The Brits may need a huge company like this in their economy after Brexit /jkbutnotreally…
1 Like
Yes, but a government agency is not where you want a chip-maker positioned.
Don’t get me wrong, Nvidia isn’t my first choice, but I’m not sure who else…
We banned that guy remember?
1 Like
Mod aboose… ABOOOOOSE… boose…
mmmm booze
1 Like
Lol can’t we all just get along?
1 Like
Only if you ply me with liquor
1 Like
NO… Muh liberty…
Guys!
This is not the lounge!
https://forum.level1techs.com/t/the-lounge-authoritarian-dictatorship-edition/159822/
1 Like
You’re both making good points, but talking past each other.
@psycho_666 is trying to point out that open accessible standards become widely supported, and widely adopted, to varying degrees of technical achievement. For instance, yes Freesync is a wildly variable experience, but it’s also supported by so many more monitors and is on the desks of so many more people should they choose to use it. The whole “gsync compatible” thing is proof of this. No manufacturer was going to implement it.
Similarly, RTX will probably wind up the same way, unless Nvidia does something to make it far more accessible. We will gradually progress with software ray tracing, and at some point AMD will start optimizing hardware for the software raytracing, and RTX will either be dead, or a gimmick. Yes, RTX may technically be better, and it was first, but unless Nvidia does something to make it more accessible, developers will choose software options. We saw this play out with PhysX exactly like this. Remember when they were trying to sell us the idea of a dedicated PhysX card?
The form factor of a PC is pretty much set. Any and every attempt at disruption of that form factor has failed to move things in a meaningful way, for various different reasons. But the part where @SgtAwesomesauce is undoubtedly correct is that Nvidia is an incredibly technically competent company. They absolutely make the highest performing silicon possibly in existence. The fact is that if you need to crunch numbers, you go with Nvidia, and it’s not even close. CUDA has blown OpenCL out of the water, despite being less accessible and an absolute nightmare to work with (like not supporting GCC 10+). It is doing that just based on the merit of how good it is.
In my opinion, though, this whole argument is completely moot. Nvidia as a corporation is not going to apply any of their GPU strategies to ARM. That’s just not ARM’s business model. To get anywhere near the value of what they’ll pay for it, they need to have a multipronged approach that relies on heavy licensing, as well as their own custom silicon. I could imagine Nvidia compute servers with ARM as the CPU and a ton of Nvidia cards for power, being sold direct to datacenters and other companies (cars, appliances, etc). But even if something like that took off, there’s a few reasons why they’d need to keep ARM relatively open. First of which is they’d never move enough hardware of their own to make the level of profit needed to justify an ARM purchase (remember, they can license ARM now so what is the point of buying it?) if they don’t license. Furthermore, there are existing licenses like Apple’s that will prevent them from having a total monopoly on the instruction set, so it’d be stupid to buy ARM just to try and shut that down and fight Apple, and no one wants to pick a fight with Apple.
I assume if Nvidia buys ARM, things will generally continue on like normal, with the exception being Nvidias priorities will suddenly become ARMs priorities as well.
4 Likes
Still, the fact that ARM doesn’t produce chips is one of its big strengths. It means it’s “neutral” wrt the implementors. nVidia producing both chips as well as managing the IP might be seen as a conflict of interest.
Not to mention the fact that nVidia, given its clout, could likely produce chips that outperform the competition (which are now their licensees…) in some form.
If I were an ARM customer, and nVidia buys ARM, I’d be on the lookout for viable alternatives. Just in case, if nothing else.
I have 99 problems but mobile ain’t one.
Still stuntin’ on dem haters.
God damn, AMD cringe tears are the FUCKING BEST in the morning.
Enjoy your 5999XT caped at 75 hz lmfao.
You people do realize this is not about AMD, right?
I’m honestly quite disgusted with this behavior. Please edit this post immediately or I will report your hate speech to the moderation team.
I’m well aware of the sway and points of view of the crowd on this forum. NVIDIA could cure cancer and the response would be they didn’t do it fast enough. Blood is on their hands, etc.
Your criticism doesn’t hold water in my opinion. Your haterade tastes just like the real thing. I love it, keep it going.
G-Sync is a superior technology to the alternatives out there. That was the point of my comment.
It’s no longer funny when you have to explain it.
Regarding PhysX or whatever else you’re complaining about, hasn’t that been widely adopted to the point that CPUs are doing it?
Do you also complain that the telegraph is no longer in use? The invention and innovations it inspired still give it merit. You’d be on the phone company forums going “LOL, SO MUCH FOR THOSE BEEPING DOTS, AMIRITE?!”
You do have issues, don’t you?
It’s not about how good a technology is. PS3 was way more powerful than the rest of the consoles at the time and had the lowest sales of the three because the technology is not the most important thing. Is G-sync superior? It is. Is freesync part of HDMI and Display port standards, so Freesync is pretty much on every new monitor? Yes it is. Freesync won. The technology was never an argument here. The very thing that makes GSync better is the thing that fails it.
The thing is PhysX was supposed to be Nvidia exclusive technology, hardware accelerated on their GPUs. Then HAVOC came out. Every engine started having their own physics engine. There was no more need for implementation of PhysX. Again, the open standards have overpowered the closed arguably better technology.
I love how you are missing the entire point of what I am trying to say.
Nvidia will buy ARM, will lock them down to Nvidia products, the rest of the world will move on to another technology and Nvidia would have yet another absorbed company in it’s portfolio. If Nvidia treat Arm like they treat PhysX and Gsync and so on - wall the garden and price the entrance, people will just go to arguably worse but free or much cheaper and easier to access garden.
I do not understand why are you mad.
I’m not mad, sarcasm and satire just isn’t your thing apparently.
CITATION NEEDED
You do realize this is not about AMD, right?
You’re basing this on a very 2005 perspective. NVIDIA contributes as much to open source as anyone else these days.
PhysX is open source by the way.
2 Likes
Lmao
“WELL OF COURSE IT’S OPEN SOURCE, THEY LOST 
”
1 Like
IIRC the code became available to third party devs in 2015 and the entire thing got a BSD license in 2018, so it was closed source for about a decade.
1 Like
This doesn’t matter to me as much as it does to everyone else.
People who love open source but don’t audit, read, or contribute baffle me.