AMD has got CPU and GPU. Intel has got both. Time for nVidia to get both. Besides I really want to use Windows ARM with nVidia+ARM. I don't really see the problem.
And they'll surely ignore that ARM has 100% of the mobile space, and making serious inroads into desktops PC and servers space. Things look different when you're barely a blip on the radar compared to when you're the market.
Given that NVIDIA is a US company and the US would very much like to have ARM I'm sure the regulators will see quite a bit of pressure to give it the green light. And it will likely happen, just like when they gave FB the green light for WhatsApp despite it being a certainty that data will be shared, against the conditions imposed. SO I don't expect any surprises for this one.
Not really. AMD buying ATi didn't change the competitive market - they didn't make ATi GPUs incompatible with Intel CPUs, for example. What they (eventually) did was integrate the GPU tech into their CPUs, which wasn't possible before. That's an improvement for the market.
Meanwhile Intel have developed their own GPU.
On the other hand, Nvidia can already do everything they need to do with ARM without owning it - e.g. building a CPU and GPU together. What's supposed to be the advantage to the market of Nvidia - a company famous for making things proprietary for profit - owning ARM?
By this logic it's the same situation as AMD buying ATi. Nvidia hasn't acquired ARM yet. So you cannot assume they will change the ARM licensing model.
Your reasoning is awful. GPUs depend on having a CPU, and if AMD did something to make their GPUs only work with AMD CPUs, it would have been suicidal. Especially considering the fact that, when AMD acquired ATI, AMD CPUs were not miles ahead of intel, nor was AMD the only IP holder for x86 technology.
Where as arm is the single dominant player in risc CPUs for low power devices. If there was no oversight, nvidiarm could and would charge more for arm licenses.
Like, really, with all the price increases for nvidia's GPU lineup, as well as the extra nvidia tax on G-sync monitors, what exactly makes you think nvidia won't increase the prices for arm licenses?
"nor was AMD the only IP holder for x86 technology"
This is the essential part. x86 space always had a minimum of 2 players. Same for the GPU space where the minimum has been 3 for decades.
In the ARM space there's one ARM licensing to others. On top of that Nvidia is also the major GPU player on the market. Put them together and you'd have the biggest GPU player getting 100% control over the CPUs for mobile space, the very same that start to displace x86 from PC/server space.
Unless we get an x86-like agreement where it's guaranteed that at least one competing manufacturer has free reign over developing the ISA with the associated divergence that would definitely follow, the only good option is to keep ARM as an independent entity. And then there's the good option for Nvidia and the US with them having 100% control over all mainstream CPU ISAs.
ATi were just another GPU designer. They weren't anywhere near ubiquitous and there any other companies that relied on their technology that also competed with AMD.
ARM is almost ubquitious in the mobile space and has made in-roads elsewhere. There are many, some very large, companies that rely on ARM and that compete with NVIDIA.
This sale absolutely should not be allowed (the original to Softbank should never have been on British national security grounds, but that's another issue).
Nvidia doesn't need to buy ARM in order to make chips where they control the CPU and GPU. In fact, they already do this with their Tegra chips that combine ARM CPUs (either off the shelf or of their own design) with their own GPUs. ARM already licenses the architecture to tons of companies. The main benefit to owning the architecture is the ability to prevent licensing to competitors.
> Apple has made one of the most power efficient cpus+gpus for a laptop. > They din't need to buy ARM for that.
They didn't buy ARM the company, but they did buy a perpetual ARM architecture license from ARM. Apple's CPUs are ARM architecture CPUs in the same way that AMD and VIA CPUs are (Intel) x86 architecture CPU's.
If NVIDIA bought ARM, they could, for example, not issue any more of these ARM architecture licenses, so besides those who aleady have perpetual ones (Apple plus 14 others - I think Qualcomm is another - as of 2013 at least), they could refuse to issue any more. Or, they could cancel the subscription tier (https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at... entirely, and force everyone to more granular licences that could earn NVIDIA more, cost those companies more, and reduce flexibility and competition in the ARM market.
Apple has a perpetual license because it was one of the 3 companies that founded ARM in 1990. So that perpetual access comes from the conditions Apple imposed on those who later bought its stake.
I don't think other current ARM clients have an equal right, but if you can clarify "who and why" I would be grateful.
Apple "has overcome" the need to own the technologies produced by ARM (such as, years ago, those on the GPU side of Imagination Thrcnologies) otherwise I think it would have strongly opposed this acquisition. Instead: "nothing"!
I think the problem stems from how arm doesn't manufacture their own CPUs. Rather, arm design the chips, and then sells IP licenses to everyone else.
When you add in how nvidia sells their own chips to the market, by buying arm, nvidiarm would be in direct competition with itself. And if you are cynical about how capitalism works, as you should be, there would be little to no reason for nvidia to off load the cost of developing their own chip, by increasing license fees. Unless, of course, EU decides to regulate that, by saying nvidiarm would be violating laws, if nvidiarm increased license fees, without increasing value of the license they offer.
Even if you wanted that sort of competition, you do realize the breadth of IP ARM does, right? CPUs, GPUs, uCs, and then there's where those items go into other products. You are aware that FPGAs have ARM IP inside of them, right? IIRC the same with AMD's CPUs -- for their ME.
Simply trusting Nvidia with the fate of FPGAs and AMD's CPU division, is that wise?
Moreover, if all you wanted was to see Nvidia do CPUs just like AMD, they already do. You are aware they have RISC-V CPUs inside of them GPUs, right? You do know that they could just sell the RISC-V CPUs outside of their GPUs, right?
Considering your post doesn't take into account any of the above, I'd suggest you make a suggestion or shut up and do your research before posting.
Why? Who says that someone owns to Nvidia to have anything? And they already have both. They license ARM technology, so THEY DO HAVE BOTH ALREADY. AMD is licensing X86 in case you are forgetting it. They don't own X86. Intel does.
Companies effectively fall under jurisdictions of all the countries they operate in. If ARM and Nvidia wish to do business in the EU, they can't engage in anti-competitive practices there.
What would happen if Nvidia said, "Screw the EU" and merged with ARM? That is, if the EU prevents ARM from doing business in the EU, what does that mean, practically? Would the EU void the copyright/trademark and tell companies that they are free to infringe the ARM IP without paying Nvidia the licensing fee?
idk what would happen in this case, but normally if a company is just engaging in anti-competitive practices, they can be fined up to 30% of relevant products sales, up to 10% of total company turn-over. But this fine is assuming that you stop when you get caught.
After fines, if they didn't stop then first bans on sales of their technologies in the EU would be implemented and they would be forced to split into two or more companies (all while taking on more fines).
And yes, if they couldn't operate in the EU, they wouldn't be able to protect their IP there.
Not remotely confused about their jurisdiction. They're stepping up where other governments cower and scrape to the large corporations. As meaculpa said, what you hysterically call "robbing" companies is a social good.
People always say things like "nothing is stopping them from making their own ARM chips now" but we don't really see that as true. Every ARM chip except Apple is all the same as the base ARM designs, honestly. Nothing much better.
You can't ask NVidia to invest 10s of billions of dollars in to ARM design if they can't then sell those designs to others to make back their money, without risk that they just rip it off and don't pay nVidia for the work. If they don't own ARM they will be accidentally giving away that R&D and it won't benefit themselves enough to put that investment in action.
If they can invest in the power of ARM CPU cores, not only benefit themselves, but also license those new ARM cores to other companies without risk that they just run with it and don't pay nVidia anything, they will invest a lot more money into ARM CPU development.
I'm not saying NVidia is an angel, they want to make money. I'm saying we need a lot more R&D into basic ARM designs, they are 3 years behind Apple and Intel and AMD will beat ARM at this rate.
What in the world are you talking about? No one "steals" ARM's or Apple's or Samsung's custom designs, because there's this little thing called "IP law".
Even worse than that, your whole argument rests on the basis of a hipotethical business model (That of licensing IP) that Nvidia has had, historically speaking, no interest in. Nvidia makes money selling hardware. They don't license their IP because that would be creating competition in their own ecossystem, hurting their sales.
As for "ARM is 3 years behind Apple, Intel, AMD": CPU design is a balance between cost, power draw, and performance. ARM's designs perform "worse" (In a contextless comparison) because their designs focus on delivering solid performance without excessive cost, while keeping the power draw of consumer SoC's in the 5-30W range.
In contrast, AMD and especially Intel's designs can draw over an order of magnitude more power than an ARM SoC. So of course they're "better", if you're willing to carry a Noctua tower cooler attached to your smartphone.
And Apple makes their money mainly off their ecosystem monop- sorry, control, and not out of selling hardware. That's why they can afford to use large, bleeding-edge silicon dies, and to create a whole bunch of accelerators. They're just investing a lot of money into winning the benchmarks, as that's essentially another form of marketing for them.
A Nvidia acquisition won't suddenly change any of these dynamics.
"Every ARM chip except Apple is all the same as the base ARM designs, honestly." Absolute nonsense. Nvidia already developed their own bespoke ARM-compatible architecture.
"You can't ask NVidia to invest 10s of billions of dollars in to ARM design if they can't then sell those designs to others to make back their money, without risk that they just rip it off and don't pay nVidia for the work." What are you even on about? Again, they already did this, and nobody ripped them off.
"I'm saying we need a lot more R&D into basic ARM designs, they are 3 years behind Apple and Intel and AMD will beat ARM at this rate." What about Nvidia buying ARM makes you think they will be more likely to invest money into those basic designs and then actually licence them out to customers under fair terms?
In addition to others replies, even if you really think that Nvidia couldn't possibly produce ARM CPUs today, they can do it with RISC-V. They chose not to. Moreover, they're trying to purchase the whole ARM company -- not just their CPU division.
"You can't ask NVidia to invest 10s of billions of dollars in to ARM design if they can't then sell those designs to others to make back their money, without risk that they just rip it off and don't pay nVidia for the work. If they don't own ARM they will be accidentally giving away that R&D and it won't benefit themselves enough to put that investment in action."
So what you're saying is that since no one wanted to buy Tegra, nVidia must be allowed to buy Arm so they can FORCE people to buy Tegra?
Nvidia could finally pay their shenanigans with Ageia and PhysX. How they killed PPU boards, how they where limiting PhysX on their own graphics cards if an AMD card was used as a primary. Someone only needs to look back to how they treated even their own customers and know that Nvidia is the worst owner ARM could have for everyone else.
I hope this gets cancelled out and ARM stays where it does, below. With Nvidia gulping them they would become massive due to Nvidia's GPU leadership in HPC. ARM garbage deserves nothing, esp for a DIY PC enthusiast or even general compute. ARM HW and SW is a joke and rely too much on the vendor BS. Esp on Android Blobs and far less obey GNU GPL V2 etc. Apple is full custom jailed BS.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
Back to Article
Alistair - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link
AMD has got CPU and GPU. Intel has got both. Time for nVidia to get both. Besides I really want to use Windows ARM with nVidia+ARM. I don't really see the problem.boozed - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link
I'm sure the European Commission's competition regulator will find this to be a persuasive argument.iphonebestgamephone - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
Didnt you know? His uncle works for the european comission!at_clucks - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
And they'll surely ignore that ARM has 100% of the mobile space, and making serious inroads into desktops PC and servers space. Things look different when you're barely a blip on the radar compared to when you're the market.Given that NVIDIA is a US company and the US would very much like to have ARM I'm sure the regulators will see quite a bit of pressure to give it the green light. And it will likely happen, just like when they gave FB the green light for WhatsApp despite it being a certainty that data will be shared, against the conditions imposed. SO I don't expect any surprises for this one.
UltraWide - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link
Good point.Spunjji - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
Not really. AMD buying ATi didn't change the competitive market - they didn't make ATi GPUs incompatible with Intel CPUs, for example. What they (eventually) did was integrate the GPU tech into their CPUs, which wasn't possible before. That's an improvement for the market.Meanwhile Intel have developed their own GPU.
On the other hand, Nvidia can already do everything they need to do with ARM without owning it - e.g. building a CPU and GPU together. What's supposed to be the advantage to the market of Nvidia - a company famous for making things proprietary for profit - owning ARM?
UltraWide - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
By this logic it's the same situation as AMD buying ATi. Nvidia hasn't acquired ARM yet. So you cannot assume they will change the ARM licensing model.meacupla - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
Your reasoning is awful.GPUs depend on having a CPU, and if AMD did something to make their GPUs only work with AMD CPUs, it would have been suicidal.
Especially considering the fact that, when AMD acquired ATI, AMD CPUs were not miles ahead of intel, nor was AMD the only IP holder for x86 technology.
Where as arm is the single dominant player in risc CPUs for low power devices. If there was no oversight, nvidiarm could and would charge more for arm licenses.
Like, really, with all the price increases for nvidia's GPU lineup, as well as the extra nvidia tax on G-sync monitors, what exactly makes you think nvidia won't increase the prices for arm licenses?
at_clucks - Friday, October 29, 2021 - link
"nor was AMD the only IP holder for x86 technology"This is the essential part. x86 space always had a minimum of 2 players. Same for the GPU space where the minimum has been 3 for decades.
In the ARM space there's one ARM licensing to others. On top of that Nvidia is also the major GPU player on the market. Put them together and you'd have the biggest GPU player getting 100% control over the CPUs for mobile space, the very same that start to displace x86 from PC/server space.
Unless we get an x86-like agreement where it's guaranteed that at least one competing manufacturer has free reign over developing the ISA with the associated divergence that would definitely follow, the only good option is to keep ARM as an independent entity. And then there's the good option for Nvidia and the US with them having 100% control over all mainstream CPU ISAs.
Tams80 - Saturday, November 13, 2021 - link
ATi were just another GPU designer. They weren't anywhere near ubiquitous and there any other companies that relied on their technology that also competed with AMD.ARM is almost ubquitious in the mobile space and has made in-roads elsewhere. There are many, some very large, companies that rely on ARM and that compete with NVIDIA.
This sale absolutely should not be allowed (the original to Softbank should never have been on British national security grounds, but that's another issue).
unrulycow - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link
Nvidia doesn't need to buy ARM in order to make chips where they control the CPU and GPU. In fact, they already do this with their Tegra chips that combine ARM CPUs (either off the shelf or of their own design) with their own GPUs. ARM already licenses the architecture to tons of companies. The main benefit to owning the architecture is the ability to prevent licensing to competitors.plopke - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link
Apple has made one of the most power efficient cpus+gpus for a laptop.They din't need to buy ARM for that.
I really wish this deals gets stopped instead of this becoming a other "how did they get so big and powerfull , amazon,facebook,google,etc,etc"
eldakka - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
> Apple has made one of the most power efficient cpus+gpus for a laptop.> They din't need to buy ARM for that.
They didn't buy ARM the company, but they did buy a perpetual ARM architecture license from ARM. Apple's CPUs are ARM architecture CPUs in the same way that AMD and VIA CPUs are (Intel) x86 architecture CPU's.
If NVIDIA bought ARM, they could, for example, not issue any more of these ARM architecture licenses, so besides those who aleady have perpetual ones (Apple plus 14 others - I think Qualcomm is another - as of 2013 at least), they could refuse to issue any more. Or, they could cancel the subscription tier (https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at... entirely, and force everyone to more granular licences that could earn NVIDIA more, cost those companies more, and reduce flexibility and competition in the ARM market.
.itMacuser - Sunday, October 31, 2021 - link
Apple has a perpetual license because it was one of the 3 companies that founded ARM in 1990. So that perpetual access comes from the conditions Apple imposed on those who later bought its stake.I don't think other current ARM clients have an equal right, but if you can clarify "who and why" I would be grateful.
Apple "has overcome" the need to own the technologies produced by ARM (such as, years ago, those on the GPU side of Imagination Thrcnologies) otherwise I think it would have strongly opposed this acquisition.
Instead: "nothing"!
Wereweeb - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link
No one and nothing is stopping Nvidia from designing ARM CPU's, except Nvidia itself.Buying ARM only gives them the ability to prevent others from doing so.
meacupla - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link
I think the problem stems from how arm doesn't manufacture their own CPUs.Rather, arm design the chips, and then sells IP licenses to everyone else.
When you add in how nvidia sells their own chips to the market, by buying arm, nvidiarm would be in direct competition with itself.
And if you are cynical about how capitalism works, as you should be, there would be little to no reason for nvidia to off load the cost of developing their own chip, by increasing license fees. Unless, of course, EU decides to regulate that, by saying nvidiarm would be violating laws, if nvidiarm increased license fees, without increasing value of the license they offer.
ballsystemlord - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link
Even if you wanted that sort of competition, you do realize the breadth of IP ARM does, right?CPUs, GPUs, uCs, and then there's where those items go into other products.
You are aware that FPGAs have ARM IP inside of them, right? IIRC the same with AMD's CPUs -- for their ME.
Simply trusting Nvidia with the fate of FPGAs and AMD's CPU division, is that wise?
Moreover, if all you wanted was to see Nvidia do CPUs just like AMD, they already do. You are aware they have RISC-V CPUs inside of them GPUs, right? You do know that they could just sell the RISC-V CPUs outside of their GPUs, right?
Considering your post doesn't take into account any of the above, I'd suggest you make a suggestion or shut up and do your research before posting.
yannigr2 - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
Why? Who says that someone owns to Nvidia to have anything? And they already have both. They license ARM technology, so THEY DO HAVE BOTH ALREADY. AMD is licensing X86 in case you are forgetting it. They don't own X86. Intel does.yetanotherhuman - Monday, November 8, 2021 - link
ARM is bigger than NVIDIA. I disagree, I think it's critical that ARM stays a more independent entity.coburn_c - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link
The EU is not only late but confused about their jurisdiction. But hey, any chance to rob companies at pen pointmeacupla - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link
Good. Companies should be taxed, fined, and robbed at every opportunity.Hul8 - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
Companies effectively fall under jurisdictions of all the countries they operate in. If ARM and Nvidia wish to do business in the EU, they can't engage in anti-competitive practices there.Mikewind Dale - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
What would happen if Nvidia said, "Screw the EU" and merged with ARM? That is, if the EU prevents ARM from doing business in the EU, what does that mean, practically? Would the EU void the copyright/trademark and tell companies that they are free to infringe the ARM IP without paying Nvidia the licensing fee?Murloc - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link
idk what would happen in this case, but normally if a company is just engaging in anti-competitive practices, they can be fined up to 30% of relevant products sales, up to 10% of total company turn-over. But this fine is assuming that you stop when you get caught.Tams80 - Saturday, November 13, 2021 - link
After fines, if they didn't stop then first bans on sales of their technologies in the EU would be implemented and they would be forced to split into two or more companies (all while taking on more fines).And yes, if they couldn't operate in the EU, they wouldn't be able to protect their IP there.
Wereweeb - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
What's with all the corporate bootlickers, y'all own Nvidia stock or something?Spunjji - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
Some of them just like the taste of leather and dirt.Spunjji - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
Not remotely confused about their jurisdiction. They're stepping up where other governments cower and scrape to the large corporations. As meaculpa said, what you hysterically call "robbing" companies is a social good.Alistair - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
People always say things like "nothing is stopping them from making their own ARM chips now" but we don't really see that as true. Every ARM chip except Apple is all the same as the base ARM designs, honestly. Nothing much better.You can't ask NVidia to invest 10s of billions of dollars in to ARM design if they can't then sell those designs to others to make back their money, without risk that they just rip it off and don't pay nVidia for the work. If they don't own ARM they will be accidentally giving away that R&D and it won't benefit themselves enough to put that investment in action.
If they can invest in the power of ARM CPU cores, not only benefit themselves, but also license those new ARM cores to other companies without risk that they just run with it and don't pay nVidia anything, they will invest a lot more money into ARM CPU development.
I'm not saying NVidia is an angel, they want to make money. I'm saying we need a lot more R&D into basic ARM designs, they are 3 years behind Apple and Intel and AMD will beat ARM at this rate.
Wereweeb - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
What in the world are you talking about? No one "steals" ARM's or Apple's or Samsung's custom designs, because there's this little thing called "IP law".Even worse than that, your whole argument rests on the basis of a hipotethical business model (That of licensing IP) that Nvidia has had, historically speaking, no interest in. Nvidia makes money selling hardware. They don't license their IP because that would be creating competition in their own ecossystem, hurting their sales.
As for "ARM is 3 years behind Apple, Intel, AMD": CPU design is a balance between cost, power draw, and performance. ARM's designs perform "worse" (In a contextless comparison) because their designs focus on delivering solid performance without excessive cost, while keeping the power draw of consumer SoC's in the 5-30W range.
In contrast, AMD and especially Intel's designs can draw over an order of magnitude more power than an ARM SoC. So of course they're "better", if you're willing to carry a Noctua tower cooler attached to your smartphone.
And Apple makes their money mainly off their ecosystem monop- sorry, control, and not out of selling hardware. That's why they can afford to use large, bleeding-edge silicon dies, and to create a whole bunch of accelerators. They're just investing a lot of money into winning the benchmarks, as that's essentially another form of marketing for them.
A Nvidia acquisition won't suddenly change any of these dynamics.
Spunjji - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
"Every ARM chip except Apple is all the same as the base ARM designs, honestly."Absolute nonsense. Nvidia already developed their own bespoke ARM-compatible architecture.
"You can't ask NVidia to invest 10s of billions of dollars in to ARM design if they can't then sell those designs to others to make back their money, without risk that they just rip it off and don't pay nVidia for the work."
What are you even on about? Again, they already did this, and nobody ripped them off.
"I'm saying we need a lot more R&D into basic ARM designs, they are 3 years behind Apple and Intel and AMD will beat ARM at this rate."
What about Nvidia buying ARM makes you think they will be more likely to invest money into those basic designs and then actually licence them out to customers under fair terms?
ballsystemlord - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
In addition to others replies, even if you really think that Nvidia couldn't possibly produce ARM CPUs today, they can do it with RISC-V. They chose not to.Moreover, they're trying to purchase the whole ARM company -- not just their CPU division.
Lord of the Bored - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
"You can't ask NVidia to invest 10s of billions of dollars in to ARM design if they can't then sell those designs to others to make back their money, without risk that they just rip it off and don't pay nVidia for the work. If they don't own ARM they will be accidentally giving away that R&D and it won't benefit themselves enough to put that investment in action."So what you're saying is that since no one wanted to buy Tegra, nVidia must be allowed to buy Arm so they can FORCE people to buy Tegra?
yannigr2 - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
Nvidia could finally pay their shenanigans with Ageia and PhysX. How they killed PPU boards, how they where limiting PhysX on their own graphics cards if an AMD card was used as a primary. Someone only needs to look back to how they treated even their own customers and know that Nvidia is the worst owner ARM could have for everyone else.Farfolomew - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
Maybe NVidia should have bought Nuvia instead, then they could be creating the next M1 competitor.SSTANIC - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
I particularly liked the last two words in the article "Margrethe Vestager".. :)Silver5urfer - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
I hope this gets cancelled out and ARM stays where it does, below. With Nvidia gulping them they would become massive due to Nvidia's GPU leadership in HPC. ARM garbage deserves nothing, esp for a DIY PC enthusiast or even general compute. ARM HW and SW is a joke and rely too much on the vendor BS. Esp on Android Blobs and far less obey GNU GPL V2 etc. Apple is full custom jailed BS.smilingcrow - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
If Jensen is wearing matching leather trousers, the EU official will require a lot of lube to go with the probe.TristanSDX - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link
NV also produce toasters, so no worry here, deal approved