4 ms·

AMD and Intel used to compete. It appeared neck-and-neck at times. Now AMD has 1.1% of the market cap of Intel. And that's with AMD also competing with Nvidia o

by ant6n 12y ago

AMD and Intel used to compete. It appeared neck-and-neck at times. Now AMD has 1.1% of the market cap of Intel. And that's with AMD also competing with Nvidia on graphics. Ouch.

frik 12y ago
Both current gen consoles are based on AMD hardware (APU aka CPU+GPU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit ). "PlayStation 4 features an AMD x86-64 Accelerated Processing Unit, in hopes of attracting a broader range of developers and support for the system. The PlayStation 4's GPU can perform 1.843 teraflops. Sony calls the PlayStation 4 'the world's most powerful console'." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4 "The console [XBoxOne] features an AMD processor built around the x86-64 instruction set." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_One http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_One
- rsynnott 12y ago
  Both previous-gen ones had consumer-level PowerPC processors made by IBM, a product category which no longer even exists, so I wouldn't put too much importance on that.
- theandrewbailey 12y ago
  By extension, all current gen consoles have AMD GPUs, and two of the last gen ones had ATI GPUs. I have no clue how much royalties/licensing fees that gives them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latte_%28graphics_chip%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latte_%28graphics_chip%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_%28graphics_chip%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_%28graphics_chip%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_%28graphics_chip%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_%28graphics_chip%29
aharrison 12y ago
I remembered there was an antitrust lawsuit between AMD and Intel, but hadn't heard how it resolved. Turns out Intel paid 1.25 billion to settle it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v..... A quick google search fails to bring up the original suit text, but from what I recall it was pretty scathing. I hope that cash infusion is at the root of this announcement and AMD can get back in the game.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Unfortunately with antitrust lawsuits, they usually happen too late to stop the damage from being done, as we're seeing in this case and as we've seen with Microsoft and IE. The way this could be solved without "abusing" antitrust power too much is by looking for "anticompetitive behavior" before companies actually get 90%+ market share in a market. At that point it's obviously too late, and with heavy lobbying-influenced politicians and institutions today, the punishment is unlikely to fit the crime, too, and the monopolists will only get a slap on the wrist and get to keep their monopoly (which makes the crime all worth it). Example of anticompetitive behavior: Microsoft not allowing other browsers to be installed on the Windows mobile platform. It doesn't matter Windows mobile only has 3% market share. Why wait until they get 90% market share (again) to do anything about that awful and anticompetitive policy? Same goes with Apple which doesn't allow other companies to compete with its "core apps". Why would you ever let something like that happen? It should be quashed from moment zero. Not to mention Apple already has a very strong position in the mobile market (especially in the US), but that should be beside the point.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  What I always wonder is, what is market dominance worth? Intel has $50B/year in revenue, net income of $10B/year. So they paid about one month's profit as a penalty for strategies that helped them dominate the market for years. Which makes me wonder if anti-competitive practices start to look, even in spite of possible litigation, financially prudent.

by ant6n 12y ago

AMD and Intel used to compete. It appeared neck-and-neck at times. Now AMD has 1.1% of the market cap of Intel. And that's with AMD also competing with Nvidia on graphics. Ouch.

frik 12y ago

Both current gen consoles are based on AMD hardware (APU aka CPU+GPU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit ). "PlayStation 4 features an AMD x86-64 Accelerated Processing Unit, in hopes of attracting a broader range of developers and support for the system. The PlayStation 4's GPU can perform 1.843 teraflops. Sony calls the PlayStation 4 'the world's most powerful console'." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4 "The console [XBoxOne] features an AMD processor built around the x86-64 instruction set." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_One http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_One

rsynnott 12y ago
Both previous-gen ones had consumer-level PowerPC processors made by IBM, a product category which no longer even exists, so I wouldn't put too much importance on that.
theandrewbailey 12y ago
By extension, all current gen consoles have AMD GPUs, and two of the last gen ones had ATI GPUs. I have no clue how much royalties/licensing fees that gives them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latte_%28graphics_chip%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latte_%28graphics_chip%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_%28graphics_chip%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_%28graphics_chip%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_%28graphics_chip%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_%28graphics_chip%29

aharrison 12y ago

I remembered there was an antitrust lawsuit between AMD and Intel, but hadn't heard how it resolved. Turns out Intel paid 1.25 billion to settle it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v..... A quick google search fails to bring up the original suit text, but from what I recall it was pretty scathing. I hope that cash infusion is at the root of this announcement and AMD can get back in the game.

higherpurpose 12y ago
Unfortunately with antitrust lawsuits, they usually happen too late to stop the damage from being done, as we're seeing in this case and as we've seen with Microsoft and IE. The way this could be solved without "abusing" antitrust power too much is by looking for "anticompetitive behavior" before companies actually get 90%+ market share in a market. At that point it's obviously too late, and with heavy lobbying-influenced politicians and institutions today, the punishment is unlikely to fit the crime, too, and the monopolists will only get a slap on the wrist and get to keep their monopoly (which makes the crime all worth it). Example of anticompetitive behavior: Microsoft not allowing other browsers to be installed on the Windows mobile platform. It doesn't matter Windows mobile only has 3% market share. Why wait until they get 90% market share (again) to do anything about that awful and anticompetitive policy? Same goes with Apple which doesn't allow other companies to compete with its "core apps". Why would you ever let something like that happen? It should be quashed from moment zero. Not to mention Apple already has a very strong position in the mobile market (especially in the US), but that should be beside the point.
sliverstorm 12y ago
What I always wonder is, what is market dominance worth? Intel has $50B/year in revenue, net income of $10B/year. So they paid about one month's profit as a penalty for strategies that helped them dominate the market for years. Which makes me wonder if anti-competitive practices start to look, even in spite of possible litigation, financially prudent.