Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Nov 2017 15:31 UTC
Intel

Well, this is the kind of news you don't hear every day: Intel and AMD are teaming up to develop a processor that combines an Intel CPU with an AMD GPU. From Intel's press release:

The new product, which will be part of our 8th Gen Intel Core family, brings together our high-performing Intel Core H-series processor, second generation High Bandwidth Memory (HBM2) and a custom-to-Intel third-party discrete graphics chip from AMD's Radeon Technologies Group* - all in a single processor package.

It’s a prime example of hardware and software innovations intersecting to create something amazing that fills a unique market gap. Helping to deliver on our vision for this new class of product, we worked with the team at AMD’s Radeon Technologies Group. In close collaboration, we designed a new semi-custom graphics chip, which means this is also a great example of how we can compete and work together, ultimately delivering innovation that is good for consumers.

This is the first partnership between these two sworn rivals in several decades, and that alone makes it quite notable. I didn't really know whether to put this in the Intel or AMD category, but I chose Intel because it appears above AMD in our list (which isn't alphabetical because reasons).

Thread beginning with comment 650600
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not April Fool's?
by CaptainN- on Mon 6th Nov 2017 19:18 UTC in reply to "Not April Fool's?"
CaptainN-
Member since:
2005-07-07

I was thinking exactly this, but from AMD's side. They (AMD) finally have a decent CPU, and with their GPU paired with it, can be a compelling alternative to Intel. Why enter into a deal like this with a competitor when it so clearly undercuts their confidence in their own CPU, and give a clear strategic advantage away?

From Intel's side, no doubt they'd prefer to use something else like nVidia - but they don't play nicely with this kind of IP licensing.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Not April Fool's?
by Flatland_Spider on Mon 6th Nov 2017 22:40 in reply to "RE: Not April Fool's?"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Why enter into a deal like this with a competitor when it so clearly undercuts their confidence in their own CPU, and give a clear strategic advantage away?


Because they're selling chips and getting $$$$. They have two distinct lines, and they have been public about willing to license their graphics tech to anyone who wants to buy a license.

You know who has the biggest graphics base? Intel. You know who sells the most chips? Intel.

This will probably be pretty niche and rare like the Iris Pro chips, and mainly for one particular customer in Cupertino.

From Intel's side, no doubt they'd prefer to use something else like nVidia - but they don't play nicely with this kind of IP licensing.


Nvidia has pissed off Intel, and Intel has a pretty good relationship with AMD. They're competitors, but they're pretty much joined at the hip because of x86 cross-licensing agreements.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Not April Fool's?
by CaptainN- on Tue 7th Nov 2017 14:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Not April Fool's?"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

So basically, they are cross licensing their GPU in the same way they cross license x64 - I suppose that's reasonable. I'm not sure it demonstrates strong strategic thinking though. It's very tactical.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Not April Fool's?
by zima on Wed 8th Nov 2017 15:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Not April Fool's?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Nvidia has pissed off Intel, and Intel has a pretty good relationship with AMD. They're competitors, but they're pretty much joined at the hip because of x86 cross-licensing agreements.

How did Nvidia piss off Intel? I'd imagine Nv being pissed at Intel for not letting them make x86 chips... (how did we have so many of x86 manufacturers in the 90s, anyway / why it wasn't a problem for them to license x86 / how did we end up with a duopoly?)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Not April Fool's?
by The123king on Tue 7th Nov 2017 09:39 in reply to "RE: Not April Fool's?"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

This doesn't undercut their own CPU products in any way. Ryzen doesn't generally ship with integrated graphics, relying on a dedicated AMD or nVidia GPU for graphics processing. Sure, some of the mobile chips will start shipping with integrated Radeon chips at some point soon.

No, if anything, this increases AMD's market penetration. OEM's have always mainly shipped Intel processors, and in laptops (the most sold PC form factor today) these machines tend to rely on Intel's rather lackluster integrated graphics. By shipping AMD GPU's as the integrated graphics, AMD has a whole new market open to them. Consumers get fast and powerful integrated graphics, OEM's get to ship "reliable" and "proven" Intel chips. Everybody wins.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Not April Fool's?
by ahferroin7 on Tue 7th Nov 2017 13:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Not April Fool's?"
ahferroin7 Member since:
2015-10-30

Ryzen doesn't, but APU's do, and AMD is releasing Zen based APU's, not just for mobile, but desktop ones too. Even aside from that though, they still sell lots of one or two generation old APU's (in fact, those are probably some of the best selling x86 CPU's right now, you can play GTA 5 on a one generation old 80 USD APU and get triple digit frame rates from the integrated GPU).

In my opinion, a better assessment would be that it's not going to undercut their own CPU products simply because they're half the cost of equivalent Intel offerings. AMD covers the low cost end-user market far better than Intel, and Intel covers the sickeningly overpriced corporate market much better than AMD.

Reply Parent Score: 3