4 ms·

I wonder what the market effect will be if AMD exits the picture entirely. Once Intel has near-total market share for PC chips, wouldn't they become a prime an

I wonder what the market effect will be if AMD exits the picture entirely. Once Intel has near-total market share for PC chips, wouldn't they become a prime antitrust target?

dlevine 14y ago
I think that ARM-based chips will probably have significant market share by the time AMD exits completely.
freehunter 14y ago
The question would be, would Intel be guilty of anything with AMD out of the picture that they are not guilty of now? Being the only player in the market is not illegal, the illegality is in keeping others out. If Intel didn't continuously crush upstarts, they should be fine. I guess a question would be, would Intel be found guilty of illegally causing the demise of AMD?
- usea 14y ago
  I guess a question would be, would Intel be found guilty of illegally causing the demise of AMD? I don't think so. However it's worth mentioning that Intel certainly acted in anti-competitive ways to severely damage AMD's ability to gain marketshare.[1] The suit was eventually settled though, with Intel paying AMD a huge sum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel
asdf333 14y ago
ARM processors are starting to move up into the higher end as well, like servers. On an energy/computation basis they make more sense than x86 processors right now. The only issue is that software needs to be optimized for ARM processors but if the savings are there, this will happen pretty quickly. So I'd actually be worried for Intel as well. Not just AMD.
- ajross 14y ago
  There are certainly no server platforms that "make more sense" on a power/performance metric "right now". There are a few startups hawking their upcoming wares out there, but nothing I can buy with a credit card. And in any case at the very high end power/performance is still owned by Intel boxes (check the current record holders on Joulesort, for example).
- iyulaev 14y ago
  >> On an energy/computation basis they make more sense than x86 processors right now. Does anyone have ANY numbers that back this up? I've heard this refrain many many times but I've never seen any hard numbers to prove this. On a processor-per-processor basis sure an ARM SoC beats a Intel Xeon. But flop or dhrystone, x86s destroy ARM processors. In a virtualized world, where the number of real systems doesn't have to match the number of servers, x86 still appears to hold the lead.
  - cmccabe 14y ago
    ARM cores tend to be more power efficient for three main reasons: they operate at a lower clock frequency, they don't have the CISC legacy baggage, and the low-level software guys have spent a lot more time on power management than on x86. It has to do with the evolutionary heritage of both systems. Most x86 systems are still sold to individuals or small businesses that will plug them into the wall and forget about power dissipation. A typical x86 desktop machine will draw between 300-500 watts. ARM evolved more for the cell phone and tablet market, and typical power consumption for one of those systems would be under 5 watts.
    - jrabone 14y ago
      A typical x86 desktop machine will draw between 300-500 watts. With a beefy GPU, perhaps. The new i3 3220T CPU is only 30W MAX TDP, flat out - a typical (ie. non-gamer) rig is looking more like 150W max, and a lot less idle (20W should be possible). Not 5W, but nowhere near 500W.
      - 14y ago
marshray 14y ago
AMD has been second-sourcing Intel CPUs since the 1980's, and I've been hearing "how will AMD survive now?" for just as long. Having a second source for strategic parts was said to be a requirement for US government/military procurement. My guess is that if AMD is really on the ropes, they'll get a DoE contract for a new supercomputer or three to hold them over for a while longer.
zanny 14y ago
The only reason Intel would be even close to anti-trust worthy is because they use their own fab tech that they keep ahead of the competition to make their processors hard to beat. And it isn't even really their fault that they are building new fab plants a year ahead of anyone else. It would seem wrong to me to force Intel to sell off yields on the market from their own plants if they don't want to, but that is the major reason they always dominate the pc space (besides the fact most software is for x86 and they license the architecture, but I don't really buy that anymore - hardware virtualization has come a long way, and I can pretty effectively emulate x86 on ARM under qemu with binary address translation and hardware instructions supporting it, which every major architecture now has).

I wonder what the market effect will be if AMD exits the picture entirely. Once Intel has near-total market share for PC chips, wouldn't they become a prime antitrust target?

dlevine 14y ago

I think that ARM-based chips will probably have significant market share by the time AMD exits completely.

freehunter 14y ago

The question would be, would Intel be guilty of anything with AMD out of the picture that they are not guilty of now? Being the only player in the market is not illegal, the illegality is in keeping others out. If Intel didn't continuously crush upstarts, they should be fine. I guess a question would be, would Intel be found guilty of illegally causing the demise of AMD?

usea 14y ago
I guess a question would be, would Intel be found guilty of illegally causing the demise of AMD? I don't think so. However it's worth mentioning that Intel certainly acted in anti-competitive ways to severely damage AMD's ability to gain marketshare.[1] The suit was eventually settled though, with Intel paying AMD a huge sum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel

asdf333 14y ago

ARM processors are starting to move up into the higher end as well, like servers. On an energy/computation basis they make more sense than x86 processors right now. The only issue is that software needs to be optimized for ARM processors but if the savings are there, this will happen pretty quickly. So I'd actually be worried for Intel as well. Not just AMD.

ajross 14y ago
There are certainly no server platforms that "make more sense" on a power/performance metric "right now". There are a few startups hawking their upcoming wares out there, but nothing I can buy with a credit card. And in any case at the very high end power/performance is still owned by Intel boxes (check the current record holders on Joulesort, for example).
iyulaev 14y ago
>> On an energy/computation basis they make more sense than x86 processors right now. Does anyone have ANY numbers that back this up? I've heard this refrain many many times but I've never seen any hard numbers to prove this. On a processor-per-processor basis sure an ARM SoC beats a Intel Xeon. But flop or dhrystone, x86s destroy ARM processors. In a virtualized world, where the number of real systems doesn't have to match the number of servers, x86 still appears to hold the lead.
- cmccabe 14y ago
  ARM cores tend to be more power efficient for three main reasons: they operate at a lower clock frequency, they don't have the CISC legacy baggage, and the low-level software guys have spent a lot more time on power management than on x86. It has to do with the evolutionary heritage of both systems. Most x86 systems are still sold to individuals or small businesses that will plug them into the wall and forget about power dissipation. A typical x86 desktop machine will draw between 300-500 watts. ARM evolved more for the cell phone and tablet market, and typical power consumption for one of those systems would be under 5 watts.
  - jrabone 14y ago
    A typical x86 desktop machine will draw between 300-500 watts. With a beefy GPU, perhaps. The new i3 3220T CPU is only 30W MAX TDP, flat out - a typical (ie. non-gamer) rig is looking more like 150W max, and a lot less idle (20W should be possible). Not 5W, but nowhere near 500W.
    - 14y ago

marshray 14y ago

AMD has been second-sourcing Intel CPUs since the 1980's, and I've been hearing "how will AMD survive now?" for just as long. Having a second source for strategic parts was said to be a requirement for US government/military procurement. My guess is that if AMD is really on the ropes, they'll get a DoE contract for a new supercomputer or three to hold them over for a while longer.

zanny 14y ago

The only reason Intel would be even close to anti-trust worthy is because they use their own fab tech that they keep ahead of the competition to make their processors hard to beat. And it isn't even really their fault that they are building new fab plants a year ahead of anyone else. It would seem wrong to me to force Intel to sell off yields on the market from their own plants if they don't want to, but that is the major reason they always dominate the pc space (besides the fact most software is for x86 and they license the architecture, but I don't really buy that anymore - hardware virtualization has come a long way, and I can pretty effectively emulate x86 on ARM under qemu with binary address translation and hardware instructions supporting it, which every major architecture now has).