Intel in talks to license AMD GPU patents??

layte · 18 Mar 2016 at 17:14

D.P. said:
AMD and Nvidia just have a MAD type agreement, they each have so many graphics/GPU related parents that they almost certainly are both guilty of infringing that they just leave each other alone.

Intel don't have anywhere near the IP so have to license form one or the other.

Intel own all of Lockheed Martins IP in this area. Which is a huge amount, a lot of which will be from before either NV or AMD even thought about making graphics chips, pretty fundamental stuff. Enough in fact to have a dedicated senior patent council managing their graphics IP. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-k...title_posts_secondary_cluster_res_author_name

layte · 18 Mar 2016 at 17:17

humbug said:
Makes sense ^^^^

Apparently those licences run out in Jan 2017, if Intel are not talking to someone about GPU IP now they ought to be....

Unless that is they plan on going it alone in little over half a year.

I see we are doing the 'teach Humbug reading comprehension' thing again. If you read the section of the agreement I linked to you would know that Intel are licensed to use the IP covered until the expiration of the patents, not the expiration of the agreement.

humbug · 18 Mar 2016 at 18:08

layte said:
I see we are doing the 'teach Humbug reading comprehension' thing again. If you read the section of the agreement I linked to you would know that Intel are licensed to use the IP covered until the expiration of the patents, not the expiration of the agreement.

I don't have 2 hours to read through agreements, you obviously did, so why don't you enlighten us as to when Intel lose the use of Nvidia's IP.

And don't just repeat "until the expiration of the patents"

layte · 18 Mar 2016 at 18:12

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29297356&postcount=17

I even quoted the pertinent section for the lazy.

setter · 18 Mar 2016 at 18:13

bru said:
Is it a case of Intel need the NVidia/AMD whereas AMD/NVidia don't need intel, as far as the patents are concerned?

What I mean is, if Intel do not get a new agreement, does that mean that will not be able to make integrated GPU's. whereas if AMD or NVidia don't give anew agreement they don't actually lose anything. Is this correct ?

Tbh its a shame that they do include igp's on mainstream chips such as Ivybridge and onwards. Waste of die space that only creates more heat on what are already very toasty cpu's.

humbug · 18 Mar 2016 at 18:18

layte said:
I even quoted the pertinent section for the lazy.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29297356&postcount=17

i'm just detracting the thread because i don't want anyone to know that actually i don't know anything more than anyother member in this thread!

Yeah... thought so...

layte · 18 Mar 2016 at 18:34

Oh, the old quote big childishly edit it routine, slow handclap.

lol lets quote from the very first page of what I linked to shell we.

On January 10, 2011, NVIDIA Corporation and Intel Corporation entered into a patent cross license agreement and agreed to settle the litigation between them.

Patent Cross License Agreement

Under the patent cross license agreement, Intel has granted to NVIDIA and its qualified subsidiaries, and NVIDIA has granted to Intel and Intel’s qualified subsidiaries, a non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide license, without the right to sublicense to all patents that are either owned or controlled by the parties at any time that have a first filing date on or before March 31, 2017, to make, have made (subject to certain limitations), use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise dispose of certain semiconductor- and electronic-related products anywhere in the world. NVIDIA’s rights to Intel’s patents have certain specified limitations, including but not limited to, NVIDIA is not licensed to: (1) certain microprocessors, defined in the agreement as “Intel Processors” or “Intel Compatible Processors;” (2) certain chipsets that connect to Intel Processors; and (3) certain flash memory products. Subject to the terms and conditions of the patent cross license agreement, Intel will pay NVIDIA licensing fees which in the aggregate will amount to $1.5 billion, payable in annual installments, as follows: a $300 million payment on each of January 18, 2011, January 13, 2012 and January 15, 2013 and a $200 million payment on each of January 15, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

I'm eager for you to explain how the text of the cross licensing agreement between Nvidia and Intel has nothing to do with, and I quote.. ah well I would quote the hilarious bit where you said it had nothing to do with said agreement, but it seems you went back and edited yourself... lol

So yes, it would seem that I know more about the situation then you, as I decided to educate myself. Perhaps you should try it some time, you wont look quite so ignorant then.

Now then, I really don't have time to play your childish games humbug. I will respond if you want to be an adult, but if all you want to do is make up fantasies where AMD and NV can stop Intel making chips or metaphorically put your fingers in your ears whilst singing "la la la" then I'm going to waste my evening doing something more productive such as watching paint dry, or sport relief.

d_brennen · 18 Mar 2016 at 18:42

setter said:
Tbh its a shame that they do include igp's on mainstream chips such as Ivybridge and onwards. Waste of die space that only creates more heat on what are already very toasty cpu's.

False, as far as Intel are concerned. The VAST majority of the chips they sell end up powering the video systems too, and in laptops they switch between dGPU and iGPU dynamically to increase battery life. Expect more software using GPU compute to utilise iGPU cores even with a dGPU present. And when in low power state/gated, iGPUs most likely help spread/dissipate heat on the GPU die*
Intel are more likely to can "enthusiast" chips like the K series...*

*I have no idea if true, but were all just stating stuff with impunity here, right?

humbug · 18 Mar 2016 at 18:45

Given that the last payment was made on the 15'th of Jan this year it looks to me like Intel no longer has an obligation to Nvidia. which is what i said.

setter · 18 Mar 2016 at 19:13

d_brennen said:
*I have no idea if true, but were all just stating stuff with impunity here, right?

understand what you mean, for low power systems and laptops I can see the appeal of an igpu. But as someone who has owned several Ivybridge and haswell/devils canyon chips. The integrated graphics was a hindrance. I had the misfortune of having to use it once on a 4770k. Much better to keep an old discrete card spare should your main one fail. Also tried the lucid feature that allows the igpu to work in tandem with a discrete card, extremely buggy tbh.

I remember 8Pack stating in a thread on here prior to the release of skylake that he had spoken with various Intel engineers and reccomended the removal of the igpu on k series chips. Savings could have been spent on improvements to the thermal issues on such cpu's.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 18 Mar 2016 at 20:24

setter said:
I remember 8Pack stating in a thread on here prior to the release of skylake that he had spoken with various Intel engineers and reccomended the removal of the igpu on k series chips. Savings could have been spent on improvements to the thermal issues on such cpu's.

It won't happen IMHO since it would have to be a new die just for a small part of the market. The Core i7 6700 die is the same one used for laptops and the socket 2011 chips are based on dies for the workstation/server market.

Hence,the desktop market is getting the scraps from both of them. It is pretty much even the same with AMD too.

humbug · 26 Mar 2016 at 17:50

Heads AMD Wins, Tails Nvidia Loses

Summary

The unconfirmed Bloomberg article that said INTC might make a deal with AMD for GPU IP technology is probably true, once we connect the dots.

And if such a deal were to go through, AMD will be a clear-cut winner and NVDA a momentary loser.

AMD might end up being profitable soon, with zero debt as a result of the deal, which might elevate its stock to $10 or more.

layte · 26 Mar 2016 at 18:19

Lets see what else that site has to say.....

AMD: Recent Rumors Don't Change Financial Trajectory

Summary

Last week, a report surfaced of possible licensing of graphics IP by AMD to Intel.

Another report claimed that Sony was looking to upgrade the PS4 with 4K capability.

Even if true, the reports don't alter AMD's downward financial trajectory.

Guess which 'analyst' is invested in NV and which one AMD. lol

andybird123 · 26 Mar 2016 at 18:21

I still dont see why intel would want to cut a deal wih AMD, the NV patents they licenced in perpetuity, its only the payments that stop

fs123 · 26 Mar 2016 at 18:23

humbug said:
Heads AMD Wins, Tails Nvidia Loses

There is a good possibility of this deal being true. Intel probably does not want AMD to go out of business due to the x86 licensing and being a monopoly could be an issue.
Another reason may be that Intel could be looking into the future chance of RTG being up for sale which would make a purchase and integration a lot easier if they already have experience of the AMD technologies.

humbug · 26 Mar 2016 at 18:46

andybird123 said:
I still dont see why intel would want to cut a deal wih AMD, the NV patents they licenced in perpetuity, its only the payments that stop

Depends what Nvidia GPU tech Intel have a licence to exactly, if its out of date 4 year old tech there isn't a lot Intel can do with it, it certainly wouldn't compete with Nvidia and AMD's own stuff.

andybird123 · 26 Mar 2016 at 18:55

Intel havent licenced actual GPU tech from nvidia, just some underlying patents. Intel havent really been struggling with their APU's and the timing of this basically seems to be based off "nvidia licence ends soon" type speculation. Except it doesnt end, they just dont have to keep paying for it.

It wouldnt really make sense for AMD to licence APU tech to their biggest competitor right when were told they finally have something competitive.

humbug · 26 Mar 2016 at 19:03

andybird123 said:
Intel havent licenced actual GPU tech from nvidia, just some underlying patents. Intel havent really been struggling with their APU's and the timing of this basically seems to be based off "nvidia licence ends soon" type speculation. Except it doesnt end, they just dont have to keep paying for it.

It wouldnt really make sense for AMD to licence APU tech to their biggest competitor right when were told they finally have something competitive.

They have been struggling, Like AMD with CPU's Intel are having to go shier size for brute force to keep up with AMD, once AMD get down to 14nm with HBM Intel will be left far behind in iGPU tech.
Despite this AMD will still not get their APU's in OEM's anything like what Intel can.
It makes much more sense to them to also licence to Intel and get a nice payday for it.

If Intel want AMD tech and are willing to pay for it AMD would be colossal idiots to turn them down.

andybird123 · 26 Mar 2016 at 19:19

But then no one will buy AMD processors and theyll be entirely beholden on intel for RnD money.
AMD licencing their latest and greatest APU's to intel is them admitting they have no place being in the market at all.

Phixsator · 26 Mar 2016 at 19:37

setter said:
understand what you mean, for low power systems and laptops I can see the appeal of an igpu. But as someone who has owned several Ivybridge and haswell/devils canyon chips. The integrated graphics was a hindrance. I had the misfortune of having to use it once on a 4770k. Much better to keep an old discrete card spare should your main one fail. Also tried the lucid feature that allows the igpu to work in tandem with a discrete card, extremely buggy tbh.

I remember 8Pack stating in a thread on here prior to the release of skylake that he had spoken with various Intel engineers and reccomended the removal of the igpu on k series chips. Savings could have been spent on improvements to the thermal issues on such cpu's.

Removing the igpu from the K SKUs would make K chips a bit more sensible to purchase all of a sudden. I still regret getting the 4770k at times not because its an i7, i still think this was a wise choice for me, but because it overclocks like a potato and while i would not be garantied higher clock speeds if the igpu wasnt there im pretty sure it wouldnt have hurt my results either. The 10-15% OC i can get out of it is pathetic compared to the 54% i could get out of my C1 stepping i7 920 on air. No i dont expect a 3,9ghz CPU to OC 50+% but 20-25% would have been reasonable as a common sighting. Afterall that is why you buy a K part these days.