https://www.androidauthority.com/nvidia-arm-1140639/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-22/softbank-s-chip-company-arm-is-said-to-attract-nvidia-interest

Any customer trying to acquire Arm would trigger regulatory scrutiny. Other companies using its technology would likely oppose a deal and demand assurances that a new owner would continue to provide equal access to Arm’s instruction set. Such concerns resulted in a neutral company – SoftBank – buying Arm the last time it was for sale.

I have mixed feelings over this. The problem is Nvidia,doesn't actually have a good history of playing nice with competitors. If anything Apple has a better history if you look at things such as USB,OpenCL,etc.

It also leads to some other problems. ARM has been significantly more sucessful than X86,due to the way its licensed,and more importantly its ease of licensing. You can see this with X86,which is very limited in who can actually design CPUs around it.

The other problem is if ARM becomes US owned it is under US regulatory insight and export restrictions,so far more red tape in licensing designs. Long-term I can see countries moving away from ARM then if there is more red tape around licensing them.I can see open source stuff such as RISC V starting to gain more traction. OFC our lot allowed ARM to become foreign owned,just like Imagination Technologies. Softbank is already going to keep some parts of ARM,so another UK based company is slowly being broken up into smaller and smaller pieces as it passed from one owner to another.

On the surface that makes huge sense for Nvidia who have been wanting to profit from the mobile industry for such a long time.

Surprised at Apple, who generally seem happy to profit from bought up patent portfolios. They could fund an ARM purchase and let the company run stand-alone as it always used to and just siphon off some profits.

DanceswithUnix
On the surface that makes huge sense for Nvidia who have been wanting to profit from the mobile industry for such a long time.

Surprised at Apple, who generally seem happy to profit from bought up patent portfolios. They could fund an ARM purchase and let the company run stand-alone as it always used to and just siphon off some profits.

Both companies are not neutral though,so the issue is whether either should be allowed to have controlling shares in a company,which licenses designs WORLDWIDE. Also,again one of the parts of the ARM licensing model which countries like,was the ease of licensing designs and IP. The problem is any of these companies buying it will lead to much more red tape. You had this problem with X86 - not only did Intel do everything it could to make it as hard as possible for competitors to use X86(to protect its own vested interests),literally any country who wanted to use X86 had to also go through multiple layers of red tape to allow this to happen. Both Apple and Nvidia have vested interests. Softbank didn't.

So in the end,ARM gained traction since the licensing model was far less restricted by multiple reasons. It is why it might eventually end up breaking the ARM monopoly on mobile designs.

CAT-THE-FIFTH
If anything Apple has a better history if you look at things such as USB,OpenCL,etc.

USB was an Intel creation. Apple's version was Firewire, the technically better alternative that was killed off by expensive licence fees to use it. So Firewire and Metal are probably more representative.

CAT-THE-FIFTH
Both companies are not neutral though,so the issue is whether either should be allowed to have controlling shares in a company,which licenses designs WORLDWIDE. Also,again one of the parts of the ARM licensing model which countries like,was the ease of licensing designs and IP. The problem is any of these companies buying it will lead to much more red tape. You had this problem with X86 - not only did Intel do everything it could to make it as hard as possible for competitors to use X86(to protect its own vested interests),literally any country who wanted to use X86 had to also go through multiple layers of red tape to allow this to happen. Both Apple and Nvidia have vested interests. Softbank didn't.

So in the end,ARM gained traction since the licensing model was far less restricted by multiple reasons. It is why it might eventually end up breaking the ARM monopoly on mobile designs.

I can see upsides and downsides to both. I mainly just hope that Intel aren't bidding.

Much though I generally dislike Apple, I could see here that Apple have a lot of skin in this game, so could just buy ARM to protect themselves and any profit made a happy bonus. There is nothing to stop them having an ARM subsidiary based in Cambridge operating as a UK company if they wanted to distance themselves but buy control over ARM being used against them.

Nvidia will likely use ARM as a stick with which to beat Intel, because what Nvidia really want is an x86 licence. As you say, that isn't something that Intel will allow any more and Intel try quite hard to make the historic licence agreements go away. So Nvidia tried to go the ARM route, but Tegra wasn't the biggest of successes with the largest companies in the sector (Samsung and Apple) having their own SoC divisions and not being interested.

Both Nvidia and Apple have decent ARM design teams.

Or, Intel could buy ARM and use it as a stick to beat Nvidia. If there were no ARM left at the end of using it as a blunt instrument, then that would be fine by Intel.

Yes, both Apple and Nvidia are about the worst companies at sharing stuff so if either of them ends up as the owner, I'd guess RISC-V is going to get a lot traction out of this!

Kind of ironic that Apple don't like Nvidia as they're very similar. Guess Nvidia wiggling out of proper support for the bumpgate defects went down very badly with Apple (who despite their often poor warranty support now, were about the only OEM who actually tried to fix their customers bumpgate affected parts and sometimes ended replacing motherboards multiple time - presumably because Nvidia had told them that certain batches were now ‘fixed’).

And the whole US ownership thing is another issue. The recent Trump-tantrum pretty much shows why most state actors want their own CPU or at least one not under the whim of the US. HiSilcon rose out of nowhere to pretty much one of the most important ARM vendors. Guess they'll be going RISC-V or MIPS now.

I'm pretty sure Nvidia knows that this would trigger massive anti-competition investigations which they would not be successful against, and entertaining the idea would be a waste of time and money.

I'm very surprised that Softbank would approach Apple for it as that would result in similar issues if not worse.

kompukare
Guess they'll be going RISC-V or MIPS now.

I think MIPS is pretty much dead at this point, given RISC-V has a common main architect and is newer and gathering momentum rather than losing it.

Other attempts like the open Power idea are just too late. Might as well be open VAX for all the new design wins it is likely to get.

So yes, RISC-V will do nicely whatever happens.

DanceswithUnix
I can see upsides and downsides to both. I mainly just hope that Intel aren't bidding.

Much though I generally dislike Apple, I could see here that Apple have a lot of skin in this game, so could just buy ARM to protect themselves and any profit made a happy bonus. There is nothing to stop them having an ARM subsidiary based in Cambridge operating as a UK company if they wanted to distance themselves but buy control over ARM being used against them.

Nvidia will likely use ARM as a stick with which to beat Intel, because what Nvidia really want is an x86 licence. As you say, that isn't something that Intel will allow any more and Intel try quite hard to make the historic licence agreements go away. So Nvidia tried to go the ARM route, but Tegra wasn't the biggest of successes with the largest companies in the sector (Samsung and Apple) having their own SoC divisions and not being interested.

Both Nvidia and Apple have decent ARM design teams.

Or, Intel could buy ARM and use it as a stick to beat Nvidia. If there were no ARM left at the end of using it as a blunt instrument, then that would be fine by Intel.

That is the point Softbank was neutral. Also the issue with X86 was not just Intel,but also the US government also made restrictions on who could own X86 IP,and the level of designs which AMD/Intel could sell to other countries. With ARM,both the UK and Japanese governments are less likely to get involved in forcing their companies to do take certain actions(it happens but is rare). So that relative lack of restrictions has meant dozens of countries have either licensed ARM IP or core designs for use in a myriad of computing products. This is one of the things which made ARM based designs so popular. This is not going to happen if it becomes US owned,as there will be far more restictions in play.Imagine,if they have a spat with say the EU,and then force Nvidia/Apple owned ARM to restrict business….so even that ARM chip in a fridge would get covered by that.

I know this might be controversial but I honestly feel the UK government should buy it back and ‘own it’, it's not like they'd lose money on it with the current usage of ARM designs. Then speak nicely to TSMC to get a fab in the UK too.

The UK needs some sort of independent fall back on hardware etc imo.

I can see the logic in Nvidia going after it, they'd then be able to do cpu and gpu designs etc more easily, same with Apple, but honestly I'd rather have someone more ‘neutral’ in ownership of ARM…. actually as daft as it sounds, AMD might be a good choice.

LSG501
I know this might be controversial but I honestly feel the UK government should buy it back and ‘own it’, it's not like they'd lose money on it with the current usage of ARM designs. Then speak nicely to TSMC to get a fab in the UK too.

The UK needs some sort of independent fall back on hardware etc imo.

I agree with you.

I don't think any silicon manufacturer who utilises the ARM designs should be allowed to own a controlling share in ARM, something like ARM should be independent from internal influences.

Even AMD, who don't really utilise ARM very much/if at all, providing a competitor who utilises the design control is just…dangerous.

LSG501
I know this might be controversial but I honestly feel the UK government should buy it back and ‘own it’, it's not like they'd lose money on it with the current usage of ARM designs. Then speak nicely to TSMC to get a fab in the UK too.

The UK needs some sort of independent fall back on hardware etc imo.

I also agree.

Double comment, please delete

CAT-THE-FIFTH
US government also made restrictions on who could own X86

That is down to performance level, nothing to do with it being x86. The PS3 was originally export controlled in the same manner, big Power chips get the same treatment.

My understanding is that high end ARM chips would already get the same treatment, given ARM has some US design input. So the US pollution is already there, harm done.

It is all pointless stupidity, and I fully expect in 5 years time the Chinese will be selling high performance RISC-V designs back to us, with no use for Western CPUs.


UK Government buying ARM is an interesting thought. It would have been illegal subsidy as part of the EU, but supposedly we are out now so fair game.

Firstly, Arm was split after purchase, so I guess they'll make a decent profit and get the more promising (future potential) IOT for free.

They've bought up, concentrated on chip development in order to increase Arm chip value, whilst simultaneously under valuing the IOT branch, they intend to keep.

Whilst I would like Nvidia to have a decent CPU capable division, I'm strongly against them purchasing and owning Arm.

Just think how bad they'll be, Gameworks will be nothing, I fear they'll even out do Intel with the bribes and “incentives” to control market.

Not to mention price increases, which is the main reason they're looking at the corporation.

We all know the track record they have for price gauging.

Now imagine the $10 chips in billions of devices and how much damage they will do the the sector, the world economy along with it.

Yes, it sounds like tin foil hat nonsense, but look at the decades of damage Intels bribes created, we still haven't fully recovered yet.

Yoyoyo69
Yes, it sounds like tin foil hat nonsense, but look at the decades of damage Intels bribes created, we still haven't fully recovered yet.

Those shenanigans from Intel killed off PA-RISC, Alpha and Clipper. SGI were a bit more canny, but still got sucked along and almost took down MIPS. The world is a worse place for Intel, but we have to look forward.

If Nvidia tried to squeeze ARM licencees, that would just force adoption of RISC-V. Given Nvidia is a RISC-V user, they know this.

DanceswithUnix
That is down to performance level, nothing to do with it being x86. The PS3 was originally export controlled in the same manner, big Power chips get the same treatment.

My understanding is that high end ARM chips would already get the same treatment, given ARM has some US design input. So the US pollution is already there, harm done.

It is all pointless stupidity, and I fully expect in 5 years time the Chinese will be selling high performance RISC-V designs back to us, with no use for Western CPUs.


UK Government buying ARM is an interesting thought. It would have been illegal subsidy as part of the EU, but supposedly we are out now so fair game.

It is down to being owned by a US company. If its US owned,the government can allow it to be exported,etc. Also only some of the ARM designs are affected but most are not.

Also all of this is causing competitors to appear. Russia has dusted off its Elbrus design again(after Intel actually hired some of its engineers away 20 years ago),and Europe is also looking towards designing CPUs too:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/european-processor-initiative-consortium-develop-europes-microprocessors-future-supercomputers

What did our government do?? Allow foreign control of one of the most capable CPU design companies in the world!

:rolleyes:

DanceswithUnix
Those shenanigans from Intel killed off PA-RISC, Alpha and Clipper. SGI were a bit more canny, but still got sucked along and almost took down MIPS. The world is a worse place for Intel, but we have to look forward.

If Nvidia tried to squeeze ARM licencees, that would just force adoption of RISC-V. Given Nvidia is a RISC-V user, they know this.

In the long-termyes,but not in the short-term,they will make more money. That is why we have this problem with China in the first place. More worried about a few quarters ahead.

DanceswithUnix
UK Government buying ARM is an interesting thought. It would have been illegal subsidy as part of the EU, but supposedly we are out now so fair game.

That's something that's crossed my mind too. I wonder if the purchase of OneWeb was similar?

There are a lot of details about this still unknown, for example there would surely be a lot of pressure from regulatory authorities if anyone like Apple/Nvidia/etc showed an interest in buying. Even Trump got involved to stop the Broadcom-Qualcomm takeover.

Also, given ARM is still effectively a UK company, albeit a subsidiary of a Japanese company, I wonder how much influence the UK Government still has on deciding who could buy it etc? I know they've wanted to appear ‘pro-business’, but at the same time it should be in their best interest to avoid something highly damaging from happening to one of the most important UK companies in existence.

Edit: Apparently they've also mulled the option of it going back to a public company. I'm not too well-versed in how exactly this works, but I wonder what exchange that would be from?

watercooled
That's something that's crossed my mind too. I wonder if the purchase of OneWeb was similar?

Pretty sure that was an ill-informed purchase to ‘replace’ the galileo gps system…something we've paid around 1.2 billion (out of 9 billion) into and as such ‘should’ have access to even after brexit.

I mean similar in how I expect it wouldn't have been possible if still part of the EU, not the logic for making the purchase.

DanceswithUnix
Nvidia will likely use ARM as a stick with which to beat Intel, because what Nvidia really want is an x86 licence.

They needed the x86 license when making chipsets for certain intel processors but apart from that have they shown interest in using the license for anything else? Even before they lost it they put their eggs in ARM with project Denver.

LSG501
Pretty sure that was an ill-informed purchase to ‘replace’ the galileo gps system…something we've paid around 1.2 billion (out of 9 billion) into and as such ‘should’ have access to even after brexit.

I was reading about that - apparently IIRC,we actually made stipulations non-EU countries couldn't access it. The problem is we are now a non-EU country,so the EU happily abided by it! ;)

chj
They needed the x86 license when making chipsets for certain intel processors but apart from that have they shown interest in using the license for anything else? Even before they lost it they put their eggs in ARM with project Denver.

That was just a licence to talk to Intel CPUs so Nvidia could make chipsets. An actual x86 instruction set licence would interest them very much, enough that in the last legal settlement they had with Intel, Intel specifically banned them from not just making x86 CPUs but from emulating them in software. Rumour has it, officially denied IIRC, that Denver was intended as a code morph engine to run x86 code via translation much like the old Transmeta chips used to do.

That's what I remember hearing around that time too. It's a shame we didn't see more of Denver because it was a really interesting microarchitecture.

DanceswithUnix
That was just a licence to talk to Intel CPUs so Nvidia could make chipsets. An actual x86 instruction set licence would interest them very much, enough that in the last legal settlement they had with Intel, Intel specifically banned them from not just making x86 CPUs but from emulating them in software. Rumour has it, officially denied IIRC, that Denver was intended as a code morph engine to run x86 code via translation much like the old Transmeta chips used to do.

Oh interesting!

It doesn't matter which US firm tries to buy ARM because the Chinese will veto it, just like they did with the Qualcomm - NXP merger.

CAT-THE-FIFTH
In the long-termyes,but not in the short-term,they will make more money. That is why we have this problem with China in the first place. More worried about a few quarters ahead.

I'm struggling with that. Not at the possible intent, but this isn't like Intel where they sell allocations of silicon.

The thing with selling licenses rather than chips is that the contract will be signed and settled for years to come. Heck, even the price of parts at a factory for major items (mainly because of lead times) is nailed down for the next year. So prices can only really be raised on chips that haven't been designed yet, allowing people to just go knocking on the door at Si-Five. Android is a wrinkle there, I haven't seen a RISC-V port of that and the MIPS one is quite old if people wanted to try that route, but then most of the bit Android players are architecture licencees so again probably can't be squeezed.

I'm struggling to see how someone who owns ARM can play a short game, other than just waiting for an increase in the value of the company and re-selling at a profit as Softbank seem to be doing.

DanceswithUnix
I'm struggling with that. Not at the possible intent, but this isn't like Intel where they sell allocations of silicon.

The thing with selling licenses rather than chips is that the contract will be signed and settled for years to come. Heck, even the price of parts at a factory for major items (mainly because of lead times) is nailed down for the next year. So prices can only really be raised on chips that haven't been designed yet, allowing people to just go knocking on the door at Si-Five. Android is a wrinkle there, I haven't seen a RISC-V port of that and the MIPS one is quite old if people wanted to try that route, but then most of the bit Android players are architecture licencees so again probably can't be squeezed.

I'm struggling to see how someone who owns ARM can play a short game, other than just waiting for an increase in the value of the company and re-selling at a profit as Softbank seem to be doing.

Because in the short term,they would make more money. Companies can't suddenly conjure out a RISC-V CPU out of thin air can they?? So a company like Nvidia can push to increase costs,which is literally what so many companies like Adobe have also been doing,even though the customers are moaning about it. The issue is longterm they end up with more competitors. Short term the market loves it,and you get even more investment in the company.

Companies are obsessed with short term gains,to prop up share price short term. What Softbank is doing is really shortsighted,especially for a Japanese company. The Japanese government itself is realising the threat from China and is trying to invest more and more into indigenous electronics now. Having ARM in this possession means less reliance on foreign contractors - CPUs such as the ARM based Fujitsu A64FX are examples of this push.

You also forget this is Nvidia,who are obssessed about short term gains - look at how they screwed themselves out of contracts with Apple,MS,Sony and got in a fight with Intel. Nvidia also had a good chance to get an X86 license by merging with AMD,but again they made certain demands. The fact is by allowing AMD those console contracts,it kept them alive to fight another day.

Look at what Nvidia does?? They try to push pricing higher and higher,much above the norms. But all of these moves eventually helped competitors. Works swimmingly well in the shorter term though.

Have you not noticed that both the El Capitan and Frontier supercomputers,which are set to the most powerful ones in the US,don't have Nvidia compute cards in them?? The tech press didn't make a big deal of it,but it is a big deal if you look at how Nvidia used to be the only game in town in this area. The reason is probably because Nvidia does what Nvidia does,and try and jack up pricing as much as they can get away with like Apple does. Then you have other competitors like the A64FX systems which don't even use compute GPUs. Now they have increasing competition in the area.

Look at machine learning in cars - Nvidia was one of the first into that,but again look at how many more companies are in that area now? Why do you think this is….probably Nvidia again asking too much money.

The consoles again…MS and Sony just dropped Nvidia. Why?? Nvidia wouldn't budge on dropping pricing. Nvidia is always trying to chase the next best thing,makes a quick buck,and then quietly moves onto the next best thing when more competitors get onto the market. Why do you think they started moving to RT?? It wasn't for gamers - all the talk at the beginning was about the “$250 billion VFX market”. So Nvidia will attempt to be the only game in town with that for a few years(AMD probably will just be half awake and cede it to them). Then some other companies will start pushing competing products,so expect something else will come along. TBF,it does work to maximise short term profits.

However,the issue is if they didn't actually obsess over massive margins all the time,they would have been far more diversified by now,and probably have had their fingers in all the pies,and probably had their own high performance CPUs. AMD would also be probably gone by now,and they would be the only gaming dGPU supplier in town.

Nvidia might be doing well now,but as a company they essential leverage over a few markets,with 2/3 of revenue from PC gaming. If traditional gaming suddenly went the way of the Dodo,they would be in severe trouble. The narrative would increasingly be controlled by MS,Google,etc who also want to push costs down.

They were just very lucky AMD ballsed up on the GPU side,because if the current share had been closer to the ATI days,ie, AMD having between 35% to 50% of the GPU market,they wouldn't be making as much money.