4 ms·

Apparently it is 5% ownership. Does that give them enough leverage to tank Intel’s iGPUs? That would seem weird to be. Intel’s iGPUs are an incredibly good sol

Apparently it is 5% ownership. Does that give them enough leverage to tank Intel’s iGPUs? That would seem weird to be. Intel’s iGPUs are an incredibly good solution for their (non-glamorous) niche. Intel’s dGPUs might be in a risky spot, though. (So… what’s new?) Messing up Intel’s iGPUs would be a huge practical loss for, like, everyday desktop Linux folks. Tossing out their dGPUs, I don’t know if it is such a huge loss.

freedomben 1y ago
I would guess Nvidia doesn't care at all about the iGPUs, so I agree they are probably not at risk. dGPUs though I absolutely agree They are in a risky spot. Perhaps Intel was planning to kill their more ambitious GPU goals anyway, but That seems extremely unhealthy for pretty much everyone except Nvidia
sodality2 1y ago
> Tossing out their dGPUs, I don’t know if it is such a huge loss It would be an enormous loss to the consumer/enthusiast GPU buyer, as a third major competitor is improving the market from what feels like years and years of dreadful price/perf ratio.
- cluckindan 1y ago
  You don’t say… on the very same day AMD launched a new RDNA3 card (RX 7700). Literally a previous gen card.
  - sim7c00 1y ago
    amd is slow and steady. they were behind many times and many times they surprrised with amazing innovations overtaking intel. they will do it again, for both CPU and GPU.
- behringer 1y ago
  They were one release away from completely upending the market. A sad day this is.
dijit 1y ago
5% of Ubisoft was all it took for Tencent to have very deep reaching ramifications. They were felt at an IC level.
tart-lemonade 1y ago
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 is able to 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 as good as dead. Even before the Pascal GTs, most of the GT 7xx cards, which you would assume were Maxwell or Kepler from the numbering, were rebadged Fermi cards (4xx and 5xx)! That generation was just a dumping ground for all the old chips they had laying about, and given the prominence of halfway decent iGPUs by that point, I can't say I blame them for investing so little in the lineup. That said, the dGPUs are definitely somewhat at risk, but I think the risk is only slightly elevated by this investment, given that it isn't exactly a cash cow and Intel has been doing all sorts of cost-cutting lately.
- xp84 1y ago
  Agree. Not only would there be no money in it to try to replace Iris graphics or whatever they call them now -- it would be ultra pointless because the only people buying integrated graphics are those where gaming, on-device AI, and cryptocurrency aren't even part of the equation. Now, that is like 80%+ of the PC market, but it's perfectly well served already. I saw this move more as setting up a worthy competitor to Snapdragon X Elite, and it could also probably crush AMD APUs if these RTX things are powerful.
  - kmacdough 1y ago
    Calling BS on "gaming not part of the equation". Several of my friends and I have exclusively games on integrated graphics. Sure we don't play the most abusively unoptimized AAA games like RDR2. But we're here and we're gaming.
    - xp84 1y ago
      Sorry, I'm happy for you, and I do play Minecraft on an iGPU. I just meant that about 80% of the PCs sold seem to be for "business use" or Chromebooks, and the people writing those POs aren't making their selections with gaming in mind. (And also, I'm pretending Macs don't exist for this statement. They aren't even PCs anymore anyway, just giant iPhones, from a silicon perspective.)
giveita 1y ago
Would be antitrust right?
- monocasa 1y ago
  Which would take an administration that cared about enforcing anti trust for the stated reasons behind anti trust laws.
monocasa 1y ago
We'd have to see their cap table approximation, but I've seen functional control over a company with just a hair over 10% ownership given the voting patterns of the other stock holders. 5% by about any accounting makes you a very, very influential stockholder in a publicly traded company with a widely distributed set of owners.
misiek08 1y ago
Intel was already dead, even money from gov didn’t help them. It is old, legacy, bad corp. I think NV just wants to help them and use however it wants - Intel management will do anything they say.
beached_whale 1y ago
Intels gpus are a better solution for almost all computing outside high end gaming, ai, and a few other tasks. For most things a better gpu is overkill and wastes energy
- JustExAWS 1y ago
  So they are better except in all the ways that people care about…
  - beached_whale 1y ago
    Most computing tasks are not those. They may care, but boring is the norm.

freedomben 1y ago

I would guess Nvidia doesn't care at all about the iGPUs, so I agree they are probably not at risk. dGPUs though I absolutely agree They are in a risky spot. Perhaps Intel was planning to kill their more ambitious GPU goals anyway, but That seems extremely unhealthy for pretty much everyone except Nvidia

sodality2 1y ago

> Tossing out their dGPUs, I don’t know if it is such a huge loss It would be an enormous loss to the consumer/enthusiast GPU buyer, as a third major competitor is improving the market from what feels like years and years of dreadful price/perf ratio.

cluckindan 1y ago
You don’t say… on the very same day AMD launched a new RDNA3 card (RX 7700). Literally a previous gen card.
- sim7c00 1y ago
  amd is slow and steady. they were behind many times and many times they surprrised with amazing innovations overtaking intel. they will do it again, for both CPU and GPU.
behringer 1y ago
They were one release away from completely upending the market. A sad day this is.

dijit 1y ago

5% of Ubisoft was all it took for Tencent to have very deep reaching ramifications. They were felt at an IC level.

tart-lemonade 1y ago

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 is able to 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 as good as dead. Even before the Pascal GTs, most of the GT 7xx cards, which you would assume were Maxwell or Kepler from the numbering, were rebadged Fermi cards (4xx and 5xx)! That generation was just a dumping ground for all the old chips they had laying about, and given the prominence of halfway decent iGPUs by that point, I can't say I blame them for investing so little in the lineup. That said, the dGPUs are definitely somewhat at risk, but I think the risk is only slightly elevated by this investment, given that it isn't exactly a cash cow and Intel has been doing all sorts of cost-cutting lately.

xp84 1y ago
Agree. Not only would there be no money in it to try to replace Iris graphics or whatever they call them now -- it would be ultra pointless because the only people buying integrated graphics are those where gaming, on-device AI, and cryptocurrency aren't even part of the equation. Now, that is like 80%+ of the PC market, but it's perfectly well served already. I saw this move more as setting up a worthy competitor to Snapdragon X Elite, and it could also probably crush AMD APUs if these RTX things are powerful.
- kmacdough 1y ago
  Calling BS on "gaming not part of the equation". Several of my friends and I have exclusively games on integrated graphics. Sure we don't play the most abusively unoptimized AAA games like RDR2. But we're here and we're gaming.
  - xp84 1y ago
    Sorry, I'm happy for you, and I do play Minecraft on an iGPU. I just meant that about 80% of the PCs sold seem to be for "business use" or Chromebooks, and the people writing those POs aren't making their selections with gaming in mind. (And also, I'm pretending Macs don't exist for this statement. They aren't even PCs anymore anyway, just giant iPhones, from a silicon perspective.)

giveita 1y ago

Would be antitrust right?

monocasa 1y ago
Which would take an administration that cared about enforcing anti trust for the stated reasons behind anti trust laws.

monocasa 1y ago

We'd have to see their cap table approximation, but I've seen functional control over a company with just a hair over 10% ownership given the voting patterns of the other stock holders. 5% by about any accounting makes you a very, very influential stockholder in a publicly traded company with a widely distributed set of owners.

misiek08 1y ago

Intel was already dead, even money from gov didn’t help them. It is old, legacy, bad corp. I think NV just wants to help them and use however it wants - Intel management will do anything they say.

beached_whale 1y ago

Intels gpus are a better solution for almost all computing outside high end gaming, ai, and a few other tasks. For most things a better gpu is overkill and wastes energy

JustExAWS 1y ago
So they are better except in all the ways that people care about…
- beached_whale 1y ago
  Most computing tasks are not those. They may care, but boring is the norm.