Intel [forced] to license HyperTransport??

[NFS4]

Whoah!! Saw it over at NeoWin:


<< The Inquirer has reported that Intel may be forced to adopt HyperTransport for its own technology in the near future but oh god, how embarrassing it all is. HyperTransport, pushed hard by AMD and adopted wholesale now by a large number of hi-tech companies, got a knocking from the chip giant around the time of the August Intel Developer Forum but now it looks as though it will have to jump on this bandwagon too. The reason is not to use it with its X86 processor business - oh no. >>


http://neowin.net/comments.php?id=1596&category=main
http://www.theinquirer.net/24110104.htm

 

[robg1701]

Call yourself an Ace Reporter eh ? And yet i read that way way way back this morning....mind you, i suppose being in america n all, ill let ya off due to timezone differences....this time....


Seriously though, yeah i thought that was pretty good hehe, liked the bit about Cisco demanding HT use if theyre ever gonna buy future intel netwrok chips, hehe

 

[coolred]

Can someone give me a little more insight into what it means to License Hypertransport from AMD?

Does Nvidia Have a license t use it on the Nforce. If so can they use it any way they please. I mean the board for the Xbox is Nforce in it's original form, it uses Hypertransprt but yet they use and Intel proc on the Xbox. Does that mean if Nvidia starts making Nforce boards for Intel procs they can use Hypertransprt on those boards. If so, why would AMD want to do anything to improve Intel chips. I mean I know they get paid for the use of hypertransport, but they lose money if people start buying Intel chips cause they perform better with hypertransport. LMK if I am wrong, thats what I am trying to figure out.

 

[AGodspeed]

This is very ironic. Who saw this one coming.

I think the fact that Cisco is weilding it's power in such a way as to "convince" Intel to adopt HyperTransport is a very very interesting move. Cisco, Sun, TI, Apple, all 3rd party chipset makers (including ALi, SiS, VIA, and Nvidia) plus another 180 other companies are adopting HyperTransport. If and when Intel decides to tout HyperTransport, that'll be the day AMD/API knows they've really done their job in creating a standard.

 

[Rand]

I'm sure it'll make Intel uncomfortable but personally I'm glad, HT is an excellent technology with many varied potential uses, and it's future scalability is fantastic.

 

[Agent004]

HT is a brilliant product

 

[MadRat]

H(D)T is going to become the defacto standard in some communications component. This news actually predicted on The Register a few months back. Maybe their search engine can locate the exact date, but it had something to do with Intel's competing bus.

 

[AGodspeed]

H(D)T is going to become the defacto standard in some communications component.

This brings up an interesting question that I've wanted to ask for a while now. Can a company (AMD in this case) really make a nice sum of money licensing technologies (like HT) to other companies? If AMD licenses HT to 200 companies, how much money do you think they would make?

 

[Martin]

<< H(D)T is going to become the defacto standard in some communications component.

This brings up an interesting question that I've wanted to ask for a while now. Can a company (AMD in this case) really make a nice sum of money licensing technologies (like HT) to other companies? If AMD licenses HT to 200 companies, how much money do you think they would make? >>



I don't think AMD is getting anything anything out of HT. I seem to recall (I may be wrong) that they wanted to make it basicly free so that it would get accepted faster. I also think that the board of directors in charge of HT is made up of reps from many different companies. Again, I am not sure.....

 

[Agent004]

Inquirer is also suggesting that AMD has a follow-up or some ways to rake in the money

 

[Midnight Rambler]

<< This brings up an interesting question that I've wanted to ask for a while now. Can a company (AMD in this case) really make a nice sum of money licensing technologies (like HT) to other companies? >>

Sure they can ... Intel gets a "piece" for every x86 processor that AMD sells.

As for CSCO wielding any power over Intel, I doubt that was the case. I imagine it was more like a request on CSCO's part. I have a 'bud who is sales mgr. for the SW region of the country for CSCO, and he's always touting their relationship with Intel (as well as Micro$oft) - funny thing, internally at CSCO, the buzzword for this trio of partners is "Wintelco".

Question: Wasn't it only a couple months ago that a competing Intel concept was chosen over HT by the PC consortium? If that was so, it's interesting that HT is catching on everywhere else outside of PCs.

 

[robg1701]

Intels standard wasnt 'chosen over HT'. Intels standard was put forward for replacing the current PCI spec, HT was not....AMD were even part of the committee and voted along with the rest for the adoption of < i forget, what is the name its going by now? Keeps changin > as the 'next PCI'.

 

[sandorski]

Midnight R: Yes, Intel won the next PCI(replacement) standard, AMD refused to submit HT for it, so Intel kinda won by default. HT will be used for other buses, chipset/memory etc. This is what I recall.

 

[BlvdKing]

IT's called 3GIO. I think it can replace the AGP slot as well. Can anyone explain how 3GIO and HT can be on the same motherboard and what their uses are?

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

Robg1701 is right. Hypertransport has always been targeted as a chip to chip interface, whereas 3GIO makes for a better replacement for PCI. Some supporters of 3GIO have claimed that Hypertransport wasn't worth the effort because it couldn't scale as high as 3GIO, but even if the new spec was put on a fast track today, it wouldn't be an available alternative to PCI for another year at the very least. Hypertransport is a technology that's ready now, and the combination of Hypertransport with 3GIO makes the most sense to me. Hopefully the powers that be will see that as well and we will have the best of both technologies.

 

[AGodspeed]

Question: Wasn't it only a couple months ago that a competing Intel concept was chosen over HT by the PC consortium? If that was so, it's interesting that HT is catching on everywhere else outside of PCs.

The concept that was chosen was Intel's 3GIO concept, which is at least another year off. 3GIO is supposed to replace Intel's PCI standard. Since HT is meant for something completely different than 3GIO, HT and 3GIO were not in direct competition with one another when 3GIO was approved as a future standard a couple months ago. Which explains why AMD supported 3GIO.

 

[robg1701]

BlvdKing, Theres a wee bit about HT and 3GIO (Araphoe is the other name for it) coexistance here:

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010811_HT_Arapahoe_edit/010811_HT_Arapahoe_edit.htm

 

[AGodspeed]

Here's a list of HyperTransport Consortium Charter Members if anyone is interested:

Advanced Micro Devices, Sun Microsystems, API NetWorks, Cisco Systems, PMC Sierra, Inc., NVidia Corporation, Transmeta Corporation, and Apple Computers are the charter members that comprise the Executive Committee of the HyperTransport Technology Consortium.

Btw, how does AMD make money off HT? According to the HT website:

The HyperTransport Technology Consortium is a non-profit corporation controlled by its members.

But does AMD still get a little piece of every future device that uses HT or what?

 

[Pabster]

Midnight Rambler wrote:

"Question: Wasn't it only a couple months ago that a competing Intel concept was chosen over HT by the PC consortium? If that was so, it's interesting that HT is catching on everywhere else outside of PCs."

You mean 3GIO? LOL. It isn't in direct competition with HyperTransport. It really isn't that surprising that when the rest of the "big players" latch on to a concept (in this case, HyperTransport) that Intel would be forced to go along. Obviously they'd rather not.

 

[AA0]

HT was made by AMD to advance their cpus, and and gain a share in the market. If they would have been like intel and charged a bit to use it, the chance it would have taken off would have been quite low. AMD isn't making any money off it now, the only thing I remember is that you have to "join" the HT team. The money they can make off the HT name and use is far more than licensing fees. Once its developed, there is no real cost for AMD, so its a win win thing.

There is a competing intel technology, but its been a while since I read that article on standards, and upcoming licensing. I think AMDs position was they were not going to win if both intel and amds designs were submitted, intel has too large a sway, so they saturate the market with it, and now intel can't avoid it. Its sorta like what MS did to html.... they screwed it up so other browsers wouldn't work with it, and threw it to the market without waiting for the standards review it, but AMDs is a much nicer version.

 

[GoldenTiger]

They weren't forced, they DECIDED to !

 

[AGodspeed]

There is a competing intel technology, but its been a while since I read that article on standards, and upcoming licensing.

Right now, there's no word of Intel developing a type of technology that will compete with HT. The only thing that Intel has talked about is their 3GIO technology, but that technology does not come into direct competition with HT, since 3GIO is just supposed to be a replacement for Intel's PCI standard, and not a chip to chip I/O interface like what HT is meant for.

Supposedly, 3GIO could/will evolve into something that will compete with HT, but that's quite far off into the future, and further than just one year away.

 

[MadRat]

I think "forced" stems from their immediate need for the technology in order to complete some of the work in the partnership projects. The communications device that depends on it still eludes my memory. If memory holds true then it is not one of their own designs. Rather it was a design they acquired from one of their acquisitions that requires this technology.

HT and 3GIO are both derived from PCI-X, which means they follow similar paths. Some of the larger technology companies (NVidia, Acer Labs, Sun, etc.) have found that both can be incorporated into products more easily than either can be forced to do the same job.