The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]

[rpg.314]

In such situations, it is common for the buyer to get some contracts for long term assurance.

MS asked for a buy nv option for the first xbox. I am guessing they have a similar backup plan here. x86 license is probably the most important here, and that is complicated by Intel's lawyers. Though if they used the 64 bit version, then they should have the necessary leverage to get what they need with Intel.

AMD/Intel cross license deal is up for renewal in 2014. The consoles deals could shade the renewal a bit.

 

[3dilettante]

What sort of contracts are there that prevent AMD from falling apart in six years? Automatic backstopping by Microsoft and Sony?
They aren't getting x86, save if one of them buys AMD and manages to get Intel to agree in arbitration not to terminate the agreement with the new ownership.

 

[rpg.314]

Contracts wouldn't prevent AMD from collapsing.

They would just make sure xbox720/ps4 could survive AMD's demise, and any necessary things to use with ps5/xbox1440

 

[AlphaWolf]

What sort of contracts are there that prevent AMD from falling apart in six years? Automatic backstopping by Microsoft and Sony?
They aren't getting x86, save if one of them buys AMD and manages to get Intel to agree in arbitration not to terminate the agreement with the new ownership.

A substantial penalty for not meeting commitments would be all that would be required (making any selloff worthless). If you recall MS had a buy match option for Nvidia back with the first xbox.

 

[3dilettante]

Contracts wouldn't prevent AMD from collapsing.

They would just make sure xbox720/ps4 could survive AMD's demise, and any necessary things to use with ps5/xbox1440

Unless Intel signed on, what could AMD promise with someone else's IP?
The prior agreement between Intel and AMD made note of changes in control or insolvency, and while we don't know the contents of the latest settlement, it seems prudent to not give anyone a sneaky out.

The out would be Microsoft and/or Sony biting the bullet and snapping up AMD and maybe giving Intel a payoff big enough for it to give legacy permission for the console chips.

 

[Psycho]

Ehh.. Intel terminating the cross-license without renewing it would mean no more x86 cpus - from Intel. They could of course buy the necessary IP from the new company, and get full x86 monopoly, but (at least with current x86 importance) the authorities wouldn't like that... So even if it has to be renegotiated (which it will in 2014 anyway) i don't see too many changes there just because of a takeover.

 

[3dilettante]

I'm not sure that's the case.
Certain parts of the last public version of the agreement persist beyond expiration. From what I can tease out of the legalese, anything that was covered by the agreement prior to expiration remains free of liability after expiration.

If that is accurate, any tech Intel or AMD put to use prior to the expiration would probably be safe. If Intel used some later AMD patents in some x86 implementation, it could get sued.

If AMD went under or changed control, it would have no legal recourse against Intel, and Intel would have full rights.

 

[CarstenS]

I wonder how Sony and Microsoft feel about this, assuming the rumors are accurate and they are both counting on AMD as an ongoing concern for the next 5-10 years.

AFAIK, at least for Xbox 360 and PS3, both companies did agree to pay royalties on third-party produced silicon, right? So no worries for the next-gen consoles, and after that, consoles will be just fancy controller units for cloud-based games with little local processing mainly for en-/decoding and DRM enforcement.

 

[cal_guy]

If AMD went under or changed control, it would have no legal recourse against Intel, and Intel would have full rights.

That's actually not true at all. That perception is based on the fact that in the previous patent cross license agreement there's a section which governs how the agreement can be terminated, the subsection on termination due to a material breach(the one were the offending party keeps the rights while the other loses them) was followed by subsections on termination due to change of control and bankruptcy. That resulted in people erroneously thinking that a change of control was considered a material breach.(the fact that the agreement was heavily redacted and on a third-party site didn't help either) The newest Patent License actually make this clear.

5.2(c)

Termination Upon Change of Control. Subject to the terms of, and as further set forth in, Sections 5.2(d) and 5.2(e), this Agreement shall automatically terminate as a whole upon the consummation of a Change of Control of either Party.

5.2(d)(ii)

In the event of any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2(c), and subject to the provisions of Section 5.2(e), the rights and licenses granted to both Parties under this Agreement, including without limitation the rights granted under Section 3.8(d), shall terminate as of the effective date of such termination.

Basically it means that a change of control results in the immediate end of the license agreement for both sides.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000119312509236705/dex102.htm

Random unsubstantiated thought: a spin-off once ARM cores are ready in 2014.
ARM, Seamicro, and forward-looking GPU production (maybe) float off on their own, while x86 and legacy GPU or APU designs and the x86 cross-licensing go with the original AMD.

The bulk of the debt would go the legacy company as it procedes to meet any contractual obligations for legacy products like the product cycles for business-class x86 and any consoles. Possibly, the jettisoned company could license back some GPU tech or Seamicro tech going forward. The decision to integrate the Seamicro fabric onto ARM cores first instead of an x86 would be a way of removing one stumbling block for the separation by not having Seamicro inextricably tied in silicon to an x86 core.

Bond-holders aren't going to go for that unless they go through bankruptcy, but then I would imagine that the post-bankruptcy AMD could just slash R&D on x86 and just milk it until the orders dry up. Personally I think that AMD should but the SeaMicro stuff in everything they make their compute systems heterogeneous capable where some of the slots can be used for x86 Opterons and Xeons (or even FirePro processors).

 

[3dilettante]

AFAIK, at least for Xbox 360 and PS3, both companies did agree to pay royalties on third-party produced silicon, right? So no worries for the next-gen consoles, and after that, consoles will be just fancy controller units for cloud-based games with little local processing mainly for en-/decoding and DRM enforcement.

That option might exist for the GPU half of an APU, but the CPU half wouldn't fit that arrangment.
Microsoft and Sony owned the IP for the current gen, meaning they could make the chips and do with them as they wished.

If AMD is providing an x86 APU, there is no ownership of the IP for the console makers. They'd need to buy the chip from AMD. What options are left if AMD implodes in two years and it ceases to exist, or due to insolvency triggers a termination clause in the current cross-licensing with Intel?

I suppose AMD could threaten the console makers with its own pending destruction, and goad them into buying six years' worth of APUs in advance just in case...


edit:

That's actually not true at all. That perception is based on the fact that in the previous patent cross license agreement there's a section which governs how the agreement can be terminated, the subsection on termination due to a material breach(the one were the offending party keeps the rights while the other loses them) was followed by subsections on termination due to change of control and bankruptcy. That resulted in people erroneously thinking that a change of control was considered a material breach.(the fact that the agreement was heavily redacted and on a third-party site didn't help either) The newest Patent License actually make this clear.

Interesting, the latest text is more clear on this condition.
It's not very comforting to Sony and Microsoft unless they're the ones buying. They still lose their supplier, and will have to stare down Intel to get things going again.
The possibility exists where there's a corporate re-enactment of the standoff in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" if, say, Microsoft buys AMD, terminating the rights with Intel and simultaneously drawing Sony into the fray.

 

[cal_guy]

From x264dev irc

2012-11-14 23:42:21 < Skyler_> amd just sent me a Steamroller CPU.

http://akuvian.org/src/x264/freenode-x264dev.log.bz2

Now that's interesting.

 

[rpg.314]

I'm not sure that's the case.
Certain parts of the last public version of the agreement persist beyond expiration. From what I can tease out of the legalese, anything that was covered by the agreement prior to expiration remains free of liability after expiration.

If that is accurate, any tech Intel or AMD put to use prior to the expiration would probably be safe. If Intel used some later AMD patents in some x86 implementation, it could get sued.

If AMD went under or changed control, it would have no legal recourse against Intel, and Intel would have full rights.

That should apply to AMD as well right, meaning they would have license to x86 beyond expiration of agreement?

 

[CarstenS]

That option might exist for the GPU half of an APU, but the CPU half wouldn't fit that arrangment.
Microsoft and Sony owned the IP for the current gen, meaning they could make the chips and do with them as they wished.

If AMD is providing an x86 APU, there is no ownership of the IP for the console makers. They'd need to buy the chip from AMD.

That's where I am still not clear as to the current agreement. What if AMD licensed the production and sales rights to a very specific APU to them? That would not necessarily give them access to an x86 or whole IP license or something of that sort - just to produce that very specific chips with any foundry they might find/like and possibly tied to use in the next Xbox and Playstation and also possibly with the option of non-functional-change optical shrinks in the future. Maybe I'm a little shortsighted, but that would be the most plausible solution to me - even beforehand, when AMD was not maneuvring in as stormy seas as it is now.

 

[Alexko]

From x264dev irc


http://akuvian.org/src/x264/freenode-x264dev.log.bz2

Now that's interesting.

Indeed. Is he positive it's Steamroller and not just a refreshed Trinity or something?

 

[3dilettante]

That's where I am still not clear as to the current agreement. What if AMD licensed the production and sales rights to a very specific APU to them? That would not necessarily give them access to an x86 or whole IP license or something of that sort - just to produce that very specific chips with any foundry they might find/like and possibly tied to use in the next Xbox and Playstation and also possibly with the option of non-functional-change optical shrinks in the future. Maybe I'm a little shortsighted, but that would be the most plausible solution to me - even beforehand, when AMD was not maneuvring in as stormy seas as it is now.

The agreement allows AMD and Intel to use pertinent IP that one or the other owns with an agreement they won't go after each other.
Licensing production to another company for the purpose of supplying someone other than AMD appears to be ruled out. If there is outside manufacturing, it seems it has to supply AMD.

It doesn't look like AMD can waive Intel's right to go after Sony and Microsoft for selling products containing Intel's IP, unless Intel has somehow been brought in on the deal.

 

[cal_guy]

Indeed. Is he positive it's Steamroller and not just a refreshed Trinity or something?

Update

2012-11-17 05:36:16 < BugMaster> Skyler_: nothing really. the only difference from A10-5800K (Piledrive) are Model number (and I am not sure that this model number corresponds to steamroller and not piledrive) and PkgType (FS1r2 vs FM2)
2012-11-17 05:40:51 < Skyler_> it claims to be a kaveri
2012-11-17 05:45:10 < BugMaster> it hase 13h model number so still 10h-1Fh range. from old info steamroller was supposed to be 30-3Fh range (for APUs) but after FX-8300 release (which have 02h model and piledrive CPU was supposed to be 20-2Fh) I am not sure that info was correct
2012-11-17 05:46:20 < Skyler_> That is weird, so maybe it isn't a steamroller
2012-11-17 05:46:31 < Skyler_> It didn't say steamroller, it said kaveri, but kaveri is supposed to be steamroller?
2012-11-17 05:46:49 < BugMaster> and it doesn't have any new instruction support vs trinity
2012-11-17 05:47:13 < BugMaster> yes. if it was named kaveri than it is should be steamroller
2012-11-17 05:49:27 < Skyler_> did steamroller claim new instruction sets?
2012-11-17 05:49:52 < BugMaster> i don't remember so probably no
2012-11-17 05:50:22 < BugMaster> but there was hope for AVX2
2012-11-17 05:55:24 < BugMaster> there is probably way to look if this is really Kaveri or not by looking if GPU part of this APU is GCN or VLIW4
2012-11-17 06:24:40 < Skyler_> BugMaster: the graphics drivers don't work fyi
2012-11-17 06:24:49 < Skyler_> it came with "standard vga" installed
2012-11-17 06:24:53 < Skyler_> and I tried to install amd's but it failed
2012-11-17 06:25:06 < Skyler_> Throttlestop doesn't work;it can't detect the CPU
2012-11-17 06:25:12 < Skyler_> Core Temp thinks it's 1.6ghz, but cpu-z thinks it's 3.2
2012-11-17 06:25:27 < Skyler_> there's a lot of weirdnesses that suggest it's a new chip
2012-11-17 06:25:42 < BugMaster> dunno if gpu-z can work without drivers
2012-11-17 06:28:21 < BugMaster> but yes such weirdnesses are indication that is something new and not simple new revision of trinity
2012-11-17 06:29:53 < Skyler_> which is VLIW and which is GCN?
2012-11-17 06:36:32 < BugMaster> hm. gpu-z doesn't really show this. it only shows only gpu famaly. than dunno how to check it
2012-11-17 06:41:32 < Skyler_> I'll look at when I go to work tomorrow
2012-11-17 06:41:33 < Skyler_> er,
2012-11-17 06:41:35 < Skyler_> monday
2012-11-17 06:41:38 < Skyler_> .... actually tuesday
2012-11-17 06:41:39 < Skyler_> but okay

Personally I do believe that AMD has sent Jason Garrett-Glaser (Skyler) a CPU that claims to be Kaveri. It's entirely possible that AMD made an error or that he could misread Kabini as Kaveri, but I personally don't see him making such a mistake(and I hope AMD isn't making these types of mistakes). He also referenced sockets and I think that the initial Kabini processors will come soldered on a MB like the Bobcats.

The agreement allows AMD and Intel to use pertinent IP that one or the other owns with an agreement they won't go after each other.
Licensing production to another company for the purpose of supplying someone other than AMD appears to be ruled out. If there is outside manufacturing, it seems it has to supply AMD.

It doesn't look like AMD can waive Intel's right to go after Sony and Microsoft for selling products containing Intel's IP, unless Intel has somehow been brought in on the deal.

It's important to note that a large section of the licensing agreement has been redacted so it's hard to tell what further rights and responsibilities that Intel and AMD have. It would be safe to assume that both Microsoft and Sony have reviewed the full Licensing agreement and have concluded that their ability to continue to produce next-gen Xboxs and Playstations is secure enough before dealing with AMD.

 

[DavidGraham]

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtrader...losses-wells-sees-hope-in-cost-cuts-consoles/

BMO Capital’s Ambrish Srivastava, who has a Market Perform rating on both AMD and Nvidia, AMD’s market share in desktop computers in the quarter decline from 40.7% in Q2 to 35.7%, while Nvidia’s rose from 59.3% to 64.3%. In notebook computers, AMD’s share fell more dramatically, from 44.8% to 34.2%, while Nvidia’s share rose from 55.2% to 65.8%.

Will Q4 have the same trend ?

 

[3dilettante]

It's important to note that a large section of the licensing agreement has been redacted so it's hard to tell what further rights and responsibilities that Intel and AMD have. It would be safe to assume that both Microsoft and Sony have reviewed the full Licensing agreement and have concluded that their ability to continue to produce next-gen Xboxs and Playstations is secure enough before dealing with AMD.

Doesn't divulging the undisclosed terms of the agreement fall under the restrictions of the confidentiality section?
It seems fine if Intel agreed to the disclosure, and maybe it did.

J.P. Morgan as a contracted financial institution for AMD, actually has a more clear path to view the full agreement.

 

[Alexko]

Update



Personally I do believe that AMD has sent Jason Garrett-Glaser (Skyler) a CPU that claims to be Kaveri. It's entirely possible that AMD made an error or that he could misread Kabini as Kaveri, but I personally don't see him making such a mistake(and I hope AMD isn't making these types of mistakes). He also referenced sockets and I think that the initial Kabini processors will come soldered on a MB like the Bobcats.

Interesting. If AMD is already sending Steamroller samples out, then maybe we won't have to wait until 2014 after all. But in that case, what's with the weird roadmaps? This is rather puzzling.

 

[Squilliam]

Does IBM hold an X86 license still? If they do they could buy out AMD, right?