Kind of goes hand in hand with the story that Intel is having trouble
with its own chipset production for Core 2 Duo motherboards.

Motherboard makers prepare shift of ATI chipsets to AMD-based solutions
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060821A5023.html

Yousuf Khan

bbbl67 wrote:
> Kind of goes hand in hand with the story that Intel is having trouble
> with its own chipset production for Core 2 Duo motherboards.
>
> Motherboard makers prepare shift of ATI chipsets to AMD-based solutions
> http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060821A5023.html
>
> Yousuf Khan

Why do I get the feeling that this could be a big win for Nvidia? Intel
has a problem filling production, now Nvidia is ramping up, lots of
people are waiting for Nvidia chipsets because of SLI, ok lots of
gamers.

The only problem I see is can Nvidia keep up the supply of chipsets, I
see it very quickly taking market share on Intel side and even in a
year, see it's Intel chipset more profitable then it's amd side.

Rthoreau

Rthoreau wrote:
> Why do I get the feeling that this could be a big win for Nvidia? Intel
> has a problem filling production, now Nvidia is ramping up, lots of
> people are waiting for Nvidia chipsets because of SLI, ok lots of
> gamers.
>
> The only problem I see is can Nvidia keep up the supply of chipsets, I
> see it very quickly taking market share on Intel side and even in a
> year, see it's Intel chipset more profitable then it's amd side.

No way that the Intel side can remain more profitable than the AMD side,
there's royalties to be paid on the Intel side, none on the AMD side.
Also as soon as Intel fixes its production problems, it kicks its
subcontractors off.

Besides, I think Nvidia will be busy producing chipsets for all of those
Dell-AMD desktops. Nvidia won the contract for the desktops. ATI will
likely take the Dell-AMD laptops.

Yousuf Khan

On 22 Aug 2006 09:18:44 -0700, "Rthoreau" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>bbbl67 wrote:
>> Kind of goes hand in hand with the story that Intel is having trouble
>> with its own chipset production for Core 2 Duo motherboards.
>>
>> Motherboard makers prepare shift of ATI chipsets to AMD-based solutions
>> http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060821A5023.html
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>Why do I get the feeling that this could be a big win for Nvidia? Intel
>has a problem filling production, now Nvidia is ramping up, lots of
>people are waiting for Nvidia chipsets because of SLI, ok lots of
>gamers.
>
>The only problem I see is can Nvidia keep up the supply of chipsets, I
>see it very quickly taking market share on Intel side and even in a
>year, see it's Intel chipset more profitable then it's amd side.

Depends how Intel allocates its chipset production but nVidia has no
"Mainstream PC" chipset for Intel systems. I believe that, though there
was a small amount of Crossfire stuff, ATI's chipsets were used mostly in
lower cost integrated graphics Intel systems... though theres nothing to
stop the OEMs from continuing there: they don't have to buy Intel "mfr'd"
mbrds, which are sub-contracted anyway.... as long as Intel doesn't pull
the FSB license.;-)

I don't see Intel allocating its chipset production to low-cost integrated
graphics chipsets and umm, leaving the high-end to nVidia.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
> Depends how Intel allocates its chipset production but nVidia has no
> "Mainstream PC" chipset for Intel systems. I believe that, though there
> was a small amount of Crossfire stuff, ATI's chipsets were used mostly in
> lower cost integrated graphics Intel systems... though theres nothing to
> stop the OEMs from continuing there: they don't have to buy Intel "mfr'd"
> mbrds, which are sub-contracted anyway.... as long as Intel doesn't pull
> the FSB license.;-)
>
> I don't see Intel allocating its chipset production to low-cost integrated
> graphics chipsets and umm, leaving the high-end to nVidia.

Even though integrated chipset motherboards have the reputation of
being cheap, I don't think the cost savings is acheived by reduced
margins on the chipsets, it's achieved by reducing the number of
discrete chips in the chipset. An integrated chipset should most likely
be more expensive to make and cost more than a non-integrated one, but
the overall motherboard costs go down due to fewer components. Also the
lower overall price makes them more attractive to buyers, so more of
them are sold.

So for that reason, I don't see Intel being too unhappy about making
just integrated chipsets for its own platforms. However, I also think
that once AMD integrates a GPU into its CPU, then all of its
motherboards would be integrated motherboards by definition, and the
chipsets used will become less important. You can use cheaper
non-integrated chipsets, which will drive the cost of those
motherboards down even further. If Intel does likewise (probably only
happen once they have an integrated memory controller), then integrated
chipsets will disappear off the face of the planet.

Yousuf Khan

On 23 Aug 2006 05:08:45 -0700, "bbbl67" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> Depends how Intel allocates its chipset production but nVidia has no
>> "Mainstream PC" chipset for Intel systems. I believe that, though there
>> was a small amount of Crossfire stuff, ATI's chipsets were used mostly in
>> lower cost integrated graphics Intel systems... though theres nothing to
>> stop the OEMs from continuing there: they don't have to buy Intel "mfr'd"
>> mbrds, which are sub-contracted anyway.... as long as Intel doesn't pull
>> the FSB license.;-)
>>
>> I don't see Intel allocating its chipset production to low-cost integrated
>> graphics chipsets and umm, leaving the high-end to nVidia.
>
>Even though integrated chipset motherboards have the reputation of
>being cheap, I don't think the cost savings is acheived by reduced
>margins on the chipsets, it's achieved by reducing the number of
>discrete chips in the chipset. An integrated chipset should most likely
>be more expensive to make and cost more than a non-integrated one, but
>the overall motherboard costs go down due to fewer components. Also the
>lower overall price makes them more attractive to buyers, so more of
>them are sold.

There's a lot of different ways to look at it. The mbrd cost goes down
because most integrated chipsets are used in micro-ATX form factor, with
fewer connectors, slots and mbrd real estate. It's definitely the low-end
of the market - rare to find a top-end high ASP CPU in such a system.

>So for that reason, I don't see Intel being too unhappy about making
>just integrated chipsets for its own platforms. However, I also think
>that once AMD integrates a GPU into its CPU, then all of its
>motherboards would be integrated motherboards by definition, and the
>chipsets used will become less important. You can use cheaper
>non-integrated chipsets, which will drive the cost of those
>motherboards down even further. If Intel does likewise (probably only
>happen once they have an integrated memory controller), then integrated
>chipsets will disappear off the face of the planet.

My crystal ball is cloudy on that one.:-) I hardly think Intel is going to
want to lose control of the support infrastructure for their high-ASP
CPUs... to be dependent on the quality and volume of nVidia's, or anybody
else's for that matter, manufacturing model. There've also been enough
flaws in nVidia's offerings to date to turn off many of the high profile
up-market buyers... not me personally but there are complaints, which due
to the support policies, have never been properly addressed.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:

> There's a lot of different ways to look at it. The mbrd cost goes down
> because most integrated chipsets are used in micro-ATX form factor, with
> fewer connectors, slots and mbrd real estate. It's definitely the low-end
> of the market - rare to find a top-end high ASP CPU in such a system.

Sure enough, they find ways to put in less discrete hardware just to
take advantage of the integrated video.

> >So for that reason, I don't see Intel being too unhappy about making
> >just integrated chipsets for its own platforms. However, I also think
> >that once AMD integrates a GPU into its CPU, then all of its
> >motherboards would be integrated motherboards by definition, and the
> >chipsets used will become less important. You can use cheaper
> >non-integrated chipsets, which will drive the cost of those
> >motherboards down even further. If Intel does likewise (probably only
> >happen once they have an integrated memory controller), then integrated
> >chipsets will disappear off the face of the planet.
>
> My crystal ball is cloudy on that one.:-) I hardly think Intel is going to
> want to lose control of the support infrastructure for their high-ASP
> CPUs... to be dependent on the quality and volume of nVidia's, or anybody
> else's for that matter, manufacturing model. There've also been enough
> flaws in nVidia's offerings to date to turn off many of the high profile
> up-market buyers... not me personally but there are complaints, which due
> to the support policies, have never been properly addressed.

It won't lose control of the entire infrastructure, it'll just let
Nvidia control a high-end niche segment. Intel has allowed this to
happen before, when Serverworks chipsets were all of the rage before
Broadcom bought them. Serverworks existed not only with the blessing of
Intel but also with their support.

Yousuf Khan

On 25 Aug 2006 12:17:40 -0700, "bbbl67" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> There's a lot of different ways to look at it. The mbrd cost goes down
>> because most integrated chipsets are used in micro-ATX form factor, with
>> fewer connectors, slots and mbrd real estate. It's definitely the low-end
>> of the market - rare to find a top-end high ASP CPU in such a system.
>
>Sure enough, they find ways to put in less discrete hardware just to
>take advantage of the integrated video.
>
>> >So for that reason, I don't see Intel being too unhappy about making
>> >just integrated chipsets for its own platforms. However, I also think
>> >that once AMD integrates a GPU into its CPU, then all of its
>> >motherboards would be integrated motherboards by definition, and the
>> >chipsets used will become less important. You can use cheaper
>> >non-integrated chipsets, which will drive the cost of those
>> >motherboards down even further. If Intel does likewise (probably only
>> >happen once they have an integrated memory controller), then integrated
>> >chipsets will disappear off the face of the planet.
>>
>> My crystal ball is cloudy on that one.:-) I hardly think Intel is going to
>> want to lose control of the support infrastructure for their high-ASP
>> CPUs... to be dependent on the quality and volume of nVidia's, or anybody
>> else's for that matter, manufacturing model. There've also been enough
>> flaws in nVidia's offerings to date to turn off many of the high profile
>> up-market buyers... not me personally but there are complaints, which due
>> to the support policies, have never been properly addressed.
>
>It won't lose control of the entire infrastructure, it'll just let
>Nvidia control a high-end niche segment.

NFW... IMO.:-)

> Intel has allowed this to
>happen before, when Serverworks chipsets were all of the rage before
>Broadcom bought them. Serverworks existed not only with the blessing of
>Intel but also with their support.

Yeah but that was more because Intel didn't know how to do it then and now
that they've figured it out [they hope :-)] they cut Serverworks off at the
knees; Broadcom's err, "belligerence" didn't help of course. I'm sure
nVidia, ATi and any other "licensees" are paying attention here.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald