By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - AMD is working on a brand new x86 CPU core

SnesTea on 09 May 2014
Turkish said:
Hope AMD land on its feet, the technology industry needs them to keep nvidia and intel in check.

This. We will have to wait around  for a  couple years and see where the 8-core consoles take us and see how that affects applications on the PC. If developers end up taking advantage of multiple cores (something Windows 8 is supposed to do), then we will probably see an upswing on AMD cores. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 09 May 2014
theprof00 said:
fatslob-:O said:
I would want Intel to take over the x86 market ... At this point I'd have to agree with ex-AMD engineer, Cliff Maier who's currently working with Apple with his statement of "AMD sucks". AMD has no chance of actually competing in the market if they don't get rid of their awful management and apathetic engineering team. AMD only knows how to keep floundering left and right each time they release a new product. Let Intel have the x86 market completely as I couldn't care less about AMD's processors anymore. In fact I think it would be a good thing that Intel gets all of it's revenue on that market as we can potentially see better processors at a sooner pace. I'm all for it.

(This sounded very fanboy-ish but people have to ask themselves if AMD is really competing ?)

Oooh Looks like someone could use a history lesson.

It looks like someone doesn't get it ...



theprof00 on 09 May 2014
fatslob-:O said:
theprof00 said:
fatslob-:O said:
I would want Intel to take over the x86 market ... At this point I'd have to agree with ex-AMD engineer, Cliff Maier who's currently working with Apple with his statement of "AMD sucks". AMD has no chance of actually competing in the market if they don't get rid of their awful management and apathetic engineering team. AMD only knows how to keep floundering left and right each time they release a new product. Let Intel have the x86 market completely as I couldn't care less about AMD's processors anymore. In fact I think it would be a good thing that Intel gets all of it's revenue on that market as we can potentially see better processors at a sooner pace. I'm all for it.

(This sounded very fanboy-ish but people have to ask themselves if AMD is really competing ?)

Oooh Looks like someone could use a history lesson.

It looks like someone doesn't get it ...

lol was this sarcasm or allusion?

damn



Pemalite on 09 May 2014
Alby_da_Wolf said:
fatslob-:O said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

You mentioned GPUs and you didn't notice it's just a field Intel never was able to compete in, but AMD, since it merged with ATI, was and still is. AMD financial troubles surely affects its possibilities, but don't disprove its talent, rather it tells us very bad things about its management. Like Sony, AMD would better be taken over by some rich and well managed giant.
And you keep on trusting Intel despite history should have taught you not to.
You're right about being pissed off with AMD for having wasted its past advantage, but don't let your disappointment blind you.
As for me, I'd like IBM to take AMD over, they already collaborated and they are in good relationships, maybe the only thing preventing it is that IBM surely wants to maintain good relationships with and keep on licensing its patents to every chip producer, including Intel.

Oh just you wait ... Intel won't be entering in the discrete GPU market but they have a GPGPU compute solution just for the HPC market that will outright shit on both AMD and Nvidia right there. 

Don't disprove it's talents ? AMD's CPU team have no talents! How am I supposed to believe that a floundering division has talent when they don't even have the guys that made the Athlon 64's while getting humiliated for 8 whole years straight up!

Unlike AMD, Sony on the other hand has actual potential to be profitable and the amount of money they get off of the insurance division destroys what AMD get's from it's graphics divsion. AMD's management is alot worse than Sony's so there will be no spinning it. 

Do you have a reason to not trust that Intel will deliver on their products compared to AMD ? 

Tell me a reason to be not dissappointed ... They have squandered every god damn chance they can get their hands on. Intel sharing patents with AMD is a total loss. They have no money left to boot and they sold off their own god damned fabs only to have a second rate foundry replace their semiconductor manufacturing process. (Though I guess globalfoundries have done something useful for once like licensing samsung's 14nm technology but AMD will also screw up that chance too judging by their history.)

The real kicker here is if anyone purchases AMD they will lose all rights to it's x86 patents and that includes is AMD64 license whereas Intel gets to keep every x86 patents if it gets bought by a larger entity! All of AMD's x86 patents are not transferable compared to Intel. 


Intel owns the original x86 patents and many 32-bit extensions, like MMX, etc, but AMD created and owns x86-64 extension. Intel already filed a lawsuit against AMD when it split research and development from manufacturing and they reached an agreement extending the cross-licensing terms.
BTW, AMD uses RISC cores with an instruction translation layer since the k5, this could be used in tribunal if AMD were taken over by a corporation able to challenge Intel more effectively.
About the money, or lack of, I agree with you, that's why I wish some company take AMD over.

RISC vs CISC is a non-issue these days.

Intel uses micro-op convertors to exploit the pipelining advantages of RISC.
Basically they take the complex instructions of CISC, break them down into RISC like sizes and executes them.

As far as I know, neither AMD or Intel have any patents regarding such an implementation, so who knows how it would stand up in court.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

fatslob-:O on 09 May 2014
Alby_da_Wolf said:

Intel owns the original x86 patents and many 32-bit extensions, like MMX, etc, but AMD created and owns x86-64 extension. Intel already filed a lawsuit against AMD when it split research and development from manufacturing and they reached an agreement extending the cross-licensing terms.
BTW, AMD uses RISC cores with an instruction translation layer since the k5, this could be used in tribunal if AMD were taken over by a corporation able to challenge Intel more effectively.
About the money, or lack of, I agree with you, that's why I wish some company take AMD over.

The saddest part is despite the fact that AMD created the 64 bit extension to x86, Intel has more rights to it than AMD! Yes you heard me, Intel has more rights to the 64 bit extension of x86 than AMD does because unlike AMD's license, their license is actually transferable. 

The whole RISC vs CISC debate is absolutely worthless. 

If AMD gets bought by a bigger corporation then they will lose rights to 64 bit extension for x86 and all the patents that Intel shared with AMD such as MMX, SSE, and AVX which effectively means that AMD can't compete with Intel anymore. 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 09 May 2014
Pemalite said:

RISC vs CISC is a non-issue these days.

Intel uses micro-op convertors to exploit the pipelining advantages of RISC.
Basically they take the complex instructions of CISC, break them down into RISC like sizes and executes them.

As far as I know, neither AMD or Intel have any patents regarding such an implementation, so who knows how it would stand up in court.

The whole RISC vs CISC thing is a "design philosophy" so I'm pretty sure no one can patent a "design philosophy". ^_^



Alby_da_Wolf on 09 May 2014
Pemalite said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

[...]

Intel owns the original x86 patents and many 32-bit extensions, like MMX, etc, but AMD created and owns x86-64 extension. Intel already filed a lawsuit against AMD when it split research and development from manufacturing and they reached an agreement extending the cross-licensing terms.
BTW, AMD uses RISC cores with an instruction translation layer since the k5, this could be used in tribunal if AMD were taken over by a corporation able to challenge Intel more effectively.
About the money, or lack of, I agree with you, that's why I wish some company take AMD over.

RISC vs CISC is a non-issue these days.

Intel uses micro-op convertors to exploit the pipelining advantages of RISC.
Basically they take the complex instructions of CISC, break them down into RISC like sizes and executes them.

As far as I know, neither AMD or Intel have any patents regarding such an implementation, so who knows how it would stand up in court.

In fact my point wasn't about instruction conversion patentability, but that good lawyers could persuade a court that such CPUs don't actually run those instruction set, but simply translate them into their own internal ones for compatibility sake.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


Alby_da_Wolf on 09 May 2014
fatslob-:O said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

Intel owns the original x86 patents and many 32-bit extensions, like MMX, etc, but AMD created and owns x86-64 extension. Intel already filed a lawsuit against AMD when it split research and development from manufacturing and they reached an agreement extending the cross-licensing terms.
BTW, AMD uses RISC cores with an instruction translation layer since the k5, this could be used in tribunal if AMD were taken over by a corporation able to challenge Intel more effectively.
About the money, or lack of, I agree with you, that's why I wish some company take AMD over.

The saddest part is despite the fact that AMD created the 64 bit extension to x86, Intel has more rights to it than AMD! Yes you heard me, Intel has more rights to the 64 bit extension of x86 than AMD does because unlike AMD's license, their license is actually transferable. 

The whole RISC vs CISC debate is absolutely worthless. 

If AMD gets bought by a bigger corporation then they will lose rights to 64 bit extension for x86 and all the patents that Intel shared with AMD such as MMX, SSE, and AVX which effectively means that AMD can't compete with Intel anymore. 

It's a cross-licensing agreement: one of Intel's big advantages is that without its patents, AMD ones are useless. Also, if Intel eventually accepted an agreement with such a weak company as AMD is, it would probably do the same with a bigger and stronger one. Admitting that a new agreement be necessary after the one reached in 2009, that actually solved AMD problem with keeping on using the cross-licensed patents even after splitting from its foundries: we don't know all its details, but Intel probably had its reasons for both suing AMD and eventually settle with it, most probably Intel wants that the use of those patents can't be automatically transmitted to other companies, but that it can be done only under strict conditions. Basically the effect of those conditions is that only AMD can sell the CPUs made under that agreement, a third competitor, even if it were AMD's hypothetical new parent company, couldn't get those licenses transfered by AMD, but it should reach a new agreement directly with Intel to produce and sell x86 CPUs through another of its controlled companies different from AMD. Also, AMD is a public company, Intel reached an agreement with it, not separated agreements with its shareholders: should the latter change, the agreement would stand as long as its terms were still respected by AMD as a whole. What could change is the will of the new majority shareholders to keep on respecting the agreement, but why should they?

 



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


lucidium on 09 May 2014

ive used amd's a large portion of my gaming life, along with a powerful graphics card tbe high end ones fare wonderfully, sure you might not get aa good a score on synthetic tests or encoding but if you just want a cheap usable rig theyre fine.

i use intel i7/xeons now, but people baaically having an "eww amd" attitude are nothinf but snobs. most of them wont have a solid defense for their attitude beyond "intels are better/faster" too.



fatslob-:O on 09 May 2014
Alby_da_Wolf said:

It's a cross-licensing agreement: one of Intel's big advantages is that without its patents, AMD ones are useless. Also, if Intel eventually accepted an agreement with such a weak company as AMD is, it would probably do the same with a bigger and stronger one. Admitting that a new agreement be necessary after the one reached in 2009, that actually solved AMD problem with keeping on using the cross-licensed patents even after splitting from its foundries: we don't know all its details, but Intel probably had its reasons for both suing AMD and eventually settle with it, most probably Intel wants that the use of those patents can't be automatically transmitted to other companies, but that it can be done only under strict conditions. Basically the effect of those conditions is that only AMD can sell the CPUs made under that agreement, a third competitor, even if it were AMD's hypothetical new parent company, couldn't get those licenses transfered by AMD, but it should reach a new agreement directly with Intel to produce and sell x86 CPUs through another of its controlled companies different from AMD. Also, AMD is a public company, Intel reached an agreement with it, not separated agreements with its shareholders: should the latter change, the agreement would stand as long as its terms were still respected by AMD as a whole. What could change is the will of the new majority shareholders to keep on respecting the agreement, but why should they.

You wouldn't know if Intel will license it's x86 technology to the hypothetical AMD's parent company. What if Intel decides to keep it for themselves ? Back in the day AMD wasn't so weak when they first made the agreement about sharing the patents towards x86 technologies. In the end Intel got their license to the 64 bit extension of x86 whereas AMD was allowed to get future x86 extenstions like SSE and AVX. That dispute in 2009 had to do with the fact that under the original contract AMD couldn't outsource the manufacturing of x86 CPU's to globalfoundries but it was settled in the end.