6 ms·

Actually AMD owns the x86-64 instruction set and licenses it to Intel in return for the x86 license. Also doesn't Intel also make GPUs?

zanny 14y ago
They made GPUs, and they are getting back into it, but any review of the hd 4000 graphics vs anything from the Trinity line reinforces that Intel is still way behind in the graphics front. They are saying Haswell will be an improvement, but AMD has the architecture cohesion to be able to pair discrete and integrated cards in their hybrid crossfire x, and they just have a decades worth of gpu experience from the ATI acquisition, that they are better positioned to exploit heterogeneous cores. Same way Nvidia Tegra in the mobile world is a gaming / video powerhouse because the gpu is so strong. Also, x86-64 was / is a specification extension by AMD, not an instruction set, so I don't think Intel licenses it. They even spent a few years calling them AMD 64 and Intel 64 even though they were written to the same spec. AMD still licenses x86 from Intel though. It is like how SSE and other instruction set extensions are not cross licensed between the two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64#History_of_Intel_64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64#History_of_Intel_64
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  I don't know how you reached the conclusion that AMD is doing really well in graphics and the 7000 series "crushed" NVidia's 600 series. Aside from numerous inaccuracies in your analysis (for example, the 600 series was released three months after the 7000 series, not six - March 22nd 2012 vs December 22nd 2011), in most benchmarks Nvidia fared really well against AMD with equal framerates and lower power consumption/temperatures.
  - zanny 14y ago
    The 680 came out really quick, but was pretty much out of stock for about 2 months after it came out consistently. But I'm talking more about the 77xx vs the 66x lines, which are the most mainstream discrete cards in the series, where the 77xx came out in February and the 66x cards came out in August. So about 6 months. For all the hype around the 7970 vs 680, in the end the vast majority of their OEM card sales will be with less expensive hardware, which is why I think AMD "won" even if the 600 cards give better FPS for lower power usage in video games. They just basically controlled the market for mid-range cards for almost half the year, and by the price cuts they have been making they have been making a really sizable profit off sales until Nvidia brings out a competitor. I just want to mention I'm not an AMD fanboy - I have an i7 920 and a gtx 285 right now. My "last" build was around 2006 and was an Athlon x2 with a 1950.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  The market for computing devices has shifted. Desktop devices aren't as useful as mobile devices, which also use less energy to achieve the same goal. Consumers will leave behind companies which aren't making compelling mobile devices. Intel makes SSDs too. Intel made chipsets and wifi chips for centrino in the past. I think Intel has made every major internal PC component, just not all at the same time. Now, they're getting into ARM chips and fighting to put x86 into mobile. Likewise, nVidia has made nForce chipsets and other major PC components. And doesn't the Tegra also do general-purpose processing? Either way, they're becoming entrenched in mobile devices more firmly than Intel. AMD is better positioned to come up with a unified product, but after 10 years of fanboying for both brands, I'm still not convinced that their merger made any sense. A unified product could have been made from a technical partnership, without having to merge the companies. I haven't seen a compelling product since the merger. I haven't even seen a roadmap for a mobile device component. The AMD/ATI merger seemed only to happen because both companies were based in Canada. At this point, it only makes sense for AMD to swallow RIM, another Canadian company -- at least that way ATI would be a mobile device manufacturer.

zanny 14y ago

They made GPUs, and they are getting back into it, but any review of the hd 4000 graphics vs anything from the Trinity line reinforces that Intel is still way behind in the graphics front. They are saying Haswell will be an improvement, but AMD has the architecture cohesion to be able to pair discrete and integrated cards in their hybrid crossfire x, and they just have a decades worth of gpu experience from the ATI acquisition, that they are better positioned to exploit heterogeneous cores. Same way Nvidia Tegra in the mobile world is a gaming / video powerhouse because the gpu is so strong. Also, x86-64 was / is a specification extension by AMD, not an instruction set, so I don't think Intel licenses it. They even spent a few years calling them AMD 64 and Intel 64 even though they were written to the same spec. AMD still licenses x86 from Intel though. It is like how SSE and other instruction set extensions are not cross licensed between the two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64#History_of_Intel_64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64#History_of_Intel_64

enraged_camel 14y ago
I don't know how you reached the conclusion that AMD is doing really well in graphics and the 7000 series "crushed" NVidia's 600 series. Aside from numerous inaccuracies in your analysis (for example, the 600 series was released three months after the 7000 series, not six - March 22nd 2012 vs December 22nd 2011), in most benchmarks Nvidia fared really well against AMD with equal framerates and lower power consumption/temperatures.
- zanny 14y ago
  The 680 came out really quick, but was pretty much out of stock for about 2 months after it came out consistently. But I'm talking more about the 77xx vs the 66x lines, which are the most mainstream discrete cards in the series, where the 77xx came out in February and the 66x cards came out in August. So about 6 months. For all the hype around the 7970 vs 680, in the end the vast majority of their OEM card sales will be with less expensive hardware, which is why I think AMD "won" even if the 600 cards give better FPS for lower power usage in video games. They just basically controlled the market for mid-range cards for almost half the year, and by the price cuts they have been making they have been making a really sizable profit off sales until Nvidia brings out a competitor. I just want to mention I'm not an AMD fanboy - I have an i7 920 and a gtx 285 right now. My "last" build was around 2006 and was an Athlon x2 with a 1950.
stephengillie 14y ago
The market for computing devices has shifted. Desktop devices aren't as useful as mobile devices, which also use less energy to achieve the same goal. Consumers will leave behind companies which aren't making compelling mobile devices. Intel makes SSDs too. Intel made chipsets and wifi chips for centrino in the past. I think Intel has made every major internal PC component, just not all at the same time. Now, they're getting into ARM chips and fighting to put x86 into mobile. Likewise, nVidia has made nForce chipsets and other major PC components. And doesn't the Tegra also do general-purpose processing? Either way, they're becoming entrenched in mobile devices more firmly than Intel. AMD is better positioned to come up with a unified product, but after 10 years of fanboying for both brands, I'm still not convinced that their merger made any sense. A unified product could have been made from a technical partnership, without having to merge the companies. I haven't seen a compelling product since the merger. I haven't even seen a roadmap for a mobile device component. The AMD/ATI merger seemed only to happen because both companies were based in Canada. At this point, it only makes sense for AMD to swallow RIM, another Canadian company -- at least that way ATI would be a mobile device manufacturer.