Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware

NVIDIA Announces Intel nForce Chipsets Coming 189

Posted by CowboyNeal from the going-up-against-ich dept.
ruiner5000 writes "NVIDIA has just made a surprise announcement about their cross license agreement with Intel to make chipsets. This means that the bragging rights AMD users have had about having the superior nForce chipsets is about to end, and it will also bring NVIDIA's superior Linux support to Intel users. We have a statement and press release from NVIDIA about planned shipment dates, and expected products NVIDIA will be aiming their chipsets at. With the nForce 4 NVIDIA is aiming for desktops, laptops, workstations, and servers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NVIDIA Announces Intel nForce Chipsets Coming More

NVIDIA Announces Intel nForce Chipsets Coming

Comments Filter:

  • Superior Linux Support? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Taladar ( 717494 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @09:33AM (#10874349)
    Does this mean Intel Mainboards will require proprietary, closed source drivers like nvidia graphics cards that are a total maintenance nightmare because they break with every other kernel version in the near future?

    • Re:Superior Linux Support? (Score:5, Informative)

      by marsu_k ( 701360 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @09:44AM (#10874404)
      I take it you don't have a nForce motherboard? Because they work quite fine out of the box with 2.6 .x kernels. As for the display drivers, yes, they take some extra fiddling upon install every now and then. While this is not ideal, at least you get good 3D performance (not like "that other manufacturer" in Linux ;-). And you can use the default X driver if you don't need 3d acceleration, which is open source.

      • Re:Superior Linux Support? (Score:5, Informative)

        by ImpTech ( 549794 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @10:16AM (#10874532)
        Nforce boards do work OOB, its true... but AFAIK not any better than an Intel board. And up until relatively recently, the nForce's didn't work at all. Furthermore, since Nvidia's dumped soundstorm, I can't imagine why an Intel user would buy a nForce board over one of Intel's own.
        • I been using a NVIDIA nforce board for my linux box for a couple years now. They have had some driver goofs, but the recent installer is a gem and they continue to get better.
      • You must not have the nForce2 MB I do, because I have yet to find a distribution that even came close to working out of the box on mine. It's to the point that I've given up Linux on my desktop, and I'm not even a Linux newbie..

        Even 2.6x kernel'd Gentoo fails to compile several core packages on my ASUS nForce2 MB.. I give up, I've never seen such horrible hardware support for any chipset, especially after said chipset has been out for years and years. Linux is wonderful when it works.. but when I have to
      • My VIA motherboard also worked out of the box, and I didn't have to install any extra, closed source drivers, either.

    • Re:Superior Linux Support? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @09:55AM (#10874449)
      Im sick of this (and will probably get modded down) but this isnt the sole fault of the vendors, now is it. For whatever reason, they will not release their driver set under opensource licenses, and thats agreeable because its their code and their decision. On the other hand, the linux kernel devs wont supply a stable module API, because they dont like binary modules, which is also agreeable because its also their code and their decision. This does leave the end user in the unenviable position of recompilations, but IMHO nvidea seems to have found a suitable halfway point for this, only requiring a stub recompile. But from where Im standing, its not just nvideas fault, both sides are posturing and trying to make a good situation out of a less than good one, but the majority of people on slashdot seem to blame vendors for supplying closed drivers when they have no real need to.

      • Re:Superior Linux Support? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EvilGrin666 ( 457869 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @10:11AM (#10874512) Homepage
        Intel publishes specs for its hardware where as nvidia does not. This means we get a closed source driver from nvidia thats often out of date and doesn't work where as with Intel hardware we have open source drivers written by 3rd parties (often the kernel devs) in the kernel tree itself.

        The Linux kernel devs have no interest in a stable module API because they have no interest in backwards compatability. If they see a problem, they go in and fix it. Next kernel release all the open source modules in the kernel tree are using the new fixed api.

        Its true Nvidia might not have a choice in the matter though. They might have cross licensing deals or patent royalities on some of the technology they are employing in their motherboard chipsets that prevents them using an opensource license or publishing open specs.

        • The Linux kernel devs have no interest in a stable module API because they have no interest in backwards compatability. If they see a problem, they go in and fix it. Next kernel release all the open source modules in the kernel tree are using the new fixed api.

          That's not really the issue. The problem for driver writers is that the binary interface into the kernel can change between minor versions of the kernel, or just with different sorts of kernel patches of the same kernel version.

          I'd actually love to

      • "I'm sick of this (and will probably get modded down) but this isnt the sole fault of the vendors, now is it. For whatever reason, they will not release their driver set under opensource licenses, and thats agreeable because its their code and their decision. On the other hand, the linux kernel devs wont supply a stable module API, because they dont like binary modules, which is also agreeable because its also their code and their decision. This does leave the end user in the unenviable position of recompil
        • I'm buying it. Some of us put the best tool for the job over ridiculous ideological fanatacism.

          • Best tool for the job (Score:2, Insightful)

            by bug1 ( 96678 )
            The "best tool for the job" depends on the timeframe your looking at.

            In the short term the easiest method is the best tool for the job as you cant justify overheads of learning a new tool.

            In the long term retooling costs are insignificant and the best tool for the job may even involve making a custom tool for yourself.

            Software Freedom enables long term solution, plans to be made in regard to maintenace and development to ensure long availablility and reliability.

            Closed source software is a consumable,
        • >If it doesn't run a Free Software operating sytem, we're not buying it.

          It will run on a free OS, only the drivers will probably remain closed source.

          Personally I couldn't care less, all I want is stable and well-performing X-Windows.
          • And if the vendor ever decides not to update the driver any more a few kernel minor versions later it won't work anymore.
            • The 'vendor goes AWOL' kinda argument in the close vs. open debate is getting really boring. Problem is, that it is true - but in this case: what do you think is the chance that nvidia will just screw its linux userbase?

              None. The reason: they have excellent and commited developers. They use a unified code-base for all their drivers. Occasionally, they go out of their way to provide support even for less hyped operating systems (FreeBSD, for instance). This is an old thread [freebsd.org], and FreeBSD with 5.3 has proper

              • Perhaps more importantly in the particular case of nvidia, what do you do if they go out of business (or just get bought in a merger), and the buyer (say ATI) decides to bury their product line as a business decision. If the driver source has never been made public ....
            • Good point. Hardly unique to closed source though. Remember when Fedora Core 2 was released, they disabled Firewire in the kernel? Firewire maintainer stopped supporting the drivers, for whatever reason, and they were broken in 2.6 kernels for long long time. And the best thing the FC developers could do is to disable the feature alltogether.

              In theory, there are all these nice things about OSS and its support and how if it gets dropped someone else can pick it up and so on. Sometimes it happens this way, a
            • > And if the vendor ever decides not to update the driver any more a few kernel minor versions later it won't work anymore.

              It's not like we're buying 100TB of enterprise storage with virtualization that requires proprietary drivers so servers can see that storage - it's just a PC.

              Even if nVidia stops updating drivers within a year (late 2005), people can stick with the then-current 2.6 kernel which will be good for at another year or so. And by late 2006, nForce4 systems will be outdated so badly that
            • Yes and if the vendor suddenly goes belly up open-source drivers ensure the hardware will continue to run.
        • If thats your arguement, then why not stop moaning about the situation. The simple fact of the matter is that you have two groups, one of which has a particular ideological view, and to insist that the other group follows the same view is nothing short of stupid. And IMHO, Nvidia cards are far from crappy.
      • Well, you have a point. The main reason Linux has no stable API for drivers is because it's in constant developement; and it has changed quite a bit over the last few versions. It also "encourages" (forces?) the release of OSS drivers, or specs, at the very least, and Linus himself stated this was one of the main reasons behind this line of thinking.

        Like you said, vendors have the right to keep their drivers closed, which is understandable. Sometimes writing drivers is not trivial (gfx cards, notably)
      • As far as I'm concerned, nVidia is a hardware company, not a software company. They can dick with little bits of semantics, but IMO, hardware companies should provide coding specs in how to use their hardware.
      • I'm not really sure you understand the issues at stake here.

        First, a stable module API doesn't matter. nV's drivers have the same fucking bugs [nvnews.net] for years' worth of releases. It's normal to expect some bugs for such a complicated piece of software when porting it to a new kernel major release, but these bugs happen in 2.4, 2.6, probably 2.2.

        Even Microsoft is pissed off about this. I was told by a Microsoft engineer a couple years ago that drivers are the #1 cause of BSOD's on Windows by a long shot. If the
      • But from where Im standing, its not just nvideas fault, both sides are posturing...

        Posturing? The kernel devolpers? Two way street? It's been said before on the LKML that Linus will not help out the compaines who are interested in providing only closed source drivers, 'cause they don't help him out, and ther rest of the gang, with specs. Sounds more like a one way street is you ask me. Compaines bemoaning the lack of cooperation from Linus while clinging to their NDA's and "third party trade secret" argu
        • Uhm, precisely what you describe IS a two way street, just with no traffic passing through it. You say "why should Linus et al provide a stable API when vendors arent supplying specs", well I come back with "why should the vendors supply specs when they are being given a moving target". As I said, posturing, on BOTH sides. Linus isnt helping the vendors while the vendors arent helping Linus, and both have their own valid reasons.
      • ..but the majority of people on slashdot seem to blame vendors for supplying closed drivers when they have no real need to.

        You don't really understand the issue. There are very good reasons why there is no "stable binary module API" for Linux. This stance has the power to transform the industry in a positive way.

        When desktop application availability turns the tide in Linux's favor, every hardware company out there will be bending over backwards to make sure their products work perfectly in Linux out of

        • When desktop application availability turns the tide in Linux's favor, every hardware company out there will be bending over backwards to make sure their products work perfectly in Linux out of the box.

          Ahem, bollocks. This wont happen, Microsoft provided a driver signing program to ensure that drivers conformed to the windows specification. Funny that, the number of unsigned drivers that I come across when installing windows hardware, most jsut went to the bother of adding extra parts to their install

          • What makes you think vendors will be "bending over backwards" to support Linux?

            Because it will be the most popular desktop platform and they'll have to support it properly if they want to sell hardware. Nothing complicated about that argument.

            Well, 1) Why should they do this? Why do they have to subscribe to the same ideology that you do?

            Because it works maybe? That's the whole point. When Linux begins to dominate, it will have pulled the entire industry towards Open Source. At that point, the ven
      • Well, one day a vendor will come along that supplies source code. Then we'll finally get some nice graphics hardware that fully integrates with the OS. When this happens the ball will be in nVidia's court to explain why their drivers don't fully integrate or why they have bugs and other problems that haven't been addressed.

        Will it happen? Probably, but not today. So we'll see how it all plays out.

      • I completely agree. I don't care what Nvidia do, if they don't provide open specs, I won't be buying their hardware. That is their decision and that is their business loss.

        The issue people are talking about is the claims of "superior Linux support", how "wonderful" Nvidia for "supporting" Linux, when they are only paying lip service to the ideals (open specifications) that created Linux in the first place.

        I'm not going to get into an argument about the "value" of open specifications, and how they "don'

    • well my nforce 2 works perfectly fine with 2.6x..it even has support for the integrated lan card n 6 channel sound... so what else r u lookin for???
  • Intel and NVIDIA cut a deal with Sony Online Entertainment to get their products given "premier" status, complete with back to back advirtisments while loading games like Everquest2.

  • Good News for Nvidia and Intel (Score:5, Informative)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @09:38AM (#10874372) Homepage Journal
    I guess this is good news for both Nvidia and Intel. This should help Nvidia make up for being shut out of the Xbox 2 graphics game, though they may have lost money on the original Xbox deal anyway. And this should bring some gamer cred back to Intel who may have been using some gamer sales to AMD because of the nForce chipset. Of the two though, I think Nvidia gets the best part of the deal since they will now have an easier entry into the wider PC market which is dominated by Intel based systems. Intel will only see marginal gains since gamers are not a big part of the market, though they do buy a good proportion of high end systems I would guess.
  • Since nvidia dropped Soundstorm I no longer have any reason to care.

    • Re:meh (Score:3, Informative)

      by the unbeliever ( 201915 )
      Soundstorm isn't really necessary anymore.

      And did you happen to notice the dearth of nForce boards with Soundstorm? It wasn't nVidia that killed it, it was the mobo makers. They didn't want to pay for it.
      • Soundstorm IS necessary.

        Name another audio "solution" which is BUYABLE TODAY which does real time digital 5.1 encoding. DTS or DD, I don't care as my receiver does both, but I want 5.1 through a digital interface (coax or optical).

        I'll give you a hint:
        There are zero on the market. The only possible contender is that new intel pro-audio onboard thing, but NO ONE has plans to impliment it yet.

        NOTHING by creative does this, nor do those "7.1" fortissimo/etc cards.
        • Why do you care about it being 'through a digital interface'?

          Its going to sound better through 6 analog connections. Compression isn't a good thing if you can avoid it, regardless of what Dolby marketing has led people to believe.

          The only advantage AT ALL is saving a few dollars on cables. This might be a great advantage if you also buy $50 interconnects, but not if you buy cheap and equally good cables from companies not rhyming with Ronster Bable.

          • Few things you're missing:

            1. There isn't much/any compression on a real time AC3 feed, as you can use up the entire bitrate. It's not like a dvd where you have to worry about space constraints.

            2. I can guarantee you that the D/A converter in my receiver is MUCH higher quality than the shitty ones in the sound card, not even counting all the electrical noise inside a computer case.

            I've NEVER been able to get rid of that list tiny bit of hiss coming out of any sound card's analog output.

            3. having 3 1/8"

  • Superior ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by matt-larose ( 308335 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @09:47AM (#10874416) Homepage
    What the hell makes commercial closed source drivers superior ?.

    I agree that nForce is supported well on linux, but its mostly because the sound and ethernet are handled by opensoure projects now. The stupid AGP gart is another issue. /me curses nVidia.

    • Re:Superior ? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by plupster ( 689587 )
      What the hell makes commercial closed source drivers superior ?

      They exist. ;-)
    • Hmm... I've never had problems with my "inferior" VIA chipsets. I was running a KT600 almost right after it was released, with both ATI and nVidia graphics cards. Benchmarks of the KT600 were practically the same of as a comparable nForce 2 at the time... And EVERYTHING worked with kernel-level drivers.
    • > I agree that nForce is supported well on linux, but its mostly because the sound and ethernet are handled by opensoure projects now. The stupid AGP gart is another issue. /me curses nVidia.

      WTF are you talking about? There's a fully GPL driver for nvidia AGP in the kernel, and it's even made by nvidia themselves!!
  • Proprietary drivers are nothing but a PITA. They are totally unsupportable, and you have no idea how they will affect your system. Don't get me wrong. At least nVidia creates Linux drivers. However, until they create open-source drivers it is not something that I cannot have confidence in because if there are problems caused by the drivers I have zero support.
    • "Proprietary drivers are nothing but a PITA. They are totally unsupportable, and you have no idea how they will affect your system."

      I have a fairly good idea how nvidia's binary drivers will affect my system. It makes neverwinter nights playable on linux/freebsd. It makes those fancy screensavers work. It provides 3d accelaration. etc.

      This is sooo old, I don't even think where to begin. I know that _my_ ideas of what the binary drivers do are the layman's ideas. But do you have an idea of how [insert ran

  • I've worked with the nForce chipsets before, but for my AMD needs I still prefer VIA. And on the Intel side, it'll take me a lot to sway away from Intel boards with the Intel chipsets. I'm mostly working with Windows machines on the Intel side, and the Intel chipset has never given me an issue, unlike SIS and even Via.
    The average machine going out of my shop is going into a home with no real PC experience. I have to worry more about spyware than maybe some odd chipset incompatibility.
    • as much as we agree on going intel chipsets for intel CPUs, why do you prefer via to nforce on amd? I've always been under the impression that recent nforce products are much better than via's offerings in features *and* compatibility/stability

  • Nvidia's Linux support superior to Intel (Score:3, Informative)

    by EvilGrin666 ( 457869 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @10:04AM (#10874482) Homepage
    Since when? AFAIK Intel publishes its sepcs and Nvidia doesn't. Hows that superior exactly? Granted Nvidia release drivers, but there performance and features pale in comparison to the windows version or indeed similar Intel hardware with open source drivers written from the published specs.

    • Re:Nvidia's Linux support superior to Intel (Score:4, Informative)

      by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @10:19AM (#10874549)
      but there performance and features pale in comparison to the windows version
      Just making things up to try to prove a point? The NVidia chipsets work out-of-the-box under Linux with Open Source drivers, no binary drivers required. For NVidia graphics cards, NVidia uses a unified driver that shares most code cross-platform. The Linux and Windows NVidia drivers are feature for feature compatible. The performance numbers are all about the same. I get just as good FPS under Linux with NVidia that I do on the same hardware under MS Windows. Even the installation is about the same. For Windows you run the executable and reboot. For Linux you just log out of X and run the executable without a reboot.

  • Not too hot for AMD. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SnowCrashed ( 778322 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @10:07AM (#10874494)
    The NForce boards were really one of the best things about AMD's chips for people who wanted a good all in one mobo for a basic system (esp. the NForce2 with the onboard GF4mx which totally rocked Intel's "extreme" garbage). While AMD rigs will still probably be cheaper, this is quite a low blow. However, maybe it won't make much difference with ATI's XPress chipsets coming out. They like they will be the ultimate solution for a while, at least until newer things come.
    • While nforce is popular, it's not really vital. They no longer have the good sound, and the onboard video isn't an option anymore, which pretty much makes it just like any old chipset now, except it's a bit faster, but quite a bit more expensive. Granted the onboard video wasn't anything special, but it was more than fast enough for normal 2d usage and casual gaming, as long you don't expect to play hl2 or doom3 at a decent frame rate. I ended up going with a AMD64 system, Asus K8V SE Deluxe, (K8T800 bas
    • For a long time, the big driver for Intel v. AMD was that AMD CPU chips were often cheaper than Intel's CPU chips. The price differences of the boards they go onto wasn't so wide, but I hadn't looked at board prices lately.

      To be honest, I'd prefer to stick to an AMD chipset for an AMD chip, and an Intel chipset for an Intel chip. Other than price, I'm not sure what nVidia has going for it, especially with the demise of SoundStorm.

      Does anyone know why SoundStorm is gone? That would seem to be nVidia's b

  • Eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MiniChaz ( 163137 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @10:17AM (#10874536) Homepage
    "NVIDIA's superior Linux support"

    Are you on drugs? Since when did binary only modules constitute "superior Linux support"?
    • I think it refers to superior to ATI's Linux support .
      I have had major troubles getting my ATI card to run correctly under Linux, and from trying to find support on it, have found I am not the only one .. the main advice i get is "Use a Nvidia card".
      • I think most people (the article submitter included) still can't distinguish between drivers for the nforce chipset and the graphics drivers. They just hear 'NVIDIA' and start screaming....

        Jeroen

  • Chipset drivers (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Derf_X ( 651876 )
    Am I te only who thinks it's not normal for chipset to require drivers to be installed. Every chipset I tried works out of the box without drivers needing to be installed, be it on Windows or Linux.

    Iwas very surprised the first time I did troubleshooting on my friends computer who has an nForce chipset. I was actually troubleshooting his GeForce video card (in Windows) so I uninstalled the drivers, but I actually uninstalled the chipset drivers because I didn't know the chipset required some. Same when I i

    • Re:Chipset drivers (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      Intel chipsets often don't need drivers but that's because basic drivers for Intel chipsets are usually included with Windows.

      With my current computer, Windows 2000 did not have an AGP driver, so my AGP video card was running in PCI mode. Chipset drivers also enable performance features. IIRC, Windows defaults to PIO modes, chipset drivers allow users to enable UDMA.

      Now, I'd probably never use a chipset with built-in graphics.
  • I just read an interesting article last night that claims it is not chipset that matters so much, because the Intel CPUs stick to the traditional north/south bridge design that limits I/O, while AMD64 processors have multiple hypertransport interfaces on-chip. http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9408/sam0411b/041 1b.htm [samag.com]
  • IMHO amd users are those with the crooked chipset and the intel users had the good stuff (even linux wise)
    no offence i use amd myself but i feel that when there is a place where intel is superior it is with their chipsets

  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dragoon412 ( 648209 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:08PM (#10875073)
    It's fairly well-understood that these days, the Athlon 64 is utterly dominant in terms of sheer performance and price/performance. At least in the gaming market, which is the nForce boards' target market. It seems the only reason Intel is even still competetive in the high-end home PC market is due to uneducated users buying from the likes of Dell and Alienware, and their success at branding themselves, which, as of late, seems to be falling by the wayside.

    So while I don't think this is a bad thing at all, I think the gaming community, specifically the enthusiast builders as a whole (who actually care what chipset their system uses) will have a reaction along the lines of "Meh..."

    So, I doubt this'll have much of an effect on anything. Enthusiasts are buying AMD, and the uninformed will keep spending money on Dells and the like regardless of who made the mainboard.
  • I'm not so sure the nForce chipset is superior, at least not the nvnet
    bit. I've tried both the NVidia driver and the reverse-engineered
    forcedeth driver, but neither lets me use the network at all.

    From what I can tell, I am not alone, either. Google has many stories
    involving non-functional nForce 2/3 integrated NICs.

  • you guys don't pay much attention, do you? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ruiner5000 ( 241452 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @02:47PM (#10875946) Homepage
    If you had then you would have read my report on Nvidia working on Linux system utilities, and continuing to improve their graphic drivers particularly focusing on DCC. Yeah, Nvidia can not open source their drivers due to licensing issues. What are they supposed to do? I think I will take the GiGE, advanced SATA RAID, advanced firewall, and best in class performance. Yeah, we are all pulling for Soundstorm to come back, but because the motherboard vendors didn't want it we lost it in nForce 3. You really need to learn more about what is going on with Nvidia before you criticize. I suppose most of you slashdotters complaining in this thread aren't paying attention.

    Forceware ported to Linux is good.
    Support in the Kernel is good.
    Support for 64 bit in Linux is good.
    Support for FreeBSD is good.
    Advanced SATA RAID far past what Intel has is good.
    GigE superior to Intel or any other chip maker is good.
    Hardware and software firewall superior to what Intel or any other chipmaker has is good.

    Yeah, real big deal having to install closed drivers, and miss out on those features. I think plenty of people will, and Nvidia is the preferred solution for AMD users running Linux exactly for these reasons. Is Slashdot behind the times?
    • Advanced SATA RAID far past what Intel has is good.

      It's all software RAID; who cares?

      GigE superior to Intel or any other chip maker is good.

      Is the nVidia GigE really better than e1000? And even if it was, would anyone notice?

      Hardware and software firewall superior to what Intel or any other chipmaker has is good.

      I'd rather keep the firewall in the OS where it belongs. If I used a firewall at all, that is.
      • No, it is not all software raid. Yeah, plenty of people do. Wow, so software firewalls are good, but software raid is bad now? Well I would think if you were deploying a load of systems in enterprise you would like the good ethernet, and firewall, not to mention unified drivers. But that is why no one uses nForce amongst the linux community right?

  • FUCK OFF (Score:3, Insightful)

    by msimm ( 580077 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#10876395) Homepage
    Mod me whatever you want, but I'm am sick to death of hearing OSS users whine about closed source drivers.

    Nvidia has excellent support for Linux whether you like their policy or not. If you want opensource drivers you can reverse engineer them your goddamned self. But to be honest, if your that much of a OSS zealot you should start by engineering and manufacturing your own OPEN HARDWARE PLATFORM and stop worrying about what Nvidia is doing.

    No one owes you anything. OSS is a choice.

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close