Despite FTC Settlement, Intel Can Ship Oak Trail Without PCIe 140
MojoKid writes "When the Federal Trade Commission settled their investigation of Intel, one of the stipulations of the agreement was that Intel would continue to support the PCI Express standard for the next six years. Intel agreed to all the FTC's demands, but Intel's upcoming Oak Trail Atom platform presented something of a conundrum. Oak Trail was finalized long before the FTC and Intel began negotiating, which means Santa Clara could've been banned from shipping the platform. However, the FTC and Intel have recently jointly announced an agreement covering Oak Trail that allows Intel to sell the platform without adding PCIe support — for now."
Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (Score:1, Interesting)
AMD also has HyperTransport. Maybe this was why there were rumours about Nvidia making a CPU.
If Intel & AMD decided to offer GPUs linked by QPI & HT it would give their GPUs a big advantage with Nvidia unable to compete.
I think non-portable computers will end up a lot more modular in this way. Memory, CPUs, GPUs, Northbridge all connected to each other on a future generation of a switched HT/QPI bus. It would make the computers much more scalable, futureproof, adaptable and efficient. It might also allow you to mix different components. Imagine having an ARM CPU in your computer to handle day to day work. It would be more than enough and much more efficient to use an ARM CPU for OS work and leave more powerful components idle unless they're needed. If you need more expansion just link it to another bus switch to add a few more CPUs, GPUs or whatever remembering its associated issues.
Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
If Intel & AMD decided to offer GPUs linked by QPI & HT it would give their GPUs a big advantage with Nvidia unable to compete.
That would also kill Intel's high-end consumer products. Most high-end Intel CPUs are sold to gamers, who aren't going to be gaming on some crappy Intel integrated graphics chip.
At least for the forseeable future, Intel need Nvidia for the mid to high-end gaming market, because they're not going to be releasing GPUs in that arena any time soon.
Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead of telling Intel how to make their product, I consider it much better to confiscate the relevant patents and copyrights and put them into the public domain. That way AMD, nvidia, etc. will have all the access they need. They use asset forfeiture on us all the time. Time to use it here. Fair is fair.
Re:Human-readable analysis of the stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
If Intel doesn't want a GPU on their platforms, it is trivial to abide by the letter of the law and still screw Nvidia
During the public comment period, I submitted a comment about this and the FTC actually responded:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/101102intelletterbao.pdf [ftc.gov]
Ya I can't imagine them not wanting it (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel doesn't want nVidia making chipsets, true enough, because Intel makes chipsets. However the want expansion slots on their boards because they want people using their boards. I'm quite sure they are plenty happy with nVidia and ATi graphics cards. Heck they've included ATi's crossfire on their boards for a long time (they didn't have SLI because nVidia wouldn't license it to them). Intel has nothing that competes in that arena, and they recently revised their plan so they aren't even going to try. They want people to get those high end GPUs because people who get high end GPUs often get high end CPUs since they are gamers. Not only that, they STILL sell the Integrated GPU, since it is on chip.
I just can't see them not wanting PCIe in their regular desktop boards. They know expansion is popular, and they also know that the people who expand the most also want the biggest CPUs.
Now on an Atom platform? Sure makes sense. These are extremely low end systems. PCIe logic is really nothing but wasted silicon. You don't have room for PCIe expansions in there, never mind the desire for it. Those are integrated, all-in-one, low end platforms.
However desktop and laptop? I can't see them wanting to eliminate it there.
Semi-accurate is Fully-retarded (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't believe their bullshit. Two major flaws with their argument:
1) Nobody gives a shit about PCIe speed on the Atom. It is a low end platform, for netbooks. You are not putting discrete GPUs at all on it, never mind fast ones. You do not want that kind of battery drain, or cost, for that platform. Speed is really not relivant.
2) PCIe is way, WAY faster than it needs to be. 8x, which is half speed, is still more than you need as HardOCP found (http://hardocp.com/article/2010/08/16/sli_cfx_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x16x8/6) even for extremely high end cards in multi-card setups. For that matter on the forums Kyle said that 4x (quarter speed) is still more than enough for cards at 1920x1200. The highest end discreet cards don't need it, you are fine.
Semi-accurate is more of a raving opinion rag than a news site. The guy who runs it was fired from The Register for bias, and that is right up there with getting fired from Fox News. He hates Intel, hates nVidia and loves AMD/ATi.
Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (Score:2, Interesting)
mediocre solution that they have to glue it onto the CPU
The mediocre solution (GMA HD) they are gluing to the CPU is a derivative of the solution they shipped 140,000,000 of last year (GMA* in 90%+ of every laptop manufactured.) That's pretty hilarious. It will be downright hysterical when, integrated into the CPUs, another 100,000,000 displace most of the discrete desktop graphics cards.
Do not bet against integration.
Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
Try instead looking at, say, a Core i5-760. 2.8GHz quad core chip for $210. Look up some performance numbers and then compare to AMD chips.
Performance numbers based on Intel crippling compiler.
Yeah. Even in cases where Intel's compiler isnt used for the benchmark program, many benchmarks still use libraries compiled with Intel's compiler.
Of significance are Intels Math Kernel Library and even AMD's Core Math Library (compiled with Intels fortran compiler!)
These libraries are extensively used in most benchmark programs.