Apparently there's something very fishy with this story as it's not on Bloomberg . . . that site is just repeating the story from techinvestornews.com which leads to thefly.com who say it's from Bloomberg but no source link and it stops there.
So much of internet news seems to just be repeating what other sites post (often hiding or burying the source) without any check of the legitimacy of the story
[rem IMG]https://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/pob_aka_robg/Spork/project_spork.jpg[rem /IMG] [rem IMG]https://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/pob_aka_robg/dichotomy/dichotomy_footer_zps1c040519.jpg[rem /IMG]
Pob's new mod, Soviet Pob Propaganda style Laptop.
"Are you suggesting that I can't punch an entire dimension into submission?" - Flying squirrel - The Red Panda Adventures
Sorry photobucket links broken
I thought their cross licensing deal was already quite broad? I can't see how Intel is making GPUs without already infringing on AMD patents, so this must surely be dealt with.
A quick Google finds me:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cp...ment-for-both/
so if Intel's buying of Altera counts as a merger it might trigger the end of the existing cross license deal, otherwise this seems like it is nonsense.
It's not particularly unlikely. I can think of several AMD developed technologies Intel might want to implement. HBM springs to mind, but it could just as easily be something relating to adaptive sync, Vulkan or even TrueAudio.Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Although, as DwU said, the existing cross-license agreement should cover all of AMD's patents anyway, so they shouldn't need to enter talks about it, unless there is something AMD has that's expressly excluded, or there's some other issue with the exiting cross-license.
Of course, having access to the patents doesn't necessarily mean you can use a technology if there are other protections in place, and it wouldn't provide access to trademarks or technical implementations of those patents, so there may be some technology that Intel wants to license outside of just a patent issue.
I had another look, I could trace back to "The Fly" which claimed a Bloomberg article says Intel want to use AMD graphics cores in their CPUs. That seems laughable to me, and like Pob I couldn't find a source article on Bloomberg.
A couple of years ago I might have been tempted to believe it, when Intel's IGPs were still barely adequate while AMD was getting its APUs into full swing. Then Hexus mentioned the Firestrike result for the i5 6200U in their recent brix review, and it was better than my A8-4600m. I think the days of Intel needing a better graphics technology are well and truly gone.
In an Ideal world, this would be real and AMD would negotiate an allowance for them to be bought/merged so a company such as Samsung could buy them. I can't see it happening in the real world though. Samsung buying AMD could end up hammering Intel's enviable margins and taking a lot of market share.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
I wouldn't go that far. Intel have improved a lot, but their latest silicon on a leading edge process and a big sram chip embedded on the package is only slightly faster than AMD's leading desktop APU on a 28nm package and just DDR3 to feed it. Really, that chip shouldn't beat the AMD APU, it should flatten it, like at least double the performance.
Intel have had graphics technology for decades now, and even after spending I shudder to think how much on their failed Larabee project they just can't scale it up.
I shall be very interested to see if the desktop version of Carrizo when socket AM4 comes out can match the £300 Intel chip for graphics performance as carrizo has a few more shaders than the FM2+ chips.
It'll certainly be interesting, and I think it's one of the big areas that all companies will be looking to push forward.
All that said, apparently Skylake's top end Iris graphics has 50% more EUs again and twice the eDram (I've been posting about it in response to news stories!). Of course, it's being reserved for the top end mobile chips and the mainstream and desktop markets are stilling putting up with something very mediocre, but it's interesting to see where Intel obviously feel the market for performance IGPs is...
What makes you think it doesn't?
Broadwell GT3e was 15-25% faster than the A10-7870k and the HD 580 is at least 50% faster than Broadwell. I'd say double the performance is a pretty good estimate.
It's hard to estimate the relative size of the GPU but it does seem likely Intel are using more transistors to achieve that, even excluding the eDRAM. AMD have a much better design, but it's unlikely to be enough of an improvement for Intel to licence it at this point. If this is true then chances are it's a specific technology, not an agreement to manufacture GCN silicon under licence.
I don't think there's any such thing, Bristol Ridge is likely just the mobile chips with the clock speeds pushed a bit higher. Zen and GCN 4 will be where we'll see big jumps
Sorry, my bad, typing in haste. The 5775C should have been at least double the 7870K performance, and wasn't. This should no doubt be faster, but I shan't hold my breath partly because Intel have an awful record when it comes to scaling up their graphics, and partly because their drivers give me grief.
Next time I will try and look up their confusing numbering system before posting. Would be nice to compare die sizes, but Intel are rather cagey about them these days so the nicely coloured die shots and sizes are harder to find.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote