AMD CEO Dr Lisa Su, interviewed (Strategy, Radeons, CPUs, consoles )

[duriel]

Monopolies are allowed to exist as long as they are achieved through competitive means, even in the US. This is why there are penalties for anti-competitive laws but some monopolies exist anyway.

As long as Intel does not buy AMD out, offer incentives to PC makers to not carry AMD parts, use predatory pricing to force AMD into bankruptcy while Intel can last long term, or use a host of anti-competitive practices defined by laws the world over, there is nothing stopping Intel from becoming a legitimate monopoly. As long as it continues to sell non-restrictive X86 licenses as well it is in no violation of laws concerning barrier of entry.

Also, as long as VIA exists Intel would still not be a monopoly even if AMD went under. As per AM64, Intel would work out a deal to keep access to that IP since it is central to the computing world.

 

You know VIA is much smaller than even AMD, right? They couldn't fab even if they wanted to.

[patrickjp93]

You know VIA is much smaller than even AMD, right? They couldn't fab even if they wanted to.

Your point? AMD can't fab either. Both of them depend on GlobalFoundries.

[duriel]

Your point? AMD can't fab either. Both of them depend on GlobalFoundries.

 

My point is VIA won't be stepping into the desktop processor market with or without AMD being Intel's "competitor".

Even if AMD went out of business there's no way VIA is going to compete, because they can't even compete with AMD by a large margin.

[patrickjp93]

My point is VIA won't be stepping into the desktop processor market with or without AMD being Intel's "competitor".

Even if AMD went out of business there's no way VIA is going to compete, because they can't even compete with AMD by a large margin.

Which is still irrelevant in calling Intel a monopoly. It will be a monopoly only in North America and Europe.

[kn1ghtnsh1narmr]

If you're referring to Net Neutrality, there are good reasons for that buried between the lines involving privacy.

Nvidia tucked tail and ran when they saw Intel's Larabee chip, canceling a ton of licensing agreements. While it didn't have the performance Intel wanted, what they'd produced scared the graphics King at the time. Every company whichever has said Intel could not compete is either dead or relegated to niche products. IBM is now relegated to mainframes and IP holdings for the most part. Texas Instruments makes weather equipment and calculators. MOS is dead. AMD is now feeling iGPU pressure as well.

Also, IBM fell because it had relied on a fully integrated system model. Intel offered customizability and expandability in addition to better performance. If you think someone's going to come along and steal the performance crown for more than a year you're crazy.

Ok, you and I are looking at the same history and getting something completely different from it.  You are saying those that doubt intels greatness are doomed to fail.  Intel is a smart company, I don't disagree with you on that.  But I look at the same history and say that the company on top (previously held by IBM and TI) can make any one of a number of mistakes and they will fall.  Fall from the lead they have over AMD and they may not care.  Lets say the give up 25% market share to AMD and take 50% of qualcomm market share.  I'm sure both of us would say that we were right.

 

My first computer that I built for myself was an AMD/Nvidia Computer so I am bias.  Intel has always rubbed me the wrong way.  Everyone else in my family buys intel in there premade machines.  But the Intel enthusiast guys were always so arrogant and the AMD guys were always more chill.  Turns out we were right back in the day since my first comp was an Athlon 64.

 

You can bet on Intel  while I bet on Su, Keller Koduri and Papermaster.  I'm the underdog.  I know that.

 

And yes I didn't really want to get into this but the fact intel is against net neutrality is a joke.  Intel can't hide behind privacy as the reason for being against net neutrality.  You can work on privacy, safety, helping the owners of copyrights and not have a world wide - company run - nazi like internet.  Like I said, Intel is a smart company and they picked their side with the telecoms because they want their server business and have access to the fast lane.

[Opcode]

Monopolies. Intel would not exist without AMD

That extension is exactly what they need AMD for, as well.

Intel doesn't need AMD around. Even if AMD went under (which it wont read my reply below) Intel would just simply buy up the needed IP.

Which is still irrelevant in calling Intel a monopoly. It will be a monopoly only in North America and Europe.

Truth of the matter is neither AMD nor Intel will ever become a monopoly. If either ever was on the brink of bankruptcy principle investors would bail them out (including the government).

[patrickjp93]

Ok, you and I are looking at the same history and getting something completely different from it. You are saying those that doubt intels greatness are doomed to fail. Intel is a smart company, I don't disagree with you on that. But I look at the same history and say that the company on top (previously held by IBM and TI) can make any one of a number of mistakes and they will fall. Fall from the lead they have over AMD and they may not care. Lets say the give up 25% market share to AMD and take 50% of qualcomm market share. I'm sure both of us would say that we were right.

My first computer that I built for myself was an AMD/Nvidia Computer so I am bias. Intel has always rubbed me the wrong way. Everyone else in my family buys intel in there premade machines. But the Intel enthusiast guys were always so arrogant and the AMD guys were always more chill. Turns out we were right back in the day since my first comp was an Athlon 64.

You can bet on Intel while I bet on Su, Keller Koduri and Papermaster. I'm the underdog. I know that.

And yes I didn't really want to get into this but the fact intel is against net neutrality is a joke. Intel can't hide behind privacy as the reason for being against net neutrality. You can work on privacy, safety, helping the owners of copyrights and not have a world wide - company run - nazi like internet. Like I said, Intel is a smart company and they picked their side with the telecoms because they want their server business and have access to the fast lane.

Intel's dominance is not vulnerable in any of the ways IBM's and TI's were. There is no closed, ultra expensive platform open only to the government and the richest companies. Intel broke in from below with an open, upgradable system concept which was easier to learn to program for. No one can gain those advantages. They have to beat Intel substantially in performance and integrate with existing accelerators to begin to put pressure on Intel's stranglehold. Now that AMD has used up its HDL card on Carrizo (and presumably Zen), they have to beat Skylake in this next round or servers will forever belong to Intel by virtue of its ubiquity and performance, at least until quantum computing takes off. The only upset could be if Samsung or IBM brings a Graphene chip to market sometime around 7nm or 5nm at the earliest. Honestly that isn't likely.

As per your fast lane theory, Intel wants to sell Atoms to manage those routers and switch systems, so what's the advantage in being against NN? If companies threatening to stagnate their infrastructure development hurt Intel's bottom line that way, then it's against Intel's self interest.

[patrickjp93]

Intel doesn't need AMD around. Even if AMD went under (which it wont read my reply below) Intel would just simply buy up the needed IP.

Truth of the matter is neither AMD nor Intel will ever become a monopoly. If either ever was on the brink of bankruptcy principle investors would bail them out (including the government).

No, they wouldn't Samsung or IBM would buy up the pieces and try to use the IP and engineers to make an upstart in the market on the ARM or PPC side.

[Linus_torvalds]

? wut gtx 970 has 148w tdp which is the heat it produces. its power consumption will still be around 250ish w

facepalm

 

it has 2 6 pin connector. pci e = 75 W each conector = 75 W sum is 75 x 3 = 225 W this is max power that can be delivered to GTX 970 with 2 6 pin connectors. but this is reserve for max overclocking

the card on stock does need 145 W of power! 

 

[Opcode]

No, they wouldn't Samsung or IBM would buy up the pieces and try to use the IP and engineers to make an upstart in the market on the ARM or PPC side.

Yes, Intel would be the first one jumping the gun to buying up AMD IP. Some of it is critical to every microprocessor design that Intel makes. Without it Intel would sink just as fast especially with where we are right now in the industry.

[patrickjp93]

Yes, Intel would be the first one jumping the gun to buying up AMD IP. Some of it is critical to every microprocessor design that Intel makes. Without it Intel would sink just as fast especially with where we are right now in the industry.

Yes but then there would be legal intervention ensuring Intel could maintain use of IP it had used previously in agreements with AMD.

[kn1ghtnsh1narmr]

Intel's dominance is not vulnerable in any of the ways IBM's and TI's were. There is no closed, ultra expensive platform open only to the government and the richest companies. Intel broke in from below with an open, upgradable system concept which was easier to learn to program for. No one can gain those advantages. They have to beat Intel substantially in performance and integrate with existing accelerators to begin to put pressure on Intel's stranglehold. Now that AMD has used up its HDL card on Carrizo (and presumably Zen), they have to beat Skylake in this next round or servers will forever belong to Intel by virtue of its ubiquity and performance, at least until quantum computing takes off. The only upset could be if Samsung or IBM brings a Graphene chip to market sometime around 7nm or 5nm at the earliest. Honestly that isn't likely.

As per your fast lane theory, Intel wants to sell Atoms to manage those routers and switch systems, so what's the advantage in being against NN? If companies threatening to stagnate their infrastructure development hurt Intel's bottom line that way, then it's against Intel's self interest.

This is fun. 

 

Intel could do the exact opposite and overextend themselves into everything under the sun that needs some processor and they could get beat down from different sides.   Qualcomm, AMD, Nvidia and Samsung are all competing with Intel.  I see the possibility that 2016 could be the start of the fall of the reign of intel.   This is only my guess.  I see intel's mobile start to take off and take market share from Qualcomm. I would be shocked if Nvidia and Samsung are both still making arm chips in 5 years.  But I do see AMD making some inroads so that its at least 50% market share in desktops.  In laptops, I see apus taking off getting AMD 35% of the market, although i see that market shrinking.  In servers I have absolutely no clue what company will come out as market leader.

 

Also, Intel being against Net Neutrality is protecting their bottom line. If there are  slow lanes there are fast lanes that have to be upgraded.  So yes, intel wants atom/xeon x86 chips over arm or opteron chips.  If they go against the telecoms they won't get those contracts.  Some upgrades are better than everyone leaving for ARM.

 

Is that intel losing or is it them becoming more diversified?  But after 5 years who knows what upgrades we will have in computing, so intel CPUs may be a relic from the past.  

[Recon97]

They have no future.

[patrickjp93]

This is fun.

Intel could do the exact opposite and overextend themselves into everything under the sun that needs some processor and they could get beat down from different sides. Qualcomm, AMD, Nvidia and Samsung are all competing with Intel. I see the possibility that 2016 could be the start of the fall of the reign of intel. This is only my guess. I see intel's mobile start to take off and take market share from Qualcomm. I would be shocked if Nvidia and Samsung are both still making arm chips in 5 years. But I do see AMD making some inroads so that its at least 50% market share in desktops. In laptops, I see apus taking off getting AMD 35% of the market, although i see that market shrinking. In servers I have absolutely no clue what company will come out as market leader.

Also, Intel being against Net Neutrality is protecting their bottom line. If there are slow lanes there are fast lanes that have to be upgraded. So yes, intel wants atom/xeon x86 chips over arm or opteron chips. If they go against the telecoms they won't get those contracts. Some upgrades are better than everyone leaving for ARM.

Is that intel losing or is it them becoming more diversified? But after 5 years who knows what upgrades we will have in computing, so intel CPUs may be a relic from the past.

Qualcomm can't beat Intel in chip design and neither can ARM itself. Silvermont was a rushed product from when Intel panicked in the smartphone boom it was late for. Airmont based on the Broadwell architecture will be much more competitive and I think a game changer. ARM chips have been rising in power needs in order to increase performance, and the extra control logic is generating more heat. As ARM transitions to being CISC-like to stay ahead of Intel's engineers, it's becoming apparent that performance is not cheaply gained. In 3 years the ultra mobile game will be settled. Whether x86 or ARM wins out is anyone's guess, but don't expect a 1-sided slaughter, especially with Intel getting a bunch of new contracts this year for Silvermont chips and Airmont due to come in a few months.

Router makers already primarily use Qualcomm chips due to the cheap price. Intel would lose nothing.

50% share in dGPUs maybe, but CPUs? Heck to the no.

Laptops we'll see. It will all come down to price points and how Carrizo's iGPU fair against Intel's new, much stronger lineup.

[Dabombinable]

This is fun. 

 

Intel could do the exact opposite and overextend themselves into everything under the sun that needs some processor and they could get beat down from different sides.   Qualcomm, AMD, Nvidia and Samsung are all competing with Intel.  I see the possibility that 2016 could be the start of the fall of the reign of intel.   This is only my guess.  I see intel's mobile start to take off and take market share from Qualcomm. I would be shocked if Nvidia and Samsung are both still making arm chips in 5 years.  But I do see AMD making some inroads so that its at least 50% market share in desktops.  In laptops, I see apus taking off getting AMD 35% of the market, although i see that market shrinking.  In servers I have absolutely no clue what company will come out as market leader.

 

Also, Intel being against Net Neutrality is protecting their bottom line. If there are  slow lanes there are fast lanes that have to be upgraded.  So yes, intel wants atom/xeon x86 chips over arm or opteron chips.  If they go against the telecoms they won't get those contracts.  Some upgrades are better than everyone leaving for ARM.

 

Is that intel losing or is it them becoming more diversified?  But after 5 years who knows what upgrades we will have in computing, so intel CPUs may be a relic from the past.  

I could show people an AMD relic of the past, that as it happens is faster than the Intel relic of the past that was the next model up.

[patrickjp93]

I could show people an AMD relic of the past, that as it happens is faster than the Intel relic of the past that was the next model up.

Lies and slander! That never happened. Intel has always been better. All this "netburst" propaganda is getting old. The truth is Intel gave AMD the AM64 instruction set out of pity so it could feel relevant. The U.S. government ordered Intel to not release multicore CPUs first or face IRS and anti-trust lawsuits.

The truth is the Pentium 4s were as good as Intel said they were at floating point performance. It was the motherboards which were the problem. Also the truth is Bulldozer was designed over the course of a weekend and was conceived in the middle of a drunken orgy of nerds and their sex dolls powered by Nehalem chips.

AMD chose red for its main color and thus is the devil. #AMDevils #INTELligence #360noscope #l337H4X0R #WINTEL #PCMasterrace #BlueTeam4Ever #LisaWho? #JimKillerInHiding #NoFanchildrenAllowed #JunkMD #hashtag

If you have reached this point in the post and don't realize this is a joke, I question your intelligence...

[Sammael]

Lisa is my favorite tech CEO, I wish her and AMD well in part because I want her to do well.

[Dabombinable]

Lies and slander! That never happened. Intel has always been better. All this "netburst" propaganda is getting old. The truth is Intel gave AMD the AM64 instruction set out of pity so it could feel relevant. The U.S. government ordered Intel to not release multicore CPUs first or face IRS and anti-trust lawsuits.

The truth is the Pentium 4s were as good as Intel said they were at floating point performance. It was the motherboards which were the problem. Also the truth is Bulldozer was designed over the course of a weekend and was conceived in the middle of a drunken orgy of nerds and their sex dolls powered by Nehalem chips.

AMD chose red for its main color and thus is the devil. #AMDevils #INTELligence #360noscope #l337H4X0R #WINTEL #PCMasterrace #BlueTeam4Ever #LisaWho? #JimKillerInHiding #NoFanchildrenAllowed #JunkMD #hashtag

You sir are an idiot. Have you ever heard of the AMD 386 DX-40, and the Intel 486 line? And btw, if your going to fanboy use real evidence, not things like 'but it was the motherboards fault'. Linus himself proved that mother boards aren't a factor in system performance.

[patrickjp93]

You sir are an idiot. Have you ever heard of the AMD 386 DX-40, and the Intel 486 line? And btw, if your going to fanboy use real evidence, not things like 'but it was the motherboards fault'. Linus himself proved that mother boards aren't a factor in system performance.

If only I had a facepalm meme on my cell phone...

Obvious...hyperbolic sarcasm is obvious...

Also, way back in the day before Intel and AMD manufactured their own chipsets, motherboards did matter.

[Dabombinable]

If only I had a facepalm meme on my cell phone...

Obvious...hyperbolic sarcasm is obvious...

Also, way back in the day before Intel and AMD manufactured their own chipsets, motherboards did matter.

Lol, don't forget that sarcasm doesn't translate that well in text , and in my case the motherboards don't matter as the 486 is from the pre 66MHz era (33MHz).

[Opcode]

Lisa is my favorite tech CEO, I wish her and AMD well in part because I want her to do well.

One thing that has me on edge is AMD's 4k gaming laptop powered by Carrizo. It will truly be a new curve ball in the marketplace.

[patrickjp93]

One thing that has me on edge is AMD's 4k gaming laptop powered by Carrizo. It will truly be a new curve ball in the marketplace.

1) where is there news of this laptop?

2) 4K driven by Carrizo... Why? In laptop form factors that sort of resolution will surely hurt battery life.

[kacper]

What are you smoking? TSMC is invested in getting down to 5nm just like everyone else. If they don't keep up they'll lose big business to Samsung. As per Graphene, if you want to see who owns most of that IP, it's IBM and Samsung.

I thought that it would be pretty obvious after artificial intelligence that I'm being sarcastic

[Opcode]

1) where is there news of this laptop?

2) 4K driven by Carrizo... Why? In laptop form factors that sort of resolution will surely hurt battery life.

Content creation and high end gaming.

[TheMissxu]

2) 4K driven by Carrizo... Why? In laptop form factors that sort of resolution will surely hurt battery life.

Some people like to do work at a coffee shop, and they don't want to sacrifice screen real estate.