AMD Bulldozer and Llano going to be delayed? GF 32nm troubles?

[Scali]

I'll let you read that again. It is an opinion, made by you. You may have been stating something that you did not believe, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't willfully lying in your arguments.

Okay, let me subtitle that for you aswell then:
The main argument people give for AMD's existence is to keep Intel's prices down (which AMD isn't doing a very good job of btw, but oh well, let's not let reality get in the way).
If the government takes over that role (there's that condition), everyone will be happy, right? Intel CPUs at AMD prices?

 

[beginner99]

Wasn't the reason AMD could not really profit in the P4 era because they lacked in fabs? meaning the very producing and selling as much as was possible?

Thi smakes sense because the probably didn't expect intel to fail so bad.

I wonder though... They haven't split up Microsoft either, and Microsoft REALLY doesn't have any competition, and completely controls the market.
I think it's better that way. Leave the company the way it is, but make sure they don't take advantage of the situation... sadly that can become rather arbitrary, such as the ruling that Microsoft needs to market versions of Windows without Media Player or IE. Something that doesn't benefit customers.

I would not say so. There would be usuable alternatives. If windows suddenly was 1000$ I would say alot of people would just switch to Linux or MacOs.
Also even though developing software is extremly complicated, it can still be done by anyone with a computer (in theory). No need for fabs.

 

[Scali]

I would not say so. There would be usuable alternatives. If windows suddenly was 1000$ I would say alot of people would just switch to Linux or MacOs.

I think the same goes for Intel.
If their CPUs are too expensive, people will either not upgrade (heck, I'm a fine example of that myself, I replaced my Athlon XP system with a Core2 Duo when it came out... but I'm still using that same system today, almost 4 years later, with no real need to upgrade) or they'll find something else.
Remember, you don't NEED an x86. It's convenient for Windows... but if you really want, you can run linux. There are arm-based netbooks etc running linux.
If the x86/Windows market is becoming too expensive, the result might be that alternatives such as arm/linux start to flourish.

Also even though developing software is extremly complicated, it can still be done by anyone with a computer (in theory). No need for fabs.

Yet the huge community effort of linux and related products haven't managed to put a dent in Windows' marketshare.
There's more to selling software than just writing it.

 

[taltamir]

Only if you insist on x86 hardware

oh come on... x86 is the de facto standard... that would be like saying "AT&T of yore was not a monopoly becuase companies could have created incompatible alternatives"...
you could not sell a phone that would NOT work with AT&T network... likewise, you would not be able to make a non x86 CPU and sell it successfully... companies tried... heck even INTEL ITSELF tried with itanium... one of the biggest black eyes intel got was when it tried to ditch x86 with 64bit processors... where AMD went ahead and made x86_64 and and forced intel to follow.

 

[Scali]

oh come on... x86 is the de facto standard...

Yea, I said x86 *hardware*, didn't I?
If your hardware doesn't implement x86 directly, you don't need to license it. Transmeta already showed us how to do that.
In fact, even if you DO implement x86 in hardware, there's a chance you get away with it.
Cyrix did. They were sued by Intel for making an x86-compatible CPU, but Intel was unable to convince the court that they really owned the IP, and eventually Cyrix could continue building their x86-compatible CPUs without a license.

 

[Phynaz]

in gaming they have a significant advantage over intel

The gaming market is much too small to support AMD.

 

[taltamir]

Remember, you don't NEED an x86. It's convenient for Windows... but if you really want, you can run linux. There are arm-based netbooks etc running linux.
If the x86/Windows market is becoming too expensive, the result might be that alternatives such as arm/linux start to flourish.

windows is a bigger monopoly then intel's... there is no way that linux would go from what... is it 1% right now? to being commercially relevant just because people don't want x86 anymore...
the only way for an x86 alternative to exist is if MS ports windows to it.

Frankly you keep on building a case against your own argument.

x86 is patent locked, intel has massive lead in process tech, intel has massive lead in market penetration and contracts, intel has massive lead in R&D capital, windows is locked to x86, macOSX has been completely migrated from powerPC to x86, x86 is so powerful that even intel's own attempt to ditch it was thwarted by AMD releasing an x86 upgrade...

If your hardware doesn't implement x86 directly, you don't need to license it. Transmeta already showed us how to do that.

no, transmeta proved to us that TRYING To do it that way leads to failure... it is far too inefficient to emulate it via software.

In fact, even if you DO implement x86 in hardware, there's a chance you get away with it.

There is also a chance of you being ruined

Cyrix did. They were sued by Intel for making an x86-compatible CPU, but Intel was unable to convince the court that they really owned the IP, and eventually Cyrix could continue building their x86-compatible CPUs without a license.

what are you talking about? cyrix has a licence to build x86 CPUs...

 

[jvroig]

Without AMD, it will be the government's responsibility. I thought everyone understood that, but apparently not, so I'll mention it explicitly.

Yes, the government. And how do you suppose they will carry out that responsibility? They'll bring out the breakup hammer to "revitalize the industry". That's what we've been talking about all along, and this breaking up is what we have mutually agreed is bad. Why then would you want that to happen?

 

[taltamir]

Yes, the government. And how do you suppose they will carry out that responsibility? They'll bring out the breakup hammer to "revitalize the industry". That's what we've been talking about all along, and this breaking up is what we have mutually agreed is bad. Why then would you want that to happen?

the ideal situation is for the government to revoke the x86 patents (and actually, 95% of patents in existance).

However, that isn't going to happen... patent law just becomes more and more draconian...

instead, AMD will fail (bad), resulting the government splitting up intel (very bad)

look at my signature...

No matter how bad things are, the government can always make it worse!

 

[Scali]

windows is a bigger monopoly then intel's... there is no way that linux would go from what... is it 1% right now? to being commercially relevant just because people don't want x86 anymore...
the only way for an x86 alternative to exist is if MS ports windows to it.

Frankly you keep on building a case against your own argument.

I wasn't the one who claimed that linux formed an alternative to Windows.
I just used that claim and applied it to the Intel case. If linux can get marketshare from Windows if Windows becomes too expensive, then the same still holds if Windows becomes too expensive indirectly, because x86 CPUs become too expensive.

no, transmeta proved to us that TRYING To do it that way leads to failure... it is far too inefficient to emulate it via software.

Transmeta proved that it is perfectly legal.
I don't rule out the possibility that now, about 10 years after Transmeta's attempt, the advances in compiler and chip technology make this approach more feasible today than it was back when Transmeta tried.

what are you talking about? cyrix has a licence to build x86 CPUs...

Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix

Unlike AMD, Cyrix had never manufactured or sold Intel designs under a negotiated license. Cyrix's designs were the result of meticulous in-house reverse engineering. Thus, while AMD's 386s and even 486s had some Intel-written microcode software, Cyrix's designs were completely independent. Focused on removing potential competitors, Intel spent many years in legal battles with Cyrix, consuming Cyrix financial resources, claiming that the Cyrix 486 violated Intel's patents, when in reality the design was proven independent.
By and large, Intel lost the Cyrix case. But the final settlement was out of court: Intel agreed that Cyrix had the right to produce their own x86 designs in any foundry that happened to already hold an Intel license. Both firms gained out of this: Cyrix could carry on having their CPUs made by Texas Instruments, SGS Thomson, or IBM, all holders of Intel cross-licenses; Intel avoided a potentially embarrassing loss.

 

[jvroig]

the ideal situation is for the government to revoke the x86 patents (and actually, 95% of patents in existance).
However, that isn't going to happen... patent law just becomes more and more draconian...
instead, AMD will fail (bad), resulting the government splitting up intel (very bad)

I am no expert in patents, so I can not say "I agree, that will work" to your proposal about x86 patents. But I do not disagree.

Yes, AMD will disappear, government will bring out the breakup hammer, we will be more screwed than we are today... we are 100% on the same page there.

EDIT: It just occurred to me now that I have been participating in derailing your thread, I just got reminded that the topic is about Bulldozer and Llano and, possibly, 32nm troubles. If I started the derailment, my apologies. I am gone.

 

[taltamir]

Transmeta proved that it is perfectly legal.

Legal is not enough... trans-meta proved that doing it legally without revoking the patents leads to commercial ruination. you lose far too much efficiency that way.

Unlike AMD, Cyrix had never manufactured or sold Intel designs under a negotiated license. Cyrix's designs were the result of meticulous in-house reverse engineering. Thus, while AMD's 386s and even 486s had some Intel-written microcode software, Cyrix's designs were completely independent. Focused on removing potential competitors, Intel spent many years in legal battles with Cyrix, consuming Cyrix financial resources, claiming that the Cyrix 486 violated Intel's patents, when in reality the design was proven independent.
By and large, Intel lost the Cyrix case. But the final settlement was out of court: Intel agreed that Cyrix had the right to produce their own x86 designs in any foundry that happened to already hold an Intel license. Both firms gained out of this: Cyrix could carry on having their CPUs made by Texas Instruments, SGS Thomson, or IBM, all holders of Intel cross-licenses; Intel avoided a potentially embarrassing loss.

interesting...
1. intel still harmed them significantly via legal costs that they could not afford.
if it wasn't for the patents those lawsuits would have been thrown out, outright.
2. I was indeed misinformed about how they acquired their license... thank you for correcting me

 

[Scali]

Legal is not enough... trans-meta proved that doing it legally without revoking the patents leads to commercial ruination. you lose far too much efficiency that way.

As I say, I'm not convinced that it is impossible with today's technology.

interesting...
1. intel still harmed them significantly via legal costs that they could not afford.
if it wasn't for the patents those lawsuits would have been thrown out, outright.

But thanks to Intel vs Cyrix, there is now jurisprudence, so the next company attempting the same may never get to court.

2. I was indeed misinformed about how they acquired their license... thank you for correcting me

Respect the classics, man!

 

[taltamir]

Respect the classics, man!

What classics? I don't get it.

But thanks to Intel vs Cyrix, there is now jurisprudence, so the next company attempting the same may never get to court.

Since they settled OUT of court then there was never a verdict... as such there is NO jurisprudence and intel is free to ruin any company that attempts it via costly legal battles. This is potentially why intel decided to settle.

For example, when sony decided it will ruin Lik Sang, it simply sued it in multiple countries for multiple things all at once... Lik Sang folded. (that is, went bankrupt)... sony never won a single case... they didn't have to. in fact, the court cases didn't even begin (merely the preliminary costs were too much for it to handle)

 

[Scali]

What classics? I don't get it.

Guess you've never seen Cars then.

For example, when sony decided it will ruin Lik Sang, it simply sued it in 6 seperate countries at once... Lik Sang folded. (that is, went bankrupt)... sony never won a single case... they didn't have to.

Basically you're saying that there's no need to win a case... so technically you don't need to HAVE much of a case. Companies like Intel, Sony and Microsoft can ruin anyone, anytime.
Still, apparently it's possible to survive as a company.

 

[taltamir]

Basically you're saying that there's no need to win a case... so technically you don't need to HAVE much of a case. Companies like Intel, Sony and Microsoft can ruin anyone, anytime.
Still, apparently it's possible to survive as a company.

It depends... if they are completely baseless, then the small company might get layers to work merely for the payoff in case of victory, because in cases of completely baseless suits the person levying the suit might be required to pay the legal costs of the person/company they sued.

besides which, many businesses are big enough to support a full time large and high quality legal department, only businesses too small to afford a full time quality legal departments are at risk.

and anyways, I went on a bit of a tangent, the key is that there is no jurisprudence in this case because intel never lost the case, it settled out of court.

 

[Scali]

and anyways, I went on a bit of a tangent, the key is that there is no jurisprudence in this case because intel never lost the case, it settled out of court.

I don't know the exact details, and I doubt you do, because a few minutes ago you didn't even know that Cyrix didn't have a license.

 

[taltamir]

I don't know the exact details, and I doubt you do, because a few minutes ago you didn't even know that Cyrix didn't have a license.

The quote you made clearly says "they settled out of court"... that is the only detail I need to know for a fact that there is no jurisprudence. you can only have jurisprudence if one side WINS the case. If they choose to settle out of court...
The only possible way for there to be jurisprudence is if the article is false, and in fact they did NOT settle out of court, and instead cyrix won the case...

 

[Scali]

The quote you made clearly says "they settled out of court"... that is the only detail I need to know for a fact that there is no jurisprudence. you can only have jurisprudence if one side WINS the case. If they choose to settle out of court...
The only way for there to be one is if the article is false, and in fact they did NOT settle out of court, and instead cyrix won the case...

I'm not going to discuss this any further, I don't want to get into legal debates. But there are various details we don't know, so I simply don't agree with you.

 

[taltamir]

I'm not going to discuss this any further, I don't want to get into legal debates. But there are various details we don't know, so I simply don't agree with you.

sheesh, no you have me doubting that bit... gotta find a lawyer and ask him if its possible to create a precedence via a settlement.

 

[Scali]

sheesh, no you have me doubting that bit... gotta find a lawyer and ask him if its possible to create a precedence via a settlement.

Thing is, we don't know what the case was exactly.
Usually it's a number of issues.
Intel may not have won the case, but various issues may have reached a verdict.
Aside from that, even if the case was settled, Intel's patents and IP were examined in court. It could well be that certain patents were considered invalid, or at least that their scope wasn't as broad as Intel originally claimed.
Just naming a few small things there, to show that I do have a point.
As I say, I really don't want to get into that.

Bottom line is:
- It is a fact that Cyrix produced x86 processors without a license.
- It is a fact that Cyrix got sued by Intel and survived (and Cyrix wasn't such a big player really).

So it's not entirely unreasonable to think that another not-so-big-player would be able to build x86 processors and get away with it.

 

[Martimus]

Okay, let me subtitle that for you aswell then:
The main argument people give for AMD's existence is to keep Intel's prices down (which AMD isn't doing a very good job of btw, but oh well, let's not let reality get in the way).
If the government takes over that role (there's that condition), everyone will be happy, right? Intel CPUs at AMD prices?

My argument was that the price is already set at what people will pay for CPU's, so AMD isn't so much keeping Intel's prices in check right now. What they are doing is forcing them to innovate beyond just adding simple modifications like MMX, SSE, AVX, or USB 3.0 support or something like that to upgrade. The processors actually need to get faster at using current software. They have enough of a Monopoly that they can drive many of those changes, but when they have diverged too far (RAMBUS, Itanium) they lost market share to their competitor and changed course.

My point is that without a company like AMD, Intel will have no reason to truly innovate. They can do like Microsoft and just stop making old products, so that new computers will have to have a new more expensive Intel processor. They could reduce the life expectancy of each processor to force upgrades faster as well. They could really add levels of pointless differentiation to each processor, by fusing off different sections of the same chip to meet different price points, while making sure that enough important portions are in the most expensive processors to make maximum profit. Or more likely, they would do nothing at all, and stop making progress in many areas, preferring to add blocks into their hardware than new features, to ensure they have an established upgrade path without additional research. Or completely change direction, and force a brand new architecture (like they were planning to do with Itanium) for all new computers.

I am not like the others in this thread, in that I don't see the break-up of intel into multiple companies as some doomsday scenario. After seeing the long term benefits of previous break-ups, I don't really mind the short term problems it will cause. AMD is not doing a good job of forcing Intel to innovate right now, and hasn't for a few years. Of course, that isn't exactly a damning statement, as a few years isn't that long - they did a good job of forcing innovation a few years ago.

 

[Scali]

My point is that without a company like AMD, Intel will have no reason to truly innovate.

And my point is that with or without AMD, Intel is competing against itself.

 

[extra]

I wonder though... They haven't split up Microsoft either, and Microsoft REALLY doesn't have any competition, and completely controls the market.
I think it's better that way. Leave the company the way it is, but make sure they don't take advantage of the situation... sadly that can become rather arbitrary, such as the ruling that Microsoft needs to market versions of Windows without Media Player or IE. Something that doesn't benefit customers.

I consider Linux and Apple to be quite viable MS competitors in many ways. If MS tried to make us (and oems) pay $600 for a copy of windows, I think you'd find that if you walked into Best Buy or whatever, you'd be looking at machines running Linux. I consider that to be competition. Now, MS sure has done some shady stuff in the past (so has Intel). I also don't buy the doom and gloom surrounding AMD. Yeah, they prolly shoulda got more money from the Intel settlement (a LOT more, probably)...but meh. They aren't going anywhere. AMD will still be around in 10 years. Come on, if the amd chips weren't competitive, would they be selling like hot cakes? Would the 1090t be like one of the top 3 selling chips at newegg? People around here like to preach doom and gloom, but AMD is doing a helluva lot better than they were 1.5 years ago imho.

 

[ModestGamer]

And my point is that with or without AMD, Intel is competing against itself.

I don't see it. Intel does 11b AMD sells 7.9b. exactly how much more money would intel gross if AMD went out of bussiness. Intel is very much competing with AMD and if you don't think they are concerned about a new producting whopping their ass. you'd be wrong. If they aren't. they are fools.

GM vs Ford vs chrysler . same argument.