AMD is in the soup, again.
- Thread starter setishock
- Start date
PP Mguire
Build Guru
- Messages
- 32,591
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
Yea I posted that on FB yesterday. Where's Mike to argue FX has real cores with me now hahaha. I have ALWAYS called the FX8*** quad cores because that's what they are.
C0RR0SIVE
Golden Master
- Messages
- 9,213
- Location
- Lexington, KY
Ehh, meh, AMD is soon going to be nomore, and we will be stuck with Intel... Then we will end up back in an era where it's just like what happened with P3/P4 - staleness.
PP Mguire
Build Guru
- Messages
- 32,591
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
Nope, somebody will have to buy them out to keep Intel from having a monopoly. There are talks of just that already. They split their graphics division and I'm hoping Samsung takes the bite on the CPU division.
C0RR0SIVE
Golden Master
- Messages
- 9,213
- Location
- Lexington, KY
Intel technically wouldn't have a monopoly, as there ARE other CPU manufactures out there, maybe no one that makes an actual good x86-64 capable CPU, but there are others.
PP Mguire
Build Guru
- Messages
- 32,591
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
There has to be competition in the x86 market and the only 2 players are AMD and Intel. ARM, SPARC, IBM, VIA, Qualcomm don't really count.
C0RR0SIVE
Golden Master
- Messages
- 9,213
- Location
- Lexington, KY
Still, I don't see them being a monopoly as VIA still designs x86 processors to this day, and there are many operating systems that will run on ARM. Also, if I am not mistaken, any company can go out and make an x86 processor now, just no one has a desire to. In the eyes of a court, the fact that VIA still produces and designs x86 CPUs means that there is more than one player in town, and they don't care if AMD dies.
With that said, anyone can buy AMD up, it doesn't mean that the courts can force them to produce either an x86 or x86-64 CPU, sure a court could break Intel up, or tell Intel no more x86-64, but, I have SERIOUS doubts that the courts would do that.
If you say VIA doesn't really count, then IMO, AMD doesn't count either considering how far behind they have fallen in terms of processing capabilities.
It's almost like me sitting here saying, "Hey, I want to replace this part on my car, but it's a dealer only item and no one else makes it, that's a monopoly!" Not really true, the issue is, no one sees a profit or purpose in making that part yet, aside from the actual manufacture that made the part to begin with. That happens far more often with cars that are almost brand new off the line than you think. I still run into cars to this day where the only place you can get the proper brake pads are from the dealer because the cars are so damned new.
So no, Intel wont be considered a monopoly in the end just because AMD fails, and if the courts eventually DID consider it, one of two things will happen. We wont see ANY x86-64 CPU come from Intel anymore, OR Intel will be broken up, and we still wont see an x86-64 CPU. Good bit different than when the government forced Bell to break up compared to consumable items.
With that said, anyone can buy AMD up, it doesn't mean that the courts can force them to produce either an x86 or x86-64 CPU, sure a court could break Intel up, or tell Intel no more x86-64, but, I have SERIOUS doubts that the courts would do that.
If you say VIA doesn't really count, then IMO, AMD doesn't count either considering how far behind they have fallen in terms of processing capabilities.
It's almost like me sitting here saying, "Hey, I want to replace this part on my car, but it's a dealer only item and no one else makes it, that's a monopoly!" Not really true, the issue is, no one sees a profit or purpose in making that part yet, aside from the actual manufacture that made the part to begin with. That happens far more often with cars that are almost brand new off the line than you think. I still run into cars to this day where the only place you can get the proper brake pads are from the dealer because the cars are so damned new.
So no, Intel wont be considered a monopoly in the end just because AMD fails, and if the courts eventually DID consider it, one of two things will happen. We wont see ANY x86-64 CPU come from Intel anymore, OR Intel will be broken up, and we still wont see an x86-64 CPU. Good bit different than when the government forced Bell to break up compared to consumable items.
Last edited:
PP Mguire
Build Guru
- Messages
- 32,591
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
You're forgetting the server markets and patents associated with the technologies which both Intel and AMD hold. Our entire PC software market relies on patents from both companies to run with the exception of the original x86 which was standard for the 8bit processor and has since expired. Sure, anybody can run with it, but that doesn't include x86-64 which is owned by AMD, or SSE, or anything like that. That's why I say VIA doesn't matter. Do their x86 chips matter today? Look in every single standard desktop PC or server. It's going to have an Intel or AMD chip in it as VIA concentrates on lower powered things like kiosks. I go to lunch on a regular basis with some big guys from HP and even they are a bit worried about AMD's demise. If they go under, who does Intel license x86-64 from? The patent doesn't just dematerialize. If it worked that way game IP would suddenly be available to take after these companies went belly up like Parallax and Descent and the original IP copyright.
MadmanRB
In Runtime
- Messages
- 223
- Location
- Inside your mind...
Well AMD could use a buyout but I hope whoever buys it doesnt do something stupid
kmanmx
Golden Master
- Messages
- 9,504
- Location
- Bonn, Deutschland
More importantly when can I buy an 8 core consumer CPU for < $600 from Intel ?
Nevermind looked at benchies for 5960x and the software support for 8 core is basically meh. Try again in 5 years..
Nevermind looked at benchies for 5960x and the software support for 8 core is basically meh. Try again in 5 years..
Last edited:
Similar threads
