Nvidia reveals plans to make x86 CPU
Nvidia already has an ARM CPU in its Tegra platform, but this is the first time the company has talked about an x86 CPU.
In a Q&A session at the conference, Nvidia’s senior vice president of investor relations and communications, Michael Hara, was asked when Nvidia would want to get into the general purpose microprocessor business. Hara said that “the question is not so much I think if; I think the question is when.”
“I think some time down the road it makes sense to take the same level of integration that we’ve done with Tegra,” said Hara. “Tegra is by any definition a complete computer on a chip, and the requirements of that market are such that you have to be very low power, very small, but highly efficient. So in that particular state it made a lot of sense to take that approach, and someday it’s going to make sense to take the same approach in the x86 market as well.”
However, Hara also pointed out that Nvidia’s x86 CPU wouldn’t be appropriate for every segment of the market, and would be mainly targeted at smaller system-on-chip platforms. “If you look at the high-end of the PC market I think it’s going to stay fairly discrete, because that seems to be the best of all worlds,” said Hara, adding that “a highly integrated system-on-chip is going to make sense” in the MID (mobile intelligent device) and netbook markets.
Although Hara didn’t reveal a specific timeframe for the new CPU, he did point out that “it’s not necessary today,” because a combination of Intel’s Atom CPU with Nvidia’s Ion platform would suffice. However, he added that “two or three years down the road I think it’s going to make sense,” and said that “we won’t talk much more about what we think about that timeframe, but there’s no question it’s on our minds.”
Of course the big problem for Nvidia here is that it doesn’t have an x86 license from Intel to produce its own x86 CPUs. However, rumours appeared last year suggesting that Nvidia was considering an alliance with VIA to purchase its processor division, although these were later denied by VIA. Last week, Intel’s CEO Paul Otellini also took a swipe at Nvidia’s lack of x86 CPU technology, saying “If you don't have a microprocessor, what else do you have to sell?”
Should Nvidia enter the x86 CPU market? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.
Previous Article
31 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyIt would be a shame if they didn't at least consider the server market - it'd really set the relix amongst the cheesecakes.
Bring it on Nvidia! More competition for struggling AMD and bullying Intel is always a good thing! :)
2/Nvidia announce they want to make a highly integrated 'nvidia' x86 system-on-chip for lower performance sectors, with a rough start date of two to three years down the line.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out Nvidia are going to be integrating Atom cores into their own system on chips. Theres no need for Nvidia to get an x86 licence as they can now simply licence the cores from intel and integrate them into their products.
Your gonna use MID chips in your servers? Nice.
Seriously tho I meant if Nvidia make proper x86 CPUs and not just netbook level stuff. Of course if that does not happen then I am still happy to wait for AMD Istanbul 6 cores for my servers hehe ;)
I was thinking just that :)
Nvidia: "The CPU is Dead.. Long live the CPU (made by NVIDIA)"
and
Nvidia: "The CPU is dead what you need is a GPU with a few CPU capabilities"
Intel: "The GPU is dead what you need is a CPU with GPU capabilities"
The question is.. would AMD not be perfectly positioned to make something in between that might actually work?
AMD's fusion initiative is aimed at exactly this same spot, it just hasn't been in the new much lately.
It made no sense but, Best Metaphor Ever. :)
people can stop mentioning physX come next year it will be dead anyways lol thats why you havent seen it converted to be true gpu processing instead its being simulated with CUDA, they just wont admit that its going on its way out.
well CPUs are at 45nm and GPUs are about to hit 40nm so we are almost there to where there is enough space for a decent configuration but it probably wont be until both CPU and GPU are sub 40nm that they really start cranking out the high end stuff but I do see low and mid range in the near future. Also its not like they cant make the socket bigger to make room for it all.
I'll prefer my GPU and CPU seperated, for 1) I can get the highest bang for the buck(easier), and 2) For now it'll be easier to keep both components cool when they're separated, maybe.
ya I think one approach that I normally disapproved of but in this case may work out better is Intels super glue approach for the C2D when they used two dies to make their quad cores, a similar idea would be to have one die be say a dual core cpu and the other given current sizes a single gpu, that potentially could offer great performance if its pulling from the same DDR3 banks but have their own traffic flow. I mean this could yield better performance then current setups (1 cpu, and graphics card), at least I hope. May be ideal for laptops in particular and reduce cooling and power requirements, again I hope lol.
Companies such as intel could offer a choice of 2 chipsets with a choice of 3 gpu's per chipset and 3 cpu's corresponging to each chipset.
You could have the equivalent of X48 and P45. Call these P100 and X100.
P100:
- MID performance GPU/CPU
- Netbook performance GPU/CPU
- Crappy Office PC performance GPU/CPU
X100:
- Mid-range PC (budget minded people)
- High-end PC (average gamer/user)
- Ultra High-end PC (gaming/servers/music & graphics)
Spell-check! Go for it.
Pretty much yes, if you make an x86 you need a licence from Intel, I guess if nVidia didnt have one, and couldnt get one they would partner up with someone who has one, but I am not sure if Intel will like that and could potentially revoke the licence of that company
Kimbie
However, in the MID/netbook/nettop segments then great, lower power, maybe higher performance and its not like you are going to be upgrading anyway. (btw, I thought it was a mobile internet device, not a mobile intelligent device - wouldn't that have to be the person carrying it?)
The way things are going, PCs will one day have one (or more) Uber core processors, what they do will depend on what code they run on them. Pure number crunching, 3D rendering, Post processing, AI - Will all be done on the same architecture.
It's not that seperate GPUs won't exist, but I bet the mainstream won't need them, and when that happens the support will go.
My money is on the GPU (as we know it) has 5 years left tops
Graphics processing mostly consists of massively parallel, yet mostly quite simple, operations, while normal mathematical operations, as done by the CPU (or its FPU) are much more complex and usually do not involve parallelism of any high order.
At some point CPUs and GPGPUs *will* converge, which is why it was only a matter of time before nVidia would start making CPUs (despite doing a Nietzsche on them). It's also the main reason AMD bought ATi, although it pushed AMD to near bankruptcy.
I'm not really seeing a combined CPU/GPGPU for some time, though. I believe the GPGPU will migrate to the motherboard/chipset in some way, being connected to the CPU and memory via a high-speed transport (enter HT and CSI).
no Intel policy F T W. I buy AMD not so much because I am an AMD fan-boy but because I cant stand Intel. With that said I also take common sense into consideration. Ill buy AMD as long as they have something that can roughly match up to Intel.
I do hope NVIDIA teams up with VIA and makes some X86 CPUs though. That will be interesting. Then we will have 3 companies with complete system platforms going head to head. And I can imagine that it will pick up pretty fast if its competitive since there are so many NVIDIA fanboys out there.