Saturday, February 4th 2017

First Intel Processor with AMD Radeon Graphics Within 2017

Back in December, it was reported that Intel could license AMD's GPU technology for integration into its future processors. The whispers are growing louder, with Hard|OCP editor Kyle Bennett (who broke the original December story), reporting that the first product of this collaboration could be out within 2017. According to Bennett, posting on the Hard|OCP Forums, the first Intel product with AMD Radeon GPU IP could be a special processor with an AMD Radeon GPU die, and a CPU die based on the "Kaby Lake" micro-architecture.

Bennett further adds that the Radeon-enhanced Intel processor could be a multi-chip module (MCM) with the Radeon GPU die being separate from the CPU die, it won't be an on-die component such as Intel's own HD Graphics solution. This could also mean that AMD will supply nearly-finished dies to Intel, likely manufactured at its own trusted fabs (Global Foundries or TSMC), and not hand over sensitive designs over to Intel's fabs. The product could be an entry-mid range product, which means Intel is trying to aim for the value consumer segment, and not necessarily the workstation crowd. Bennett concludes that one could expect more collaboration between Intel and AMD over graphics IP in the future.

Source: HardOCP
Add your own comment

77 Comments on First Intel Processor with AMD Radeon Graphics Within 2017

#2
the54thvoid
I'm struggling with the business sense of this. If Ryzen is a competent chip it will erode Intel's market share, slowly admittedly. Why invest in your only competitor who may have something good going on?

Unless it's a simple case of Intel throwing money at AMD so it can concentrate more on CPU design and stop wasting R&D on iGPU.

Hmm.... Need more info before chin rubbing starts.
Posted on Reply
#3
hojnikb
It's not gonna happen. What intel did here is simply bought gpu licencing from amd instead of ngreedia, so they can continue making iGPUs without infringing patents.

That doesn't mean they're gonna start using radeon IP in their products.
Posted on Reply
#4
R-T-B
hojnikb said:
It's not gonna happen. What intel did here is simply bought gpu licencing from amd instead of ngreedia, so they can continue making iGPUs without infringing patents.
I'm pretty sure they've been making iGPUs for a while, and thus possess the necessary patents. Otherwise, they'd be facing lawsuits left and right at this very moment.

This is something more.
Posted on Reply
#5
entropic
R-T-B said:
I'm pretty sure they've been making iGPUs for a while, and thus possess the necessary patents. Otherwise, they'd be facing lawsuits left and right at this very moment.

This is something more.
Yes intel has been doing iGPUs for a while, they also had a licensing arrangement with nvidia about patents, that recently was nearing to an end and now intel sided with AMD to cover the patent stuff but also maybe something more like this rumour
Posted on Reply
#6
NC37
And just like that, AMD becomes the market leader in GPUs...

Even if it's not exactly a Radeon, you know AMD will use it to say,"hey technically those are our parts so therefore, bite my market share nvidia boy."
Posted on Reply
#7
RejZoR
NC37 said:
And just like that, AMD becomes the market leader in GPUs...

Even if it's not exactly a Radeon, you know AMD will use it to say,"hey technically those are our parts so therefore, bite my market share nvidia boy."
Well, Intel has been doing just that with their iGPU's since the beginning of time. They just counted all GPU's sold with iGPU as "our GPU" even if user actually use discrete graphic card.

Though, I don't understand the logic behind this move. Sure, it's a short term financial injection, but long term, they'll be eroding their own APU market. I mean, AMD's APU's have an edge because of Radeon core. Giving that to Intel and you're killing your only special thing about your CPU's. Because lets be honest, Intel GPU's, while they kinda get the framerate done, they are still garbage. I mean, it's 2017 and all they offer is Anisotropic filter ON or OFF. I've had up to 16x AF on like 5+ ? years old crappy E-450 APU. With 6x FSAA!
Posted on Reply
#8
Chaitanya
That could be massive boost to amd and quite a large set back to nvidia trying to sell entry level gpus upto 1050(non ti).
Posted on Reply
#9
Nosada
RejZoR said:
Because lets be honest, Intel GPU's, while they kinda get the framerate done, they are still garbage.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this. Especially since the somewhat capable Iris Pro APU's are nowhere near affordable enough to be a real alternative to much cheaper AMD APU's or much more potent discrete GPU's.

I think this is Intel pretty much saying "we're no longer interested in pursuing this, and are licensing the work of the specialists in the field", which is pretty commendable. Let's hope this translate into both better income for AMD and higher increases in IPC from Intel.

Personal opinion: the idea I get to chose which CPU I buy with my VEGA APU is kinda awesome. Ryzen/VEGA combo's would have an entire market-share to themselves otherwise, which is bad for pricing.
Posted on Reply
#10
RejZoR
Well, Ryzen+Vega APU would be basically console grade combo for PC.
Posted on Reply
#11
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
This is actually pretty smart for both Intel and AMD to do. We already know what Intel's weakness is and that's iGPUs because, they don't have access to IP that lets them use what would be considered modern day shaders because those are protected by nVidia's and AMD's IP so Intel is forced to basically use cut-down x86 cores to do the same thing. So using Radeon IP is good in the sense that their GPU performance will improve and it will save die space that would otherwise be mostly dedicated to an iGPU because, Intel's iGPU is literally a behemoth taking up a very large portion of die space. This is good for AMD because, if Ryzen sucks, this could prove to be income that will offset bad CPU sales because, they'll be making money off of Intel's good fortune in a worse case situation.

All in all, Intel probably is the company that stands to lose the most money but, can benefit from what it has to offer. AMD only stands to earn money since even in a worst-case situation, they'll have a source of revenue regardless if Ryzen lives up to expectations or not. If I'm interpreting this right, it should serve to stabilize both companies in a good way.
Posted on Reply
#12
Dj-ElectriC
I would have to see this with my own eyes.
Posted on Reply
#13
alucasa
I think this is a case of beggars can't be choosers. The beggar in this case being AMD. They need the money desperately, it seems.
Posted on Reply
#14
R-T-B
alucasa said:
I think this is a case of beggars can't be choosers. The beggar in this case being AMD. They need the money desperately, it seems.
Intel needs them just as badly. Without AMD, the anti-monopoly regulators start sharpening their blades... and Intel becomes many pieces.
Posted on Reply
#15
BiggieShady
the54thvoid said:
Unless it's a simple case of Intel throwing money at AMD so it can concentrate more on CPU design and stop wasting R&D on iGPU.
There is another possibility, Intel realized that zen core is power scalable all the way down for laptop chips and they want to offer competitive alternative for upcoming APUs ... so far Intel dominated laptop space, they'd probably like to keep it that way
Posted on Reply
#16
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
BiggieShady said:
There is another possibility, Intel realized that zen core is power scalable all the way down for laptop chips and they want to offer competitive alternative for upcoming APUs ... so far Intel dominated laptop space, they'd probably like to keep it that way
When the Iris Pro in my laptop runs at full tilt, the sucker gets loud and hot. I suspect that they would like to try to improve that as well.
Posted on Reply
#17
iO
The only thing I could think of which wouldnt hurt future APU sales, is a custom part specifically made for a revised Macbook Pro and iMacs...

But sounds more like Bennett's wild theory that Raja wants to split RTG from AMD as a independent company..
Posted on Reply
#18
BiggieShady
iO said:
The only thing I could think of which wouldnt hurt future APU sales, is a custom part specifically made for a revised Macbook Pro and iMacs...

But sounds more like Bennett's wild theory that Raja wants to split RTG from AMD as a independent company..
We don't know what AMD got for this deal, probably a lot in cross licencing and less financially, but they probably calculated in market segmentation with future APU sales
Posted on Reply
#19
DRDNA
From what I understand AMD has the current game console market which it took from Nvidia and that is a big part of this as everything use to run better on green (in general) when green had that market will be and now that red has that spot I feel it is similar situation where low end AMD will be able to perform well just like Nvidia's lower did and thus a perfect fit for Intel to utilize as they are very cost effective. Just my two cents.
Posted on Reply
#20
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
BiggieShady said:
We don't know what AMD got for this deal, probably a lot in cross licencing and less financially, but they probably calculated in market segmentation with future APU sales
However, we do know that Apple loves miniaturization. The current new lineup with discrete graphics are all AMD GPUs, having the GPU on the same chip (not die,) can save a lot of space relative to how much is available. I'm uncertain if this is true or not but, I have heard a rumor that Apple might be moving towards having 32GB of RAM as an option which, I would be totally for considering I'm already using 9-12GB on a regular basis between Java, Chrome, a terminal, and Slack. Freeing up that space could make 32GB a possibility.
Posted on Reply
#21
TheGuruStud
R-T-B said:
Intel needs them just as badly. Without AMD, the anti-monopoly regulators start sharpening their blades... and Intel becomes many pieces.
You mean like ATT, Verizon, Charter, Comcast, etc. The 80s are long gone. Monopolies and duopolies are here to stay. Intel already got away with it once (for decades no less). They can do it, again, if they feel threatened. The fines are bullshit (if ever collected or not appealed to pennies).
Posted on Reply
#22
wiak
NC37 said:
And just like that, AMD becomes the market leader in GPUs...

Even if it's not exactly a Radeon, you know AMD will use it to say,"hey technically those are our parts so therefore, bite my market share nvidia boy."
if it has a graphics chip, its insanely hard not to find amd graphics
buying a pc?, is it amd? then amd graphics (this includes both desktop and the apu/laptop markets)
buying a console?, do you want to game at high detail? then amd graphics
buying a console?, do you like wii sports? then amd graphics
buying a new graphics card? then amd graphics in not so insane price points
Posted on Reply
#23
Steevo
AMD cross licensing for node access is another possibility, considering they have to supply MS and Sony with chips and maybe they grow tired of the shitty yields and scalability of dies from GloFlo. Its been one of the largest pains in their ass for the last decade, falling behind Intel and their wafer agreement screwing over the CPU and GPU manufacturing. Take any of the last few major releases on the GPU or CPU side and realize they wanted that on one node smaller process, and the 15-20% power savings or 10% performance increase, it wouldn't have been a complete game changer, but would have had a substantial effect on their overall appeal.
Posted on Reply
#24
R-T-B
TheGuruStud said:
You mean like ATT, Verizon, Charter, Comcast, etc.
Yeah, you just illustrated the lack of complete monopoly in thd ISP field by listing multiple contenders... not sure what your point was in doing that.

They may have regional monopolies, which get ignored often. I REALLY doubt a complete monopoly would be ignored, which is what Intel would have if AMD croaked. Intel has NEVER been the sole producer of x86 chips and those "decades" you cite had IBM, Cyrix, VIA, AMD, the list goes on...
Posted on Reply
#25
TheGuruStud
R-T-B said:
Yeah, you just illustrated the lack of complete monopoly in thd ISP field by listing multiple contenders... not sure what your point was in doing that.

They may have regional monopolies, which get ignored often. I REALLY doubt a complete monopoly would be ignored, which is what Intel would have if AMD croaked. Intel has NEVER been the sole producer of x86 chips and those "decades" you cite had IBM, Cyrix, VIA, AMD, the list goes on...
You think that collusion and regional monopolies aren't as damaging? It's all smoke and mirrors. You think they sued Google and municipalities out of the ISP biz for fun? They will not compete and the fed govt is in on it.

And if you think that Intel hasn't had an effective monopoly on x86 forever....idk what to say. They fooled you, though.

Giving the most crooked people and organizations (corps/US govt) on the planet the benefit of the doubt is dangerous and stupid.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment