Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

0388631

Cancelled
Sep 10, 2009
9,669
10,823
x86 is key to computing. The world is locked-in.
That may be so, but FRAND doesn't apply to it. x86 isn't the only platform out there, hence it not being key anymore.

To be key means to be the only processor instruction set and architecture around. That isn't the case and hasn't been for a very long time. Many industries have dropped x86 processors for RISC based processors. Hence it not being a key set that the industry or any industry needs to be viable.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
That may be so, but FRAND doesn't apply to it. x86 isn't the only platform out there, hence it not being key anymore.
It is the only platform for PCs.

Saying that Intel is not a monopoly because of ARM is a lie.
 

0388631

Cancelled
Sep 10, 2009
9,669
10,823
It is the only platform for PCs.

Saying that Intel is not a monopoly because of ARM is a lie.
Again, it's not a FRAND applicable. If it were, AMD wouldn't have succumbed to a new contract in 2009 when they developed a spinoff company in violation of their contract with Intel. If FRAND were applicable then or before, US regulators would have stepped in. Which they haven't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tuxon86

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
Again, it's not a FRAND applicable. If it were, AMD wouldn't have succumbed to a new contract in 2009 when they developed a spinoff company in violation of their contract with Intel. If FRAND were applicable then or before, US regulators would have stepped in. Which they haven't.
I'm not impressed by US regulators. One has to rely on the EU or China.
 

0388631

Cancelled
Sep 10, 2009
9,669
10,823
I'm not impressed by US regulators. One has to rely on the EU or China.
Right. Well, hat's off to the EU and China to develop something on their own accord. The only thing the EU has ever been capable of has been passing off fines. Pitiful fines.

But I welcome EU companies to develop and fabricate their own processors that would work with Windows and any other x86-64 OS without violating any laws. Besides, FRAND was for $$ in terms of licensing. Not the ability to use a product without paying for its licensing.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
Right. Well, hat's off to the EU and China to develop something on their own accord. The only thing the EU has ever been capable of has been passing off fines. Pitiful fines.

But I welcome EU companies to develop and fabricate their own processors that would work with Windows and any other x86-64 OS without violating any laws.
It was China who forced the transfer of HGST's 3.5" desktop line to Toshiba. And kept HGST hands off from WD for several years.

Many AMD processors are fabbed in Dresden, where certain Globalfoundries technologies are developed.
 

0388631

Cancelled
Sep 10, 2009
9,669
10,823
It was China who forced the transfer of HGST's 3.5" desktop line to Toshiba.

Many AMD processors are fabbed in Dresden.
Chinese or any foreign regulators only come into play if you plan on providing your product within the country.


The Dresden plant is owned by Global Foundries, a spinoff company that AMD owns. I don't see the point of bringing it up. It's not a true third party building it. Furthermore, FRAND has to do with licensing price.

Let's take Apple as an example. Apple could do away with their licensing of products through their developer wing. They can be closed off about everything.

On the other hand, Apple could increase the licensing fee and per unit licensing of their products. A connector has a $4 fee to it, if it's a pass through, it's an $8 fee. Apple could decided they'll triple the price or quadruple the price of the connector fees, so $16 and $32. Which would raise the price of third party cables to Apple pricing levels. The manufacturer can either decide to sell at the same price which makes zero sense on paper (Why would a customer choose to pay the same amount of money for a third party connector when they can buy the official stuff at the same price?) or the manufacturer could reduce their price even more. FRAND comes into play here.

The problem with FRAND is that there are many legal loopholes to bypass the issue. If it were truly applicable AMD could have told Intel to buzz off back in the early 2000s, and wouldn't have renewed contracts. AMD could have done the same with their x64 architecture to Intel all those times. Both companies also hold a contract that allows them to borrow each others ideas and architecture without fear of legal persecution.

The cross licensing agreement was never meant to hurt Intel or AMD in their future advances. Any termination leads to a new contract or Intel faces a wrath of inquiries. The licensing deal both companies have is... and to put it plainly, has each other by the balls.
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,677
The Peninsula
They tried x64 with ia 64 and it didn't work and now that 32 bit has gone the way of the dodo it'd Intel and give AMD a huge advantage.
Any claim on "x64" as a special invention might fail the "it's obvious" test.

Intel extended the 8-bit ISA to 16-bit. The number of registers and their width was increased, but the 8-bit ISA was preserved to operate on the low 8-bits of the earlier count of registers.

Intel extended the 16-bit ISA to 32-bit. The number of registers and their width was increased, but the 16-bit ISA was preserved to operate on the low 16-bits of the earlier count of registers.

AMD extended the 32-bit ISA to 64-bit. The number of registers and their width was increased, but the 32-bit ISA was preserved to operate on the low 32-bits of the earlier count of registers.

If Intel can show that they explored an "x64" like extension to the architecture - then any AMD claims on x64 can be struck down.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
Chinese or any foreign regulators only come into play if you plan on providing your product within the country.


The Dresden plant is owned by Global Foundries, a spinoff company that AMD owns. I don't see the point of bringing it up. It's not a true third party building it. Furthermore, FRAND has to do with licensing price.
You can be sure x86 products are sold all over the world.

Globalfoundries is not owned by AMD. The fabs were spun off to be sold to Mubadala when AMD could not afford this operation anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0388631

0388631

Cancelled
Sep 10, 2009
9,669
10,823
Globalfoundries is not owned by AMD. The fabs were spun off to be sold to Mubadala when AMD could not afford this operation anymore.

Which triggered a contract renegotiation with Intel. Do you think their lawyers never thought of saying FU to either company and these companies simply doing what they've been doing sans license? Something that's been in play since the early 2000s? You think it never occurred to them they could use a FRAND lawsuit to get their way?

Intel allows three companies to use x86: Intel, AMD and VIA, which now are licensed to deal with TSMC and Globalfoundries. These companies are only allowed to make what AMD order, nothing on their own to sell as a spinoff. The x86 cross licensing agreement is ever evolving. Patents within the license on old instruction sets, specifically how they were implemented and how they work, such as Pentiums are now expired and incredibly useless in this day and age. Intel and AMD used to patent more and more than the other on the basis that one would infringe and it would open a slew of lawsuits. Instead, they ended up doing a cross patenting license. In the event AMD is sold off, the license agreement is dead, however, a new licensing deal is brought up as the new company technically inherited via purchase the assets of AMD. VIA has a license with Intel because they bought out a company that Intel previously had a licensing agreement with. The same one with AMD, however, Intel didn't want to negotiate with them and were successfully sued. So now VIA has a licensing contract similar to AMD's with Intel. If they fall, their successor starts a new contract with Intel. There were companies who countered the issue of licensing by partnering up with IBM who at the time (and still does, I believe) a licensing agreement with Intel to use x86.


TL;DR: If AMD goes belly up, no FRAND lawsuit will apply. However, government inquiries into Intel may start IF Intel doesn't draw up the same contract with the new AMD owners and would see large anti-competitive fines from governments around the globe. This was never a one way deal. Intel gets to use AMD's x86-64 and AMD gets to use Intel's x86. All other companies that create processors with these sets already have deals in place with both AMD and Intel. They didn't start it on their own.

Any company is free to use x86 and x86-64 architecture if they draft an agreement with both companies or partner up with a fabrication company that has a deal with both companies.

The issue lies in fabrication startup costs if you don't want to partner up with a company that's already fabricating hardware through partnership or licensing deal with Intel and AMD.
 
Last edited:

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
Which triggered a contract renegotiation with Intel. Do you think their lawyers never thought of saying FU to either company and these companies simply doing what they've been doing sans license? Something that's been in play since the early 2000s? You think it never occurred to them they could use a FRAND lawsuit to get their way?

Intel allows three companies to use x86: Intel, AMD and VIA, which now are licensed to deal with TSMC and Globalfoundries. These companies are only allowed to make what AMD order, nothing on their own to sell as a spinoff. The x86 cross licensing agreement is ever evolving. Patents within the license on old instruction sets, specifically how they were implemented and how they work, such as Pentiums are now expired and incredibly useless in this day and age. Intel and AMD used to patent more and more than the other on the basis that one would infringe and it would open a slew of lawsuits. Instead, they ended up doing a cross patenting license. In the event AMD is sold off, the license agreement is dead, however, a new licensing deal is brought up as the new company technically inherited via purchase the assets of AMD. VIA has a license with Intel because they bought out a company that Intel previously had a licensing agreement with. The same one with AMD, however, Intel didn't want to negotiate with them and were successfully sued. So now VIA has a licensing contract similar to AMD's with Intel. If they fall, their successor starts a new contract with Intel. There were companies who countered the issue of licensing by partnering up with IBM who at the time (and still does, I believe) a licensing agreement with Intel to use x86.


TL;DR: If AMD goes belly up, no FRAND lawsuit will apply. However, government inquiries into Intel may start IF Intel doesn't draw up the same contract with the new AMD owners and would see large anti-competitive fines from governments around the globe. This was never a one way deal. Intel gets to use AMD's x86-64 and AMD gets to use Intel's x86. All other companies that create processors with these sets already have deals in place with both AMD and Intel. They didn't start it on their own.
A possibility is that invoking FRAND would be the option of last resort as it would invite other players.
 

0388631

Cancelled
Sep 10, 2009
9,669
10,823
A possibility is that invoking FRAND would be the option of last resort as it would invite other players.
Correct, but we've never seen it done and FRAND has a lot of loopholes. The biggest issue I've always seen as I imagine I'm quite a bit older than most on here is the startup costs of building your own fabrication. Then you have to worry about the quality of product that's being churned out. It's incredibly expensive. On the other hand, you could go with a partnership but then you're paying double the fees in most cases. It's a terrible situation for a company if they build a processor architecture that steamrolls both Intel and AMD's efforts. It's a far stretch, but it's not something that's impossible.
 

koyoot

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 5, 2012
5,939
1,853
http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=276760&postcount=4207
Zen based APUs are notebook first 2H17, check investor slides and conference calls. Dont get in a hissy about AMD SKU placement and marketing. Its desktop first non APU, desktop APUs much later...after notebook. What will be interesting is the desktop market placement, officially right from Su its high performance desktop. Remeber AMD will be using GF and a second foundry paying an estimated 100 million penalty starting Q1. Might we see Zen from samsung on a higher SKU maybe, in reality they are likely just server chips. Source is the WSA press release.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
Desktop is in decline and getting Bristol Ridge and AMD is less competitive in notebooks. It makes sense.
 

koyoot

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 5, 2012
5,939
1,853
Yeah, yeah, the same way that Polaris 10 was supposed to clock up to 1650 MHz and destroy GTX 1070.

WCCFTech is such rubbish source...
 

tuxon86

macrumors 65816
May 22, 2012
1,321
477
That is not true. I would have never supported a monopoly buying this x86 crap if I had a choice.

But you can use something other than x86. You just won't get to enjoy the vast library of software package that run on x86. But there is nothing preventing a company or individuals from writing their own OS and applications.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
But you can use something other than x86. You just won't get to enjoy the vast library of software package that run on x86. But there is nothing preventing a company or individuals from writing their own OS and applications.
Keep on with the ridiculous rhetoric.
 

Stacc

macrumors 6502a
Jun 22, 2005
888
353
The $250-$300 price rumor tells me that it won't match the performance of Broadwell-E. If Zen really did match Intel, they would price it higher. From what I understand, this is supposed to be an enthusiast part, which normally commands prices > $300.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.