I'm guessing NVidia didn't do this by choice. Propping up Intel doesn't seem in their best interests, nor does it do their share holders any favors by diluting their rapid growth.

▲

nxobject 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

There's some case for self-interest – propping up another fab etc. – but I do wonder how much of it is USG. (The economic case for Intel integrating Nvidia silicon on-chip doesn't too much sense to me: there's no growth potential in commodity/consumer x86, and maybe they can shove their new integrated Nvidia in front of enterprise buyers, but I'd be a dubious re: ROI.)

▲

7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

high_na_euv 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Bullshit

https://www.techpowerup.com/341137/nvidias-usd-5b-intel-inve...

	▲	HarHarVeryFunny 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure that "bullshit" is warranted... Sure it makes sense for NVidia to propagate proprietary interfaces like NVLink, as well as to do anything that helps drive their own GPU sales, but I'm not sure how you so confidently conclude from that that propping up Intel is in NVidia's best interest ?

▲

danans 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'm guessing NVidia didn't do this by choice. Propping up Intel doesn't seem in their best interests

In a top-down oligarchy, their best interests are served by focusing on the desires of the great leader, in contrast to a competitive bottom-up market economy, where they would focus on the desires of customers and shareholders.