Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Patents Hardware

NVIDIA To License Its GPU Tech 111

Posted by Soulskill
from the sea-change dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Today in a blog post, NVIDIA's General Counsel, David Shannon, announced that the company will begin licensing its GPU cores and patent portfolio to device makers. '[I]t's not practical to build silicon or systems to address every part of the expanding market. Adopting a new business approach will allow us to address the universe of devices.' He cites the 'explosion of Android devices' as one of the prime reasons for this decision. 'This opportunity simply didn't exist several years ago because there was really just one computing device – the PC. But the swirling universe of new computing devices provides new opportunities to license our GPU core or visual computing portfolio.' Shannon points out that NVIDIA did something similar with the CPU core used in the PlayStation 3, which was licensed to Sony. But mobile seems to be the big opportunity now: 'We'll start by licensing the GPU core based on the NVIDIA Kepler architecture, the world's most advanced, most efficient GPU. Its DX11, OpenGL 4.3, and GPGPU capabilities, along with vastly superior performance and efficiency, create a new class of licensable GPU cores. Through our efforts designing Tegra into mobile devices, we've gained valuable experience designing for the smallest power envelopes. As a result, Kepler can operate in a half-watt power envelope, making it scalable from smartphones to supercomputers.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NVIDIA To License Its GPU Tech

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot@hacki s h . o rg> on Tuesday June 18, 2013 @10:28PM (#44045751)

    Notice who gave the announcement?

    NVIDIA's General Counsel, David Shannon, announced that...

  • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amirulbahr (1216502) on Tuesday June 18, 2013 @11:10PM (#44045983)

    Yeah because designing a GPU is not really making stuff. A bit like how writing software is done by lawyers and executives.

    This sounds like good news and an obvious step to me. It should lead to smaller and more energy efficient computing devices in the future.

  • Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday June 18, 2013 @11:37PM (#44046105) Journal

    Actual translation "Intel fucked us in the ass more than AMD that at least got a billion plus for their ass reaming, all we got was the curb. Now we are just gonna have to become patent trolls because with AMD owning ATI and Intel going their own way we missed the boat...damn we should have bought Via".

    What I want to know is...what in the hell does intel have on the DoJ to keep getting away with this shit? You had all the major OEMs saying they were taking kickbacks all through the P4 period, you have them shutting out Nvidia in the chipset market, which if that isn't classic antitrust I don't know WTF is, how do they keep getting away with this shit? Frankly what Intel has been doing has been worse than what got MSFT's balls in a sling (which I still think they should have split up MSFT) yet they seem to always walk away scott free, WTF?

    Oh and for Nvidia fans...sorry but I could have told ya so. AMD saw how much these super insane-o monster chips were costing to make so they did the VERY smart move of developing the midrange chips and then simply adding a second chip for the high range, Nvidia kept the old way of building the uber-baddass chip and then figuring out how to cut it down, but doing it that way equals crazy hot chips that take them awhile to figure out how to selectively cripple their chips without totally trashing it whereas since AMD aims for the much more lucrative midrange market its easier for them to cover the spectrum of prices without breaking the bank.

  • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cassini2 (956052) on Tuesday June 18, 2013 @11:59PM (#44046183)

    Intel periodically cuts patent cross-licensing deals with AMD that have the side-effect of bailing AMD out financially. This keeps AMD around as a competitor.

    If Intel adopted Apple's "thermonuclear war" attitude, AMD would have been out of business from the legal fees and injunctions long ago. However, if AMD was out of business, then Intel would be a monopoly and that would be bad for Intel.

    Intel manages AMD, as best it can, such that AMD gets 20% market share, and no x86 profits to speak of. With "only" 80% market share, Intel gets to keep all of the profitable market segments, with no FTC and DOJ oversight. AMD is left appealing to those who want cheap CPUs.

  • Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rahvin112 (446269) on Wednesday June 19, 2013 @12:06AM (#44046211)

    Either Nvidia commits to building SoCs that are all things to all people

    That is what Project Denver was supposed to be. This announcement probably confirms that Project Denver is a failure that will never see the light of day. Denver was supposed to be the companies salvation after HPC, Tegra and everything else failed to meet the projections they set with wall street.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...