AMD Loses Raja Koduri To Intel

[renz496]

Some people think intel would need nvidia or AMD graphic IP to make GPU that can compete with Geforce or Radeon. I don't think that's the case at all.

 

[10tacle]

Intel cant do anything without buying the Patents.

Well I look at it this way: NASA could never have given us our space program in the 1960s that sent us to the moon without the German Wernher von Braun who America took in after the end of WWII (he was the creator of the infamous V-2 rocket). Intel is not an expert in the GPU segment of computer hardware because that's not their market segment.

If Intel wants to expand into new frontiers, they need to hire people who are experienced having already been in said frontiers or pay for the work others already did (patents). Just like NASA. This is nothing new in just about any industry that's ever existed around the globe.

Some people think intel would need nvidia or AMD graphic IP to make GPU that can compete with Geforce or Radeon. I don't think that's the case at all.

They do have experience with the iGPU segment obviously, but to build a dedicated GPU only is something else entirely. A GPU is actually a dumbed down CPU. A CPU is designed for many different tasks, whereas a GPU is designed for only one task. While it may sound like a dumbed down no-brainer, it's an entirely different type of architecture to work with.

With that said, I think people are losing focus that Raja is not being hired to be a lead engineer in the trenches of development. He's being hired to oversee the development of it from a top executive management role. Executives do not get involved with day to day operations at ground level (product development). They manage those who are doing the grunt work.

In any event, as others have alluded to in this thread, I'd love to see a third competitor in the dedicated GPU market.

 

[samer.forums]

Intel cant do anything without buying the Patents.

Well I look at it this way: NASA could never have given us our space program in the 1960s that sent us to the moon without the German Wernher von Braun who America took in after the end of WWII (he was the creator of the infamous V-2 rocket). Intel is not an expert in the GPU segment of computer hardware because that's not their market segment.

If Intel wants to expand into new frontiers, they need to hire people who are experienced having already been in said frontiers or pay for the work others already did (patents). Just like NASA. This is nothing new in just about any industry that's ever existed around the globe.

Some people think intel would need nvidia or AMD graphic IP to make GPU that can compete with Geforce or Radeon. I don't think that's the case at all.

They do have experience with the iGPU segment obviously, but to build a dedicated GPU only is something else entirely. A GPU is actually a dumbed down CPU. A CPU is designed for many different tasks, whereas a GPU is designed for only one task. While it may sound like a dumbed down no-brainer, it's an entirely different type of architecture to work with.

With that said, I think people are losing focus that Raja is not being hired to be a lead engineer in the trenches of development. He's being hired to oversee the development of it from a top executive management role. Executives do not get involved with day to day operations at ground level (product development). They manage those who are doing the grunt work.

In any event, as others have alluded to in this thread, I'd love to see a third competitor in the dedicated GPU market.

NASA does not answer to patents ... no one answers to patents when making weapons and rockets and space programs ...

there is no way Intel could win against AMD and Nvidia ... they need their own new technology and I dont think there is much room left without buying or renting technologies from others.

The only way intel can win this is after 20 years when many patents become free ...

 

[10tacle]

NASA does not answer to patents ... no one answers to patents when making weapons and rockets and space programs ...

there is no way Intel could win against AMD and Nvidia ... they need their own new technology and I dont think there is much room left without buying or renting technologies from others.

The only way intel can win this is after 20 years when many patents become free ...

With all due respect, I think you misinterpreted my stance on the issue. Wernher von Braun had no patents until the US took him in. I wasn't talking about a legal patent but instead an overall broad spectrum idea that others created or otherwise thought up. But I do wholeheartedly agree that Intel taking on the GPU expert Nvidia would be challenging at best (not so sure about AMD since they are spread out twofold between CPUs and GPUs).

 

[renz496]

I do not know why so many are slamming AMD on their GPUs not being up to par with Nvidia. The only place I see that is at the high end like not having a counter to the 1080 Ti. Vega's RX 56 caught Nvidia so much off guard against their GTX 1070 that they had to scramble to find an answer for it while not getting into GTX 1080 and RX 64 territory. With a few exceptions, that RX 56 put the hurt on the 1070, especially in a lot of DX12 games. And the 8GB RX 580 being found now for $290 right at Nvidia's 6GB GTX 1060, and both cards trading blows depending on games is worth mention as well.

With all that said, I have long wished for Intel and AMD to work the architecture in their chipsets to allow CPUs with onboard graphics to work with and enhance a dedicated GPU in performance. For so many years those on board graphics on CPUs were wasted with those with dedicated GPUs. This would be even be more beneficial these days as multiple GPU support is a slowly dying platform. Of course now the trend is to just not have an APU on board in some chip variants.

i don't think nvidia being caught off guard with Vega 56. the performance difference between 1080 and 1070 is product segmentation. nvidia need to create certain distance between 1080 and 1070 so even an Oced 1070 will not going quite reach 1080 level to protect 1080 sales to begin with. AMD saw this gap and try to take advantage of it. this is nothing new so nvidia to certain extend probably already expect what AMD will do. remember 6970 and 6950? 6950 is cheaper than 6970 but AMD giving the option for user to unlock 6950 to 6970. this raise the value of 6950 in the eyes of people. with vega 56 despite being cheaper than Vega 64 it performance gap is very close between the two. that's why many people said Vega 56 is the better value than Vega 64. Vega 56 is the main star for AMD to the point they ask reviewer to prioritize Vega 56 review over Vega 64. with it's performance and price (as long as you can get it near MSRP) Vega 56 definitely a better deal than nvidia 1080 and 1070. some people said it is better if nvidia simply drop their price rather than making 1070ti. but nvidia for their part will try as much as possible to avoid cutting their price because of competitor product. hence the existence of 1070ti. but the most important point is Vega 56 is no longer alone in it's position. looking at nvidia Q3 revenue they probably don't really need 1070ti. but they will still not going to let AMD have it easy. they never did. probably also why AMD somehow agree to work with intel.

 

[samer.forums]

NASA does not answer to patents ... no one answers to patents when making weapons and rockets and space programs ...

there is no way Intel could win against AMD and Nvidia ... they need their own new technology and I dont think there is much room left without buying or renting technologies from others.

The only way intel can win this is after 20 years when many patents become free ...

With all due respect, I think you misinterpreted my stance on the issue. Wernher von Braun had no patents until the US took him in. I wasn't talking about a legal patent but instead an overall broad spectrum idea that others created or otherwise thought up. But I do wholeheartedly agree that Intel taking on the GPU expert Nvidia would be challenging at best (not so sure about AMD since they are spread out twofold between CPUs and GPUs).

You gave an example about Wernher von braun , which is a wrong example . because he worked outside the patent legal System. taking in AMD people will not help intel much , because they must own the patents ... and the GPU technology is already split between two major companies and I doubt That intel could find a third way to make competing products .

For example , Nvidia got the SLI Technology after they bought 3DFX .. AMD had to work very hard to invent their own cross fire , without using SLI patented Technology .. what is left for intel to do ? nothing ..

the same for many secrets in the chip designs. intel has a huge wall of patents that they cant climb without paying for them.

AMD got away with it when they Bought ATI , Intel was very stupid to let AMD buy ATI at that time , ATI saved AMD from bankruptcy and gave them time to make a new CPU (Ryzen) while selling GPU , and consoles chips.

Imagine AMD without ATI ? the one who made AMD buy ATI should be given 10 medals.

 

[10tacle]

You gave an example about Wernher von braun , which is a wrong example . because he worked outside the patent legal System.

You must have missed this comment of mine:

NASA could never have given us our space program in the 1960s that sent us to the moon without the German Wernher von Braun who America took in after the end of WWII (he was the creator of the infamous V-2 rocket). Intel is not an expert in the GPU segment of computer hardware because that's not their market segment.

Again, Wernher von Braun had no patents until the US took him in. If Intel wants to expand into new frontiers, they need to hire people who are experienced having already been in said frontiers or pay for the work others already did (patents). Just like NASA.

 

[samer.forums]

You gave an example about Wernher von braun , which is a wrong example . because he worked outside the patent legal System.

You must have missed this comment of mine:

NASA could never have given us our space program in the 1960s that sent us to the moon without the German Wernher von Braun who America took in after the end of WWII (he was the creator of the infamous V-2 rocket). Intel is not an expert in the GPU segment of computer hardware because that's not their market segment.

Again, Wernher von Braun had no patents until the US took him in. If Intel wants to expand into new frontiers, they need to hire people who are experienced having already been in said frontiers or pay for the work others already did (patents). Just like NASA

Had rocket technology been civil and not military products , USA would never made a single patented rocket at all. even if they had Von Braun ...

Intel has its own engineers and qualified ones as well . The patents are stopping them. not lack of experience.

 

[mihen]

Intel used to license patents from nVidia. They cancelled that agreement earlier this year and started licensing patents from AMD. Given AMD's and Intel's current positions, it should be easier for Intel to develop graphics hardware working with AMD than it was with nVidia.
I think the gains AMD saw with Ryzen could have been due to a deal they made with Intel.

 

[renz496]

Intel used to license patents from nVidia. They cancelled that agreement earlier this year and started licensing patents from AMD. Given AMD's and Intel's current positions, it should be easier for Intel to develop graphics hardware working with AMD than it was with nVidia.
I think the gains AMD saw with Ryzen could have been due to a deal they made with Intel.

they cancel nothing. the deal was set to expire in march 2017. officially it was extension the original deal that was made in 2004 (which supposed to expire in 2011). also from what i heard intel should have access to nvidia IP even after the deal expire in 2017. to my knowledge intel still did not make any new agreement (be it with AMD or nvidia) for new graphic IP licensing. this new deal is about AMD selling GPU for intel to use in their solution not giving intel the access to AMD graphic IP. there is some speculation going around since last year. seeing how things are right now there is strong possibility that there is some truth to the speculation. my take from all this was intel finally admit that GPU are good at certain things. and since GPU are taking over CPU importance in certain area intel want to make one that is their own. but right now they lack the expert on their side. IP wise intel probably have more than enough so they don't need to license it from nvidia or AMD. also intel need to halt nvidia advancement.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@samer.forums it's not like there's only two possible ways to make a modern GPU, and AMD/Nvidia have patented them both leaving nothing for Intel. Not every aspect of modern IC design is patented either, there should be plenty of advances in the state of the art that anyone can take advantage of. It's not like Intel is forced to start from the tech used at the inception of GPUs and work their way back to where Nvidia/AMD are.

And you seem to forget that Intel already has a GPU architecture (and technically have the highest desktop/laptop GPU marketshare in the world). They could work to scale that up to a more powerful discrete chip, pair it with a high speed memory interface i.e. GDDR[X], and hey presto, they have a graphics card. Not saying they're going to be competing in the high end overnight or anything though.

 

[Mousemonkey]

For example , Nvidia got the SLI Technology after they bought 3DFX

3dfx's SLI (Scan Line Interweave) and Nvidia's SLi (Scalable Link Interface) share the same acronym but are different technologies.

Edit for grammar. 😗

 

[10tacle]

^^Correct. As one who had SLI'd Diamond Monster Voodoo2 GPUs circa 1999-2000, it was far different and had both pros (faster FPS) and cons (needing 16-bit instead of running at 32-bit color). It wasn't long after that I upgraded to the Riva TNT 2 and years later discovered Nvidia's SLI starting with the GTX 285.

 

[Mousemonkey]

^^Correct. As one who had SLI'd Diamond Monster Voodoo2 GPUs circa 1999-2000, it was far different and had both pros (faster FPS) and cons (needing 16-bit instead of running at 32-bit color). It wasn't long after that I upgraded to the Riva TNT 2 and years later discovered Nvidia's SLI starting with the GTX 285.

I for one don't ACTUALLY know what Nvidia got when they bought 3dfx because I was not privy to the details of the sale but I do recall being cheesed off at the time.

 

[10tacle]

Yep, and we've been stuck with only two dedicated GPU solutions ever since. Then again, you can say the same about only having two CPU choices.

 

[bit_user]

Intel used to license patents from nVidia. They cancelled that agreement earlier this year and started licensing patents from AMD.

The Nvidia agreement reached its natural expiration - they didn't cancel it.

I had also read they subsequently turned to license IP from AMD, but it turns out that was only a rumor and has been refuted:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/05/18/there-is-no-intel-amd-licensing-deal.aspx
https://www.techpowerup.com/233444/intel-denies-graphics-ip-licensing-deal-with-amd

I think the gains AMD saw with Ryzen could have been due to a deal they made with Intel.

Absolutely not. There's no secret collaboration on CPUs, or even GPUs between them. They do have cross-licensing agreements on their CPU patents, so that they can maintain instruction set compatibility, but there's no way Intel helped AMD on Ryzen. If you believe that, you'll probably believe anything.

 

[bit_user]

Intel is not an expert in the GPU segment of computer hardware because that's not their market segment.

Hardly. Intel has literally been building GPUs for the past 20 years. Continuously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_graphics_processing_units

HD Graphics is only held back for cost reasons (Intel doesn't want to give it any more die space) and memory bottlenecks. It stands up pretty well to recent AMD APUs.

I think people might be reading too much into their integration of an AMD GPU die. Maybe it's a stunt to try and establish EMIB as the new method of platform integration, or maybe they're trying to freeze Nvidia out of upper-midrange laptops and didn't have enough time to build their own high-end discrete GPU. The one thing I don't see is a long-term partnership between Intel and AMD to offer future products like it, unless Intel outright buys RTG from AMD (which I see as unlikely).

Whatever it is, I think it's either a one-off. ...or the start of a whole new era of pairings of multiple dies, of various flavors, on EMIBs.

 

[samer.forums]

For example , Nvidia got the SLI Technology after they bought 3DFX

3dfx's SLI (Scan Line Interweave) and Nvidia's SLi (Scalable Link Interface) share the same acronym but are different technologies.

Edit for grammar. 😗

The 3DFX team made Nvidia SLI later when they Joined ... The same today ATI Engineers are making AMD cards after joining.

 

[USAFRet]

NASA does not answer to patents ... no one answers to patents when making weapons and rockets and space programs

NASA and patents:
https://technology.nasa.gov/patents
http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa-have-released-56-patents-their-technology-free-public-use/

https://technology.nasa.gov/hot100/
"... the Technology Transfer Program has moved away from only offering agency technologies through its field centers, and is instead offering the full agency portfolio of over 1,600 active patents..."