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 650603
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not April Fool's?
by Flatland_Spider on Mon 6th Nov 2017 22:40 UTC 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[4]: Not April Fool's?
by tylerdurden on Wed 8th Nov 2017 03:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Not April Fool's?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

They're not croslicensing, AMD still makes the GPU. They're tecnically integrating.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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[4]: Not April Fool's?
by tylerdurden on Wed 8th Nov 2017 17:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Not April Fool's?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Intel and NVidia have a weird relationship. I'd figure NV would be more pissed when intel basically turned the socket for their processors into a monopoly and stopped giving licenses for 3rd party chipset when the i-series was introduced. That almost sent nvidia under.


Also remember a lot of x86 vendors back in the 80s/90s were 2nd sources. I.e. they were simply fabbing intel designs, and paying them a royalty, since some of the early contracts with large PC vendors, IBM and Compaq (and a few others) kind of specified intel had to allow 2nd sourcing, since they lack the capacity to meet the possible demand at that time.

I think only a few 3rd parties have been able to license the x86 and make their own designs. AMD, obviously, and Via. I think IBM had a temporary license to do their own 386/486 ISA implementations.

I wish the industry would have settled around an open ISA instead. Copyrighted instruction sets suck.

Reply Parent Score: 3