Bloomberg: Intel in talks with AMD to license GPU patents


Bloomberg reports Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) is in talks with AMD to license its smaller rival's GPU patents.

The report comes with Intel's cross-licensing deal with Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) due to expire in Q1 2017. Nvidia has been recording $66M/quarter in licensing revenue related to the Intel deal, which allows Intel to use Nvidia's IP in the GPUs integrated with its CPUs.

AMD is up 6.1% after hours to $2.79. Nvidia is down 0.7% to $32.87.

From other sites
Comments (161)
  • Arvinpinal
    , contributor
    Comments (508) | Send Message
     
    wha.. wha.. wha...
    AMD is gonna to hot !
    Shall we see $5 soon ... Intel will support AMD rather than Nvidia..
    more news comes
    16 Mar, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • binartech
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    Its good news or not, may be Intel wants to pay less than what they will pay to Nvidia, or Nvidia want much more.
    Also If Intel has AMD GPU inside who will want AMD APUs ?
    Its no an easy decision to make !However leaving Nvidia with 66 MMs per Q less is not a bad idea !
    16 Mar, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (3737) | Send Message
     
    This is just the IP. Intel HD Graphics use AMD and nVidia patents. Since AMD (Well, ATI) and nVidia developed the technologies, and Intel later developed them with the assistance of observation, it would be patent infringement if they didn't properly license from one of the companies that actually innovated. Since Intel HD Graphics are in a heck of a lot of stuff, that's a lot of infringement if they don't get an agreement ironed out.

     

    nVidia probably wants something like $1/chip.

     

    -Mike
    16 Mar, 08:01 PM Reply Like
  • pohzzer
    , contributor
    Comments (136) | Send Message
     
    High likelihood it's about VR where AMD has a clear architecture advantage which will grow significantly with the next gen Zen/GCN consoles. Intel might pay very handsomely to get a leg up in that space.
    16 Mar, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • saltysaver
    , contributor
    Comments (24) | Send Message
     
    It will definitely be interesting to see what will happen here if AMD doesn't license and neither does Nvidia.
    16 Mar, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • puddnhead
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the deal INTC struck with NVDA five years ago will allow them to use all NVDA patents to date in perpetuity, even after this deal ends. So INTC can keep using all the NVDA IP they are using now, without having to pay anything more.
    16 Mar, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (4687) | Send Message
     
    No Stock Market Mike, It doesn't look like the IP, meaning the designs, just the patents which are public information.
    16 Mar, 08:16 PM Reply Like
  • grxbstrd
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    @pohzzer writes: "High likelihood it's about VR where AMD has a clear architecture advantage"

     

    Complete nonsense. See NVIDIA press release: "Virtual Reality Ecosystem Embraces NVIDIA VRWorks, Making It the Gold Standard for Developers"

     

    The chances of AMD being recognized as a VR tool development partner, and the according hardware sales (what you describe as architecture) that go with that, are slim.
    16 Mar, 08:16 PM Reply Like
  • grxbstrd
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    @puddnhead, correct from what I understand.

     

    Too bad the world of graphics isn't static.
    16 Mar, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (4687) | Send Message
     
    puddnhead

     

    I think you're right on this one. Intel will keep the existing patents but not have access to new ones.
    16 Mar, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Clarence Spurr
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
     
    either way it's a revenue stream to a company that desperately needs it to tackle their debt. and it's licensed so AMD doesn't have to do a damn thing for it so a win for AMD.
    16 Mar, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • RandSec
    , contributor
    Comments (1226) | Send Message
     
    @saltysaver: "what will happen here if AMD doesn't license and neither does Nvidia."

     

    Not sure we want to push Intel back into supporting Nvidia. Maybe AMD can give them an easy way to switch, without giving away the whole store.

     

    Or maybe Intel is just shopping around. Maybe they are looking for a better deal from Nvidia.
    16 Mar, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • BronxTrader
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    they will have to pay more for better IP.
    16 Mar, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • Patrick Proctor
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    AMD has an 83% market share of all VR-ready systems, so clearly you're off your rocker.
    17 Mar, 09:02 AM Reply Like
  • Masterarms
    , contributor
    Comments (144) | Send Message
     
    gotta disagree
    17 Mar, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • User 12115671
    , contributor
    Comments (2765) | Send Message
     
    Just because they licence some tech does not mean they pair it up to a full GCN core, they may just want certain parts of the superior design.
    17 Mar, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (3737) | Send Message
     
    ephud: You know what I meant. It's pretty obvious by reading the rest of my comment. Apologies for the typo.

     

    puddnhead: Good info.

     

    -Mike
    17 Mar, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • Thomas Phillips
    , contributor
    Comments (68) | Send Message
     
    AMD much more desperate than NVIDIA.

     

    BTW: all the deep learning AI stuff coming out of Google and elsewhere (like AlphaGo that just beat a top rated human Go player) runs on NVIDIA GPUs. Intel is likely backing the wrong horse here.
    17 Mar, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • kjurden
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    @ Thomas Phillips...Yeah Right! Not invested in Nvidia are you?
    17 Mar, 03:45 PM Reply Like
  • Thomas Phillips
    , contributor
    Comments (68) | Send Message
     
    Nope, wish I had when they were at 25 a month ago.
    23 Mar, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Stayley
    , contributor
    Comments (369) | Send Message
     
    amd will survive after all
    16 Mar, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • davemannwb
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    they are finally willing to legitimately diversify their original companies outlooks like vr, and socs for consoles, and realistically are we really to believe that intel is going to be the only one to see an opportunity in the future drone market as well?
    16 Mar, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • mtuyen
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    AMD will survive in one form or another, though I do prefer RTG as a spun off company.
    16 Mar, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • FieryTurtle
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
     
    Intel is becoming afraid of Nvidia.
    16 Mar, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • Patrick Proctor
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    Hah, even though the Xeon Phi is eating away at Nvidia's accelerator marketshare.
    17 Mar, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • nick market
    , contributor
    Comments (101) | Send Message
     
    AMD moonshot, hold on!
    16 Mar, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • User 12115671
    , contributor
    Comments (2765) | Send Message
     
    Very interesting...some value in this company
    16 Mar, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • Trance-Man
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Price On Volume: Above $2.80 has very little resistance: http://bit.ly/1pp1WD4 if it goes above that price, watch out.
    16 Mar, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • Almighty061582
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    wth are you talking about.
    16 Mar, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • teuast
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Is it just me, or does it seem like AMD has been playing the long game and the payoff is about to happen?
    16 Mar, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • Just Some Guy
    , contributor
    Comments (2500) | Send Message
     
    LOL. Only if they can license Intel and then cut them off viciously. Otherwise even $100m/quarter isn't going to keep AMD in the mainstream.
    16 Mar, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • davemannwb
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    maybe their finally pursuing other opportunities like vr and possibly drones in the future?
    16 Mar, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • davemannwb
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    maybe their finally pursuing other opportunities like vr and possibly drones in the future?
    16 Mar, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • anubis44
    , contributor
    Comments (610) | Send Message
     
    @teuast: You've got that essentially right.
    17 Mar, 12:54 AM Reply Like
  • Plain Common Sense
    , contributor
    Comments (447) | Send Message
     
    Intel should just buy AMD and take it out of its misery! But, I am sure this left-wing government would not let it.
    16 Mar, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • puddnhead
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    It's a dirty non-secret that INTC really wants AMD to stick around, because their presence keeps the anti-monopoly charges at bay. This is why INTC has essentially let AMD walk away with console contracts, it gives them a steady revenue stream to stay afloat, with no means to leverage to challenge them on the cutting edge. Or so goes the theory.
    16 Mar, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • Plain Common Sense
    , contributor
    Comments (447) | Send Message
     
    It makes sense.
    16 Mar, 09:17 PM Reply Like
  • mvaar
    , contributor
    Comments (108) | Send Message
     
    that is a lot of nonsense.

     

    A monopoly is a co. that has 80% or more of the market under consideration.

     

    Intel already has monopoly in server market and most likely desktop and notebooks too.

     

    Having a monopoly is not illegal- there are and have been a lot of monopolies. Microsoft is a monopoly in desktop operating systems and that is not a crime.
    16 Mar, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • Vlad Hristov
    , contributor
    Comments (2927) | Send Message
     
    @puddnhead. INTC, NVDA and IBM has tried their luck with the consoles long ago. Cloud is breading in their neck, consoles are done. I dont think either MSFT or SONY are planing for new models/releases anytime soon.

     

    INTC is shoping around, but they will not use NVDA, it was reported 2014 regarding INTC plans of doing that. AMD has recently commented on opening their 10K patents for licensing, so Seeking Alpha is just TMZ v 2.0.

     

    @Stock Market Mike has a valuable point. So it doesn't matter from who you get it, as long as you do to avoid lawsuits.
    16 Mar, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • DavDaddy
    , contributor
    Comments (1379) | Send Message
     
    @mvaar

     

    If you are referring to antitrust laws then in the US market share is only one aspect. The more crucial element in the US (and the one which must be shown to bring an enforcement action) is harm to the consumer. This harm doesn't have to be monetary. It can also take the form of having inferior products or services forced on them by way of the monopolistic practices.

     

    In the EU merely being a monopoly can lead to an enforcement action and breakup of a company.

     

    If AMD weren't around I can almost guarantee the next day Intel would have the Europeans bringing an action to breakup the company.
    20 Mar, 12:07 AM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (4687) | Send Message
     
    DavDaddy

     

    "In the EU merely being a monopoly can lead to an enforcement action and breakup of a company"

     

    A bad policy imo. What incentive does the competition have to strive to be competitive?
    20 Mar, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    eFUD,

     

    "competitive"

     

    I think you mistake "winning", "dominating" or "destroying" for the concept of "competitive" somewhere.

     

    Competition is good for consumers -- it drives innovation and keeps costs under some level of control. What part of competition do you not like? Isn't competition what business (i.e. a free market) is all about here?
    22 Mar, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • nick market
    , contributor
    Comments (101) | Send Message
     
    How can you not see the promise in AMD right now. Everyone's calling it a short sell stock. I see long term growth. HOLD.
    16 Mar, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Patrick Proctor
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    Nope, short, sell right before Zen launches and flops.
    17 Mar, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • David O'Berry
    , contributor
    Comments (68) | Send Message
     
    Nah. I do not think fear has anything to do with it. Native reversing of CUDA applications may have something to do with this...and in reality the new video solution just recently announced seemed to indicate a closer relationship. In reality both graphics cards makers have pluses and minuses. No sense having to choose one or the other, right?
    16 Mar, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (4687) | Send Message
     
    This would certainly be a surprise if true.
    16 Mar, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • juggernautxtr
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    I think it'd be funny IF AMD told Intel to bug off, keeping Intel on a spending spree they can't afford to keep making.

     

    if you haven't been paying attention then you would know NVidia been lieing through their teeth about async compute, they have none on card with Maxwell, dumping more draw calls on the cpu, and very doubtfully will have it on pascal.

     

    Polaris on the other hand will.
    16 Mar, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • kimion
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    I can't find any information "on" Bloomberg about this. Where's this news coming from?
    16 Mar, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • binartech
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    There's nothing at Bloomberg site about this, another fake news ?
    16 Mar, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • mtuyen
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Just like all the buyout rumors all over again. It be nice for AMD if Intel is pursuing their IP licenses but I am skeptical.
    16 Mar, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • kimion
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    I searched everywhere but there's only 1 link that points to this article... seems odd if it's true. What puzzles me is that the author said "Bloomberg reports..." which I can't find from bloomberg.com. I'm not sure where and how the author got a hold of this information...
    16 Mar, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • Almighty061582
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    I second the comments below about this. Where's the source.
    16 Mar, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • jukemaster
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    Thrice. Got me scratching my head, I'm coming up empty everywhere.. Would have been fun to watch the movement if we were live
    16 Mar, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • anubis44
    , contributor
    Comments (610) | Send Message
     
    Good thing I bought back in at $2.56 this afternoon on a stop buy. All in. Wouldn't miss this train for anything in the world. :)
    16 Mar, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    "Bloomberg: Intel in talks with AMD to license GPU patents"

     

    In business, Intel is a great company and know how to leverage and make money:

     

    * Licensed AMD64 and sent AMD into its coffin with AMD's help of digging its own grave using Bulldozer!
    * Now try to license AMD GPU patents to finish the job, nailing final nails and burying it?
    16 Mar, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • jzdtown
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    Here's the problem. There is NO mention of this story coming from Bloomberg.
    16 Mar, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • jibje2
    , contributor
    Comments (741) | Send Message
     
    We really need a confirmation here. This is a big and can be disrupting event for Intel, AMD, and Nvidia.
    16 Mar, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • kjurden
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    "Here's the problem. There is NO mention of this story coming from Bloomberg."

     

    It's actually all over the internet now..
    Intel Reportedly in Talks For A Cross-Licensing Deal With AMD for its GPU IP – Contract with Nvidia Expires in Q1 2017
    by Usman Pirzada

     

    Something pretty interesting has been happening in the GPU IP industry as of late. Intel introduced its brand new Devil’s Canyon NUC with AMD XConncect technology and it has already previously stated its plans to adopt FreeSync in upcoming iGPUs. With the cross-licensing agreement it has from Nvidia set to expire in Q1 2017 – whispers are starting (via Seeking Alpha) that the silicon giant may be seeking a partnership with AMD this time around.
    http://bit.ly/22qGK1n
    20 Mar, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • jzdtown
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    Seeing the news now, thanks. Just did not notice it at the time.
    20 Mar, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • kjurden
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    "We really need a confirmation here. This is a big and can be disrupting event for Intel, AMD, and Nvidia."

     

    Report claims Intel, AMD discussing GPU patent licensing
    by Joel Hruska

     

    Over the last few quarters, AMD has made it clear that it’s looking for new sources of revenue, including potential licensing deals and IP arrangements...
    http://bit.ly/1WAuTH1
    20 Mar, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • lildude
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    lol, a first for seeking alpha?
    16 Mar, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • Iwasduped
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    I think I might buy 8000 shares in the morning or after the pullback
    16 Mar, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • geekinasuit
    , contributor
    Comments (3131) | Send Message
     
    I can't find the source of this story either. All I can think of is someone at SA has a source at Bloomberg that leaked the story before it was published, or it's the usual market manipulation crap going on. Not so long ago we've seen published claims from Bloomberg that ended up being well off the mark, so I'd still take these claims with a grain of salt until there's an official acknowledgement from Intel or AMD.
    16 Mar, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • anubis44
    , contributor
    Comments (610) | Send Message
     
    If AMD and Intel are still 'in talks', neither will confirm or deny anything. They have to work out a deal before either will commit to a story. It's possible this is a hoax, but it's also entirely possible Intel really is talking with AMD about this. We'll find out soon enough.
    17 Mar, 12:59 AM Reply Like
  • jzdtown
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    I'm long AMD, but I'm afraid we have been duped again!
    16 Mar, 09:38 PM Reply Like
  • kimion
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    In case this is a false rumor, then, http://1.usa.gov/1ppbmhQ

     

    Maybe the author lost $ today with NVDA... :)

     

    Anyway, we will find out tomorrow.
    16 Mar, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (9732) | Send Message
     
    This is the source:

     

    http://bit.ly/1RlNacX;AMD-Intel-in-discussi...

     

    --AE
    16 Mar, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • mvaar
    , contributor
    Comments (108) | Send Message
     
    'thefly' ? shouldn't it be 'fly by night' ?
    16 Mar, 11:16 PM Reply Like
  • Almighty061582
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    lol link not working
    16 Mar, 11:02 PM Reply Like
  • grxbstrd
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    It's really not surprising to anyone Intel NEEDS a re-up on the grx license deal.

     

    They've been down-playing the importance of graphics for years, giving it away for free. All they did was kill off a whole bunch of graphics vendors and set expectations inappropriately.

     

    Now, CPUs are on the verge of commoditization and the GPU part of the die is bigger than the CPU. Sounds like a big oops Intel.

     

    Discrete graphics are supplying huge value in compute, gaming, AI, VR, etc and Intel decides the 5 yr license they got from NVIDIA isn't going to be too helpful over the next 5. Another Ooops.

     

    AMD ought to wring them out for everything they can. (Knowing Intel they are playing both sides, pitting NVDA against AMD.)
    16 Mar, 11:16 PM Reply Like
  • Vlad Hristov
    , contributor
    Comments (2927) | Send Message
     
    What are you talking about? All the 700 models are half in price now after 2 years, and price will decline even further since 900 models are coming. Also the current highest model of TITAN X is $1K on release, compared to the previous boy TITAN Z which was 3K (almost 3y ago). Talking about commoditization, aren't you?
    On the contrary i7-4970K is still around $300+ even 2y after the release. Stone cold mfer.
    16 Mar, 11:55 PM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    @grx,

     

    I don't know if AMD is smart enough to do this deal without killing themselves in the process.

     

    They have to be willing to walk away at the very least... otherwise they are just going to get bent over.
    17 Mar, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    "I don't know if AMD is smart enough to do this deal without killing themselves in the process."

     

    Well said, not including the current one (to be seen), AMD CEOs were incompetent in making big decisions, they simply weren't capable in handling big decisions:

     

    1) Bought ATi for $5.4B ($4.2B in cash, 78%!!!) (Hector Ruin)
    2) Sold mobile graphics to Qualcomm for $65M (Dirt Meyer)
    3) Bulldozer for digging a grave (Dirt Meyer)
    4) Bought SeaMicro for $334M ($293M in cash while starving for cash, ~88%!!!!!) (Rory Read)
    5) Piled up the inventory of $xxxM that took more than 3 Qs to write off (Rory Read)
    6) ...

     

    The root cause is the board being incapable of knowing a person in-depth and hiring a competent CEO! Hopefully, they are "lucky" this time and got Lisa Su (to be seen).
    17 Mar, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • jibje2
    , contributor
    Comments (741) | Send Message
     
    gofx,
    I remember when X64 was licensed to Intel;however, AMD was still winning. The purchase of ATI and Glofo research requirement depleted AMD's fund; in addition to the bulldozer misstep, all contributed to AMD's current condition. I really think that if AMD goes forward with the GPU licensing, Su will make ensure that AMD future is good to go. At this point, 50m to 100m a quarter will help improve the balance sheet. If it happens, 2 years/short-term licensing is better than long-term (IMO)... but, I'm from the outside looking in. I don't know any better :)
    17 Mar, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • jibje2
    , contributor
    Comments (741) | Send Message
     
    Wow,
    Agreed :)
    17 Mar, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    "Su will make ensure that AMD future is good to go."

     

    Well said. To know a person, other than the easily known education and work experience, need to know how she/he was raised by what kind of parent, both affected her/his capability of being responsible and accountable! For sure, she is not a typical BS CEO!
    17 Mar, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • Vlad Hristov
    , contributor
    Comments (2927) | Send Message
     
    6) Share dilution. Since 2011 to the current date we have 100M dilution which is equal to ~+15% of the total float. They cant dilute enough because this piece of sh is not worth anything anymore.
    7) Shareholders Equity the lowest in the history of AMD. (NEGATIVE 412M)
    8) Debt the highest.
    9) 2015 Record loses of revenue, in % compared on Y/Y for the Qts.

     

    Those idiots need to crawl on their knees and beg INTC to license their patents, if they worth something. And this is a big IF.
    17 Mar, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • grxbstrd
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    @gofx "They have to be willing to walk away at the very least... otherwise they are just going to get bent over."

     

    yeah, just like any negotiation.

     

    But if the rumor is true, isn't AMD in the drivers seat here? Intel is the party in need of the IP, and they already set a standard when they agreed to $250M/yr. So I don't really see how AMD gets harmed here.
    18 Mar, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • grxbstrd
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    @Vlad "What are you talking about?"

     

    Your examples are at the high end. I'm talking about mainstream, the sweet spot of the market, you know the traditional cash cow for intel.

     

    I know data doesn't mean a lot to you, but the trend is in place. The GPU area of the die has been growing as a percentage of area over the last generations and the CPU area is shrinking.

     

    There is no new value for the mainstream CPU to go harvest. In high technology, that necessarily equates to commoditization (see ARM).

     

    Graphics on the other hand has a lot of new functionality to bring to market over the next decade or two. It's the justification, if the rumor is true, that intel needs to re-up their graphics IP license.
    18 Mar, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • Almighty061582
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    the author should be permanently banned for not giving a source.
    17 Mar, 12:04 AM Reply Like
  • geekinasuit
    , contributor
    Comments (3131) | Send Message
     
    A source was given "thefly.com", it's just that the source seems to know what Bloomberg has yet to report on, but they claim to have the news before the news breaks, so we'll see. Interesting times ahead for AMD.
    17 Mar, 01:38 AM Reply Like
  • biosbob
    , contributor
    Comments (94) | Send Message
     
    I believe sites such as thefly sell a delayed rebroadcast of Bloomberg terminal news. Check the monthly price of a Bloomberg terminal. They are far too expensive for most individual investors. Probably Bloomberg makes a deal with sites such as thefly so that they can redistribute with a delay for a certain cost. It is still true today: if you have a lot of money, you can get news way ahead of 99.9% of investors.
    17 Mar, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • CJA Mayo
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    You do realize people have been calling for $5 AMD for the greater part of a decade?

     

    At least INTC pays 3.5%.
    17 Mar, 02:27 AM Reply Like
  • lijinsong
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    IF its true.the share will rise up more than 100%
    17 Mar, 02:50 AM Reply Like
  • xxavatarxx
    , contributor
    Comments (4926) | Send Message
     
    Some people think Intel already has access to the GPU patents via the cross license deal.
    And it's interesting there is no bloomberg article.

     

    Either way, good for flippers if the AH pop holds tomorrow.
    17 Mar, 02:55 AM Reply Like
  • geekinasuit
    , contributor
    Comments (3131) | Send Message
     
    >>Some people think Intel already has access to the GPU patents via the cross license deal.<<

     

    Yeah, and some people hear voices in their heads.
    17 Mar, 05:27 AM Reply Like
  • anubis44
    , contributor
    Comments (610) | Send Message
     
    @xxavatarxx: The cross-license agreement pertains only to CPUs, not GPU technology, which was obtained through the ATI acquisition, and further developed by AMD.
    17 Mar, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • RandSec
    , contributor
    Comments (1226) | Send Message
     
    @anubis44:

     

    Patent issues can be very complex and depend upon agreements which we outsiders cannot see. AMD CFO comments from a year or so ago seem to indicate that patents need to be individually selected and explicitly added to the cross-license contract. Presumably some sort of tit-for-tat is involved.
    17 Mar, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • User 12115671
    , contributor
    Comments (2765) | Send Message
     
    In all honesty nobody thinks that other than you
    17 Mar, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • xxavatarxx
    , contributor
    Comments (4926) | Send Message
     
    "In all honesty nobody thinks that other than you "

     

    Really?
    I don't think it one way or the other and never stated I think it's that way.
    But there are articles on the web that state Intel has access to AMD's GPU patents via the cross license agreement.

     

    It's ok if you like to be a less informed investor User 12115671.
    Nobody is going to stop you.
    17 Mar, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    xxx,

     

    I'm not sure "some people think" is really making an investor more informed. As presented it's pure speculation, it's unsupported, and is really only a statement meant to cast doubt on AMD.
    17 Mar, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    xxx,

     

    "But there are articles on the web that state Intel has access to AMD's GPU patents via the cross license agreement."

     

    Yes, and in the comments of those articles you'll find people pointing to the sections of the document where it is clearly describes that the agreement is limited to instruction sets, etc, etc.

     

    So, go on spreading nonsense as "information" ... informed people already know the reality.
    18 Mar, 04:29 AM Reply Like
  • xxavatarxx
    , contributor
    Comments (4926) | Send Message
     
    No GoFX, there are sections that all patents are cross licensed.
    It's not limited to the instructions.

     

    It's there, you can go look at the cross license agreement yourself.

     

    Again, I'm no lawyer, so I have no comment on it one way or the other.
    I doubt anybody but Intel and AMD really know for sure.
    18 Mar, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    xxx,

     

    "there are sections that all patents are cross licensed"

     

    There are sections that define terminology which are not limited. However, there are sections which detail what is included and what is excluded, quite explicitly.

     

    It's there, you too can go look at the cross license agreement yourself.

     

    However, to save other's time... an example from the doc:

     

    1.29 “Patent Rights” shall mean all classes or types of patents other than design patents (including, without limitation, originals, divisions, continuations, continuations-in-part, extensions or reissues) and all applications (including, without limitation, provisional applications) for these classes or types of patents throughout the world.

     

    3.1 AMD License to Intel. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement (including without limitation Section 5.2(e)), AMD and its Subsidiaries hereby grant to Intel and its Subsidiaries a non-exclusive, non-transferable, fully paid-up, worldwide license, without the right to sublicense, under AMD Patents to:

     

    (a) make, use, sell (directly and/or indirectly), offer to sell, import and otherwise dispose of all Intel Licensed Products (which, for purposes of clarity, includes the right for Intel’s customers, direct and indirect, to use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise dispose of all Intel Licensed Products); and

     

    (b) make, have made (subject to the limitations set forth in Section 3.3), use and/or import any equipment and practice any method or process for the manufacture, use, import and/or sale of Intel Licensed Products; and

     

    (c) have made (subject to the limitations set forth in Section 3.3) Intel Licensed Products by another manufacturer for supply solely to Intel or to any Intel Licensed Party for use, import, sale, offer for sale or other disposition by Intel or any Intel Licensed Party pursuant to the license granted above in Section 3.1(a).

     

    3.2 Intel License to AMD. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement (including without limitation Section 5.2(e)), Intel and its Subsidiaries hereby grant to AMD and its Subsidiaries a non-exclusive, non-transferable, fully paid-up, worldwide license, without the right to sublicense, under Intel Patents to:

     

    (a) make, use, sell (directly and/or indirectly), offer to sell, import and otherwise dispose of all AMD Licensed Products (which, for purposes of clarity, includes the right for AMD’s customers, direct and indirect, to use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise dispose of all AMD Licensed Products); and

     

    (b) make, have made (subject to the limitations set forth in Section 3.3), use and/or import any equipment and practice any method or process for the manufacture, use, import and/or sale of AMD Licensed Products; and

     

    (c) have made (subject to the limitations set forth in Section 3.3) AMD Licensed Products by another manufacturer for supply solely to AMD or to any AMD Licensed Party for use, import, sale, offer for sale or other disposition by AMD or any AMD Licensed Party pursuant to the license granted above in Section 3.2(a).

     

    3.4 Intel Copyright License to AMD. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), Intel grants to AMD, for use in or with an AMD Licensed Product, licenses under Intel’s copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by Intel, and the related opcodes, instruction operand mnemonics, byte format depictions and short form description (not to exceed 100 words) for those instructions, to copy, have copied, import, prepare derivative works of, perform, display and sell or otherwise distribute such mnemonics, opcodes and descriptions in user manuals and other technical documentation. No other copyright license to AMD is provided by this Agreement other than as set forth in this paragraph, either directly or by implication or estoppel.

     

    3.5 AMD Copyright License to Intel. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), AMD grants to Intel, for use in or with an Intel Licensed Product, licenses under AMD’s copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by AMD, and the related opcodes, instruction operand mnemonics, byte format depictions and short form description (not to exceed 100 words) for those instructions, to copy, have copied, import, prepare derivative works of, perform, display and sell or otherwise distribute such mnemonics, opcodes and descriptions in user manuals and other technical documentation. No other copyright license to Intel is provided by this Agreement other than as set forth in this paragraph, either directly or by implication or estoppel.

     

    If you feel ambitious go read through the agreement:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/1texh7U
    18 Mar, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • xxavatarxx
    , contributor
    Comments (4926) | Send Message
     
    "@GoFX@ However, there are sections which detail what is included and what is excluded, quite explicitly."

     

    What, the copyright section?
    You know a copyright is not a patent right.
    All that is saying is any copyrighted material can be shared between AMD and Intel for instructions.
    i.e. they can copy each others documents and diagrams.

     

    It has nothing to do with the patents.

     

    The simple fact that you are posting the copyright section is telling me you don't understand this stuff.
    That is not covering the PATENTs.
    18 Mar, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • xxavatarxx
    , contributor
    Comments (4926) | Send Message
     
    "Yes, and in the comments of those articles you'll find people pointing to the sections of the document where it is clearly describes that the agreement is limited to instruction sets, etc, etc."

     

    Ok, it's quite clear you don't understand this based on your follow up post which posted the copyright section.
    Intel and AMD decided to be nice and share copyrighted material on the op codes.
    It would be nice for end users after all if both vendors documented were the same for x86 instruction right.

     

    To bad copyrighted material is not the Patents.

     

    Probably best to just drop this while you are ahead....
    18 Mar, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    @xxa,

     

    You caught me in the middle of taking things over... get over yourself.

     

    Section 1.29 excludes design patents.
    18 Mar, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    "Some people think ..."

     

    So some people did lose money in stocks or other investments because of "think." : (
    18 Mar, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • xxavatarxx
    , contributor
    Comments (4926) | Send Message
     
    "Section 1.29 excludes design patents. "

     

    That has nothing to do with the Tangible Patent IP of CPU's or GPU's.
    18 Mar, 05:02 PM Reply Like
  • Almighty061582
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    no mention of this on "the fly" either. I searched. didn't find a thing.
    17 Mar, 03:52 AM Reply Like
  • biosbob
    , contributor
    Comments (94) | Send Message
     
    Are you a subscriber? Of course non-subscribers aren't going to see what subscribers see.
    17 Mar, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • oplmnet
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    ruy
    17 Mar, 04:34 AM Reply Like
  • dahippo
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    Intel Amd and Razer is cooperate on Razer blade stealth. Its an external graphic station for mobile. So perhabs there some truth in this.
    17 Mar, 04:43 AM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (4687) | Send Message
     
    Confirmation on the newswire:

     

    9:23 AM EDT, 03/17/2016 (MT Newswires) -- Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) is in talks to license graphics technology to Intel, according to Bloomberg, although it is possible a deal may not be struck.
    In a statement, an AMD spokesman told Bloomberg, "While we aren't commenting on any specifics of our ongoing IP monetization strategy at this time, we are actively pursing strategic relationships intended to bring our differentiated IP to market in ways that complement our own product plans and expand the install base for AMD technologies."
    Price: 2.79, Change: +0.16, Percent Change: +6.08
    http://bit.ly/1a6Tuh0 Copyright © 2016 MTNewswires. All rights reserved. MT Newswires does not provide investment advice.
    17 Mar, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • typecheck
    , contributor
    Comments (362) | Send Message
     
    I can already imagine what AMD was telling Intel:

     

    "give us money now, or we will go under and you will be broken up due to anti-trust law".
    17 Mar, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • mtuyen
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Thank you, for a source Ephud.
    17 Mar, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    @ephud,

     

    "Confirmation on the newswire: ..."

     

    What confirmation? Per your history and standard, where is the confirmation from the executives of either company? : )
    17 Mar, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (4687) | Send Message
     
    Wow&Wow

     

    "What confirmation?"

     

    The newswire is quoting an AMD spokesman. I took that as confirmation that AMD was asked to comment on the rumor and declined to deny it. Your mileage may vary.
    17 Mar, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • kjurden
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    "The newswire is quoting an AMD spokesman. I took that as confirmation that AMD was asked to comment on the rumor and declined to deny it. Your mileage may vary."

     

    You're a tireless purveyor of FUD aren't you!
    Intel Reportedly in Talks For A Cross-Licensing Deal With AMD for its GPU IP – Contract with Nvidia Expires in Q1 2017
    by Usman Pirzada
    Something pretty interesting has been happening in the GPU IP industry as of late. Intel introduced its brand new Devil’s Canyon NUC with AMD XConncect technology and it has already previously stated its plans to adopt FreeSync in upcoming iGPUs. With the cross-licensing agreement it has from Nvidia set to expire in Q1 2017 – whispers are starting (via Seeking Alpha) that the silicon giant may be seeking a partnership with AMD this time around.
    http://bit.ly/22qGK1n
    20 Mar, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (4687) | Send Message
     
    kjurden

     

    "You're a tireless purveyor of FUD aren't you!"

     

    There's no call for a cheap shots like this. In fact it does appear that AMD was asked to comment and declined to do so.
    20 Mar, 04:59 PM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    eFUD,

     

    I'm not sure Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) is really a cheap shot given your proclivity to call into question AMD's ability to operate effectively quite often.
    22 Mar, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • xxavatarxx
    , contributor
    Comments (4926) | Send Message
     
    Kjurden, and GoFX, all articles are quoting the same news wire site that released the idea.
    Which is dubious since it never came from Bloomberg unless someone has confirmed that?

     

    It's not fud because Ephud actually posted something quoting an AMD spokesman on this.

     

    All that is going on in this thread is bashing a single user because he isn't lauding over the news which might be false.
    22 Mar, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    @xxa,

     

    "All that is going on in this thread is bashing a single user because he isn't lauding over the news which might be false."

     

    Sadly, only another committed AMD basher making this statement. Look, I know we need to see results. I know we are in a spec-play situation with a company that has been on a negative trajectory. I know we are looking at rumors which need confirmation before people get too excited.

     

    You can remind people of these things without insulting them or picking fights.

     

    At the same time, it's absolutely true that the markets AMD is attempting to play in are heating up. There is room for people to sit on the side of positive expectations as long as the are playing within their means. There are many ways to play the market and you can't take your one size fits all advice and slap it on everyone.

     

    AMD might do well. AMD might do poorly. How people wish to operate within that spectrum is their own decision. Thanks for your care and concern.
    22 Mar, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    @type,

     

    Or, they are thinking of a way of licensing something to Intel that takes out the low end but doesn't get into the high end up-and-coming scales?

     

    If they aren't doing something smart here I'm going to be pretty skeptical of the outcome (either a deal or it being good for AMD).
    17 Mar, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • dahippo
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    i guess its coherent cache. amd got the patent last year if im not wrong involving SoC and apu
    17 Mar, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    You know, maybe Intel will force AMD to spend time and effort focusing on what looks like a great deal, taking their eye off the ball, and then decide they really don't want to go forward with the deal anyway.

     

    With the right timing, or the need for AMD to consume some capital to play in the game, this could be painful. Given the history of AMD, Intel and NVIDIA a little caution is warranted... they don't always play together well.
    17 Mar, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • NoBody_ButMe
    , contributor
    Comments (74) | Send Message
     
    A few points of context:
    that 66 million a quarter really isn't for licensing. It's part of a settlement for antitrust. Maybe a portion of that 66 million is licensing. And Nvidia pays Intel 5 million a quarter for CPU licensing as per their agreement.
    "ACCOUNTING FOR THE INTEL LICENSE AGREEMENT
    Payments to NVIDIA under the licensing agreement we entered into with Intel amounts to $1.5 billion
    over five years. These payments under the agreement will be accounted for in three separate pieces:
    1. Legal Settlement: as stated earlier, $57.0 million was recorded in the fourth quarter as a benefit to operating expenses.
    2. NVIDIA’s License to Intel: licensing fee revenue of $66.0 million per quarter over the term of the agreement, six years ($1,583.0 million in total).
    3. Intel’s License to NVIDIA: $5.0 million per quarter, charged to cost of sales, over the estimated useful life of the technology, seven years ($140.0 million in total). "
    http://bit.ly/1S6Vbzo

     

    Intel despite competing with AMD works more with AMD than it does with Nvidia. And despite the fact that Nvidia has essentially no competition with Intel while AMD does.
    17 Mar, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the details of $1.5B.
    17 Mar, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • Vlad Hristov
    , contributor
    Comments (2927) | Send Message
     
    @Nobody. "And despite the fact that Nvidia has essentially no competition with Intel while AMD does.". That was true only up to 2012/2013, Haswell era FinFet invention pretty much bankrupt AMD, but NVDA now holds around 60% of the co-Processor market in the HPC and they are pushing the next generation of Server Processors with IBM, called Power9. Which, personally I see as the only treat to the INTC Server CPU dominance.
    17 Mar, 11:55 PM Reply Like
  • NoBody_ButMe
    , contributor
    Comments (74) | Send Message
     
    How big is that market in relation to Intel's consumer and server market?

     

    I believe it is measured in the low billions. Server is a magnitude larger. Same for consumer, although consumer is relatively low margin. While AMD clearly is not competitive and has not been for a while Intel worked with AMD over Nvidia even when AMD had competitive CPUs. If Zen is competitive on performance/watt and can hit similar performance/clock than it should be a viable force in the server market. It might not clock higher enough in the consumer market though.

     

    Nvidia is very good at using it's relationships to make money fast. But they usually end up burning lots of bridges in the process.
    18 Mar, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • NoBody_ButMe
    , contributor
    Comments (74) | Send Message
     
    You are welcome. It is quite frustrating to see analysts blindly throw around Intel's payment numbers regarding "Licensing". Nvidia was genius to get the settlement money set up as licensing though. Even if it may have been accidental.

     

    If anyone who knows more about cross licensing could explain also why they did not cross license over 7 years for 1.5-.14 dollars? Is there s reason to do them separate.

     

    I read it as Intel and Nvidia overall value a true cross license in Intel's favor. But I am no expert on the subject of how cross-licensing deals are written.
    18 Mar, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • grxbstrd
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    "NVDA now holds around 60% of the co-Processor market in the HPC"

     

    Somebody ought to tell Patric Proktor
    18 Mar, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • grxbstrd
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    Compliments to Vlad for deleting his post.
    A good way to win an argument ;)
    18 Mar, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • kjurden
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    For "Ye of Little Faith"
    Report: Sony is prepping a 4K-capable "PlayStation 4.5" with an improved processor
    By: Eric Jhonsa
    Citing talks with "developers who have spoken with Sony," gaming site Kotaku reports Sony (NYSE:SNE) plans to launch a revamped PS4 able to handle 4K gaming and "enhance the games" supported by the PlayStation VR headset (shipping in October).

     

    The console, dubbed the "PS4.5" by developers, is said to feature an improved GPU to enable 4K support, as well as more processing power. No word on its launch date or pricing, or whether Sony will continue selling the current the current PS4 after an improved model launches.

     

    The report may have given a lift to PS4 CPU/GPU supplier AMD, which closed up 4.6% on above-average volume. A more powerful processor would almost certainly bring with it a higher price tag. AMD rallied yesterday after Bloomberg reported Intel is in talks to license AMD's graphics patents.

     

    Separately, Sony will begin taking pre-orders on Tuesday for a $499 PlayStation VR bundle featuring the headset, a PlayStation camera, two PlayStation Move controllers, and a collection of five mini-games. A "core" VR bundle lacking the controllers, camera, and games will cost $399.

     

    "Rocking the Casba"! Monday will be a big day for AMD! waiting for the Fudmeisters to crawl under their rocks!!!
    18 Mar, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • grxbstrd
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    re: "Sony is prepping a 4K-capable "PlayStation 4.5""

     

    So, I heard AMD claim the millions of PS4s in the market are VR capable, if so, why would Sony need a PS4.5? Certainly 4K is less demanding than VR.

     

    Or does Sony realize their current PS4 is not VR capable, and therefore AMD has to concede their VR ready mktshare is really zero?

     

    (BTW, Lisa already alluded to new semi custom business for mid 2016, so one can imagine the financial community has already figured it out.)

     

    - an of little faith AMD long (just riding the current mo mo train and up nearly 50% in a few weeks :)
    18 Mar, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • binartech
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    @Kjurden,

     

    I always wanted and still want AMD to succeed, however they have some decisions to make that are not easy at all:

     

    A) Licencing to Intel can be a problem. Giving Intel license of polaris to intel will allow Intel to integrate powerful GPU architecture in their SOC that will compete directly with ZEN APUs and low end dGPU cards. If ZEN is good AMD would have the GPU technology advantage which is not going to be there if AMD license GPU IP to Intel. I think asynch compute and HSA are reasons behind Intel interest.

     

    B) Not licensing leaves the door open to Nvidia continue receiving money from Intel and also the "image" for Nvidia saying "our superior technology used by Intel".

     

    C) Licensing to Intel will show OEMs and the community that AMD has "superior" GPU technology selected by Intel.

     

    D) With Sony and/or ms the problem is similar to Intel, Making a 4K SOC for a console will compete directly with low end dGPU that may have more margins. A console SoC can't be too expensive because no body will pay for a console that will cost similar to a PC even if it supports for 4K.
    Sony receives money from console, but more from games and subscriptions. They can afford losing money with the console.

     

    E) The fact that AMD builds console SoC didn't gave AMD any advantage over Nvidia. Most gamers choose Nvidia.

     

    F) This also may apply to Intel licensing, even if Intel uses AMD technology
    it's not a warranty that Gamers will start choosing AMD.

     

    At the end AMD management must analyze carefully all options. A mistake can cost AMD survival which is already on the edge.

     

    18 Mar, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • jibje2
    , contributor
    Comments (741) | Send Message
     
    Bin,
    HSA is an open standard. I think Intel is after Mode Scheduling, Unified Memory, Context Switch, and Pre-emption. The scary part is if Intel gets the GPU IPs, they will put it on their Xeon Phi. The X-Phi will compete directly with Nvidia and AMD, having the IPs on its APU is just gravy. I think AMD must be specific what IP is to license and on what type of hardware because Intel is not a friend. At worst, stay the course and dominate Intel (if Zen is truly awesome) in the APU, GPU, and the Zen markets. AMD has many Unique IPs, license it only if AMD gains the upper hand in all possible strategy. But I'm from the outside looking in, I don't know any better :)
    18 Mar, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • RandSec
    , contributor
    Comments (1226) | Send Message
     
    @grxbstrd: "Or does Sony realize their current PS4 is not VR capable, and therefore AMD has to concede their VR ready mktshare is really zero?"

     

    Oh, please! Sony has been demonstrating PSVR at various shows for months. Many people have tried it and were impressed. It works.
    18 Mar, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    No worry, the MIT**4 CEO is neither a Barbie nor a Ken : )
    18 Mar, 10:18 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    @binartech,

     

    G) Intel being able to take Sony and MS consoles, help filling its mega fabs.

     

    H) Repeating the history of AMD64, if one day the RTG executives gets stupider (trying to be fancier) or gets stuck in making architecture decisions.
    18 Mar, 10:30 PM Reply Like
  • kjurden
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    @grxbstr...Microsoft XBOX is being upgraded as well..

     

    New 4K-Capable PS4 And Xbox One Consoles Coming ... - Forbes
    http://onforb.es/1Wxvd9A...
    19 Mar, 01:59 AM Reply Like
  • grxbstrd
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    "XBOX is being upgraded as well"

     

    So we'll conclude AMD's claim about millions of installed base VR ready systems was just BS. Thanks.
    19 Mar, 02:13 AM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    @grx,

     

    "why would Sony need a PS4.5"

     

    None of the products coming out right away are where VR "wants to be" in the longer term. Higher resolutions and frame rates would provide for a better experience.

     

    However, as long as game developers are aware of the limitations of the current hardware (basically, from all suppliers) they can offer a decent experience which I'm sure millions of people will be more than happy to enjoy.

     

    This is a brand new field. Everyone, and I mean everyone, is going to be offering an upgrade path until we are at the point where differences in resolutions, frame rates and latency are no longer an influence on the quality of VR as perceived by a human.

     

    Also, side note, considering the Sony win was probably quite some time ago, I'd imagine we might be looking at another customized 28nm part with beefier specs.

     

    It will be interesting to see how Sony and Microsoft compete in this space.
    19 Mar, 05:24 AM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    @grx,

     

    "millions of installed base VR ready systems ... just BS"

     

    You are starting to sound silly now.

     

    You do know how many PS4s and XB1s are out there right? You do know that such upgrades will sell like hotcakes next time Santa comes around? You do know that the general consumer will easily be impressed by a reasonable VR experience assuming that there are good games available by then?

     

    Or, on the other hand, are you assuming that there won't be millions of VR systems purchased by owners of PS4 and XB1?

     

    (Virtual) reality is coming... keep your mind open or miss it.
    19 Mar, 05:31 AM Reply Like
  • binartech
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    @wow,
    At the end its a difficult decision. And honestly I do not trust CEO Lisa. Till now she has 0 record in achieving anything at AMD IMO.
    All new project where started in the Rory era: ZEN, Polaris, etc,
    Marketing is still a mess at AMD, so I do not see nothing achieved by CEO.
    The "Quantum" project that nobody wants, and remember Lisa is there since 2012.....
    19 Mar, 08:11 AM Reply Like
  • kjurden
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    @binartech...are you ever going to see the light? If you haven't bought back in by now...you're just screwed..
    19 Mar, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • binartech
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    @kjurden,

     

    I think AMD will go lower after Q1 2016 ER. The entry moment will be before Q2 ER. Also do not forget that this year, market is complicated and only supported by FED actions, AMD will go lower soon or late because of the Overall market, of course not just AMD but all the market, may be august like last year ! Hedge Funds are playing with us.
    I still wan't to see in April 4 what brings Nvidia to the table ...... than I will study my strategy.....

     

    19 Mar, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • kjurden
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    @Binartech.."I think AMD will go lower after Q1 2016 ER."

     

    By Q1 ER the SP could be above $4. So if it drops, it may only drop to $3...just saying..

     

    "AMD will go lower soon or late because of the Overall market, of course not just AMD but all the market"

     

    I agree, but I tend to be a bit more optimistic though...
    20 Mar, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • RandSec
    , contributor
    Comments (1226) | Send Message
     
    @grxbstrd: "So we'll conclude AMD's claim about millions of installed base VR ready systems was just BS. Thanks."

     

    The Sony PSVR is a $399 headset add-on to an existing PS4. Those who already have a PS4 thus get VR at minimum cost. Those who do not have a PS4 need to buy the PS4 too (plus the $50 camera, and possibly some handheld Move wands), still with a total cost much less than a typical PC-based solution.

     

    The PSVR minimum acceptable frame rate is 60fps, which many standard PS4 games do not meet. Nevertheless, 60fps is required for VR, which is then doubled with re-projection to 120fps. "Reprojection" means re-using the same frame, but re-positioned according to head movement. This high frame rate is necessary in VR to avoid something like motion sickness.

     

    Some people invested in PC VR solutions cannot imagine how the lowly PS4 could possibly make the stated frame rate. It is tough. Some graphic quality may have to be left on the table. However, by working close to the metal on the PS4 APU, advantageous options are available which simply are not present on a classic PC. Such designs could not be done on a PC.

     

    This is Sony's best guess at a "just works" consumer quality for price solution for the starting VR market. Should it sell well, should the VR market develop, there will no doubt be a range of follow-on products, all "better" in various ways, which does not make this first solution "bad."
    20 Mar, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    @binartech,

     

    8/25/11 - Rory Read joined AMD.
    1/3/12 - Lisa Su joined AMD.
    8/1/12 - Jim Keller re-joined AMD.
    4/22/13 - Raja Kodur re-joined AMD.

     

    Rory Read of boxes joined AMD only about 4 months earlier than Lisa Su of semiconductor, in 4 months he wasn't able to even finish reading the chapter one of semiconductor, but before he left he did managed to leave Su $xxxM inventory that took more than 3 Qs to write off.
    21 Mar, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • binartech
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    @wow,
    I'm not saying that Rory did something good. All at AMD knew that Bulldozer was a mess and a new micro architecture was required. I think he could accelerate the GPU driver development to minimize hit in the GPU, not to mention buying sea micro, totally out of focus. I think he came for making marketing and relations with OEMs, he was coming from Lenovo and everyone thought it will bring Lenovo on Board..... I think the Marketing was and still is very bad. He also could trim AMD from the first days so to save money from the beginning.
    Su may know a lot of semiconductors, but AMD needs a sales man....
    needs marketing strategy, something is obvious they do not have.
    Some AMD products are excellent at price Vs. performance, but they don't sell. Selling a very good product is easy, having a marketing strategy when your product is not as good as competition is strategy .......
    21 Mar, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    binartech,

     

    "AMD needs a sales man....needs marketing strategy,"

     

    First thing first, AMD needs to have truly competitive products (not products for "trying" to compete), and competitive products need competitive architectures first; Zen-based products will be the competitive products that can generate healthy profits.

     

    The accountable CEO for Bulldozer is Dirt Meyer who may be already retired in Switzerland.
    21 Mar, 05:38 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (4687) | Send Message
     
    W&W

     

    "Zen-based products will be the competitive products that can generate healthy profits"

     

    We don't know that. So far, all we have is marketing spin from a company with a long track record of broken promises. Let's wait for something real before jumping to conclusions.
    21 Mar, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • wow&wow
    , contributor
    Comments (2364) | Send Message
     
    ephud,

     

    True, we don't know. No one knows the future, but some try to or are able to anticipate. Nothing is required for waiting to see "will be" becomes "are," but educated anticipating (with studied risk) does require ... and is not for everyone; I only speak for myself with risk in mind since AMD did have the reputation of being careless and generating oops.
    21 Mar, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • jibje2
    , contributor
    Comments (741) | Send Message
     
    ephud,
    We know a little about Zen. The chip process is 14LPP. It's very efficient vs 28/32nm. 14LPP is about 18nm vs true 14nm of Intel. And don't ask me to find you the link to what is 14LPP. Go find it on your own :)
    21 Mar, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • jibje2
    , contributor
    Comments (741) | Send Message
     
    The condition:
    The cash cow market: the server and data center, more computation requirement because data and analytic have exponential growth. (the GPU will always out perform the CPU in fps)

     

    The standard:
    1. Quado + IBM's Power CPU = Team Green
    2. AMD GPU + Zen CPU = Team Red
    3. Intel CPU + Xeon Phi = Team Blue
    4. ARM CPU + (Mali/Andreno/Other) = Team Gray?

     

    This is the battle ground. This is why Intel is in need of a powerful GPU architecture. All 4 teams will have HSA capability. Guess which team has the hardware designed specifically for HSA? It's the reason why AsynShader, Mode Scheduling, Unified Memory, Context Switch, and Pre-emption are very critical. This is just my guess :) from the outside.
    18 Mar, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • dahippo
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    HSA is nothing without coherent cache. Look who has the patent for SoC and APU. HSA dont work good enough with CPU and dGPU.
    19 Mar, 06:11 AM Reply Like
  • RandSec
    , contributor
    Comments (1226) | Send Message
     
    @dahippo:

     

    I agree, and coherent cache techniques indeed may be what they want. Currently, HSA is on-chip only, but even on-chip HSA is more than just sharing memory. The sad situation with Carrizo has pretty much hidden its HSA technology.

     

    One Carrizo advance is the hardware microtasking ability. Hardware priority queues for both CPU and GPU support hardware task dispatch without invoking the massive overhead of the system OS. This allows each processing device to start tasks on the other, which then use the same data in the same memory without copying. Hardware microtasking is a designer's dream.

     

    Like all hardware advances, hardware microtasking will not be used by consumer software until a significant part of their market has it. But it could lead to dramatic performance advances were both Intel and AMD to offer it together.
    19 Mar, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • jibje2
    , contributor
    Comments (741) | Send Message
     
    Hippo,
    I'm with hUMA... :) which I meant when saying "Unified Memory." .. :)
    19 Mar, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • dahippo
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    What I mean HSA CPU and dGPU is not effektiv enough. The game industri created better solutions. But SoC and APU benefit alot from It, even ARM will use it.
    19 Mar, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • dahippo
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    HSA foundation has always had a hidden member. Some says its MS other say its Intel. If Intel is in talk it will take atleast 2 generation before we see it. Or they made a tape-out and found that AMD had the princip for patent. Its like Bulldozer, AMD made a L2 cache but found out late that Intel had the patent for it and they wouldnt give AMD the right to use it. Thats why Bulldozer have a bad L2 cache.
    19 Mar, 05:24 PM Reply Like
  • jibje2
    , contributor
    Comments (741) | Send Message
     
    Why AMD should not license the GPU IPs to Intel.

     

    But first, AMD 14LPP will beat Nvidia 16FinFET in efficiency because of smaller chip and AMD GPU is better with DX12/Vulkan :)

     

    However:
    1. AMD 14LPP CPU is bigger than Intel 14FinFET; thus Intel is more efficient.
    2. AMD IPC will be less than Intel IPC.
    3. AMD SMT single core will be less than Intel SMT single core.

     

    Intel beats AMD in all three areas. However, AMD has a chance to make up for it. 1. AMD TurborCore can increase single core performance when multicore not used.
    2. AMD is better in multicores; thus DX12/Vulkan/Mantle will better AMD cores.

     

    It's 2+ against 3- ; thus, I expect Zen to be about 95% of Intel. However, AMD can still win Intel.
    1. Zen comes with 32Cores (server market)
    2. Zen is made of two 16Cores package. (server market)
    3. Zen 8 and 4 cores will be for clients. I think AMD will make these cores.
    4. Zen 8/4 cores cost 20% less (plus DX12/Vulkan) will create more demand.
    5. Zen8/4Core/at 20%Less/PlusDX12/Vulkan with **Better iGPU** will dominate at every price point. *** This is a big win ***

     

    Intel has about 10B ER each Quarter (7B clients/ 3B server). With better iGPU and 20% cheaper, AMD can take 500m-1B each Quarter of SoC/APU from Intel. This while watching Intel works with inferior iGPU.

     

    On the Server side:
    Zen will not match Intel in IPC in single core; however, at 20% less, Zen will dominate Intel at every price point. **This is a big win even if the margin is low.**

     

    If Zen is about 95% of Intel, Intel balance sheet will suffer; thus it's better not to license the GPU IPs to Intel.

     

    Even if Zen is only 90% of Intel, Zen will still be able to win at each price point (server and client) if AMD chooses to do so at low margin.
    20 Mar, 12:03 AM Reply Like
  • gofx
    , contributor
    Comments (2764) | Send Message
     
    @jib,

     

    I don't see much analysis of Intel's potential responses to AMD barging into their markets with low price points.

     

    Intel has a lot of money to spend and/or a lot of margin to sacrifice if it wants to attempt to repel boarders.
    20 Mar, 06:48 AM Reply Like
  • binartech
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    Agree with gofx
    Intel is not going to let AMD grabbing 10% or 15% from his market that easy. Its not a growing market, on the contrary, its shrinking, so what one wins is lost by the other. Intel is not going to stand still, they will force OEMs with minimum volumes and all kind of strategies to keep market share as is...
    At some extend agree with jibje2, but if Intel continue using IP from Nvidia, if they get an efficient IP from them its also a problem for AMD.
    20 Mar, 07:49 AM Reply Like
  • jibje2
    , contributor
    Comments (741) | Send Message
     
    Bin,
    If Intel doesn't get the IPs from AMD, there will be a price war in the Client and Server markets. Intel Chip is smaller than AMD because of chip process. AMD is at the disadvantage from the beginning. However, the difference of the chip size is not like 32nm to 14nm, it's more like 18nm to 14nm. AMD can take low margin and sell more chips. This and the fact that AMD iGPU are better with DX12/Vulkan with multicores, it's worth taking on Intel without giving up the better iGPU. AMD CPU uses Samsung's 14nm (look at polaris efficiency), and the 14LPP (look at polaris efficiency)is more efficient that the first 14nm version; thus, AMD APU/CPU will be more efficient. But because it's not a true 14nm, I believe AMD will be about 90% to 99% of Intel. If this is true, AMD is in good shap. Not giving Intel a competitive iGPU will benefit AMD in the long run. If there is a price war, AMD will come out better if not awesome, while Intel's balance sheet will be damaged. I remember Su mentioned that Zen has better than 40% IPC, so I will take her word for now and believe that Zen will be almost 100% of Intel which is still good considering the disadvantage AMD started with.
    20 Mar, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • kjurden
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    "Report claims Intel, AMD discussing GPU patent licensing"
    by Joel Hruska

     

    Over the last few quarters, AMD has made it clear that it’s looking for new sources of revenue, including potential licensing deals and IP arrangements. Now Bloomberg is reporting that Intel is one potential company interested in licensing some of AMD’s patents, and that the two companies are in talks about a potential deal.

     

    Presently, Intel has a patent licensing deal with Nvidia with a total value of $1.5 billion and an expiration date of March 17, 2017. That deal has earned Nvidia roughly $67 million per quarter, and while that’s not much compared to the company’s yearly revenue of $5 billion for fiscal year 2016 (calendar year 2015), it works out to about 5% of its revenue and a significant chunk of Nvidia’s $614 million net income. Companies like IP and patent licensing precisely because these multi-year agreements can bring in continuing funds for work already completed without being a further drain on the bottom line. Details on the current state of negotiation between AMD and Intel are unknown, as are dollar figures and licensing terms.

     

    There’s already been some signs that Intel and Nvidia might not renew that agreement, including Intel’s stated intention to adopt the VESA Adaptive Sync / FreeSync technology rather than paying for a license for Nvidia G-Sync. We’ve also seen signs of limited cooperation with Intel via the recently-announced XConnect external GPU hardware. It’s possible that AMD is willing to be more flexible on patent terms and arrangements than Team Green — AMD’s financial situation isn’t great, and while the company expects new revenue in 2016 from a third semicustom embedded design win (currently hypothesized to be the Nintendo NX), the company needs all the revenue it can muster to offset lower APU sales. Successful IP licensing agreements, even if they weren’t for very much money in absolute terms, would also help CEO Lisa Su argue that she’s successfully pivoting the company in new directions to take advantage of its existing IP and patent portfolios.

     

    Intel’s multi-year patent deal with Nvidia hasn’t produced any GeForce-branded integrated graphics hardware, and it’s unlikely that Intel would explicitly adopt AMD’s architecture. Instead, the license would cover lower-level technology and implementations that Intel could incorporate into its own integrated graphics, or possibly Xeon Phi if AMD has data center or HPC-related patents that Santa Clara wants to take advantage of. AMD might also have patents related to HBM that are of interest to Intel — while the firm hasn’t announced any plans to utilize that technology, it could be interested in long-term applications or in using low-level design elements for other tasks.
    http://bit.ly/1WAuTH1
    20 Mar, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • binartech
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    @Kjurde,

     

    AMD needs about 1300MMs revenue to break even ( lets no talk about paying debt).
    New semicustom will contribute about 83 MMs per quarter, at 1000 MM average revenue, AMD will be in the 1083, lets round to 1100 per quarter.
    IP licensing has no cost so it goes directly to net income.
    If AMD accept to pay 50 MMs per Quarter for licensing IP, AMD break even point goes to about 1200 MMS per Q.
    So with new semicustom and licensing to Intel AMD is not going to break even.
    Of course this are my estimations.
    What I want to point is that AMD needs to sell more GPU and CPU and until that's happen, AMD will keep loosing money.
    The 320 MMs from the JV and about 170 MMs in cash/ equivalents above 600 MMs level, will keep them alive three more quarters.
    I'll wait to see what brings Nvidia on April 4, Im not saying AMD can win some market with Polaris, but Nvidia owns the market, and also is deep inside games developers !
    20 Mar, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • kjurden
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    @binartech..Let's not forget that AMD will now be suppling both Sony and Microsoft new XBOX and PS4 units in addition to the ones they already supply them with. This will in effect be doubling AMD's order to those clients.
    Now add to that new partnership with Sulon Q for VR. I think were are about to see a sea of change on AMD's balance sheet.
    20 Mar, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • dahippo
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    I dont think AMD wants to take every segment the other have but I do think they want to influernse every segment the other have so if they dont have the whole package atleast a part of it. Many creeks will be river. And they have the hw for every segment except a competitive cpu, that we have to wait for.
    21 Mar, 05:10 AM Reply Like
  • binartech
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    @Kjurden,
    I do not think so....., not int the very near term.
    New PS4 4.5 will require a new APU. To support 4K in gaming at acceptable FPS you need a faster GPU, this will increase power consumption a lot unless you use polaris.

     

    The options are:
    A) separated Puma+ CPU with a Polaris GPU.
    B) A similar APU basedd on PUMA+ but with Polaris
    C) A 14nm PUMA / Carrizo core with a GPU
    D) A ZEN CPU + POLARIS GPU
    E) An APU based on ZEN + POLARIS

     

    From the above the only price-performance option I see is E.
    I do not think Carrizo or PUMA will be ported to 14nm and also other GPUs
    like the one integrated in the Console APUS.

     

    At the end this APUs will be ready for next year, not earlier than june 2017.
    This also is coincident with the release of new Zen based APUs, so Sony may pay part of the development for their own and AMD uses this money to advance in their own APUs.
    21 Mar, 03:34 PM Reply Like
  • nbarzilay
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Finally...
    21 Mar, 12:30 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs