Why Doesn't Nvidia Make An x86 CPU?

>>61720424
Patents

they know x86 is dying

Because they don't want to step on Intel's toes. It's asking like why Chrysler doesn't make a car that's better than a Ferrari in every regard.

>>61720424
Because intel owns x86 and the only reason AMD can make x86 stuff is because the made a deal to share x86 when IBM said they wanted a second source for x86.

They should be able to sell a x86 CPU with MMX without any valid patent now, but who uses it in this 64-bit era.

Because intel wont let them

>>61720445
>better than a Ferrari in every regard.
It's called the viper ACR.
It's the world's fastest production car
Set 14 lap records
Beating cars like the p1, la Ferrari, and 918

>>61720882
Yeah but the thing is built like a Dart.

>>61720445
They are already stepped on Intel's toes with GPGPU

>>61720458
>intel owns x86

This isn't exactly true; all the patents for x86 have long expired and it's actually AMD who made x86-64 and hold the relevant patents. This doesn't mean that Intel isn't holding a lot of patents on various extensions and other PC related technology, though.

Nvidia could make a x86 CPU without asking anyone, but as others here have pointed out: Why would they?

It's interesting to note that Nvidia does indeed make a whole range of interesting CPUs called Terga targeting the mobile market (with little success).

>>61721011
They could make an x86 CPU on par with a Pentium 3 in terms of features. And no 64-bit. lol

>>61721026
Pentium II-tier CPU with no SSE, actually. P3 was released in 1999.