Why they are not any other CPU manufacturers besides Intel and AMD?

[Od1sseas]

I'm talking about desktop processors

[Sack]

Heard of Qualcomm? 

 

Because it's hard and expensive.

[captain_to_fire]

Because the architectural licenses for x86/64 are exclusive to three companies namely Intel, AMD and VIA. I don't think Intel will be so happy when the likes of Apple completely dumping Intel chips for their own in-house x86/64 chips.

[Andreas Lilja]

High cost of entering the market. You need some massive R&D shekels.

 

[AlTech]

7 minutes ago, Od1sseas said:

I'm talking about desktop processors

Within the desktop market, x86 and the 64 Bit extension to it (x86-64 which was developed by AMD) are the only instruction set architectures used for desktop CPUs.

 

Because of licensing agreements developed by Intel: Intel, AMD and VIA are the only companies allowed to produce CPUs using the x86 (and x86-64) ISA.

 

Recently Qualcomm have tried to develop ARM chips which work on Windows 10 for low powered laptops and tablets with always on connectivity using LTE. However, the support for them within Windows has been quite limiting and they are not as fast as the Intel or AMD CPUs.

[Sauron]

The dominant desktop operating system is Windows and that runs on intel x86 ISA exclusively (at least it did until recently and most programs still do). The only manufacturers with the license to make chips with that ISA are Intel, AMD and Via. Via mostly makes embedded chips so the only ones that would matter to you are Intel and AMD.

[LAwLz]

There is.

VIA Technologies.

 

If you're wondering why we don't have more than three manufacturers, it's because it is a licensing nightmare. The processor you use in your desktop and laptop uses an instruction set called x86. It is very, very heavily patented so in order to make a processor compatible with existing software, you need to get approval from both Intel and AMD first (both own essential patents on the instructions). But neither AMD nor Intel are interested in letting another player into the field.

 

VIA is an outlier and only has access because they bought a company called Cyrix. Quick TL;DR of their history:

On 4/3/2018 at 9:35 AM, LAwLz said:

Not sure how they got the 64-bit extension, but they got the x86 part because they bought Cyrix (or most of it at least).

 

The reason why Cyrix was allowed to make x86 was because, well, they just started making Intel-compatible chips through reverse engineering. Intel and Cyrix sued each other back and forth until a court finally ruled that Cyrix were allowed to product their own x86 designs as long as they were manufactured in a foundry that had a license for x86.

Cyrix then filed an antitrust case against Intel, and Intel ended up settling that out of court (Intel paid Cyrix 12 million dollars).

 

A few years later Cyrix sued Intel for infringing on some of their patents, and that case resulting in a cross-licensing agreement.

 

There are actually quite a few companies that have agreements with Intel. IBM is one of them. Texas instruments might be allowed to use Intel's x86 patents as well (National Semiconductor had an agreement with Intel, and they were acquired by TI, which is why I am unsure if that carried over).

 

But at the end of the day, it is an extremely competitive market which requires a massive amount of investment to produce anything even remotely competitive with what Intel and AMD produces.

We might see x86 get abandoned though in favor of instruction sets like ARM, which anyone can license and produce their own chips from. ARM does not use x86 instructions which means they can't run x86 code, but they don't rely on patents from Intel or AMD either.

[Od1sseas]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

The dominant desktop operating system is Windows and that runs on intel x86 ISA exclusively (at least it did until recently and most programs still do). The only manufacturers with the license to make chips with that ISA are Intel, AMD and Via. Via mostly makes embedded chips so the only ones that would matter to you are Intel and AMD.

Let's say for example i want to join the CPU battle, i cannot do this becuase i don't have the license for x86-x64? Well that's bad.... If some of those companies stop making CPUs we will have monopoly

[PineyCreek]

1 minute ago, Od1sseas said:

Let's say for example i want to join the CPU battle, i cannot do this becuase i don't have the license for x86-x64? Well that's bad.... If some of those companies stop making CPUs we will have monopoly

Yes, this discussion regarding CPU companies leveraging their power in terms of tech monopolies has been in the news off and on for decades.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Od1sseas said:

Let's say for example i want to join the CPU battle, i cannot do this becuase i don't have the license for x86-x64? 

It's not that you can't go and make your own cpus, it's just that nobody will buy them - at least not for their desktop.

3 minutes ago, Od1sseas said:

Well that's bad.... If some of those companies stop making CPUs we will have monopoly

Intel was forced to license their ISA to at least 2 other companies precisely for this reason, and they will be again if AMD or Via go under.

[Od1sseas]

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

18 minutes ago, Od1sseas said:

Let's say for example i want to join the CPU battle, i cannot do this becuase i don't have the license for x86-x64? 

It's not that you can't go and make your own cpus, it's just that nobody will buy them - at least not for their desktop.

Why?

[Od1sseas]

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

There is.

VIA Technologies.

 

If you're wondering why we don't have more than three manufacturers, it's because it is a licensing nightmare. The processor you use in your desktop and laptop uses an instruction set called x86. It is very, very heavily patented so in order to make a processor compatible with existing software, you need to get approval from both Intel and AMD first (both own essential patents on the instructions). But neither AMD nor Intel are interested in letting another player into the field.

 

VIA is an outlier and only has access because they bought a company called Cyrix. Quick TL;DR of their history:

 

 

But at the end of the day, it is an extremely competitive market which requires a massive amount of investment to produce anything even remotely competitive with what Intel and AMD produces.

We might see x86 get abandoned though in favor of instruction sets like ARM, which anyone can license and produce their own chips from. ARM does not use x86 instructions which means they can't run x86 code, but they don't rely on patents from Intel or AMD either.

But VIA doesn't make desktop CPUs.

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, Od1sseas said:

Why?

Would you buy a cpu that can't run Windows for your desktop?

[rukspuks]

40 minutes ago, Od1sseas said:

I'm talking about desktop processors

 

Becuase windows work, as of now, only on x86/x64 so even if you create a new processor it won't get any traction. They are adding ARM support currently so you will see snapdragon-like cpus in the future.

[Od1sseas]

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Would you buy a cpu that can't run Windows for your desktop?

lol sorry, i didn't understand that correctly. I though you meant that if i make my own x86-x64 CPUs nobody will buy them

[Od1sseas]

13 minutes ago, rukspuks said:

 

Becuase windows work, as of now, only on x86/x64 so even if you create a new processor it won't get any traction. They are adding ARM support currently so you will see snapdragon-like cpus in the future.

But no Windows desktop apps support ARM, maybe a few on the Windows store.

[rukspuks]

Just now, Od1sseas said:

But no Windows desktop apps support ARM, maybe a few on the Windows store.

Few are starting to add that

https://www.windowscentral.com/vlc-releases-arm64-version-windows-10-arm-pcs

[redbread123]

On 6/23/2018 at 2:33 AM, Sauron said:

It's not that you can't go and make your own cpus, it's just that nobody will buy them - at least not for their desktop.

Intel was forced to license their ISA to at least 2 other companies precisely for this reason, and they will be again if AMD or Via go under.

forced by who? I thought they own the rights to it.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, redbread123 said:

forced by who? I thought they own the rights to it.

Don't remember how the deal with Intel looked like, but just because you own a patent for something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.

Anti-monopoly laws should step in and ensure that there is healthy competition on the market.

[Man]

On 6/23/2018 at 2:14 PM, Od1sseas said:

I'm talking about desktop processors

Who cares, as long as there's a stiff competition and no sign of monopoly in sight?

[redbread123]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Don't remember how the deal with Intel looked like, but just because you own a patent for something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.

Anti-monopoly laws should step in and ensure that there is healthy competition on the market.

off the "healthy competition" seems to have dragged intel down

[Sauron]

8 hours ago, redbread123 said:

forced by who? I thought they own the rights to it.

Forced by antitrust laws. Monopolies are illegal so they have to allow other companies to license it. Now tell me, why did you feel the need to quote a post from a thread that has been dead for a year and a half?

[redbread123]

Just now, Sauron said:

Forced by antitrust laws. Monopolies are illegal so they have to allow other companies to license it. Now tell me, why did you feel the need to quote a post from a thread that has been dead for a year and a half?

oh i just realized. i googled this question and saw this thread

[TsmDan_YT]

On 6/23/2018 at 5:18 AM, captain_to_fire said:

Because the architectural licenses for x86/64 are exclusive to three companies namely Intel, AMD and VIA. I don't think Intel will be so happy when the likes of Apple completely dumping Intel chips for their own in-house x86/64 chips.

 

On 6/23/2018 at 5:25 AM, AluminiumTech said:

Within the desktop market, x86 and the 64 Bit extension to it (x86-64 which was developed by AMD) are the only instruction set architectures used for desktop CPUs.

 

Because of licensing agreements developed by Intel: Intel, AMD and VIA are the only companies allowed to produce CPUs using the x86 (and x86-64) ISA.

 

Recently Qualcomm have tried to develop ARM chips which work on Windows 10 for low powered laptops and tablets with always on connectivity using LTE. However, the support for them within Windows has been quite limiting and they are not as fast as the Intel or AMD CPUs.

 

On 6/23/2018 at 5:25 AM, huilun02 said:

Because proprietary technology, expensive and complicated R&D, even more expensive to get production up

Also because capitalism runs on greed and people don't want competition

 

On 6/23/2018 at 5:26 AM, Sauron said:

The dominant desktop operating system is Windows and that runs on intel x86 ISA exclusively (at least it did until recently and most programs still do). The only manufacturers with the license to make chips with that ISA are Intel, AMD and Via. Via mostly makes embedded chips so the only ones that would matter to you are Intel and AMD.

In case you don't know, Intel enjoys a hearty 99% of the CPU Market. If AMD and VIA gave in, Intel would be hit hard by the Federal Trade Commission and antitrust laws and be forced to split itself into spin-off companies. Monopolies are illegal. The last one to exist was the Bell Telephone company.

[Sauron]

On 12/29/2019 at 2:41 AM, TsmDan_YT said:

In case you don't know, Intel enjoys a hearty 99% of the CPU Market. If AMD and VIA gave in, Intel would be hit hard by the Federal Trade Commission and antitrust laws and be forced to split itself into spin-off companies. Monopolies are illegal. The last one to exist was the Bell Telephone company.

I do know that and even said as much. I also noted that this thread died a year and a half ago.