Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 638 posts

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#261

Post by tensor »

JustExAWS wrote: post #240
littlecranky67 wrote: post #167

This is a death blow to the Intel GPU+AI efforts and should not be allowed by the regulators. It is clear that Intel needs the downstream, low-cost GPU market segment to have a portfolio of AI chips based on chiplets, where most defective ones end up in the consumer grade GPUs based on manufacturing yield. NVidias interest is now for Intel not to enter either the GPU market, nor the AI market - which Intel was prepar…

Right now, for the US national interests, our biggest concern is that Intel continues to exist. Intel has been making crappy GPUs for 25 years. They weren’t going to start making great GPUs now. Besides, who would actually use them if they don’t support CUDA? Everyone designs better GPUs than Intel - even Apple’s ARM GPUs have been outpacing Intel for a decade even before the M series.

Why does it matter if Intel exists if they can't compete? AMD exists. The only point of hoping they remain is to create an environment of competition as that drives development and progress.

Though fair and free markets is not at all what the current regime in the US believes in, instead it will be consolidation, leading waste, and little innovation and progress.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#262

Post by JustExAWS »

tensor wrote: post #261
JustExAWS wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, for the US national interests, our biggest concern is that Intel continues to exist. Intel has been making crappy GPUs for 25 years. They weren’t going to start making great GPUs now. Besides, who would actually use them if they don’t support CUDA? Everyone designs better GPUs than Intel - even Apple’s ARM GPUs have been outpacing Intel for a decade even before the M series.

Why does it matter if Intel exists if they can't compete? AMD exists. The only point of hoping they remain is to create an environment of competition as that drives development and progress. Though fair and free markets is not at all what the current regime in the US believes in, instead it will be consolidation, leading waste, and little innovation and progress.

AMD doesn’t have a foundery. They are irrelevant.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#263

Post by JustExAWS »

trenchpilgrim wrote: post #256
JustExAWS wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, for the US national interests, our biggest concern is that Intel continues to exist. Intel has been making crappy GPUs for 25 years. They weren’t going to start making great GPUs now. Besides, who would actually use them if they don’t support CUDA? Everyone designs better GPUs than Intel - even Apple’s ARM GPUs have been outpacing Intel for a decade even before the M series.

> They weren’t going to start making great GPUs now. But that's exactly what they started doing with Battlemage? It's competitive in its price range and was showing generational strides. > Besides, who would actually use them if they don’t support CUDA? ML is starting to trend away from CUDA towards Vulkan, even on Nvidia hardware, for practical reasons (e.g. performance overhead).

Intel has been trying to make decent GPUs for 25+ years. No company is going to invest billions buying Intel GPUs - especially not the hyper scalers.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#264

Post by Seattle3503 »

tapland wrote: post #257
tw04 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Consumer gpus are totally different products from the high end gpus now. Intel has failed on the gpu market and has effectively zero market share, so it is not actually clear there is an antitrust issue in that market. It would be nice if there was more competition but there are other players like AMD and a long tail of smaller ones I'm sorry that's just not correct. Intel is literally just getting started in the GP…

The lastest Arc GPUs were doing good, and were absolutely an option for entry/mid level gamers. I think lack of maturity was one of the main things keeping sales down.

I've been seeing a lot of homelab types recommending their video cards for affordable Plex transcoding as well.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#266

Post by maxlin »

No idea what to think of this. I don't want Intel to die, but what will this do to their GPU business they're competing with NVIDIA on. And at worst this leads to even more consolidation

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#267

Post by techsystems »

The reason why Nvidia is buying now does not have to do anything with Arc or GPU competition. There are mainly two reasons.

1) This year, Intel, TSMC, and Samsung announced their latest factories' yields. Intel was the earliest, with 18A, while Samsung was the most recent. TSMC yieled above 60%, Intel below 60%, and Samsung around 50% (but Samsung's tech is basically a generation ahead and technically more precise), and Samsung could improve their yields the most due to the way set up the processes, where 70% is the target. Until last year, Samsung was in the second place, and with the idea that Intel caught up so fast and taking Samsung's position at least for this year, Nvidia bought Intel's stock since it's been getting cheaper since COVID.

2) It's just generally good to diversify into your competitors. Every company does this, especially when the price is cheap.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#269

Post by unethical_ban »

MrBrobot wrote: post #199
unethical_ban wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment was only referring to the manner of implementation, not the positive or negative view of the investment. It isn't the "method of communication". It's legislation vs. coercion (in the speculative scenario from the parent comment).

Most regulation is effectively coercion. The difference is regulation isn’t easily rolled back, whereas the current approach to modifying behavior is (as we’ve seen, numerous times in the last few months even). One is more tolerant of failure than the other.

There is an extreme where policy cannot be modified, and there is an extreme where the whims of one person, and the precedent of having the US government defined as the whims and whiplashes of one person, is immensely harmful to our national credibility. It fucks with investment, immigration and education.
Post reply on HN