AMD64 outsourced to Chartered Semi

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

AMD and Chartered have signed an agreement whereby Chartered will
produce AMD64 processors at its Singapore plant, probably starting in
2006, possibly at the 65nm node, but probably more likely at the 90nm
node.

AMD, Chartered sign sourcing and manufacturing technology agreements
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/business/2004/0411091610.asp?S=Business%20Wire&A=WIR&O=FRGN

NewsFactor Network - - Chartered Semi To Manufacture AMD Processors
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=28276

AMD signs foundry for 64-bit CPU production | The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/09/amd_outsourcing/

AMD move to Chartered is chip insurance policy
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19566

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 10 Nov 2004 07:41:09 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:

>AMD and Chartered have signed an agreement whereby Chartered will
>produce AMD64 processors at its Singapore plant, probably starting in
>2006, possibly at the 65nm node, but probably more likely at the 90nm
>node.
>
>AMD, Chartered sign sourcing and manufacturing technology agreements
>http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/business/2004/0411091610.asp?S=Business%20Wire&A=WIR&O=FRGN
>
>NewsFactor Network - - Chartered Semi To Manufacture AMD Processors
>http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=28276
>
>AMD signs foundry for 64-bit CPU production | The Register
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/09/amd_outsourcing/
>
>AMD move to Chartered is chip insurance policy
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19566

Looks like The Register is totally out of it here - rambling on about a
possibly fabless AMD and seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that
Chartered is a licensing partner of IBM. At least The Enquirer got it
close to right.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<r9d5p01tvrk4udq6o7vqfketan4l4jvjq3@4ax.com>...
> Looks like The Register is totally out of it here - rambling on about a
> possibly fabless AMD and seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that
> Chartered is a licensing partner of IBM. At least The Enquirer got it
> close to right.

I don't know, it looks like The Register is only talking about a
possible distant future direction for AMD, not a near-future
direction. It's probably just positioning itself to take credit for
having predicted it several years in advance if it ever looks like AMD
is going that way. :)

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 11 Nov 2004 07:36:03 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<r9d5p01tvrk4udq6o7vqfketan4l4jvjq3@4ax.com>...
>> Looks like The Register is totally out of it here - rambling on about a
>> possibly fabless AMD and seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that
>> Chartered is a licensing partner of IBM. At least The Enquirer got it
>> close to right.
>
>I don't know, it looks like The Register is only talking about a
>possible distant future direction for AMD, not a near-future
>direction. It's probably just positioning itself to take credit for
>having predicted it several years in advance if it ever looks like AMD
>is going that way. :)

IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way! I'm intrigued as to
whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"?? If not I'm sure
lawyers are umm, standing by.:)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<etp7p0t693tbqehtcpmgb87dan7aitqs81@4ax.com>...
> IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way!

Yeah, speculate in a big way, that way if it comes true, you're the
next prophet. If it doesn't, then chances were very small that it
would happen anyways.

> I'm intrigued as to
> whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"?? If not I'm sure
> lawyers are umm, standing by.:)

Yes, actually it does have IBM's blessing for two separate reasons.
First, AMD signed a renewal of their deal with IBM about a month back
stating that they will be able to transfer any technology developed
jointly to a third party. Secondly, IBM and Chartered also themselves
partners.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 12 Nov 2004 11:33:23 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<etp7p0t693tbqehtcpmgb87dan7aitqs81@4ax.com>...
>> IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way!
>
>Yeah, speculate in a big way, that way if it comes true, you're the
>next prophet. If it doesn't, then chances were very small that it
>would happen anyways.
>
>> I'm intrigued as to
>> whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"?? If not I'm sure
>> lawyers are umm, standing by.:)
>
>Yes, actually it does have IBM's blessing for two separate reasons.
>First, AMD signed a renewal of their deal with IBM about a month back
>stating that they will be able to transfer any technology developed
>jointly to a third party. Secondly, IBM and Chartered also themselves
>partners.

The IBM/Chartered relationship is exactly why I'm intrigued. Your
reasoning above may make sense but it's no sign of a definite endorsement
by IBM from my POV - IBM has a fab which needs err, work too.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> The IBM/Chartered relationship is exactly why I'm intrigued. Your
> reasoning above may make sense but it's no sign of a definite endorsement
> by IBM from my POV - IBM has a fab which needs err, work too.

IBM has its own products, plus a few from Nvidia and others that it
produces. Taking on AMD's products would push everybody else's products
off, including its own. That's just a reflection about the volumes AMD
needs, and the size of the die of CPUs.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:26:37 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> The IBM/Chartered relationship is exactly why I'm intrigued. Your
>> reasoning above may make sense but it's no sign of a definite endorsement
>> by IBM from my POV - IBM has a fab which needs err, work too.
>
>IBM has its own products, plus a few from Nvidia and others that it
>produces. Taking on AMD's products would push everybody else's products
>off, including its own. That's just a reflection about the volumes AMD
>needs, and the size of the die of CPUs.

Hard to know which "stories" to believe here or what corporate politics
could be dominating. The line I've seen from a couple of sources is that
IBM needs to take up slack capacity on the Fishkill 300mm.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:03:29 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On 12 Nov 2004 11:33:23 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>
>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<etp7p0t693tbqehtcpmgb87dan7aitqs81@4ax.com>...
>>> IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way!
>>
>>Yeah, speculate in a big way, that way if it comes true, you're the
>>next prophet. If it doesn't, then chances were very small that it
>>would happen anyways.
>>
>>> I'm intrigued as to
>>> whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"?? If not I'm sure
>>> lawyers are umm, standing by.:)
>>
>>Yes, actually it does have IBM's blessing for two separate reasons.
>>First, AMD signed a renewal of their deal with IBM about a month back
>>stating that they will be able to transfer any technology developed
>>jointly to a third party. Secondly, IBM and Chartered also themselves
>>partners.
>
> The IBM/Chartered relationship is exactly why I'm intrigued. Your
> reasoning above may make sense but it's no sign of a definite endorsement
> by IBM from my POV - IBM has a fab which needs err, work too.

You may have an, err, "error" in the above paragraph. ;-)

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> Hard to know which "stories" to believe here or what corporate politics
> could be dominating. The line I've seen from a couple of sources is that
> IBM needs to take up slack capacity on the Fishkill 300mm.

Here's something interesting.

PoughkeepsieJournal.com - New IBM building rises rapidly
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/today/frontpage/stories/fr111404s1.shtml

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:20:45 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> Hard to know which "stories" to believe here or what corporate politics
>> could be dominating. The line I've seen from a couple of sources is that
>> IBM needs to take up slack capacity on the Fishkill 300mm.
>
>Here's something interesting.
>
>PoughkeepsieJournal.com - New IBM building rises rapidly
>http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/today/frontpage/stories/fr111404s1.shtml

Hmm, good article - covers all the bases, including Sony but "industry
people" are "scratching their heads" - thats funny... as if the analysts
ever really have a clue.:) BTW, on that subject, did you catch that gaffe
by the guy (Lau) at Banc of America Sec this past week?... a couple of days
before AMD jumped 15%+ in value he downgraded it to a "sell". His clients
must be "real pleased" about that?.... hilarious!

I guess if Opteron takes off in the server market, it could be that AMD
will need Chartered in *addition* to IBM. My S939 A64 is in a box at a
Fedex location right now, along with a K8N Neo2 Platinum, which went out of
stock *again* hours after I placed my order, so I dont care if there's a
catastrophic shortage of AMD kit brewing.;-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:28:31 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:03:29 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On 12 Nov 2004 11:33:23 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>>
>>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<etp7p0t693tbqehtcpmgb87dan7aitqs81@4ax.com>...
>>>> IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way!
>>>
>>>Yeah, speculate in a big way, that way if it comes true, you're the
>>>next prophet. If it doesn't, then chances were very small that it
>>>would happen anyways.
>>>
>>>> I'm intrigued as to
>>>> whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"?? If not I'm sure
>>>> lawyers are umm, standing by.:)
>>>
>>>Yes, actually it does have IBM's blessing for two separate reasons.
>>>First, AMD signed a renewal of their deal with IBM about a month back
>>>stating that they will be able to transfer any technology developed
>>>jointly to a third party. Secondly, IBM and Chartered also themselves
>>>partners.
>>
>> The IBM/Chartered relationship is exactly why I'm intrigued. Your
>> reasoning above may make sense but it's no sign of a definite endorsement
>> by IBM from my POV - IBM has a fab which needs err, work too.
>
>You may have an, err, "error" in the above paragraph. ;-)

If IBM is not in that position, I'll admit to being guilty of listening to
the usual anal...yst cerebral flatulence.:)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> Hmm, good article - covers all the bases, including Sony but "industry
> people" are "scratching their heads" - thats funny... as if the analysts
> ever really have a clue.:) BTW, on that subject, did you catch that gaffe
> by the guy (Lau) at Banc of America Sec this past week?... a couple of days
> before AMD jumped 15%+ in value he downgraded it to a "sell". His clients
> must be "real pleased" about that?.... hilarious!

Lau was keeping to a straight and narrow, conservative path until now.
Don't know what prompted him to go out on a limb like that. But then
again we all know analysts are about as intelligent as monkeys.

> I guess if Opteron takes off in the server market, it could be that AMD
> will need Chartered in *addition* to IBM. My S939 A64 is in a box at a
> Fedex location right now, along with a K8N Neo2 Platinum, which went out of
> stock *again* hours after I placed my order, so I dont care if there's a
> catastrophic shortage of AMD kit brewing.;-)

Yeah, that seems to be the implication, that AMD might need both fabs,
and then its own two fabs. Intel has five 300mm fabs of its own, so four
fabs might just be enough to put it on equal footing.

Yousuf Khan
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:20:45 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> George Macdonald wrote:
>> Hard to know which "stories" to believe here or what corporate politics
>> could be dominating. The line I've seen from a couple of sources is that
>> IBM needs to take up slack capacity on the Fishkill 300mm.
>
> Here's something interesting.
>
> PoughkeepsieJournal.com - New IBM building rises rapidly
> http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/today/frontpage/stories/fr111404s1.shtml

Ah, the Poughkeepsie Urinal, I remember it well. ;-)

--
Keith
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:35:38 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:28:31 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:03:29 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 Nov 2004 11:33:23 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<etp7p0t693tbqehtcpmgb87dan7aitqs81@4ax.com>...
>>>>> IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way!
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, speculate in a big way, that way if it comes true, you're the
>>>>next prophet. If it doesn't, then chances were very small that it
>>>>would happen anyways.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm intrigued as to
>>>>> whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"?? If not I'm sure
>>>>> lawyers are umm, standing by.:)
>>>>
>>>>Yes, actually it does have IBM's blessing for two separate reasons.
>>>>First, AMD signed a renewal of their deal with IBM about a month back
>>>>stating that they will be able to transfer any technology developed
>>>>jointly to a third party. Secondly, IBM and Chartered also themselves
>>>>partners.
>>>
>>> The IBM/Chartered relationship is exactly why I'm intrigued. Your
>>> reasoning above may make sense but it's no sign of a definite endorsement
>>> by IBM from my POV - IBM has a fab which needs err, work too.
>>
>>You may have an, err, "error" in the above paragraph. ;-)
>
> If IBM is not in that position, I'll admit to being guilty of listening to
> the usual anal...yst cerebral flatulence.:)

Note that I'm not stating what the possible "error" is, but as usual the
pundits haven't a clue. It'll take a while for them to catch up.

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:23:49 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> Hmm, good article - covers all the bases, including Sony but "industry
>> people" are "scratching their heads" - thats funny... as if the analysts
>> ever really have a clue.:) BTW, on that subject, did you catch that gaffe
>> by the guy (Lau) at Banc of America Sec this past week?... a couple of days
>> before AMD jumped 15%+ in value he downgraded it to a "sell". His clients
>> must be "real pleased" about that?.... hilarious!
>
>Lau was keeping to a straight and narrow, conservative path until now.
>Don't know what prompted him to go out on a limb like that. But then
>again we all know analysts are about as intelligent as monkeys.

Given that in the space of <3 months he went from buy to neutral to sell on
it and in the later one, also made Intel a top tip buy, you have to ask:
stupid or crooked??

>> I guess if Opteron takes off in the server market, it could be that AMD
>> will need Chartered in *addition* to IBM. My S939 A64 is in a box at a
>> Fedex location right now, along with a K8N Neo2 Platinum, which went out of
>> stock *again* hours after I placed my order, so I dont care if there's a
>> catastrophic shortage of AMD kit brewing.;-)
>
>Yeah, that seems to be the implication, that AMD might need both fabs,
>and then its own two fabs. Intel has five 300mm fabs of its own, so four
>fabs might just be enough to put it on equal footing.

I'm not aware of any renegotiation of the quota on AMD outsourcing... the
number for which is not in the publicly available version of the 2001
AMD/Intel cross license agreement anyway. Unless it's on the cards for AMD
to buy the Chartered plant if needs be, something which might suit the
Singapore govt., I don't see how this plays out in the long run.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:35:37 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>ever really have a clue.:) BTW, on that subject, did you catch that gaffe
>by the guy (Lau) at Banc of America Sec this past week?... a couple of days
>before AMD jumped 15%+ in value he downgraded it to a "sell". His clients
>must be "real pleased" about that?.... hilarious!

But maybe he thought it was a good the chance to buy a hundred million
dollars worth of AMD share before the prices go up up up and now has
at least another $15M worth on his paper? :pPpP


--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:42:22 GMT, a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com
(The little lost angel) wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:35:37 -0500, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>ever really have a clue.:) BTW, on that subject, did you catch that gaffe
>>by the guy (Lau) at Banc of America Sec this past week?... a couple of days
>>before AMD jumped 15%+ in value he downgraded it to a "sell". His clients
>>must be "real pleased" about that?.... hilarious!
>
>But maybe he thought it was a good the chance to buy a hundred million
>dollars worth of AMD share before the prices go up up up and now has
>at least another $15M worth on his paper? :pPpP

WHAT?? You mean insider trading?<shudder>:)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<6ktfp0d0bf5of13ip9nvvrj15b59kddkiq@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:23:49 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
> >Lau was keeping to a straight and narrow, conservative path until now.
> >Don't know what prompted him to go out on a limb like that. But then
> >again we all know analysts are about as intelligent as monkeys.
>
> Given that in the space of <3 months he went from buy to neutral to sell on
> it and in the later one, also made Intel a top tip buy, you have to ask:
> stupid or crooked??

Heh, I won't touch that one, it's too easy. :)

> I'm not aware of any renegotiation of the quota on AMD outsourcing... the
> number for which is not in the publicly available version of the 2001
> AMD/Intel cross license agreement anyway. Unless it's on the cards for AMD
> to buy the Chartered plant if needs be, something which might suit the
> Singapore govt., I don't see how this plays out in the long run.

I've heard somewhere that Chartered has its own x86 license. I don't
know how or where they got it for sure, but I think it might have
something to do with the partnership that Chartered has with IBM. If
Chartered has its own x86 license, then AMD is free and clear to
produce as many x86 processors there as they want.

Same goes for production at the IBM plant, since we all know that IBM
definitely has its own x86 license.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 15 Nov 2004 08:42:54 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<6ktfp0d0bf5of13ip9nvvrj15b59kddkiq@4ax.com>...
>> I'm not aware of any renegotiation of the quota on AMD outsourcing... the
>> number for which is not in the publicly available version of the 2001
>> AMD/Intel cross license agreement anyway. Unless it's on the cards for AMD
>> to buy the Chartered plant if needs be, something which might suit the
>> Singapore govt., I don't see how this plays out in the long run.
>
>I've heard somewhere that Chartered has its own x86 license. I don't
>know how or where they got it for sure, but I think it might have
>something to do with the partnership that Chartered has with IBM. If
>Chartered has its own x86 license, then AMD is free and clear to
>produce as many x86 processors there as they want.
>
>Same goes for production at the IBM plant, since we all know that IBM
>definitely has its own x86 license.

Are you sure about that. The actual agreements I've seen have the critical
"confidential" sections removed on such things and I'd be surprised if
Intel had been so loose in their framing of them.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<63hip01ihnon2eb93grcc8a07vi58u7em4@4ax.com>...
> On 15 Nov 2004 08:42:54 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
> >Same goes for production at the IBM plant, since we all know that IBM
> >definitely has its own x86 license.
>
> Are you sure about that. The actual agreements I've seen have the critical
> "confidential" sections removed on such things and I'd be surprised if
> Intel had been so loose in their framing of them.

I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a loose framing of their
agreement, it is probably just the best they could do under the
contract laws. I'm sure both sides totally envisioned that perhaps if
AMD started fabbing at another x86 licensee's fabsite, that those
agreements would supercede the AMD/Intel agreements. Intel envisioned
it, but there was little that they could do to prevent it, as this
would mean two separate Intel contracts would conflict with each other
(i.e. one with AMD vs. the other with the alternate x86 licensee) and
it would end up in court, and the court would have to strike down
portions of one agreement or another.

Intel probably just surmised that there aren't too many companies in
the world with x86 licenses, and those that do have it, usually have
to pay a lot to Intel for them, so it makes them somewhat less
competitive against Intel's own manufacturing costs. Any fab with an
x86 license also has to factor in the cost of royalty payments for
every part that they produce.

The most intriguing aspect of this is not AMD sneaking around the
agreement, but IBM's agreement with Intel. IBM probably has a
super-license with Intel, probably dating back to the days when they
used to own part of Intel. They are probably the only ones allowed to
license other companies to produce x86 besides Intel.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 16 Nov 2004 12:30:06 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<63hip01ihnon2eb93grcc8a07vi58u7em4@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Nov 2004 08:42:54 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>> >Same goes for production at the IBM plant, since we all know that IBM
>> >definitely has its own x86 license.
>>
>> Are you sure about that. The actual agreements I've seen have the critical
>> "confidential" sections removed on such things and I'd be surprised if
>> Intel had been so loose in their framing of them.
>
>I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a loose framing of their
>agreement, it is probably just the best they could do under the
>contract laws. I'm sure both sides totally envisioned that perhaps if
>AMD started fabbing at another x86 licensee's fabsite, that those
>agreements would supercede the AMD/Intel agreements. Intel envisioned
>it, but there was little that they could do to prevent it, as this
>would mean two separate Intel contracts would conflict with each other
>(i.e. one with AMD vs. the other with the alternate x86 licensee) and
>it would end up in court, and the court would have to strike down
>portions of one agreement or another.

I'm not intinately familiar with contract law on how that works - IOW how
having a part made by someone else who also has a license. It *is*
explicitly stated in the Intel-AMD agreement but that section is not
publicly available

>Intel probably just surmised that there aren't too many companies in
>the world with x86 licenses, and those that do have it, usually have
>to pay a lot to Intel for them, so it makes them somewhat less
>competitive against Intel's own manufacturing costs. Any fab with an
>x86 license also has to factor in the cost of royalty payments for
>every part that they produce.

And of course AMD's cross-licensing agreement includes the payment of
royalties to Intel based on a % of net income.

>The most intriguing aspect of this is not AMD sneaking around the
>agreement, but IBM's agreement with Intel. IBM probably has a
>super-license with Intel, probably dating back to the days when they
>used to own part of Intel. They are probably the only ones allowed to
>license other companies to produce x86 besides Intel.

IBM has broad patent cross-licensing agreements with many companies -
they're basically in the catbird seat when it comes to that kind of thing.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:46:33 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2004 12:30:06 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>
>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<63hip01ihnon2eb93grcc8a07vi58u7em4@4ax.com>...
>>> On 15 Nov 2004 08:42:54 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>>> >Same goes for production at the IBM plant, since we all know that IBM
>>> >definitely has its own x86 license.
>>>
>>> Are you sure about that. The actual agreements I've seen have the critical
>>> "confidential" sections removed on such things and I'd be surprised if
>>> Intel had been so loose in their framing of them.
>>
>>I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a loose framing of their
>>agreement, it is probably just the best they could do under the
>>contract laws. I'm sure both sides totally envisioned that perhaps if
>>AMD started fabbing at another x86 licensee's fabsite, that those
>>agreements would supercede the AMD/Intel agreements. Intel envisioned
>>it, but there was little that they could do to prevent it, as this
>>would mean two separate Intel contracts would conflict with each other
>>(i.e. one with AMD vs. the other with the alternate x86 licensee) and
>>it would end up in court, and the court would have to strike down
>>portions of one agreement or another.
>
> I'm not intinately familiar with contract law on how that works - IOW how
> having a part made by someone else who also has a license. It *is*
> explicitly stated in the Intel-AMD agreement but that section is not
> publicly available

It's not public, yet you *know* this?

>>Intel probably just surmised that there aren't too many companies in
>>the world with x86 licenses, and those that do have it, usually have
>>to pay a lot to Intel for them, so it makes them somewhat less
>>competitive against Intel's own manufacturing costs. Any fab with an
>>x86 license also has to factor in the cost of royalty payments for
>>every part that they produce.
>
> And of course AMD's cross-licensing agreement includes the payment of
> royalties to Intel based on a % of net income.

You know this? Forgive me for being obteuse here...

I don't see anythgin nearly as sinister as either of you pretend. I
simply see AMD out-playing Intel's hand (noticing the nature of Itanic's
anchor on Intel's marketing plan).

>>The most intriguing aspect of this is not AMD sneaking around the
>>agreement, but IBM's agreement with Intel. IBM probably has a
>>super-license with Intel, probably dating back to the days when they
>>used to own part of Intel. They are probably the only ones allowed to
>>license other companies to produce x86 besides Intel.
>
> IBM has broad patent cross-licensing agreements with many companies -
> they're basically in the catbird seat when it comes to that kind of thing.

Thar's money to be made in them thar hills. ...and patents are "free",
once the engineering is done (actually that's an understatement).

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:11:15 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:46:33 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On 16 Nov 2004 12:30:06 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>>
>>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<63hip01ihnon2eb93grcc8a07vi58u7em4@4ax.com>...
>>>> On 15 Nov 2004 08:42:54 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>>>> >Same goes for production at the IBM plant, since we all know that IBM
>>>> >definitely has its own x86 license.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure about that. The actual agreements I've seen have the critical
>>>> "confidential" sections removed on such things and I'd be surprised if
>>>> Intel had been so loose in their framing of them.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a loose framing of their
>>>agreement, it is probably just the best they could do under the
>>>contract laws. I'm sure both sides totally envisioned that perhaps if
>>>AMD started fabbing at another x86 licensee's fabsite, that those
>>>agreements would supercede the AMD/Intel agreements. Intel envisioned
>>>it, but there was little that they could do to prevent it, as this
>>>would mean two separate Intel contracts would conflict with each other
>>>(i.e. one with AMD vs. the other with the alternate x86 licensee) and
>>>it would end up in court, and the court would have to strike down
>>>portions of one agreement or another.
>>
>> I'm not intinately familiar with contract law on how that works - IOW how
>> having a part made by someone else who also has a license. It *is*
>> explicitly stated in the Intel-AMD agreement but that section is not
>> publicly available
>
>It's not public, yet you *know* this?

There is a version of the 2001 cross licence agreement here:
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/industries/technology/semiconductors.html
which has "confidential" clauses stripped, most of which cover the nitty
gritty of restrictions on oursourcing and things like $$ amounts. The
placement of the *****'d sections on outsourcing indicates to me that the
exact terms are specified but only in the full official, unexpurgated
version which would be lodged with the S.E.C.

>>>Intel probably just surmised that there aren't too many companies in
>>>the world with x86 licenses, and those that do have it, usually have
>>>to pay a lot to Intel for them, so it makes them somewhat less
>>>competitive against Intel's own manufacturing costs. Any fab with an
>>>x86 license also has to factor in the cost of royalty payments for
>>>every part that they produce.
>>
>> And of course AMD's cross-licensing agreement includes the payment of
>> royalties to Intel based on a % of net income.
>
>You know this? Forgive me for being obteuse here...

Yes, it's in the above agreement.... net income from processor sales of
course and the actual number is "confidential".

>I don't see anythgin nearly as sinister as either of you pretend. I
>simply see AMD out-playing Intel's hand (noticing the nature of Itanic's
>anchor on Intel's marketing plan).

And I think it's safe to assume Intel will fight back with everything at
its disposal, including harrassment over contract details, excessive
auditing, etc. etc.

>>>The most intriguing aspect of this is not AMD sneaking around the
>>>agreement, but IBM's agreement with Intel. IBM probably has a
>>>super-license with Intel, probably dating back to the days when they
>>>used to own part of Intel. They are probably the only ones allowed to
>>>license other companies to produce x86 besides Intel.
>>
>> IBM has broad patent cross-licensing agreements with many companies -
>> they're basically in the catbird seat when it comes to that kind of thing.
>
>Thar's money to be made in them thar hills. ...and patents are "free",
>once the engineering is done (actually that's an understatement).

Hmm, I'm not sure I get that last bit - patents are obviously the
foundation of IP and the combo seems to be taking increasing importance in
corporate value those days... submarined or not.:) There's a "devil" in
the implementation/enginering of course... if that's what you mean... C.F.
Moto/AMD/CU-SOI.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote in message news:<bd84ed0c.0411100741.593fd11d@posting.google.com>...
> AMD and Chartered have signed an agreement whereby Chartered will
> produce AMD64 processors at its Singapore plant, probably starting in
> 2006, possibly at the 65nm node, but probably more likely at the 90nm
> node.

Further details on this story, an interview with a Chartered VP
describing how happy they are to be chosen to do this for AMD.

ITworld.com - Chartered looks forward to partnership with AMD
http://www.itworld.com/Tech/4535/041125charter/

Chartered will start doing this for AMD in 2006 on their 300mm fab.
However they won't be doing it with 65nm processes, they will be doing
it with "mature" 90nm processes. I guess AMD doesn't want them doing
production and experimental stuff at the same time. In 2006, AMD's own
Fab 36 opens using 300mm and 65nm, so I guess AMD expects some delays
and getting upto speed for this rampup. So they are probably hedging
their bets by having at least a couple of fabs producing with 90nm
processes, their own Fab 30 and this Chartered fab.

It seems that AMD's customers don't want to take any chances either,
so they are going to require that the chips produced at Chartered be
separately qualified from AMD's own.

On a separate note, I think these guys ought to seriously think about
stretching out their 90nm process a bit longer instead of plunging
into 65nm so quickly. It was an expensive proposition going to 90nm,
and so far a lot of companies (Intel) have found that it hasn't
performed as well as previous process transitions had. Might as well
take your time and get it working right and paying its own way before
spending even more cash on 65nm.

Yousuf Khan