The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]

Talk about a repeat of the Socker 939 to Socket AM transition. They had issues with the AM CPUs with DDR2 ran slower memory bandwidth than S939 CPUs with DDR1.

 

It's only a problem if you need more than 2*2gb

 

With memory being so cheap today, picking up 8gb DDR3 1333 for around $160 - $200 is easy to do. I think someone building a new system that opted to go with the newest Flagship AMD CPU would also go with more than 4GB of memory.

 

Yeah but why bother with DDR3 when DDR2 is the same speed (in applications and games) and often times less than half the price?

Although I suppose for people who frequently replace their computer it might be nice to be able to migrate memory. I've found that it's rather not economically sound for someone like me that generally replaces the computer once every 2-3 years.

Unless there's a large performance delta (and sometimes not even then) I'll rarely move up to a new memory type unless prices for the memory are similar. I've saved up enough thousands doing that over the years that I could go out and buy a nice used car with the savings. Or a 60" HDTV.

Regards,
SB

 

Oooo...

Intel's served notice that it believes AMD is in breach of the licensing agreement, and AMD apparently has said "Noo yuo<sic>!!!".

Haven't tracked down a clause concerning how claiming one party is in violation of the agreement is itself a breach.

 

Groping in the dark but there has to be some sort of "anti-ambush". The AMD deal was public knowledge & Intel had plenty of time to raise concerns. If the core of Intel's complaint is only being raised now ...... ? :dunno:

Also, there is a set procedure to be followed regarding disputes over the agreement. If Intel hasn't followed the procedure ....? :dunno:

Hopefully we'll learn more as the mud-slinging ramps up.

 

Intel can't claim AMD is in breach until it actually has done something: namely formally spin off the fabs.

There were public statements concerning Intel's position that AMD would potentially breach the agreement prior, so there was warning.

Other reports filtering out in the web indicate Intel is accusing AMD's spinoff not meeting the subsidiary clause, though not which part is not met.
Allegedly, there is another violation somewhere in the redacted portions of the agreement.

I still have found no clause stating that Intel broke a rule by saying it believed AMD had breached the terms of the agreement.

 

Perhaps it relates to this part from the AMD SEC filing?

Doesn't look like Intel was following any procedure to settle a dispute. Obviously I don't know if Intel actually threatened termination.

 

That's AMD's rather terse version of events.
Intel has already claimed that it has attempted the earliest steps of dispute negotiation by talking to the senior managment.

The rest of the process--one day with a mediator after 30 days, then 30 days for the companies to agree-- adds up to the 60 days, after which Intel would resolve to litigate. The 60 day limit is very much part of the protocol.

If Intel merely said "if we don't settle this in 60 days as we agreed, we will file for termination", AMD could easily spin it to say "Intel has threatened to terminate 60 days (as outlined in the agreement)".

The only way the threat is definite is if AMD has decided not to agree to mediation or compromise.

 

Which is why I said I didn't know if Intel actually threatened termination.

It's early days & i'm hoping more will be revealed. Especially the "confidential" stuff which nobody seems to know .... or they are very tight-lipped about.

Just throwing ideas out there. Another thing to bear in mind is that the agreement is going to expire anyway. Both sides will have to come together to extend or re-negotiate.

 

So now intel is going to court over "two" cross patent licensing agreements?

 

So now we have a possibility of having only Intel x86 CPUs on Intel chipsets only? Greatly done everyone, Intel can be proud of itself...

 

The news items that apperared on the net implied that Intel won't itself be able to sell processors that have 64 bit ISA or IMCs . So it would be back to the past..

 

I don't see what would indicate there being more than one. Nothing I've seen from either company indicates they are arguing over more than the 2001 agreement.

 

Maybe ChrisRay is talking about the earlier cross patent licensing agreements with Nvidia, and now they're heading to court with AMD? I could easily be mistaken on this, as I haven't been following either one.

 

Here is some more news on this. Popped up over at slizone.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41747/118/


http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/amd_intel_want_more_data_public_x86_licensing_fracas

Making X86 agreements public?

 

IT's about offering the licensed tech through their.. or well.. no longer their Fabs. intel said they'd be willing to show everyone all documents pertaining to the x86 deal with amd as long as amd is willing to do the same. all-in-all very interesting.

But in all, it's pathetic really are they afraid nvidia will step up and let AMD produce a x86 for them?

 

Interesting. But I would not say I am rooting for intel on this. I do understand their position. But I don't like it.

 

AMD's condition that Intel lift confidentiality in the unrelated antitrust case was probably a ruse so that AMD could pretend to want to reveal the confidential clauses but make sure it would never happen.

Commentary on the antitrust procedings seems to indicate there's a lot of information from third parties that they would rather not have aired in public for various reasons.

AMD knows Intel would have a very strong reason to not drag these outside parties' dirty laundry into public to settle its own spat with AMD.

AMD is like the neighbor who says "sure I'll return your lawnmower, if you punch your best friend in the neck".

 

AMD Reports First Quarter Results
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AMD-Reports-First-Quarter-bw-14989194.html?.v=1