firstminion
Newcomer
Thanks, Dirk Meyer renewed it in 2009. I'm gonna leave the rest to patent lawyers.
The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]
- Thread starter overclocked_enthusiasm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amd
- Status
Thanks, Dirk Meyer renewed it in 2009. I'm gonna leave the rest to patent lawyers.
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/AMD_settlement_agreement.pdf This is what was the settlement between AMD and Intel that created the changes to the initial contract.
The real question is: what took them so long? They had no business being in the packaging business.
Intel's business model is one based on filling their fabs with silicon. AMD's business model is one of a fabless company.
Also, the difference in scale between Intel and AMD is massive. Intel can spread its packaging ops NRE (assuming they do it themselves) across a much higher volume.
AMD needs to specialize in what they do best.
And AMDs packaging subsidiary did not take on third-party work also...?
Just because you don't own any fabs anymore doesn't mean you have to sell off anything chip-related, does it?
Although moving those staff-assets, what effect does that have on R&D and implementation regarding future multi-chip module (MCM)?
Intel moved this direction with Broadwell, and this is I think integral to Zen.
Also I think AMD also warn they now have more reliance upon GF - I assume with the movement of the team and their assets, which has implications if any delays-issues.
Cheers
Intel moved this direction with Broadwell, and this is I think integral to Zen.
Also I think AMD also warn they now have more reliance upon GF - I assume with the movement of the team and their assets, which has implications if any delays-issues.
Cheers
The question is whether or not that subsidiary had a volume that's similar to its competitors. If doesn't matter whether where that volume comes from. The fact that it was sold for a couple of hundred millions makes me believe that it was just a small bit player in the packaging market.
Tech is a market that has a high tendency to be winner take all. If you're not number one or number two, you get the scraps. Better to sell it and use it for something where you have a chance to be at the top.
Companies that don't have this technology in-house seem to be able to make MCMs just fine.
This may have contributed to the long time it took to spin off the facilities, if the established market was generally fine with or without it. Would this go into a desire to create more national tech resources for the Chinese company making the purchase?
If so, it might be a long-term play that made the division interesting enough to buy. Somewhat like how ATIC bought AMD's fabs as part of a long-term project, despite the fact that the market could have gone on without them.
Regarding large die-architecture CPUs/GPUs?
I thought some such as Xilinx still keep this in-house.
Anyone know if NVIDIA outsource this fully themselves to TSMC?
Cheers
Most big fabless companies have process experts who work closely with the fab partner. I expect this to be no different for advanced packaging.
How could Nvidia not be outsourcing this? What's the alternative? That they receive individual dies and mount them on an interposer themselves when there are companies like Amkor that build a whole business around this?
How could Nvidia not be outsourcing this? What's the alternative? That they receive individual dies and mount them on an interposer themselves when there are companies like Amkor that build a whole business around this?
Well my original post was exactly this point and AMD moving 1700 staff to the new joint venture and how it may impact future R&D-project implementations, where you responded they no longer need the staff.
Same way I am sure NVIDIA has the in-house experts in using the TSMC libraries (different subject but same context).
Maybe I am missing something but isn't AMD fabless since they sold off GF?
Just wondering how many staff involved in aspects of CPU/GPU design-project implementation are moved to the joint venture; to me this seems very pertinent considering AMD used to combine expertise of both teams and only recently looked to split the teams apart with one lead by Raja.
It does sound like AMD are losing some because as I mentioned they gave a warning they would be more dependant upon GF in their statement.
Cheers
I don't see why it would affect MCMs (and they still do hold some stakes on there even though majority was sold)
And as things get more complex, packaging isn't that simple anymore anyway, just look at Fiji, it took originally 3 companies to put the pieces together, interposer with some work done from UMC, interposer finalizing and actually assembling Fiji & HBMs on it by Amkor and ASE
When I say that they still have some people in-house, I mean one or two. They don't do any real R&D work, but they write requirement specs and closely follow up with the partner to make sure AMD will get what they requested.
I don't see that as a contradiction between earlier statements about them not needing a packaging department.
OK but why did they need a packaging department even before this announcement when they work closely with Global Foundry?
What have they been doing that could not be done since they sold off GF?
AMD has been fabless for a long time or was it only partial?
Sorry for another post,
just to emphasis my focus was specifically Multi-Chip Modules and stacked dies, rather than the whole lot in terms of fabless packaging department.
So we assume the new joint venture is doing all of this as well for their current operations and business/done with GF/mix of both?
Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
I recall some earlier statements that AMD contracted business there several years out, which should cover the projects and products already in the pipeline. Presumably it can renegotiate or shop for other business at the end of that, but it's in a notable end of decade period where a lot of things are coming due or ending for AMD.
- Status
