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

421–430 of 638 posts

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#421

Post by edm0nd »

phkahler wrote: post #121
scrlk wrote: post #36

> For personal computing, Intel will build and offer to the market x86 system-on-chips (SOCs) that integrate NVIDIA RTX GPU chiplets. These new x86 RTX SOCs will power a wide range of PCs that demand integration of world-class CPUs and GPUs. https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1750/... What’s old is new again: back in 2017, Intel tried something similar with AMD (Kaby Lake-G). They paired a Kaby La…

I don't think this is Intel trying to save itself, it's nVidia. Intel GPUs have been in 3rd place for a long time, but their integrated graphics are widely available and come in 2nd place because nVidia can't compete in the x86 space. Intel graphics have been closing the gap with AMD and are now within what? A factor of 2 or less (1.5?) IMHO we will soon see more small/quiet PCs without a slot for a graphics card, re…

I'm curious, why do you type it as nVidia instead of NVIDIA or Nvidia ?

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#422

Post by giveita »

bee_rider wrote: post #307
evanjrowley wrote: post #211

Nvidia's stake in Intel could have terrible consequences. First, it is in Nvidia's interest to kill Intel's Arc graphics, and that would be very bad because it is the only thing brighing GPU prices down for consumers. Second, the death of Intel graphics / Arc would be extremely bad for Linux, because Intel's approach to GPU drivers is the best for compatibility, wheras Nvidia is actively hostile to drivers on Linux.…

Apparently it is 5% ownership. Does that give them enough leverage to tank Intel’s iGPUs? That would seem weird to be. Intel’s iGPUs are an incredibly good solution for their (non-glamorous) niche. Intel’s dGPUs might be in a risky spot, though. (So… what’s new?) Messing up Intel’s iGPUs would be a huge practical loss for, like, everyday desktop Linux folks. Tossing out their dGPUs, I don’t know if it is such a huge…

Would be antitrust right?

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#423

Post by utternerd »

kmacdough wrote: post #395
xp84 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Not only would there be no money in it to try to replace Iris graphics or whatever they call them now -- it would be ultra pointless because the only people buying integrated graphics are those where gaming, on-device AI, and cryptocurrency aren't even part of the equation. Now, that is like 80%+ of the PC market, but it's perfectly well served already. I saw this move more as setting up a worthy competitor to…

Calling BS on "gaming not part of the equation". Several of my friends and I have exclusively games on integrated graphics. Sure we don't play the most abusively unoptimized AAA games like RDR2. But we're here and we're gaming.

RDR2 is quite optimized. We spend a lot of time profiling before release, and while input latency can be a tad high, the rendering pipeline is absolutely highly optimized as exhibited by the large amount of benchmarks on the web.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#424

Post by andsoitis »

93po wrote: post #223
andsoitis wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s so gross that companies can just dilute and create stock out of thin air like this. To get money from the outside, you either have to take on debt or you have to give someone a share in the business. In this case, the board of directors concluded the latter is better. I don't understand why you think it is gross.

To get a share in the business, you can also just buy stock in the business like everyone else, not increasing the total share count or causing dilution. They chose not to do this because it would have been more expensive due to properly compensating existing shareholders. So it's spiritually just theft.

> To get a share in the business, you can also just buy stock

The business is looking for additional capital. You can only do that by either selling new shares or raising debt.

> in the business like everyone else, not increasing the total share count or causing dilution. They chose not to do this because it would have been more expensive due to properly compensating existing shareholders. So it's spiritually just theft.

Shareholder dilution isn't inherently theft. Specific circumstances, motivations, and terms of issuance have a bearing on whether the dilution is harmful or whether it is necessary for the business.

For instance, it can be harmful if: minority shareholders are oppressed, shares are issued at a deeply discounted price with no legitimate business need or to benefit insiders at the expense of other shareholders, or if the raised capital isn't used effective to grow the company.

Dilution can be beneficial, such as when the raised capital is used for growth, employee compensation via employee stock options, etc.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#425

Post by delusional »

nickysielicki wrote: post #294
delusional wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This gives intel a chance at maintaining leading edge fab technologies. I don't think so: > The chip giant hasn’t disclosed whether it will use Intel Foundry to produce any of these products yet. It seems pretty likely this is an x86 licensing strategy for nvidia. I doubt they're going to be manufacturing anything on intel fabs. I even wonder if this is a play to get an in with Trump by "supporting" his nationalizi…

nvidia doesn’t need x86, they’re moving forward on aarch64 and won’t look back. For example, one of the headlines from CUDA 13 is that sbsa can be targeted from all toolkits, not as a separate download, which is important for making it easy to target grace. They have c2c silicon on grace for native host side nvlink. They’re not looking back.

They're clearly looking back though, investing in Intel and announcing quite substantial partnerships. Maybe they're not looking back for technical reasons, but they are looking back.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#426

Post by purpleflame1257 »

utternerd wrote: post #423
kmacdough wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling BS on "gaming not part of the equation". Several of my friends and I have exclusively games on integrated graphics. Sure we don't play the most abusively unoptimized AAA games like RDR2. But we're here and we're gaming.

RDR2 is quite optimized. We spend a lot of time profiling before release, and while input latency can be a tad high, the rendering pipeline is absolutely highly optimized as exhibited by the large amount of benchmarks on the web.

This is why I love HN. You get devs from any software or hardware project you care to name showing up in the comments.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#427

Post by 6r17 »

evanjrowley wrote: post #211

Nvidia's stake in Intel could have terrible consequences. First, it is in Nvidia's interest to kill Intel's Arc graphics, and that would be very bad because it is the only thing brighing GPU prices down for consumers. Second, the death of Intel graphics / Arc would be extremely bad for Linux, because Intel's approach to GPU drivers is the best for compatibility, wheras Nvidia is actively hostile to drivers on Linux.…

Reading this after that memo about China's attitude to Nvidia is actually chilling - they just don't care do they ?

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#428

Post by ho_schi »

evanjrowley wrote: post #211

Nvidia's stake in Intel could have terrible consequences. First, it is in Nvidia's interest to kill Intel's Arc graphics, and that would be very bad because it is the only thing brighing GPU prices down for consumers. Second, the death of Intel graphics / Arc would be extremely bad for Linux, because Intel's approach to GPU drivers is the best for compatibility, wheras Nvidia is actively hostile to drivers on Linux.…

Conclusion: Buy AMD. Excellent Linux support with in-tree drivers. For 15 years! A bug is something which will be fixed.

Nvidias GPUs are theoretically fast on initial benchmarks. But that’s mostly optimization by others for Nvidia? That’s it.

Everything Nvidia has done is a pain. Closed-source drivers (old pain), out of tree-drivers (new pain), ignoring (or actively harming) Wayland (everyone handles implicit sync well, except Nvidia which required explicit sync[1]), and awkward driver bugs declared as “it is not a bug, it is a feature”. The infamous bug:

    This extension provides a    way for applications to discover when video
    memory content has been lost, so that the application can re-populate
    the video memory content as necessary.
https://registry.khronos.org/OpenGL/extensions/NV/NV_robustn...

This extension will be soon ten years old. At least they intend to fix it? They just didn’t in the past 9 years! Basically, video memory could be gone after Suspend/Resume, VT-Switch and so on. The good news is, after years someone figured that out and implemented a workaround. For X11 with GNOME:

https://www.phoronix.com/news/NVIDIA-Ubuntu-2025-SnR

I hope in the meantime somebody implemented a patch for Wayland.

What we need? Reliability. And Linux support. That’s why I purchase AMD. And previously Intel.

[1] I don’t judge whether implicit sync or explicit are better.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#429

Post by upboundspiral »

evanjrowley wrote: post #211

Nvidia's stake in Intel could have terrible consequences. First, it is in Nvidia's interest to kill Intel's Arc graphics, and that would be very bad because it is the only thing brighing GPU prices down for consumers. Second, the death of Intel graphics / Arc would be extremely bad for Linux, because Intel's approach to GPU drivers is the best for compatibility, wheras Nvidia is actively hostile to drivers on Linux.…

This seems like it could be a long term existential threat for AMD. AMD CPU + GPU combos are finally coming out strong, both with MI300+ series in the supercomputing space, Strix Halo in laptops, etc. They have the advantage of being able to run code already optimized for x86 (important for gamers and HPC code), which NVIDIA doesn't have. Imagine if Grace Blackwell had x86 chips instead of Arm. If NVIDIA can get Intel CPUs with its chip offerings, it could be poised to completely take over so many new portions of the market/consolidate its current position by using its already existing mindshare and market dominance.

Re: Nvidia buys $5B in Intel

#430

Post by ClassAndBurn »

Nvidia sees the forest of the trees. The consequences of the US government buying steaks and Intel are that there will be Federal requirements for us companies using Intel. This is entirely about the foundry business. Nvidia is at risk when 100% of the production of its intellectual property occurs in Taiwan. They're more interested than anyone else in diversifying their foundry solutions. Intel has just been a terrible partner and totally disregards its customers. It's only because of the new strategic need for the US to have a foundry business that the government is saving until. NVIDIA is understandably supportive of this.
Post reply on HN