Intel licensing AMD's GPU tech?

[formulav8]

Here is the link. This could be the reason AMD's stock has jumped over 10% today. It looks plausible as I don't think Intel renewed with Nvidia in March.

Other places are saying similar. But some are going my the same link.

 

[zinfamous]

I thought it was confirmed? Anyway, the Analyst day meeting is happening right now, so it will be confirmed by Su within minutes.

I remember that assumption that AMD would take over back when Intel announced they were done with nVidia was poo-poo'd quite rigorously, around here.

 

[formulav8]

I thought it was all but confirmed?

Everything I checked was only rumor in the past. I looked at a 5 month old article as it was one of the latest to mention it and it said rumors.

 

[John Carmack]

I remember that assumption that AMD would take over back when Intel announced they were done with nVidia was poo-poo'd quite rigorously, around here.

They said it was impossible... They said it made absolutely no sense... Dream on they said...

 

[NostaSeronx]

I don't see the point. When Cannonlakes GFX in: Cannonlake, Geminilake, and Coffeelake, pretty much kill any reason to use AMD APUs.

It would instead make more sense to have a discrete dGPU with the CNL-GFX ip.

 

[beginner99]

Kind of a risk for both sides. And kind of good for both sides. AMD needs money and even better if said money else would go to NV. Intel need GPU tech and hates NV and AMD probably also wants less money. On the other hand Intel is AMDs main competitor on the APU side. The worse intels graphics are the better for AMD. Vice-versa for intel. If AMD has more money for R&D their CPUs and hence APUs won't suck anymore and that will be trouble for intel in the mobile market.

 

[CHADBOGA]

If this is just about avoiding litigation for patent breaches, fair enough, but if Intel is going to be copying large parts of AMD's GPU technology, then it is yet another sign of an internal Intel failure.

Intel was supposedly taking graphics far more seriously from Sandy Bridge onwards, so if things were going smoothly within Intel, then they shouldn't be needing to copy a much smaller competitor's technology.

 

[LTC8K6]

In the other thread, someone suggested that this was for an Apple contract. An Intel CPU with AMD graphics for Apple.

I can't see why AMD wouldn't want to create a RyZen APU for Apple.

I suppose Apple could have an exclusive deal with Intel for the CPU part, thus allowing AMD to only win the graphics part.

 

[jpiniero]

I can't see why AMD wouldn't want to create a RyZen APU for Apple.

They would. Apple wants to keep using Intel, because well the CPU is faster plus they love Thunderbolt.

 

[Yuriman]

Is this even to use AMD designs, or just so that Intel is actually allowed to build GPUs, given that AMD and NV own the patents for just about everything?

 

[beginner99]

They would. Apple wants to keep using Intel, because well the CPU is faster plus they love Thunderbolt.

Apple could buy just Alpine ridge chips from intel. Not like you need an intel cpu to run thunderbolt. And if too expensive or Intel doesn't allow it Apple could just drop the connector many of it's users have heavily invested into in typical Apple fashion.

 

[NesuD]

Definitely a shield to prevent patent litigation. Intel paid Nvidia handsomely for the same thing some years ago.

 

[nathanddrews]

I thought the whole licensing rumor was based around Intel's desire to implement FreeSync (AMD's branding for AdaptiveSync).

 

[jpiniero]

I thought the whole licensing rumor was based around Intel's desire to implement FreeSync (AMD's branding for AdaptiveSync).

I don't see why they would need to do so to implement AdaptiveSync. Isn't that the point of JEDEC?

I do think it's true though (they are licensing the GPU tech and not just the patents)

 

[nathanddrews]

I don't see why they would need to do so to implement AdaptiveSync. Isn't that the point of JEDEC?

Yes, but Intel is lazy as hell in regard to graphics and there are no 100% neutral "Adaptive Sync" monitors on the market currently - they are all tailored to AMD's FreeSync implementation. Now with HDMI 2.1 supporting VRR for future displays, maybe it won't matter. In either case, it was all based upon a single comment at IDF and Intel has not pursued Adaptive Sync or FreeSync since that time. Maybe Cannon Lake (whatever comes after Skylake when we get a new IGP).

 

[swilli89]

In the other thread, someone suggested that this was for an Apple contract. An Intel CPU with AMD graphics for Apple.

I can't see why AMD wouldn't want to create a RyZen APU for Apple.

I suppose Apple could have an exclusive deal with Intel for the CPU part, thus allowing AMD to only win the graphics part.

Which I would doubt seeing as Apple will be announcing its totally redesigned Mac Pro tailored for content creation users.. AMD will be offering the most performance available possible with ThreadRipper and Apple always goes for the best.

 

[2is]

If this is just about avoiding litigation for patent breaches, fair enough, but if Intel is going to be copying large parts of AMD's GPU technology, then it is yet another sign of an internal Intel failure.

Intel was supposedly taking graphics far more seriously from Sandy Bridge onwards, so if things were going smoothly within Intel, then they shouldn't be needing to copy a much smaller competitor's technology.

Can't say I agree with this sentiment. If you look at the IGP's from Sandy onward, it's very clear that they have taken IGP seriously. Secondly, if another company can develop something better and/or cheaper, it makes sense to license that technology if it's an option. That's how the world works actually and one of the main concepts behind why countries trade goods and services. It's also why we as consumers pay for goods and services. It's a lot more efficient for me to pay a mechanic to fix my vehicle then to take the time from my own profession to attempt to fix it myself.

 

[formulav8]

Is this even to use AMD designs

It's most likely to have access to AMD's IP only. Intel would then make their own GPU's using AMD's profile instead of Nvidia's as they had been doing these past years..

 

[LTC8K6]

Which I would doubt seeing as Apple will be announcing its totally redesigned Mac Pro tailored for content creation users.. AMD will be offering the most performance available possible with ThreadRipper and Apple always goes for the best.

Zen still seems a little shaky for Apple to adopt.

 

[jpiniero]

If this happens, the whole point would be for Intel to basically outsource GPU development to RTG while basically canning their entire IGP division. With EMIB fast approaching, they wouldn't even need to do anything beyond fusing AMD's die in if they didn't want to do anything further.

 

[maddie]

If this is just about avoiding litigation for patent breaches, fair enough, but if Intel is going to be copying large parts of AMD's GPU technology, then it is yet another sign of an internal Intel failure.

Intel was supposedly taking graphics far more seriously from Sandy Bridge onwards, so if things were going smoothly within Intel, then they shouldn't be needing to copy a much smaller competitor's technology.

What does being a much smaller competitor have to do with the technology? It's either the tech is useful or not. Why reinvent, if you pay less for advancement?

Saw 2is had a similar thoughts.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If this happens, the whole point would be for Intel to basically outsource GPU development to RTG while basically canning their entire IGP division. With EMIB fast approaching, they wouldn't even need to do anything beyond fusing AMD's die in if they didn't want to do anything further.

And that would even give Intel more of a reason to "keep AMD alive" - over and above the anti-trust issues.

 

[darkswordsman17]

They said it was impossible... They said it made absolutely no sense... Dream on they said...

Last couple of times this was brought up here, most people said it made perfect sense, but is likely just about patent licensing.

There still is no proof of this being anything more than that. I still highly doubt that we'll be seeing AMD GPUs on Intel CPU dies, but I think we'll see some interesting things, namely from Apple, where we might see Intel CPU and AMD GPU on interposer or something.

I almost would say we might see Intel adopt Infinity Fabric links (maybe not on the CPU die itself though) to help their CPU and AMD GPUs communicate. But with AMD going full force into HPC with their CPU design, I'm not even sure of that since it seems like it'd be offering up a little too much since AMD has an opportunity to make inroads with their core and thread count advantage, so they'd want to leverage both their CPU and GPU. Perhaps not, or maybe even Intel and AMD will look at it more as a necessary thing to deal with Nvidia in that space. I think that is a key part of the deal is that it's more about both having to deal with Nvidia than competing directly right now.

Another thought that might make sense for Intel and AMD to buddy up on sharing interconnect like Infinity Fabric is that both are basically betting on it being an integral aspect of computing going forward, so getting it shared beyond their own stuff might be key. For AMD it's interchip communication (heterogeneous compute), for Intel it's Optane.

They could even collaborate on mobile. Take an ARM design (maybe tweak it a bit), pair it with a mobile focused GPU, put an Intel modem in it, and then produce it on Intel's fab. Heck maybe they could even make a super efficient ARM competitive x86 core. AMD could sell a cheaper variant that would take up wafers for their GF deal, and then Intel could offer a premium one that maybe has more cores and clocks higher, maybe it is the variant that gets the modem integrated.

That's wild speculation, most likely this is just practical licensing deal, with some potential for further benefit (i.e. Intel pushes for pairing with AMD GPUs, AMD sells more GPUs and gets some money in licensing patents with someone they already have cross licensing deals with).

 

[TheELF]

It's a lot more efficient for me to pay a mechanic to fix my vehicle then to take the time from my own profession to attempt to fix it myself.

Yeah go ask a mechanic to change your truck engine with a jet plane engine...
That's basically what you are thinking will happen,you can't just replace the intel igpu with a amd igpu they aren't interchangeable/compatible modules, a project like that would take years,just take a look at how long amd expected fusion to take to finish and how much later the first apu actually came out,you can't just scotch tape these components together.
Not to mention that qsv is a strong selling point for the mobile market and intel will want to keep that.

 

[2is]

Yeah go ask a mechanic to change your truck engine with a jet plane engine...
That's basically what you are thinking will happen,you can't just replace the intel igpu with a amd igpu they aren't interchangeable/compatible modules, a project like that would take years,just take a look at how long amd expected fusion to take to finish and how much later the first apu actually came out,you can't just scotch tape these components together.
Not to mention that qsv is a strong selling point for the mobile market and intel will want to keep that.

The fact you don't realize projects such as these are in the works for quite some time before we ever find out about them suggests you probably have even less of an idea on what's involved to make it work.