Intel's agreement with the FTC
in [Chips]
|
From: Yousuf Khan on 6 Aug 2010 20:41 On 8/6/2010 6:14 PM, Robert Myers wrote: >> It hasn't said that you need to keep the slots around, just the bus. >> That means GPUs can be soldiered onto motherboards using PCIe lines >> directly. >> > > I *knew* you'd say that. Let's see what happens. > > Robert. > That's the way discrete graphics in laptops are done anyways. Have you ever seen a video card for laptops, either from ATI or Nvidia? The mobile video "cards" are really just part of the motherboard. Plus Atom systems will still need PCIe lines, because all modern PC-Card (formerly PCMCIA) peripherals are direct extensions of the PCIe interfaces. Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 6 Aug 2010 20:44 On 8/6/2010 6:38 PM, Robert Myers wrote: > On Aug 6, 6:11 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always >> about yesterday's news. >> >> Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for >> quantum interconnects? > > But you were just telling me that optical interconnects wouldn't > happen for ten years. How could that be yesterday's news? At some point everything is yesterday's news compared to some other news. > Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot > Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours. Speaking of yesterday's news. Yousuf Khan
From: Robert Myers on 6 Aug 2010 23:13 On Aug 6, 8:44 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 8/6/2010 6:38 PM, Robert Myers wrote: > > > On Aug 6, 6:11 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always > >> about yesterday's news. > > >> Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for > >> quantum interconnects? > > > But you were just telling me that optical interconnects wouldn't > > happen for ten years. How could that be yesterday's news? > > At some point everything is yesterday's news compared to some other news. > > > Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot > > Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours. > > Speaking of yesterday's news. > And yesterday's wars. Maginot Line was ineffective because it prepared for a war that was already over. Robert.
From: Yousuf Khan on 7 Aug 2010 02:14 On 06/08/2010 11:13 PM, Robert Myers wrote: >>> Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot >>> Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours. >> >> Speaking of yesterday's news. >> > > And yesterday's wars. Maginot Line was ineffective because it > prepared for a war that was already over. I'll agree with part of that historical sentiment. The PCIe ruling was mainly a sop to Nvidia because Intel was crippling the performance of Nvidia GPUs within its latest PCIe chipsets. That's basically just a little skirmish in a long drawn-out, multi-front war. It's a battle that might have already finished, for all we know. However, unlike the case of the WW2-era French Maginot Line, which was a lesson learned from a previous major war, but this lesson made France complacent about its defenses, this thing does the opposite. It takes a lesson from a previous minor skirmish and completely surrounds and shackles Intel. In other words, it's the reverse of the Maginot Line, it is an over-reaction against Intel. As you said, Intel is now obligated to keep carrying PCIe for several more years (which it probably would've done anyways), but now it must clear its changes with its rivals (which it would've never done). Yousuf Khan *** "Section V. is one of the most interesting, it puts some serious handcuffs on Intel. All while forcing them to dig a hole deep enough for light not to reach the bottom. And sit there. Smiling. What V. says is that any time Intel makes a change, basically any change, that degrades the performance of another competitor, Intel has to prove that it was done for technically beneficial reasons. Remember the part about PCIe changes that allegedly hamstrung Nvidia GPUs? Well, if that happens again, the burden of proof is now on Intel to show why they did it. Mother hen is getting jittery from all that Red Bull, and is looking for someone to hit. Hard. Intel has to climb out of the hole, feed the hen Valium, and then dance. Fast. And look pretty while doing it, or WHAM." http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/08/06/more-intel-dirt-cleaned-ftc/
From: Robert Myers on 7 Aug 2010 13:55
On Aug 7, 2:14 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > On 06/08/2010 11:13 PM, Robert Myers wrote: > > >>> Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot > >>> Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours. > > >> Speaking of yesterday's news. > > > And yesterday's wars. Maginot Line was ineffective because it > > prepared for a war that was already over. > > I'll agree with part of that historical sentiment. The PCIe ruling was > mainly a sop to Nvidia because Intel was crippling the performance of > Nvidia GPUs within its latest PCIe chipsets. That's basically just a > little skirmish in a long drawn-out, multi-front war. It's a battle that > might have already finished, for all we know. However, unlike the case > of the WW2-era French Maginot Line, which was a lesson learned from a > previous major war, but this lesson made France complacent about its > defenses, this thing does the opposite. It takes a lesson from a > previous minor skirmish and completely surrounds and shackles Intel. In > other words, it's the reverse of the Maginot Line, it is an > over-reaction against Intel. As you said, Intel is now obligated to keep > carrying PCIe for several more years (which it probably would've done > anyways), but now it must clear its changes with its rivals (which it > would've never done). > > Yousuf Khan > > *** > > "Section V. is one of the most interesting, it puts some serious > handcuffs on Intel. All while forcing them to dig a hole deep enough for > light not to reach the bottom. And sit there. Smiling. What V. says is > that any time Intel makes a change, basically any change, that degrades > the performance of another competitor, Intel has to prove that it was > done for technically beneficial reasons. > > Remember the part about PCIe changes that allegedly hamstrung Nvidia > GPUs? Well, if that happens again, the burden of proof is now on Intel > to show why they did it. Mother hen is getting jittery from all that Red > Bull, and is looking for someone to hit. Hard. Intel has to climb out of > the hole, feed the hen Valium, and then dance. Fast. And look pretty > while doing it, or WHAM."http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/08/06/more-intel-dirt-cleaned-ftc/ The irony of all of this, Yousuf, is that you wouldn't even have this playground if it weren't for the aggressive behavior of two upstart monopolists: Microsoft and Intel. IBM, the once-invincible monopolist, never saw it coming. IBM survived, but it almost didn't. If it can happen once, it can and almost certainly will happen again. Maybe the mass market for uber expensive PC's will dry up, and the future is ARM and Ubuntu. Maybe the server space and even HPC will become dominated by specialized CPU's that only do some jobs exceedingly well and others not at all. Right now, the business is sufficiently capital and research intensive that it favors monopolists, but the technology is maturing and on its way to being commoditized. Anyone who has observed all this from beginning to end, watching companies come and go like fireflies flickering in the night, has to realize that everything is temporary. The interesting question for someone with such a perspective isn't what fleas like the FTC will do next, but from which bush the next pit bull will leap out. "I always say," Caligula opines in I, Claudius, "find a dog who'll eat a bigger dog." The bigger dog will come, even if no one knows from where or when. In the meantime, the sob stories of also-rans just aren't that interesting. Robert. |