AMD64 license

AMD made the first POPULAR desktop 64 bit, intel already has one but its for itanium.

Intel uses x86 processors with 64 bit architecture. AMD doesn't own 64 bits. They own the AMD64 architecture. Intel is x86_64

Huh, so that's why Intel is going easy on amd.

>>52465661
Which sucked ass.

AMD64 or go bust.

>>52465702
anon...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
>x86-64 (also known as x64, x86_64 and AMD64) is the 64-bit version of the x86 instruction set.
literally the first line

>>52465702
Doesn't x86_64 = AMD64?

I know intel developed itanium but had to scrap it because it was a piece of shit.

>>52465754
Shhh

>>52465661
No, AMD made the first 64 bit ISA that was backwards compatible with x86
And the only one that became ubiquitous thanks to that, there were plenty of 64 bit ISA's before IA64 and AMD64

File: Boulez laughs.jpg (77KB, 318x382px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 318x382px

>>52465702
Nice joke.

Intel becomes the sole owner of x86-64. Right now the two have a cross-licensing agreement that entitles each to the IP of the other. AMD going down wouldn't change that. The only way it would be nullified is if one of the companies does something against the conditions of the agreement.

>>52465834
But if amd is the sole creator of amd64 can they revoke intel's right to make amd64 chips as a final "fuck you" to intel?

>>52465906
Legally no, that would be illegal for AMD to do. Intel would continue to produce x86-64 chips because they wouldn't have done anything wrong.

>>52465834
>Intel becomes the sole owner of x86-64.
WRONG. That would classify intel as a monopoly which is illegal. intel would get BTFO by lawsuits.

>>52465624
>In the theoretical case that AMD does go bankrupt, what happens to the AMD64 license?

The license is cancelled in the event AMD is no longer a going entity.

This was always in the Intel-AMD cross-licensing agreement dating back to the 80s.

File: 1452813743296.png (54KB, 332x413px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 332x413px

>>52466019
Or big brother would force intel to divide up and compete against each other. That shit would be hilarious as fuck.

intel vs intel 2

topkek

>>52466019
>that would classify intel as a monopoly which is illegal

kek^2

I bet you're one of the folks who thinks complaining to the FCC gets Comcast in trouble when they do something blatantly illegal.

>>52466089
has microsoft taught you nothing?
tech companies are ripe for anti-monopoly lawsuits

File: DSCN0382.jpg (286KB, 1069x1229px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1069x1229px

>>52466089
Hmmm. Fuck you. Good point.

But intel becoming the only provider for x86 processors is more serious than comcast giving all customers a data cap and shitty service at the same time.

>>52466108
This. Monopolies can't be sustained, at least in 1st world countries.

>>52466136
breaking them up doesnt do shit either.
Look at AT&T, got broke up into all kinds of stuff and is now back to basically 2 companies.

File: 1385801117552.png (313KB, 640x540px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 640x540px

>>52466078
Jesus christ, does that mean we would all be forced to go back to the itanium dark ages or even worse, switch to ARM?

>>52466154
ma bell got broke up into ten billion shit companies that all bought each other
but in the end verizon, att, sprint and centurylink all still exist

so would you rather live in a world with bell co or ~5 competing companies?

>>52465906
Intel has the right to produce chips with the AMD64 IP in perpetuity. AMD or any company that might buy AMD wouldn't be able to use that as a bargaining chip. One of the unfortunate outcomes of one of the previous rounds in the fight that Intel won.

If AMD goes under the only real bargaining chip they would have would be the inevitable anti-trust court case that Intel would almost certainly lose. We can only hope that the outcome of that trial would be more than a slap on the wrist.

Intel badly needs to be broken up for the future of the computer industry into three separate companies. The chip maker that would still produce their processors. Chip maker, chip fab, and x86 licensing.

>>52466193
>so would you rather live in a world with bell co or ~5 competing companies?
no fucking difference.

oligopoly is just like monpoly but legal

>>52466228
right
except you have competing companies that do fight for subscriber numbers by changing contracts and undercutting prices
or competing for faster/better networks

>>52465624
AMD are valuable enough to get acquired by someone before they die

>>52466298
the problem comes from the lack of similar companies in position to purchase a huge struggling hardware manufacturer

it's not like nvidia wants to throw millions at a clearly struggling and shrinking market

>>52466298
>no fabs
>gooks and street shitters managing the company
k

>>52466322
They have patents, and their GPUs are competitive performance wise

Samsung will probably the best bet, worst case apple

>>52466218
Except that's wrong.

The previous cases prove it's a pure cross licensing agreement, if Intel can prove whomever purchases AMD is not the AMD Intel is court ordered to license to, then the agreement is gone, it's not a set of differing contracts, it's one big court ordered agreement.

That's why it's in Intel's best interests to keep AMD exactly where they are, floundering but not dead.

>>52466158
ARMv8 (64-bit ARM) is getting close to i3/E3 performance at significantly less wattage. RHEL, Debian, and FreeBSD all have complete, fully functioning ports to armv8 so it's not like we'll be short on software.

>>52466130
Intel can't. period.

US government is required to find multiple sources for any equipment requisitions.
If Intel is the only provider for x86, then either the US government will force them license out under FRAND or they must cease purchasing x86 processors.
>Obviously they'll not stop buying x86, an emergency exemption would be made immediately following any event that put buying x86 into question - but it would cause a massive stir-up which would either result in Intel licensing x86 to *any* paying US company or a massive increase in PPC proliferation in US govt.
>Not ARM, it's British.
>Not SPARC, it's dead in USA and otherwise used by China and Russia.

and then we all realize almost all of tech is teetering on the precipice of shitting itself but enough people have enough money to keep things in balance

>>52466409
Yeah but all of that software is garbage compared to x86 desktop software. Then again so is itanium software.

>>52466154
Ma Bell was never even illegal in the first place, they were actually allowed to be a monopoly by the US govt. AT&T was a regulated monopoly similar to a utility company. Because they were granted complete dominance of the telephone market they were forbidden to compete in other markets which is why they were broken up.

>>52466421
>massive increase in PPC proliferation in US govt
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it would give IBM a proper foothold in the server world and make POWER a viable alternative. On the other hand, it would increase the chance of the US govt strongarming IBM into putting backdoors into their cpus thus destroying any reason to switch.

I'd be happy to get a POWER8 desktop right now if I could. Fuck the botnet.

>>52466290
'competing' my ass. it doesn't happen. 99.99999% of the country only a single major service provider is available and then some satellite/dial-up alternative shit.

>>52466640
You can't handle all of that POWER. Seriously POWER's main advantage over something like x86 is the threads and nothing would take advantage of them on a desktop computer. If IBM dialed back the SMT threads significantly so there was only two of them per execution unit then it would be somewhat reasonable but the performance still wouldn't be great compared to an x86 CPU of similar price. POWER is also power hungry.

>>52466675
do you understand the difference between a telephone and an ISP?

>>52466707
I give zero fucks. If it gets me open firmware and better performance than Core 2 all on (this is the most important bit) new or near-new hardware then I'll be happy.

>>52465624
You can't just "revoke" a license agreement that's already settled upon. If they even tried, they'd be liable for billions in damages for research investments and product that's already been manufactured.

ITT: kiddies who actually think that Intel and AMD are the only processor manufacturers because all they're familiar with are m-muh desktops

What happens is that the lawyers get involved, the end result being that intel retains the rights to produce AMD64 processors.
Nothing will change, since intel has free reign of AMD64 at the moment anyway.

>>52467204
They're the only ones capable of making modern x86 CPUs. VIA is another option but they can't make anything with the performance of a core2