, but are you running a 32-bit version of Vista? I'm always hearing these horror stories with Vista; Crashing, poor nVidia drivers, and the usual it's not as good as <insert OS of choice>.

I run Vista Ultimate x64 and have never had a crash, hangup, driver issue, anything. My previous video card was a 7950 GX2, which is, by far, the poorest supported nVidia product I have ever owned. I never had a single issue running this card with Vista x64. My new card is a 8800 GT 512 MB, and again, no issues.

I mention this only because, by and large, Vista gets an incredibly bad rap by the media. I see this great divide between the 32-bit and 64-bit flavors, and I can't help but feel that Vista's story is a tale of two operating systems.

Slightly more on topic:

I love this. I really do. I have a soft spot for both Intel and nVidia, and I hope this spurns the competition between them even further. I am eagerly awaiting Intel's response. Perhaps something along the lines of "We're going to stomp a mudhole in their ass...and walk it dry!"

You just can't beat CEO's acting like red asses in public.

RE: I just can't help it...
By nRollo on 4/10/2008 8:37:59 PM , Rating: 3
I started in Vista with a NF4 motherboard, AMD FX 60, and two 8800GTXs, a month after Vista launched, using Vista Home Premium. I upgraded to a 680i/E6700/8800GTX SLi rig with Vista 32 Ultimate. Then I got a 680i/E9850/8800U rig with Vista Enterprise. Then I got a 780i/QX6600/3 x 8800GTX rig and used Vista 64 Ultimate. Now I'm using a 790i/E8400/ 2 X 9800GX2 rig with Vista 32 Ultimate again.

Know what the common thread through all this is? I've used NVIDIA motherboards and graphics cards in several configurations, on every version of Vista, every day of my life for the last year on games new and old and a variety of other softwares.

I don't think I get a BSOD or TDR a month, let alone a lot of them. The only time I ever saw a lot of "NVIDIA driver errors" was when my non certified PSU was failing to drive my three GTXs, and sure enough, Vista reported this as a "NVIDIA driver error"

The Vista errors around launch time with NVIDIA drivers are very old news. Yes, some people had errors at that point, but we'll never really know how many were caused by NVIDIA drivers and how many were misreported due to other hardware factors like PSUs failing, OCed RAM and CPUs, etc..

Personally, I think Intel is just trying to create the market for their upcoming products, and divert attention from ongoing legal issues they are having.

Nvidia BSOD
By Sunday Ironfoot on 4/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nvidia BSOD
By jcrash on 4/10/2008 4:40:09 PM , Rating: 3
Well, when 95% of power users run Nvidia graphics cards, I would expect them to make up a large portion.

I'll bet S3's drivers such worse, but since basically no one has an S3 card running Vista, they don't show up.

RE: Nvidia BSOD
By Auric on 4/10/2008 5:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, it does not make sense anyway you look at it. Speaking of which...

Throughout the bulk of the conference call, Huang continued to lament Intel for poor graphics performance.

Lament is surely wrong as poor offerings from Intel benefit Nvidia. So, scorn is likely more accurate. But hey, I was not there so for all I know he was weeping for Intel IGP. :P

RE: Nvidia BSOD
By KristopherKubicki on 4/10/2008 5:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
It's hard to say -- Huang is clearly pretty upset, but I can't tell if he's mad or disappointed or what. I think there is some grief that the analysts don't seem totally on board with what he's saying compared to what Intel is saying

Leaked Photos
By phaxmohdem on 4/10/2008 6:20:34 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think Intel stands a chance.

RE: Leaked Photos
By aMower on 4/11/2008 12:38:58 AM , Rating: 2

So how many??
By marvdmartian on 4/10/2008 4:17:01 PM , Rating: 3
So how many mb of ram is in a can of whoopass???? And can we watercool that?????

RE: So how many??
By AlvinCool on 4/10/2008 4:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
First I'm sure that a whupass contains gigabytes of ram at least. Second I know it takes blue water that stays cold from a glacier to cool it.

By Garreye on 4/10/2008 4:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
Let's hope that all of this will benefit us consumers and push Intel and Nvidia (and AMD for that matter) to come out with better products (drivers, IGPS, GPUs in general..) It certainly sounds like they are both enthusiastic about out-competing one another...

RE: Great...
By munim on 4/10/2008 4:33:06 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, it's good for us, maybe bad for Nvidia. I don't know if it's very smart to go and piss off Intel like that. We all know how that ends, or if you don't, just ask AMD.

By jabber on 4/11/2008 10:15:20 AM , Rating: 2
Product manager -
"Ok guys we've been pretty much bankrupt on ideas for improving GPU performance in a meaningful way for sometime now, just like our competitors. So what can we do that will revolutionise the market for us in late 2008?"

Subordinate -
"ermm how about we put three cores of our old design on a board and add in some dragon or tiger logos on the HSF"

Product Manager -
"Fantastic idea! The tech sites and fans will swallow it just like they have every other time!"

By Integral9 on 4/11/2008 12:34:50 PM , Rating: 3
I like it! They should call it "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon".

It is ATI's time to STRIKE!
By wingless on 4/10/2008 8:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
As Intel and Nvidia battle it out, I'm sure ATI can capitalize on all of this. Heres a company that can offer both traditional raster based GPUs and x86, larrabee style, GPUs almost at will. Nvidia lacks an x86 license and chances are if Intel's discrete GPU is competitive in any way, game devs will jump on their technology. Nvidia can neither make CPUs or GPUs based on x86 so they're in a real pickle. They will get hammered by both ATI and Intel if they allow this to go on. I see this as a chance for ATI to gain some market share.

RE: It is ATI's time to STRIKE!
By just4U on 4/11/2008 9:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
I hope Amd is able to gain some foothold. While they might not be able to beat the c2d, and they don't have the best graphics they are closing the gap in both areas.

What they do have over Nvidia and Intel right now is by far the best Integrated solution on the market in the form of the 780G so they are already going down that road.. I guess it started with the purchase of Ati.

on queue?
By YoshoMasaki on 4/13/2008 6:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
Almost on queue, Huang responded once again.

Queue: 1. A line of waiting people or vehicles.
Cue: 1. A signal, such as a word or action, used to prompt another event in a performance, such as an actor's speech or entrance, a change in lighting, or a sound effect.

C'mon DailyTech writers, it's not that hard ...

RE: on queue?
By razorwindmo46 on 4/15/2008 6:09:31 AM , Rating: 2
Granted the grammar is incorrect.
Get your head out of your arse!
You get the jest of it.

All replies to this article
By razorwindmo46 on 4/15/2008 5:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
The majority of you all, have very good remarks about Nvidia and Intel's ups and downs, but I must agree/disagree with all of you about the BSOD's in Vista.

I list what I currently run and I have tried both the 32 and 64 bit Vista (before and after the new updates or SP1) WITHOUT a hitch in any form with apps or games. If you are getting BSOD's on a Vista Machine, you have a bad combination of equipment.

Abit FP-IN9 SLI Board
Pentium 'D' 805 Processor 25% OC to 3.33 stable
2GB Corsair Ram
E-Geforce 8800 GT OC - 25% OC
Ageia Physx
2 HDD's one with XP Pro and the other Vista Ultimate 64

Please, feel free to email me with your comments to If you don't refer in the subject line that your comment is from this forum, it will be deleted without hesitation or comment.

RE: All replies to this article
By just4U on 4/15/2008 10:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
I've not had any BSOD's either. Atleast not on a properly working machine. A few builds had memory issues which caused a blue screen but that was quickly sorted out.

The best I can really come up with is I've had a few programs inexplicably shut down. Thru program updates, and better drivers that has all but gone away now... and even when it was happening it was sporadic so more like a minor nuisance rather then a major problem.

nVidia Optimized PC rears its head
By edborden on 4/10/2008 4:39:17 PM , Rating: 3
Wow I totally just blogged this on Friday ( nVidia Wants Everyone to Know : GPU > CPU":

See, nVidia is attacking on ALL fronts, high AND low-end. Their "Optimized PC" campaign has system builders, like my company, almost choosing sides, adjusting our configurators to stress the GPU over CPU. With ATI dominated, Huang's got Intel firmly in his sites for the next step in market-share.

By Sylar on 4/10/2008 4:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
"How much faster can you render the blue screen of death?"


By kuyaglen on 4/10/2008 4:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
I thought this guy was cool for buying me an 8800GTX (from this article's account and speculation that one of the reasons AMD didn't buy Nvidia was that Jen-Hsun wanted to be in charge of both companies) but that bsod comment was just proof of just how awesome he is.

Conflict of interest
By tallcool1 on 4/10/2008 5:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
Basically the way I see it is that Intel's plans would be to eliminate the need for a dedicated GPU (nVidia) and do the graphics with thier own IGP and/or in the future making it so that the CPU can perform these tasks, is definately a threat to nVidia's business. Therefore I can understand why Jen-Hsun Huang would be upset. What nVidia needs to do is to counter by continuing to work on low cost good performing GPU solutions.

A lot of hot air...
By Goty on 4/10/2008 8:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much of this is a bunch of strutting on NVIDIA's part to help its stock price, which has taken a 40% hit over the past months?

Thanks - Hope Intel improves
By iwod on 4/11/2008 12:47:05 AM , Rating: 2
Huang argues that not only are Intel's integrated offerings "a joke," but that even if Intel manages increase graphics performance by ten times by 2010, that's barely up to par with current NVIDIA offerings.

Which pretty much sums it up with what i have been saying all the time. 10 times performance is nothing for Current IGFX improvement.

I really wish Intel could have use some of the PowerVR IP inside our IGfx. I could not understand why they did it in Mobile Space but not on Desktop.

Intel's GPU always bad performance
By RAMDRPC on 4/11/2008 10:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
I have see the Intel's GPU is always S**t performance!


Intel is KING OF CPU. (I love AMD as AMD is KING OF SPEED)

Nvidia is KING OF GPU and CHIPSETs.

CPU? GPU? bundles
By snownpaint on 4/11/2008 10:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
Both are moments away from taping into each others industries/markets, this will be a interesting thing to watch develop. I think the CPU/GPU combo will be great for work computers, bring the cost down on those work horse computers. However with developing separate Physic Engines, higher end graphics on video games, over clocking and mod'ers. The separate components will always be more enticing to those crowds. Unless, these chip builders, team up with MoBo builders and Gaming Engine Builders (crysis) , to make the run all machine.

This is about more than just games!
By psece on 4/11/2008 10:49:00 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone here forgets about CUDA. CUDA was nVidias way of getting into the processing game. Imagine a Celeron with a nVidia card that, thru the use of CUDA, runs some applications as fast as a Intel 4 core monster. I think that scared Intel into Larrabee. Larrabee should be a co-processing monster and Intel will have a willing partner in Microsoft and Apple to build direct OS support.

Ohhh shnap...
By Ryanz on 4/11/2008 11:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
NVIDIA is totally gonna throw down! oO

I am conflicted
By Arctucas on 4/11/2008 6:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
While I would dearly love for to Intel slap the snot out of nVIDIA, I would also like to see nVIDIA grab some CPU market share to force Intel prices down a little.

This is good for gamers
By dave74 on 4/15/2008 1:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think both companies are pretty heavy duty.. it will be interesting to see who will prevail. There are a bunch of good articles popping up:

Good on nVidia's CEO for dropping the PC stance. I wish more companies would just say what they mean. The competition will be great!

how long we have to wait?
By dome1234 on 4/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: how long we have to wait?
By dflynchimp on 4/10/2008 4:19:48 PM , Rating: 5
by that time Crysis will be obsolete

RE: how long we have to wait?
By Locutus465 on 4/10/2008 4:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I find Crysis to be a refreshing change on the PC gaming side... How long now have we had PC graphics hardware being capable of running games still in development at 60FPS and higher (faster when release comes up)... It's nice to see a developer create something that crushes current gen hardware and gives developers something to work towards. Heck, if this continues I might actually find my self going SLI one day! For now, it's a single AMD/ATI 3870 for me.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By MPE on 4/10/2008 4:57:12 PM , Rating: 5
It is not that hard to create graphics that is technically demanding on hardware. 3D artist generate them everyday. Filmmakers do it everyday. In fact it is probably one of the easier task - replace one texture with bigger texture, use more complex blurs, add more transparencies, more shadows, etc. You make it as if Crysis requirements is some kind of technical achievement.

It is not. In fact, it is just pretty make up. It distracts your from what is really going on - another FPS.

It prevents people from talking about what is important from more important aspect of game making like writing, game play, mechanics, etc. The technical requirement gives the illusion of replay value.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By Locutus465 on 4/10/2008 5:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well I suppose it's not hard to do by being wastefull and innefficient with out actually gaining anything graphically. That's not quite what I would call "pushing the envelope" though, more like purposfully throwing more data at the hardware than it could hope to handle.

I'm talking about new game designs that actually fully push the envolope on the PC side of things.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By Flunk on 4/10/2008 5:04:04 PM , Rating: 4
Why, so that we can use it as a benchmark neglecting the fact that games are meant to be fun and playable 2 things that Crysis is not?

If the graphics in Crysis were significantly better than the competition (UT3, etc.) then perhaps it would be interesting from a technological perspective. But as it stands it is just a badly coded game that doesn't look all the great and runs poorly on everything.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By Locutus465 on 4/10/2008 5:18:28 PM , Rating: 1
Because it's something that will push for better graphics hardware... If Crysis isn't fun, I'm sure it's not just the fault of a demanding graphics subsystem (I've only played a little crysis my self as my 7800GT isn't up to par). Console games have been doing much more in the arena of pushing the envolope graphics (and sound) wise, along with merging in fun game play than the PC side. While somewhat understanble to a degree, it's also very sad since PC's are still (and will forever be) capable of so much more.

So yes, I want to see at least 1 or 2 game studios out there pushing the envolope graphics wise, and hopefully such studios will turn out to be a studio capable of also making a compelling game. I'd like to see ID back in the game.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By Locutus465 on 4/10/2008 5:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
Or I guess another way of putting it is this:

Typically I upgrade every 2 years because by that point in time my PC is actually *FEELING* long in the tooth. This time around I'm doing it more for the heck of it than anything else. The only game I can't run with full details maxed (on vista) is crysis which I can't really run at all.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By MonkeyPaw on 4/10/2008 4:25:01 PM , Rating: 5
Considering that G35 makes UT3 look like this:

...and does so at 3FPS @ 1024x768, I'd say somewhere between a very long time and never.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By masher2 on 4/10/2008 4:28:20 PM , Rating: 1
Never say never in the computer industry.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By saiga6360 on 4/10/2008 4:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
Can't say the same for the computer 'gaming' industry, at the rate console gaming is going.

So much for the PC Gaming Alliance.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By Locutus465 on 4/10/2008 4:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's been a good while sice I've seen compelling PC titles come out (that aren't available on consoles). Wasn't ID supposed to be working on some new project with yet even more amazing graphics? Whatever happend to that?

RE: how long we have to wait?
By masher2 on 4/10/2008 5:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
You mean Rage? It's still on target, last I heard.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By Locutus465 on 4/10/2008 5:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what I meant, been a while since I've heard an update so I didn't know what the status was. I'm glad to hear it's on target, the game looked fun.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By mcturkey on 4/10/2008 5:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
Saying something from id (or Blizzard) is "on target" is amusing. They could run into a show-stopper bug 3 days away from pushing it out the door and spend a decade rewriting it, and they would still be "on target" for their release of "soon" or "when its done". :-P

RE: how long we have to wait?
By masher2 on 4/10/2008 6:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
True enough. I only meant to suggest the project is still active, regardless of if and when it will ever ship.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By MonkeyPaw on 4/10/2008 5:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Never say never in the computer industry.

I said between a very long time and never. Think of it as a limit equation, where everything points to "never," but just can't get there. ;)

Besides, if Intel does make gaming class graphics, it will be through raytracing, not rasterization. So technically, their raster-based IGPs will likely never do much except provide a frame buffer.

RE: how long we have to wait?
By just4U on 4/11/2008 9:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
I odn't know .. Amd's "new" IGP seems to be quite the step up from the pack and also appears to be a major move in the right direction. According to most reviews that is...

By bradrmattison on 4/13/08, Rating: -1
“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki