Intel threatens AMD with termination of x86 license within 60 days
By Nilay Patel 
posted March 16th 2009 1:14PM
posted March 16th 2009 1:14PM
Intel's been making noise about AMD's Globalfoundries manufacturing spinoff potentially violating the two companies' patent cross-licensing agreement for a while now, and it looks like things are escalating: AMD's latest SEC filing says that Intel's formally threatened to terminate the license if AMD doesn't make it better within 60 days. It's not clear exactly what Intel wants here -- we doubt anyone thinks AMD is going to undo the spinoff -- so we'll see what happens next, but we've got a feeling Intel's trying to put the boot down while AMD's on the ground.[Thanks, Chris]
Read - Reuters
Read - AMD SEC filing
So AMD will only be able to make x64 processors?
thats ok with me..
its like telling boeing they cant make biplanes...
x64 processors are x86 processors with 64 bit instructions.
But since AMD licenses x86-64 to Intel, and Intel licenses x86 to AMD, if either of them break each other off, they're both done for.
Vinnie,
AMD licenses the x86 instruction set. The x64 is a extension on the x86 instruction set.
This story is going back years ago, when AMD was a licensed manufacturing plant, making Intel CPU's. My memory is fussy about the whole deal, but it came down to it, that Intel wanted to do production only in house anymore. AMD started with there own CPU's, using the x86 instruction set. This came to court when Intel sued AMD. Fearing that Intel was going to lose ( and lose its patent on the x86 instruction set ), a agreement was done. AMD was able to use the x86 instruction set.In return, one off the conditions was, that AMD was not allowed to produce the CPU outside there own management. Aka, limiting there production capability.
There are more restrictions on that deal, but thats the one that matters for this case.
By going to a external production plant, AMD is able to do more CPU production, need to spend less money on the constant die shrink war ( 64nm->42nm->32nm ... ). A win win situation for AMD, but a problem for Intel. When the original Athlon where kicking Intels P4's, AMD was extremely limited by its production capability ( you don't put up a production plant in 1 2 3 ... ). This limitation allows Intel to keeps its market dominance, as AMD is pron many time to limits on the amount off CPU's it can produce.
Company's like Dell need a steady supply off CPU's. A company that can only do xx each month, when they need twice or three times that, is a relative bad parter for Dell, Compaq, HP... So, they are again, limited from breaking into that lucrative market... At best AMD has/had the production capability to do 25% off the market.
They ( Intel ) are playing bluff poker, but denying the x86 instruction set is close to impossible. Intel needs to be careful, or else they might just end up losing there x86 patent if it gets to court. Trust me, it will again end in a settlement, with Intel putting limits in place to prevent AMD from mass production competition.
Kyle B, what exactly do you mean "they are both done for"?
Actually, no.
64-bit x86 will die, but Intel can just ship 32-bit processors, and convince Microsoft to fully enable PAE in Windows 7. There, 3.3 GiB RAM barrier avoided.
@random
I mean that if Intel tells AMD they can't make x86 anymore, then AMD will obviously retaliate and not let Intel make x86-64 anymore. Meaning Intel will have to backtrack to 2004 x86 technology and make a new 64 bit extension on x86 design, and then design an entirely new instruction set, which will also not be the best of news for companies like Microsoft and Apple, who develop operating systems relying on the current x86-64 instruction set.
Spark notes: AMD won't be able to make anything x86 related, Intel will have to restart everything 64 bit related from scratch, backtracking 5 years.
bhtooefr,
AMD also licenses multi core and integrated memory controller IP to Intel. Without this technology we'd be rolling back to x86 single core setups, or go back to having to buy boards with several CPU sockets to get the effect of several cores running in our systems. There's no way either company would get by unless something is etched out somehow.
Also, as far as not being able to see 4GB is concerned, I believe I read that this is more so a hardware limit of 32bit architecture, not software and even though PAE will technically allow you to see more, I believe you're only using a certain amount of that. I could be wrong.
But in any respect, this would be crippling to both companies. Intel wouldn't be able to sell core2duos, quads or I7s and AMD wouldn't be able to sell their processors, period. It's a no win scenario.
Its a software limit, 32bit linux has been able to access more than 4gb of ram for a long time, I'm sure the implamentation is a bit of a hack though.
@andew
the 4gb thing is a hardware problem associated with 32bit computing. 2^32 = approximately 4gb. linux can access more than this by accessing different "set" of 4gb of ram. but at any given time, it can only access 4gb. (overly simplified, but i believe that, in essence, linux only has access to 4gb of ram at any given point)
It's a hardware limit. 32 bit processors can only use 4GB of addressable space, including space for DMA enabled devices (including video cards).
A hardware supported workaround to kinda break the 4GB barrier came around during the Pentium Pro days called PAE. It is 36 bit memory addressing, in 32bit chunks. As someone above explained for Linux, what happens is the memory is divided into multiple 4GB pools. No single application can use more then 4GB. And the OS has to swap back and forth between the spaces. It's not a great solution, but worked for a bit. It's almost like the old days of having conventional, expanded, and extended memory.
PAE only pushed out the memory problem for a few years, as it still has a low limit of 64GB total RAM. Servers have hit the 64GB wall already and only due to 64 bit processors have been able to go beyond it. High end workstations are close to this limit, with machines regularly going up to 32GB of RAM.
To try and go back to 32 bit now would not be possible. 64 bit is here, and thankfully the migration is working down into the consumer level now.
if that's the case AMD should file suit to get a judgement. hopefully that judgement will also help other x86 cpu manufacturer's and maybe bring Nvidia into the x86 manufacturing business. intel is just a monopolistic bully. some chip company has to bring down goliath...
Guys !!!!! the Intel we LOVED to HATE is back !!!!!!!!!!
A monopoly by any other name (patent) is still a monopoly.
agreed. I am not the biggest fan of AMD but if Intel is the only one pushing these chips out, the market wont be in the favor of the consumer. Competition = lower prices.
DO NOT WANT.
It's very explicitly a monopoly -- the idea is that people and companies will have an incentive to create things if we give them an exclusive, time-limited monopoly on their inventions. How best to execute that policy and balance it against other desired policies is up for debate, but that's the fundamental concept.
Competition is bad, m'kay.
AMD is pretty sure that intel can't do anything.
Intel can suck one.
I hope nvidia picks up the slack if Intel tries to kill AMD while it's down.
Buying NVidia now, are we? :)
I didn't mind Intel's monopoly until now. Yes, they were the largest manufacturer, but the competition from AMD was healthy enough that Intel had to keep innovating. This move is just stupid from Intel's part. You're allowed to have dominance in the market if you get it fairly, but leveraging the dominance of x86-based processors to shut out AMD is just plain anti-competitive. There's no way any court would let that stand.
Let's not forget, though, that at this point all we have is AMD's word Intel's threatened this. If it's a formal threat, there ought to be documentation, so the real story will come out soon. I highly doubt Intel is stupid enough to engage in blatant anti-competitive practices. They prefer the subtle approach.
Yeah man, I agree!
Which is actually funny, cause Im using Dual Core AMD at the moment, but I got a sweet price on an Intel Quad, so Im switching to Intel.
I hope NVIDIA enters the CPU game, 3 competitors should mean some pretty good prices for consumers.
What would be f'ing A, is if AMD and NVIDIA could put their GFX differences aside, and both develop a monster processor, that can really compete with the top intel stuff.
Unfortunately I dont think that will happen, so maybe NVIDIA will be able to do it alone.
interesting, if i were amd i would threat them back with revoking the x64 licence. Eye for Eye approach. I like chipzilla products, but recenty intel has started to show its true color, First with Nvidia now with AMD.Who is the Imbecil behind all of this?
the problem is AMD have no grounds to revoke as intel broken any agreement.
Unfortunately this is not the school playground and you cant just revoke license because they did (or will)
insert "has not" above.
insert new post editing function below.
"In addition, AMD asserts that Intel breached the agreement by its "purported attempt to terminate (AMD's) rights and licenses under the Cross License." That move gives AMD the right to terminate Intel's rights and licenses."
This could get interesting.
I own a Core i7, it's pretty damn impressive.
But if that's all we have for the next 10 years because AMD is out, screw Intel. They only innovate when there is market pressure.
You are exactly right.
People on Engadget love to bitch and moan about the U.S. Patent system as if it is some horrible hindrance to competition, when the truth is that the only thing holding back competition is corporate complacency and greed. Is a patent a monopoly? Sure it is. It's an earned monopoly - the reward you get for innovating. Does it prevent superior technology from coming along and rendering it obsolete? No. No it does not.
Neither of these companies would be having this discussion if either decided to actually innovate a new architecture in the last thirty - yes, 30 - years..
LOL, there's a good reason for no new architecture = software support. It would need OS support and that basically means windows. Hell, took them long enough to support a 64 bit version of the x86 and the last support another architecture had was Alpha and NT4!
Further proof that Intel is trying to monopolize the x86 market. If AMD has the license for x86 processors and Globalfoundries is just manufacturing for them Intel can go after Globalfoundries if they attempt to make any x86 processors outside of the licensing deal AMD has with Intel.
@Vinnie technically the x64 is still an x86 compatible processor chip as such they have to comply with the Intel licensing agreement.
Intel just wants to beat AMD so far into the ground they will only exist as a deterrent to federal Monopoly and anti-trust investigations.
If AMD had not bought ATI and actually kept up with Intel in prices and performance this whole issue would be moot. AMD screwed up and that's all there is to it, had AMD kept up with C2Q and done better than Intel there would be no problems, but no AMD is too busy doing who knows what to actually compete
chill out, intel.
If Intel does this, I won't build my next machine with an intel CPU.
yes, but those i7's.
damn.
if intel does this, i still will, but i'll do it without a smile.
The problem is, what does that leave? VIA?
Or, you could go non-x86, but that's opening a whole new can of worms. (Nothing wrong with non-x86 architectures, it's just that there's a LOT of binary-only x86 software out there.)
What would you buy instead though? VIA? Say goodbye to any apps that requite any form of performance. ARM? Say goodbye to most of your apps even if they don't requite good performance levels
Sadly Intel wouldn't care. The people that Intel their money are the people who have no idea this is going on, the people who won't care about what Intel is trying to pull.
Ya, this would be pretty stupid of intel. They'd have all kinds of hurt come down on them if they suddenly had no competition. x64 is an extension of x86, so it would essentially stop all production for AMD. Sounds like the cross-licensing only works if it's AMD that is producing the chips. Spinning it off would create another company that no longer has access to that licensing/patents.
And this is why I will never support Intel.
Guys what are x86 Chips? What exactly do the do? Are they integrated graphics?
The processor that runs your computer is x86. It's what powers all PC's and even those white things called Macs.
what if he is running a PPC mac .... that wouldn't be x86 and he wouldn't necessarily know
also normally x86 is the CPU or central processing unit but intel has experimentally repurposed them to be graphics processors (not very good ones) in the Larrabee project
Time to move to the ARM Architecture people!
I heard Nvidia wanted to enter the x86 game, so does that mean they want to make an i7 competitor?
Stupid move intel. Learn something from MS on monopolistic practices, or the EU courts will be sueing for billions. I'd keep the competition and avoid the legal gutting surely to follow if you kill off your main competitor.
Agreed, AMD could just say "Fine, stop our X86 license, we'll stop licensing out our X86-64 license"
Then the EU comes along, fines Intel however much AMD earned in 2007 and 2008 and 2009 for incompetitive actions unless they give AMD their license back when.....
AMD releases a X64 base(not extension) processor ready incase this happened which then stomps the I7 for $200 yet costs them $130 a piece to make and they then become the new market leader
Never buy intel if you are not a short-sighted snail.
My guess is that these are empty threats, seriously if Intel terminated the license they would be pounced on by every competition commission or similar organization worldwide demanding that they reinstate the license and would more then likely be faced with extremely hefty penalties for the pleasure of doing so.
Competition drives innovation and reduces prices. Win win for consumer (though not for the CEO's multi million dollar bonuses) and if Intel actually pulled such a move prices for x86 processors would go up and Intel would effectively have no competition in that sector until Nvidia came up with an alternative or they made up with AMD. And although competition commissions do like to turn a blind eye to quite a lot of corporate stuff and run decent proposals into the ground (Yes, f**k you the British competition commission for getting rid of Kangaroo) but stuff as big as this they simply couldn't ignore.
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!
Intel. Never again.