7 ms·

This seems like a lose lose and a net negative for everyone. 1) AMD must be preventing Intel from in future building similar integrated GPUs using anything lik

This seems like a lose lose and a net negative for everyone. 1) AMD must be preventing Intel from in future building similar integrated GPUs using anything like AMDs patent portfolio in GFX. 2) Intel will be able to 100% push out any vendors from moving to Ryzen for presumably faster integrated graphics. 3) Nvidia doesn't have an x86 CPU and last time I looked - all PCs and Mac laptops were using x86. As some have speculated maybe this is Apple telling their suppliers to jump and Intel and AMD said how high... I'm going to be interested to see if we ever get a jump to Apple using ARM and internally designed GPUs, I have a feeling that Jonny Ive must be wetting himself over making a reasonably powerful laptop that thin.

walshemj 9y ago
Depends for some massively parallel applications workstations etch threadripper has the edge on price performancem even more so if they bring out ThreadRipper 2 next year and replace the two dummy cores
saas_co_de 9y ago
No, I think it is win-win. 1) AMD can sell chips in high end systems where it can't compete with Intel on CPUs or Nvidia on GPUs. 2) Intel can ship a high end graphics experience without dGPU which gets them a level of graphics in a form factor they couldn't otherwise achieve. 3) Ryzen is a low/mid range chip. Even if it could match Intel's performance it could never match Intel's brand, and Intel doesn't want to match AMDs price so they will stay in different market segments. Ryzen sales will not be hurt. 4) AMD gets valuable brand recognition by getting Radeon into more premium devices which could actually boost sales for cheaper Ryzen/Radeon devices down the line. 5) Shafts Nvidia which is a win for both sides. 6) Opens lines of communication for possible future merger or fab deal, which is not so much an issue from an anti-trust standpoint when you look at the total competitive landscape of ARM, Nvidia, Apple, Qualcomm, etc and the shrinking relevance of x86 in the big picture.
- robert_foss 9y ago
  1) Intel does not ship GPUs on high-end CPUs.
- DeepYogurt 9y ago
  I am deeply curious about point 6. If intel bought amd I think it would lead to a massive change in how systems are built. I know there's the danger of a full x86 monopoly, but nvidia has a lot of pressure on intel at the high end and if the windows arm thing ever takes off I'm sure nvidia will have a laptop chip out in no time. If there is a merger, I hope this will make a lot of AMD dream projects like the HPC APU take off, but I also fear that it might lead to a more stagnant intel+amd in a few years time.
  - mjevans 9y ago
    They could never do a merger for anti-trust and dual sourcing concerns... Having said that, it MIGHT open up the potential for AMD running (some, all?) chips through Intel's fabs and actually enabling a nearly competitive playing field. The best thing that the (US) government could do for the market would actually be to force Intel to split in to a fabrication company and a chip design company. That would enable the military to contract fabrication of higher-end validated CPUs on US soil from whichever sources they wanted...
- sambe 9y ago
  Regarding 3): most benchmarks I've seen quote 2-7% difference in IPC to Intel. I wouldn't call that low/mid-range. Am I misunderstanding something?
  - ferongr 9y ago
    Clocks matter too.
  - fgonzag 9y ago
    10% IPC advantage compounded with up to 20% higher clock speeds in top of the line Desktop CPUs (when OCed at least)
    - sambe 9y ago
      I don't think OC is a fair baseline to qualitatively distinguish between CPU classes (at least low/mid vs high-end). OC is surely a large factor in purchasing decisions for a subset of high-end users, but not all.
      - fgonzag 9y ago
        I was talking max OC on R7 (4.0 - 4.1) vs max OC (5.0-5.1) on i7-7th gen though. Which is a good indicator of the max clocks each platform can get.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    From the parent: "Even if it could match Intel's performance it could never match Intel's brand".
    - dahauns 9y ago
      Not with that attitude. (i.e. argued that way this would be more like "setting up for failure" on AMDs part.)
      - saas_co_de 9y ago
- nerpderp83 9y ago
  How is this not duopoly collusion to push out Nvidia? Smells just like 'competing gas stations' on opposite corners with the same exact prices. AMD can be Aldi, Intel can be Whole Foods.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    What Whole Foods are you shopping at that's as cheap as Aldi??!
dahauns 9y ago
>As some have speculated maybe this is Apple telling their suppliers to jump and Intel and AMD said how high... That sounds a bit far fetched IMO. They aren't that dominant in the PC market (esp. compared to the Big Three (Lenovo, HP, Dell)) for Intel and AMD to warrant such an "out there" cooperation just at the behest of Apple...
- selectodude 9y ago
  Lenovo/HP/Dell might sell more units, but every single Apple product has a high end i5/i7 or extreme low power part in it. The margins for Intel are likely an order of magnitude higher from Apple than Dell.
  - dahauns 9y ago
    I think you overestimate the heft of Apple in x86 world. a) Sure, Apple doesn't have a low end and as such higher overall margins, but: The Big Three all have a sizable mid-/highend/ultrabook/business range as well with just the same i5/i7/core m CPUs (only updated more often). Apple surely is a good customer, but I severely doubt that the overall margin difference for Intel between them and Apple is even in the remote vicinity of an order of magnitude. What is an o.o.m. higher though is the market share of those three (~60% vs ~6%). b) I just don't see a bargaining chip. What's the "or else" from Apple's side? Full Ryzen? Would actually be cool, but Ryzen is still completely unproven in the mobile world, and this would be all the more reason for AMD not to enter the deal. ARM? Yeah...I wouldn't hold my breath. You have to consider that this isn't a simple internal SKU customizing, but a significant and delicate licensing deal with THE direct competitor in x86 world. (The tech is actually the simpler part, seeing that it's not an integrated solution but a MCM.) Apple would have to have severe leverage that they would be the main driver for Intel for such a move. Or they are paying a real buttload for this tech - but then you can be sure they want exclusivity. And the statement really doesn't sound like it.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Don't almost all apple's use the mobile versions with only the Pro using HDET parts
fleetfox 9y ago
Isn't Apple market-share of x86 tiny?
- bonzini 9y ago
  About 4%.
zerohp 9y ago
Regarding 3. It's rumored in the chip design community that NVidia designed an x86 CPU and got as far as engineering sample silicon but the project was cancelled because they couldn't work out the licensing.

walshemj 9y ago

Depends for some massively parallel applications workstations etch threadripper has the edge on price performancem even more so if they bring out ThreadRipper 2 next year and replace the two dummy cores

saas_co_de 9y ago

No, I think it is win-win. 1) AMD can sell chips in high end systems where it can't compete with Intel on CPUs or Nvidia on GPUs. 2) Intel can ship a high end graphics experience without dGPU which gets them a level of graphics in a form factor they couldn't otherwise achieve. 3) Ryzen is a low/mid range chip. Even if it could match Intel's performance it could never match Intel's brand, and Intel doesn't want to match AMDs price so they will stay in different market segments. Ryzen sales will not be hurt. 4) AMD gets valuable brand recognition by getting Radeon into more premium devices which could actually boost sales for cheaper Ryzen/Radeon devices down the line. 5) Shafts Nvidia which is a win for both sides. 6) Opens lines of communication for possible future merger or fab deal, which is not so much an issue from an anti-trust standpoint when you look at the total competitive landscape of ARM, Nvidia, Apple, Qualcomm, etc and the shrinking relevance of x86 in the big picture.

robert_foss 9y ago
1) Intel does not ship GPUs on high-end CPUs.
DeepYogurt 9y ago
I am deeply curious about point 6. If intel bought amd I think it would lead to a massive change in how systems are built. I know there's the danger of a full x86 monopoly, but nvidia has a lot of pressure on intel at the high end and if the windows arm thing ever takes off I'm sure nvidia will have a laptop chip out in no time. If there is a merger, I hope this will make a lot of AMD dream projects like the HPC APU take off, but I also fear that it might lead to a more stagnant intel+amd in a few years time.
- mjevans 9y ago
  They could never do a merger for anti-trust and dual sourcing concerns... Having said that, it MIGHT open up the potential for AMD running (some, all?) chips through Intel's fabs and actually enabling a nearly competitive playing field. The best thing that the (US) government could do for the market would actually be to force Intel to split in to a fabrication company and a chip design company. That would enable the military to contract fabrication of higher-end validated CPUs on US soil from whichever sources they wanted...
sambe 9y ago
Regarding 3): most benchmarks I've seen quote 2-7% difference in IPC to Intel. I wouldn't call that low/mid-range. Am I misunderstanding something?
- ferongr 9y ago
  Clocks matter too.
- fgonzag 9y ago
  10% IPC advantage compounded with up to 20% higher clock speeds in top of the line Desktop CPUs (when OCed at least)
  - sambe 9y ago
    I don't think OC is a fair baseline to qualitatively distinguish between CPU classes (at least low/mid vs high-end). OC is surely a large factor in purchasing decisions for a subset of high-end users, but not all.
    - fgonzag 9y ago
      I was talking max OC on R7 (4.0 - 4.1) vs max OC (5.0-5.1) on i7-7th gen though. Which is a good indicator of the max clocks each platform can get.
- coldtea 9y ago
  From the parent: "Even if it could match Intel's performance it could never match Intel's brand".
  - dahauns 9y ago
    Not with that attitude. (i.e. argued that way this would be more like "setting up for failure" on AMDs part.)
    - saas_co_de 9y ago
nerpderp83 9y ago
How is this not duopoly collusion to push out Nvidia? Smells just like 'competing gas stations' on opposite corners with the same exact prices. AMD can be Aldi, Intel can be Whole Foods.
- jrs95 9y ago
  What Whole Foods are you shopping at that's as cheap as Aldi??!

dahauns 9y ago

>As some have speculated maybe this is Apple telling their suppliers to jump and Intel and AMD said how high... That sounds a bit far fetched IMO. They aren't that dominant in the PC market (esp. compared to the Big Three (Lenovo, HP, Dell)) for Intel and AMD to warrant such an "out there" cooperation just at the behest of Apple...

selectodude 9y ago
Lenovo/HP/Dell might sell more units, but every single Apple product has a high end i5/i7 or extreme low power part in it. The margins for Intel are likely an order of magnitude higher from Apple than Dell.
- dahauns 9y ago
  I think you overestimate the heft of Apple in x86 world. a) Sure, Apple doesn't have a low end and as such higher overall margins, but: The Big Three all have a sizable mid-/highend/ultrabook/business range as well with just the same i5/i7/core m CPUs (only updated more often). Apple surely is a good customer, but I severely doubt that the overall margin difference for Intel between them and Apple is even in the remote vicinity of an order of magnitude. What is an o.o.m. higher though is the market share of those three (~60% vs ~6%). b) I just don't see a bargaining chip. What's the "or else" from Apple's side? Full Ryzen? Would actually be cool, but Ryzen is still completely unproven in the mobile world, and this would be all the more reason for AMD not to enter the deal. ARM? Yeah...I wouldn't hold my breath. You have to consider that this isn't a simple internal SKU customizing, but a significant and delicate licensing deal with THE direct competitor in x86 world. (The tech is actually the simpler part, seeing that it's not an integrated solution but a MCM.) Apple would have to have severe leverage that they would be the main driver for Intel for such a move. Or they are paying a real buttload for this tech - but then you can be sure they want exclusivity. And the statement really doesn't sound like it.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Don't almost all apple's use the mobile versions with only the Pro using HDET parts

fleetfox 9y ago

Isn't Apple market-share of x86 tiny?

bonzini 9y ago
About 4%.

zerohp 9y ago

Regarding 3. It's rumored in the chip design community that NVidia designed an x86 CPU and got as far as engineering sample silicon but the project was cancelled because they couldn't work out the licensing.