Comments Locked

32 Comments

Back to Article

  • serendip - Thursday, April 21, 2016 - link

    Interesting play by AMD. They could be aiming for the server and HPC market in China as the consumer market for desktops and laptops slows down by a lot. AFAIK there are few Chinese OEMs that offer AMD chips in consumer products, big ones like Lenovo included.
  • Samus - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    Lenovo offers Thinkpad E series and various Ideapad models with AMD CPU's. Even the Thinkpad X100/X120/X130s are AMD E350/E450-based.

    But there's nothing worse than a Lenovo AND an AMD Processor. Talk about poor reliability and lack of battery life...
  • BurntMyBacon - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    @Samus: "But there's nothing worse than a Lenovo AND an AMD Processor. Talk about poor reliability and lack of battery life..."

    @Samus: "Even the Thinkpad X100/X120/X130s are AMD E350/E450-based."

    I think I found your problem. ; ' )

    Seriously, though, Carizo is the first chip AMD has made that I felt actually belonged in a mobile device. Low power isn't enough if the performance isn't where it needs to be (Atom / *cat based processors). I'm still waiting for the AMD processor that doesn't make me feel like I'm loosing something on mobile by not going Intel, though.
  • rahvin - Thursday, April 21, 2016 - link

    I would be surprised if AMD's x86 agreement with Intel allows them to do this even if AMD is saying it does. I expect Intel is going to sue to block this and will probably win. Intel owns x86, though AMD developed x64 it's a derivative of x86 and Intel holds all the cards. There is no way in hell Intel is going to let AMD partner with a Chinese venture where AMD will hold a minority share and let them make x86 chips. Just not going to happen. Honestly IMO Intel would be more likely to terminate the entire agreement than let AMD do this.
  • Flunk - Thursday, April 21, 2016 - link

    Intel is just as handicapped by that deal as AMD is. What are they going to do, stop selling processors that support AMD64?
  • CPUGPUGURU - Thursday, April 21, 2016 - link

    Intel owns their own reverse engineered version of x86 64 bit (Intel 64), they don't need AMD64, this violates the terms of a 2009 cross-licensing agreement between AMD and Intel. That agreement says neither party can transfer rights to licensed technology to other companies. “I’m sure Intel is going to have major issues with this.

    Also exports of advanced semiconductor technology are subject to U.S. government export controls, which seek to limit the transfer of technology that could affect national security.

    So I highly doubt anything will become of AMD's China deal until its tested in the courts.
  • Vlad_Da_Great - Thursday, April 21, 2016 - link

    The report said, that AMD "believes" that JV complies with any government mandated restrictions. Lisa Su is also born in Taiwan. Recently some high ranking USA military official of Taiwanese descent was indicted of espionage, few months ago 3 Chinese were captured in the East coast tried to steak advance chips and IP. Russian spies lived in USA for a decade. USA is going in the toilet. Nobody is producing anything here, we have only UBER drivers and Apple clerks. INTC is laying off 12K people and in New Mexico INTC 32nm factory will be closed, but they put $5B into China memory plant.
  • extide - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    Intel closed the 32nm plant in Az because it is old, at the same time they are working on spinning up the new 450mm wafer plant there with either 14 or 10nm technology.
  • close - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000119...

    "Intel 64" is just Intel's name for x86-64 and there's no need to "reverse engineer" something they already have licensed and work with intimately. Would a cook have to reverse-engineer a cake when he already has that recipe?

    There are ways get around any roadblock. One is to also allow Intel to do this in the future since they clearly would like to do it.
  • Bleakwise - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link

    Well, you could reverse engineer it, but the courts would not recognize it as original, which is what matters here.

    Also, AMD has OWNERSHIP of x86. Intel lost exclusive ownership of x86 back when they were paying Dell and HP and Apple and others to refuse to buy any processors from AMD. The penalties for anti-trust are huge. After they lost exlcusive rights to x86 they paid AMD almost 4 billion dollars to settle the issue, that can only mean that Intel analyzed the situatoin and thought that the damage to their company would have been in exess of what they paid to settle it. It literally could have been the end of their company, they were lucky they weren't ordered to shut down, loosing x86 was a very mild punishment.
  • Bleakwise - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link

    I mean, there was talk about splitting up intel into 2-3 companies. That's how serious the issue was. AMD has since owned their own x86 license and doesn't need Intel to license it. Intel on the other hand licenses x86-64 from AMD and pays royalties to AMD for every chip sold, though it's not something AMD can terminate.

    Now. AVX, AVX2 and SSE are different stories. I would imagine that these are what AMD gets in exchange for x86-64 instead of royalties. Without all the extentoins like AES and SSE and in the future without AVX and VEC an x86 chip isn't high performance.

    To that end I have to wonder what this Chinese chipmaker is getting. I wouldn't be surpised if instead of SSE and AVX it had vector extensions from ARM like NEON or maybe 3dnow! .
  • Bleakwise - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link

    Clean room designed are one thing, but that isn't what Intel has, x86-64 is cross licensed. You can't reverse engineer something afte ryou license the IP, and what Intel's marketing dept calls it "Intel64" is irrelevant. AMD doesn't flat out own AVX because they call it AVX1.1 or AVX2.1 either, just the FMA4 instruction....

    I mean, Ford can't just go buy a Toyota, and then go "reverse engiener" a toyota based off the toyota they bought....
  • beginner99 - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    Exactly. And therefore this deal does in fact have a huge financial risk in the legal area.
  • Bleakwise - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link

    Intel lost exclusive rights to x86 back in the anti-trust lawsuits of the last decade.
  • RandSec - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link

    Legality is a non-issue: AMD already builds chips for Sony and Microsoft without legal problems. AMD has chips built in merchant fabs (one of which is in Taiwan) and sells those chips, all under license, like any other patented product. They can do the same here.
  • Arnulf - Monday, April 25, 2016 - link

    Yeah, I'm surprised you're the first one to point out the console business (considering how many people replied above you).

    Assuming AMD gets export restrictions out of the way (and I imagine they did, otherwise there wouldn't have been any announcement of this JV ...) this is no different than cooperating with Sony, Nintendo (?), Microsoft ...
  • webdoctors - Thursday, April 21, 2016 - link

    This seems like a win win, future licensing revenue and all the upfront money is coming from the partner company THATIC. IBM has been trying to follow on ARM's success by licensing out their Power Architecture for Asian server customers, but I haven't heard of anything successful. ARM has been hugely successful, maybe AMD might be too.

    It's not clear how this doesn't violate the license but IANAL so I'll let them hash it out.

    More money is great. If AMD opens it up, we could have steam boxes with Nvidia GPUs and x86 processors similar to PS4 but 2 discrete chips. Google, Oracle, or even Microsoft might want to license that IP too for making x86 compatible software appliances.
  • jjj - Thursday, April 21, 2016 - link

    Multiple reports mention links to Sugon and Sugon has 50 systems in top 500,most towards the bottom but still a big player. If it is HPC, another question is if it can create a big upside for discrete GPUs from AMD. CPU perf is less and less relevant in HPC ,even more so in a few years when this JV might have the first product and creating a big opportunity on the GPU side would make this deal worth it, assuming the US gov doesn't ban the sale of such GPUs to China.
  • Vlad_Da_Great - Thursday, April 21, 2016 - link

    Haha, Chinese are taking the stupid Americans IP. The interesting fact is with their own money. How pathetic? People dedicated years of research and now JV, Power licensing, Penalizing QCom with some smoke theories. The stupid GOOG and MSFT got their servers spied and trashed and they still use Taiwanese and Chinese companies to make their servers. :):)
  • iwod - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    I still dont understand how this will pay out for them. At the end of the day, it is still AMD vs Intel at the x86 range. China cant Fab 14nm, and do not have any advantage to this IP without a Fab. Using the exact same IP to be produced at TSMC will mean these Chips will goes to complete with Intel AND AMD
  • Intel999 - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    @Iwod

    The Chinese government doesn't trust U.S. companies' technology. They are paranoid and think all U.S. companies are secretly agents for the CIA. Due to this paranoia they want Chinese companies to provide the security aspects of CPUs.

    Hence, the reason Qualcomm has recently signed a similar JV using ARM IP and IBM is providing their Power tech free to Chinese companies with the intent of receiving royalties on the back end should any of the Chinese companies create anything viable.
  • Qwertilot - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    Rather closer to rationally cautious than paranoid you'd think :)
  • Michael Bay - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    And chinese are completely in the right here. Every US company abroad is a tool for the neocohens.
  • nunya112 - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    im not suprized that the US dept of Justice or the white house blocks this. They blocked Intel's deal to sell them the already made processors (zeons) here us a news link http://www.pcworld.com/article/2908692/us-blocks-i...

    so how do they feel about now giving them the capability to make their own, with unlimited money?
  • gshrikant - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    "(THATIC),_ whom_ is an investment arm of the Chinese Academy of Sciences", typo?
  • Murloc - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    Yes, it's wrong.

    Probably not a typo but rather an outright error, there is no way he clicked m by mistake.
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    Thanks!
  • twtech - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    If China didn't previously have the capability to manufacture x86 compatible processors, they'll probably use this opportunity to steal the technology. Any kind of joint venture that is primarily IP related usually results in China eventually just taking it and cutting out the US company.
  • Senti - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    The rest of the world would only win from that so all is good.
  • lilo777 - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    I doubt US government cares about the rest of the world.
  • jjpcat@hotmail.com - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link

    I don't see anywhere in the announcement that it's x86. It doesn't imply or hints either.
  • theguyuk - Sunday, May 1, 2016 - link

    AMD need to push their knowledge in CPU and GPU design more into the lower power usage market, the same bang but less juice/fuel needed. That's where the edge comes, being cheaper to support, lower running costs and cheaper to fab. They could easily look at low end ARM socs and say do this, change that and add direct x support here, imagine the low end boost they could add while earning IP rights.

    While lower power high spec GPU and CPU experience would pay them back in the console market, by allowing them to offer to cut the electric bill your console / smart TV box's cost to use, but still allowing a eye candy wowing experience.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now