The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]
- Thread starter overclocked_enthusiasm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amd
- Status
I think they know just as much as you and I: gm204 has new features that will be part of DX12.
Yes, but they should also know, which we know too, that those features are only part of the new features in DX12 - at the moment it's unknown if Maxwell supports the rest too, or not, so until then it's on the same level as Fermi/Kepler/GCN/IntelGen7(.5?)
Let say that 2H'15, seems so far, ( so somewhere between 7 to 12months away ) that i have some real problem to imagine AMD pushing back their new gpu's so far in the time.
Analysts on financial side, are offtly not biased about a company, but their interest or the interest of their clients is on the stock market and how much money they can do from it... not hardware.
If i have read on a hardware sites, something likethat AMD have delay thoses gpu's of 7 months or maybe even 1 year.. i will have allready some pain to believe it. So untill this is triple confirmed..
Analysts on financial side, are offtly not biased about a company, but their interest or the interest of their clients is on the stock market and how much money they can do from it... not hardware.
If i have read on a hardware sites, something likethat AMD have delay thoses gpu's of 7 months or maybe even 1 year.. i will have allready some pain to believe it. So untill this is triple confirmed..
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
Not if they are skipping 20nm and going directly to 16FF.
If they was know 16nm FF will not come fast ( end of 2015 is the most probable date now ), and if they had decided to skip 20nm, i could imagine they have decided to stay on 28nm..
290x have been released in October 2013.. i dont see them have "nothing" till October 2015. You can play on price, Bundle etc for 1 year, not 2 years.
They write that Maxwell DX12 features are a competitive advantage. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that statement, which is about market share, not a technological deep dive.
isn't there a clause in thier xbox contract that if they get a buy out offer MS has the ability to counter that offer and buy them or something like that ?
I recall that there was discussion of such a clause for Microsoft and Nvidia back with the original Xbox, but wasn't that one allowed to lapse?
It seems too fraught to have such a broad clause for AMD, in terms of AMD's size compared to what Nvidia was at the time, AMD's debt, diminishing revenue, and multiple contractual entanglements that pose legal risk and guarantee a diminished appeal for AMD products for now-competitor customers (Sony, for example). Would the Xbox One be worth saving if it required taking on billions of debt and tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses a quarter, then a possible litigation war?
I imagine both console makers were cognizant of AMD's slipping status, so I would suppose they have some measures in their contracts, but willingly putting that (whole) albatross around their necks seems icky to me.
It seems too fraught to have such a broad clause for AMD, in terms of AMD's size compared to what Nvidia was at the time, AMD's debt, diminishing revenue, and multiple contractual entanglements that pose legal risk and guarantee a diminished appeal for AMD products for now-competitor customers (Sony, for example). Would the Xbox One be worth saving if it required taking on billions of debt and tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses a quarter, then a possible litigation war?
I imagine both console makers were cognizant of AMD's slipping status, so I would suppose they have some measures in their contracts, but willingly putting that (whole) albatross around their necks seems icky to me.
What could possibly motivate Qualcomm to do that?
They're dangerously far from bankruptcy.
Do we have terms for the agreement after the 2009 revision?
For that matter, was there an announcement since then about another extension, since that agreement had a 5-year term?
For that matter, was there an announcement since then about another extension, since that agreement had a 5-year term?
Yes, here: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000119312509236705/dex102.htm
I can't find the part about a third-party buying 30% of AMD's (or Intel's) capital. My memory might be playing tricks on me.
As for another extension, I have no idea.
It would end that agreement though does that preclude a new agreement?
It is a really sad state of affair from AMD now, it is like their roadmap stalled, their workforce has been cut, they have to face harsher and harsher competition naked, lets not fool one self it is a desperate situation.
If Qualcomm were to get their IP we could expect some good thing. Qualcomm pushing X86 cores out could help Intel in some way, if they are the only actor in the X86 they are going to get pushed to sooner or later to the server market first (high margin) then lose volume, then sell production capacity, lose their process advantage, etc. Ultimately Intel Architecture survival and dominance is threaten faster without a competitor.
It is a really sad state of affair from AMD now, it is like their roadmap stalled, their workforce has been cut, they have to face harsher and harsher competition naked, lets not fool one self it is a desperate situation.
If Qualcomm were to get their IP we could expect some good thing. Qualcomm pushing X86 cores out could help Intel in some way, if they are the only actor in the X86 they are going to get pushed to sooner or later to the server market first (high margin) then lose volume, then sell production capacity, lose their process advantage, etc. Ultimately Intel Architecture survival and dominance is threaten faster without a competitor.
30% might come from one of the prior definitions of a subsidiary, and how much revenue that subsidiary was required to give back to the owner.
It's curious, the 2009 agreement has a period that ends on the fifth anniversary of its effective date, which is November 11.
There seem to be various possibilities it might be negotiated or handled in bankruptcy, most of which involve binding the new party to the same restrictions.
They are the only actor in x86, let us not kid ourselves. AMD is not a concern (they are in a position to generate competitive pressure exactly nowhere in the product stack). They still seem to be raking in the cash. Intel has been shadowboxing for years now.
On the other hand, building a competitive MPU is more than a matter of not being nearly bankrupt. Qualcomm would have to spend piles of money, before being in a position to not have their hypothetical purchase (AMD) bleed quarter after quarter. Qualcomm has no reason to spend the money needed to have a chance at competing in x86.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Right, the only hypothetical situation I could see where Qualcomm would be interested in the x86 license via AMD would be if Intel and Microsoft were to suddenly come into the dominant position with regards to phones and tablets. And while it is theoretically possible for something like that to happen, most would agree it is extremely unlikely at the moment.
Other than that extreme long shot, I don't see why Qualcomm would want to put themselves into direct competition with Intel when Intel controls the playground. Right now AMD's CPU business mostly survives because Intel has no incentive to crush them. Having AMD CPUs around not only gives consumers a reason to pay higher margins for Intel processors, but is an additional barrier forestalling additional restrictions placed upon them by various regional governments.
Regards,
SB
- Status
