nVidia licenses SLI for AMD motherboards

Tom Petersen over at the official company blog has announced that nVidia, the graphics technology company, has decided to license its technology to a selection of motherboard companies for the upcoming 900 range of chipsets. For years gamers have been asking nVidia to make SLI available to AMD motherboard makers but there has never been much movement. This new deal means AMD will be able to offer its fans both of the main gaming options and it is highly likely that it will stay this way as there is no reason for AMD to license its ATI technology in a similar way.

"When you’re deciding what to build, finding the best CPU price performance ratio is key, so today we are pleased to announce that SLI has been licensed to the world’s leading motherboard companies for integration onto their upcoming motherboards featuring AMD’s 990FX, 990X and 970 chipsets."

According to the blog post, the Steam Hardware & Software Survey recently reported that 93% of all multi GPU systems in use today use nVidia's SLI technology, which means the new deal could cause a lot of Intel fans, including myself, to say goodbye to Intel and move over to AMD. So far only ASUS, Gigabyte, ASRock, and MSI have been confirmed to be among the first motherboard manufacturers to have the potential to offer the new combination. However, more should follow shortly.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Ubuntu 11.04 Released

Next Story

TechSpot: Intel SSD 510 Series 120GB Review

34 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Coming from SLI, I found out that Crossfire is way superior and less problematic, but I still prefer Intel CPU's and their chipset, good news for those AMD people.

I don't get it. I have the Asus M4N98TD Evo board, which came out last year. It already has SLi compatibility with AMD. It was THE reason I got that board, only a handful of boards had SLi with AMD, and I didn't have any money or reason to switch to a Crossfire setup. My 2 old 8800GTX's ran great on the new board with no problems. I don't use this setup any more, I have a 560Ti and one 8800GTX now, and it runs flawlessly.

Sh4d0wX7 said,
I don't get it. I have the Asus M4N98TD Evo board, which came out last year. It already has SLi compatibility with AMD. It was THE reason I got that board, only a handful of boards had SLi with AMD, and I didn't have any money or reason to switch to a Crossfire setup. My 2 old 8800GTX's ran great on the new board with no problems. I don't use this setup any more, I have a 560Ti and one 8800GTX now, and it runs flawlessly.
Well, the reason for that is because that motherboard is using a chipset that nVidia have made, which is the nForce 980a. I've myself a motherboard that can use AMD with SLI, which is an M3N-HD/HDMI and it runs great with my Phenom II 940 and GTX 260 in SLI and it uses nForce 750a.

But now any chipset from AMD (not the specific nForce from nVidia) will work with SLI.

It is win win for everyone that they are doing this. Nvidia wins because they sell more cards for AMD users who want to have SLI and the users win for being able to choose what GPU and CPU combination they want. But most of all, Nvidia has seen the money to be made

It's never a bad thing when new abilities come are added.

As for the arguments above... I am a casual gamer but play some demanding games. My Phenom II x6 and 5850 handle everything I throw at it.

I tend to go with AMD for my desktops as they are somewhat cheaper to build for not that much of a difference in processing. Sure, I understand that my CPU is not an i7 and I won't get the same level of performance, but I am fully confortable in buying a 200$ hexa-core AMD Phenom II X6 and the level of performance/price ratio I will get.

I also prefer the fact that AMD is trying to stick to a single CPU socket, which makes CPU upgrade much less costly, knowing that I will not have to change my motherboard with an higher-end processor.

Now having that said, I am also an Nvidia user, and I definitely won't mind having the SLI capability.

i'm Good with that combination, Intel Processors are expensive, but I don't like crossfire. I think i'm going to wait to build an Bulldozer-GeForce Rig. AMD gives a better price for a good performance.

I always thought that CrossFire is something similar to or the same as SLi. I think I got things mixed up.

Krome said,
I always thought that CrossFire is something similar to or the same as SLi. I think I got things mixed up.

No you didn't Crossfire is similar.

i'm not sure how many gamers that have SLI would want to use an AMD system as their cpu's are alot slower. SLI is only used by hardcore gamers, pretty sure they would want intel cpu's.

anyway its good news, maybe a handful of people will make use of this.

torrentthief said,
i'm not sure how many gamers that have SLI would want to use an AMD system as their cpu's are alot slower.

Proof or GTFO.

thatguyandrew1992 said,


Look at the prices in comparison people willing to spend double or even triple the cost for extra few benchmark results... and then spend it all over again in 2-4 years to upgrade the entire lot cause intel can't design a single future proof architecture so they can milk users who think like you.

I'll stick to AMD. And as for regarding the article. nvidia can keep their terrible chipsets imo. Nforce 3 and 4 were so troublesome it wasn't worth it though unfortunately back then there was little choice.

torrentthief said,
i'm not sure how many gamers that have SLI would want to use an AMD system as their cpu's are alot slower. SLI is only used by hardcore gamers, pretty sure they would want intel cpu's.

anyway its good news, maybe a handful of people will make use of this.

Unfortunately, it is true at the moment. (Will the next bulldozer generation change the tide?)
But it is always nice to have alternatives to choose from.

Digitalx said,


Look at the prices in comparison people willing to spend double or even triple the cost for extra few benchmark results... and then spend it all over again in 2-4 years to upgrade the entire lot cause intel can't design a single future proof architecture so they can milk users who think like you.

I'll stick to AMD. And as for regarding the article. nvidia can keep their terrible chipsets imo. Nforce 3 and 4 were so troublesome it wasn't worth it though unfortunately back then there was little choice.


+1 on that! I've been with AMD forever it seems and have never been tempted to move to Intel. The additional cost to me just isn't worth it. It's great to hear that now AMD chipset boards will be able to have SLI too.

torrentthief said,
i'm not sure how many gamers that have SLI would want to use an AMD system as their cpu's are alot slower. SLI is only used by hardcore gamers, pretty sure they would want intel cpu's.

anyway its good news, maybe a handful of people will make use of this.

Amd is competively price so if your looking at a certain price range where there's an amd cpu, and intel cpu (again same price range), the amd will cost the same or slightly chepear and be more powerful. However you the more powerful you go, you will reach a point where AMD has no equivalent in performance to the intel version.

Ex - Amd pits the Amd 1090 (6 core) against the Intel Quad 9550 (in terms of performance compression) where the AMD is priced cheaper but performs a bit better the intel Quad.

xbamaris said,
Same to you AMD Fanboy

What do I need to prove, troll?
Do I need to prove that torrentthief made unproved claim? Isn't it just obvious?

plus there really is no point in investing in a super expensive cpu when graphics cards are really the crux of a games performance once you get past any bottlenecking issues.

etempest said,

Amd is competively price so if your looking at a certain price range where there's an amd cpu, and intel cpu (again same price range), the amd will cost the same or slightly chepear and be more powerful. However you the more powerful you go, you will reach a point where AMD has no equivalent in performance to the intel version.

Ex - Amd pits the Amd 1090 (6 core) against the Intel Quad 9550 (in terms of performance compression) where the AMD is priced cheaper but performs a bit better the intel Quad.

You realise that the Q9550 is really outdated now? Doing a fair comparison would be the Intel Core i5 2500K vs the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T.

They are both roughly the same price, the 2500k being ~£15 more expensive in the UK, but gives you way more than a 10% boost in performance. I know that I would much rather have the 2500k. Not to mention the fact that the 2500k can be overclocked easily to 1Ghz over it's default clock speed on air cooling. AMD becomes competitive around the £100 mark, anything above that and Intel will generally be the better choice; although I haven't looked at motherboards in a long time and that is something to consider.

I am interested to see what the new bulldozer cores can bring to the table, hopefully it will breach Intels dominance at the top.

torrentthief said,
i'm not sure how many gamers that have SLI would want to use an AMD system as their cpu's are alot slower. SLI is only used by hardcore gamers, pretty sure they would want intel cpu's.

anyway its good news, maybe a handful of people will make use of this.


oh god, flamewar. Realistically, I'm not a fanboy of either but I find it better to go with AMD because you can get roughly the same processing power for less.

torrentthief said,
i'm not sure how many gamers that have SLI would want to use an AMD system as their cpu's are alot slower. SLI is only used by hardcore gamers, pretty sure they would want intel cpu's.

anyway its good news, maybe a handful of people will make use of this.

you are right... i cant play videogames with my AMD cpu. and since im have AMD im not a real gamer, even im always playing videogames...

honestly, you eat too much what people/benchmarks/marketing tell you... i bet if you ever have an AMD and a INTEL... next to each other, and you have crossfire/SLI.. and you use both, you wont know which one is amd nor intel... why because i bet you wont notice the difference specially in videogames where with SLI or Crossfire you wont have problem (running the newest cpu from intel and amd) so its stupid to think just because a stupid benchmark says something you have to believe at it or die saying "blabla i dont have a amd but its still slow" specially when videogames are more graphic card...

torrentthief said,
i'm not sure how many gamers that have SLI would want to use an AMD system as their cpu's are alot slower. SLI is only used by hardcore gamers, pretty sure they would want intel cpu's.

anyway its good news, maybe a handful of people will make use of this.

I actually use SLI with an AMD CPU.
AMD Phenom II X4 955 with 2xGeforce260

Looking at CPU performance for the money you spend, AMD wins the low to middle range CPUs, up until you get to the 955 and Intel usually wins after that. Since I don't spend a huge amount of money on my CPU, I usually buy AMD. This has changes recently with the release of the Intel Sandybridge CPUs.

I decided to go with NVidia graphic cards because I like the drivers and software that comes with it. I have dealt with ATI cards before, and didn't like their software at all.

Regardless if I am right or not, you should be able to see there are other viewpoints than your own. Only Sith deal in absolutes!