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

Forums - PC Discussion - Intel to kill AMD in 60 days

patrice1970 on 16 March 2009

yes ! you find it !



Around the Network
NJ5 on 16 March 2009
Mistershine said:
Taken from the x86-64 article on wikipedia:

This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license. Should such a scenario take place, AMD would no longer be authorized to produce any x86 processors, and Intel would no longer be authorized to produce x86-64 processors, forcing them back to the now-obsolete 32-bit x86 architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

I would think AMD are safe for now.

What this tells me is that AMD has much more to lose than Intel. 64-bit applications are all pretty recent, so they don't suffer from the legacy support problems that make 32-bit support required.

If Intel can't make x86-64 CPUs, they can use their own 64-bit architecture and carry on.

If AMD can't make x86 CPUs, they're dead.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Baggins on 16 March 2009
Soleron said:

Intel alleges that AMD broke the terms of the x86 cross-licensing agreement by spinning off its manufacturing division into Globalfoundries, and says if the dispute is not resolved then AMD's rights under the agreement will be terminated in 60 days. AMD will no longer be able to design or produce Intel-compatible CPUs.

Short version: AMD will die in 60 days.

This is very, very bad. If AMD cannot manufacture CPUs then they will likely cease to exist (their graphics division will likely be sold off) and Intel will have a >99% share of the desktop CPU market, i.e. a monopoly.

The dispute stems from the excat wording of the agreement. Though it is not public, it is said to forbid AMD manufacturing over a certain percentage of its processors externally. The issue is whether Globalfoundries counts as a subsidiary or not, as AMD has less than a 50% stake in the company but equal voting rights with the Abu Dhabi owned ATIC.

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/16585

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20090316corp.htm

Who cares? AMD are all but finished anyway. They're basically 2 years behind intel in tech right now and that gap will only widen. They were finished after socket939. You can hang on all you like. But they don't have anything to compete with the Core i7 even at the high end of their line. So your monopoly idea carries no weight.

I'm quite happy to pay £220 for a 2.66Ghz Core i7 920 that clocks to 4Ghz...Indeed, I have and the performance it offers for its main task (video encoding) blows anything AMD can offer out the water even at it's highest end.

Further, I wouldn't worry too much about ATI. It was AMD who fucked up ATI in the first place when it bought them out, they caught the "AMD" bug of producing nothing of interest even after long periods of time. ATI aren't doing too badly now but they don't have the fastest cards at the moment and they have no new tech in the pipeline there either. If AMD goes under then it won't mean anything bad for ATI at all.

 



nojustno on 16 March 2009
NJ5 said:
Mistershine said:
Taken from the x86-64 article on wikipedia:

This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license. Should such a scenario take place, AMD would no longer be authorized to produce any x86 processors, and Intel would no longer be authorized to produce x86-64 processors, forcing them back to the now-obsolete 32-bit x86 architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

I would think AMD are safe for now.

What this tells me is that AMD has much more to lose than Intel. 64-bit applications are all pretty recent, so they don't suffer from the legacy support problems that make 32-bit support required.

If Intel can't make x86-64 CPUs, they can use their own 64-bit architecture and carry on.

If AMD can't make x86 CPUs, they're dead.

 

 

Which one? You do realize they don't have (as in own) one, right?




ameratsu on 16 March 2009

uh oh here come the intel/amd fanboys



Demon's Souls Official Thread  | Currently playing: Left 4 Dead 2, LittleBigPlanet 2, Magicka

Around the Network
NJ5 on 16 March 2009
nojustno said:
NJ5 said:
Mistershine said:
Taken from the x86-64 article on wikipedia:

This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license. Should such a scenario take place, AMD would no longer be authorized to produce any x86 processors, and Intel would no longer be authorized to produce x86-64 processors, forcing them back to the now-obsolete 32-bit x86 architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

I would think AMD are safe for now.

What this tells me is that AMD has much more to lose than Intel. 64-bit applications are all pretty recent, so they don't suffer from the legacy support problems that make 32-bit support required.

If Intel can't make x86-64 CPUs, they can use their own 64-bit architecture and carry on.

If AMD can't make x86 CPUs, they're dead.

 

 

Which one? You do realize they don't have (as in own) one, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Mistershine on 16 March 2009
NJ5 said:
Mistershine said:
Taken from the x86-64 article on wikipedia:

This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license. Should such a scenario take place, AMD would no longer be authorized to produce any x86 processors, and Intel would no longer be authorized to produce x86-64 processors, forcing them back to the now-obsolete 32-bit x86 architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

I would think AMD are safe for now.

What this tells me is that AMD has much more to lose than Intel. 64-bit applications are all pretty recent, so they don't suffer from the legacy support problems that make 32-bit support required.

If Intel can't make x86-64 CPUs, they can use their own 64-bit architecture and carry on.

If AMD can't make x86 CPUs, they're dead.

 

Intel may well use their own 64 bit tech(ia-64) but then they lose x86 compatibility. Would you buy a cpu that couldn't run any of your apps/games?

 



Gippon on 16 March 2009
ameratsu said:
uh oh here come the intel/amd fanboys

 

Fan boys of a processing chip, that's ridiculous!



PSN: Gippon

nojustno on 16 March 2009
NJ5 said:
nojustno said:
NJ5 said:
Mistershine said:
Taken from the x86-64 article on wikipedia:

This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license. Should such a scenario take place, AMD would no longer be authorized to produce any x86 processors, and Intel would no longer be authorized to produce x86-64 processors, forcing them back to the now-obsolete 32-bit x86 architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

I would think AMD are safe for now.

 

What this tells me is that AMD has much more to lose than Intel. 64-bit applications are all pretty recent, so they don't suffer from the legacy support problems that make 32-bit support required.

If Intel can't make x86-64 CPUs, they can use their own 64-bit architecture and carry on.

If AMD can't make x86 CPUs, they're dead.

 

 

Which one? You do realize they don't have (as in own) one, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64

 

 

um..and how is that architecture feasible for the current day mass market? It won't even run windows.

 




NJ5 on 16 March 2009
Mistershine said:

Intel may well use their own 64 bit tech(ia-64) but then they lose x86 compatibility. Would you buy a cpu that couldn't run any of your apps/games?

 

Actually it wouldn't lose x86 compatibility, they could well use the x86 part since it belongs to them.

(this for nojustno as well)

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957