Intel's chipset monopoly

From	"Orson Cart" <ex-privat@parts.org>
Reply-To	"Orson Cart" <ex-privat@parts.org>
Subject	Intel's chipset monopoly
Newsgroups	comp.sys.intel
NNTP-Posting-Host	$$5jpnlhimnb7q6.feeder.x-privat.org
Message-ID	<4f010b0b$1@x-privat.org> (permalink)
Date	2 Jan 2012 02:40:27 +0100
Organization	X-Privat NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
Lines	12
X-Authenticated-User	$$xs-7_q6xz085nc1qk
X-Complaints-To	abuse@x-privat.org
Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.x-privat.org!x-privat.org!not-for-mail
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.sys.intel:155

Show key headers only | View raw

VIA, SiS, ATI and NVIDIA used to make chipsets for FSB CPUs up to
Core 2 and Atom ... but all this ceased when Intel brought out
the Nehalem.
I still wonder why they have not granted permission to others to
mate with their CPUs? Perhaps now they use internal memory controller,
a crappy northbridge will not choke memory bandwidth, and OEMs
might just select the minimum price.
But I really have a feeling they are against NVIDIA most of all.
Why?
AMD seems content for NVIDIA to make stuff, even though NVIDIA
are a rival for their GPU division.

Back to comp.sys.intel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Intel's chipset monopoly "Orson Cart" <ex-privat@parts.org> - 2012-01-02 02:40 +0100
  Re: Intel's chipset monopoly DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> - 2012-01-02 01:39 -0800
  Re: Intel's chipset monopoly Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-03 23:51 -0500
    Re: Intel's chipset monopoly "Jim" <jim@wtf.invalid> - 2012-01-06 09:58 -0500
      Re: Intel's chipset monopoly Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-18 17:39 -0500

csiph-web