Intel Interested in Licensing from AMD?

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

The Math:



Source material:

https://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.mykancolle.com/?post=2154&sl=zh&tl=en

Edit for clarity: I can agree it is somewhat of a guess (as to what the AMD dGPU is), but from the data provided, it is pretty evident that it is an Intel HD630 iGPU with an unknown AMD dGPU and NOT an Intel CPU with a GCN iGPU. I should have been more clear in my original post.

Thank you for your time.

JAT

Soo one guy says it is one guy says it isn't ,sold its absolute fact ,thats not proof thats one guy who agrees with you but be certain i didn't give anything but an opinion , if this isnt an amd powered chip it makes little difference to the fact apple does not have the capability or Ip to make a system on a chip for laptops and such and their competitors do , they're competition has an efficiency bonus in their pocket that apple aren't going to bypass without something like kaby lake G.

 

[JATownes]

I only speculate it's a SKU designed for Apple, because the inferred specs of the dGPU did not seem to match anything AMD has leaked/revealed.

My point was that 528KB L2 doesn't really make sense, but 512KB + 16KB L2 does, and is a known and replicatable way that SANDRA combines an iGPU with a unidentified dGPU. In addition, this is all well established architecturally by the standardised SP/CU ratio of each company. Unless this is an ENTIRELY new architecture for a Intel/AMD iGPU where both companies scrapped their tried and true ratios of SP/CU and started from scratch.

So again, I'll concede their is no "proof" this is not an Intel/AMD hybrid, but to claim my statement is wild speculation is inaccurate. This is a very educated guess based on well known, publicly disclosed information regarding each companies architecture, and the well established way the software combines data when it is unable to identify an unknown dGPU being used with a known iGPU.

The article posted basically says "I don't know what this means, but it could be the rumored Intel/AMD hybrid"... some simple math and basic knowledge of how the database software actually works would have saved the author some time. Unless they were going for click-bait, in which case, Tweaktown did an amazing job, just like Fudzilla did "leaking" the original story I posted in this thread.

Edit: The stock has looked like a roller coaster based on speculation like this. It's been one wild ride, and just keeps going up and down. I'm not a day trader, but I bet some that have time to constantly watch it have made TONS of money over the last 3 months.

JAT

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I only speculate it's a SKU designed for Apple, because the inferred specs of the dGPU did not seem to match anything AMD has leaked/revealed.

My point was that 528KB L2 doesn't really make sense, but 512KB + 16KB L2 does, and is a known and replicatable way that SANDRA combines an iGPU with a unidentified dGPU. In addition, this is all well established architecturally by the standardised SP/CU ratio of each company. Unless this is an ENTIRELY new architecture for a Intel/AMD iGPU where both companies scrapped their tried and true ratios of SP/CU and started from scratch.

So again, I'll concede their is no "proof" this is not an Intel/AMD hybrid, but to claim my statement is wild speculation is inaccurate. This is a very educated guess based on well known, publicly disclosed information regarding each companies architecture, and the well established way the software combines data when it is unable to identify an unknown dGPU being used with a known iGPU.

The article posted basically says "I don't know what this means, but it could be the rumored Intel/AMD hybrid"... some simple math and basic knowledge of how the database software actually works would have saved the author some time. Unless they were going for click-bait, in which case, Tweaktown did an amazing job, just like Fudzilla did "leaking" the original story I posted in this thread.

Edit: The stock has looked like a roller coaster based on speculation like this. It's been one wild ride, and just keeps going up and down. I'm not a day trader, but I bet some that have time to constantly watch it have made TONS of money over the last 3 months.

JAT

Fair enough im no trader so i didn't watch their stocks , I am torn still i don't doubt this could be as you say i just think it inevitable that apple will need an Soc soon and one with some actual gpu performance not a intel Hd type and not with the obvious power penalty a dGpu has, but it is as you say a rumour thats easily refuted.

 

[JATownes]

Fair enough im no trader so i didn't watch their stocks , I am torn still i don't doubt this could be as you say i just think it inevitable that apple will need an Soc soon and one with some actual gpu performance not a intel Hd type and not with the obvious power penalty a dGpu has, but it is as you say a rumour thats easily refuted.

Absolutely! Unfortunately I don't think Apple will be able to ditch Intel unless the tech behind the Lightning connection is shared with everyone. Thunderbolt was co-developed by Intel and Apple, and I'm pretty sure Lightning is based on that same tech.

Apple offering AMD GPUs in their new machines is a big win for AMD and I wish they would slap a Vega/Polaris based APU in their small devices... but I don't think Intel will let that happen. And you're absolutely correct, Intel has very little to offer in the powerful iGPU department.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Absolutely! Unfortunately I don't think Apple will be able to ditch Intel unless the tech behind the Lightning connection is shared with everyone. Thunderbolt was co-developed by Intel and Apple, and I'm pretty sure Lightning is based on that same tech.

Apple offering AMD GPUs in their new machines is a big win for AMD and I wish they would slap a Vega/Polaris based APU in their small devices... but I don't think Intel will let that happen. And you're absolutely correct, Intel has very little to offer in the powerful iGPU department.

Huh?? The Lightning connector is Apple proprietary and only used on iOS devices and some accessories, not on Macs. It has no relevance whatsoever. It's based on USB 2.0 and Apple's proprietary docking/accessory interface.

The issue if anything, is Thunderbolt, as so far it's proprietary to Intel, but from some time next year, Intel is planning on opening the standard up to other chipset makers and do so royalty free. So come next year, Apple could in theory put AMD chips in their machines, if they really wanted to piss off Intel.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Absolutely! Unfortunately I don't think Apple will be able to ditch Intel unless the tech behind the Lightning connection is shared with everyone. Thunderbolt was co-developed by Intel and Apple, and I'm pretty sure Lightning is based on that same tech.

Apple offering AMD GPUs in their new machines is a big win for AMD and I wish they would slap a Vega/Polaris based APU in their small devices... but I don't think Intel will let that happen. And you're absolutely correct, Intel has very little to offer in the powerful iGPU department.

Vegas already rumoured to be coming to Imac pros but rumours eh, thunderbolt is licensed to Apple afaik but it's also rumoured intel are loosening up the licenceing of thunderbolt to increase adoption ,even Amd have been rumoured to be interested in using it but i think usb type c is easily good enough to compete their.
I think if apple wait more then two years to find the Soc i deam mythical their products will be so far behind in efficiency and gpu performance that it wouldn't be just pro user's jumping up and down complaining.

 

[Vya Domus]

Apple offering AMD GPUs in their new machines is a big win for AMD and I wish they would slap a Vega/Polaris based APU in their small devices... but I don't think Intel will let that happen. And you're absolutely correct, Intel has very little to offer in the powerful iGPU department.

But as you said , Intel has absolutely nothing to offer when it comes down to powerful mobile GPUs. How can they not let that happen ? Beg Apple to stick to something that doesn't fit their needs ? Times changed , unless you can't provide you're out , Vega inside the iMac Pro is proof of that.

 

[r9]

I absolutely agree.

The tech financial world is floating a wild little rumor that is a little out there considering, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first mention of anything like this.



Source: https://cnafinance.com/advanced-mic...limbs-on-intel-intc-interest-in-license/15358

Has anyone else heard any rumors regarding a licensing deal? I know there was a rumor of Intel being interested in GPU tech for their iGPU, but their interest in AMD's CPU/core design seems like a pretty big stretch.

JAT

Edit: Might be a misquote by the author of the article. It appears the INTC and AMD have inked out their GPU licensing deal today...just in time for Analyst Day. I'll leave the post as it sits, just in case there is some truth to it...though I'm pretty skeptical about it.

The title should be "Intel interested in not getting sued by doing licencing deal with AMD".

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This should have been posted already but if it hasn't:
Intel Puts the Kibosh on Reports It Will License AMD GPU Technology

...Mark Hibben of SeekingAlpha has correctly pointed out that the actual patent license that Intel struck with Nvidia is perpetual. Intel hasn’t lost access to any NV patents as a result of completing its license payments, and therefore doesn’t need to sign an agreement with AMD to replace them.

“The recent rumors that Intel has licensed AMD’s graphics technology are untrue.”

 

[r9]

Only reason Intel made any licencing deal with NVIDIA was because NVIDIa was ready to sue for a lot more.
But now that the deal is over they are not looking to make the same mistake and they will licence beforehand.
And I'm pretty sure AMD can give them a better deal.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Only reason Intel made any licencing deal with NVIDIA was because NVIDIa was ready to sue for a lot more.
But now that the deal is over they are not looking to make the same mistake and they will licence beforehand.
And I'm pretty sure AMD can give them a better deal.

If they did , would they announce it or hide it ??? We may have no clear confirmation ,lets see what intels GPUs look like in a year or so.

 

[r9]

If they did , would they announce it or hide it ??? We may have no clear confirmation ,lets see what intels GPUs look like in a year or so.

I don't think it will affect the design it self, like I said its just to cover their ass.
And I don't see the benefit of announcing it to be honest.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

From SeekingAlpha article: "Intel would have the rights to use any Nvidia patents filed up to March 31, 2017, effectively for ever. What would change was that Intel would no longer have the right to use any Nvidia patents filed after March 31. And Intel would stop making royalty payments to Nvidia."

In other words, Intel is going to keep on keeping on. There's literally no reason for anything to change as far as Intel HD is concerned. NVIDIA is just a little poorer is all. GPU tech isn't going to change hugely in the next decade and Intel has all the patents they need to produce D3D12 and Vulkan chips going forward.

Only VR tech could really introduce something in the near future that requires new patents. Intel isn't really in that business and it is very doubtful they'll ever enter it as well.

 

[R-T-B]

Only VR tech could really introduce something in the near future that requires new patents. Intel isn't really in that business and it is very doubtful they'll ever enter it as well.

Hehe:

 

[notb]

Only VR tech could really introduce something in the near future that requires new patents. Intel isn't really in that business and it is very doubtful they'll ever enter it as well.

Pfff. Intel is one of the leaders in development of VR and AR at this point. Someone hasn't been paying attention.

So come next year, Apple could in theory put AMD chips in their machines, if they really wanted to piss off Intel.

Highly doubtful.
Apple always aims at a very robust, diversified chain of supply. They order stuff from different companies, they choose suppliers with multiple locations etc.
They most likely choose AMD as GPU supplier because going NVIDIA would mean getting GPUs manufactured by TSMC - the most important supplier of Apple stuff already (since they make the iPhone SoC - among many other things).
Choosing AMD to make both CPU and GPU for important products (e.g. MacBook) is almost impossible. Too much dependency of a single company. Apple would rather buy AMD to have full control (they could do it *in cash*).

And why would Apple want to piss off Intel anyway? They've been cooperating beautifully for years.

 

[eidairaman1]

man I am surprised the thread is still open​

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Pfff. Intel is one of the leaders in development of VR and AR at this point. Someone hasn't been paying attention.

Wireless networking, collision detection, and spatial sensing in the headset itself. Source. They aren't working on the VR graphics hardware (the part that requires graphics patents going forward) at all. Intel relies on AMD and NVIDIA GPUs to provide the graphics muscle.

And why would Apple want to piss off Intel anyway? They've been cooperating beautifully for years.

Apple has been using AMD GPUs and Intel CPUs for a long time now. If these new Apple products are coming near the end of the year, it most likely is still using AMD GPU + Intel CPU because Intel has better low-power processor options right now. Only reason why Apple wouldn't be interested in low power is if they were working on a new Mac Pro. That seems...improbable.

If Apple does something crazy, it will be combining GCN with an Apple (ARM-based) processor. I don't think it's far fetched that Apple would turn iMac into a desktop tablet (iOS) with significant GPU grunt to power a 5K-8K display ending support for OS X entirely. That fits the Apple pattern perfectly.

 

[thesmokingman]

With the rate that AMD's new cpus are moving/progressing at and given Apple's commitment to AMD gpus, how long before there are both AMD gpus and cpus in their products?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's not impossible. Apple predominantly uses mobile CPUs because the cooling potential of their computers is very low. Until Ryzen, AMD simply couldn't compete in that market compared to Intel. Ryzen's mobile lineup coincides with Apple's plans to update their computer systems so it's possible they ship with a Ryzen mobile APU.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Pfff. Intel is one of the leaders in development of VR and AR at this point. Someone hasn't been paying attention.

Highly doubtful.
Apple always aims at a very robust, diversified chain of supply. They order stuff from different companies, they choose suppliers with multiple locations etc.
They most likely choose AMD as GPU supplier because going NVIDIA would mean getting GPUs manufactured by TSMC - the most important supplier of Apple stuff already (since they make the iPhone SoC - among many other things).
Choosing AMD to make both CPU and GPU for important products (e.g. MacBook) is almost impossible. Too much dependency of a single company. Apple would rather buy AMD to have full control (they could do it *in cash*).

And why would Apple want to piss off Intel anyway? They've been cooperating beautifully for years.

I guess you don't really know much about the history of tech? Apple would want to piss off Intel for exactly the same reasons they'd want to piss off AMD or Nvidia, to get better pricing. This is a negotiating tactic and I'm sure there will be some rumours about Apple switching to AMD at some point in the future. Will it happen? Highly unlikely today, but keep in mind that there have been rumours about Apple making their own notebook CPUs for some time and they've recently announced that they're developing their own GPU for their iOS products, so anything is possible when it comes to Apple. They own the entire ecosystem, so they can do whatever they want as long as they see it as a benefit to the company.

 

[notb]

Wireless networking, collision detection, and spatial sensing in the headset itself. Source. They aren't working on the VR graphics hardware (the part that requires graphics patents going forward) at all. Intel relies on AMD and NVIDIA GPUs to provide the graphics muscle.

You're thinking too much about graphics as that's just a tiny part of the VR/AR problem. GPU performance grows anyway, while a lot of things have to be designed from scratch.
E.g. it seems Intel will be the company that takes us from wired to wireless VR helmets, which was one of the issues needed to be solved before VR gets mainstream.

Overall, if you look at current VR helmets (including the most popular ones from HTC and Oculus), they have so much Intel tech that they should get the "Intel inside" sticker.

Intel seems to be more into AR anyway (this being possibly more profitable and for sure way more important).

If Apple does something crazy, it will be combining GCN with an Apple (ARM-based) processor. I don't think it's far fetched that Apple would turn iMac into a desktop tablet (iOS) with significant GPU grunt to power a 5K-8K display ending support for OS X entirely. That fits the Apple pattern perfectly.

I think it's the opposite. It's almost certain Apple will go for an in-house GPU in their mobile stuff soon (iPhone, iPad). This could stretch to the Mac mini.
Nothing is stopping them from making something for notebooks/desktops as well.

As for CPUs, keep in mind that for MacBooks they need an IGP. Currently available single CCX desktop Ryzen performs similarly to a mobile i7-7920HQ (at 1/3rd of the price, but that is not an issue in Apple world). We'll see what a mobile variant can do.
And then there's again the single-core performance issue, which is very important for productivity software and Apple won't sacrifice it.
The way AMD currently bins Ryzen, 1800X beats 1500X in single-core benchmarks. They would have to reserve the best chips for APU to make them acceptable.

I guess you don't really know much about the history of tech? (...) Highly unlikely today, but keep in mind that there have been rumours about Apple making their own notebook CPUs for some time

Why would Apple make their own CPU? They've dumped them years back which is one of the reasons MacBook and Mac Pro got so much market share. It improved compatibility and gave them access to the best fabs. Designing a CPU would be a huge step backwards.

I think you're confusing this with the rumor that Apple aims at a dual-CPU setup for future notebooks, when a smaller Apple-designed ARM chip runs the MacOS and simple tasks (and the big one kicks in only for demanding tasks). Actually they already have the hardware: current MacBook Pro has an additional ARM chip to operate the touch bar. Replacing it with A10X would provide enough power to run the OS. Coincidentally, we had rumors that Apple wants to unify their OSes, so they could go for ARM (Microsoft does this also, but has chosen x86).

 

[notb]

With the rate that AMD's new cpus are moving/progressing at and given Apple's commitment to AMD gpus, how long before there are both AMD gpus and cpus in their products?

The rate of CPU progress is essentially the same as Intel's.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You're thinking too much about graphics as that's just a tiny part of the VR/AR problem. GPU performance grows anyway, while a lot of things have to be designed from scratch.

We're talking about patents. Intel has access to all of NVIDIA's patents up to March 31, 2017, and they're available to Intel forever after that. Intel would only have to get a new license from AMD or NVIDIA if they patented something Intel believes they need. As I said before, I don't think Intel will need to acquire a new license from AMD/NVIDIA for years, if not decades. In VR/AR, their patents are complementing each other instead of conflicting.

 

[notb]

We're talking about patents. Intel has access to all of NVIDIA's patents up to March 31, 2017, and they're available to Intel forever after that. Intel would only have to get a new license from AMD or NVIDIA if they patented something Intel believes they need. As I said before, I don't think Intel will need to acquire a new license from AMD/NVIDIA for years, if not decades. In VR/AR, their patents are complementing each other instead of conflicting.

Let's be honest: Intel HD is not even close to providing a VR-level of video signal (NVIDIA is not even listing 1050Ti as VR ready). As such, I doubt they'll run into the patent issue for GPU very soon.
But it is important to point out that VR gear might end up even more dependent on Intel than PCs, so I don't think they'll have much problem obtaining the necessary license in the future.

AR is IMO a different story - it's different tech, so no licensing should be needed. Intel is already making AR gear - both on their own and as an exclusive "tech" partner with Oakley (cycling AR glasses).