NVIDIA and Intel just released their respective PR announcements a bit ago, but after much rumor mongering it’s official: Intel and NVIDIA are the latest duo to bury the hatchet. This comes on the heels of 3 other major Intel actions in the past two years: the EU fining Intel (which is still under appeal), Intel settling with AMD (affirming GloFo as a legal venture), and Intel settling with the United Stated Federal Trade Commission.

With the exception of the EU fine that is still under appeal, this is the final outstanding major legal battle for Intel over their actions of the first decade of the 21st century. Generally speaking someone is always suing Intel – or Intel is always suing someone else – but as far as normality is concerned this is a return to normal for Intel: they’ve now settled with every significant government and corporate entity and are no longer living under a cloud of allegations from a number of parties.

So what are NVIDIA and Intel burying the hatchet over? A lot of this has to do with the same matters we saw in the FTC suit, as part of the FTC’s case was built on NVIDIA’s complaints. As you may recall the FTC didn’t get everything they wanted, and this suit looks to resolve those outstanding issues along with settling NVIDIA’s chipset allegations, and providing NVIDIA with a sizable 1.5bil compensation package for their troubles.


The state of the United States patent system is such that it’s difficult if not impossible to design and build a high-tech product without infringing on someone’s patent. Snark about patent trolls aside, there are often only a handful of good methods to implement a given technology, and all of those methods are patented by someone. For these reasons there are a number of broad cross-licensing agreements in the GPU and CPU markets so that all the major manufacturers can design and build products without running afoul of another’s patent portfolio. AMD and Intel cross-license, AMD and NVIDIA cross-license, Intel and VIA cross-license, etc. Most of these cross-licensing agreements have the participants as peers, with each side getting access to the patents they need to make their agreements equal in value.

In 2004 Intel and NVIDIA went to the table, as the growing GPU market and its increasingly complex technology put Intel at risk of violating NVIDIA’s patents. This was primarily over Intel’s IGPs, which eventually would run afoul of NVIDIA’s graphics patents. In return for NVIDIA licensing the necessary patents to Intel so that Intel could continue producing chipsets with IGPs, Intel in return would license to NVIDIA their front side bus (FSB) and future buses (e.g. DMI). This is what allowed NVIDIA to enter the Intel chipset market with the nForce 4 Intel Edition chipset and to continue providing chipsets and IGPs up through the current 320M chipset.

It Seems You Can't Build One of Those, Without Licensing The Patents Behind One Of These

Although Intel and NVIDIA have never been “close” in a business sense, the modern sabre-rattling between the two doesn’t start until around 2008. At the time NVIDIA was moving forward with CUDA and G80 in order to gain a foothold in the high margin HPC market, while at the same time Intel was moving forward with their similarly parallel x86-based Larrabee project. In the FTC case we saw the fallout of this, as the FTC charged Intel with misrepresenting Larrabee and for lack of better words badmouthing NVIDIA’s GPGPU products at the same time.

As far as the Intel/NVIDIA license agreement is concerned however, it was the end of 2008 when events were set in to motion. When Intel moved from the Conroe (Core 2) architecture to Nehalem (Core iX), they dropped the AGTL+ FSB in favor of two new buses: Quick Path Interconnect (QPI) for high-end desktop CPUs and workstations/servers, and extended the existing DMI bus from a Northbridge-Southbridge interconnect to a CPU-Southbridge interconnect as Intel integrated the Northbridge on-chip. Even though DMI had been around for a while, NVIDIA had never used it before as they used their own interconnect for early 2-chip chipsets, and later went to a single chip entirely.

We don’t have access to the 2004 Intel/NVIDIA agreement, but what resulted is a dispute about just what NVIDIA’s half of the agreement covered. If you ask Intel, NVIDIA’s agreement only covers AGTL+, meaning NVIDIA would not be allowed to make chipsets for Nehalem generation CPUs. If you ask NVIDIA, Intel was playing games with the agreement’s language to lock NVIDIA out of the chipset market while still keeping the agreement in force so that Intel could continue producing IGPs.

The end result is that in early 2009 the two parties filed suit against each other. Intel’s suit asked for the courts to affirm that NVIDIA did not have rights to DMI/QPI and that NVIDIA had breached the agreement by claiming they did have rights. NVIDIA’s suit in return was filed as a response to Intel’s suit, with NVIDIA claiming that Intel’s claim had no merit and that by doing so Intel was in violation. These suits have been ongoing up until today.

The suits further branch out with the FTC’s suit. While filing their suit against Intel, NVIDIA also made formal complaints to the FTC, who was already building a cast against Intel for actions against AMD. The FTC included some of their complaints in their own suit, and when that was settled last year NVIDIA received some protections against potential Intel actions. For all practical purposes Intel is barred from making technical decisions that lock out 3rd party GPUs from their platforms for the next several years, enforced by requiring they continue to offer PCI-Express connectivity and at the same time barring Intel from making changes that would reduce GPU performance unless those changes specifically improve CPU performance.

The Settlement
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • james.jwb - Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - link

    what we have because of the lack of third party chipsets is the P67/H67/X58/no Z67 fiasco - high priced boards with less on the boards and a total mess.
  • 7Enigma - Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - link

    I tend to agree with this statement. Had there been other chipset makers at the launch of SNB the enthusiasts would have flocked to the Z67-similar mobo as the current offerings are crap.
  • HangFire - Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - link

    On-chip x86 memory controller patents are owned by AMD, Intel violated those patents with Nehalem, that was the primary thing driving Intel to the bargaining table - paying off AMD to get access to those licenses.

    Intel cannot re-license those AMD patents to Nvidia, so Nvidia remains locked out of the on-chip memory controller x86 market.
  • Stuka87 - Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - link

    Unless I am mistaken, if nVidia got the right to manufacture an x86 chip, any IP owned by AMD would have to be licensed from AMD, and not through Intel.
  • HangFire - Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - link

    Yeah. That's what I just said. Intel cannot relicense AMD technology, so any IP owned by AMD would have to be licensed by Nvidia from directly from AMD, something not likely to happen.
  • ash9 - Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - link

    Imagine a Sandy Bridge without a graphics engine (No next-gen for you-LOL Larrabee??) - Intel got a bargain; spread out over 6 years, is no-thing, I’m sure they would have paid a kings ransom- it would have been their death…Nvidia missed it

  • pugster - Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - link

    Agreed. Intel paying off AMD for its integrated memory controller patents and Nvidia for integrated graphics patents. That's the big difference between a Sandy Bridge and a Core2duo cpu's. Intel says that they are going to have revenues of 13 bil because of Sandy Bridge this year, more than enough to pay off AMD and Nvidia for their IP's. A real bargain for Intel indeed. AMD and Nvidia should've be smart enough and license their technology to Intel and receive $x per every processor intel sells.
  • quanta - Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - link

    It seems no one mentioned the SLI licensing that Intel has paid to NVIDIA prior to the settlement that 'allows' NVIDIA not to cripple SLI support at GeForce/Quadro drivers. That seems to be the only 'NVIDIA technology' that Intel ever gets out of the settlement, if the settlement is really just extending existing cross licensing deals. After all, the Intel HD Graphics has so far been based on PowerVR SGX cores licensed to Intel, it is unlikely for Intel to use new cores that that have incompatible instruction sets, especially now that Sandy Bridge-based CPUs include graphics cores that will get supported (or already supported?) by Intel compilers.
  • tafreire2011 - Thursday, January 13, 2011 - link

    CrossFire support will end on Intel motherboards? Or not?
  • cesthree - Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - link

    "If you ask Intel, NVIDIA’s agreement only covers AGTL+,"

    This was Intel's only mistake, allowing Nvidia to disgrace the AGTL+ with their presence.

    Stick to GPU's Nvidia; nothing past PCIE bus, please.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now