Intel pulls ATI bus licence

locutus12 said:
AMD by comparison have spent the last 20 years clinging on by its fingernails.


AMD`s profits last year were $209 million
intel profits last year were $8 billion - 40 times more than AMD.
Click to expand...


Thats a very limited view indeed

Just because they arent in Intel's league quite yet ( if they ever are) doesnt mean they arent highly profitable - ie NOT hanging on by its fingernails

There are advantages to being smaller and more agile even if you do have tiny budget in comparison

It still took Intel over two years to come up with anything to combat A64 ( and currently very few would even know from the performance whether you have a conroe or A64 under the hsf)


locutus12 said:
i wasnt aware they did in the first place.
Click to expand...

ever heard of nforce................ :D

probably the most well known amd chipset made by..............nVidia
 
Last edited:
knew that this was going to happen, I'm not happy about this, we are going to be limited to with buying ATI and AMD together, or Intel and nVidia, might as well go and buy myself a console or Mac, I mean I liked building and buying computers because I was not limited with regards to hardware!!!

Stelly
 
Stelly said:
knew that this was going to happen, I'm not happy about this, we are going to be limited to with buying ATI and AMD together, or Intel and nVidia, might as well go and buy myself a console or Mac, I mean I liked building and buying computers because I was not limited with regards to hardware!!!

Stelly
Click to expand...


Thats never going to happen

1) Nvidia will never want to lose a large proportion of its customers and neither will AMD ( remember AMD win anyway by getting a CPU bought - yeah of course if ATI can compete naturally and beat nV so much the better, but either way ATI is healthy)

2) It would be a huge risk by AMD (one which they cant afford) that could mean people just stop buying AMD cpu's for the desktop

3) nforce is such a popular brand name especially amongst people who know (admittedly a tiny proportion of the whole market) its good for both parties to continue to use that common association

4) nvidia want to stay independant anyway

I doubt very much that this will do anything apart from strengthen AMD as a company and by association ATI, it certainly WONT mean its either ATI /AMD OR nVidia/Intel
 
FrankJH said:
Thats never going to happen

1) Nvidia will never want to lose a large proportion of its customers and neither will AMD ( remember AMD win anyway by getting a CPU bought - yeah of course if ATI can compete naturally and beat nV so much the better, but either way ATI is healthy)

2) It would be a huge risk by AMD (one which they cant afford) that could mean people just stop buying AMD cpu's for the desktop

3) nforce is such a popular brand name especially amongst people who know (admittedly a tiny proportion of the whole market) its good for both parties to continue to use that common association

4) nvidia want to stay independant anyway

I doubt very much that this will do anything apart from strengthen AMD as a company and by association ATI, it certainly WONT mean its either ATI /AMD OR nVidia/Intel
Click to expand...

Yer guess your right, didnt really think that through

Stelly
 
Intel doesnt make its EM64T under license, and AMD have no chance to claim on any breached of patent. Intel reverse engineered EM64T.

However AMD reverse engineered Intels 80386 (am386), and intel's laywers were unable to prevent it. If AMD sent its legal boys out against intel and actually found a loophole and won, intel would no doubt turn around and say that AMD64 is still based on the reverse engineered 386, and that the same loophole would work on their behalf.

Im pretty sure that AMD, and Intel are pretty safe from each other in that point of view.
 
Im sure I read that intel had put another large order of 865 chipsets through the fabs recently anyway to reduce (or remove) the need to have ATi manufacture a low end chipset for them anyway.

Intel like to keep as much work inhouse as possible, and there was talk of them not needing ATi to make many more anyway. Maybe they just decided they wouldnt need anymore by next year anyway.
 
Shakey_Jake33 said:
For us mere end users, this also means no Crossfire on Intel platforms, right?
Click to expand...
It looks that way. I'm wondering if we'll even see the new ATI Conroe chipset.

This merger will most likely reduce choice for customers. As 4 independent companies there were more options than there will be now.

I don't think there's any chance that Intel can purchase nVidia. Since AMD don't make GPU's, there was not much hassle with them purchasing a GPU manufacturer. Intel on the other hand are the largest GPU manufacturer (as well as CPU) in the world. nVidia are the 3rd largest I think, just behind ATI. I can't see the FTC allowing a deal to go through between the 1st and the 3rd largest GPU companies.
 
i wonder where microsoft is going to fit into this, i think its obvious they prefer intel, hence the wintel term but microsoft put ATI gfx in their xbox, this might cause issues with the MS and intel partnership

The RD600 ATI chipset is still planned for conroe is it not?

locutus12 said:
i wasnt aware they did in the first place.
Click to expand...

CrossFire Xpress 3200
An ATI chipset for S939 and AM2
 
Hey stelly I may be wrong - but it just seems silly in business terms for both parties to cut off their nose to spite their face

corasik - I believe AMD actually asisted in designing some parts of the x386 which is why they have always been able to produce the newer x version - I cant remember where I read that so it may be BS but I dont see why it couldnt be true, as AMD and Intel werent as fiercely competitive with each other then as they are now.

AMD have as much right to use the x86 design and subsets of such as Intel do, so Intel certainly couldnt do anything in regards to A64, but as to EM64T as this was a complete "design" of a 64 bit cpu "extention" I am guessing its a little like MMX etc, but I could be wrong

Remember people even if this has been rumbling for months - ATI will have had designs in the works (in chipset terms rather than gpu) for a year possibly more in conjunction with conroe - I very much doubt they will just scrap all their time , from initial reprts its been stated nothing will be produced from the partnership as such for 2 years

I doubt highly that any company will restrict their customer base by not allowing something just as nvidia never stopped anyone using an ATI card in their nforce boards or vice versa

Just think if Sony ( as co licence holder with Phillips) didnt allow MS to use a cd based device in their xbox - I dont know about the legal possibility but on a basic level I cant see why its not possible..........
 
Corasik said:
Intel doesnt make its EM64T under license, and AMD have no chance to claim on any breached of patent. Intel reverse engineered EM64T.

However AMD reverse engineered Intels 80386 (am386), and intel's laywers were unable to prevent it. If AMD sent its legal boys out against intel and actually found a loophole and won, intel would no doubt turn around and say that AMD64 is still based on the reverse engineered 386, and that the same loophole would work on their behalf.

Im pretty sure that AMD, and Intel are pretty safe from each other in that point of view.
Click to expand...


sorry my friend, but thats totally incorrect. go read up on it over at wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd

intel built their own 64bit set for the itanium chips which were a flop.
 
FrankJH said:
I doubt highly that any company will restrict their customer base by not allowing something just as nvidia never stopped anyone using an ATI card in their nforce boards or vice versa
Click to expand...

I thought this initially but by cutting off the ATI licence(for no logical reason I can see) Intel have in effect restricted their customer base, ok they produce chipsets of their own so they still have 3 large options(Intel, Nvidia and Via) which compares to AMD(Nvidia, ATI & Via) but it is one less than they used to.

I don't think Nvidia or ATI will be restricting what graphics cards can or can't do in their systems, they seem slightly more 'mature' for want of a better term. Intel on the other hand appears to have thrown its dummy out of the pram which is a pity, I know it doesn't count for much but I was actually thinking about going for an Intel chip for my next CPU but because I don't like my choices being restricted by someone else and I like what I perceive to be bullying tactics even less I will probably go AMD again.
 
You could get into all sorts.

EMT64 is to intel what 3DNow! was to AMD (kind of)

If AMD *could* pull the licence from intel, intel could then pull the licence for mmx/sse/sse2/sse3, although I don't think they are as bigger deal as the x64 extensions.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I thought this initially but by cutting off the ATI licence(for no logical reason I can see) Intel have in effect restricted their customer base, ok they produce chipsets of their own so they still have 3 large options(Intel, Nvidia and Via) which compares to AMD(Nvidia, ATI & Via) but it is one less than they used to.

I don't think Nvidia or ATI will be restricting what graphics cards can or can't do in their systems, they seem slightly more 'mature' for want of a better term. Intel on the other hand appears to have thrown its dummy out of the pram which is a pity, I know it doesn't count for much but I was actually thinking about going for an Intel chip for my next CPU but because I don't like my choices being restricted by someone else and I like what I perceive to be bullying tactics even less I will probably go AMD again.
Click to expand...


As you said at least nVidia will be providing (hopefully) for both sides so theres some light at the end of the tunnel!!

I know what you mean about bullying but there is just no point in AM2 at the moment as far as I can see - more costly (due to DDR2) and for no real gain
 
locutus12 said:
sorry my friend, but thats totally incorrect. go read up on it over at wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd

intel built their own 64bit set for the itanium chips which were a flop.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia basically says what I already did. AMD were forced to reverse engineer the Intel 80386, and they called this product am386. This was because intel allowed them to manufacture 8086, 186, and 286 under license, but they revoked the license so AMD would be unable to make an 80386 clone. (AMD had no design influence over 8086/186/286, they just had licensed clones), and they were fighting intel in the courts from 386 to present day, so certainly no cooperation there.

You'll even notice if you look at the images on Wiki, the AMD 286 processor is stamped (c) intel.

As I said AMD reverse engineered i80386 as a ground up 'clean room' design. Intels lawyers couldnt block this.

I didnt say anything at all about the Itanium IA-64. I said intel did a 'clean room' reverse engineering of AMD's 64bit extensions which Intel named EM64T and unlike IA-64 they are not a flop, and it doesnt need a license to use this technology, and if AMD found a way to say that the clean room reverse engineering wasnt legal, that would be contrary to what they did themselves in 1991.

Likewise with MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3 amd continue to reverse engineer rather than pay up the intel licenses. Seems fair to me that Intel finally got to reverse engineer something of AMD's.


To be honest, we should be glad that intel ended the License for x86 after the 286. They forced AMD to stop being 'just a fab' and made them innovate, designing their own processors for the first time. If intel had just allowed AMD to continue, the PC market would still be 90% intel, 10% amd, and we would just be choosing between Intel Netburst, or AMD Netburst. The license stiffled innovation, and cutting the ties between Intel, and AMD were probably the best thing that could have happened. Now both companies can design their own systems, and whichever is best gets reverse engineered by the other. (3Dnow died, MMX/SSE lived, AMD64/EM64T is successfull, IA-64 is only used in limited neich markets)
 
Last edited:
looks like I was wrong from that article corasik I appologise - but I could have sworn there was some kind of actual developement (rather that just production) agreement between AMD and Intel for the 286 or 386 but there is no mention of it so I must be wrong
 
Intel can't pull anything from AMD. They have contracts in place, for at least another five years.

Source
Intel, AMD sign new licensing deal - May 4, 2001

Source
Back in the early '80s, AMD agreed to drop its internal processor developments and serve as a second source for Intel's 80286 processor. Although an agreement at the time required Intel to provide AMD with timely updates on its processor development, Intel instead engaged in a "deliberate effort to shackle AMD progress."

In the mid-'80s, Intel declined to provide access to information on its 386 development, leading to further AMD lawsuits, which "drained AMD's resources, delayed AMD's ability to reverse-engineer or otherwise develop and manufacture competitive products," the suit alleges.

In 1992, an arbitrator awarded AMD more than $10 million and a license to Intel's 386 processor. In 1995, AMD and Intel signed another cross-licensing agreement, and at that time AMD decided to develop its own architecture rather than continue to serve solely as a second-source supplier.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom