Do you think they have a deal to not make dedicated CPU'S/GPU'S

>>58818779
Yes

how hard would be for nvidia get an x86 licence

No. neither has the respective patents/ rights to produce an actually viable competitor. AMD only has rights to x86 because intel outsourced production to some other companies in their early days and the rights agreement happened to allow AMD to build upon x86.

The only reason intel can offer their iGPU's is because they purchase rights to the tune of a few billion dollars across a number of years. Last time they rented rights from nvidia, this time around it's from AMD. Meanwhile intel holds a tight grip on everything x86.

Finally, nvidia is trying their damnedest to push GPGPU as the future of super computing. They don't want to make a CPU, they want to make GPU's that can do all the things a CPU can do in the markets where the big bucks are to be made.

>>58818855
Not hard at all considering both have almost infinite resources to either license or create their own architecture.

>>58818859
Yeah because Intel/Nvidia worry about a couple of billions....

>>58818922
Right, and don't you think it's likely intel has tried to buy out either nvidia or ati in the past? Even without anything official, I wouldn't doubt they've tried, they certainly have the means.

But I don't believe nvidia is interested in being bought. I believe they hope to make a stake in enterprise with CUDA (which, remember, is hardware, software support, development tools, and an api all wrapped up in a pretty little bow) and take share in high performance mobile hardware with tegra.

>>58818970
>and take share in high performance mobile hardware with tegra.
The Switch is already a bigger failure than the Wii U

>>58818988
I said they "hope" to take share, much like intel hoped to with their shit (was it the atom? I honestly can't remember anymore) not that they're in any way succeeding.

>>58819011
>much like intel hoped to with their shit (
not him but depends on what you're talking about
they had larrabee which was essentially a GPGPU which got cancelled and then salvaged into Xeon Phi add-in cards

they also had the intel740 which was going to be the next big gpu back in '98 but ended up being a hot turd and was reworked into intel extreme graphics

atom was also the name of their very low-power cpus and then was rebranded for their SoCs which are used in laptops, tablets, and even phones

>>58819921
Exactly my point, man. They've failed time and time again in all these spaces. I doubt necause of incompetence, and would imagine more because, like anyone else who has tried to compete with x86 in the desktop space, it's nearly impossible to rethink the wheel, let alone convince enough of the market to support it.

Meanwhile nvidia would probably only be able to secure an x86 license if intel either became at serious risk of going under or had moved on to an entirely new instruction set they were sure they could convince the world to move over to. Intel doesn't even like AMD holding rights to x86, just look at their brochure training employees on how to dodge customer questions about AMD hardware by more or less calling them inferior knockoffs. They absolutel hate how promising Zen looks this far

>>58820205
offtopic but do you remember VIA's processors
hehe