backtop


Print 19 comment(s) - last by Mojo the Monke.. on Mar 25 at 12:13 PM


Senior NVIDIA executives state that the company is considering cooking up an x86 CPU for the netbook market. It would go head to head with Intel's Atom processor, pictured here next to a sewing needle.  (Source: PC Perspective)
Despite recent mobile troubles, an NVIDIA executive reveals that the company is considering developing an x86 CPU

Some have bemoaned AMD's recent financial and competitive troubles in the CPU market, fearing that the company may stop making CPUs, leaving Intel without a competitor.  Well, the competition in the CPU sector just might soon be heating up, thanks to a familiar face which is seriously considering developing a mobile x86 CPU.

An NVIDIA executive, Michael Hara, vice president of investor relations at NVIDIA, announced last week that the company may develop an x86 CPU targeted at the netbooks and mobile Internet devices (MID) market.  The move would place NVIDIA in direct competition with AMD in CPU industry, as well the GPU industry.  And the move would also do little to improve the already sour relations between NVIDIA and Intel, the mobile CPU industry's top player.

NVIDIA's mobile offerings last year were marked with many tribulations and triumphs.  It weathered the disappointment of discovering that the many of its 7, 8, and 9 series mobile GPUs were defective, being overly sensitive to heat, causing premature failures.  While this led to some big losses for the company, it forged ahead with its Ion platform, which looks to blow Intel's integrated graphics out of the water, offering the ability to play high definition video and do 3D gaming on integrated graphics and a lean power envelope.

NVIDIA also released Tegra last year, an all-in-one chip that includes an ARM processor, a GeForce graphics core, and other components on a single chip.  Tegra is targeted towards smart phones and MIDs.  While NVIDIA did develop the ARM architecture CPU for Tegra, it has not yet developed or offered an x86 CPU to date.

It may soon, though, says Mr. Hara.  He states, "Tegra, by any definition, is a complete computer-on-chip, and the requirements of that market are such that you have to be very low power and very small but highly efficient.  Someday, it's going to make sense to take the same approach in the x86 market as well."

When asked when that "someday" might be, he responded that he couldn't discuss specifics, but a mobile x86 NVIDIA CPU may be coming in two to three years.  NVIDIA is also still deciding whether to develop the potential CPU internally or license its development to another firm.  Derek Perez, an NVIDIA spokesman, says no hard decisions have been made on this yet and that NVIDIA is still exploring its options.  If NVIDIA does choose to do its own development, it will likely have to purchase a company with rights to key x86 technologies.

With the rise of netbooks, NVIDIA is fearful of being left out of what may eventually become one of the largest sectors of the computer market, one in which two of its competitors -- VIA and Intel dominate.  That fear may motivate it to jump into the x86 CPU market for the first time.  From there, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that NVIDIA might one day produce desktop CPUs as well.

In the short term, NVIDIA hopes to incorporate the potential CPU into its Ion platform.  Currently the Ion platform pairs a low power GeForce integrated processor with an Intel Atom processor.  A processor of its own would allow the Ion platform to go 100 percent NVIDIA.

If NVIDIA does develop its own x86 chip, it has to tread very carefully, to avoid repeating the mistakes that led to the failure of most recent would-be competitors Cyrix, PowerPC and Transmeta Corp.  Nathan Brookwood, an analyst with Insight64, is convinced that NVIDIA is too far behind, and if it builds its own chip, the effort will be doomed to failure.  He states, "While you're busy (building your chip), the market would have moved on."

He continues, "[The x86 processor] evolved without a rigorous architectural definition. As a result, engineers creating a newer version had to ensure that it was compatible with all of the weirdnesses and bugs of the older one."



Comments     Threshold


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

If nothing else
By FITCamaro on 3/16/2009 9:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be interested to see what Nvidia cooked up. To see if its just another standard x86 CPU or if it breaks from the mold and goes in a different direction while maintaining x86 compatibility.




RE: If nothing else
By omnicronx on 3/16/2009 11:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder though, with a 2-3 year time frame, might both ATI and Intel have combined GPU+CPU chips by then? Seems like too little to late to me.

With chip makes like Via already making a comeback because of the netbook/small form factor market, it seems to me that Nvidia just plain waited too long to enter the CPU market.


RE: If nothing else
By mindless1 on 3/16/2009 12:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
How is that too little too late? If ATI and Intel have all-integrated chips then, it is a direct competition not a late entry.

I don't think Intel will do it. Intel targets mid to higher end applications where selling a greater number of chips means greater profits.

Via on the other hand, aimed for the floor sweepings with their C(n) processors build only to be cheap and small. There's a wide gulf between them that nVidia can fill. Granted, Intel stepped in with Atom but that was a pathetic option when you consider it could've been slightly larger or dual core and been much closer to the modern performance levels we enjoy for typical applications one might run on a netbook.

As for AMD, they seem to drag their feet too much recently, playing things too conservatively. Knowing Intel had the majority of desktop CPU market share, long ago they should have developed a processor that eliminated the opportunity for Via instead of only trying to go head to head with Intel.

If nVidia can come up with a reasonably performing single chip solution for CPU, GPU, north and southbridge, necessarily not any 2nd chip for any functions these have, and a presentation of good support, they will have a good chance in the market.

This isn't a niche product really, this is the next step in the evolution of a computer. When the dies shrink to the point where multiple dies can be put on the same carrier instead of ever increasing performance when typical tasks just don't need that, the resulting reduction in size, cost, and power consumption was inevitable.

Soon the all-integrated single chip solution will be in most PCs, only the higher end will still be discrete per function. "Soon" may not mean within 3 years for anything other than possibly netbook and other downsized mobile devices, but within 10 years this will be what most people buy in a PC from the major OEMs. We're quickly reaching the point where workstations and PCs diverge, a consumer may want one powerhouse main PC but for all their other programmable computers the all integrated approach makes more sense, in apps like HTPC, NAS/fileserver, internet and email kiosk, mobile platforms. In other words 95% of the time, what people use their PCs for.


RE: If nothing else
By omnicronx on 3/16/2009 1:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really think that simply flipping the 'X86 chip maker' to on somehow puts them on the same playing field? Both AMD, and Intel have a 30 year lead on using the technology, and Via is also miles ahead. Do you really think that Nvidia's first x86 chip is going to compare to that of Intel and AMD? My point is if Nvidia wanted to enter the GPU+CPU market, they should have had a mature x86 product before doing so.

Furthermore as others have pointed out, Nvidia currently has no way to license the x86 architecture from Intel.

AMD and Intel are taking their time with their dual chip solutions, and they have the advantage of having a mature line of x86 CPU's. Are you really trying to imply Nvidia would not be at a major disadvantage here?


RE: If nothing else
By mindless1 on 3/16/2009 8:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have to "compare" (whatever that is supposed to mean), it just has to offer a good value single chip solution capable of GPU HD acceleration. People already demonstrated they don't *need* a good performing CPU every time they buy a Via or Intel (Atom).

The licensing IS the bigger issue. I am not implying they aren't at a disadvantage, I am implying that they have the capability to produce one, that it will simply take more initial research but similar things happen when Intel and AMD produce a new architecture. Remember, AMD and Intel don't employ ALL the processor architects, nVidia could easily acquire someone else's IP, tweak it with a few ideas of their own, then what remains is if they can manufacture it at a competitive price.


RE: If nothing else
By omnicronx on 3/16/2009 8:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
nVidia could easily acquire someone else's IP, tweak it with a few ideas of their own, then what remains is if they can manufacture it at a competitive price.
From whom? They have attempted to buy VIA for a while now, and they have not succeeded so far. Other than that there is pretty much nobody else other than IBM perhaps, and I'm not even sure about that.


RE: If nothing else
By monomer on 3/17/2009 3:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well, NVIDIA did buy out Stexar some time ago, which basically consisted of a bunch of ex-Intel x86 architects, who were said to have been developing some pretty interesting IP for AMD.

As for the x86 licensing, rumors are that NVIDIA are trying to get around it the way Transmeta did, through using a software layer to compile instructions.


RE: If nothing else
By aegisofrime on 3/19/2009 11:11:02 AM , Rating: 2
Was that how that Digital Alpha worked? I remember reading a pretty interesting article back when I was a kid about how when you ran a piece of code in the Alpha, it will rewrite the code to actually be faster the next time you run it.


RE: If nothing else
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/25/2009 12:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
No, that's called Skynet. It lives on the internets and its nothing to worry about.


RE: If nothing else
By mmntech on 3/16/2009 1:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm willing to bet it will be along the lines of the Geforce 9400M and Intel's "Moorestown". It will probably combine CPU, GPU, and bridges into a single chip along with a DDR3 memory controller.


RE: If nothing else
By jconan on 3/17/2009 9:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
What if Nvidia bought the Transmeta X86 ip along with Mips and ARM? Would they be able to mash up a juggernaut cgpu?


most humorous
By kattanna on 3/16/2009 11:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
considering they dont have a license to make such a thing, and im doubtful if intel or amd would sell them one, this to me is nothing more then an attempt to prop up stock price.




RE: most humorous
By omnicronx on 3/16/2009 12:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
Only Intel can license x86, AMD has a non transferable agreement with Intel (meaning if they are bought out, the license is not transferable), but it can not license x86 technology.

You are 100% dead on though, without an x86 license, Nvidia entering the market is nothing more than wishful thinking. There were some rumors that Nvidia may buy out the Via's processor division, but those talks stalled last year and seemed to go nowhere.


RE: most humorous
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2009 12:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
If Nvidia tried to license x86, Intel would likely be brought up on anti-competitive charges if they refused to sell it.

At least I think so.


RE: most humorous
By TheSpaniard on 3/17/2009 4:39:35 PM , Rating: 1
but why are they focusing on x86? they should be leap frogging into 64-bit processors


RE: most humorous
By Chocobollz on 3/20/2009 4:38:32 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, but where are my 64-bit porn movies? I mean c'mon.. after all this years, we haven't get our 64-bit porn? Now where's the fun? :p


transmeta
By poundsmack on 3/17/2009 4:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
to bad they didn't buy out transmeta when they had the chance. would have solved the x86 licencing issue. Not to mention they had some great IP for low power stuff.




Sick of this licensing crap
By karkas on 3/17/2009 9:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, I am sick to death of Intel having this strangle hold on competition. Patents last 20 years from when they are filed for every other invention.... Why does Intel still get to choose its competition from that same old ass tech introduced a million years ago??

Why don't I hear anything about this? I'm scared to death of what happens if all of the competition goes away. CPU progress will slow to a crawl.




By VooDooAddict on 3/18/2009 12:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
I really hope they do attempt a CPU design. Even if the if never makes it to market. Why? I'm sure the focus will be on single chip design. Chipset/CPU/GPU all on one package (maybe multiple chips on one package).

This will create more knowledgeable people in the industry and eventually we will get to a point where "netbooks" will be inexpensive, small, and capable of more options with video.




"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs







Latest Headlines
2/10/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 10, 2012, 5:50 PM
2/9/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 9, 2012, 11:54 AM
2/8/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 8, 2012, 1:11 PM
2/7/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 7, 2012, 12:23 PM










botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki