Confirmed by AMD & Intel - Rivals Intel and AMD Team Up on PC Chips to Battle NVidia

[Cloudfire777]

Everything have changed with this news.

Intel is now paying AMD per GPU they use in their product. Meaning AMD get to sell a lot more graphic chips.
Intel can demand higher turnaround of new graphic architectures and refresh from AMD to get to keep Intel as a customer. This should very likely mean AMD finally beginning to get more agressive on GPUs to take on Nvidia again.

Other thoughts I have is that AMD is playing this smart. They know all-in-one solutions are selling more than dedicated hardware today, so its either join the movement or slowly see their dedicated graphic card business getting eaten bit by bit by the IGPs and solutions alike. This deal with Intel ensure that they can keep churning out dedicated GPUs for years to come.
Nvidia on the other hand will have to keep their fast momentum they had with Pascal. Make a lot of new graphic cards to make up for the loss of customers to IGPs and stuff like that.
I think this news is mostly good.

But it all depends on the price of the notebooks and how well it is adopted

 

[Headfoot]

What license agreement? Talk about reading too much into it. This is getting a part, not licensing technology.

Those are the same. Not all licensing involves selling hardware but all OEM deals for the sale of hardware components like this involve licensing to some degree. Only straight resale/distribution doesnt confer some level of rights to use or embed IP. I write licensing agreements. AMD didnt just sell a chip with zero info or tech on how to interface with it...

 

[krumme]

Those are the same. Not all licensing involves selling hardware but all OEM deals for the sale of hardware components like this involve licensing to some degree. Only straight resale/distribution doesnt confer some level of rights to use or embed IP. I write licensing agreements. AMD didnt just sell a chip with zero info or tech on how to interface with it...

Its also evident this took a lot of cooperation. On hardware as well as software. Its not just a gpu and cpu slapped together.

 

[blublub]

They presumably would have done this themselves, but no R&D money. So it makes a reasonable amount of sense.

The gaming notebook market is about 99% NV right now of course, so combining to try and put any sort of dent in the monopoly has its attractions.

Exactly

And besides that Intel won't quit making cpus either, so for AMD they sell just more gpus and increase their market share - its a win

And if this market us big enough and AMD has more money they make their own RR + HBM and if Intel's new CPUs take the lead again for a while AMD sells gpus and so on.....

It's a win for sure. It's probably the 1st step to a lice we agreement for Intel to dump nvidias IP for Intel iGPU

Gesendet von meinem SM-N950F mit Tapatalk

 

[blublub]

I think a bunch of people are reading WAAY too deeply into this. This has nothing to do with AMD's CPU division at all. This is all about getting Radeon graphics into EVERY machine out there. It's an ingenious move by AMD as it effectively kneecaps things like gameworks and the like...IF it works like intended. There may also be things in the license agreement between AMD/Intel that help AMD out...things like an x86 license modification...

Or EMIB license....

Gesendet von meinem SM-N950F mit Tapatalk

 

[Cloudfire777]

AMD have only a fraction of Intel`s adaption and reputation among OEMs and customers.

Letting Intel sell their products is waaaay smarter than doing this on their own. They will sell a ton more chips when part of an Intel product

 

[blublub]

It's definitely bad for AMD. It basically tells every OEM to never bother with Raven Ridge because you can always get something similar or better from intel. Maybe this is why they has so few OEM wins with raven ridge - OEMs already knew they could blow it off and wait for an intel chip with AMD gpu in same package.


I wrote $12 Nov 10 calls on all my shares. Hope I get exercised ASAP. I want off Dr. Su's wild ride.

RR is 15w tdp- this thing has a lot higher yep, so no that's not the reason

It's an ingenious move from AMD to gain Radeon market share from Nvidia with Intel's help

Hell mist be freezing over at Nvidia if one thinks what could come next...

Gesendet von meinem SM-N950F mit Tapatalk

 

[PeterScott]

Those are the same. Not all licensing involves selling hardware but all OEM deals for the sale of hardware components like this involve licensing to some degree. Only straight resale/distribution doesnt confer some level of rights to use or embed IP. I write licensing agreements. AMD didnt just sell a chip with zero info or tech on how to interface with it...

They are not remotely the same.

You don't need a license to buy an OEM GPU chip.

 

[Roland00Address]

This should definitely be lower power than having a discrete GPU because shorter interconnects (even if they are PCIe) will consume less power, as will HBM, which isn't currently found in laptop GPUs.

It seems Intel passed up the opportunity to use HBM as an L4 cache for the processor. This could increase compute performance and reduce power consumption by reducing calls to ram, and potentially even allowing it to idle, or removing it from the laptop entirely (if there were 8GB models).

This is a 14nm++ processor for the intel side right?

Correct me if this is wrong, but HBM would not be a speed increase for CPUs compared to accessing the memory directly in ram. Why is this?

Because HBM and Ram have similar latency, the benefit to HBM over ram is not the latency but instead the bandwidth.

To use a metaphor, imagine you have a small creak of water that is moving the water at 10 miles per hour, aka if you drop die into this water 10 miles upstream, it will take about 1 hour to travel the 10 miles down stream. This is latency and iit is a big deal with the instructions per clock for if you can reduce latency via putting things closer to the cpu (such as L1 cache instead of L3 cache, or L3 cache instead of ram) you can get more work done.

Bandwidth is like instead of having a small creak you have a very large and wide river like the Mississippi river when it opens into the ocean, or the widest / greatest discharge river in the world with the amazon river. The water is still being moved at 10 miles per hour but you can have lots of water running things in parallel for this gallon of water is a data bucket and ihis data bucket can have a cousin data bucket and another running in parallel all at the same time.

Usually iti s more important for GPUs to have more bandwidth, and CPUs to have less latency. Of course both devices actually like both.

 

[PhonakV30]

So End of Era for G-sync if this package comes with Freesync.

 

[PeterScott]

So End of Era for G-sync if this package comes with Freesync.

I really wonder what it is that causes people to leap to wild, inexplicable conclusions. This is niche laptop part.

For the gamers that are likely to invest in VRR monitors, they will likely gravitate toward higher performance GTX 1060, and even GTX 1080 laptops.

I would also bet Most VRR monitors are sold for use on gaming desktop computers, most of which are still NVidia based.

 

[PhonakV30]

We will see after 5 years.This is just first stage.

 

[FIVR]

Who said anything about this being a "slight" uptick in revenue? Besides, you seem to be operating under some paranoid delusion that Intel is going to produce lower-end APU products using AMD GPUs connected to Intel CPUs via EMIB, which is probably not going to happen. I know there are many who dream of interposer-connected HBM2 APUs from AMD someday, and that this product from Intel sort of end-runs those, but remember that AMD may actually have a competitive advantage on the CPU side once they switch to 7nm LP. At that point will OEMs demand an Intel CPU + AMD GPU hybrid since Apple got one custom-made for them? I don't think so.

Plus if AMD gets access to EMIB for their own projects then things could get interesting. Not that full interposers are undesirable in comparison. They have better bandwidth from what I understand . . .

This is a low volume product, as almost every poster here has acknowledged. It will not provide more than a "small uptick" in revenue. Do you actually think AMD will sell millions of these highly expensive and specialized chips? Even if they did, do you really think AMD's margins are going to be anywhere near intel's?


The issue isn't direct competition with raven ridge. I already stated I do not believe this directly competes with raven ridge... what it does i destroy any mindshare AMD might gain with it's APU solutions. They will now be branded as "low cost alternatives".

 

[PeterScott]

We will see after 5 years.This is just first stage.

I bet within two years you will see Intel packaging NVidia GPUs in the same way. This isn't a proprietary AMD solution.

It's in Intel's interest to play AMD and NVidia off against each other, and both AMD/NVidia will want to gain the marketing benefits of the ride along.

 

[Mockingbird]

And just like that, AMD gave away the only advantage that Raven Ridge ever had.

 

[Burpo]

@ FIVR; Your perception may be skewed (as a trader) in how you believe they'll be viewed. I think it's a feather in their cap, that "Intel came to us for a solution". That's a pretty strong sales pitch and will not hurt their image.
"Hundreds of millions of consumers, leading Fortune 500 businesses, and cutting-edge scientific research facilities around the world rely on AMD technology daily to improve how they live, work, and play. AMD employees around the world are focused on building great products that push the boundaries of what is possible."

This isn't the first time AMD & Intel had licensing agreements.

 

[Tuna-Fish]

This is a low volume product, as almost every poster here has acknowledged. It will not provide more than a "small uptick" in revenue. Do you actually think AMD will sell millions of these highly expensive and specialized chips?

Yes. Simply because the most sensible reason why this exists is that Apple wants it for their machines, and they sell millions of those.

 

[PeterScott]

Yes. Simply because the most sensible reason why this exists is that Apple wants it for their machines, and they sell millions of those.

Not really new sales for AMD GPUs though. Since it will be replacing AMD dGPUs that Apple already uses in those products.

 

[Headfoot]

They are not remotely the same.

You don't need a license to buy an OEM GPU chip.

You dont know how licensing works. Dont try and tell me. I write them daily for a living. This deal must involve licensing, full stop.

 

[krumme]

Not really new sales for AMD GPUs though. Since it will be replacing AMD dGPUs that Apple already uses in those products.

Peter. A month ago your post was a long stream of why this was not going to happen. Now it looks like a endless downplaying of the importance. Lol. Where are you going?

 

[formulav8]

I bet within two years you will see Intel packaging NVidia GPUs in the same way. This isn't a proprietary AMD solution.

I do not see Apple going Nvidia again soon. They would have already and not stayed with AMD this long.

I still think, at least to some degree this is an Apple venture with AMD/Intel going at it together.

 

[krumme]

You dont know how licensing works. Dont try and tell me. I write them daily for a living. This deal must involve licensing, full stop.

This. There is tons of licensing in this. And agreements that goes way beyond normal oem relationship. Its more like consoles. And thats why Lisa also mentioned this besides the consoles at the q earnings.
Imo its better to view this as also a development process.
Intel thinks the same.

"‘In close collaboration, we designed a new semi-custom graphics chip, which means this is also a great example of how we can compete and work together, ultimately delivering innovation that is good for consumers… Similarly, the power sharing framework is a new connection tailor-made by Intel among the processor, discrete graphics chip and dedicated graphics memory. We’ve added unique software drivers and interfaces to this semi-custom discrete GPU that coordinate information among all three elements of the platform.’"

From updated AT article.

 

[maddie]

This is a low volume product, as almost every poster here has acknowledged. It will not provide more than a "small uptick" in revenue. Do you actually think AMD will sell millions of these highly expensive and specialized chips? Even if they did, do you really think AMD's margins are going to be anywhere near intel's?


The issue isn't direct competition with raven ridge. I already stated I do not believe this directly competes with raven ridge... what it does i destroy any mindshare AMD might gain with it's APU solutions. They will now be branded as "low cost alternatives".

Are you claiming that this is a one-off deal? Do you or anyone else think that Intel would spend time and money working with AMD on the details of EMIB to have this product alone and no other? After having nearly everyone claim that HBM2 isn't happening for years, are we surprised that the 1st application is on the very high end?

Notice I wrote 1st application.

 

[krumme]

I simply cant understand how anyone thinks this is in anyway bad for amd. Its never bad if someone buys your products.

If nv won this deal good for them. I am pretty sure no one would celebrate nv winning the contract as a huge victory for amd ! Lol

 

[PeterScott]

This. There is tons of licensing in this. And agreements that goes way beyond normal oem relationship. Its more like consoles. And thats why Lisa also mentioned this besides the consoles at the q earnings.
Imo its better to view this as also a development process.
Intel thinks the same.

"‘In close collaboration, we designed a new semi-custom graphics chip, which means this is also a great example of how we can compete and work together, ultimately delivering innovation that is good for consumers… Similarly, the power sharing framework is a new connection tailor-made by Intel among the processor, discrete graphics chip and dedicated graphics memory. We’ve added unique software drivers and interfaces to this semi-custom discrete GPU that coordinate information among all three elements of the platform.’"

From updated AT article.

Also from the AT article:
"
There is no cross-licensing of IP going on: Intel likely provided AMD with the IP to make the EMIB chipset connections for the graphics but that IP is only valid in the designs that AMD is selling to Intel (it's a semi-custom foundry business, these agreements are part of the job).
"

Before the truth emerged, the rumors were that Intel desperately needed to licence AMD IP for GPUs.

There is nothing like that happening. This is more like work for hire.