You still haven't explained what advantage there is for selling out of integration now that AMD is finally seeing some payoff (consoles).
Benefits are just three: Cash in the bank, reduced management overhead and reduced OPEX.
You still haven't explained what advantage there is for selling out of integration now that AMD is finally seeing some payoff (consoles).
Aren't margins for that usually pretty thin? It's a nice steady source of revenue, sure, but they were also in 2 seventh gen consoles and it didn't have them rolling in the green.Because AMD totally doesn't have large contracts with console manufacturers
Aren't margins for that usually pretty thin? It's a nice steady source of revenue, sure, but they were also in 2 seventh gen consoles and it didn't have them rolling in the green.
The console contracts were nice, and perhaps will make it easier to design cross platform titles. The trend toward more cores (not necessarily related to consoles, it is already in progress) will also help AMD be more competitive on the gaming CPU front.
However, I cant see either of these really helping AMD that much. Gaming (except facebook, pogo, etc, which any modern comp can do) is a very small part of the consumer market, which itself is only a part of the overall PC market which includes, education, enterprise and server segments. So basically a small part of one part of the market. Where AMD really needs to improve market penetration is servers, in which they are actually at an all time low.
The console contracts were nice, and perhaps will make it easier to design cross platform titles. The trend toward more cores (not necessarily related to consoles, it is already in progress)
My apologizes.Step back and read what I wrote, you so desperately want to see me as bashing AMD that you cannot even recognize when I am doing the opposite.
Anyone, meaning, who? You're saying in theory it will happen, but not saying who would actually license the tech. Intel already has access to AMD's patents, so no potential revenue uptick there.As to who would license the technology - anyone that is looking for something to give them an edge in integrated graphics over their existing rivals. Who wouldn't want to license it to compete against Apple or Samsung?
This is a flawed comparison. Apple doesn't own their fabs, but they are about the richest company on earth. Now do you see Apple going out and selling their IP to anyone? Nope, they do the exact opposite they come down on you fiercely if you even go near their patents. IP is THE most valuable asset you have in this industry, dilute it or sell it off and you're lost in the wilderness.Think of the business argument for why AMD spunoff their fabs and created GloFo. There is no reason why the same argument could not be made of their GPU tech. Unlock that shareholder value.
Intel already has access to AMD's patents, so no potential revenue uptick there.
If we accept the notion that AMD's GPU IP is "the best" then who wouldn't want access to it?Anyone, meaning, who? You're saying in theory it will happen, but not saying who would actually license the tech.
Yes they do, this has come up before. Dirk Meyer was asked during a conference call (they were discussing the new agreement with Intel) if Intel now has access to AMD's graphics IP. His answer was simply "yes".Intel does not have access to all of AMD's patents, just the select ones that belong to a portfolio of x86-related patents.
Agreed. But with careful planning and execution, they can get to that point.AMD is not in a position to capitalize on its own IP in the same ways these larger players can and do capitalize on their own IP.
Dirk Meyer was asked during a conference call (they were discussing the new agreement with Intel) if Intel now has access to AMD's graphics IP. His answer was simply "yes".
Yes they do, this has come up before. Dirk Meyer was asked during a conference call (they were discussing the new agreement with Intel) if Intel now has access to AMD's graphics IP. His answer was simply "yes".
Agreed. But with careful planning and execution, they can get to that point.
I did a quick search but did not find it. I'll post it if/when I do. But I'm confident that was said by Dirk.
Aren't margins for that usually pretty thin? It's a nice steady source of revenue, sure, but they were also in 2 seventh gen consoles and it didn't have them rolling in the green.
I believe so yes. It is a curious thing but not really that uncommon. The payout/agreement between Intel and Nvidia gives Intel rights to license NV's patents, in exchange Nvidia has access to some of Intel's....it was on the AMD financial day after the Intel agreement if i remember correctly.
No, they don't.I think the eighth gen consoles will also help pushing HSA out the door too, as developers will want to use the GPU to offload some tasks.
If Intel really did have access to all of AMD's GPU IP do you really think they'd not use any of it?
That they'd keep plodding along with their existing iGPU tech?
It just doesn't stand to reason.
Intel wasted zero time implementing every other patent of relevance to their CPU product line - from ISA extensions to x64 - that they could gleen from AMD's cross-licensed IP.
That they would sit on their hands, having access to leading edge GPU technology but do nothing with it, while continuing to develop an unquestionably inferior GPU microarchitecture is silly if true.
If Intel was willing to dump a billion bucks into Larrabee, there is no way you can convince me they wouldn't dump a billion bucks into creating a GCN clone and eating AMD's lunch the same they have done with CPUs. I don't buy it.
I agree it doesn't make much sense on the surface, but what it says is making a good GPU is not so easy. As I just posted, Intel has access to Nvidia's patents as part of that agreement. So are they taking advantage of it? Not so far.If Intel really did have access to all of AMD's GPU IP do you really think they'd not use any of it?
That they'd keep plodding along with their existing iGPU tech?
It just doesn't stand to reason.
Actually Intel dragged their feet on AMD64, they setup a side "just in case" project as a contingency. Recall that Intel wanted to move away from x86 and push Itanium into the consumer space.Intel wasted zero time implementing every other patent of relevance to their CPU product line - from ISA extensions to x64 - that they could gleen from AMD's cross-licensed IP.
Well it is indeed true. As I stated, making a GPU is not so easy like some may think. You especially have to have extensive expertise on the software side, something Intel is very poor at. Intel's GPU drivers are absolutely the worst even today, and they've gotten a lot better.That they would sit on their hands, having access to leading edge GPU technology but do nothing with it, while continuing to develop an unquestionably inferior GPU microarchitecture is silly if true.
You may not buy it, but it's reality. What you're not taking into account is Intel's overall business strategy. x86 into everything because they have exclusive rights to it. Intel wanted to push x86 into graphics because that would help extent their virtual monopoly. Ill conceived yes, but that was a major motivating force for them.If Intel was willing to dump a billion bucks into Larrabee, there is no way you can convince me they wouldn't dump a billion bucks into creating a GCN clone and eating AMD's lunch the same they have done with CPUs. I don't buy it.
Could you explain what do you mean by nice?
Margins on this kind of contract are usually below par, but you get a steady revenue stream for a sizable period. That's not usually something game changing.
Yes they do, this has come up before. Dirk Meyer was asked during a conference call (they were discussing the new agreement with Intel) if Intel now has access to AMD's graphics IP. His answer was simply "yes".
Agreed. But with careful planning and execution, they can get to that point.
but I bet for Intel to come up with a division that is as good as the graphics division AMD has, it would cost them well over 5 billion. They spent at least a billion on a single failed graphics project, ATI tech is extensive not to mention the people that came along with the purchase, you can't simply go out and buy that so easily.
No. Why waste money on software when there's millions of developers eager to use new hardware if it offers them good ROI?edit - one thing that is critically important if for AMD to pour more resources into software.
I completely agree with you. It was highly speculated that Dirk was fired because his lack of a proper ultra mobile strategy. But I don't see Rory doing anything on this front either, they are still stuck in the old mindset.Yeah, but AMD goes and does stuff like marching into ARM when they already had good x86 SoC in the pipeline (Jaguar). They should have never wasted the talent, time and $$s are ARM development and just pushed that into improving their existing SoC line so that they could get it into phones in the next node (20nm). I can't tell you just how crazy this drives me.
What are you smoking? NVDA's market cap is about 8 billion, and you typically have to overpay get acquire a company. Plus in reality Nvidia is worth way more than their market cap suggests. And to that point, if it would really cost Intel only 5 billion to instantly be as good as AMD and Nvidia in graphics, what are they waiting for? 5 billion for Intel is pocket change, the only thing preventing them from jumping all in on graphics if that is really the entry cost would be gross stupidity.5 billion? Net? Not on your life. With that money you can buy Nvidia and still have a nice change for the tip.
What are you smoking? NVDA's market cap is about 8 billion, and you typically have to overpay get acquire a company. Plus in reality Nvidia is worth way more than their market cap suggests.
Can't agree with you at all if you really think Nvidia could be had for 4.3 billion, or 5 billion this is absurd.