News UK Regulator Approves AMD's Xilinx Acquisition

Jun 8, 2021
17
4
15
0
When you run a company with good working ethics, good enough consideration to your partners and customers, your reputation helps you move forward.

Glad this was approved and fingers crossed that the d!cks at nvidia are never approved to destroy ARM.
 

escksu

Respectable
Aug 8, 2019
450
157
1,860
0
When you run a company with good working ethics, good enough consideration to your partners and customers, your reputation helps you move forward.

Glad this was approved and fingers crossed that the d!cks at nvidia are never approved to destroy ARM.
lol, good ethics?? I didn't know that AMD has any good ethics and good consideration. All I know if that AMD is not different from Intel, both are just out to make money. Let me cite you a few examples.

1. AMD forbids all manufacturers to enable PCIE 4.0 support on non- X570/B550 boards. In case you are wondering, actually all 300/400 series boards supports PCIE 4.0. This is because its provided via CPU, not chipset. All you need is to ensure the board is able to technically support (meets the design specs). This is solely a marketing decision because it will kill off their X570/B550 chipset. Look at how much more you have to pay for B550 compared to B450.

2. AMD initially allow their new 5000 series CPUs to work only on 500 series boards. But they later changed their mind due to pressure from manufacturers (to a certain extent consumers). One main issue cited by manufacturers was that they will be left with a huge amount of inventory thats basically obsolete. Again, a purely marketing decision (official reason given by AMD was extremely lame).

3. I really pity all B350/X370 users who are simply "abandoned" by AMD. They simply "did an Intel". Came out with "refreshed" chipsets and board. X370 and X470 are actually identical chipsets. Differences were BIOS and board design.

4. Both companies are simply here to make money and price their products accordingly. Simply look at the price of 5000 compared to 3000. Nothing wrong with selling higher price since it performs faster. Is this considered good ethics? Clearly no.
 
Reactions: renz496

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
489
205
1,070
1
lol, good ethics?? I didn't know that AMD has any good ethics and good consideration. All I know if that AMD is not different from Intel, both are just out to make money. Let me cite you a few examples.

1. AMD forbids all manufacturers to enable PCIE 4.0 support on non- X570/B550 boards. In case you are wondering, actually all 300/400 series boards supports PCIE 4.0. This is because its provided via CPU, not chipset. All you need is to ensure the board is able to technically support (meets the design specs). This is solely a marketing decision because it will kill off their X570/B550 chipset. Look at how much more you have to pay for B550 compared to B450.

2. AMD initially allow their new 5000 series CPUs to work only on 500 series boards. But they later changed their mind due to pressure from manufacturers (to a certain extent consumers). One main issue cited by manufacturers was that they will be left with a huge amount of inventory thats basically obsolete. Again, a purely marketing decision (official reason given by AMD was extremely lame).

3. I really pity all B350/X370 users who are simply "abandoned" by AMD. They simply "did an Intel". Came out with "refreshed" chipsets and board. X370 and X470 are actually identical chipsets. Differences were BIOS and board design.

4. Both companies are simply here to make money and price their products accordingly. Simply look at the price of 5000 compared to 3000. Nothing wrong with selling higher price since it performs faster. Is this considered good ethics? Clearly no.
AMD is like Intel and Nvidia in the sense they are all profit seeking companies. Some of the decisions that you mentioned are made I believe partially due to profit reasons, and partially due to the design. For example, PCI-E 4.0 can be enabled on say X470, but AMD did not allow it in the end. The fact is that not all X470 boards are made equal since there is no standard to say you must make it PCI-E 4.0 compliant during that time. So If you buy a budget/ mid end board that unfortunately don't support it, the experience across is not consistent. So I can understand why they made the decision to kill the plan to allow PCI-E 4.0 on X470. I was using a X470 Taichi board then, and I was certainly disappointed, but I get the point. After all, I am already contented because the same chipset works for Ryzen 1 to 5 series. For Intel, because you buy a budget chipset like the B460, it just last for 1 generation of CPU, that's all. So not sure what more can you expect here. And PCI-E 4.0 is not really beneficial for everyone, i.e. there may be no tangible difference for some users beyond running some SSD benchmark to see a higher sequential read/write number.

As to the point on B350 and X370 users, just as you pointed out, the board designs are different. When Ryzen was first introduced, it was very different from the requirements from Ryzen 5000 series. B350 boards for example are not well built and so if someone was to slap a 5900X or 5950X and throttling like crazy, I don't see the point of force fitting it.

Price increase, it is indeed unfortunate for consumers. But if you were running a business, would you have done the same? The fact that many companies are approaching AMD for custom SOCs and not Nvidia or Intel, gives you a good idea on their opinion of the latter 2 firms.
 
Reactions: NeoMorpheus
Jun 8, 2021
17
4
15
0
that is not an indication to dictate which company is more ethical to the other.
Lets see, MS worked with NVidia on the first Xbox, yet ran to AMD right away and never came back.

Same for Sony.

Same for Apple.

Then add the fact that every...single...time that nvidia releases some software solution, its magically locked to their hardware, never contribute or distribute in a way that the whole industry and all the consumers can benefit from it.

And yes, they did release physx as open source, but only after everyone abandoned it and even that one, last time i read about it, had some gotchas.

The truth is, AMD is capable of working with others and already established a positive image in the industry.

For whichever their reasons, they have contributed plenty of good tech to become open standards.

Are they perfect? no and whoever in here that is perfect should go ahead and throw the first stone.

Then again, you and escksu might do consider yourselves perfect, so go ahead.
 

escksu

Respectable
Aug 8, 2019
450
157
1,860
0
Price increase, it is indeed unfortunate for consumers. But if you were running a business, would you have done the same? The fact that many companies are approaching AMD for custom SOCs and not Nvidia or Intel, gives you a good idea on their opinion of the latter 2 firms.
That is why business has nothing to do with ethics. As for why AMD was chosen has nothing to do with ethics as well. Its purely business.

1. AMD is the only company that makes both gpu amd apu. From a technical pov, it makes sense to have both cpu and gpu from the same company. Take note that you do not require the fastest cpu/gpu for consoles.

2. Pricing. Making both means amd could sell it at even lower prices than its competitors. Pricing matter even more than performance.

3. Btw nvidia is doing custom soc as well, but for other applications, esp. automotive where margins are much higher than consoles. Both nvidia and intel are also investing into AI.

So, whatever it is, it has absolutely nothing to do with ethics at all.
 

escksu

Respectable
Aug 8, 2019
450
157
1,860
0
Absolutely true. The only entities that care about ethics are fanboys. Businesses don't make equipment purchases based on a company's business ethics.
If one really wants to talk about "business ethics", it would not be such ethics. It would be things like using child labor, conflict minerals, sustainability, CSR etc etc...

But such ethics are more of things like meeting regulations and company reputation. Not because companies have good ethics.
 
Lets see, MS worked with NVidia on the first Xbox, yet ran to AMD right away and never came back.
the original sales was did not go as high as MS hope it to be. and because of that MS asking nvidia to lower the initial price both party agree early on. nvidia then ask MS to honor the initial contract. it has nothing to do with ethics what so ever. and MS themselves also understand this. hence despite they no longer contract nvidia to do their console they still pick nvidia solution for their other product like zune and the original ARM based surface.

Same for Sony.

Same for Apple.
AFAIK nvidia have no issues with sony. sony know what they get into when they ask nvidia to give them a GPU that can be used for their PS3 when their initial ambition to use Cell processor to handle both CPU and GPU did not go as they plan. as for apple the issue between the two mainly about software control.

And yes, they did release physx as open source, but only after everyone abandoned it and even that one, last time i read about it, had some gotchas.
are living in a cave or something? even before nvidia make physx open and more accessible nvidia PhysX is already one of the most successful third party physics engine only second to havok. when it comes to market share the split between havok and physx is about 50/50 with slight edge towards havok. so no it is not "abandoned" like you think it is.
 

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,396
659
2,060
0
If one really wants to talk about "business ethics", it would not be such ethics. It would be things like using child labor, conflict minerals, sustainability, CSR etc etc...

But such ethics are more of things like meeting regulations and company reputation. Not because companies have good ethics.
Correct, which is why I specifically said business ethics. If your CEO makes toxic political statements like the My Pillow CEO, companies will shy away from being associated with you. But there is no online cancel culture movement keeping track of which tech companies have screwed over other tech companies in previous partnerships.
 

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,396
659
2,060
0
Price increase, it is indeed unfortunate for consumers. But if you were running a business, would you have done the same? The fact that many companies are approaching AMD for custom SOCs and not Nvidia or Intel, gives you a good idea on their opinion of the latter 2 firms.
Nvidia doesn't produce x86 CPU's, and Intel has never had a high enough performing GPU for a console. The choice up to now has either been single chip SOC from AMD who is willing to accept lower margins or a more complicated and expensive solution using both Nvidia and Intel. The decision has never been about ethics.
 
Reactions: escksu and renz496

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,396
659
2,060
0
The truth is, AMD is capable of working with others and already established a positive image in the industry.
MSI CEO on the record a couple years ago for why they didn't want to use AMD CPU's:
  • Prior bad experience: MSI has used AMD processors in its systems before, but apparently had a bad experience. "At that time, their product was not right and their support was not that good," Chiang said. He didn't say which AMD CPU he was referring to, but we know that 2012's MSI GX60 had an AMD A10 chip inside. Our sister site, Laptop Mag, reviewed that laptop at the time and really liked the performance and battery life.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/msi-ceo-interview-intel-shortage-amd,38473.html

AMD's ODM support is not nearly as sterling as you seem to believe. AMD has been working hard to resuscitate it since Ryzen launched, but it is obvious how bad it was based on how slow the uptake has been despite having a superior product to Intel.
 
Lets see, MS worked with NVidia on the first Xbox, yet ran to AMD right away and never came back.

Same for Sony.
NVIDIA didn't bother with trying to enter the 8th generation console bids in the first place, because they felt the margins on consoles weren't worth it (https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/150892-nvidia-gave-amd-ps4-because-console-margins-are-terrible). Also around this time NVIDIA was investing more in data centers and mobile, so trying to continue in yet another market probably didn't make sense for them. The only reason why Sony is sticking around with AMD this time around is because backwards compatibility is king and AMD makes an attractive all-in-one package. Plus look at Nintendo, they ditched AMD for NVIDIA.

And as far as I know, NVIDIA didn't have a problem with Sony or vice versa. NVIDIA did have an arguably justifiable reason to have a problem with Microsoft: Microsoft overestimated how many Xboxes they would sell, which caused NVIDIA to overproduce how many chips they would make for them. When the Xbox wasn't selling, NVIDIA was sitting on unsold stock that was "promised" would be sold off. (https://www.cnet.com/news/nvidia-microsoft-settle-xbox-spat/)
 
Last edited:
Reactions: renz496 and escksu

escksu

Respectable
Aug 8, 2019
450
157
1,860
0
NVIDIA didn't bother with trying to enter the 8th generation console bids in the first place, because they felt the margins on consoles weren't worth it (https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/150892-nvidia-gave-amd-ps4-because-console-margins-are-terrible). Also around this time NVIDIA was investing more in data centers and mobile, so trying to continue in yet another market probably didn't make sense for them. The only reason why Sony is sticking around with AMD this time around is because backwards compatibility is king and AMD makes an attractive all-in-one package. Plus look at Nintendo, they ditched AMD for NVIDIA.

And as far as I know, NVIDIA didn't have a problem with Sony or vice versa. NVIDIA did have an arguably justifiable reason to have a problem with Microsoft: Microsoft overestimated how many Xboxes they would sell, which caused NVIDIA to overproduce how many chips they would make for them. When the Xbox wasn't selling, NVIDIA was sitting on unsold stock that was "promised" would be sold off. (https://www.cnet.com/news/nvidia-microsoft-settle-xbox-spat/)
Yes, console profits are razor thin. Below is April 2021 report from AMD:

  • Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom segment revenue was $1.35 billion, up 286 percent year-over-year and 5 percent quarter-over-quarter. The year-over-year increase was driven by higher semi-custom product sales and EPYC processor revenue. The quarter-over-quarter increase was driven by higher EPYC processor sales partially offset by lower semi-custom product sales.
    • Operating income was $277 million compared to an operating loss of $26 million a year ago and operating income of $243 million in the prior quarter. The year-over-year and quarter-over-quarter increases were primarily driven by higher revenue.
Despite dominating the console market (xbox and PS), AMD isn't making alot of money (those numbers already include EPYC high margin server CPUs). Its more than just profit as well. You need to dedicate resources to design and manufacture these SOC. Valuable capacity which is in short supply today is used for these low margin chips instead of Ryzen/EPYC/GPU.

So, its not hard to understand why Nvidia felt its not worth the effort. We have also seen Nvidia investing heavily in automotive and even military which has far higher margins than consoles.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/04/20210413-nvidia.html
 
Last edited:

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
489
205
1,070
1
Nvidia doesn't produce x86 CPU's, and Intel has never had a high enough performing GPU for a console. The choice up to now has either been single chip SOC from AMD who is willing to accept lower margins or a more complicated and expensive solution using both Nvidia and Intel. The decision has never been about ethics.
I don't believe there is a requirement to couple CPU and GPU from the same company when producing an SOC for console. Before AMD entered the picture, console SOCs are a mish mash of CPU from the likes of IBM and Nvidia. And to be honest, if AMD did such a bad job, I am pretty sure there will be no recurring business. Conversely, if Nvidia did such a marvelous job, I am pretty sure console makers are more than happy to use their GPUs and may be source chips from other companies, including Intel. But obviously they didn't. Cost is a concern mixing different solutions , but again, if AMD did that badly, I doubt both console makers will happily jump back with AMD again.

In any case, I did not mentioned anything about great ethics from AMD as I've clearly mentioned that all are profit seeking and the motives are clear. However I do find AMD more willing to flex than Nvidia and also certainly more open in their approach. To me, AMD seems like the lesser evil that's all.
 

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
489
205
1,070
1
MSI CEO on the record a couple years ago for why they didn't want to use AMD CPU's:
  • Prior bad experience: MSI has used AMD processors in its systems before, but apparently had a bad experience. "At that time, their product was not right and their support was not that good," Chiang said. He didn't say which AMD CPU he was referring to, but we know that 2012's MSI GX60 had an AMD A10 chip inside. Our sister site, Laptop Mag, reviewed that laptop at the time and really liked the performance and battery life.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/msi-ceo-interview-intel-shortage-amd,38473.html

AMD's ODM support is not nearly as sterling as you seem to believe. AMD has been working hard to resuscitate it since Ryzen launched, but it is obvious how bad it was based on how slow the uptake has been despite having a superior product to Intel.
I am not sure why you are bringing in other factors into the picture to prove what? Product is bad, yeah, its Bulldozer, so that is expected. Support is not good, while it is certainly not a good thing, but AMD is in the red for years and on the brink of bankruptcy. So comparatively to others, I am not expecting A star grade support. I don't know about slow uptake though because there can be other reasons why it is slow, i.e. Intel dangling carrot or flashing out their cane, because they have done so in the past. So I will not take speed of uptake as a gauge.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS