Intel is licensing AMD's Graphics

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

Put Freesync capability on the new iGPU's and bury Gsync for good

(and @Dan Castellaneta)

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/212642-intel-will-support-freesync-standard-with-future-gpus

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2973938/components-graphics/freesync-gets-a-friend-future-intel-cpus-will-support-adaptive-sync-standard.html

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/intel-plans-to-support-vesas-adaptive-sync-technology/

Where have you been in the past 1.75 years?  

 

[David89]

Thing is though: Why whould anyone buy an 2-Core-HT Intel with an AMD-GPU, when you probably will get the AMD APU for quite a bit less and more CPU Cores? Ryzen R9 will most likely shake up intel even more and as far as the leaks look right now, Intel has nothing to put against Ryzen. Except More Clock - but that will end in the same disaster as Pentium 4's and Bulldozer. (although i personally still think, the P4 was WAY worse)

 

 

[leadeater]

44 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

Both scenarios are covered in the OP. also the payout for NVIDIA was substantial at a 1.5 Billion payout to NVIDIA. 

 

Something like that would be of great value to AMD given their current debt, even if it's negotiated at a lower amount. 

Pitty AMD didn't sue first instead of Nvidia lol

[ashypanda]

intel already has cross-licensing agreements with AMD, so it makes sense, but this also could be for new macbooks using a single intel radeon chip, instead of having to design the mainboard for both chips and power delivery, but then again intel iris pro is just as powerful as lower mid graphics any way.

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, David89 said:

2-Core-HT Intel with an AMD-GPU

It should still be Intel's own GPU "design" however they need to licence IPs from either Nvidia or AMD as they've patented things that are

Quote

 fundamental aspects of contemporary graphics processing

(source)

Soooo...yeah, its basically impossible to design a "decent" GPU that's using "typical" architectures  without infringing either AMD or Nvidia's patents. 

 

4 minutes ago, ashypanda said:

intel already has cross-licensing agreements with AMD

Well if those agreements did not exist right now, AMD would have no CPUs while Intel would still be on 32bit CPUs  

[Guest Darth Revan]

Very very interesting.

[David89]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

It should still be Intel's own GPU "design" however they need to licence IPs from either Nvidia or AMD as they've patented things that are

As far as i understood the whole thing, the only thing intel will be doing, is manufacturing them - everything else will be done by AMD

[Mr.Meerkat]

5 minutes ago, David89 said:

As far as i understood the whole thing, the only thing intel will be doing, is manufacturing them - everything else will be done by AMD

Even if AMD did give them designs, it will not be as good as the dies used in their APUs/GPUs else that's just plain stupid (unless Intel is paying good money for it). 

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, KenjiUmino said:

what did intel have to do with nvidia? did i miss the memo ?

both AMD and nVidia have patented technologies that makes it quite impossible for other manufacturers to create a GPU without infringing their patents - so, they have to licence it

[Coaxialgamer]

This is article is somewhat misleading. Many people  assume the underlying architecture in intel's next IGP's will be based off amd architectures, namely GCN or vega. 

 

Thing is, its quite likely intel would design the architecture itself. 

 

The graphics IP scene is satured. . Nearly every innovation has been patented at some point, be it by  ATI/AMD, Nvidia, matrox etc. 

 

Meaning you literally cannot design a "hardware acceleration device for video display" without infringing on IP from the big players. 

 

Intel's previous tech was designed by them , for their needs. It wasn't based off tesla, fermi, kepler or maxwell. 

Simple stuff like the notion of GPU is patented. 

Intel is just doing this to avoid being sued. They pay amd, that way amd doesn't sue them for using some basic IP when designing their new tech. 

 

They'd have to completely redesign GCN for their fabs and process anyway. Wouldn't make sense. 

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I believe Intel had already planned to support Freesync for a while (or at least the VESA adaptive sync standard) in their iGPUs.

So really the chances of them going the VESA/Freesync route were higher than them going the G-Sync route.

yes they have. i bet they are asking for AMDs ACEs and NGC. Allowing intel to boost the performance of their iGPU a lot. If they also get the scaler output, they could potentially be first to have FReesync 2/+/whatever laptops on the market.

 

and that is what its all about.

 

Freesync/Adaptiv sync + laptop + iGPU = budget gaming for the mega mass market. It would destroy Nvidias mid range "dGPU" hold, if they can provide a jitter/flicker free and smooth low end gaming PC.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, WillyW said:

Apparently to no ones surprise, investor analysts do not understand the difference between a CPU and a GPU.

 

https://cnafinance.com/advanced-micro-devices-amd-stock-climbs-on-intel-intc-interest-in-license/15358

 

" As mentioned above, Advanced Micro Devices is having a strong start to the trading session today as reports surface surrounding interest in a license by Intel. According to the reports, INTC is interested in licensing the AMD Ryzen product. "

Ah, "financial gurus" strike again. Voodoo-nomics at its best.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

If it's anything like the previous Nvidia license agreement there will be nothing AMD related at all in Intel's iGPUs.

Indeed. It seems that industry-wide patent-trolling has gone to the point in which basically you can't make a GPU without stepping into someone's IP. They may not need any "AMD technology", just a license to use the technology Intel already has without getting sued.

1 hour ago, yian88 said:

AMD is retarded, they license Radeon IP so intel will have strong APU offerings while AMD hasnt released their new APU's yet, a Ryzen 4 core with a rx 460 onboard is a fucking killer deal, now intel will have a clear advantage over amd, what they gain from licensing IP, they lose in sales from competition.

If it was the case that Intel will get its hands on Radeon GPUs (unlikely), how on Earth will it come up with "a strong APU" before AMD relases its Zen-based APUs? I mean, if Intel started working on it right now, or even some moths ago, how far behind AMD would that put them in terms of developing a marketable product?

[Trixanity]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I mean, if Intel started working on it right now, or even some moths ago, how far behind AMD would that put them in terms of developing a marketable product?

If working quickly I could imagine they might be able to do it in 18-24 months. It depends on how much work they need to do and it's impossible to tell without an engineering background. It's not drag-and-drop that's for sure. They're on a yearly cadence for iterative designs and it would take 3-5 years to design something from scratch, so the two year time frame for integrating a licensed design into their products sounds reasonable to me given the work they need to do to make that happen. However this is all very hypothetical and I'm sure someone with more knowledge of the engineering aspects can provide a more detailed and accurate idea.

[Notional]

This is just a patent licensing thing. No architecture in any way, shape or form, from AMD will make it into Intel chips. It's entirely Intel's own design. These patents are fundamental patents, like making pixels, graphics, shaders, saving to a buffer, etc. You're not gonna see GCN in Intel CPU's.

[Taf the Ghost]

Intel has actually generally been the market leader for "GPUs shipped" because of the built-in ones in motherboards.  Then consumer CPUs.  The issue is their one production-level attempt at a dGPUs wasn't very good. And their attempt to re-enter the market didn't go well either.

 

But, so much of major Tech is about your Patent Portfolio that they are pretty stuck at this point.

[Valentyn]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Intel has actually generally been the market leader for "GPUs shipped" because of the built-in ones in motherboards.  Then consumer CPUs.  The issue is their one production-level attempt at a dGPUs wasn't very good. And their attempt to re-enter the market didn't go well either.

 

But, so much of major Tech is about your Patent Portfolio that they are pretty stuck at this point.

 

Most likely one of the reason Larrabee ended up failing. Their version of Cuda Cores/Stream Processors was tiny large amounts of x86 cores.

Didn't work out well at all, but they found the Niché for it in enterprise work. Having to start from scratch and not stepping on NVIDIA, AMD, S3, PowerVR or other's patents is extremely difficult.

[Zodiark1593]

4 hours ago, KenjiUmino said:

oh, that makes sense.

 

was this the reason why the iGPUs on their 2nd gen core processors performed sooooo much better compared to 1st gen ?

The performance of the execution units were similar to Nvidia's CUDA cores. The clock speed of the execution units were also startlingly high, also similar to how Nvidia set up their GPUs at the time (the clock speed of the shaders often exceeded 1 GHz).

 

There was apparently a lot of fixed function hardware utilized (probably of Intel's own designs), but it would be no surprise if the execution units were based on the CUDA core. Considering the drastic improvement, licensing nearly the entire CUDA core would be a quick way to increase graphics performance. 

[dalekphalm]

Seems like a ton of people here are misunderstanding this.

 

Let's be clear: Intel will NOT be using "Radeon" graphics, or "Polaris", or "Vega", or any branded AMD technology or architecture.

 

They are simply replacing NVIDIA with AMD, to license basic graphics IP, which is required for any modern GPU. Intel will continue to develop the same GPU in-house as they've done for years now.

[rawrdaysgoby]

14 hours ago, WillyW said:

Apparently to no ones surprise, investor analysts do not understand the difference between a CPU and a GPU.

 

https://cnafinance.com/advanced-micro-devices-amd-stock-climbs-on-intel-intc-interest-in-license/15358

 

" As mentioned above, Advanced Micro Devices is having a strong start to the trading session today as reports surface surrounding interest in a license by Intel. According to the reports, INTC is interested in licensing the AMD Ryzen product. "

Nah most people that writes these articles aren't actually people in the tech industry they are just making half the things up trying to explain "WHY" something went up or down. The people that write these things are just trying to make a few bucks off the site and ads so people click on them...

 

Remember the stock prices already climbed BEFORE the article was written. Amateurs just try to explain why it did but most of them don't know anything about the tech industry.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

Nah most people that writes these articles aren't actually people in the tech industry they are just making half the things up trying to explain "WHY" something went up or down. The people that write these things are just trying to make a few bucks off the site and ads so people click on them...

 

Remember the stock prices already climbed BEFORE the article was written. Amateurs just try to explain why it did but most of them don't know anything about the tech industry.

A lot of Monday's experts in finance.    

[captain_to_fire]

17 hours ago, Natsoup said:

Sounds good to me, but it's a strange feeling seeing both an Intel and AMD logo without a "vs." in between  

Probably just the Radeon logo and name without AMD on it 

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Seems like a ton of people here are misunderstanding this.

 

Let's be clear: Intel will NOT be using "Radeon" graphics, or "Polaris", or "Vega", or any branded AMD technology or architecture.

 

They are simply replacing NVIDIA with AMD, to license basic graphics IP, which is required for any modern GPU. Intel will continue to develop the same GPU in-house as they've done for years now.

Of course it's also possible that Intel may what some AMD IP for their Zeon phi's (or maybe even a new workstation/supercomputer product).

 

Either way it's good that AMD are going to get a little more cash for R+D.  It's been quite a while since I've had a red Processor and it's hard to justify changing when there isn't anything wrong with the blue one.

[Vode]

I'm pretty sure this will strictly be a licencing agreement with some money changing hands in the background.

 

You won't see any Radeon branding on Intel iGPUs...

[dlink377]

i just hope future igpu should have decent performance, at least 1080p 30fps on low to medium settings anyone?

 

as someone who don't play game much and prefer as small as possible PC build (currently using dell optiplex micro just because of the form factor), any news that will improve integrated graphics card are welcome.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Of course it's also possible that Intel may what some AMD IP for their Zeon (Xeon) phi's (or maybe even a new workstation/supercomputer product).

 

Either way it's good that AMD are going to get a little more cash for R+D.  It's been quite a while since I've had a red Processor and it's hard to justify changing when there isn't anything wrong with the blue one.

It's quite possible, yes.

 

But we never saw any NVIDIA IP tech in their iGPU's before, nor their Xeon Phi cards. I doubt we'll see much change here. And any IP that is being used by Intel will have Intel branding on it, even if it ends up using an underlying AMD tech.

 

Intel basically just needs either AMD or NVIDIA to license out the basic graphics IP required for ANY modern GPU architecture. They're decent at developing their own in-house iGPU and unless they pursue high end gaming (unlikely) there's no reason for them to change course.