Nanotech - The Circuits Blog

Consumers who want to watch high-resolution HD video on Hulu on the newest crop of Intel-based Netbooks will have to seek out models equipped with special chips from Broadcom or Nvidia.

Broadcom chip will enable HD playback on Netbooks. But will Netbook suppliers use it?

(Credit: Broadcom)

Though Intel announced a major makeover of the Atom processor Monday, it's still not powerful enough to handle the highest resolution video.

For playback of high-resolution HD video--such as 1080p--Intel has "validated" an additional Broadcom chip that Netbook suppliers can include in systems, according to Anil Nanduri, director, Netbook Marketing at Intel.

Not coincidentally, on Monday, Broadcom announced the BCM70015 Crystal HD chip for high-resolution video playback. The chip will provide software support for Adobe Flash Player (v10.1) and Windows Media Player (v12), the company said.

The catch is that a consumer will have to confirm whether a new Netbook comes with the Broadcom chip. If the past is any indication, the chip will not be widely available on Netbooks, though Intel's Nanduri added: "I believe there will be some (systems) using that chip." The playback of the lower-resolution 720p HD variety is possible on Intel-only Atom silicon, according to Nanduri.

And there's another, even higher-end option for HD video playback: Netbooks equipped with the new Intel processor and Nvidia's Ion graphics chip. "With Ion you'll be able watch Hulu HD or YouTube HD at either 720 or 1080. With standard Intel components without Ion you won't be able to do that," said David Ragones, product line manager at Nvidia, disputing Intel's claim that the Atom processor can do 720p video playback.

"Another category is Blu-ray video," Ragones said. "If you want to watch the latest Blu-ray movie that just came out, you can absolutely do that on an Ion Nebtook," he said.

Nvidia's Ion also supports gaming, a feature that sets it apart from the Broadcom chip.

New Netbooks with the Nvidia Ion chip will be demonstrated at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January.

The Federal Trade Commission needs to do a better study of Intel and chip the market before it pulls the trigger with a veritable scattershot of last-minute accusations.

In addition to the FTC's litany of charges against Intel relating to the chipmaker's alleged anticompetitive behavior in the central processing unit, or CPU, market for PCs, the FTC document also refers to "Intel's unfair methods of competition...and future competition in the relevant GPU (market)." GPUs, or graphics processing units, and CPUs comprise the two main processors in all PCs.

A more thoughtful, studied, and contemporaneous analysis by the FTC would reveal that future personal computing markets are not so much about graphics chips--which is the basis of its new found emphasis on Nvidia as the object of Intel bullying and misbehavior--but about small mobile devices. And here Intel faces a raft of competition and is at least a year behind its rivals.

And that includes Nvidia, whose tiny Tegra processor is already in the Microsoft Zune HD and the Samsung M1 and whose next-generation Tegra 2 chip will be in dozens more handheld devices and smartphones. Intel's current offerings in this space? Zero.

Nvidia's Tegra processor is based on the same ARM design that other competitors use such as Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, Samsung, Apple, and Freescale Semiconductor use. And which Nvidia's CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said is expected to account for half of Nvidia's business in a few years.

Unbelievably, the only reference to ARM in the FTC complaint is: "Another example of a non-x86 microprocessor architecture is ARM. ARM is used primarily in handheld devices and mobile phones." One sentence in a 20-plus page document seems oddly dismissive, as though ARM was practically irrelevant to future chip market competitive dynamics as relates to Intel. Especially when you look at it in the context that that FTC is referring to the world's most popular consumer chip architecture--that is, ARM.

How large is this exploding market today? The ARM processor market totaled well over 2 billion units shipped in 2008. The "x86" PC chip market, where Intel and Advanced Micro Devices compete, a fraction of this--a few hundred million.

"The growing market is...a whole swath of interconnected devices and Intel doesn't have much a presence there," said the CEO of ARM Warren East in an interview I had with him recently in Los Angeles. And he accurately asserted that ARM can either match or exceed Intel in market clout and spending because it works, to some extent, in concert with the manufacturers--like TI, Nvidia, Samsung--that collectively have a massive revenue stream to tap into for marketing and research and development. "Well, actually there's about $25 billion of ARM semiconductor revenue coming in through the front door. So, it isn't Intel versus ARM, it's Intel versus everybody else," he said.

And if there is any truth to the Google Netbook rumors, ... Read More

Nvidia CEO Jen Hsun Huang issued an internal memo today to employees, calling the legal action by the Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday an event that could potentially "transform the computer industry."

The memo follows:

Hi everyone,

The U.S. government announced today that it has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel. This is an action the industry needs and one that consumers deserve. And it's one that can completely transform the computer industry.

The facts are clear. The FTC has charged that Intel has used its monopoly illegally to stifle innovation, to keep prices for their products inflated, and to unfairly block competitors. The FTC believes that millions of consumers have paid more and received less quality in return--and that companies and their employees have been forced out of markets where Intel has been threatened.

Nvidia CEO Jen Hsun Huang

Intel is fully aware that great graphics have become one of the most important features for consumer PCs, the fastest-growing segment of the PC market. Even more alarming to Intel is the revolutionary parallel computing technology in our GPUs that is being adopted by software developers across the world. The more successful we became, the bigger threat we were to Intel's monopoly. Instead of creating competitive GPU solutions and competing on the merits of their products, Intel has resorted to unlawful acts to stop us. The FTC announced today that this isn't acceptable.

Nothing this complicated gets decided quickly. It will take months for the FTC case to be heard by an administrative judge who will then recommend a ruling back to the FTC. And it's possible that this decision could be appealed. But today is a huge step forward for all of us that will begin to re-level the playing field.

Today's FTC announcement highlights the industry-changing impact of the GPU and the importance of our work. Our innovation is making the PC magical and amazing again. I can now imagine the day when Intel can no longer block consumers from enjoying our creation and experience computing in a way we know is possible.

Keep innovating...

Jensen

The Federal Trade Commission's complaint against Intel for alleged anticompetitive practices has a new twist: graphics chips.

To date, the antitrust actions of regulators worldwide toward Intel have focused on sale practices for central processing units, or CPUs, a market over which the company has fought heavily with Advanced Micro Devices. On Wednesday, however, the FTC spelled out a litany of allegations about Intel's alleged anticompetitive behavior in the market for graphics-processing units, or GPUs, in which Nvidia is a major player.

Nvidia is the world's leading supplier of "discrete," or standalone, graphics chips but takes a distant second place in overall market share to Intel, which supplies "integrated" graphics built into the chipsets that accompany all of its processors. Mercury Research estimates the total market for graphics chips, including integrated graphics, at almost $10 billion in 2009.

Why graphics, and why now? "It would be really hard to sell the public on expending resources to take Intel through administrative proceedings when it had already paid over a billion dollars to AMD," said Joshua D. Wright, a professor at George Mason University School of Law and a scholar in residence at the Federal Trade Commission until 2008.

"[The FTC] needed to be seen as doing something new," Wright said.

"[Nvidia] becomes the remaining star witness, now that AMD has left the field," said Roger Kay, principal at Endpoint Technologies. "And the FTC's focus, which begins to look toward the future, has to take into account how graphics will fit in as computer technology develops," Kay said.

Intel General Counsel Doug Melamed asserted in a statement that the FTC complaint "is based largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated," referring to the GPU allegations. And Melamed added in a conference call that some of these GPU allegations were made as recently as December 8.

One of the areas the FTC case zeroes in on is the burgeoning competition for chipsets in Netbooks--small, inexpensive laptops that are typically priced around $350. Netbooks are powered by Intel's Atom processor--and integrated graphics silicon built into the chipset. In this market, Nvidia also sells its Ion chipset, which competes with Intel's integrated graphics product.

Intel's checkered past on some large projects means the chipmaker must prove that Larrabee isn't a development flub that will simply be kept on life support for the next few years.

An Intel session on Larrabee technology in 2008 when hopes were high.

(Credit: Brooke Crothers)

As reported last week, Intel's Larrabee graphics chip was killed as an initial product offering after protracted delays, demonstrating that as successful as Intel is, it's not immune to major product missteps.

If certain product histories are any indication, the challenge could be daunting. Intel's XScale processor for small devices--which was used in Compaq handhelds back in 2000--was sold off to Marvell in 2006 after an unsuccessful run. And its Itanium processor has been the object of perennial ridicule as a product hanging on for dear life after getting off to a very rocky start back in 1998. Sun Microsystem's former CEO Scott McNealy eventually dubbed the chip the "Itanic" as a play on the word Titanic.

"If you go back in history when they started down the Itanium path in the mid-90s, they said they were going to have a really whiz-bang product, but by the time they finally got it out, it was decidedly ho-hum or even worse," said Nathan Brookwood, principal analyst at Insight 64.

"They've learned that you don't ship a product the first time around so that when it finally does appear people go 'What was all the fuss about?'" he said.

Larrabee, as we know now, was not ready for prime time. "It was for all intents [and] purposes an Intel project--a test bed, some might say a paper tiger," said Jon Peddie, president of Jon Peddie Research, writing in a blog.

For better or worse, Intel is expected to forge ahead with Larrabee, with a real product not appearing until ... Read More

Rumors are a dime a dozen in Silicon Valley--and that's probably overvaluing their cumulative worth. But, on occasion, they can be fascinating, especially when they help crystallize the dynamics underlying competition between Valley heavyweights.

Recently an "Intel will buy Nvidia" theory appeared on the blog I, Cringely, written by the former InfoWorld columnist and the author of "Accidental Empires: How the Boys of Silicon Valley Make Their Millions."

The upshot of the Robert Cringely post is that the recent project cancellations and legal wrangling between the two companies (and throw in Advanced Micro Devices, too) is simply leading toward an inevitable, unstoppable merger. This, of course, supersedes older rumors about a merger. And outright statements from Intel executives that they had considered a buyout in the past.

The short version of the facts (all real events) behind the theory goes something like this. Intel cancels initial Larrabee graphics chip. That's preceded by Nvidia nixing chipsets for the newest Intel Core i series of processors, as a result of an Intel lawsuit. Intel struggles to get its (Atom) chips into smartphones, while Nvidia has some success with the Tegra chip for small devices. And then Intel's sudden inclination to settle with AMD.

All reasons, theoretically, why the two companies need each other. Other sources--some close to Intel--think it's a patently absurd notion because of the regulatory issues involved, among a dozen more reasons.

Both Intel and Nvidia declined to comment.

Intel will focus on next-generation laptop technology that combines graphics functions with the main processor, in the wake of the cancellation of its initial "Larrabee" graphics processor.

Intel's next-generation graphics due for introduction at the Consumer Electronics Show.

(Credit: Intel)

Despite the market-rattling news from Intel late on Friday--which pushed rival Nvidia's stock up more than 12 percent on Monday--Intel still remains the leader in the high-volume "integrated" graphics market.

And the world's largest chipmaker is about to up the ante in this market for low-cost graphics technology, which many consumers opt for instead of high-performance chips from Nvidia or Advanced Micro Devices's ATI unit.

Later this month, Intel will unveil the first product, codenamed "Pine Trail", that puts the graphics function directly onto the same piece of silicon as the main "CPU" processor, a major departure from current technology which puts the graphics in a separate piece of ancillary silicon called the chipset.

This will be followed quickly by a CPU-graphics combination chip for laptops dubbed "Arrandale."

Integrating the graphics function onto the CPU is a feat that AMD--despite its purchase of graphics chip giant ATI in 2006--has yet to achieve.

"This is the next logical step in further integration brought to us by Moore's Law," said Jon Peddie, president of Jon Peddie Research, which tracks the graphics chip market.

"This is where the volume of sales are," said Peddie, referring to the segment of the market that the processor targets. Arrandale is expected to be rolled out at the Consumer Electronics Show in January.

As a new feature, the chip will be able to accelerate so-called "drag-and-drop transcoding" in Windows 7. Transcoding converts, for instance, a movie on a PC to a format that makes it viewable on an iPhone or iPod. This won't be available immediately, however, Intel said Monday. It will come soon after the introduction of the processor as a "driver update."

The Arrandale chip will not support Microsoft's DirectX-11 mutlimedia acceleration technology for Windows 7. At least not right away. "It's on the roadmap," according to Intel. But this technology is not widely supported across product lines by any graphics chip supplier currently.

Intel also said Monday that it will continue development work on future standalone graphics products. "We haven't stopped investing in many-core graphics architectures," an Intel spokesperson said.

The Federal Trade Commission has talked to Nvidia as its probe continues into Intel's business practices.

As CNET reported earlier, Nvidia has complained loudly for years about Intel business practices. Last month, Intel agreed to pay Advanced Micro Devices $1.25 billion to settle a long-running antitrust case against Intel.

In addition to the AMD probe, the FTC has approached Nvidia about Intel's business practices. This time in the graphics chip market, according to an Nvidia spokesperson. The Nvidia-related probe was reported by BusinessWeek.

Intel commands about 50 percent of the graphics chip market. Though Nvidia is the world's leading supplier of "discrete," or standalone, graphics chips, it ranks a distant second in overall market share to Intel, which supplies "integrated" graphics built into the chipsets that accompany all of its processors. Mercury Research estimates the total market for graphics chips, including integrated graphics, at almost $10 billion in 2009.

In the third quarter, Intel had 53 percent of the graphics chip market, up from the 49 percent share in the same period last year, according to Jon Peddie Research, which tracks the graphics chip market. Nvidia took about 24 percent, down from the 28 percent in the third quarter of last year.

Nvidia claims that Intel's "bundling" tactics--the same tactics that AMD has cited for years and that were spelled out in a complaint filed by New York's attorney general last month--are causing it undue harm.

"Intel's tactics with Ion have been the most aggressive we've seen from a competitor," Nvidia CEO Jen Hsun Huang said in a statement provided to CNET last month, referring to Nvidia's Ion chipset that is used in laptops. Intel disputes this.

"We have scrubbed and continue to scrub our pricing practices as it relates to chipsets and processors," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy told CNET last month.

And in another feud with Intel, Nvidia has halted development of chipsets for Intel's new "Nehalem" processor technology (marketed as the Core i series of chips), following a complaint filed by Intel in February--which Nvidia then countered in March.

Updated on December 4 at 10:55 a.m. PST: adding comment from Nvidia.

Advanced Micro Devices is not the only large Intel competitor to rail against Intel's alleged strong-arm tactics.

Nvidia has also complained loudly for years about Intel business practices in the graphics chip market, where Intel commands about 50 percent of the market.

Nvidia is the world's leading supplier of "discrete," or standalone, graphics chips but takes a distant second place in overall market share to Intel, which supplies "integrated" graphics built into the chipsets that accompany all of its processors. Mercury Research estimates the total market for graphics chips, including integrated graphics, at almost $10 billion in 2009.

In the third quarter, Intel had 53 percent of the graphics chip market, up from the 49 percent share in the same period last year, according to Jon Peddie Research, which tracks the graphics chip market. Nvidia took about 24 percent, down from the 28 percent in the third quarter of last year.

These figures get even more lopsided for Intel when the market is segmented into integrated graphics only. "Put your seatbelt on. They've got 80 percent of the notebook integrated market," said Jon Peddie, president of Jon Peddie Research. Though this is a much smaller and more segmented market than overall PC processor market, which was at the center of last week's $1.25 billion settlement between Intel and AMD, it still shows the level of Intel's dominance, according to Peddie.

Nvidia has taken to lampooning Intel. Here, CEO Paul Otellini is the object of satire on Nvidia's 'Intel's Insides' Web site.

(Credit: Nvidia)

Nvidia claims these latter market share figures reflect Intel's "bundling" tactics--the same carrot-and-stick tactics that AMD has cited for years and that were spelled out in a complaint filed by New York's attorney general earlier this month.

Intel is trying to impede competition on two chipset fronts, according to Nvidia. One front is the burgeoning market for chipsets in Netbooks--tiny, inexpensive laptops that are typically priced around $350. In this market, Nvidia sells its Ion chipset, which competes with Intel's integrated graphics product.

"Intel's tactics with Ion have been the most aggressive we've seen from a competitor. They have offered the Atom [a total of three chips] for $25, but when the one-chip Atom is used with Ion, it sells for $45," Nvidia CEO Jen Hsun Huang said in a statement provided to CNET. "A customer can't even choose to resell the chipset and use Ion instead. What's the point of Nvidia getting an Intel bus license if it's impossible to overcome Intel's pricing bundles?" he asked, referring the licensing fee that Nvidia pays Intel.

"We'll keep growing as a company, but further action needs to be taken to protect consumers," Huang said.

Intel disputes this. "He's playing a trick of numbers, said Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy. "He's giving you a $45 list price--that nobody pays--for a part and then a negotiated price (which is more realistic). He's mixing apples and oranges. We have scrubbed and continue to scrub our pricing practices as it relates to chipsets and processors. It's all above cost. And that meets the legal standard worldwide."

In Netbooks, Nvidia has made some headway this year; its Ion chipset has been used in Netbooks from Hewlett-Packard and Lenovo, among others--and Huang concedes this. But Peddie said Nvidia still faces a formidable challenge. "They're nibbling away it at. But it's a pretty big hill to climb," Peddie said.

In the second front of Nvidia's most hotly-contested feuds with Intel, the former has halted development of chipsets for Intel's new "Nehalem" processor technology (marketed as the Core i series of chips), following a complaint filed by Intel in February--which Nvidia then countered in March. Intel alleged in its motion for a declaratory judgment that the 4-year-old chipset license agreement with Nvidia does not extend to Intel's future-generation processors with "integrated memory controllers," which includes Intel's newest Nehalem Core i processors.

"It's meant to get Nvidia to cease and desist from citing that they have a license," Peddie said. "That's an interesting tactic because if the court rules in favor of keeping Nvidia from saying they have a license, it also creates the burden on the OEMs [PC makers] of not wanting to get in a crossfire between Nvidia and Intel," he said.

Intel again disputes this. "It's not seeking to prevent them from doing anything. For well over a year and including mediation, we argued with Nvidia about their rights under that agreement. And we tried multiple times to reach an agreement. And we could not," Mulloy said. "We asked the court to tell the parties what the agreement means. At the end of that process, we'll work with them and try to figure out what to do next."

Note: Mercury Research numbers were provided by Nvidia.