Nvidia bids to dislodge Intel as rivalry gets ugly

Intel and Nvidia are entering into a new, nasty phase of competition. What's at stake? Only the future of the personal computer.

Although the Santa Clara, Calif., neighbors (located only a couple of miles from each other) have never really been on speaking terms, the rivalry is intensifying with the emergence of the Netbook--small, lightweight laptops priced below $500.

The competitive backdrop is still the same--Intel's longstanding (and very successful) vision of a CPU-centric universe versus Nvidia's creed that graphics processing matters more and more in a multimedia-intensive world.

The challenge for Nvidia is that as laptops downsize into Netbooks, a graphics vacuum has been created. And Nvidia abhors a graphics vacuum.

Nvidia's vision of the Netbook core

(Credit: Nvidia)

Inside almost every Acer, Asus, Hewlett-Packard, and Dell Netbook beats an Intel silicon core. Intel accounts for both central processing unit (CPU) and graphics processing unit (GPU)--the latter in the form of the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950.

Nvidia wants in. It maintains that Intel-only Netbooks choke on high-quality multimedia content and, as a result, consumers will demand better graphics hardware as the Netbook increases in size to 10-inch diagonal screen sizes and beyond. (The Netbook began as a tiny 8- or 9-inch form factor, but it has been moving to 10-inch and even a 12-inch screens, in the case of Dell's Inspiron Mini 12 Netbook.)

This is where it gets complicated. Intel has fairly strict parameters for the Netbook. It would rather not see Atom-based systems with 12-inch screens or extra silicon (read: horsepower) that kicks thermals (read: power consumption) into laptop territory. Need I explain why? (Cannibalization.) Netbooks should not aspire to be notebooks because the Atom processor is not nearly as capable as a Core 2 Duo, according to Intel.

At a recent demonstration, Nvidia claimed that 1080p video is smoother with a GeForce 9400M graphics assist to the Atom processor (screen on left shows lower CPU utilization).

(Credit: Brooke Crothers)

Nvidia, on the other hand, sees the silicon and screen size as an artificial restriction. It believes that Atom is a fairly capable processor that simply lacks a capable graphics engine.

And here's where it gets nasty: chipsets. Apple serves as a perfect example of why it may get rough-and-tumble, and what's at stake. In the newest MacBooks, Nvidia not only seized graphics turf from Intel, but it also took the chipset socket. Intel was relegated to supplying only the processor. That's analogous to Nvidia snagging a piece of prime Manhattan real estate right from under Intel's nose. While Intel holds on to Times Square, Nvidia walks off with Rockefeller Center.

To put it charitably, Intel doesn't like to lose socket space. But that is exactly what Nvidia is aiming for with Netbooks.

Will Nvidia be able to convince Netbook makers like Acer and Asus to make the switch, in the face of Intel's very persuasive bundling offers? (The word "persuasive" may not be strong enough.) These vendors may not be as open-minded as Apple, which has always prided itself on a feisty independence (i.e., no one takes center stage but Apple, and no Intel stickers).

Nvidia's GeForce 9400M may appear initially (perhaps circa the Computex convention in June) in Netbooks from smaller vendors. Larger suppliers may wait to see if turbo-charged graphics are the Netbook wave of the future--or not.

[tipoo_]

I wonder how the Via Trinity platform will do (its a Via Nano + a S3 graphics chip + something or other chipset)

[Rants&Raves]

Traditionally, Via has gone for the low-end of the market performance-wise, but with surprising packaging options (they are a hit with embedded systems, micro-ITX set-tops, etc.) They'll probably use that position to bring prices down rather than performance up.

Side note: I'm really happy that Brooke is holding fort here; great writer.

[WaffleGadgets]

I am all for a CPU centric universe (ie: one chip does all). The way I see it the logical next step up is for intel to add GPU stuff onto its CPUs the same way an FPU is now inside the CPU. In fact I see the world were having independent chips handle network, sound, graphics, input, etc as temporary. Let Nvidia have its day in the light but I want to see AMD, Intel or somebody put out a one chip does all chips.

[freemarket--2008]

@WaffleGadgets:

"logical next step up is for intel to add GPU stuff onto its CPUs"

Yea, right. Since their weak standalone GPUs are so great, why not make them even weaker and put them on the CPU chip. Actually, they're talking about using an array of 86x CPUs in place of a GPU. This gives them more flexibility and power, but Apple and nVidia beat them to it. The next OSX release will incorporate OpenCL which taps into the GPU to turbo-charge the OS and applications.

I don't know the status of various Linux distros on this, but you can bet they'll be doing the same thing.

[Someone-else]

I really wantd to see nVidia (and maybe AMD) entering the netbook CPU market.
How about some Larrabee-esque CPU for netbooks, capable of both central processing and graphics in a single chip, that would certainly bring power consumption and size (and maybe prices, also) down.

[Philips]

+1. And let's not forget here VIA. (I hope they are still worth remembering.)

nVidia IMHO needs to license IA-32/AMD64 and integrate it with GPU. They have chipset, they have GPU. CPU is only missing piece.

In low-end SoC trump multi-chip solutions. nVidia will not be able to compete against Intel/AMD/VIA integrated solutions.

[DoughboyNJ]

How far can this battle go? Netbooks are meant to be cheap. How can it be cheaper to have an Atom and a discrete GPU?

If Netbooks differentiate into standard and gaming systems, I can see it.

[SomeoneWhoShouldKnow]

The NVIDIA chip in question is not a discrete GPU - it's an integrated graphics chip to replace the old-ish Intel 945 chipset. The result is a better netbbook. I'm all for better.

[forever4now]

Netbooks are likely to evolve like mobile phones (i.e. you can get a cheap basic phone or you can pay more to get a smartphone). In the case of netbooks, the difference may be graphics quality. There's room for both.

[Lerianis]

Actually, power for power...... a discrete GPU is more cost effective than one of Intel's offerings, by far, whether it is ATI's or NVidia's.

[pithenumber]

AMD will have a platform, I'm thinking that too will be centered on graphics

[jcrwnka]

Isinvidia chip better than intel's?

[thelemurking]

Are you serious? Have you ever seen how crappy Intel graphics are? Nvidia is leaps and bounds ahead of Intel in graphics... even in the low end onboard graphic chipsets.

Heck, Intel chipsets are the whole reason for the Microsoft lawsuit over Vista compatible.

[ninjustin]

Asus already has an EEE pc out that has an nvidia chip in it. Fact is I can't play any games on my EEE1000h other than simple games as Peggle or much older games as Diablo 2 ( and even it has problems at times with the map turned on). I agree with nVidea here. The integrated intel graphics chips are ridiculously underpowered and are worse than the decade old graphics technology of say any geforce card.

[Lerianis]

And that's the reason why I wish Microsoft would do the right thing and tell people "You know, an Intel graphics solution is too underpowered for even watching DVD's! GET A DISCRETE SOLUTION!"
In fact, to be honest.... I really wish Intel GPU's would be BANNED from sale, unless they make it VERY clear on the boxes that they are severely underpowered.

[bakedpatato]

Anything is better than ICH7/945...including nVidia's 9400M platform.
I agree with nVidia, but at this rate Intel will lock them out of making chipsets for Sandy Bridge...gg n00bs then.

[Walt Connery]

I don't see anything here as new, mysterious or "nasty"...;) AMD has been "walking off with Intel turf" for years...;)

What I see is competition, which is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. The chip business is about selling chips that have certain functions, and Intel AMD, and nVidia are all chip makers and sellers, and they all compete. Apple, especially, is notorious about switching suppliers when the economics are right, and there's very little about that which is mysterious or especially "nasty", either. This isn't about what nVidia "sees" it's simply about what nVidia sells and how attractive that is at any particular point in time to various OEMs.

I think that Apple is a little wiser than Dell used to be in that Apple doesn't want to let Intel place it into a choke hold that's better for Intel than it is for Apple...;)

[DrollTroll]

While I may even agree with this author, I have serious questions about his knowledge of Manhattan (I was a college student in NYC way back when)--IMHO Times Square over Rock anytime.

[gerrrg]

I like Intel, but I love competition to lower prices and increase performance.

So far, Intel hasn't produced good graphics processors at all, so there is a lot of room to improve discreet graphic processing, regardless of where it comes from.

[Tod Smith]

Keep it up Nvidia. Now where is ATI?

[hmdz105]

Competition is always a good thing for end users. Let them just kill each other, for the sake of us!

[clamenza]

The real battle is between CPU and GPU.

[spoonie1972]

This is nVidia's chance to become *the* HTPC in a box. Seems like a lost opportunity if they dont go at it 10/10ths.

[Pointedly]

There will always be a niche for ultra-low-cost netbooks, laptops, and desktops. It's important to make computers affordable to everyone. Intel owns the ultra-low-cost graphics market. However, there are people who buy ultra-low cost computers because, quite simply, those people are uninformed. They don't understand the cost they are paying in graphics performance and the greater cost they will incur in the long run from having to buy a new computer sooner. Buying a cheap computer is never cheap.

For anyone who wants decent graphics performance and who can pay more up front to save money in the long run (including people who are in the market for an ultra-low-cost computer), a computer with Nvidia graphics is the way to go. When up-front cost is taken out of the equation and when long-term cost is put into the equation, Nvidia graphics technology simply has no competition. Period.

[pugster]

I don't see this 9400m competing with Intel in the Netbook side. First of all, people won't be watching HD movies on the puny little screens in the netbooks and you can divx movies just as good. The 9400m chip takes in about 14 watts where the gma950 north/southbridge takes less power (I think.) What I do see a potential for is for nvidia to set up cheap hdtv setup boxes which support 1080p videos.

[holyhope]

I couldn't disagree more that people won't be watching dvds on these puny little screens. These are 12" monsters. I have watched movies in mp4 on planes on my cell phone. If you have good sound, little with high res is ok.

[Forked_Tongue]

For the screen resolution on the average netbook, Intel's gpu is adequate where it's going to be noticed is when you do an extended desktop or use an external monitor when you "dock" it (with hdtv having everything from vga, dvi, and hdmi interfaces this will be done more in the future) this is where Nvidia can win it, but they must insist on having at least a dvi or hdmi output, otherwise it won't encourage people to use it this way and notice the difference.

[inachu]

As history shows INTEL does not do onboard video very well when it comes to DVD viewing or for video gaming. Offloading the GPU onto the CPU? Longer boot times is the only thing I see for INTEL.

[Malenx]

This fight it Nvidia's inevitable death, which is why they are struggling so hard against Intel.

Remember back before GPU's existed and the games were rendered entirely in software? (doom, UT) That's the future for computers. As CPU's continue to increase in strength and ability, eventually programmers will program directly to the CPU and not take all these side steps to direct x... ect. Nvidia is scared to death of this, a huge portion of their profits will begin to disappear in 10-15ish years, when this becomes the standard. They are trying everything they can to get the community to depend on them.

You don't need to put GPU instructions onto a CPU, you just need stronger CPU's to handle the software instructions.

[ssampier]

Or, the GPU will replace the general CPU. It should be interesting how things evolve.

[holyhope]

I don't agree that it will be cpu centric. If you view the human brain as an example of economy of function, you have the central processor in the frontal lobes, with a huge visual area in back to process images. Along the sides are the audio processors. It just makes sense to have a graphics engine plus the cpu, but they should both be socketed for updating and cheapness.