No x86 is far from out, but the future is 64 and it's going to be a long time before a new architecture is needed. As for developing their own, I'm not sure they can and still be compatible while not infringing on the patent. That's the problem that I see. Again this will be settled though the terms are likely to change, and I'm thinking in AMD's favor.
- Status
[citation][nom]Area51[/nom]What if What Intel is saying is true? What if Globalfoundries releases the x86 technology to China? Then what? So I am assuming that all AMD AND Intel fanboys are okay with all the remaining tech jobs going to China, right?[/citation]
More like Taiwain. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company - or TSMC, pretty much makes all of the silicon these days anyway. It's sad to say these days, but it already has come to the point where when we hear the notion "buy American" - in reality, what DO we make anymore?
More like Taiwain. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company - or TSMC, pretty much makes all of the silicon these days anyway. It's sad to say these days, but it already has come to the point where when we hear the notion "buy American" - in reality, what DO we make anymore?
ewood
Distinguished
- Mar 6, 2009
- 463
- 0
- 18,810
{Intel has one problem and that is that AMD holds the patents which not only make their cpu tick but also their up and coming gpu, with the fact that amd owns ati it can push for a cuda based program, with the help of integrating their cpu into their gfx cards. (intel owns one paitent amd uses and intel needs 3 from amd)}
I guarantee Intel and AMD both own many more than 1 and 3 patents that each other need...
I guarantee Intel and AMD both own many more than 1 and 3 patents that each other need...
AMD did what it had to do, and now Intel is doing what it legally has to do (to hold the agreement to the letter). I'm just speculating here but i doubt that Intel has any intention of pulling that license. Its most likely just a threat to get AMD back to the table so they can work out a new agreement.
Its just a little unfortunate that Intel cannot be nice about it.
Its just a little unfortunate that Intel cannot be nice about it.
sonofliberty08
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2009
- 658
- 0
- 18,980
captaincharisma
Glorious
- Oct 13, 2004
- 10,959
- 76
- 45,290
you want nice go to Disney world. this is business and there is nothing nice about it. If it was AMD doing this to Intel they would be acting the same way
I really dont think AMD would go out of business, unless they couldnt weather the storm. They have achitechture that once its perfected is going to hold its own in the 64 bit computing world. Intel on the other hand kept AMD around while the transition to 64 bit computing is taking place. The whole thing is BS. If it went through Intel would have to invent a S***ton of money in R&D into development of a 64 bit chip that held a light to AMD's. How many of the 10 fastest computers are AMD chips? 5 or 6 something like that. Its really stupid of Intel to go at AMD's throat at this point. While they are ahead now, They see AMD regaining a good hold in the market just like the Athlon XP chip. And they arnt happy. We're all going to have to hold our breathe for this one. Its going to get bloody for sure.
captaincharisma
Glorious
- Oct 13, 2004
- 10,959
- 76
- 45,290
nah Intel is not that dumb that they would have to go get patents for components. i'm sure if there was no option they could have made an Itanium CPU that supported 32-bit like the Intel Cores. They had kind of the same problem years ago with the Pentium Pro's where there was bad performance when using 16-bit apps with it when 32-bit apps ran better with it.
nekatreven
Distinguished
- Feb 20, 2007
- 415
- 0
- 18,780
This is a plain and simple matter of whether or not GlobalFoundries is found to be legally classified as a subsidiary or not. That's it. No ones opinion or belief or understanding, or even disbelief or misunderstanding will change it. So why all the crap with people's feelings about x86 or what they think about China or TSMC?
If GF is ruled a subsidiary, AMD is right. If they aren't, Intel is right. Only time (and enriched lawyers) will tell.
If GF is ruled a subsidiary, AMD is right. If they aren't, Intel is right. Only time (and enriched lawyers) will tell.
[citation][nom]mwinfie[/nom]If you read the terms of their agreement, they consider a subsidiary to be a company where AMD has 50% of shares or voting rights and earns more than 30% of the profit of said company.AMD then goes to say that these terms are met. To me, this is an open and shut case. I think AMD is using the terms to their advantage. Whether you consider it a loop hole or not, they are playing by the rules IMO.Also, someone said that this is an issue of whether AMD has any actual control over Global Foundries or if they are simply an investor. If this is indeed the main issue, I think AMD and Global Foundries will simply work out a deal so that AMD DOES have actual control and is not just an investor because come one, there are billions being dumped into GF, they won't just roll over now..[/citation]
This is perfectly well worded and short explanation of the whole Intel-AMD deal. I simply cannot add anything without ruining these words above. Just read it once .. or twice.. or several times if needed. Main part is that AMD has 50% votes in GF. Which makes their agreement valid.
And as mwinfie said - if you have these two options, which one would you choose (if you're AMD/GF/ATIC):
a) AMD doesn't controll the 50% of votes, leading to death of both AMD and GF, losing billions in a quick way
b) ATIC allows 50% of AMD votes, and they scr*w Intel hard, and make a successfull partnership for a long future ahead
AMD ain't dumb. ATIC ain't dumb. I'd even go as far to say that they have perhaps planted a trap for Intel. If they (somehow; and not very likely) do manage to get Intel part of Agreement revoked, and still keep the x86 (and other) licences, they will immediately close all Intel CPU sales and current development (Core, i7 & Atom CPUs) and will be left as a sole manufacturer of CPUs. If ATIC than invests A LOT of money in GF, they'd have manufacturing abilities just as well.. maybe even buying off Intel factories (as it would be cheaper for Intel to sell them, than keep them while manufacturing is halted).
weird things could happen...
But in the end, I think we all know what will happen. They'll sign another Cross licencing agreement, and world will keep on spinning for a while longer 😉 😛
This is perfectly well worded and short explanation of the whole Intel-AMD deal. I simply cannot add anything without ruining these words above. Just read it once .. or twice.. or several times if needed. Main part is that AMD has 50% votes in GF. Which makes their agreement valid.
And as mwinfie said - if you have these two options, which one would you choose (if you're AMD/GF/ATIC):
a) AMD doesn't controll the 50% of votes, leading to death of both AMD and GF, losing billions in a quick way
b) ATIC allows 50% of AMD votes, and they scr*w Intel hard, and make a successfull partnership for a long future ahead
AMD ain't dumb. ATIC ain't dumb. I'd even go as far to say that they have perhaps planted a trap for Intel. If they (somehow; and not very likely) do manage to get Intel part of Agreement revoked, and still keep the x86 (and other) licences, they will immediately close all Intel CPU sales and current development (Core, i7 & Atom CPUs) and will be left as a sole manufacturer of CPUs. If ATIC than invests A LOT of money in GF, they'd have manufacturing abilities just as well.. maybe even buying off Intel factories (as it would be cheaper for Intel to sell them, than keep them while manufacturing is halted).
weird things could happen...
But in the end, I think we all know what will happen. They'll sign another Cross licencing agreement, and world will keep on spinning for a while longer 😉 😛
It is obvious by the comments others have left here that a small minority of readers actually know what is happening.
This issue arose shortly after AMD made their original announcement to "spin off" their fabrication facilities. Intel expressed concerns at that time and again in October when Intel formally requested additional information from AMD with regard to their relationship to GlobalFoundries Inc. (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0748080720081007). "Mulloy [an Intel spokesperson] said Intel has asked AMD to make the agreement [between AMD and Advanced Technology Investment Co (ATIC), an Abu Dhabi state-owned venture capital firm] public, but he said it would not."
AMD still has not made the requested documents public. The only way Intel can determine if GlobalFoundries Inc. meets the definition of a subsidiary as specified in the cross licensing agreement is for AMD to provide details about the transaction with ATIC. AMD continues to refuse to make that information available to the public or to Intel. Intel is taking the appropriate action to request mediation in the matter which will require AMD to produce the requisite documentation.
The reason for the timing is that AMD's SEC filings clearly indicate that ATIC is the majority stakeholder of GlobalFoundries Inc. and those documents were not available until March second. It took Intel less than two weeks to file with the SEC on this issue, so the speculation about timing is nonsense.
To complicate the situation for AMD, Abu Dhabi already owns a significant stake in AMD proper (through several investment vehicles), which further dilutes AMD's actual position in GlobalFoundries Inc. AMD's primary contribution to GlobalFoundries Inc. is in the form of their fabrication facilities located in Dresden, Germany. AMD attempted to sell those facilities last year in order to raise needed capital, but could not find a buyer. Fab 30/38 does not have much value at this time because it is undergoing a massive retooling to update it's process technology from 200mm/90nm to 300mm/65nm and 45nm. However, AMD stopped the upgrade and halted all capital expenditures for it early last year. It is estimated to require an additional $2 billion US to complete the modernization of the facility. Fab 36 is the real AMD contribution to GlobalFoundaries Inc. It currently produces AMD's 65nm products and is also being converted to a 45nm production facility which should produce yields later this year. Fab 36 has value, but also debt which ATIC is assuming and that makes its valuation difficult. It is likely that AMD has significantly overvalued these assets to offset the ATIC capital investment in GlobalFoundaries Inc. because AMD's debt position simply did not allow them to equal that position. We will not know for sure until this valuation is made public by AMD or ATIC, if ever. Therein lies the crux of Intel's complaint. That is, AMD neither owns nor controls fifty percent of the outstanding shares of GlobalFoundaries Inc., and therefore GlobalFoundaries Inc. does not meet the definition of a subsidiary according to the patent cross license agreement which reads as follows:
1.22. "Subsidiary" shall mean any corporation, partnership, joint venture,
limited liability or other entity, now or hereafter, in which a
party
(a) owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) or originally
contributed (either directly or indirectly) at least fifty
percent (50%) of the tangible and intangible assets of such
entity; and
(b) owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) either of the
following:
(1) if such entity has voting shares or other securities, at
least fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or
securities entitled to vote for the election of
directors or similar managing authority and such entity
is under no obligation (contractual or otherwise) to
directly or indirectly distribute more than seventy
percent (70%) of its profits to a third party, or
(2) if such entity does not have voting shares or other
securities, at least fifty percent (50%) of the
ownership interest that represents the right to make
decisions for such entity and an interest sufficient to
receive at least thirty percent (30%) of the profits
and/or losses of such entity.
(c) An entity shall be deemed to be a Subsidiary under this
Agreement only so long as all requisite conditions of being a
Subsidiary are met.
This whole issue will likely be resolved in mediation, unless AMD is unwilling to meet the terms of the mediation. I doubt that will happen. Intel's Bruce Sewell said yesterday, "We have attempted to address our concerns with AMD without success since October. We are willing to find a resolution but at the same time we have an obligation to our stockholders to protect the billions of dollars we've invested in intellectual property."
In response to the notification to AMD that resolution will be sought through mediation, AMD claimed that Intel breached the agreement by notifying AMD of its breach. That position is also inconsistent with the terms for dispute resolution as outlined in the cross license agreement.
It will be interesting to watch this develop, but it won't take long before AMD investors take notice and force a resolution. The last thing an AMD stockholder needs right now is more uncertainty about AMD's future (I am speaking from personal experience on this point). Aside from the posturing, both sides will likely come to some agreement and AMD will do what it needs to for GlobalFoundaries Inc. to be able to meet the definition of a subsidiary and for the redacted portions of the cross license agreement to be met.
This issue arose shortly after AMD made their original announcement to "spin off" their fabrication facilities. Intel expressed concerns at that time and again in October when Intel formally requested additional information from AMD with regard to their relationship to GlobalFoundries Inc. (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0748080720081007). "Mulloy [an Intel spokesperson] said Intel has asked AMD to make the agreement [between AMD and Advanced Technology Investment Co (ATIC), an Abu Dhabi state-owned venture capital firm] public, but he said it would not."
AMD still has not made the requested documents public. The only way Intel can determine if GlobalFoundries Inc. meets the definition of a subsidiary as specified in the cross licensing agreement is for AMD to provide details about the transaction with ATIC. AMD continues to refuse to make that information available to the public or to Intel. Intel is taking the appropriate action to request mediation in the matter which will require AMD to produce the requisite documentation.
The reason for the timing is that AMD's SEC filings clearly indicate that ATIC is the majority stakeholder of GlobalFoundries Inc. and those documents were not available until March second. It took Intel less than two weeks to file with the SEC on this issue, so the speculation about timing is nonsense.
To complicate the situation for AMD, Abu Dhabi already owns a significant stake in AMD proper (through several investment vehicles), which further dilutes AMD's actual position in GlobalFoundries Inc. AMD's primary contribution to GlobalFoundries Inc. is in the form of their fabrication facilities located in Dresden, Germany. AMD attempted to sell those facilities last year in order to raise needed capital, but could not find a buyer. Fab 30/38 does not have much value at this time because it is undergoing a massive retooling to update it's process technology from 200mm/90nm to 300mm/65nm and 45nm. However, AMD stopped the upgrade and halted all capital expenditures for it early last year. It is estimated to require an additional $2 billion US to complete the modernization of the facility. Fab 36 is the real AMD contribution to GlobalFoundaries Inc. It currently produces AMD's 65nm products and is also being converted to a 45nm production facility which should produce yields later this year. Fab 36 has value, but also debt which ATIC is assuming and that makes its valuation difficult. It is likely that AMD has significantly overvalued these assets to offset the ATIC capital investment in GlobalFoundaries Inc. because AMD's debt position simply did not allow them to equal that position. We will not know for sure until this valuation is made public by AMD or ATIC, if ever. Therein lies the crux of Intel's complaint. That is, AMD neither owns nor controls fifty percent of the outstanding shares of GlobalFoundaries Inc., and therefore GlobalFoundaries Inc. does not meet the definition of a subsidiary according to the patent cross license agreement which reads as follows:
1.22. "Subsidiary" shall mean any corporation, partnership, joint venture,
limited liability or other entity, now or hereafter, in which a
party
(a) owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) or originally
contributed (either directly or indirectly) at least fifty
percent (50%) of the tangible and intangible assets of such
entity; and
(b) owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) either of the
following:
(1) if such entity has voting shares or other securities, at
least fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or
securities entitled to vote for the election of
directors or similar managing authority and such entity
is under no obligation (contractual or otherwise) to
directly or indirectly distribute more than seventy
percent (70%) of its profits to a third party, or
(2) if such entity does not have voting shares or other
securities, at least fifty percent (50%) of the
ownership interest that represents the right to make
decisions for such entity and an interest sufficient to
receive at least thirty percent (30%) of the profits
and/or losses of such entity.
(c) An entity shall be deemed to be a Subsidiary under this
Agreement only so long as all requisite conditions of being a
Subsidiary are met.
This whole issue will likely be resolved in mediation, unless AMD is unwilling to meet the terms of the mediation. I doubt that will happen. Intel's Bruce Sewell said yesterday, "We have attempted to address our concerns with AMD without success since October. We are willing to find a resolution but at the same time we have an obligation to our stockholders to protect the billions of dollars we've invested in intellectual property."
In response to the notification to AMD that resolution will be sought through mediation, AMD claimed that Intel breached the agreement by notifying AMD of its breach. That position is also inconsistent with the terms for dispute resolution as outlined in the cross license agreement.
It will be interesting to watch this develop, but it won't take long before AMD investors take notice and force a resolution. The last thing an AMD stockholder needs right now is more uncertainty about AMD's future (I am speaking from personal experience on this point). Aside from the posturing, both sides will likely come to some agreement and AMD will do what it needs to for GlobalFoundaries Inc. to be able to meet the definition of a subsidiary and for the redacted portions of the cross license agreement to be met.
waffle911
Distinguished
- Dec 12, 2007
- 243
- 0
- 18,680
Intel basically came crawling to AMD because Itanium failed miserably, and they needed an entry to the 64-bit era. And yes, 64-bit will be VERY important to Intel because Apple's Snow Leopard is shifting it's programming bias to take advantage of 64-bit computing potential at it's core. And we know how important Apple is to Intel-- they got the Nehalem Xeons weeks before their official release, just as they did the exclusive use of Penryn-based Xeons in their highest specification for the first few months after their release. And if Apple's doing it, Microsoft won't be far behind because as Windows becomes more complex, it will need more memory, and they're already pushing the limit of 32-bit addressing systems; this will especially be the case if Microsoft's idea to offset more graphical tasks to the CPU catches on. So yes, 64-bit is vital to Intel's survival, and no, they won't be able to come up with their own solution so quickly because they couldn't come up with a viable solution before, and they need that 64-bit architecture NOW, not later; the 32-64 shift is happening now. It could take Intel several years to develop a competitive 64-bit architecture of their own, and by then it would be too late.
Intel won't pull the plug on AMD. X86 is dying anyway. Plus, I think it's time to pull the plug on the navigation and targeting computers in the B-2 stealth bomber, which are still running on teams of old 286's. It might be time to upgrade to the 486 now, no?
Speaking of which (off-topic), I've always wondered whether Intel came up with Pentium as a more marketable name for the 586, rather than just sticking with the traditional X86 nomenclature.
Intel won't pull the plug on AMD. X86 is dying anyway. Plus, I think it's time to pull the plug on the navigation and targeting computers in the B-2 stealth bomber, which are still running on teams of old 286's. It might be time to upgrade to the 486 now, no?
Speaking of which (off-topic), I've always wondered whether Intel came up with Pentium as a more marketable name for the 586, rather than just sticking with the traditional X86 nomenclature.
sonofliberty08
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2009
- 658
- 0
- 18,980
if intel win that means the intel fanboy will be in the biggest trouble than any others , because intel chips will going to be extreamy expensave for them 😀
After thinking about this some more, IF AMD were to lose this legal battle, I don't think it would necessarily be a very bad thing for one reason. Obama's crew already views Intel/Microsoft as a monopoly. If Intel were to win this battle, this would only strengthen their case IMO.
Ive read the article, and everything seems ok for AMD.
If the cross patent license they have between them are to cease when the other cant use the patent intel is f u c k e d and they could end up payng AMD to produce x86 cpus so they could keep making their own.
For the idiot who said that competition isnt fair. The competition isnt fair because the US institutions that should make competition fair arent doing their job or are paid by intel. Look what hapens with big us companies in Europe (ms, intel, soon apple) and it isnt because theyre not european. Its because the EU comission protects consumers and fair competition between players, and are very hard to payoff in comparison with US.
In th EU antitrust case Intel risks to be banned.
If the cross patent license they have between them are to cease when the other cant use the patent intel is f u c k e d and they could end up payng AMD to produce x86 cpus so they could keep making their own.
For the idiot who said that competition isnt fair. The competition isnt fair because the US institutions that should make competition fair arent doing their job or are paid by intel. Look what hapens with big us companies in Europe (ms, intel, soon apple) and it isnt because theyre not european. Its because the EU comission protects consumers and fair competition between players, and are very hard to payoff in comparison with US.
In th EU antitrust case Intel risks to be banned.
Does anyone know if this might actually be a backdoor into letting Nvidia into x86?
I could see Intel trying to block Nvidia from getting access to a license without offering anything in return and this could explain a third party bailing out AMD..they would make money on the foundry whether the products came from AMD or Nvidia.
I could see Intel trying to block Nvidia from getting access to a license without offering anything in return and this could explain a third party bailing out AMD..they would make money on the foundry whether the products came from AMD or Nvidia.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News AMD says Intel's 'horrible product' is causing Ryzen 9 9800X3D shortages- Started by Admin
- Replies: 87
-
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram