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

fatslob-:O on 09 May 2014
lucidium said:
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.

I hope I'm not the snob here considering I've given alot more arguments on why AMD is floundering ... 



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

What I wrote isn't actually in contradiction with what you wrote: what Intel obtained with that settlement, besides continuing the cross-licensing, is making sure that the only exception allowed to AMD about license transfering is to get its chips produced. It's quite understandable that Intel wanted it to be put very clear. About Intel keeping its tech to itself and not licensing it to the hypothetical AMD parent company, that's what I wrote: the parent company couldn't produce x86 CPUs in any other way than through AMD. Obviously for the agreement between AMD and Intel to stand, AMD should remain a separated public company owned by its parent one, a merger wouldn't be possible, if AMD ceased existing as a company, the agreement too would cease, and probably totally in favour of Intel, that having respected the deal with AMD as long as it existed, would keep its rights in the cross-licensing, while its obligations would cease as soon as the company towards which it had them ceased existing too.
Also obviously, keeping AMD as a controlled but separated company would mean for its new parent company to be forced to control it through the normal ways any public company is controlled by its shareholders, and this most probably strongly limits which companies could have any interest in taking it over.



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!   


fatslob-:O on 09 May 2014
Alby_da_Wolf said:

What I wrote isn't actually in contradiction with what you wrote: what Intel obtained with that settlement, besides continuing the cross-licensing, is making sure that the only exception allowed to AMD about license transfering is to get its chips produced. It's quite understandable that Intel wanted it to be put very clear. About Intel keeping its tech to itself and not licensing it to the hypothetical AMD parent company, that's what I wrote: the parent company couldn't produce x86 CPUs in any other way than through AMD. Obviously for the agreement between AMD and Intel to stand, AMD should remain a separated public company owned by its parent one, a merger wouldn't be possible, if AMD ceased existing as a company, the agreement too would cease, and probably totally in favour of Intel, that having respected the deal with AMD as long as it existed, would keep its rights in the cross-licensing, while its obligations would cease as soon as the company towards which it had them ceased existing too.
Also obviously, keeping AMD as a controlled but separated company would mean for its new parent company to be forced to control it through the normal ways any public company is controlled by its shareholders, and this most probably strongly limits which companies could have any interest in taking it over.

You still don't get it ... Did you even read the Contract ? 

6.2 b. AMD attempts or purports to assign or transfer to any Person any right or obligation in violation of Section 9.7.

9.7 No Assignment of Agreement. Except in the event of a Change of Control as set forth in Section 6.3, this Agreement is personal to the Parties, and neither the Agreement nor any right or obligation under this Agreement is assignable, whether in conjunction with a change in ownership, merger, acquisition or the sale or transfer of all, substantially all or any part of a Party’s business or assets or otherwise, either voluntarily, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the other Party, which consent may be withheld at the sole discretion of such other Party. Any such purported assignment or transfer shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement and shall be null and void. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their permitted successors and assigns. 

Under no obligation is AMD allowed to have more than 50% of it's voting power being controlled by an entity otherwise it will be classified as breaching the Agreement! 


Alby_da_Wolf on 12 May 2014
fatslob-:O said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

What I wrote isn't actually in contradiction with what you wrote: what Intel obtained with that settlement, besides continuing the cross-licensing, is making sure that the only exception allowed to AMD about license transfering is to get its chips produced. It's quite understandable that Intel wanted it to be put very clear. About Intel keeping its tech to itself and not licensing it to the hypothetical AMD parent company, that's what I wrote: the parent company couldn't produce x86 CPUs in any other way than through AMD. Obviously for the agreement between AMD and Intel to stand, AMD should remain a separated public company owned by its parent one, a merger wouldn't be possible, if AMD ceased existing as a company, the agreement too would cease, and probably totally in favour of Intel, that having respected the deal with AMD as long as it existed, would keep its rights in the cross-licensing, while its obligations would cease as soon as the company towards which it had them ceased existing too.
Also obviously, keeping AMD as a controlled but separated company would mean for its new parent company to be forced to control it through the normal ways any public company is controlled by its shareholders, and this most probably strongly limits which companies could have any interest in taking it over.

You still don't get it ... Did you even read the Contract ? 

6.2 b. AMD attempts or purports to assign or transfer to any Person any right or obligation in violation of Section 9.7.

9.7 No Assignment of Agreement. Except in the event of a Change of Control as set forth in Section 6.3, this Agreement is personal to the Parties, and neither the Agreement nor any right or obligation under this Agreement is assignable, whether in conjunction with a change in ownership, merger, acquisition or the sale or transfer of all, substantially all or any part of a Party’s business or assets or otherwise, either voluntarily, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the other Party, which consent may be withheld at the sole discretion of such other Party. Any such purported assignment or transfer shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement and shall be null and void. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their permitted successors and assigns. 

Under no obligation is AMD allowed to have more than 50% of it's voting power being controlled by an entity otherwise it will be classified as breaching the Agreement! 

I can read it, and Intel reserves the right to allow AMD such things only if it obtains its explicit permission, otherwise, in case of such changes in AMD ownership, AMD will keep its cross-licensing rights only for "microprocessors for use in a Personal Computer". It limits AMD rights on those techs to CPUs and APUs to be used in desktop and portable PCs (as defined in section 1.5), it DOESN'T revoke them. So, in case of change of ownership, AMD would be prevented to make x86 CPUs to be used in tablets and phones or other devices using embedded processors. Not a terrible loss, as ARM, MIPS and PowerPC/POWER are already the undisputed leader architectures in those markets (with ARM being overwhelming on phones and tablets and MIPS and PowerPC/POWER more competitive in other markets).

6.3 Change of Control . In the event of a Change of Control of AMD, the definition of AMD Microprocessor as defined in Section 1.5 shall be limited to those devices that fell within Section 1.5 on the date of the Change of Control and shall further be limited to x86 AMD Microprocessors for use in a Personal Computer.

“ Change of Control ” shall mean:

(1) any Person or group of Persons (as the term “group” is interpreted pursuant to Rule 13d-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) (the “Acquiring Person”) acquires (i) beneficial ownership of capital stock of AMD entitling the holder(s) thereof to more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the then outstanding capital stock of AMD with respect to the election of directors of AMD, or (ii) an interest sufficient to receive more than fifty percent (50%) of the profits or losses of AMD; or

(2) AMD enters into a merger, consolidation, reorganization or similar transaction (or series of related transactions) with any Person or group of Persons in which less than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the outstanding capital stock of AMD (if it is the surviving entity) or of the Acquiring Person (if it is the surviving entity) with respect to the election of directors following such transaction is held directly or indirectly by Persons who were shareholders of AMD immediately prior to such transaction (or series of transactions); or

(3) AMD sells to any Person(s) in one or more related transactions properties or assets representing all or substantially all of the properties and assets of AMD.



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!   


fatslob-:O on 13 May 2014
Alby_da_Wolf said:

I can read it, and Intel reserves the right to allow AMD such things only if it obtains its explicit permission, otherwise, in case of such changes in AMD ownership, AMD will keep its cross-licensing rights only for "microprocessors for use in a Personal Computer". It limits AMD rights on those techs to CPUs and APUs to be used in desktop and portable PCs (as defined in section 1.5), it DOESN'T revoke them. So, in case of change of ownership, AMD would be prevented to make x86 CPUs to be used in tablets and phones or other devices using embedded processors. Not a terrible loss, as ARM, MIPS and PowerPC/POWER are already the undisputed leader architectures in those markets (with ARM being overwhelming on phones and tablets and MIPS and PowerPC/POWER more competitive in other markets).

6.3 Change of Control . In the event of a Change of Control of AMD, the definition of AMD Microprocessor as defined in Section 1.5 shall be limited to those devices that fell within Section 1.5 on the date of the Change of Control and shall further be limited to x86 AMD Microprocessors for use in a Personal Computer.

“ Change of Control ” shall mean:

(1) any Person or group of Persons (as the term “group” is interpreted pursuant to Rule 13d-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) (the “Acquiring Person”) acquires (i) beneficial ownership of capital stock of AMD entitling the holder(s) thereof to more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the then outstanding capital stock of AMD with respect to the election of directors of AMD, or (ii) an interest sufficient to receive more than fifty percent (50%) of the profits or losses of AMD; or

(2) AMD enters into a merger, consolidation, reorganization or similar transaction (or series of related transactions) with any Person or group of Persons in which less than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the outstanding capital stock of AMD (if it is the surviving entity) or of the Acquiring Person (if it is the surviving entity) with respect to the election of directors following such transaction is held directly or indirectly by Persons who were shareholders of AMD immediately prior to such transaction (or series of transactions); or

(3) AMD sells to any Person(s) in one or more related transactions properties or assets representing all or substantially all of the properties and assets of AMD.

Section 1.5 is related to the term “ AMD Microprocessor ” - shall have the same meaning as the term “AMD Processor” in the New Patent Cross License. 

It makes no distinction between the different markets the processors are meant for and is only referencing AMD's x86 processors in general so if AMD even attempts to transfer 50% of the voting power to another entity they will really lose all rights to the patents in the cross licensing agreements. 

It actually would be a big loss for AMD to be not able to produce x86 processors in the mobile space as it has some fair profit margins compared to AMD losing money in the desktop space. 
MIPS is irrelevant and PowerPC is a total failure. 


Around the Network
rolltide101x on 13 May 2014
walsufnir said:
They have to find a way beside Intel which they currently only can compete with in terms of price.

AMD APUs are vastly superior to Intel. Try playing any decent games with an Intel APU.....

In fact for my next laptop I am going to buy a laptop with a 1080p screen and an A10 APU

 

Right now I have a quad i7 and an Nvidia GT650M GPU with a 1366x768 screen



Pemalite on 13 May 2014
rolltide101x said:
walsufnir said:
They have to find a way beside Intel which they currently only can compete with in terms of price.

AMD APUs are vastly superior to Intel. Try playing any decent games with an Intel APU.....

In fact for my next laptop I am going to buy a laptop with a 1080p screen and an A10 APU

 

Right now I have a quad i7 and an Nvidia GT650M GPU with a 1366x768 screen


Intel's Iris Pro is actually extremely potent and will give an AMD APU/nVidia Geforce M a run for it's money in sheer performance.
It's even faster than AMD's Radeon 8670D in many instances by upwards of 25% or more.

However, the issue on Intel's side isn't so much performance... It's the Drivers, or... Rather, lack there-of.
AMD's drivers are gold plated in comparison, you are also guarenteed to get regular driver updates and support for newer game titles.

Intel however, despite only recently having a dedicated and large driver team (Thanks to AMD's competition!) is still easily years behind in that department, performance can be erratic (I.E. Super low minimum frames, despite having higher averages, you notice the minimums more.) and it can take upwards of 12+ months for them to implement some direct x-class features. (I.E. TnL on the x3100 series, however was still implemented half-assed as Intel had to use a profiling system as some games benefitted with having TnL performed on the CPU or how it took a few years to enable SM3.0 support.)

So really, don't let the performance of the graphics processor hold you back, but rather the software side.

By choosing AMD you sacrifice CPU performance, by going Intel you sacrifice GPU performance (Only In the low-end of the GPU spectrum.) and you have to deal with absolutely horrible GPU drivers, but you do get quicksync which is fantastic for those who do tons of encoding.

So buy the best that suits your needs, it won't always be AMD and it won't always be Intel.



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

walsufnir on 13 May 2014
rolltide101x said:
walsufnir said:
They have to find a way beside Intel which they currently only can compete with in terms of price.

AMD APUs are vastly superior to Intel. Try playing any decent games with an Intel APU.....

In fact for my next laptop I am going to buy a laptop with a 1080p screen and an A10 APU

 

Right now I have a quad i7 and an Nvidia GT650M GPU with a 1366x768 screen


But APUs aren't the topic here - it's about a new CPU core. Generally I don't like gaming laptops - they are just not made for serious gaming. Power restrictions, thermal aspects, much noise due to heat, often bad screens to play on.  The inability to upgrade them was planned years ago (I think MXM interface it was called) but as I quit gaming on PC severaly ago, too, I didn't follow the stuff like I did before I quit.



rolltide101x on 13 May 2014
walsufnir said:
rolltide101x said:
walsufnir said:
They have to find a way beside Intel which they currently only can compete with in terms of price.

AMD APUs are vastly superior to Intel. Try playing any decent games with an Intel APU.....

In fact for my next laptop I am going to buy a laptop with a 1080p screen and an A10 APU

 

Right now I have a quad i7 and an Nvidia GT650M GPU with a 1366x768 screen


But APUs aren't the topic here - it's about a new CPU core. Generally I don't like gaming laptops - they are just not made for serious gaming. Power restrictions, thermal aspects, much noise due to heat, often bad screens to play on.  The inability to upgrade them was planned years ago (I think MXM interface it was called) but as I quit gaming on PC severaly ago, too, I didn't follow the stuff like I did before I quit.

You do have a point there.

 

But my laptop can run Skyrim at 1080p at 50 FPS with ultra HD textures.  But my next laptop (with the AMD A10 APU) will be a bit less powerful but that is ok because I seriously play indie games on my PC 90% of the time... Good use of my quad-core i7 and dedicated GPU lol.

The A10 (I am estimating) will play Skyrim at 1080p at 50 FPS on probably medium settings. That is enough power for me. I am just saying that no Intel APU could accomplish this



rolltide101x on 13 May 2014
Pemalite said:
rolltide101x said:

AMD APUs are vastly superior to Intel. Try playing any decent games with an Intel APU.....

In fact for my next laptop I am going to buy a laptop with a 1080p screen and an A10 APU

 

Right now I have a quad i7 and an Nvidia GT650M GPU with a 1366x768 screen


Intel's Iris Pro is actually extremely potent and will give an AMD APU/nVidia Geforce M a run for it's money in sheer performance.
It's even faster than AMD's Radeon 8670D in many instances by upwards of 25% or more.

However, the issue on Intel's side isn't so much performance... It's the Drivers, or... Rather, lack there-of.
AMD's drivers are gold plated in comparison, you are also guarenteed to get regular driver updates and support for newer game titles.

Intel however, despite only recently having a dedicated and large driver team (Thanks to AMD's competition!) is still easily years behind in that department, performance can be erratic (I.E. Super low minimum frames, despite having higher averages, you notice the minimums more.) and it can take upwards of 12+ months for them to implement some direct x-class features. (I.E. TnL on the x3100 series, however was still implemented half-assed as Intel had to use a profiling system as some games benefitted with having TnL performed on the CPU or how it took a few years to enable SM3.0 support.)

So really, don't let the performance of the graphics processor hold you back, but rather the software side.

By choosing AMD you sacrifice CPU performance, by going Intel you sacrifice GPU performance (Only In the low-end of the GPU spectrum.) and you have to deal with absolutely horrible GPU drivers, but you do get quicksync which is fantastic for those who do tons of encoding.

So buy the best that suits your needs, it won't always be AMD and it won't always be Intel.

Right this is correct. AMD is the best choice for (budget) PC gaming and Intel is the choice for cpu performance. I went overboard with my i7. I never use it except for the rare occassions I convert a video lol