Rumor: NVIDIA is interested in purchasing Arm

ARM isn't open source, RISC-V is. ARM going under Nvidia's control is like to be more tightly controlled than ARM simply licensing it to everyone, and that probably still will be less than RISC-V ISA's being available as open source. Thus, ARM being under tight control will probably stifle innovation using this tech.

Looking at Nvidia's business tactics, they are aggressive in trying to control and manage their market, and make it difficult for contenders to enter with a variety of proprietary layers and cost barriers. I imagine they would do the same with ARM, particularly as one of Softbank's rumoured reasons for selling may be related to profit from ARM - estimated 1.9 Billion USD last financial year up from 1.2 Billion in 2016, while Nvidia have tripled theirs in the same time frame.

Not sure what AMD has to do with your or this argument.

 

Why Nvidia’s potential acquisition of ARM would be such a game-changer
July 31, 2020

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-acquisition-of-arm-game-changer/

 

It's possible they could be in "talks", but like HH says, that means nothing at all. nVidia could be trying to steal it; Softbank could be trying to rob nVidia... Or it could be something entirely different they are discussing. Somehow I don't see nVidia and ARM as a good fit. nVidia could do like Apple does and license the general architecture IP and then develop its own custom ARM processors. No need to spend $30B to do that. As well, nVidia could set up shop for custom nVidia CPU designs for a lot less. I guess nVidia might want ARM for the cash flow and existing customer base. Knowing the relationship Apple and nVidia have--or rather don't have at present--I think Apple wouldn't be so happy to see this. Interesting times!

 

Being as ARM is already owned by Softbank who are Japanese I can't see that being an issue.

 

fully aware. dunno what everyone saying ARM IS UK is on about..

 

Most of the Supercomputers already have HUGE InfiniBand switches.. Supercomputers are not one huge MB where you can plug in more and more GPU's.. connecting nodes is, or being able to replace 'legacy nodes' is where compatibility is important.. and where the big bucks are.

*on second thoughts.., if you're asking "why not use NVlink to connect nodes" then I doubt NVlink can sustain its speed over a 3-5M cable, but maybe it can/will now Nvidia own Infiniband. Also Infiniband transmits much more than just GPU traffic.. again maybe even more now Nvidia own the IP.

To be fair Nvidia didn't play nice with the GPU in the Original xBox and when Sony came begging for a GPU for the PS3 after their internal development didn't turn out..

AMD got kudo's for delivering what 'price-conscious' customers wanted... but who can blame Nvidia asking to be paid for the crazy money they spent, creating and pushing the GPU world forward?

Rumour has it nvidia wanted a win in the console world no matter what the cost.. so that's why we have been gifted a great console in the form of the 'switch'

 

Where did I say otherwise? If you actually read my post, you'd see that my perspective on the matter is very gray.

Where did I say I was worried about Qualcomm?

ARM can be licensed. Assuming Nvidia keeps the licensing (which they might not, if they intend to monopolize the market), they can do what they did with their GPUs: make a technology needlessly exclusive to their platform, forcing customers and developers to "pick a side". If you buy Nvidia, great - you have nothing to worry about. But it's very anti-consumer to tether people to a single company.
Some examples on the GPU side of things were CUDA, PhysX, G-Sync, OptiX, etc. None of those had to be made proprietary.
I do not fault Nvidia for things like SLI, DLSS, and certain media codecs, since those things are too heavily tied to their hardware.

How in any way is that relevant? RISC-V is open-source; Nvidia can do whatever they want with it. That has nothing to do with whatever they plan to do with ARM.

 

The more I think about this, the more I think Nvidia is going to make massively parallel, multi-chip modules that will run CUDA on ARM cores. Just think about what has been done with ARM cores so far - eighty cores with four-way symmetric multi-threading. I suspect they will make an ARM-based equivalent of a streaming multiprocessor with eight-way SMT and sixty-four cores for 512 threads on a chip, possibly 4x64 for 256 threads. That will be on one module and the MCM will contain up to eight of them for 4096 (or 2048) threads in a single package. The really cool thing about this is it would not be a co-processor like a GPU is so no additional data transfer would be necessary. Just imagine the super computer that could be built with those and how low its power consumption would be. I think this is going to be really impressive and it will change the direction of HPC and super computers.

 

Nvida to buy arm, they would lock it down make some proprietary crap out of it and then try to sell it like it's their actual developed baby.

 

isn't softbank's model already collecting royalty and license fees

 

well it's not surprising to me that Nvidia would want to but ARM, but it's almost inconceivable that they'd be able to outbid Apple or Qualcomm.
no one has more cash on hand than Apple (even though some of it is parked in Eire), no one is more reliant (now) on ARM design given their stated ditching of Intel. Qualcomm is a distant #2, but has lots of other people's money from legal fees and a willingness to go to court that's way above the litigious standard of the tech industries.

 

No, I'm asking why they would integrate InfiniBand in their GPUs since it's designed to connect nodes and not chips while they have NVLink which is designed for chip to chip communication, GPUs can already directly talk to InfiniBand NICs.
NVIDIA is pursuing disaggregation (which isn't an easy task but it's good for customer) while competitors are aggressively pushing for integration (which is mostly only good for companies).

These are all rumors, some of which don't make much sense but would be nice to have something concrete to talk about, we have something about current gen consoles as statement from both AMD and NVIDIA seems to coincide somehow.

 

Microsoft attempted to reneg the contracted price they paid for the gpu's and nvidia beat them in court over it.

 

Be more specific please, what do you mean by "a variety of proprietary layers" and how did they supposedly make difficult for contenders to enter the market? What do you mean by "cost barriers", pushing tech forward as much as they can?
NVIDIA revenue arose so much because they created new market out of nowhere, Workstation/HPC accelerators and AI accelerators, ARM exploded with the introduction of smartphones and other kind of new high performance devices, later they aimed at the IoT market which (at least yet) never really took off.

AMD is their only competitor in the GPU sector and, since you claimed they "would kill a lot of the innovation and creativity", I pointed out that NVIDIA is the leader in both performance and functionality as they never stopped innovating even when the competition lacked (something they always done, it's one of the company motto, "compete with yourself or die") they have done the same in the mobile (before being pushed out) and autonomous robot/vehicle processor sector.

 

Yea but how is that not playing nice? they entered arbitration because Microsoft wanted to renegotiate the contract they both signed, if Microsoft made a mistake or changed their mind why should we consider NVIDIA bad for not wanting to renegotiate the clauses they both agreed on? I mean it's not that Microsoft was groping to stay afloat, they just wanted to improve their margin

 

Ok, not exactly but here, explained below:

The UK formally left the EU on 31 January 2020 and immediately entered into an 11-month transition period.

During this period, the UK will continue to follow all of the EU's rules and its trading relationship will remain the same. However, it is no longer part of the EU's political institutions - so there are no longer any British MEPs in the European Parliament.

The transition will end on 31 December 2020.

• UK-EU trade talks: A simple guide
• Seven things that will change after Brexit day
• What is the transition period?