![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
From ATI to AMD back to ATI? A Journey in Futility @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
Being quiet and tough are of prime concern!
I would say half hazard, AMD is holding up final deal. Giving away any advantages they may have to Intel who has way more resources to make use of it may not be in their own interest. So delaying allows them to see how far along they are with Zen and future APU's etc. maybe.
Then again Intel could be delaying to see who will give them the best deal overall or a counter offer from Nvidia.
Also this may also have to go through House Judiciary Committee since all desktop APUs GPUs are effectively could be from AMD - a perceived monopoly where as before it was Intel/Nvidia and AMD/RTG even though RTG was AMD. Having RTG as a separate entity from AMD probably helps as well. So maybe some legal issues ensued on the way. Intel may have to renew with Nvidia and rumor of an AMD deal could help in negotiating a better deal with Nvidia just to keep lawsuits from piling up.
Then again Intel could be delaying to see who will give them the best deal overall or a counter offer from Nvidia.
Also this may also have to go through House Judiciary Committee since all desktop APUs GPUs are effectively could be from AMD - a perceived monopoly where as before it was Intel/Nvidia and AMD/RTG even though RTG was AMD. Having RTG as a separate entity from AMD probably helps as well. So maybe some legal issues ensued on the way. Intel may have to renew with Nvidia and rumor of an AMD deal could help in negotiating a better deal with Nvidia just to keep lawsuits from piling up.
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
Or more simple. There is no deal and never was.
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
Yes, of course that could be it too.
Are you saying Kyle was played?
I dont know what he bases his information on so I cant say. But nothing at all so far points to any deal.
One thing is sure, there is currently no deal. Then there would be a SEC filling.
The CanardPC version of the deal however is pure fiction.
Last edited:
Anyone being in higher management in a corporations will know how sure things change on the fly, whole factories that are laid out, equipment set aside or even purchase can the next day not be used - sent some place else, factory never built or used. To be competitive and survive you have to be that level of readiness as well as flexible on the fly to switch plans, change plans or cancel plans. Kyle could have been told exactly what was on the table at the time from a source who is completely confident that is what was going to happen and puff it all evaporates away. Both parties staring at each other saying WTF?
Last edited:
I heard that many times before
and the real answer was nope.I undervolted one of my rigs that has rx 480 to 1.1v. Its running 1350mhz rock stable and stays at those clocks. Our of the box my chip was running almost 1.2v and above according to gpux and throttling.Why dont you prove it
I would not be too sure.
Reading into the Intel financial report, they also did not report the IP cross-licensing deal they have with a communications company last quarter and not much is currently known what it involves, this fell under the Data Center Group.
Cheers
good point. would be nice to hear from Kyle about it
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
But you can find a SEC filling.
damn
Have you seen it for that Q4 Data Center Group IP cross-licensing with the unknown communications company?
Be interested to see if you can find it as the deal I mention is still not clear what is happening, and professional journalists (HPC segment) are also curious.
Thanks
Last edited:
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
You have to be more specific. Are you referring to Vuzix Coporation? Or are you referring to an older IP deal that impacted Q4 result for DCG with networking.
For SEC fillings you can find it here:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/sec-filings
Last edited:
It is not them and that is not Data Center related anyway, it is vague because the company the cross-license deal is with is still unknown who signed with but has happened, hence why it may (emphasis on may) be similar to the situation with AMD.
Some journalists was expecting details to come out in the latest financials but they did not.
So you see the problem, unless you find an SEC filing pertaining specifically to the Data Center group/comms company and a cross-license deal (which if it existed there HPC journalists would not had been waiting for clarification in the recently released financials) it is a similar situation as the AMD; I appreciate the AMD situation may or may not be a done deal.
Cheers
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
I think you mix it up. The result from DCG impact is real and its not a new deal. I haven't seen it mentioned besides here as some sort of new unknown deal.
There is zero evidence of an AMD deal.
I do not think I am confused or mixing anything up, I will quote just one HPC pro journalist because this is not going to get resolved as it cannot be proved either way just like AMD situation but has close similarities, in the HPC market some journalists had heard of the deal I mention at the time but not the specifics and no official confirmation.
Note this is specific to Data Center Group and any tech deal would align with that.
Author: Timothy Prickett Morgan (pretty on the ball in the HPC segment)
This was in the analysis of the recent financials released this month.
He does go on to speculate:
So the AMD deal if it happens may only get a reference similar to the above once it has an impact on financials, and that would not had been yet.
Cheers
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
You mean this link?
https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/01/27/skylake-xeon-ramp-cuts-intels-datacenter-profits/
Do you think its legal for public traded companies to keep such deals secret when it affect their financials? Maybe the deal isn't from Q4
Also think of the AMD deal. Graphics is an advantage for AMD. Why license it to Intel and give up on that? And why would Intel pick AMD instead of Nvidia with so much better perf/watt if you talk about designs.
Yep that is the article.
He is not the only one to hear about this deal, and Intel did report it impacted the Data Center Group profits with the latest financials but we know nothing else about it.
But if you can find an SEC filing specifically for a tech-IP that specifically aligns with the Data Center Group in Q4 I would be very interested.
Just to say Timothy has a very strong background-knowledge and contacts in the HPC/data server related market, and not one to report rumours.
AMD thing, yeah may or may not be a true deal, but just mentioning this one to show there are quirks within the reporting structure.
Cheers
Last edited:
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,773
You mean this link?
https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/01/27/skylake-xeon-ramp-cuts-intels-datacenter-profits/
Do you think its legal for public traded companies to keep such deals secret when it affect their financials? Maybe the deal isn't from Q4
Also think of the AMD deal. Graphics is an advantage for AMD. Why license it to Intel?
I see it all the time with other industries. Licensing tech or selling a component. It's basically easy profit without any risk if it's licensed tech.
If AMD knows the best case is 30% of the market and they can get their tech and profit from the other 70% what would you do?
I don't understand Intel's motivation for it though...
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
For AMD it would be equal to say that they cant profit on APUs. For Intel you are right, it would be a big step backwards since perf/watt is king.
Intel doesn't need AMD graphics, the only place they would need it is for IGP, cause AMD is sorely lacking in the other areas (HPC), where Intel's Phi is already in the lead of AMD graphics.
Thought I better clarify,
yeah I agree the AMD deal seems unusual to say the least compared to the example I raised.
From an AMD strategy point they could be looking to squeeze Nvidia out on a longer term consumer-retail strategy; if Intel implement certain GCN technologies within their processors this gives developers with AMD tech an even broader range of support putting further pressure on Nvidia convincing developer to optimise strongly with their tech.
Raja admitted in a recent interview part of the performance gains AMD are seeing with the dGPU and very recent games is that the optimised games/rendering engines aligns with the consoles, some did not expect this because games are technically developed on PC platform but he was pretty clear about this, along with that they just could not compete with Nvidia in optimising so many games for DX11 at a driver level.
If deal is true still seems stupid to me though as it ends up potentially killing AMD CPU division after Ryzen.
Cheers
That is what it is, if the deal is real, AMD would be putting nails into their coffin, cause Ryzen will be their last CPU that would have any clear advantage over Intel. As it looks like right now, it seems to match up with Broadwell on the CPU side or edge it out, and then their graphics side is way in the lead (assuming at this point cause of previous AMD APU's performance).
Why would they do that makes no sense, unless they are licensing older GCN tech to Intel and keeping the best for themselves, but that doesn't make much sense either because other GCN tech will not improve their fight over nV as the changes in GCN have shown to be less than welcoming with code changes. There was a brief time where AMD seemed to be "fine wine" but the fact is their polygon through put has hurt their previous gen GCN's in later games, and we know all about the async code needs.
Anyway we look at it, the deal has very little fruit for AMD outside of short term gains (3 years) vs mid to long term turmoil.
Why would they do that makes no sense, unless they are licensing older GCN tech to Intel and keeping the best for themselves, but that doesn't make much sense either because other GCN tech will not improve their fight over nV as the changes in GCN have shown to be less than welcoming with code changes. There was a brief time where AMD seemed to be "fine wine" but the fact is their polygon through put has hurt their previous gen GCN's in later games, and we know all about the async code needs.
Anyway we look at it, the deal has very little fruit for AMD outside of short term gains (3 years) vs mid to long term turmoil.
gigaxtreme1
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2002
- Messages
- 3,577
As far as I've heard the only "deal" would be the licensing of memory access patents like the ones Nvidia sued Intel over.
Nvidia won't be receiving licensing fees after March.
Nvidia won't be receiving licensing fees after March.
Last edited:
I highly doubt nVidia will be willing to license GPU designs to Intel for iGPUs, because that'll directly impact their Tegra line. Licensing GPU tech will just make Intel Phi better, again not a good idea.
I don't see what AMD has to offer in terms of iGPU, though. It's quite clear APUs aren't really want people want, still too many compromises.
I don't see what AMD has to offer in terms of iGPU, though. It's quite clear APUs aren't really want people want, still too many compromises.
the new architecture is henceforth socket which include an in house tracing etc... with multiple segments or parts. Sounds like it is going back to a north bridge and south bridge or the traces connect to multiple pieces in a new socket. I speak french but they hate when forigners learn the syntax so every six months they take a word that means one thing and assign it a new meaning that if you are not in France you have no idea which words changed unless you read the local papers online. Terminator is socket, mais is with, desormais is hench forth etc... et cela is etc... some of it is funny to translate when you get latin and french mixed in usage.
details like that would mean that the chances are high, that there is more to it i guess
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
There is a higher chance there is more to hide.
Otherwise, why obfuscate and annoy fans.
Anarchist4000
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2001
- Messages
- 1,659
What they're probably looking at is a MCM. With a motherboard transitioning towards interposer for simple analogy. GPUs like a big interconnect, so keeping them integrated or on an interposer saves a lot of pins on a CPU/APU design. A deal with AMD could theoretically cut R&D costs for Intel while providing more options than they currently maintain. Instead of putting a discrete board in the system they'd pick a GPU and stacked RAM to use with their CPU. Any type of processor could be integrated in that fashion given interposer space. Not to mention it avoids the licensing issue which was a significant expense as well. It would be a win-win for both companies. Intel could theoretically scrap their GPU for AMDs while still developing Phi for compute or using Altera based FPGAs.
And with the budget Intel has where exactly will that leave AMD in 4 years time when competing against Intel?
AMD risk killing their CPUs (which ironically they are trying to resurrect into being competitive) and to a lesser extent APUs, if Intel has a broad use of the IP it should not be under-estimated just how much this could come back and bite AMD.
If the deal is true I think AMD focused too much on Nvidia as their competitor to squeeze them from a broader tech adoption perspective without realising their biggest challenge is growth areas that Intel competes in.
Their saving may be Intel having product strategy issues and morale with their best engineers (some leaving).
You see signs of this as they keep focusing on Nvidia in marketing and various presentations, whereas Nvidia keeps focusing on Nvidia since Maxwell.
Cheers
Anarchist4000
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2001
- Messages
- 1,659
This would still take a few years to establish. AMD would get guaranteed licensing income or possibly some royalties from chips. I don't see it being any different than selling discrete AMD GPUs with Intel CPUs. Difference being the form factors have shrunken with technology. MCMs with elements from different vendors. Intel avoids their graphics patent deficit and gets more options. AMD sells more GPUs. Maybe Intel gets HSA working with their CPUs, but it may just be a matter of providing a low cost GPU for their offerings and not accelerating all workloads. Intel has Altera for FPGAs and future datacenter development which is probably where they're aiming. I'm sure they've done the math on the trade-off. Do GPU profits outweigh the potential for lost CPU/APU profits? Especially if Intel continued to develop graphics which already cover a majority of the market.
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
You are not getting MCM parts. And specially not with interposers.
And Intel isn't going to use an AMD GPU. If they for some imaginary reason had to abandon their own line. They would use Nvidia because they match the metrics Intel focuses on.
Using AMD for GPU would also be a huge step back on video decoding and encoding (Quicksync).
And Intel isn't going to use an AMD GPU. If they for some imaginary reason had to abandon their own line. They would use Nvidia because they match the metrics Intel focuses on.
Using AMD for GPU would also be a huge step back on video decoding and encoding (Quicksync).
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
They already are with NVidia.