Intel and AMD Settle Antitrust, Patent Lawsuits 165
Kohenkatz writes "Intel has agreed to pay $1.25 billion to AMD. In return, AMD will drop its lawsuits about patent and antitrust complaints. The two companies released this joint statement: 'While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development.' The press release also says, 'Under terms of the agreement, AMD and Intel obtain patent rights from a new 5-year cross license agreement,' and that 'Intel and AMD will give up any claims of breach from the previous license agreement.'"
Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine that AMD has quite a bit to gain from the cross-licensing provision. In fact, they both do. I wouldn't be surprised if they're both worried about competition from mutual rivals such as ARM. This could be a big win for both in that regard.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly; however, if it ever came down to an all-out litigious patent war, AMD may well have come out on top thanks to holding the rights to the x86-64 instruction set. It's not clear that AMD gets any real benefit other than getting to put the whole dispute behind them. I suspect that the real advantage that AMD gets out of this is the admission from Intel that they were engaging in illegal business practices. Intel has agreed to stop blocking AMD from OEM sales and will probably honor it considering that they've just admitted to bad behavior.
It looks to me like AMD thinks that they can compete based on their products despite the disadvantage that Intel has put them in through illegal means. I just hope that it means we get to see some chips from AMD that once again provide a much better performance/cost ratio than the Intel chips.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just hope that it means we get to see some chips from AMD that once again provide a much better performance/cost ratio than the Intel chips.
AMD processors are still beating Intel in the performance/cost ratio. They have been falling behind Intel on performance benchmarks alone, but the cost is cheap enough to make AMD a clear winner when comparing performance and cost.
I'm looking forward to the time where they once again provide better performance than Intel while also toting a cheaper price tag.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The processor hasn't been the bottleneck for standard computing for a very long time. "
this isn't exactly true. ATi makes an AGP GPU that will totally bottleneck some of the higher end non extreme edition P4 processors at resolutions higher than 1280x1024.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AMD processors are still beating Intel in the performance/cost ratio.
Only if you ignore Intel processors which cost more than $200, right?
That doesn't seem right. The best performance per dollar isn't processors that cost over $200 each. The best performance per dollar is normally one or two models back from the bleeding edge which is currently CPUs like the Phenom II X4 955 for 175 dollars retail.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"the upper end Intels will give you the best performance per dollar if you're budget allows"
That's simply not true. The Core i7-975 costs more than three times as much as the i7-920, but it performs only around 25% faster. Or are you talking about some other upper-end Intels?
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Informative)
The best AMD (Phenom II X4 965) is about on par with the i5 and they cost about the same. As the CPU gets faster the price performance gets worse for Intel CPUs.
To be fair, if your buying a whole system that extra CPU cost becomes less significant. An i7-860 might be worth it if it increases the cost of the system by at most 30%. Even an i7-960 can be OK if it increases the price by at most 60%. Given that a good AMD computer costs maybe 600 then the i7-860 is probably worth it, but the i7-960 is overpriced when you factor in the motherboard.
Of course, Intel wouldn't have such good prices without AMD, so in the long run it's good to support AMD. Also most people don't really need the extra speed. If you need a new machine then a midrange AMD for around 500 is probably your best bet.
If you are really concerned about speed then just use the money you save to upgrade more often. Given Moore's law, on average, you'll have a faster machine (or at least a machine with more cores.) Also, when just upgrading, the AMD price/performance gap gets even better.
Huh? AMD's TDP is quite competitive with Intel (Score:5, Informative)
According to Newegg:
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor $199.99
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield 3.33GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor $999.99
So I'll grant you that Intel's flagship i7 is faster than AMD's flagship Phenom II, but the Phenom has a slightly LOWER TDP and is 1/5 of the cost of the i7. Is the i7 4-5 times faster?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When AMD first started releasing x86-64 processors, they were beating Intel in price and performance. I think that is why Intel started to resort to the tactics that they did.
AMD can't beat Intel on top performance these days because they keep falling behind on new fabrication processes. However, price out a comparable low to medium end AMD system with an Intel system, and you'll find that not only is the processor cheaper, but so is the motherboard.
AMD can still claim advantages at certain price points. N
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Try Prime95 in torture test mode for 12-72 hours. Much more likely to uncover issues with timing then MemTest86+. MemTest86+ doesn't push the CPU/RAM hard enough to uncover those "almost good" memory issues.
(There's also that weird thing with single sided or double sided, or registered vs unbuffered. Which is why I always buy pre-tested motherboard bundles from MWave. I make them do the hard work of figuring out what works or doesn't work.)
Re: (Score:2)
I would try Prime95 if I could get the box to even boot with 4 sticks. I could run Prime95 with two sticks, test them thoroughly, and then swap the sticks and test the other 2. However, given that I have no issues with any of the 4 sticks in any of the 4 slots when running only 2 at a time, and running 4 at once stops my computer from getting past POST, I don't think it is bad sticks.
I do however appreciate your suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did up the voltage to what Kingson recommended (2.1V or something like that) and still no luck. And I tried setting the 4 sticks to 800MHz, but that doesn't work.
I can get 4 actual sticks of 800MHz to work.
Re: (Score:2)
The usual answer for buying commercial software with a support contract is "to have a throat to choke". If you're into the vendor for $20k, the person on the other end of the phone tends to know something. Below $5k, good luck with that. At this point I'd specify open source below that price point just to shed the delusion that having a throat to choke is worth lifting a finger. Such a crock.
There really ought to be some stronger anti-fraud provisions against this kind of tech support experience. They
Re: (Score:2)
You get design flaws from time to time.
All I expect is a company to own up to them. You're right in that AMD isn't the only company to stonewall and deny a product flaw exists.
It still ticks me off though.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually my personal attitude was "I've tried thousands of different combinations and the only consistent thing is AMD silicon."
And their response is the same. They won't admit fault. They will soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main hardware failures I've had to deal with are:
- DOA power supply units in Antec cases (only 1 out of roughly 20)
- Busted capacitors on a GeForce PCIe low-end card
Most of our desktops use the 40/45W parts (energy efficient) models if we can get them. Keeps it cooler inside the case and makes it easier t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Possibly; however, if it ever came down to an all-out litigious patent war, AMD may well have come out on top thanks to holding the rights to the x86-64 instruction set.
Actually no. Intel sued AMD for patent infringement and the case was settled back in 1995. The end result of that was patent cross licensing but the agreement was asymmetric. AMD have to pay Intel a license fee for all the Intel patents they use but Intel does not have to pay AMD.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,39146227,00.htm [zdnet.co.uk]
Because of the details of a lengthy 1995 legal settlement between Intel and AMD, Intel can in all probability create and sell chips that are completely compatible with AMD's Opteron and Athlon 64 chips, which can run both 32- and 64-bit software, according to the companies and legal experts. Intel won't even have to pay AMD royalties if it incorporates ideas from any AMD patents into its chips.
"My understanding, based on the licensing agreement, is that Intel has access to AMD's patents so patent protection should not be a problem," said Richard Belgard, a noted patent consultant.
Intel may have to rename some of the instructions, or commands, embedded in any chip that is similar to Opteron, but "the code can be 100 percent compatible," Belgard added.
Though Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy declined to comment on whether or not Intel is working on a 32/64 bit chip, he concurred with Belgard.
"There are no legal barriers" that would prevent Intel from coming out with a chip that is similar and compatible with Opteron, he said. "There are no pitfalls either way."
An AMD representative stated: "I believe that is the case," but added that it would all depend on the circumstances.
Here's the key point
Under the terms of the settlement, both companies gained free access to each other's patents in a cross-licensing agreement. AMD agreed to pay Intel royalties for making chips based on the x86 architecture, said Mulloy, who worked for AMD when the settlement was drafted. Royalties, he added, only go one way. AMD does get to collect royalties from Intel for any patents Intel might adopt.
AMD also agreed not to make any clones of Intel chips, but nothing bars Intel from doing a clone of an AMD chip, Mulloy added.
While the terms may seem one-sided, AMD has benefited from the agreement as well. Without the clean and enforceable right to make x86 chips granted by the agreement, AMD would not have been able to produce the K6, K6 II, K6III, Athlon, Duron, Athlon 64 or Opteron chips without fear of incurring a lawsuit.
So Intel already have a right to use x86-64 license free.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the business practices are left "unspecified", Intel is certainly not admitting they were engaged in illegal business practices.
One has to wonder if this settlement isn't partly spurred on by the apparent chilly reception software patents received at the In re Bilski case the other day. I can't say I know a lot about either Intel or AMD's patent portfolios, but both companies make a substantial amount of software. If a large portion of both sides portfolios wind up being nullified, AMD's antitrust c
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ARM is a threat if Apple adopted it, or if Linux took off big-time. However, Windows 7 isn't being ported to ARM, because then all your existing software wouldn't work on it. Every single Windows developer on the planet would need to release ARM ports. For better or worse, we're stuck with x86 for some time to come.
The only time/way I see this changing is if Windows decided to break backwards compatibility with their previous API and apps, build a new API from the ground up, and at the same time port to a n
Re: (Score:2)
The WinCE version of Win7 has probably already been ported to ARM b/c there are way too many ARM based PDA/cells/etc that MS wants to target. In fact, every version of WinCE can run on the ARM processor; and developers can (if they choose) port it to other architectures as they get ALL the Windows source code. Of course, they typicall
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't exactly the same issue because you're not running Half Life 2 on your phone. You're not expecting to take your desktop apps with you, and mobile apps are ported to ARM processors.
The issue isn't that Microsoft can't port Windows 7 to ARM (though apparently it took years to port Office to x86_64 for crying out loud), but that they won't, because it will break every piece of Windows software out there.
Apple did manage to emulate their old processor on top of x86 with Rosetta or whatever it was call
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ARM is a threat if Apple adopted it
Yeah. The same way the PowerPC would be a threat today if Apple had stuck with it. That is, none at all. Apple isn't important enough a computer company to actually threaten anyone in the computer chip business.
The only time/way I see this changing is if Windows decided to break backwards compatibility with their previous API and apps, build a new API from the ground up, and at the same time port to a new archit ecture. They bundle in an emulator to run old apps that emulates both the API and hardware.
Windows does not need to replace the APIs to move to a new architecture. Windows NT was originally designed for the i860, not x86. Commercial releases have run natively on MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC, and Itanium. FX!32 was able to run x86 Windows programs on Alpha Windows back in 1996, as successfull
Re: (Score:2)
So Intel has allowed AMD to jump on the anti-trust bandwagon? How is that a good thing? Instead of a near-monopoly with an undercut competitor we now have an oligopoly.
I predict that by this time next year the cost/performance ratio difference between Intel and AMD will vanish, and that the ratio will become more costly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they lost more in revenue than that. But did they lose more in profits? Perhaps. There's also the possibility of access to patents that they did not have before, though this seems to be a pattern wherein around the end of the cross-licensing agreements, AMD sues (or threatens to sue) Intel, leading to some media stories and eventually an agreement, from which AMD seems to get more practical use than does Intel.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, you can bet I bought a Core 2 Duo after what happened to my coffee when I was researching a Phenom II...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those they couldn't poison they tried to bribe with cache...
Re: (Score:2)
The cache is a lie!
Re: (Score:2)
my thoughts exactly. I'm sure there is more to it than that from what I read of the business practice requirements.
Also, I suspect this won't stop the antitrust investigation in the US, either.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Informative)
Q: How did you arrive at this number
our SGNA expenses will decrease a bit on a go-forward basis
for us this has never been about money, it's about the marketplace, and there's no correlation between the settlement amount and anything... it's a negotiated number
what's important... it signals a new era, it's a pivot from war to pease, and we're trying oto redefine not only the path to a fair and fierce competitive fight in the blah blah blah tonality blah blah blah buzzword get this behind us and move forward in a very respectful way, blah blah blah
You can tell I'm listening to the webcast.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an AMD shareholder and an enthusiast who has followed this 'case' since 1999, I also think this settlement is low. I do not believe $1.25billion could bump AMD to a cash position of where it would have been if Intel had not competed unfairly. Yes, it is a $1.25billion injection of direct profits to AMD - but the cashflow through the company over the years from the marketplace to R and D would have put AMD in a much more competitive position.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that they don't really care about the past. They care about now. $1.25Bn is a lot of money coming in especially in the current economic climate. This and the patent deals means that AMD can move forward on relevant technologies now and in the future without worrying over spending money on lawsuits.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Only recently AMD was clearing some debts for 30 cents on the dollar - i.e., the banks wanted money so bad that they allowed AMD to pay back one third of the amount they were willing to clear. AMD didn't have much spare money though, so they didn't clear much.
Imagine if AMD has another such offer on the table from their banks - they could clear far far more than the money they got from Intel. Getting the money now could have an overall net benefit greater than letting such a deal expire and getting a bit more from Intel in a couple of years. Never mind the interest payments they'll save paying them off now rather than in the future, even if there is no such deal.
I think putting everything behind them, getting freedom to manufacture as they like, and having a level playing field with the OEMs (sadly at a time when AMD's offerings aren't the shiniest) is more important to them.
Re: (Score:2)
If intel is going to stop playing dirty (heh heh) then AMD's pricing will become much more attractive to OEMs.
Re: (Score:2)
Survival of the fittest, where it's not against the rules to fight dirty.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that this is 1.25 billion dollars that AMD need make no sale to acquire. No materials costs, no QC costs. No manufacturing losses. Why should AMD (or anyone else) be concerned with revenues lost? They're only a way to secure profits. This is much closer to a billion dollars of profits, which is far more valuable than a billion dollars of revenue.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought the 5 year term was a rather short period for this kind of business where it can take that long to bring a new design from drawing board to production. In a way, I hope it doesn't give either Intel nor AMD any fire power against ARM. I'd like to finally see another hardware platform enter the desktop segment first. ie, I'd like to see ARM get a foothold before they really see viable competition. They are doing quite well in the handset segment and are due to enter the netbook segment this fall. Success there will open the door to move up the chain into the laptop segment by this time in 2011 via multi-core systems.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Not to mention that this is a MUCH needed injection of cash for AMD in a time when they're struggling a bit. Not on the precipice of dieing, but they certainly could use some operating cash to help. $1.25 billion will help there tremendously - and if Intel actually does behave (I'm skeptical, but we'll see) then they may have a chance to actually make a good go of things again.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it $1.25 billion of pure profit? How much has AMD spent fighting this battle to this point?
How much more would they have to spend to continue fighting the battle? I would assume the risk/reward factor would say the smart move would be to finish what they started at this point and reap a MUCH LARGER settlement for their troubles. They've no doubt lost many more billions in lost sales over the past decade plus.
Combine that with the future value of market share, and we're talking about a huge shift.
The only
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you'd read the comment you were replying to, you'd notice I said it was "closer to" a billion dollars of profit. Which is already allowing for a quarter billion (yeah.. 250 million) of legal fees. So no, not 1.25 billion dollars of pure profit. Perhaps not even an even billion. But since they don't need to consume materials, qc, market, ship, warehouse, or otherwise mess with products or services.. yeah.. its a lot closer to pure profit than anything short of net income. I'm not even contesting tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Q3 2008 AMD only had a profit of $80 million [wordpress.com] and AMD lost 3 billion last year [econsultant.com], I'd say they've very happy getting 1.25 billion from Intel.
Also let's not forget 1.25 billion is 25% of Intel's 2008 profit [econsultant.com] so it's not exactly spare change.
I'd imagine AMD is throwing a big party right about now.
Re: (Score:2)
To win a lawsuit, you must be able to last to the end of the lawsuit. Winning a multi-billion dollar lawsuit helps little if you are under Chapter 7 bankrupcy.
Sometimes, as much as it sucks lemons, it's in your best interests to take the offer for pennies on the dollar rather than duke it out.
Re: (Score:2)
What really sucks is that while being squeezed by bankruptcy you'll be forced by exigent circumstances to get rid of your receivables at fire sale prices to a shark who will later, in due time, likely take down a windfall when the debt becomes due.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention Intel has already been found guilty in other countries. I think that Intel had good reason to suspect the same might happen in the US. Intel did get off light.
I assume AMD took the deal because they have been hemmoraghing money for some time now. They needed a cash influx and couldn't afford to fight a legal battle much longer.
The sad thing here is that the end lesson is that illegal, anti-competitive practices can be quite beneficial. The US government overlooked them, even when a bevy of vendors testified on AMD's behalf, despite Intel threatening those vendors. Intel profitted not only in the immediate dollar sense, but also in gaining massive market share.
Yet the US threatened to go after Google if they had a search partnership with Yahoo. That is an evil monopoly that must be quashed (but it would be fine if Microsoft purchased Yahoo, swallowed their services, and removed choice and competition from the marketplace). None of this makes much sense.
good thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Better in what way? Better in top performance. Sure.
However, when comparing performance to cost, and other mitigating factors such as some of the benefits of having a built-in memory controller, cheaper motherboards, etc. it makes sense to build and sell AMD systems.
What AMD needs to do - and quickly (Score:5, Interesting)
is to get its shit together Fab-wise. They've been leading Intel for nearly 10 years in developing or deploying new tech and architecture
but Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.
Now that Intel's Nehalem architecture has all of the elements that AMD has been delivering with the Athlon and its descendants,
they're back to being the budget brand.
Re: (Score:2)
Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess
Well that helps, but also due to the anti-competitive tactics that Intel used against AMD.
Re: (Score:2)
Fab capacity more than helps- its main factor in the success of a semiconductor company! AMD was self-admittedly fab constrained for the entire period when they had a performance advantage over Intel. They were selling every chip that they made! The limits on their success during this period had nothing to do with what Intel did or didn't do- AMD did as good as they could have given their anemic manufacturing capabi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Color me stupid, but why doesn't AMD strike a deal with IBM who does routinely manage to get their fabrication processes put together in a reasonable matter of time.
The Cell hasn't taken off like mad. IBM lost the Apple processor deal a few years back. I'm assuming IBM could ramp up and assist AMD.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Let IBM make CPUs for desktops and notebooks and see how intel likes it. Maybe AMD should get IBM to make the CPUs for them?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Back in the P4 days, Intel was kept afloat by dumping chips on the market. Deep pockets keep Intel around...
Today, Intel has a smaller process, but they don't have the SOI tech that AMD/IBM has for quite some time, so the fab advantage is considerably smaller than it appears.
Intel surpassed AMD in performance, not because of their fab, but because they managed to push new features, and keep redesigning thei
Re: (Score:2)
This agreement allows AMD to fully spin off Global Foundries if they come up with enough outside customers. More customers is the key to being able to move forward... it's all about volume. And actually being a separate entity from AMD is critical to getting those customers... it must at least be on the horizon.
AMD may be the budget brand, but people are broke. I certainly bought my Phenom II 720 MB, CPU, RAM on that basis. I've suggested AMD-based systems to a lot of people over the years on that basis, si
AMD was smart to take the money _now_ (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Has the EU distributed the fine money to consumers yet? I suspect that the average EU consumer won't see any financial benefit from these antitrust actions.
Re: (Score:2)
No, like taxes, the Intel fines end up in the general revenue fund of the EU.
DOJ? (Score:2)
I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?
Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody has to complain first.
Re:DOJ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?
Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?
The answers to your questions are in order: Yes and Yes.
If the DOJ thinks that Intel has done something worthy of an antitrust suit they can go after them (and the DOJ has been investigating Intel, so they still may). However, a non government entity can also bring an antitrust suit (although they have to demonstrate that they are in some way directly impacted by this behavior).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not if the Bush/Obama administration tells DoJ [eff.org] not to. Look at the pattern for the last 9 years and there's little reason to expect DoJ getting involved. As far as I can tell, these days the DoJ's main purpose in computers and communication industries seems to be to fight FOIA requests, keep cases out of courts, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The DOJ (under any administration) is unlikely to file a criminal complaint for antitrust because the burden of proof is so high (beyond a reasonable doubt). They'd have to have really solid proof.
The burden of proof in a civil case (such as the case against Microsoft) is rather low (preponderance of evidence). So the DOJ usually goes for the low-hanging fruit.
That's why I complain when people say MS was "convicted". The DOJ didn't prove their case to that standard.
Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Until these companies are forced to license to third-parties, we'll still see a real lack of competition.
Forcing them to license out all the relevant x86 patents would open up the playing field, but it wouldn't be totally open. One must still pay for what will almost certainly be expensive licenses. The only way to truly open up this market for competition is just to get rid of all of the x86 patents. Otherwise, Intel and AMD will still have quite a bit of control over who they deem important enough to enter the hallowed x86 market.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I see it as good and bad. The good: this might help AMD. The bad: it helps no other manufacturers. I would have preferred to see the absurd idea that an instruction set is patentable, get smashed. But I suppose there's no reason for AMD to advocate that, if they can get what they want through other means, since they happen to have the advantage over Intel in this regard.
C'mon, VIA, speak up.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically all the patents are on implementations, but there are thousands of them, mostly covering the obvious ways you would implement any of the features, or any pair of features, or any triple of features, or any pair of features in a particular process, etc., etc. The end effect is that it's basically impossible to implement x86 without stepping on some patents, proba
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is a third party. VIA
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/ [via.com.tw]
Here we go again (Score:2)
___AMD and Intel have made agreements previously, only to not be happy with the results. In particular, the first time, it looked very much as if as soon as they agreed to cross-license, AMD stopped innovating and depended upon Intel for product development. Intel felt cheated.
AMD and Intel have also agreed to stop suing each other previously. I wonder how long it will last this time.
The good news is that for a while some lawyers won't be getting any money.
Re: (Score:2)
Around this time they created an instruction extension called 3D-Now that did what MMX did and accelerated video.
The AMD K6 (bought in from NexGen) had MMX. (MMX uses the integrated x87 floating point register file for backwards compatibility with existing OSes). The K6-2 introduced 3DNow!. MMX is integer and 3DNow! is floating-point: it's effectively a floating-point extension to MMX. A K6-2 could do two single precision floating point adds and multiplications in parallel using 3DNow! (4 operations). It
My transcript (Score:3, Informative)
Jumped in a little late, here you go.
Q: So what does this mean ... in terms of ... ownership
Um uh, um uh. We have a obviously very important relationship with Abu Dhabi, global foundries is part of the vision of AMD, great thing for industry and us ... we will be implementing the agreements
the key thing here is that for AMD and for global foundries, this addresses anybody's concerns about robustness and entitlement
AMD the product company is well-poised to move ahead on its strategy in order to serve the market and be a key buzzword blah blah blah
the new patent cross-license between AMD and intel does give AMD broad rights
no longer requires global foundries to be structured as a subsidiary of AMD
Q: intel has agreed to provide business practice provisions
think of it in terms of marketplace and customer access ... in the compiler business, compilers will not unfairly/artificially impair the performance of our products, we're never looking for any help, just not unfairly... intel has an obligation not to do things simply designed to hurt us
ability for multinational OEMs and key channel partners to have "freedom of action" and choice to differentiate offerings between AMD and intel
respect to specific practices and ground rules, the agreement... totally transparent about this, the agreement will be totally public as quickly as we can achieve that
the key points are for us that intel will not be able to condition doing business with them on not doing business with us, that's one way I would put it. they can't use inducements in order to force exclusive dealing, delay customers from using our products, delaying companies from delaying advertising... withholding benefits from OEMs
blah blah lots of repetition of buzzwords like 'ecosystem' and 'productitivity gains'
Q: global foundries separation timeline
clearly gives AMD, global foundries, and atek flexibility esp. in light of acquisition of charter, and does pave the way for merger of charter and global foundries, but no announcemnet being made, no timeline
Q: ?
We are trying to reset the relationship between AMD and intel. That relationship has been intense, emotional, and at times acrimonious for ... all too many years. The one thing that I would say that is a touchstone principle ... we are going to be fierce competitors in a free and open marketplace, we are going to be mutually respectful, we want to put this behind us... healthy, normal relationship that competitors do. you will see in the agreement fought-out procedures by which we will build relationship and trust and try to resolve our differences without spilling into the courts, into the public affairs domain. this is a start and both parties intend this agreement to be an opportunity to pivot the relationship and go forward in a very classy way.
Q: Is this only x86? No graphics etc?
I uh, um, uh, that's a complicated answer but I think the general answer to your question is yes. The suits ... have pertained to x86 processors and platforms,
there's two parts to the agreement, one is antitrust, the other is patent cross-license, broad, covers "all productS"
let me put it this way... it is an important feature of our agreement ... that we have resolved ALL disputes. on the IP side, amd and intel have had patent peace with each other since 1976. design freedom to innovate, great contributors to patent portfolio... we have now the flexibility with rights under IP agreement for full use of foundries.
Q: is the cash being deployed towards reducing debt
you now understand why we were not more specific in yesterday's meeting on debt restructuring
Q: What happens to the cases around the world, what is your expectation
the regulatory investigations etc are conducted by sovereign governments ... so the regulators will do what they are
Totally read that as (Score:3, Funny)
HA!! (Score:2)
That will teach Intel to try and copy Microsoft's business model.
Screw you Intel! I'm always preferred paying less and getting more and that's why I always buy AMD.
Seems a shame (Score:2)
If Intel have abused their market position, it's a shame to see them "get away with it". I suppose if they *hadn't* abused their market position then it would seem a shame that they didn't get their day in court. That said, it seems pretty unlikely to me that any substantially sized company won't have been involved in dubious activity somewhere along the line, even assuming that there was no high-level directive to do this.
In the interests of honesty, I'll note that I have a few reasons for having a pro-I
Re: (Score:2)
Intel also got a bit soft. Remember the Pentium III 1.13 GHz product "launch" which consisted of like a dozen working processors sent to the press to review? Then they kept delaying and delaying release for like forever because they were buggy and couldn't manufacture them in quantity? Then the Pentium 4 processor, which had higher clock rates but was much slower overall? Remember Intel telling us we would be using 10 GHz processors years ago thanks to their Netburst architecture? Hah. How about claiming M
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They did get soft indeed, particularly around the Pentium 4 / Itanium era. Actually neither of those seemed to sound obviously bad ideas at the time but they utterly failed to deliver on the promised benefits :-( AIUI the Pentium M processor was actually pretty close to the Pentium III design, which many people seem to have approved of.
At least the stuff learnt from Pentium 4 (arguably even Itanium) systems hasn't been completely lost, since hyperthreading and EFI (for instance) are both seeing use in oth
Anyone else old enough to remember... (Score:2)
Stock price jumped... (Score:3, Insightful)
For those who bought AMD early enough, stock price jumped ~20% today. Not bad :-)
Don't forget that 1.25 billion represents a significant portion of AMD's capitalization and far surpasses the cumulated
earnings of the last few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie [wikipedia.org] might want to disagree.
(Though his money allowed him to get away with it a damn long time, eventually it didn't work.)
Re: (Score:2)
Devils Advocate: You'll notice what Bernie didn't have by the time the law caught up with him...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is independant of action that the US government would take against Intel.
Similar to how OJ was found not guilty in criminal court, but did end up paying restitution in civil court.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Intel could end up paying fines to the government, but AMD won't receive compensation from those fines.
Re: (Score:2)
The one who has the gold makes the rules. ...And the one who makes the rules gets the gold.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that wouldn't be anything new. In the past Intel licensed out x86 not particularly because they wanted to, but to deny a license to AMD and force it out of the market would bring the DOJ down on them like a ton of bricks.
So this is a good deal for both of them. They get x86-64 licenses renewed and keep a competitor around which they need for regulatory reasons. AMD gets a cash infusion that it seriously needs and its x86 licenses renewed.