AMD 16 years ago

>>52639112
AMD is basicaly like local opensource poorfags who shit around themselves and try to make excuse for every poor decision they make

Dear Intel went out of their way to stop OEMs from buying AMD chips and thus killing their profits while they still had expensive fabs to maintain.

That's pretty much the gist of it.

>>52639112
Intel fucked them with shady deals. They got busted for it, but the damage was already done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp.

>>52639355
>>52639394
I never actually did research on this. So the damage was dealt quite hard as a matter of fact.. It was settled in '09. Intel paying AMD $1.25 billion. My curiosity got the better of me, we are 7 years further and AMD still suffered this much, almost unable to get their stock prices up again?

>>52639467
Those deals lasted for years while AMD had top notch CPUs, there's no way a company of AMD's size would remain profitable without a source of money for years.

>>52639524
What about their GPU line? They compete with nVidia on that side, while with Intel on the CPU line. Without a source of money, surely they've had investors over the years after '09?

AMD was never a very expensive stock to begin with, before then they were like $15/share. I think a large amount of their value at that time was hype which never really materialized into anything after the Athlon 64. Intel was doing some shady things during the early 2000s which probably hindered their growth and then Intel released the Core2 series and ended up on top again and that put an end to AMD's rule. AMD actually went up again in 2006 though after they announced the acquisition of ATI.

File: amd stocks.png (50KB, 818x596px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 818x596px

>>52639112
>16 years ago in May, AMD stocks were $92

>>52639599
I may have made a mistake on the date. But I believe they had their stock price at $92 per share at some point.

>>52639355
>Intel does it
>It's fine
>Microsoft does it in the 90's
>United States v. Microsoft antitrust case

>>52639639
MS wasn't in 100% possession of Israel back then, Intel always was an Israel project.

>>52639581
Amd never made any profit, they are literally massive ponzi scheme in tech industry.

AMD was always shit

>>52639581
>Gameforce
>Crysis
>1000x tesselated roadblock hidden in already dense jungle
>TDP vs Wattage vs average consumption vs peak consumption
I'm sure AMD is no saint either, but it's clear when they have been outscummed.

Jesus christ this thread is full of fucking kids.

AMD was 92 dollars because of the dot com bubble.

Every single tech company back then had inflated stock prices until the crash in 2000.

>>52639630
47,50 seems to have been the peak in 2000. And Yahoo has data back to 1983. So I wondered where you got your data from.

>>52639690
Kill yourself immediately. If it wasn't for AMD, x86_64 would have never existed.

>>52639835
>wow i made x86 with more memory and bigger registers
>so inovation, such wow

>>52639835
>x86_64 would have never existed
>Itanic flops hard
>Intel forced to add 64 bit extensions to x86
>Takes a little longer, maybe you'd see the first 64 bit x86 CPUs in 2005

>'muh 3.2 GB RAM limit'
>what is PAE

>>52639867
Face it, Itanium was a piece of shit. Poor performance and lack of backward compatibility with x86_32 software/OSs was a fucking death sentence. All the other CPU architectures out there were even worse.

If making x86_64 was so god damn simple why didn't jewtel do it?

>>52640029
They let AMD do all the heavy work then they just improve the shit and ship it and cuck AMD

>>52640029
>All the other CPU architectures out there were even worse.

>talking shit about Alpha, MIPS, POWER and SPARC

>and lack of backward compatibility with x86_32 software/OSs was a fucking death sentence

does it even fucking matter if the damn thing was aimed at enterprises initially

also, itanium did have x86 emulation but it was too slow. it was there though

>>52639112
look at the volume
look at the strength of the market
look at the value of the dollar and what the fed was doing at the time

Underage B& posters shouldn't be tolerated here

>>52640090
>also, itanium did have x86 emulation but it was too slow. it was there though
ARM also can emulate x86, but that shit didn't work out either. It was a completely useless feature like it is on ARM.

>>52640143
Was it in hardware or software

>>52640090
Itanium could have worked if it had a community to build it up, Intel and HP kept it limited to enterprise and the enterprise already had their own software(written for x86) so they didn't need it. Running x86 software through emulation is not a real solution the performance penalty meant it was fucking worthless. What company in their right mind would buy itanium when they're just going to be running all of their software on an emulator.

>>52640100
I'm 25, you cunt

>>52639581
Nvidia had deals with unreal and crytek engine makers. They optimized for nvidia and fucked over amd with ridiculous levels of tessellation.

>>52640222
> Intel and HP kept it limited to enterprise and the enterprise already had their own software(written for x86) so they didn't need it.

>enterprise already had their own software(written for x86)

Hell fucking no. Back then it'd be on a real server, something with MIPS/POWER/SPARC on it.

For any serious business x86 was a total fucking joke until Opteron came out.

>>52640222
Itanium was a server play for Intel. It was a way to shed the history of IA32 and try a brand new architecture, a design called EPIC, for Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing. Some of the early design inspiration was based on HPs PA-RISC architecture and they worked with HP in overall design. Intel wanted to copy what they did with IA32, have a common chip for all big servers and leverage massive economies of scale. Since you're asking what Itanium is, they obviously didn't do very well on the scale part :). Its nickname was Itanic, obviously not a name that indicates massive economic success.

As far as the chip market, it did accomplish one thing. It scared some other RISC vendors out of the market. Part of the reason for SGI dropping MIPS as a workstation chip and DEC dropping Alpha was the threat of Itanium. They figured if Intel can dominate with the badly designed IA32 architecture, what if they had a clean slate and money to back it up? They dropped out, figuring they'd port to Itanium and still sell their OS. SGI soldiered on a bit selling Itanium workstations, but their ability to be different was smashed, and they died soon after (which makes you congratulate Apple a bit being able to sell near commodity Intel laptops). HP just wanted to cut their chip costs down (they were making both Alpha and PA-RISC) and instead concentrate on moving printer ink.

As far as actually selling Itaniums in the market, it kind of landed with a thud. The new EPIC architecure made it VERY compiler dependent, and there were no good compilers in the beginning (and maybe not even now). It had the classic chicken and egg problem - no apps because no systems sold, no systems sold because of no apps. And its IA32 support sucked in the beginning. The first versions of the chip were particularly bad, though got a bit better on later generations.

>>52640222
Eventually, AMD released 64 bit extensions to IA32, x86_64, AMD64, whatever you want to call it. This gave decent speed at not a huge cost jump. The internal architecture was easy to write compilers for, and had very good IA32 performance. It cleaned up. Intel was forced to backtrack, and released the extensions as EM64T. It had the rights to from earlier licensing agreements with AMD regarding 486 production. Itanium would be forever relegated to a niche server product.

As far as "What has replaced them", nothing really. Itanium didn't really sell well, but it's still being produced. If you actually have Itanium, you can replace with a newer one if you like. If not, there are no emulators that I know of, you'd need to port your code to a new architecture. If it's fast enough for you, Intel Xeon (server versions of normal Intel chips), if not, probably IBM POWER. But you'd need to buy new machines.

So now even HP, one of the architects of the Itanium is now even slowly migrating away from Itanium, moving to Xeon x86_64 chips.

And you probably don't buy IA32 chips anymore, you most likely buy EM64T chips, which have great IA32 compatibility.

TL;DR: It was a big-iron server chip, that never sold well, and cheaper 64 bit Intel chips (x86_64, EM64T, whatever you want to call them) took much of its reason to be.

Itanium failed simply because there wasn't a all-knowing compiler for it, nothing more, nothing else.
And there still isn't.

>>52640183
Software I guess.

I wonder if we'll ever see a successful line of VLIW based CPUs. The only place they ever had real success in were GPUs and they're all gone now pretty much

>>52640505
What's VLIW even good for besides just pushing pixels?

File: 1440169363375.png (451KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 960x540px

Daily reminder that we fucking own you intelcucks.

If it wasn't for amd64, you'd all be eating molten itanium dogshit for dinner.

>>52640183
MIPS can do hardware x86 emulation iirc, some Chinese company did it. It can also do ARM.

>>52640543
It's meant to simplify CPU design. All the logic involved with branching is pushed onto the compiler for the architecture itself so none of that needs to be designed in hardware and embedded in the CPU. It also removes a lot of redundant hardware like registers because they're not actually necessary with VLIW. The result is a relatively small and simple CPU that is supposed to be very efficient. The problem is the compiler has to be incredibly complex to make up for the simplicity of the hardware itself.

File: amdintelroadbump.jpg (49KB, 463x348px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 463x348px

>>52639112
Intel engaged in heavy anti-competitive practices during the short period where AMD objectively and undeniably made better CPUs than Intel. This is on the books, not some conspiracy bullshit.

>>52639467
>the damage was dealt quite hard
>Intel paying AMD $1.25 billion
Are you really that naive? A billion dollars for years of lost income and, equally importantly, lost reputation? That MIGHT sway things if a billion dollars was any amount of money to Intel, but it isn't. Intel kept on trucking like nothing happened, with consumers being familiar with the brand and assuming it was best, while AMD got the consolation prize of not outright making a loss while it happened.

>>52640667
Didn't AMD lose 50 bill on sales?

>>52640081
>Implying AMD don't licence AMD64 to this day and still receive royalties from Intel
It's time to become an M2N MX-SE and stop posting