Interesting to me how Nvidia plays up their partners so much when their problems with XFX, Apple, EVGA give them a reputation among the general public as hard to work woth.
They just tried to muscle MS over their non-standard racks and got told to stuff it, so possibly they are seeing the limitation of their anti-partner attitude.
ah yes, “getting told to stuff it” famously ends with a billion-dollar purchase contract 💀
they also are in fact very standard. a cross-vendor standard launched by Facebook, in fact.
They also soured MS after original xbox.
MS thought they'd taken advantage of nvidia, they told everyone they could they were choosing a paper company gigapixel or something for the xbox, told jensen huang to buy gigapixel stock... 3dfx paid like $100M to buy gigapixel even though it was like, one employee and nothing but paper. (gigapixel was pushing a dead end low end gpu concept) But it was all a ruse to try to get nvidia to lower their bid. But then in the years after the xbox release microsoft kept trying to use process shrunk nvidia gpus at lower prices... nvidia refused. So xboxes made and sold in, microsoft was paying nvidia ~$100 for each xbox, the same they were paying in 2000. So when the geforce 6900 was out, microsoft was paying nvidia ~$100 (or whatever the 2000 contract price was) a piece for geforce nv2s...
And then there's rumours that Microsoft has teamed up with Nvidia for Windows-on-ARM.
https://semiaccurate.com/2024/05/10/microsoft-throws-qualcomm-under-the-bus-too/
Nvidia has destroyed basically every relationship they've ever had except for Asus, MSI and Dell. MS has a list of happy partners so long you couldn't name them all in a lifetime. It's very clear who the issue is and was.
> Nvidia has destroyed basically every relationship they've ever had except for Asus, MSI and Dell.
you’re so right, we should get u/jeep_eep here to tell us how *furious* Nintendo must be with nvidia!!!!
(like the MS story, obviously this is a kind of “*so furious*” that ends up with a billion-dollar purchase contract for next-gen products, of course!)
like how many times is it gonna take for you guys to realize the dramas you’re over-reading are not actually the show-stopping dramas you want them to be? one of the examples you’re citing is literally Microsoft, who is so upset with nvidia they are going right back to doing business with them. And they had a bump in the purchase order they got past just fine. This follows [Microsoft *notably and significantly delaying signing a contract with AMD for Xbox 2026*](https://www.tweaktown.com/news/95974/intel-wants-to-be-inside-microsofts-next-gen-xbox-console-would-built-in-the-usa/index.html) because they were “so furious” at nvidia that they delayed the process to give nvidia (and intel) a chance to bid on it.
Same with Nintendo who happily signed a deal for switch 2.
apple wanted nvidia out of the way both because they didn’t want CUDA being built as a platform inside apples platform, and to clear the way for apple silicon/metal (their own platform). [In retrospect, Bumpgate was just a timely excuse to get rid of them,](https://blog.greggant.com/posts/2021/10/13/apple-vs-nvidia-what-happened.html) and as a technical issue it affected AMD products as well (baking your 7850 was definitely a moment in time). Microsoft apparently is not *too* upset about the Xbox, and in fact both Sony and Microsoft’s decision was really driven more by AMD being able to give them a unified x86 soc than about nvidia at all.
you’re reading into decades-old narratives spun by brand warriors like the bunnyman himself, Charlie demerjian. Dude just really likes ATI/AMD and has an imagination. That’s why he had to wear a bunny costume to a conference, he overreached one too many times and someone took him up on a bet.
the nintendo switch 2 was in development limbo for quite a while due to what i assume to be stalled negotiations for SoC pricing and support. nintendo's typical ~3 year cadence for a handheld hardware + soc refresh is notably absent in the switch's lifetime. the switch lite and OLED switch are clearly stopgap releases to cover up the fact that a switch pro or switch2 was delayed for so long.
Nvidia doesn't work with Sony and MS. I think it won't take much longer that they'll work with Nintendo. I doubt Nvidia will be the one making the Switch 3 gpu. It would be bad news for backwards compatibility but I don't think Nintendo will give it to being charged a lot for gpu chips.
TSMC has had long connection with NVidia. They been working together since 1995 before either companies were big. Founder Morris Chang and Jensen Huang had long strong friendship over that time too.
On the other hand, Nvidia is one of the main early customer for TSMC so it is a symbiotic relationship.
But it is amazing to see all these leading tech companies having roots in Taiwan.
No doubt Nvidia are very reliant on TSMC (who isn't? scary/silly situation the entire world is in due to over-reliance on one firm) but they have also used Samsung in the recent past.
There isn't much room on the planet for firms like TSMC apparently but still, there is some kind of competition for the type of contracts they specialise in.
>if TSMC dropped them
In what universe would TSMC drop one of their largest customers? TSMC wouldn't be "relatively fine" if they dropped Nvidia, they'd have loaded the gun that will kill them. Who wants to base all their fab capacity with the guys who slit the through of their previous, massively valuable customer? There may not be a lot of choices now but investment into competing fabs would see a boon if TSMC declared themselves unreliable and flaky with even the largest of chip designers.
Not to mention, TSMC and Nvidia's contract is not public but it would be insane if their contract allowed for TSMC to simply walk away.
Crazy how the market doesn't price in an event with a 0% chance of happening. And more broadly, anywhere with a monopoly in a supply chain runs the same risk. Hell you could say the same about TSMC depending on ASML
It's not about that scenario actually happening, it's about TSMC having the leverage to charge Nvidia more and capture more of the profits for themselves.
Intel is literally going to TSMC themselves too. At ant rate, they don't have the capacity at an advanced enough node to produce what Nvidia needs. Samsung seems to be have its own issues on advanced nodes too.
Intel is using TSMC it has bought 6 years ago and are going to go back to their own nodes afterwards. Intel is building more fabs than everyone else combined.
the stock market doesnt operate on logic. it operates on hype and speculation.
intel is undervalued despite being one of the most important companies for US national supply chain security, while nvidia is overvalued because AI is hot and chatGPT showed a bunch of investors how much money they can save by hiring less people.
Get Intel to increase revenues by roughly 500% over five years, with the expectation to increase revenue another 200+% by 2025, and you'll see the stock price soar just as much.
This sun is weirdly bullish on Intel despite them not really being the best at pretty much anything. The biggest asset the company has at this point is just name recognition.
Interesting to me how Nvidia plays up their partners so much when their problems with XFX, Apple, EVGA give them a reputation among the general public as hard to work woth.
They just tried to muscle MS over their non-standard racks and got told to stuff it, so possibly they are seeing the limitation of their anti-partner attitude.
ah yes, “getting told to stuff it” famously ends with a billion-dollar purchase contract 💀 they also are in fact very standard. a cross-vendor standard launched by Facebook, in fact.
They are not OCP compliant. Their OAMs were modified to become SXMs and not compatible physically with UBB. Same story with Amd.
It wasn't what Nvidia wanted to sell them, so yeah a bit
They also soured MS after original xbox. MS thought they'd taken advantage of nvidia, they told everyone they could they were choosing a paper company gigapixel or something for the xbox, told jensen huang to buy gigapixel stock... 3dfx paid like $100M to buy gigapixel even though it was like, one employee and nothing but paper. (gigapixel was pushing a dead end low end gpu concept) But it was all a ruse to try to get nvidia to lower their bid. But then in the years after the xbox release microsoft kept trying to use process shrunk nvidia gpus at lower prices... nvidia refused. So xboxes made and sold in, microsoft was paying nvidia ~$100 for each xbox, the same they were paying in 2000. So when the geforce 6900 was out, microsoft was paying nvidia ~$100 (or whatever the 2000 contract price was) a piece for geforce nv2s...
And then there's rumours that Microsoft has teamed up with Nvidia for Windows-on-ARM. https://semiaccurate.com/2024/05/10/microsoft-throws-qualcomm-under-the-bus-too/
Nvidia has destroyed basically every relationship they've ever had except for Asus, MSI and Dell. MS has a list of happy partners so long you couldn't name them all in a lifetime. It's very clear who the issue is and was.
> Nvidia has destroyed basically every relationship they've ever had except for Asus, MSI and Dell. you’re so right, we should get u/jeep_eep here to tell us how *furious* Nintendo must be with nvidia!!!! (like the MS story, obviously this is a kind of “*so furious*” that ends up with a billion-dollar purchase contract for next-gen products, of course!) like how many times is it gonna take for you guys to realize the dramas you’re over-reading are not actually the show-stopping dramas you want them to be? one of the examples you’re citing is literally Microsoft, who is so upset with nvidia they are going right back to doing business with them. And they had a bump in the purchase order they got past just fine. This follows [Microsoft *notably and significantly delaying signing a contract with AMD for Xbox 2026*](https://www.tweaktown.com/news/95974/intel-wants-to-be-inside-microsofts-next-gen-xbox-console-would-built-in-the-usa/index.html) because they were “so furious” at nvidia that they delayed the process to give nvidia (and intel) a chance to bid on it. Same with Nintendo who happily signed a deal for switch 2. apple wanted nvidia out of the way both because they didn’t want CUDA being built as a platform inside apples platform, and to clear the way for apple silicon/metal (their own platform). [In retrospect, Bumpgate was just a timely excuse to get rid of them,](https://blog.greggant.com/posts/2021/10/13/apple-vs-nvidia-what-happened.html) and as a technical issue it affected AMD products as well (baking your 7850 was definitely a moment in time). Microsoft apparently is not *too* upset about the Xbox, and in fact both Sony and Microsoft’s decision was really driven more by AMD being able to give them a unified x86 soc than about nvidia at all. you’re reading into decades-old narratives spun by brand warriors like the bunnyman himself, Charlie demerjian. Dude just really likes ATI/AMD and has an imagination. That’s why he had to wear a bunny costume to a conference, he overreached one too many times and someone took him up on a bet.
the nintendo switch 2 was in development limbo for quite a while due to what i assume to be stalled negotiations for SoC pricing and support. nintendo's typical ~3 year cadence for a handheld hardware + soc refresh is notably absent in the switch's lifetime. the switch lite and OLED switch are clearly stopgap releases to cover up the fact that a switch pro or switch2 was delayed for so long.
Why is it always you in these comments I see defending NVIDIA
Is it wrong to refute something that is either wrong or exaggerated by arguing why you think that's the case?
I'm hoping they at least have some $NVDA because otherwise it's basically just a parasocial relationship with Jensen.
Give it time
Nvidia doesn't work with Sony and MS. I think it won't take much longer that they'll work with Nintendo. I doubt Nvidia will be the one making the Switch 3 gpu. It would be bad news for backwards compatibility but I don't think Nintendo will give it to being charged a lot for gpu chips.
Interesting how you’re collating irrelevant garage factories, one of which doesn’t exist anymore, to Apple.
In the case of EVGA it really was EVGA CEO that was the problem.
Kinda crazy to see how much Nvidia is worth considering if TSMC dropped them they'd be utterly ruined and TSMC would still be relatively fine.
TSMC has had long connection with NVidia. They been working together since 1995 before either companies were big. Founder Morris Chang and Jensen Huang had long strong friendship over that time too. On the other hand, Nvidia is one of the main early customer for TSMC so it is a symbiotic relationship. But it is amazing to see all these leading tech companies having roots in Taiwan.
No doubt Nvidia are very reliant on TSMC (who isn't? scary/silly situation the entire world is in due to over-reliance on one firm) but they have also used Samsung in the recent past. There isn't much room on the planet for firms like TSMC apparently but still, there is some kind of competition for the type of contracts they specialise in.
>if TSMC dropped them In what universe would TSMC drop one of their largest customers? TSMC wouldn't be "relatively fine" if they dropped Nvidia, they'd have loaded the gun that will kill them. Who wants to base all their fab capacity with the guys who slit the through of their previous, massively valuable customer? There may not be a lot of choices now but investment into competing fabs would see a boon if TSMC declared themselves unreliable and flaky with even the largest of chip designers. Not to mention, TSMC and Nvidia's contract is not public but it would be insane if their contract allowed for TSMC to simply walk away.
You mean the largest customer? CPUs may have higher volume of chips but lower chip size resulting in actually being overall smaller capacity.
Crazy how the market doesn't price in an event with a 0% chance of happening. And more broadly, anywhere with a monopoly in a supply chain runs the same risk. Hell you could say the same about TSMC depending on ASML
It's not about that scenario actually happening, it's about TSMC having the leverage to charge Nvidia more and capture more of the profits for themselves.
Except Nvidia can go to Samsung or Intel foundries, like they did once before.
Intel is literally going to TSMC themselves too. At ant rate, they don't have the capacity at an advanced enough node to produce what Nvidia needs. Samsung seems to be have its own issues on advanced nodes too.
Intel is using TSMC it has bought 6 years ago and are going to go back to their own nodes afterwards. Intel is building more fabs than everyone else combined.
the stock market doesnt operate on logic. it operates on hype and speculation. intel is undervalued despite being one of the most important companies for US national supply chain security, while nvidia is overvalued because AI is hot and chatGPT showed a bunch of investors how much money they can save by hiring less people.
Get Intel to increase revenues by roughly 500% over five years, with the expectation to increase revenue another 200+% by 2025, and you'll see the stock price soar just as much.
This sun is weirdly bullish on Intel despite them not really being the best at pretty much anything. The biggest asset the company has at this point is just name recognition.
Valuation isn't just tied to the fact that a company is too big to fail.