Intel to terminate AMD x86 license?!

[Apokalipse]

Intel is not trying to shut down AMD or GlobalFoundries, a source inside Intel Corporation told DailyTech in a phone conversation. The chip giant is simply trying to protect its intellectual property, which it doesn't want to see distributed without its control.

What's the difference?
They don't want AMD in the x86 market.

And they basically admitted that they want to hold a monopoly on x86

 

[Hussein19891]

If Intel does manage to **** up the market for us consumers then we will all go on a 30 day no Intel Famine. Meaning every potential high end user is not allowed to purchase Intel chips. (Not that this would do anything due to the large amount of bulk companies like HP and Dell are buying... lol)

Join the club.

 

[Da Viksta]

What will intel do now that they claim AMD breached copyright and that they dont wanna shut AMD down? squeeze them for every penny they have left?

 

[zmatt]

What's the difference?
They don't want AMD in the x86 market.

And they basically admitted that they want to hold a monopoly on x86

Now that's not the same thing. The end result may be the same but the intent is different and that is where you make the distinction.

 

[wafflehammer]

Even if the contract wasn't fair to begin with?
The only reason AMD agreed to it was because they had to.
And the only reason they're spinning off their fabs now is because they have to - because of the position they were forced into by Intel, going back a long way.

Don't blame it on intel, blame it on bad business/bad business practices.

 

[Apokalipse]

Don't blame it on intel, blame it on bad business/bad business practices.

Better management wouldn't have done anything to get sales through OEM's when Intel was threatening/bribing them to sell Intel exclusively.

The sales AMD did get in the K8 vs Netburst days were quite good considering there were large areas of the market where they could get zero penetration, due to what Intel did.

Having a much larger amount of resources, it was too easy for Intel to spend money on R&D and come out with the Core 2

AMD is not the only victim of it either. Look at Via, Cyrix, Texas Instruments. Only Via is selling x86 CPU's now, and they have a small fraction of the market share that even AMD does.

AMD has done by far the best considering the market conditions. Though via is still technologically competitive in the low-power segment, however, they still can't get much market penetration.

Now that's not the same thing. The end result may be the same but the intent is different and that is where you make the distinction.

If Intel didn't want a monopoly, they'd release the licensing of x86. And they wouldn't have made those deals with OEM's to shut AMD and Via out. and they wouldn't have designed their compilers to cripple non-Intel CPU's. what you're seeing is PR FUD. Of course they don't want to be seen as crushing competition, even if they are.

Intel has a clever legal and PR team. Still, I don't think AMD has broken the cross-licensing contract.

 

[Da Viksta]

well the breaking of the contract is a bit ambigious. Only a subsidiary that AMD has a dominant stake in can make x86 CPUs. AMD owns over half the shares in global foundries but doesnt own over 50% or more of its assets...so even thought it controls global foundries it doesnt have dominant ownership...therefore it met one of the two criteria and muddied the other, which is why intel is going in with all cannons blazing...the ambiguity is enough for them....

and apokalipse, cyrix and texas instruments were a bit before my day...care to enlighten me as to their fate (i know of cyrix but not by much)

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Better management wouldn't have done anything to get sales through OEM's when Intel was threatening/bribing them to sell Intel exclusively.

If Intel didn't want a monopoly, they'd release the licensing of x86. And they wouldn't have made those deals with OEM's to shut them out. and they wouldn't have designed their compilers to cripple non-Intel CPU's. what you're seeing is PR FUD.

To be fair, even though Intel may have tried to limit AMD's sales, plenty of consumers picked Pentium 4's over Athlons given the choice, partly because of the p4's higher clock speed and partly because it was made by Intel.

Intel's management would have to be idiots to want more competitors.

I don't see what is so surprising abut their compilers favoring their cpu's. I know if I was running a cpu company I would make sure my compilers favored my cpus over my competitors, it would be naive to expect a business to do anything else.

 

[Apokalipse]

The contract specifies that AMD must have at least 30% financial control, and 50% voting rights of the company that owns the fabs (GlobalFoundries)

there are exactly two shares which give voting rights. AMD has one (50%)
AMD also has 34% financial control of GlobalFoundries

To be fair, even though Intel may have tried to limit AMD's sales, plenty of consumers picked Pentium 4's over Athlons given the choice, partly because of the p4's higher clock speed and partly because it was made by Intel.

i.e. deception. but that's besides the point.

I don't see what is so surprising abut their compilers favoring their cpu's.

It's not that they simply favour or provide optimisations the Intel chips. they actually deliberately slow down non-intel chips.
If you look at the assembly code, it produces alternate codepaths for non-intel chips, with inexcusably slower code.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

i.e. deception. but that's besides the point.

How is it Intel's fault that the average consumer is uninformed or picked a brand they were familiar with?