Intel Notifies AMD of Cross-License Breach

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

My G5s resale price would sky rocket

PPC-based processor vendors such as Freescale will hit the jackpot, so will the CELL consortium (or whatever is left of it). It wouldn't be hard for AMD to make PPC, it won't be hard for NVIDIA to make some either. At least the tyranny of Intel will end.

[riffraffy]

Oh i get it now Intel sues AMD for breach of contract, and AMD counter sues for breach of breaches.

[KBD]

Originally Posted by btarunr

If Microsoft tomorrow says "our PC operating system supports PowerPC architecture, not just x86/Itanium", watch the fun.

I think that would be great, more competition = more benefits to the consumer. But isnt Windows already optimized for the x86 architecture and adding support for PowerPC would be challenging and time consuming and in the end not worth it for MS?

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by KBD

I think that would be great, more competition = more benefits to the consumer. But isnt Windows already optimized for the x86 architecture and adding support for PowerPC would be challenging and time consuming and in the end not worth it for MS?

Dude Vista is packed with bugs. Lets not get Microsoft on to many platforms until it perfects the first one.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by KBD

I think that would be great, more competition = more benefits to the consumer. But isnt Windows already optimized for the x86 architecture and adding support for PowerPC would be challenging and time consuming and in the end not worth it for MS?

A few college nerds sipping coke, popping jelly-beans, ported Linux to PowerPC, which wasn't really a difficult task. They only had to work on the kernel and driver model. Some applications don't really care about the architecture the processor is in, as long as it gets its work done. In Linux/BSD, such apps are designated with "noarch" in the version string. Windows applications however, have come to be greatly optimised for Intel-made features such as MMX, Streaming SIMD, etc. Such apps will need some re-engineering. Back in the days of PPC Mac, Adobe conveniently coded for x86 (Windows) and PPC (Mac). It can be done. As Windows progresses with the multi-architecture model, apps will keep getting architecture-neutral.

[DarkMatter]

I don't think Intel has a case here as I don't really think AMD gave any IP to the subsidiary. IMO it's kind of a containment measure, spread the message that Intel doesn't want x86 licensees to share the licensed IP. That way they kill two birds with one stone, they scare AMD and they put AMD and other licensees in their place, ensuring that companies like Nvidia don't get a license.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

I don't think Intel has a case here as I don't really think AMD gave any IP to the subsidiary. IMO it's kind of a containment measure, spread the message that Intel doesn't want x86 licensees to share the licensed IP. That way they kill two birds with one stone, they scare AMD and they put AMD and other licensees in their place, ensuring that companies like Nvidia don't get a license.

I agree. Thats what I said here.

[KBD]

Originally Posted by btarunr

A few nerds sipping coke, popping jelly-beans, ported Linux to PowerPC, which wasn't really a difficult task. They only had to work on the kernel and driver model. Some applications don't really care about the architecture the processor is in, as long as it gets its work done. In Linux/BSD, such apps are designated with "noarch" in the version string. Windows applications however, have come to be greatly optimised for Intel-made features such as MMX, Streaming SIMD, etc. Such apps will need some re-engineering. Back in the days of PPC Mac, Adobe conveniently coded for x86 (Windows) and PPC (Mac). It can be done. As Windows progresses with the multi-architecture model, apps will keep getting architecture-neutral.

Good answer, thnx!

I guess its a matter of MS unwillingness to undertake such a project probably because they dont see it making them much money and they dont want to piss off Intel and would rather preserve the status quo. And since Apple no longer uses PowerPC CPUs in their Macs software designers have no incentive to make applications supporting PowerPC CPUs. AFAIK, that architecture is relegated to embedded devices as well as IBM workstations so its not a big market.

[Shadow*]

Intel causing drama as usual...i wish they would go away as in ...gone.

[suraswami]

I don't understand, I thought AMD is designing/engineering chips and Foundary company is going to put that chip in production. How will that be a breach? If the Foundary starts to design its own then there is a problem. oh foundary being the 51% share holder thing?

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Not petty. If Intel pulls it off, bye bye AMD.

Originally Posted by KBD

Yea, people, this is serious stuff. If they dont reach a deal AMD will be in big trouble.

Oh, no -- AMD isn't in danger of going "bye bye." KBD hit the nail on the head -- all Intel wants is a cut of AMD's profits. They just want a deal. AMD is probably starting to make a bit of money now (after a few years of doing nothing but losing it), and now Intel is coming for their "share," but they wouldn't want AMD to go out of business. Not only would they probably be in immediate violation of antitrust regulations (or whatever's left of them in the US ), but they'll be cut out of any future profits that AMD could give them.

Originally Posted by btarunr

If Microsoft tomorrow says "our PC operating system supports PowerPC architecture, not just x86/Itanium", watch the fun.

You know what I'm waiting for? The day when MS comes out and says "we will now be supplying a version of Windows that will work perfectly on recent netbooks supporting the ARM architecture." I betcha that's what Intel is starting to fear more and more -- a low powered, completely-mobile, ARM-powered netbook and cellphone powered future.

[PVTCaboose1337]

Originally Posted by Shadow*

Intel causing drama as usual...i wish they would go away as in ...gone.

No you don't! Competition means lower prices for everyone!

[BOSE]

If Intel pulls it off, they will lose X64 License from AMD. Thus Intel will only make x86 CPU's. And then every OS will have to be 32Bit.

[suraswami]

Originally Posted by BOSE

If Intel pulls it off, they will lose X64 License from AMD. Thus Intel will only make x86 CPU's. And then every OS will have to be 32Bit.

I think that is wrong. Intel has their own version of X64 that they use in their CPUs.

somebody correct me if I am wrong.

[qubit]

And here's the dead giveaway, right in their press release:

Intel also said the structure of the deal between AMD and ATIC breaches a confidential portion of that agreement. Intel has asked AMD to make the relevant portion of the agreement public, but so far AMD has declined to do so.

You bet they "declined to do so"! If AMD had really breached a confidential part of the agreement, then if:

- the agreement is confidential, then why would they suddenly want the whole world to know about it? They would want to discuss this confidentially, in private, with lawyers, no??

- you accuse someone of doing wrong, you specify what it is to them and tell them to stop. Intel's statement is like me having my friend fix my car and then I turn round to him and say "Hey, you broke it! Now admit to the part you broke!" Doesn't fly, does it?

There's no way that AMD would have had this multi-billion dollar restructure if they were breaching any agreements with Intel.

No, Intel will now get some serious competition for once in its life and it's running scared.

Incidentally, this is the same shit that Microsoft pulled with Linux. The Linux community lifted a finger and said "so sue me!!" It's all gone a bit quiet, hasn't it?

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

You know what I'm waiting for? The day when MS comes out and says "we will now be supplying a version of Windows that will work perfectly on recent netbooks supporting the ARM architecture." I betcha that's what Intel is starting to fear more and more -- a low powered, completely-mobile, ARM-powered netbook and cellphone powered future.

Intel already holds an ARM license. It has made ARM processors (eg: StrongARM) for ages. It also has the XScale architecture that is code-compatible with ARM. That doesn't necessarily spell trouble for Intel.

[Rapidfire48]

The bottom line is AMD finally has financial backing they have needed for so long. this will allow them to go in a new direction and possibly regain the speed crown again.

Since the Core 2 era Intel has been a bunch of power hungry jack asses . They were unable to do this when they had there P4 chip because AMD was kicking there ass with the FX . Now that there is a chance for them to do it again Intel will pull out all the stops to prevent it.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Intel already holds an ARM license. It has made ARM processors (eg: StrongARM) for ages. It also has the XScale architecture that is code-compatible with ARM. That doesn't necessarily spell trouble for Intel.

Hey, just imagine if the ARM processor finally came to dominate the desktop?! It was developed in the mid 1980s by Acorn and blew away the competition of the time, the 386, while running at a much lower clock speed. It did this by using a clean and efficient 32-bit RISC architecture designed in-house. The graphics capabilities of the Archimedes computer it came in was way better than the grossly overpriced PC clunkers of the day - and it was all done in software.

It was a crying shame how Acorn had such a blinkered attitude back then - had they licenced out their PC and CPU designs, the world would now have been Acorn compatible and our computers would have been much more efficient and powerful.

Here's some info on it for those too young to remember.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Intel already holds an ARM license. It has made ARM processors (eg: StrongARM) for ages. It also has the XScale architecture that is code-compatible with ARM. That doesn't necessarily spell trouble for Intel.

Oh, I'm sure they do already have an ARM license -- but don't lots of others do, too? I'm sure it's not just two or three like it is in the x86 market -- isn't there hundreds?

[v12dock]

Here is Intel whining again, drives me farther from buying a Intel product

[WarEagleAU]

Sura you are wrong in a sense. The redraft of the cross licensing agreement include AMDs 64 bit architecture. AMD gets what it gets and intel gets cash, access to the 64bit architecture and something else. If, in my opinion, AMD did lose its license to produce X86, Intel would lose its X64 which intel did come up with and patented. Intel would have to find another way to be 64 bit compatible and AMD would have to do the same for x86 or some variant.

[KBD]

Originally Posted by WarEagleAU

Sura you are wrong in a sense. The redraft of the cross licensing agreement include AMDs 64 bit architecture. AMD gets what it gets and intel gets cash, access to the 64bit architecture and something else. If, in my opinion, AMD did lose its license to produce X86, Intel would lose its X64 which intel did come up with and patented. Intel would have to find another way to be 64 bit compatible and AMD would have to do the same for x86 or some variant.

Isnt x64 simply an extension of x86?

[BOSE]

Yes, but you still need license to use it. Its all about the Benjamins.

[Supreme0verlord]

Wow, this makes me hate Intel even more.........

[wiak]

current Core i7 and Core 2 are all based on AMD's x86-64 aka AMD64, that intel copied with EMT64

so intel is also screwed the other way