Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

It is risky

Nvidia’s investment in Intel coudl have far-reaching negative consequences. To begin with, Nvidia has every incentive to eliminate Intel’s Arc graphics line, which would be disastrous for consumers because Arc is the only product helping to bring GPU prices down. Without it, Nvidia would face less competition and prices could climb.

The loss of Intel’s graphics division would also harm Linux users. Intel’s approach to open, well-documented drivers has made their GPUs the most compatible and reliable option for Linux systems, while Nvidia has a history of being unfriendly toward open-source drivers. If Intel’s efforts end, Linux users will face fewer choices and greater difficulties.

Finally, Intel is currently the only company offering consumer-grade graphics virtualization through SR-IOV. If that disappears, Nvidia’s enterprise-level chips would dominate the market. This would mean ordinary consumers would be left with less performance, less flexibility, and weaker security on their personal computers.


by
| 1481 views | | 8 replies (last September 19) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1k5f708cd

8 replies (most recent on top)

LBT has already stated that this does not chance the current GPU strategy, because it had already been adjusted to less directly (try to) compete with NVDA.

Trolls are trying to find something negative about the deal, which is silly of course.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dp+1k5f708cd

So is TSMC going to make the client chip with INTC + NVidia?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dn+1k5f708cd

It's not like Nvidia didn't make a billion overnight.
Good investment so far.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bc+1k5f708cd

The only risk I see is whether or not a standardized GPU / HBM memory chiplet interface is defined such that a X64 chiplet could be replaced by an ARM or RISC-V chiplet - customers will determine which ISA they want - hopefully X64.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b4+1k5f708cd

Speed, it’s all about performance. How’s that x86_64 bus handshake parallel bottleneck? Oh add more lanes… more cache… more power…. Oops. Underlying structural issues, pay no attention….

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ah+1k5f708cd

If consumer benefitted so much from Intel graphics, then they should put their money on it and make it profitable. They can't expect Intel to be a charity to keep Nvidia chip prices down.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a5+1k5f708cd

Until data centers request ARC, there is nothing to worry about. I don’t ever see that happening.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1k5f708cd

intel’s igpus don’t seem very at risk because the market for low-power gpus isn’t very profitable to begin with. as long as nvidia can sell basically any chip they want, why waste engineering hours and fab time on low-margin chips? the gt 1030 (pascal) never got a successor, so that line is basically dead. even before the pascal gts, most of the gt 7xx cards, which you might assume were maxwell or kepler from the numbering, were actually rebadged fermi cards (4xx and 5xx). that generation was just a dumping ground for old chips, and with igpus already getting halfway decent by then, it made sense that nvidia invested so little in the lineup. that said, the dgpus are somewhat at risk, but the risk is only slightly higher with this investment, since the lineup isn’t a cash cow and intel has been cutting costs heavily anyway.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a1+1k5f708cd

Post a reply

: