Re:Arm co-founder: Sale to Nvidia would be a disaster
by imtringued on Sunday August 16, 2020 @04:43PM
(#24181136)
The difference is that Nvidia would be a customer and the owner of ARM at the same time. An Nvidia controlled ARM will primarily exist to make Nvidia happy at the expense of all other ARM customers.
Re:Arm co-founder: Sale to Nvidia would be a disaster
by JonathonW on Sunday August 16, 2020 @11:11AM
(#24178428)
nVidia already makes CPUs and GPUs (they make the CPU that goes into the Nintendo Switch, for example). Buying ARM doesn’t change much in that regard, except that they can save on licensing fees and it puts them in a position to disrupt competitors who also produce ARM processors.
Re:Arm co-founder: Sale to Nvidia would be a disaster
by stjohnswarts on Sunday August 16, 2020 @12:08PM
(#24178900)
I would think not licensing new IP would be the main concern. basically hogging ARM IP completely for themselves and their products. It would take a couple of years for companies and devs to switch to a different architecture, but you can be sure that there are competitors willing to fill that gap.
Re:Arm co-founder: Sale to Nvidia would be a disaster
by mekster on Sunday August 16, 2020 @03:54PM
(#24180688)
Why would nVidia disrupt competitors?
They need to pay $30bn to buy ARM which means they want to maximize the return for that purchase, which would be selling more and not disrupt for competitors to look elsewhere.
Intel makes both CPUs and GPUs.
AMD makes both CPUs and GPUs.
nVidia would make both CPUs and GPUs.
What would be the difference?
Actually, as long as there are a number of arm design licensees, the situation would be way better than it currently is for x86: beyond Intel and AMD there is basically no other player in that field (Via? Transmeta? are they even noticeable?).