|
icantfindaname posted: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. Are we pretending that ARM and the incredibly diverse ecosystem supporting it is nonexistent?
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Are we pretending that ARM and the incredibly diverse ecosystem supporting it is nonexistent? I posted:x86 cpu market Unless and until we're going to ditch x86 and move everything to ARM, Intel is in position to run the desktop, server and laptop markets at monopoly prices. Now I don't actually think nationalization is a good idea, but decrying it as "bu bu but COMMUNISM!!!!" as you seem to be doing is not helpful. The best thing would be for the Justice Department to have kept Intel from loving over AMD in the first place, but it's too late for that. Antitrust action doesn't really work after the monopoly has gutted its competition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Unless and until we're going to ditch x86 and move everything to ARM, Intel is in position to run the desktop, server and laptop markets at monopoly prices. It's like an AMD fanboy with 2007's script. icantfindaname posted:Now I don't actually think nationalization is a good idea, but decrying it as "bu bu but COMMUNISM!!!!" as you seem to be doing is not helpful. My main argument against nationalization is the same question of "which nation?" that you raised given that the semiconductor industry isn't a purely American enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Ok, yeah, we're just closing our eyes and pretending ARM doesn't exist and wouldn't happily leap at the chance to take all those markets. Besides that... cell phones? Tablets? Never heard of them. Are they an important market? That's not really a reason that Intel should be allowed to monopolize a large segment of the market, though. I'm not really sure what can be done at this point, I'm just saying that a feeling of "let's not do anything" is unhelpful. quote:It's like an AMD fanboy with 2007's script. You can't really deny that Intel hosed AMD over. It's possible Intel would have won without cheating, but it wasn't guaranteed by any means. quote:My main argument against nationalization is the same question of "which nation?" that you raised given that the semiconductor industry isn't a purely American enterprise. Considering Intel is an American corporation, then America? I mean, I don't think it's a good idea either, but that's not really a substantial issue. Nationalization also doesn't have to mean taking over an existing company either, they could just set up a government processor research agency or something. In any case, I think we agree that Broadwell being BGA only is a lovely move by Intel, though. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Considering Intel is an American corporation, then America? Intel is a huge multi-national company
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Intel is a huge multi-national company So I guess that means it's above the law of any one country, because it has operations in lots of them? I understand the point, I'm just saying that it's not as big a problem as it's made out to be, besides the fact that it will never happen, I suppose. And again, I don't think nationalizing Intel is a good idea. I think public funding for cpu research is an interesting idea, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say for sure. I think I misunderstood your position against nationalizing Intel in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So I guess that means it's above the law of any one country, because it has operations in lots of them? I understand the point, I'm just saying that it's not as big a problem as it's made out to be, besides the fact that it will never happen, I suppose. I'm not talking about the law or any of that monopoly stuff people are throwing around, just that you're talking about nationalizing a company that has a good number of its people and resources in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Considering Intel is an American corporation, then America? I mean, I don't think it's a good idea either, but that's not really a substantial issue. Nationalization also doesn't have to mean taking over an existing company either, they could just set up a government processor research agency or something. And why do we need an agency? Do you think the current DARPA funding of say, GAA research is inadequate? Can you even expand that acronym? icantfindaname posted:And again, I don't think nationalizing Intel is a good idea. I think public funding for cpu research is an interesting idea, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say for sure. I think I misunderstood your position against nationalizing Intel in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Is that public funding ~10 billion a year? Also, what's with all of the incredibly smug rhetorical questions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
Yaos posted: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. That's as good a guess as any, but I have doubts about whether NVIDIA could afford it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
Yaos posted: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. Things would probably get weird in the GPU market if they didn't spin ATi back out with the merger. Awesome as it would be to have the Radeon & GeForce engineers under the same roof, I think that'd either result in a performance-GPU Bad Monopoly or a terrifying war between the shambling AMDTiNvidia aberration and Intel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
In that case, instead of selling the company to a single business they sell the GPU part to Intel and the CPU part to Nvidia and balance is restored to the universe.
Yaos fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
redstormpopcorn posted:Things would probably get weird in the GPU market if they didn't spin ATi back out with the merger. Awesome as it would be to have the Radeon & GeForce engineers under the same roof, I think that'd either result in a performance-GPU Bad Monopoly or a terrifying war between the shambling AMDTiNvidia aberration and Intel. Couldn't in theory a bunch of people leave and start some other chip company of some sort?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
A bunch of plucky engineers move into a warehouse in Brooklyn and start hand crafting CPUs, calling them more authentic than Intel chips mass produced overseas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Is that public funding ~10 billion a year? Also, what's with all of the incredibly smug rhetorical questions? Pretty sure he works there and so while he can't talk to us about anything specific for obvious contractual reasons, he can still, using his knowledge that he can't share with anyone, pretty well poo poo on anyone else who lacks that members-only information for not having a clue about the specifics of what we're trying to discuss, I think, is the idea there. Try not to be too hard on him, though. I understand the basic impulse at work. It's genuinely difficult to stand at the sidelines and watch an uninformed/outsider-perspective discussion of things that you know everything about, especially when there's a slightly hysterical edge to it; we are talking about a pretty big potential shift in the basic ecology of our niche in computing, though it'll be effectively transparent to the vast majority of consumers. I've been in the same position in my line of work, which is waaaay less secretive and intense than cutting edge CPU design but nonetheless does involve (what seems to me, anyway) a great deal of outsider speculation as to what's going on behind the scenes. Personally, I have found that when you can't, legally or ethically, say anything to help people understand more, ridiculing them is not a good backup plan. Still, we're all adults here and a little bit of adversity in discussion isn't going to kill anybody. I'd love to be educated on the subject at hand more, but I am not sure he really can, at least in specifics, y'know?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Pretty sure he works there and so while he can't talk to us about anything specific for obvious contractual reasons, he can still, using his knowledge that he can't share with anyone, pretty well poo poo on anyone else who lacks that members-only information for not having a clue about the specifics of what we're trying to discuss, I think, is the idea there. It's grating to see people talking about a component of the industry that's been around for decades as an "interesting idea." But in the future, I'll try to show more respect and deference to ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Good mature post JawnV6 posted:Good mature post I was going to make a comment earlier, but looks like you guys proved the point about quality SA posters. Let's just treat this thread as most people not knowing the innards of what we do daily (which I think is true), and comment on what we can without breaking NDA and being too terribly condescending. Posters here aren't dumb, just everyone doesn't live and breathe CPU tech/business 24/7. That said, I do agree it's vital for their to be competition in the x86 market, just like any other market. Monopoly and economic issues aside, competition breeds innovation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
So AMD had to cut chip-orders from GlobalFoundries, and even after paying the early cancellation fee to the tune of $320 million, they're still minimizing the loss. Their initial deal was to buy $500 million worth, which has now become $115 million.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
AMD had some interesting things to show at CES: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130107232327_AMD_Reveals_Client_APUs_for_2013_Richland_Kabini_Temash_and_Kaveri.html Unfortunately I couldn't find anything that specified launch dates for their roadmap, other than Richland is shipping to OEM's now. They also plan to launch Kaveri this year, which I think will be the first release of their Steamroller cores.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
AMD's slides always look like crap when compared with Intel's. You'd think they'd hire someone with better powerpoint design skills...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Specs of the AMD "Richland" A-6000-series APUs have been released. These processors are in production and shipping to manufacturers now. Clockspeeds are up about 10% across the board at the same TDP, which goes a nice way towards closing the gap with Intel's low-end processors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
More and more evidence that AMD won the Playstation 4 bid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Looks like that's going to save AMD's arse if it is true, a bit like with Apple's investment into Sharp for LCD panels
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
You Am I posted:Looks like that's going to save AMD's arse if it is true, a bit like with Apple's investment into Sharp for LCD panels I dunno, I remember reading from AMD's last earnings report that they made almost nothing from the WiiU chips. Those volume contracts have very, very little margin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
I don't think they would have realized much revenue from the WiiU yet, right? The WiiU also contains cheap, low capability components and only a GPU, while it looks like the Xbox 720 and PS4 will have AMD CPUs and GPUs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Ok, yeah, we're just closing our eyes and pretending ARM doesn't exist and wouldn't happily leap at the chance to take all those markets. Besides that... cell phones? Tablets? Never heard of them. Are they an important market? I think the same "2500K at $200 is a ripoff" people forgot their beloved AMD once charged $350 for their cheapest X2 and still think that same chip was still worth $150 after a $180 OCed E6300 laid waste to the entire AMD lineup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
A huge part of this is that no matter who AMD goes to to fan their chips, intel is a year and a half ahead of the process tech at the least. They're attempting to solve problems right now that the big thre foundries don't even know about yet, and while there are some novel ways to avoid those problems using some newer technologies that Intel is using, those have their own unknowns and issues as well. Intel's long game of "pay process engineers out the rear end" on the process side has given them a number of advantages that the other guys don't have. What they are doing at the 1272 node is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Tim Thomas posted:What they are doing at the 1272 node is ridiculous. Got any more info on this? I asked in the Intel thread a while back about articles on fab processes and got a lot of good stuff, but none of it mentioned what they had planned for 14nm. When are AMD and the rest of the fab sector expected to reach 22nm anyway? This year or next?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Tim Thomas posted:A huge part of this is that no matter who AMD goes to to fan their chips, intel is a year and a half ahead of the process tech at the least. They're attempting to solve problems right now that the big thre foundries don't even know about yet, and while there are some novel ways to avoid those problems using some newer technologies that Intel is using, those have their own unknowns and issues as well. Intel's long game of "pay process engineers out the rear end" on the process side has given them a number of advantages that the other guys don't have. What they are doing at the 1272 node is ridiculous. Except that Intel is opening up its excess fab capacity as a foundry. AMD designed, Intel-fabbed CPUs are a real possibility. Though I doubt Intel will have enough capacity to really let AMD do a significant portion of its volume.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Except that Intel is opening up its excess fab capacity as a foundry. AMD designed, Intel-fabbed CPUs are a real possibility. Though I doubt Intel will have enough capacity to really let AMD do a significant portion of its volume. It's a possibility, but a very unlikely one. Intel's (possible) foundry business will more likely be silicon in markets they don't compete in or choose to exit. They'd have to be totally desperate for volume to give part of their competitive advantage to their nearest competitors in their core business (CPU and servers.) I think you'd see TI, Cisco, Qualcomm, or Apple silicon in Intel foundries long before you'd see anything like AMD or Nvidia products.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
I think the only reason Intel would open their foundries up to AMD would be to keep the anti-monopoly watchdogs happy that there is sufficient competition in the CPU space. Should AMD go bankrupt and leave Intel as the only player in the x86 CPU market then they will obviously be facing some major scrutiny in their pricing etc. But while AMD is competing in that market the governments around the world a far more likely to leave it to the market to self-regulate. Of course that leaves the danger than Intel could become essentially the only foundry manufacturing x86 type CPUs which would also lead to scrutiny. Varkk fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
As far as I know, Intel hasn't released any EDA tools for any of their finfet processes, so I don't know how much help that will be to AMD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:Got any more info on this? I asked in the Intel thread a while back about articles on fab processes and got a lot of good stuff, but none of it mentioned what they had planned for 14nm. Missed this earlier. I can't say a whole lot more than what you can find online at the old 1270 tech roadmap on Intel's website: http://download.intel.com/newsroom/kits/22nm/pdfs/22nm-Details_Presentation.pdf From the capital equipment side, going to 14nm from 22nm almost guarantees the following: - Stupid amounts of patterning, even versus 22nm. - Anisotropic processes need to be even more anisotropic and target specific. - Increased focus on damage engineering, crystalline structures, and epitaxy. - Uniformities still important. - Metrology and damage repair tech becomes paramount. To make a larger point: the process difference between 32nm planar and the 28nm half node is difficult and it's not like the usual foundry players haven't had their struggles in that realm. The process difference between 22nm 3D and 14nm 3D is monumental. To go from 28nm planar (which I believe Steamroller is) to 14nm 3D is almost a three node jump when taking all the differences in process into account. That they've been able to get as far as they have as quickly as they did is a testament to Intel: their process guys know what gently caress they are doing to an absolutely scary extent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Have they figured out EUV at all yet or is that still totally impractical?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
EUV still doesn't have the source life to make sense. This, along with the 450mm transition, is why Intel, Samsung, and TSMC have dumped billions of dollars into ASML.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
AMD is officially in the Playstation 4.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Here's a randomly Googled link: HotHardware Interestingly, despite having an octocore APU, it will have a dedicated secondary processor to handle background processes like downloads and social networking. There won't be backwards compatibility for physical games, but apparently you can stream older games from the cloud? Huh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
Emulating cell is hard. They own an onlive type company now
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
Yeah, as soon as it was leaked that PS4 was x86 a while back you knew there wasn't going to be BC; especially since Sony purchased Gaikai.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 04:20
|
|