Thursday, May 18th 2017

Intel Denies Graphics IP Licensing Deal with AMD

You must've read recent reports on the web about an AMD-Intel licensing deal. We purposefully didn't cover that information, spread on May 15th, based on an expiring graphics IP licensing deal between NVIDIA and Intel. The initial report said that since that deal was expiring, Intel was now turning to its x86 arch-enemy, AMD. It would seem those reports weren't based on facts, having since been denied by Intel, who told Barron's Tiernan Ray that "the recent rumors that Intel has licensed AMD's graphics technology are untrue."

Investors and speculators are an attentive bunch, and jumped at the original rumor, expecting another million-dollar licensing deal. As a result of the Intel-AMD licensing deal rumor, AMD's stock soared by 12% even before AMD's Financial Analyst day. Naturally, after Intel rectified the story, AMD's stock proceeded to correct the speculative bubble, dropping back to previous levels. AMD could have denied the deal as much as Intel could (it takes two to tango), but chose not to. The company played smartly, keeping its cards close to its chest with a "no comment" posture regarding the rumor. This let AMD AMD play on it, seeing their stock increase (even if it was a short-lived scenario, now rectified in its stock value.)

Source: Barrons, Seeking Alpha, Investors Hub, Fudzilla, Google Finance
Add your own comment

15 Comments on Intel Denies Graphics IP Licensing Deal with AMD

#1
fynxer
Ok, but who did Intel license gfx tech from if not nVidia and AMD. What i understand they absolutely need it to protect themselves.
Posted on Reply
#2
RejZoR
Well, Intel does make their own GPU's. They are a bit shit and they probably have to pay patents to one of two graphics giants, but they still have their own stuff, so they aren't entirely GPU-less.
Posted on Reply
#3
TheLostSwede
fynxer said:
Ok, but who did Intel license gfx tech from if not nVidia and AMD. What i understand they absolutely need it to protect themselves.
Imagination Technologies maybe? They have worked with them in the past.
Posted on Reply
#4
DeathtoGnomes
Until Intel releases the details of a deal, there is only wishful thinking.
Posted on Reply
#5
silentbogo
Larrabee is dead, long live Larrabee :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#6
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
RejZoR said:
Well, Intel does make their own GPU's. They are a bit shit and they probably have to pay patents to one of two graphics giants, but they still have their own stuff, so they aren't entirely GPU-less.
I wouldn't call them shit, actually. The high end Iris Pro have been very decent for a few years now, surpassing AMD APU graphics even; they've made leaps and bounds since Ivy Bridge. The problem is Intels stupid market segmentation, so the best Iris Pro is embedded in > $400 CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#7
silentbogo
Frick said:
I wouldn't call them shit, actually. The high end Iris Pro have been very decent for a few years now, surpassing AMD APU graphics even; they've made leaps and bounds since Ivy Bridge. The problem is Intels stupid market segmentation, so the best Iris Pro is embedded in > $400 CPUs.
Or embedded into an overpriced mainstream Core i7 (khm... U-series, instead of Q/QM where it makes much more sense)
Posted on Reply
#8
RejZoR
Frick said:
I wouldn't call them shit, actually. The high end Iris Pro have been very decent for a few years now, surpassing AMD APU graphics even; they've made leaps and bounds since Ivy Bridge. The problem is Intels stupid market segmentation, so the best Iris Pro is embedded in > $400 CPUs.
Good in terms of just raw framerate and absolutely nothing else. You can forget about anti-aliasing or Anisotropic filtering, you can forget about any more advanced features. One can argue you don't need them on such low end GPU's, but I disagree. Running old games on integrated Radeons is a joy as you can crank up FSAA and AF and make old games look really good. On Intel GPU's, they'll be riddled with jaggies and washed out textures.
Posted on Reply
#9
Brusfantomet
RejZoR said:
Good in terms of just raw framerate and absolutely nothing else. You can forget about anti-aliasing or Anisotropic filtering, you can forget about any more advanced features. One can argue you don't need them on such low end GPU's, but I disagree. Running old games on integrated Radeons is a joy as you can crank up FSAA and AF and make old games look really good. On Intel GPU's, they'll be riddled with jaggies and washed out textures.
Or the drivers flat out refuses to work with the game, since the intel drivers are "dritt" as i would say in Norwegian
Posted on Reply
#10
Fx
Frick said:
I wouldn't call them shit, actually. The high end Iris Pro have been very decent for a few years now, surpassing AMD APU graphics even; they've made leaps and bounds since Ivy Bridge. The problem is Intels stupid market segmentation, so the best Iris Pro is embedded in > $400 CPUs.
I would have to agree. Other than not being able to display over 3 monitors as advertised from the 6700K, I have no qualms with Intel's integrated graphics for the boring requirement that I expect it to accomplish -- basic graphics for basic usage.
Posted on Reply
#11
xorbe
fynxer said:
Ok, but who did Intel license gfx tech from if not nVidia and AMD. What i understand they absolutely need it to protect themselves.
This right here.
Posted on Reply
#12
Patriot
xorbe said:
This right here.
Right, Intel chooses to lie... AMD chooses to be silent.
Posted on Reply
#13
zargana
Guys can someone explain the "ip" thing stands for? I am seeing all around and cant catch the meaning of it.

Thnx in advance
Posted on Reply
#14
Patriot
zargana said:
Guys can someone explain the "ip" thing stands for? I am seeing all around and cant catch the meaning of it.

Thnx in advance
Intellectual property, in this instance patents on ideas and methods used in graphics cards.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment