6 ms·

I think, especially considering the news of Qualcomm talking with Intel about acquisition, or just Intel's general problems; we are in the last decade of x86.

by 015a 2y ago

zamadatix 2y ago
Even calling Intel x86 a loss overnight AMD is doing more than fine enough, server and consumer, for x86 to stay with a competitive presence into the 2030s even taking a dim view of the architectures future.
- ywvcbk 2y ago
  Even Intel isn’t doing that bad. Their revenue is still 2x or so higher than AMDs and they are still ahead in the consumer market. Their next gen mobile chips are allegedly already more power efficient than Qualcomm’s meaning that their only remaining advantage might be lower price.
- chithanh 2y ago
  After buying Intel, Qualcomm could sink x86 by simply not renewing the cross-licensing agreement with AMD. With Intel's patents on emulating x86 on other CPU architectures, Qualcomm could then ensure that going forward, the only economically viable way of running x86 code is on Snapdragon CPUs. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel-fires-warning-shots-at-microsoft-claims-x86-emulation-is-a-patent-minefield/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel...
  - johnny22 2y ago
    I gotta feeling that would raise legal issues at time of sale. I don't see that happening.
    - chithanh 2y ago
      You would need the FTC to intervene to stop the acquisition. And currently there is a massive lobbying push by US technology companies to replace Lina Khan with someone who is more merger friendly. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-06/kamala-harris-donors-privately-want-ftc-s-lina-khan-sec-s-gary-gensler-removed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-06/kamala-ha... (non-paywall archive link: https://archive.md/PhHhU https://archive.md/PhHhU )
      - zamadatix 2y ago
        The FTC isn't the only one that can intervene:. Qualcomm (US based) and NXP (Dutch based) blocked by China: https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/qualcomm-ends-44-billion-nxp-bid-after-failing-to-win-china-approval-idUSKBN1KF18X/ https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/qualcomm-ends-44-... Microsoft (US based) and Activision Blizzard (US Based) blocked by UK: https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/22/microsoft-activision-uk-cma-new-probe/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/22/microsoft-activision-uk-cm... These are far from the only examples but they come to mind immediately.
        chithanh 2y ago
        China is busy replacing imported CPUs with domestically produced ones on a massive scale. Qualcomm's China business is at risk of collapse anyway. I don't think the Chinese will be interested nor able to buy Intel and AMD x86 chips for much longer either. My guess is that Qualcomm can placate them by promising to leave Zhaoxin alone (legally binding of course). UK CMA folded extremely quickly after FTC lost their lawsuit. Microsoft had already communicated that they would withdraw Activision Blizzard products from the UK in case the deal were continued to be blocked. The EU is a bit of a question mark, but blocking the FTC approved merger of two US companies could be seen as too costly politically.
        zamadatix 2y ago
        Merging the two threads for simplicity - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41631935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41631935
  - michaelt 2y ago
    In the early days of 64-bit, Intel put all of their resources into 'itanium' and it was AMD that created 'x86-64' I doubt Intel would back out of the cross-licensing agreement that lets them implement x86-64.
    - chithanh 2y ago
      Intel certainly would not. Qualcomm as the new owner of Intel, trying to extract maximum profit out of their IP, possibly. Think of when Oracle bought Sun Microsystems.
      - zamadatix 2y ago
        Qualcomm would certainly not either, x86-64 is what they want to emulate with ARM... otherwise you're saying their only interest in purchasing Intel is to completely shut its main business down to reduce competition by producing neither x86 chips nor emulating them... which, apart from being extremely unlikely, would trigger even the most laid back of regulatory environments. Doubly so after already receiving over a billion in antitrust fines in 2009 for simply being "unfair" about the agreement, not even outright removing it. Not to mention the cross-licensing deal between Intel and AMD also includes x86 patents from both sides anyways (your original article doesn't reference this as it's about Intel and Microsoft, not Intel and AMD).
        chithanh 2y ago
        In the scenario that I am envisioning, Qualcomm will be indifferent to Intel products, the only focus being to extract the maximum money out of their purchase. Oracle did the same, and nearly all Sun products are now dead or a shadow of their former selves. Plus Oracle narrowly missed the Jackpot in Oracle v. Google. > Doubly so after already receiving over a billion in antitrust fines in 2009 for simply being "unfair" about the agreement, not even outright removing it. Intel continued their unfair business practices, particularly in their compiler. If you wonder why Intel CPUs didn't move up from declaring CPUID Family 6 until now, that is why. More recently there was the MKL scandal. No antitrust authority was interested in either. > Not to mention the cross-licensing deal between Intel and AMD also includes x86 patents from both sides anyways The AMD-Intel cross-licensing agreement will need to be renewed when Qualcomm buys Intel, because it has a termination clause in case of ownership change. The companies can continue to sell existing products, but new products would need a new patent deal. But Qualcomm won't be interested if they can just sell their Snapdragon CPUs to former x86 customers, who have no other choice because of Intel's patents on emulating the newer x86 instructions.
  - cesarb 2y ago
    > With Intel's patents on emulating x86 on other CPU architectures, AMD released the x86-64 documentation more than 20 years ago; any patents on that (which includes SSE2) would have already expired by now.
    - chithanh 2y ago
      Yes, you could emulate an x86-64 CPU with SSE2 (aka x86-64-v1), but that is no longer sufficient for lots of modern x86 code. Windows 11 wants SSE4.2 at least or else it won't even boot. As Arstechnica wrote, Intel specifically warned that they hold patents on emulating the more recent instruction sets.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

I think, especially considering the news of Qualcomm talking with Intel about acquisition, or just Intel's general problems; we are in the last decade of x86.

by 015a 2y ago

I think, especially considering the news of Qualcomm talking with Intel about acquisition, or just Intel's general problems; we are in the last decade of x86.

zamadatix 2y ago

Even calling Intel x86 a loss overnight AMD is doing more than fine enough, server and consumer, for x86 to stay with a competitive presence into the 2030s even taking a dim view of the architectures future.

ywvcbk 2y ago
Even Intel isn’t doing that bad. Their revenue is still 2x or so higher than AMDs and they are still ahead in the consumer market. Their next gen mobile chips are allegedly already more power efficient than Qualcomm’s meaning that their only remaining advantage might be lower price.
chithanh 2y ago
After buying Intel, Qualcomm could sink x86 by simply not renewing the cross-licensing agreement with AMD. With Intel's patents on emulating x86 on other CPU architectures, Qualcomm could then ensure that going forward, the only economically viable way of running x86 code is on Snapdragon CPUs. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel-fires-warning-shots-at-microsoft-claims-x86-emulation-is-a-patent-minefield/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel...
- johnny22 2y ago
  I gotta feeling that would raise legal issues at time of sale. I don't see that happening.
  - chithanh 2y ago
    You would need the FTC to intervene to stop the acquisition. And currently there is a massive lobbying push by US technology companies to replace Lina Khan with someone who is more merger friendly. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-06/kamala-harris-donors-privately-want-ftc-s-lina-khan-sec-s-gary-gensler-removed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-06/kamala-ha... (non-paywall archive link: https://archive.md/PhHhU https://archive.md/PhHhU )
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      The FTC isn't the only one that can intervene:. Qualcomm (US based) and NXP (Dutch based) blocked by China: https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/qualcomm-ends-44-billion-nxp-bid-after-failing-to-win-china-approval-idUSKBN1KF18X/ https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/qualcomm-ends-44-... Microsoft (US based) and Activision Blizzard (US Based) blocked by UK: https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/22/microsoft-activision-uk-cma-new-probe/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/22/microsoft-activision-uk-cm... These are far from the only examples but they come to mind immediately.
      - chithanh 2y ago
        China is busy replacing imported CPUs with domestically produced ones on a massive scale. Qualcomm's China business is at risk of collapse anyway. I don't think the Chinese will be interested nor able to buy Intel and AMD x86 chips for much longer either. My guess is that Qualcomm can placate them by promising to leave Zhaoxin alone (legally binding of course). UK CMA folded extremely quickly after FTC lost their lawsuit. Microsoft had already communicated that they would withdraw Activision Blizzard products from the UK in case the deal were continued to be blocked. The EU is a bit of a question mark, but blocking the FTC approved merger of two US companies could be seen as too costly politically.
        zamadatix 2y ago
        Merging the two threads for simplicity - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41631935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41631935
- michaelt 2y ago
  In the early days of 64-bit, Intel put all of their resources into 'itanium' and it was AMD that created 'x86-64' I doubt Intel would back out of the cross-licensing agreement that lets them implement x86-64.
  - chithanh 2y ago
    Intel certainly would not. Qualcomm as the new owner of Intel, trying to extract maximum profit out of their IP, possibly. Think of when Oracle bought Sun Microsystems.
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      Qualcomm would certainly not either, x86-64 is what they want to emulate with ARM... otherwise you're saying their only interest in purchasing Intel is to completely shut its main business down to reduce competition by producing neither x86 chips nor emulating them... which, apart from being extremely unlikely, would trigger even the most laid back of regulatory environments. Doubly so after already receiving over a billion in antitrust fines in 2009 for simply being "unfair" about the agreement, not even outright removing it. Not to mention the cross-licensing deal between Intel and AMD also includes x86 patents from both sides anyways (your original article doesn't reference this as it's about Intel and Microsoft, not Intel and AMD).
      - chithanh 2y ago
        In the scenario that I am envisioning, Qualcomm will be indifferent to Intel products, the only focus being to extract the maximum money out of their purchase. Oracle did the same, and nearly all Sun products are now dead or a shadow of their former selves. Plus Oracle narrowly missed the Jackpot in Oracle v. Google. > Doubly so after already receiving over a billion in antitrust fines in 2009 for simply being "unfair" about the agreement, not even outright removing it. Intel continued their unfair business practices, particularly in their compiler. If you wonder why Intel CPUs didn't move up from declaring CPUID Family 6 until now, that is why. More recently there was the MKL scandal. No antitrust authority was interested in either. > Not to mention the cross-licensing deal between Intel and AMD also includes x86 patents from both sides anyways The AMD-Intel cross-licensing agreement will need to be renewed when Qualcomm buys Intel, because it has a termination clause in case of ownership change. The companies can continue to sell existing products, but new products would need a new patent deal. But Qualcomm won't be interested if they can just sell their Snapdragon CPUs to former x86 customers, who have no other choice because of Intel's patents on emulating the newer x86 instructions.
- cesarb 2y ago
  > With Intel's patents on emulating x86 on other CPU architectures, AMD released the x86-64 documentation more than 20 years ago; any patents on that (which includes SSE2) would have already expired by now.
  - chithanh 2y ago
    Yes, you could emulate an x86-64 CPU with SSE2 (aka x86-64-v1), but that is no longer sufficient for lots of modern x86 code. Windows 11 wants SSE4.2 at least or else it won't even boot. As Arstechnica wrote, Intel specifically warned that they hold patents on emulating the more recent instruction sets.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]