Exclusive: Intel Tells Us Why AMD is Wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
F****n Intel. Can't ever seem to handle a bit of fair competition. If Intel plays nice, I've not a problem buying their stuff or recommending it. When this sort of thing happens, I go back to AMD.
 

ravenware

Distinguished
May 17, 2005
617
0
18,980
0
The way that Globalfoundries is set up, allows ATIC and its subsidiaries to utilize x86 technologies.
Meaning what? They can manufacture their own x86 chips and not just the ones that AMD designs? If this is true then I would have to side with Intel.
 

SneakySnake

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2009
451
0
18,780
0
Intel has shot both AMD and itself in the foot if this goes through. AMD will undoubtably pull the plug on intel using a couple patents, flatlining the i7
 
G

Guest

Guest
If it is a breach on the agreement that AMD has its CPUs produced at GlobalFoundries then Intels resent agreement with TSMC can be considered the same. The Intel/TMC agreement concerns the Atom processor and Atom 230/330 uses x86-64.

- SaintPauli
 

ravenware

Distinguished
May 17, 2005
617
0
18,980
0
This just seems like something that could be easily resolved in a meeting.

Both parties should stop cackling like a bunch of hens and get down to business.
 

mavroxur

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2009
1,490
0
19,460
58
[citation][nom]christop[/nom]Kill each other then maybe a better company can emerge!!!![/citation]


Intel and AMD kill eachother, and Via is the new king >_>
 

magnus962

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2009
13
0
18,510
0
So it sounds to me like the argument is because Intel doesn't want AMD to to be making decisions based off of GlobalFoundries influence over the company. AMD is saying that regardless of influence, Globalfoundries is a subsidary and falls under all the patent rights.
 

Tindytim

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
1,179
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]ravenware[/nom]Meaning what? They can manufacture their own x86 chips and not just the ones that AMD designs? If this is true then I would have to side with Intel.[/citation]
Agreed. While it may seem like Intel is being a bully, they are just protecting their patent. AMD is crossing the line here.

[citation][nom]magnus962[/nom]So it sounds to me like the argument is because Intel doesn't want AMD to to be making decisions based off of GlobalFoundries influence over the company. AMD is saying that regardless of influence, Globalfoundries is a subsidary and falls under all the patent rights.[/citation]
No, Intel is worried that AMD trying to allowing another company to illegally product x86 products thought some devious paperwork.

Really dumb move by AMD. The fact of the matter is, they're already on the ropes, and then they decide to do this shady underhanded deal. Intel is just trying to protect what's theirs.
 

Claimintru

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2008
68
0
18,630
0
Lol why do people act like companies should compete nicely in a nice fair game where everyone wins? Welcome to the real world, the goal is to bury your competition so badly they can't recover.
 

outacontrolpimp

Distinguished
Sep 8, 2008
156
0
18,680
0
Wow, does no one ever get it. Intel says that a DIFFERENT company cant make x86 chips, not AMD. This isnt about any patents Intel or AMD is using, its about a agreement about AMD only having the right to the patent given by Intel. Intel says that the other company they made is not part of AMD so therefore they dont own the patent. Id say 95% of the people reading it dont understand. (If you do im not talking about you then) oh and AMD cant pull the plug on the i7 patent whoever said that, Intel purchased that right, AMD cant take it back they sold it.
 

deltatux

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2008
335
0
18,780
0
I'm now even more confused, but we really need to crack down on what's going on and really needs to know what is defined as a subsidary.
 

deltatux

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2008
335
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]cruiseoveride[/nom]Intel is just sour. Screw x86, lets go PPC![/citation]

Agreed ... a much better architecture. Heck, Microsoft has written Windows for PPC before, they surely can do it.
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]outacontrolpimp[/nom]Wow, does no one ever get it. Intel says that a DIFFERENT company cant make x86 chips, not AMD.[/citation]
Sorry, but you are the one who don't get it.
[citation][nom]outacontrolpimp[/nom]This isnt about any patents Intel or AMD is using, its about a agreement about AMD only having the right to the patent given by Intel.[/citation]
It is all about the patents.
[citation][nom]outacontrolpimp[/nom] Intel says that the other company they made is not part of AMD so therefore they dont own the patent. Id say 95% of the people reading it dont understand. (If you do im not talking about you then)[/citation]
If Intel's case is that Globalfoundries is different company, why they are going after AMD? They should go after Globalfoundries itself.
[citation][nom]outacontrolpimp[/nom] oh and AMD cant pull the plug on the i7 patent whoever said that, Intel purchased that right, AMD cant take it back they sold it.[/citation]

By the way. Intel and AMD were ready for the whole thing long time ago. Recent quick move from both companies suggest that they are executing pre-planned game. It is like speed-chess. They are setting them self for upcoming negotiations. They have armies of lawyers and they have prepared ahead of time different scenarios.

 

BallistaMan

Distinguished
May 20, 2008
103
0
18,680
0
This entire legal issue is stemming from one technicality: Are these new spinoffs truly in accordance with the agreement. I'm sure AMD thought of this beforehand, and because they went through with it, they obviously thought they'd win if a disagreement cropped up. If it really is the way Intel says it is (it's probably somewhere in between the two), then it could be interesting to see the implications of this - the extent of which I suspect none of us really knows.

However, AMD cannot just retaliate by withdrawing, say, x86-64. They signed a separate contract for that, and if there's no breach there, it still holds. They could opt to muck things up when it comes time to extend that agreement, but until there's a breach there, AMD can't use something like that as leverage.

If AMD could just pull the plug on something else, Intel wouldn't be this belligerent. They're not stupid, devious maybe, but not stupid.
 

Tindytim

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
1,179
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]deltatux[/nom]I'm now even more confused, but we really need to crack down on what's going on and really needs to know what is defined as a subsidary.[/citation]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary

It's all about control. Does AMD control this company, or is it simply an investment?

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]PPC? didn't apple just ditch that for intel's x86 CPU's?[/citation]
Yes, yes they did. Apple ditched it because IBM couldn't hit 3 Ghz with the G5 under exceptable heat and power consumption.

[citation][nom]deltatux[/nom]Agreed ... a much better architecture. Heck, Microsoft has written Windows for PPC before, they surely can do it.[/citation]
Intel is already ditching x86 with it's new AVX instruction set. All of the old x86 instuction sets are simply being emulated on Sandy Bridge.
 
people think of it this way. the patent is like having a girlfriend (judging from some people in here they probably have a hard time getting one or never had one LOL) you enter into this relationship so you are the only guy for her. now here comes another guy your girlfriend has met and may influence your girlfriend to do things you only want your girlfriend to do with you

maybe the AMD fanboy's will understand this LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS