Sunday, October 21, 2007

Three-Way Chess, Or All-Out FPS Deathmatch?


This is an extended version of the article I wrote for print this month. It's essentially about the tight love/hate 3 way competition between AMD, Intel, and Nvidia.

Things continue to get even crazier -- Should Nvidia think about buying VIA in order to gain an X86 license? Perhaps they should partner with AMD down the road assuming AMD is able to bring their asset light strategy closer to reality... Will Intel get more aggressive? Will Western Digital get taken out?

Stay tuned, in the coming weeks and months I'll write an even longer list of random thoughts, based on what I believe may happen in the industry. ...and now for the article.

------------------------------------------

Nvidia seems to be hitting on all cylinders lately. Although ATI comes close with its latest GPUs, Nvidia has had a very good year so far and seems to be on the winning side of a major battle for a significant portion of the PC platform business. The company has moved beyond building just GPUs and is working to build an ecosystem of multiple Nvidia components, including a masterpiece version of its awesome nForce chipset.

It’s no secret that I’m a big fan of nForce; just check out the HP Blackbird, which uses an nForce chipset regardless of whether you choose ATI- or Nvidia-based video cards. I like nForce because it’s rock-solid and manages to milk additional performance from PCs in a way that seems to leave Intel and AMD scratching their heads and asking, “How’d they do that?” Of course, this applies strictly to desktops; Intel’s Centrino platform still allows us to deliver the best all-around experience on a notebook.

As impressive as Nvidia’s chipsets have been so far, though, it’s the company’s next big thing that shows it’s not messing around anymore. Nvidia has drawn up a plan to create an integrated graphics chipset and something called “Hybrid SLI,” which on paper looks really tight. Imagine, if you will, a notebook that allows you to handle everyday tasks such as browsing the Web and checking email using a low-voltage graphics processor that also doubles as a northbridge chipset.

The cool thing about Hybrid SLI is it lets you toss in an additional graphics card that in SLI will work in conjunction with the integrated chipset, yielding some pretty compelling 3D performance. If you decide you want to go even further, you can toss in another MXM chip and disable the integrated chipset for maximum enthusiast SLI performance.

What I like best about this idea is it lets the system save power (and, for notebooks, battery life) when using basic 2D apps and then reactivate the discrete GPU or GPUs when you’re playing a game. It also lets us dream up new ways to actively cool a PC via various grades of cooling, depending on what you’re doing. This type of thinking enables companies like ours to create compelling solutions for our customers, and I commend Nvidia for thinking about new ways to deliver a compelling platform with some flexibility.

The interesting thing about all of this is it seems like Nvidia is taking a shot right across Intel’s bow. I think it’s pretty clear that Nvidia wants to grab a share of a very lucrative space that Intel currently owns—the Centrino platform market. Even more interesting is the fact that Nvidia pulled SLI support from Intel (and competing) chipsets. The company is obviously on a mission to be more than a graphics provider, and it’s taking no prisoners. Nothing seems to phase it, except for what happened in the last couple of weeks, perhaps.

Intel bought Havok, a company that both ATI and Nvidia have been touting as the ultimate physics solution. The same company that both ATI and Nvidia have somewhat depended on to deliver more immersive gaming experiences.

That in itself is a statement, wouldn’t you say?

I mean, what other reason would Intel have to acquire Havok? I’m sure there’s more than one, right? Take a minute to list them off and email me, would you?

Whatever Intel’s reasons are, the three-way chess match is about to turn into a multiplayer FPS deathmatch. You’ll soon see other technologies introduced in the “platform” space, and companies that you would least expect will start to toss their hats into the ring.

Solid-state disk tech, for example, is something that we can all see in our crystal ball as the future of mass storage technology. SSDs will allow for faster boot times, smaller form factors, lower power consumption, and ultimately better reliability. The intriguing thing about solid-state is you don’t have to be Seagate, Western Digital, or Hitachi to be an SSD player. You don’t need spinning disks . . .

Very interesting, if I do say so myself, and, um . . . I just did.

17 comments:

Bradley said...

nforce uses SO much power though! the inq just said they use 48 watts (combined n. bridge and s. bridge) while an amd n. bridge and s. bridge use only 14W! and AMD chipsets seem to be getting so much better!

of course, one of the big reasons intel bought havok, is to play their usual dirty tricks to undermine the competition. it won't be long before intel starts crippling ati and nvidia hardware. like they do with their compiler, or with skype, etc.

Anonymous said...

I thought Nvidia was just supposed to be an "enabler of innovation"? Sounds like its doing some pretty innovative work. This is why I disagreed with your "enablers" statement in another post. Companies that create the components of PCs, hardware and software, have to be the chief innovators of the platform. Stagnation by any of those key organizations has an exponentially negative on the PC platform. OEMs like HP have limited reach in spearheading innovation on the PC platform in their own right but can exert leverage that leads to innovation, such as Crossfire on the nForce chipset.

Ultimately it boils down to having a great competitive environment. Intel's war with AMD has been great from an innovation perspective and Nvidia entering the fray, with its unique position as a graphics-first company, will challenge the limits of the current notions of innovation. Microsoft is now experiencing a level of competition from Apple now that Apple has practically co-opted Windows and turned it into a feature of OS X. Innovations in Leopard will definitely be felt in Redmond. As for the OEMs, its heating up and forays into CE against established powerhouses like Samsung, LG and Sony has the potential inspire greater innovations.

Colin said...

I think Intel probably bought havok because of Larrabee.

13ringinheat said...

With phenom and penryn right around the corner would you please enlighten us what you saw in barcelona/phenom that led you to put in your blog that it is such a great performer. With a release speed of 2.2ghz (hard launch) and 2.4Ghz (paper launch) are you going to retract your statement about barcelona now or is this blog going the way of sharikou??

Rahul Sood said...

My comments were that at 3GHz Barcelona is a stone cold killer, and it is/was. Unfortunately for AMD they are announcing lower than we expected. I guess we'll see if they scale quickly.

13ringinheat said...

But it seems like barcelona at 3ghz atleast for desktop aka phenom is not that great either and far cry from the stone cold killer you claim it to be showing less than or equal to the performance of intel at the clock speed does not a stone cold killer make.....lets not even consider that Intel can clock tons better than phenom...........

Anonymous said...

I dont like the NF-Chipsets so far, as they have abandoned Soundstorm2, Drivers for older NFs are only from unofficial Mods available, they need to much power and often run to hot and are troublemakers.
I only use them, if nothing else is available.
Sad that ULI is gone and VIA is dead, i hope AMD will bring out a Killer-CS.

Duoae said...

I think (and am probably wrong) that Intels purchase of Havok will inevitably improve Aegia's lot in the hardware environment.

What do you think the chances of Nvidia/AMDATI licensing the tech and software of Aegia then incorporating into their graphics cores or cards?

Anonymous said...

I think your idea of Nvidia buying VIA is on target. VIA needs to sell to someone, and Nvidia needs to buy something, so it looks like it could happen.

A possible bright spot from this might be Nvidia opening up micro form factor designs for business, entertainment, and light gaming.

Anonymous said...

I think your fanboyism over ruled your logic in the comment that the phenom is a killer..

Anonymous said...

Hey Rahul,

In regards to the 3GHz Phenom, I had one question. You noted it's a stone cold killer of all current AMD/Intel offerings...That would imply that the Phenom @ 3GHz would take on 3GHz no problem because it was available when you wrote that blog???

I'm also looking forward to your 2008 industry chrystal ball...Reading your 2007 predictions, man you were on the mark! Western Digital and Lexmark were right on...Also, although this industry is always exciting, it's even more exciting if AMD is in the game and not getting their A** whupped. Hopefully their upcoming offerings will improve things for them.

Mike

Rahul Sood said...

hehe, fanboyismm :)

I said that Phenom at 3GHz is faster than any current offering (at that time) - and at 3GHz it IS a stone cold killer. Unfortunately they aren't living up to what we thought they might be able to do. Is that bad? In the high end, perhaps, but in mainstream it's still better than anything they currently have, and I'm sure they'll continue to do okay. Will they do great? I'm not sure... Longer term might be better, but ATI will certainly do better.

AMD needs guys like Henri Richard going against the grain and getting the engineers to think aggressively. I hope Dirk and team can continue this tradition.

yomamafor2 said...

I think it really depends on whether Nvidia can enter the "platform" business, as they're still lacking a x86 processor. They can theoretically buy Via to gain manufacturing license, but I'm not sure if they'll do that.

Other than that, it looks like Intel's market share will continue to shrink as time goes on. I'm not sure about AMD's survivability at the moment, but if they can make it through the Nehelam storm, AMD can also become a prominent player on the market.

Very thorough and logical analysis, Rahul. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Rahul (and I';m not looking to flame here), when you said:

"I said that Phenom at 3GHz is faster than any current offering (at that time) - and at 3GHz it IS a stone cold killer. Unfortunately they aren't living up to what we thought they might be able to do."

By saying it IS a stone cold killer, it kind of led many readers to think that you had tested it and it was FAR SUPERIOR (hence "stone cold killer") to Intel's current offering at the time (either a 2.93 or 3.0GHz, I forget what was available back then). Now you seem to be hedging this by saying simply faster and that it did not meet your perceived performance.

So we all are clear when you definitively said it was s stone cold killer, this was simply a projection of yours? Or had you actually tested some HW? If you actually tested some HW, what constituted it be a stone cold killer (performance wise)?

Unfortunately, like many others, you seemed to imply you actually had tested it or had access to some data. It would be good to know if this was simply a projection. It would also be good in the future to distinguish projections from actual observed and/or tested performance.

I think you lose a little credibility when you make statements like that and then back up on them - I for one would not have any issues if it had been clear you were simply theorizing.

Also, are you sticking by it being a stone cold killer when AMD gets around to getting a 3.0GHz part out?

Rahul Sood said...

Rahul (and I';m not looking to flame here), when you said:

I appreciate that, though even if you flamed me I'd still respond :)

"I said that Phenom at 3GHz is faster than any current offering

So what I said exactly - I quote "And for the record, if you were to benchmark Phenom at 3GHz you would see that it kicks the living crap out of any current AMD or Intel processor—it is a stone cold killer (at 3GHz, now imagine how it would perform if they could squeek some more juice out of it?)."

By saying it IS a stone cold killer, it kind of led many readers to think that you had tested it and it was FAR SUPERIOR (hence "stone cold killer") to Intel's current offering at the time (either a 2.93 or 3.0GHz,

Yes indeed.

I forget what was available back then). Now you seem to be hedging this by saying simply faster and that it did not meet your perceived performance.

No, I'm saying that they haven't announced as high frequency as we expected. I don't know if they're being coy, or if this is an indication of their yeilds.


It would be good to know if this was simply a projection. It would also be good in the future to distinguish projections from actual observed and/or tested performance.

I never base my opinions on projections :)

I think you lose a little credibility when you make statements like that and then back up on them

Agreed, I didn't back up on it, I think you may have misunderstood my response. I'm usually pretty good about these types of statements, but hey, you never know :)

Also, are you sticking by it being a stone cold killer when AMD gets around to getting a 3.0GHz part out?

If AMD can get it out at 3.0GHz they'll do very well.

Anonymous said...

"I never base my opinions on projections :)"

Should I guess by the lack of data or any specifics that you are tied down by an AMD NDA? And if I can also be so bold...what you tested back then had to have been an overclocked part given the current clockspeeds?

If you can't be specific, why not just say you are under NDA and are not allowed to? Or does the NDA not allow you to say that you are under NDA? :)

"Also, are you sticking by it being a stone cold killer when AMD gets around to getting a 3.0GHz part out?

If AMD can get it out at 3.0GHz they'll do very well."

Nice non-answer - running for office anytime soon? :)

I'll try again, you sticking by it being a stone cold killer if/when it comes out? Or perhaps you can explain your nuanced position of "doing very well" vs "stone cold killer"

Rahul Sood said...

I stand by my original quote .... It's not that complicated.

"And for the record, if you were to benchmark Phenom at 3GHz you would see that it kicks the living crap out of any current AMD or Intel processor—it is a stone cold killer (at 3GHz, now imagine how it would perform if they could squeek some more juice out of it?)."