|
Chuu posted:I can't think of anyone who would want them at this point, unless the x86 license was part of the deal. I sort of have to assume it is not, because their market cap is only $1.3B with $2B in debt. I also have no idea who would want them at this point either. They are a fabless chip designer in a world that's becoming more crowded with fabless chip designers. This slashdot comment makes a few good points. I'd disagree with the poster about Microsoft. They're already pissing off their OEMs by making Surface hardware. I don't think it would be strategically wise to do much more in that space. AMD's CPU platform is in a rough space right now. I don't know who would want to take the risk to try to turn it around.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
teagone posted:Apple has been developing their own chips for a while now (for mobile devices anyways), and were even rumored to have had an AMD MacBook Air prototype in the works a while back. Would they benefit anything from purchasing AMD?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
Maybe if Sun were still around, they'd want AMD for the x86 license. I doubt Oracle would be up for it, they just wanted Java. Who would want the GPU business?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Intel might, if the heterogeneous compute ISA is reasonably far along in development and that's part of the deal. (total speculation)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Re: the x86 portion, that would be tricky. The buyer would have to sit down with Intel within a year and have a "What are your intentions with my daughter?" and "Tell me about your family" type conversation, which will likely end in court anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Re: the x86 portion, that would be tricky. The buyer would have to sit down with Intel within a year and have a "What are your intentions with my daughter?" and "Tell me about your family" type conversation, which will likely end in court anyway. Edit: Xeon Phi cores are 64-bit after all, I thought they were still 32-bit only. Alereon fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Nov 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Sorry if this is in the wrong thread, but I had some questions about CPU temp and overclocking. I'm trying to stream some games I play, and I found that the default speed for my 965 Black wasn't quite cutting it, so I've OC'ed my CPU with AMD Overdrive. Stream performance has improved, but I had a few questions about performance and temp. Temperature - My attempts at stress testing what it'll be like streaming a game, my CPU temp tops out at about 54.5 C. Is that safe? Should I turn it down, or try and get a better cooling setup? What is a safe temperature? Also, I'm using AMD Overdrive to set this all up because I'm a huge noob. The only thing I've touched is the CPU core multiplier. I set all 4 cores to 19x, up from the default 17x. Target speed 3800 MHz. Finally, is the AMD Overdrive software reliable when reporting the temperature and such?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
The only program that should be used for temperature monitoring on AMD CPUs is CoreTemp (RealTemp for Intel CPUs). If Coretemp agrees with that temperature then you're probably fine. I'd check out the Overclocking Megathread for your other questions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Intel has a vested interest in AMD's survival. Without AMD, involvement from the DoJ is highly likely. Apple/Arm and others are not likely to amount to sufficient competition to keep intel from being highly regulated. Intel would much rather keep AMD around in some sort of capacity if nothing as a monopoly regulation insurance policy. The fact remains that consumers are already suffering in that Intel is not really challenged on the CPU side and they are setting prices with relative impunity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
KennyG posted:Intel has a vested interest in AMD's survival. Without AMD, involvement from the DoJ is highly likely. Apple/Arm and others are not likely to amount to sufficient competition to keep intel from being highly regulated. Intel would much rather keep AMD around in some sort of capacity if nothing as a monopoly regulation insurance policy. For years OEMs have been engaged in a "race to the bottom", by exercising only the price portion of the price/value equation. This is why you can get a $400 laptop that feels like it's made of cardstock. AMD has been complicit in this the entire time, keeping their desktop/mobile CPUs cheap and dirty. Prices of Intel silicon have been increasing or remaining flat with the performance or value increasing, making the product more attractive. AMD currently occupies the "dirt-cheap and adequate" segment, which is a pretty uncomfortable place to be. AMD's pricing is somewhat competitive at that bottom tier. It provides a baseline for which to price Intel's silicon. I wouldn't say they're exactly getting away with murder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 07:06
|
|
canyoneer posted:For years OEMs have been engaged in a "race to the bottom", by exercising only the price portion of the price/value equation. This is why you can get a $400 laptop that feels like it's made of cardstock. The dream scenario would be Intel buying AMD and then the merged company being nationalized into a National Institute for Microelectronics (or something) to pool resources and brainpower, because past ~14nm the investments into forward progress are going to become very, very expensive. Create the NASA of computer architecture. wheez the roux fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Nov 21, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:The dream scenario would be Intel buying AMD and then the merged company being nationalized into a National Institute for Microelectronics (or something) to pool resources and brainpower, because past ~14nm the investments into forward progress are going to become very, very expensive. Create the NASA of computer architecture. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:The dream scenario would be Intel buying AMD and then the merged company being nationalized into a National Institute for Microelectronics (or something) to pool resources and brainpower, because past ~14nm the investments into forward progress are going to become very, very expensive. Create the NASA of computer architecture. I think Intel currently spends more on their development than NASA has in total. Bad Example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
Fuzzy Pipe Wrench posted:I think Intel currently spends more on their development than NASA has in total. Bad Example. Intel's current operating income is about identical to NASA's total budget, and their total revenues are some 3.5 times that. But mostly, as fine as NASA is for generating pure science and driving technological developments that other fields benefit from, I can't think of any part of NASA directly developing/producing consumer products that would be an improvement over the current semiconductor industry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 08:45
|
|
Fuzzy Pipe Wrench posted:I think Intel currently spends more on their development than NASA has in total. Bad Example. Ok, the DARPA, NASA, it was just an analogy so whatever. The point is extreme UV lithography is only good in the ~14-10nm range, anything beyond that is going to be brutally expensive to develop and there's no point having a few disparate companies attacking it from different angles rather than a centralized research institute. Where the best of the best can all pool their ideas and resources into creating next-gen fabrication processes. I'm not saying they should become part of NASA, just that they should all operate under one nationalized roof. If we were talking really extreme viewpoints, I'd say we should commit Manhattan Project level resources to <10nm and quantum computing. wheez the roux fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:Ok, the DARPA, NASA, it was just an analogy so whatever. The point is extreme UV lithography is only good in the ~14-10nm range, anything beyond that is going to be brutally expensive to develop and there's no point having a few disparate companies attacking it from different angles rather than a centralized research institute. Where the best of the best can all pool their ideas and resources into creating next-gen fabrication processes. Sure, lets get the UN right on that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Well, I may have a reason to buy an AMD processor again after all... Broadwell to be BGA only
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:If we were talking really extreme viewpoints, I'd say we should commit Manhattan Project level resources to <10nm and quantum computing. Wikipedia posted:employ more than 130,000 people cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2012) Aside from your bizarre idea to try and nationalize this, as thebigcow noted, "which nation?" is the begged question there, if you're concerned about Manhattan Project level resources being committed they already are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Whoa. Wow. Manhattan Project level resources? Holy poo poo that's got to be huge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
keyvin posted:Well, I may have a reason to buy an AMD processor again after all... Eh, I can't remember the last time I swapped through several CPU's on the same motherboard. I can't see this as the death of enthusiast computing, though the number of components you need to buy has dropped significantly over the years as more and more has become part of the motherboard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I'm not saying that nationalization is the solution, but <10nm fabrication certainly isn't a solvable problem for independent for-profit corporations. If it wasn't for the plural this would be ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Whoa. Wow. Manhattan Project level resources? Holy poo poo that's got to be huge. That number isn't adjusted for inflation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:That number isn't adjusted for inflation. Wikipedia posted:employ more than 130,000 people cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2012[1])
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:If it wasn't for the plural this would be ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Whoa. Wow. Manhattan Project level resources? Holy poo poo that's got to be huge. So your complaint is that saying it would need to be on the scale of the Manhattan project is understating the issue. How does that invalidate his point? EDIT: And trying to use Samsung's employee count in this comparison is specious. Only 20% of their revenue comes from semiconductors. You might as well use Walmart's employee count. ohgodwhat fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Nov 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
I seriously doubt there would be the political will in the US or anywhere to commit to such a large project to nationalise part of an industry like that. Far more likely would be to use anti-monopoly laws to force Intel to split off their chip manufacturing to a new independent company who would offer their services and knowledge to any other company. So you would have Intel who would design and market chips but be forced to outsource manufacturing to this new company who would also offer the same services at comparable rates to AMD and Samsung or anyone else who wanted to make chips. Of course this is even less likely to happen than the next generation of AMD CPUs beating Intel's offerings and even if it did it would be 10+ years of arguing, legal challenges and political lobbying before anything happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Alereon posted:This isn't true at all. Intel's 2012 R&D budget was $10.1 Billion across ALL products and areas, and Intel is the only company I'm aware that is fabbing logic at under 28nm, or has <20nm fabs for something other than memory as more than a glimmer in their eye. ohgodwhat posted:So your complaint is that saying it would need to be on the scale of the Manhattan project is understating the issue. How does that invalidate his point? ohgodwhat posted:EDIT: And trying to use Samsung's employee count in this comparison is specious. Only 20% of their revenue comes from semiconductors. You might as well use Walmart's employee count.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
I bought an FX-4170 on monday. I will admit to being an AMD fanboy/Intel hater, but realistically, I couldn't beat the price for the performance level on the platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Coming back to this, in one year a single company spent 40% of the Manhattan Project's entire 4-year budget on R&D. Going back to wikipedia, "Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissionable materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapon." So yes, I still think it's a comparison built on fundamentally misunderstanding the two quantities involved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Alereon posted:You're right, this is actually a vastly harder problem than the Manhattan Project Alereon posted:Intel spent $8 Billion just on four fabs for the 22nm transition, and three of those were upgrades of existing fabs. Alereon posted:that $10B R&D budget It's a nasty comparison when you try to drill to any level of real detail. The MP budget includes things R&D and capital costs so trying to compare it to slices of corporate budgets, as you were, it's easy to point out the inaccuracies. My original post was deconstructing wheez's ridiculous fantasy. I don't think anyone's actually backing wheez's point anymore, we're just discussing how wrong my teardown was? I think our disagreement comes down to this: Alereon posted:The point I was making is that the costs are going to become so astronomical that no single company will be able to profitably fund a process shrink
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Civil posted:Eh, I can't remember the last time I swapped through several CPU's on the same motherboard. I can't see this as the death of enthusiast computing, though the number of components you need to buy has dropped significantly over the years as more and more has become part of the motherboard. That's true enough, but also think of: -being able to pair a cheapo mobo with a nice enthusiast GPU -the time your mobo dies and being able to replace it. I can easily see neither scenario being possible under this new regime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:That's true enough, but also think of: I guess I'm fortunate, but in the last decade or so, I've never had to replace a CPU or mainboard. I kind of like the idea of Intel moving towards a more integrated solution with BGA; means less poo poo for me to buy/assemble which I'm all for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:That's true enough, but also think of: How about pairing a mobo with a good feature set with a strong, mid-range CPU. I can already envision certain motherboard features only being available if you buy high-end CPUs. It wouldn't surprise me to see even the most basic overclocking features require a high-end 'X' processor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
A question to ask yourself while you try to figure out which combination of dollars and employees will get chips smaller than X: why does this need to be done? Seriously, who need these chips, what will they do, who will be able to afford them? Nationalization? We'd be lucky if the red tape for the new fangled Pentium 4 were clear by now. edit: I'm being trolled, aren't I thebigcow fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
thebigcow posted:A question to ask yourself while you try to figure out which combination of dollars and employees will get chips smaller than X: why does this need to be done? Seriously, who need these chips, what will they do, who will be able to afford them? Well, the x86 cpu market appears to be collapsing into a monopoly, and even in hypothetical land where Intel didn't sabotage the hell out of AMD back in the Athlon 2 days it's doubtful whether two separate companies with separate R&D, fabs and everything could be sustained indefinitely. If the cpu market really is a natural monopoly then at the very least it should be more tightly controlled to prevent Intel from loving everyone over. I agree that it's not really a prime choice for nationalization because x86 processors aren't really necessary, plus the fact that they're actually selling a diversified product to consumers, which nationalization doesn't really do well, but like I said, natural monopolies pretty much require some form of government control if not outright nationalization to not gently caress everyone over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
adorai posted:I bought an FX-4170 on monday. I will admit to being an AMD fanboy/Intel hater, but realistically, I couldn't beat the price for the performance level on the platform. It's not the no-brainer you consider it to be: the closest I can get in AnandTech bench is FX-4300, which is similar to the Core i3-3220, costs exactly the same, but at least with the Intel you'd have a board which you could then toss the best available CPUs in later. Oh, and all while using far less power. (If you did want AMD, why didn't you get the 4300 for $10 more seeing as it's the newer revision? Less heat, better headroom, improved IPC..) HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 12:45
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:It's not the no-brainer you consider it to be: the closest I can get in AnandTech bench is FX-4300, which is similar to the Core i3-3220, costs exactly the same, but at least with the Intel you'd have a board which you could then toss the best available CPUs in later. It's actually worse than that if your computer is primarily for gaming; if you delve into techreport's metrics where they look at frame time beyond 16.7ms and 99th percentile frame time, you'll see that the i3 actually provides a significantly smoother gaming experience than the 4170; hell, with the exception of BF3 (although man, what an outlier) even the ultra low end pentium branded chips are better game performers. I can see the argument for low end AMD with very specific workloads, but general purpose computing and gaming, Intel has even the low end completely sewn up at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 14:11
|
|
|
keyvin posted:Well, I may have a reason to buy an AMD processor again after all... Don't laptop guys use a heat gun or something to remove BGA chips?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Don't laptop guys use a heat gun or something to remove BGA chips? Sure, removing the chip is no problem, but re-balling a BGA chip and getting it back on there? This is not a realistic thing for most people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Since we are making wild guesses based on little information I have to say Nvidia could be in the market to buy AMD. If it's true AMD will be in every new console it gives Nvidia a way back in. Nvidia is already fabless so AMD would be a good fit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 18:46
|
|
