x86 is not a totally closed market. IBM, can manufacture x86 processors at will and you have VIA. That these companies to not make substantial investments on x86 should tell you how profitable it is to invest on it. So if AMD goes under and the FTC forces Intel to open x86 to new licensees, I don't think there will be many companies queuing up for it.
One of the reasons is that building x86 chips is to compete against the guy making the instruction set, which means you'll be always behind in terms of implementing new features of the instruction set, and you'll also only be able to implement your features only if you have a solid backing from dominant software companies like Microsoft or Oracle, which is not easy to get.
Breaking up Intel is not a choice too, the company is too tightly integrated, break it up and you'll end up with two dead parts.
So in the end if AMD goes under, what changes? Nothing. The FTC won't do anything, the prices will stay more or less the same and life will go on.
By US federal law(shaman anti trust act) no company can control above 90% of the market. Several company have been broken up this way.Most prominent example would the attempted merge of AT&T and T-mobile. If AMD leaves, Intel has 100% monopoly over consumer computers, business, and servers. That will ring an alarm bell however you look at it. Not even Microsoft has such dominance considering Linux+Unix have a lion share of the server OS.
Monopoly[edit]
Section 2 of the Act forbade monopoly. In Section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act.
By US federal law(shaman anti trust act) no company can control above 90% of the market. Several company have been broken up this way.Most prominent example would the attempted merge of AT&T and T-mobile. If AMD leaves, Intel has 100% monopoly over consumer computers, business, and servers. That will ring an alarm bell however you look at it. Not even Microsoft has such dominance considering Linux+Unix have a lion share of the server OS.
That "Zen will compete in 80% of server market." could mean no quad socket platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act#Monopoly
Haven't read the whole thing yet but doubt Intel would get split up.
Why not break up Luxottica, Facebook or Monsanto then? These are REAL monopolies today and nothing happen to them, and you think anyone will do anything against Intel.
I don't trust wikipedia.
I learn about this from my professor. Over 90% market share=unlawful. You aren't really expecting VIA to take AMD's place are you?
Maybe your professor should tell you what a "shaman" is.
By US federal law(shaman anti trust act) no company can control above 90% of the market. Several company have been broken up this way.Most prominent example would the attempted merge of AT&T and T-mobile. If AMD leaves, Intel has 100% monopoly over consumer computers, business, and servers. That will ring an alarm bell however you look at it. Not even Microsoft has such dominance considering Linux+Unix have a lion share of the server OS.
I don't trust wikipedia.
I learn about this from my professor. Over 90% market share=unlawful. You aren't really expecting VIA to take AMD's place are you?
By US federal law(shaman anti trust act) no company can control above 90% of the market. Several company have been broken up this way.Most prominent example would the attempted merge of AT&T and T-mobile. If AMD leaves, Intel has 100% monopoly over consumer computers, business, and servers. That will ring an alarm bell however you look at it. Not even Microsoft has such dominance considering Linux+Unix have a lion share of the server OS.
Do you trust the United States Government?
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
Usually AMD offered quad socket platforms to offset the weak dual socket offers.
Maybe you should search up what autocorrect is.
Other CPU's vendors, most notably IBM (although I wouldn't be surprised by Oracle or even Fujitsu, especially if mainframes are included), already have more server CPU market share than AMD by revenue.
A strategy which didn't survive the changes in server software licensing from major vendors like Oracle taking into account number of cores/threads rather than per socket. I think it would be the hardest area of servers for AMD to make inroads with Zen.
Maybe you should look up proofreading.
Writing down thousands upon thousand of pages of regulations and taking control is something the feds always like to do is it not? :sneaky:
If AMD is down, i will expect intel to run into regulators soon enough.
Writing down thousands upon thousand of pages of regulations and taking control is something the feds always like to do is it not? :sneaky:
If AMD is down, i will expect intel to run into regulators soon enough.
So the whole x86 non-transferability issue is a total red herring. If someone buys AMD, they will almost certainly get the x86 license. The fun question is what happens if Apple buys AMD, moves Macs to their own x86 silicon, but leaves Intel as the only viable x86 CPU provider for Windows. What do the anti-trust authorities do then?
That's the strategy Dresdenboy has been advocating all along as a path to Zen success on servers, more cores working at higher clock than Intel ones. I think they will be toast on efficiency because of higher cooling costs and as you pointed out they will get burned once you need to use per-core licensed software.
But as a cheap machine for university labs running open source software AMD might have a chance.
Awful, awful idea. if that happens, we would have software that runs only on Apple CPUs, we will need Apple iMotherboards that support only Apple iRam and can be installed only in an Apple iCase.If Apple bought AMD, and started designing their own x86/x64-compatible CPUs in-house, that might actually give Intel some real competition. It would certainly spice things up.