Question Intel's future after Pat Gelsinger

[igor_kavinski]

They are all quite smart, it's having the entire skill set in one individual, the passion, and the work ethic.

Funny that my Android mobile showed me these two articles today:

https://gulfnews.com/special-reports/live-every-day-ready-to-be-fired-ibms-dramatic-comeback-1.500036878

Meet Jonah Alben — The engineer who helped make Nvidia a $3 trillion giant - CNBC TV18

Jonah Alben, 51, oversees around 1,000 engineers tasked with the development of next-generation GPU architectures. He joined NVIDIA in 1997 and has been in his current role since 2008.

www.cnbctv18.com

 

[desrever]

Why does this even matter? This is a non-story. If the cross licensing agreement automatically cancels, AMD can't make x86 CPUs either. It would be in the best interest between AMD and Intel's acquirer to hash out a new cross licensing agreement.

AMD doesn't need x86 any more to make modern CPUs. Anyone else would still need x64.

I don't see why AMD would sign a new cross licensing agreement now unless the government forces them to.

 

[GTracing]

AMD doesn't need x86 any more to make modern CPUs. Anyone else would still need x64.

I don't see why AMD would sign a new cross licensing agreement now unless the government forces them to.

The agreement also covers newer instructions like AVX10.

 

[desrever]

The agreement also covers newer instructions like AVX10.

Why would AMD want to trade having a monopoly on x64 vs getting AVX10?

 

[igor_kavinski]

Why would AMD want to trade having a monopoly on x64 vs getting AVX10?

They can't have a monopoly. The whole reason Intel was "forced" to let AMD have the x86 license was to stop Intel from becoming a monopoly. If Intel is taken apart piece by piece by a consortium of buyers, one or more of them will need to give assurances that they will stay in the business of producing x86 CPUs to keep AMD from becoming the x86-64 monopoly. At least, that's my thinking.

 

[desrever]

They can't have a monopoly. The whole reason Intel was "forced" to let AMD have the x86 license was to stop Intel from becoming a monopoly. If Intel is taken apart piece by piece by a consortium of buyers, one or more of them will need to give assurances that they will stay in the business of producing x86 CPUs to keep AMD from becoming the x86-64 monopoly. At least, that's my thinking.

Like I said, unless the government forces them to, AMD would take the x64 monopoly instead of doing any more cross licensing.

Also nobody is going to stop monopolies from forming in the US now. The political climate is changed. If Qualcomm gets a new cross license by looting Intel, it won't be because the government is worried about monopoly, it would be because Qualcomm bribed whoever it needed to.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Word to your moms I came to drop bombs.

LMAO he did indeed jump around.

 

[DavidC1]

None of that has anything to do with x86. AMD could become an ARM vendor and still not do any of those things.

And they would lose because ARM CPU vendors are much better at execution than AMD. They go from competing against one failing giant versus going against 4-5 nimble ones and lot lower margins.

So a great CEO needs to be part engineer, accountant, financial manager, scientist, psychologist, and magician.

You need to know how to pick the right people, know how to treat them to make them excel, know your company and the field inside and out, and have vision to see what is needed for the future.

You don't really need to be an actual accountant or financial manager at Intel as they should mostly be engineers, you just need to have people you can trust that can do those jobs right in line with your vision.

 

[mikegg]

And this analysis comes from ChatGPT?

There's no way Intel's lawyers agreed to anything that would prevent ANYONE from being able to produce x86 CPUs in the event of an acquisition. Think about it for a moment: let's pretend someone bought out AMD in 2016 in a bid to kill the company and strip assets (assuming Zen1 never happened). Then Intel can't produce CPUs. Does this make any sense?

No, it didn't. It comes from common sense.

Intel and AMD own x86 patents. They have a cross licensing agreement. If Intel gets acquired, and the cross licensing agreement is automatically cancelled, that means AMD no longer has a license to use Intel's x86 patents.

People here are assuming that Intel's x86 patents are gifted to AMD in case Intel gets acquired. That's weird. No. Intel's owner would own the x86 patents. Without a new cross licensing agreemeent, Intel's new owner will sue AMD to prevent them from making x86 chips. In addition, Intel's new acquirer will not be able to make x86 chips either. It's mutual destruction.

That's why this is a non-issue. Any Intel acquirer will simply negotiate a new cross licensing agreement - maybe the exact same contract even.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing this clause is in there to provide any acquirer the freedom to renegotiate a new agreement.

 

[jpiniero]

No, it didn't. It comes from common sense.

Intel and AMD own x86 patents. They have a cross licensing agreement. If Intel gets acquired, and the cross licensing agreement is automatically cancelled, that means AMD no longer has a license to use Intel's x86 patents.

That is not the case, according to how I understand it.

Intel deliberately wanted it that way so that if AMD were to go out of business/get bought, Intel would have a true x86 monopoly. Except... whoops.

 

[Thunder 57]

No, it didn't. It comes from common sense.

Intel and AMD own x86 patents. They have a cross licensing agreement. If Intel gets acquired, and the cross licensing agreement is automatically cancelled, that means AMD no longer has a license to use Intel's x86 patents.

People here are assuming that Intel's x86 patents are gifted to AMD in case Intel gets acquired. That's weird. No. Intel's owner would own the x86 patents. Without a new cross licensing agreemeent, Intel's new owner will sue AMD to prevent them from making x86 chips. In addition, Intel's new acquirer will not be able to make x86 chips either. It's mutual destruction.

That's why this is a non-issue. Any Intel acquirer will simply negotiate a new cross licensing agreement - maybe the exact same contract even.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing this clause is in there to provide any acquirer the freedom to renegotiate a new agreement.

How many x86 patents are still active though? IIRC patents last 20 years. So things like AVX would be a problem I'd imagine. Seems to me an agreement with the new owner would be renogtiated. This all seems premature anyway as I doubt Intel is being aquired. At least not the design side.

 

[Schmide]

The agreement also covers newer instructions like AVX10.

Why would AMD want to trade having a monopoly on x64 vs getting AVX10?

psst.

There are no new instructions in AVX10 just different classifications of the same old instructions.

I guess determining what set of instructions a processor supports is a function?

AVX10 is a slight of hand.

 

[mikegg]

How many x86 patents are still active though? IIRC patents last 20 years. So things like AVX would be a problem I'd imagine. Seems to me an agreement with the new owner would be renogtiated. This all seems premature anyway as I doubt Intel is being aquired. At least not the design side.

It doesn't matter how many. It's enough to prevent AMD or Intel from making an x86 chip and it would cause hellish nightmare for software makers, Microsoft, Linux if the ISA completely fragments. It's one way to destroy the x86 market fast because it would push everyone to transition away from x86 fast.

Anyone saying this cross licensing agreement prevents Intel from being acquired has no idea what he's talking about. It's a non-factor.

 

[jpiniero]

It's a non-factor.

Only if the Government intervenes. Which it might. But yeah, expect AMD to have an x86 monopoly otherwise if Intel gets sold or goes bankrupt. That was what Intel agreed to.

 

[DrMrLordX]

And they would lose because ARM CPU vendors are much better at execution than AMD.

So? That wasn't what was being discussed. Go back and reread the context in which I made that comment.

No, it didn't. It comes from common sense.

Intel and AMD own x86 patents. They have a cross licensing agreement. If Intel gets acquired, and the cross licensing agreement is automatically cancelled, that means AMD no longer has a license to use Intel's x86 patents.

AMD would still have access to their own patents.

 

[dacostafilipe]

Intel and AMD own x86 patents. They have a cross licensing agreement. If Intel gets acquired, and the cross licensing agreement is automatically cancelled, that means AMD no longer has a license to use Intel's x86 patents.

The Supreme Court awarded AMD “a permanent, nonexclusive and royalty-free license to any Intel intellectual property embodied in the Am386” and “a two-year extension of certain patent and copyright licenses . . . related to the Am386.” AMD v. Intel, 885 P.2d at 998–99

Source: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective

Whatever happens to Intel should in general not impact AMD to do x86 CPUs, but as Intel has a lot of patents, AMD certainly would face some legal battles, but it certainly could engineer around it.

The company acquiring Intel on the other hand, would loose access to x64 and there's no easy way around that one.

In the end, AMD and that new company could just do a new agreement, if AMD sees an interest in it.

 

[GTracing]

psst.

There are no new instructions in AVX10 just different classifications of the same old instructions.

I guess determining what set of instructions a processor supports is a function?

AVX10 is a slight of hand.

I'm aware that AVX10.1 is just AVX512 with new CPUID flags and an optional 256bit-only implementation. AVX512 is less than 20 years old. Either way, AMD loses access if Intel gets acquired. It's semantics.

And AVX10.2 does add new instructions.

 

[mikegg]

AMD would still have access to their own patents.

Which is not enough to make a functioning x86 CPU in 2025.

 

[mikegg]

The company acquiring Intel on the other hand, would loose access to x64 and there's no easy way around that one.

Where exactly does it say an acquirer loses access to Intel's x86 patents?

 

[dacostafilipe]

Where exactly does it say an acquirer loses access to Intel's x86 patents?

I said x64, or also known as AMD64.

x86-64 (also known as x64, x86_64, AMD64, and Intel 64)[note 1] is a 64-bit extension of the x86 instruction set architecture first announced in 1999. It introduces two new operating modes: 64-bit mode and compatibility mode, along with a new four-level paging mechanism.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

x86-64/AMD64 was solely developed by AMD. Until April 2021 when the relevant patents expired, AMD held patents on techniques used in AMD64;[126][127][128] those patents had to be licensed from AMD in order to implement AMD64. Intel entered into a cross-licensing agreement with AMD, licensing to AMD their patents on existing x86 techniques, and licensing from AMD their patents on techniques used in x86-64.[129] In 2009, AMD and Intel settled several lawsuits and cross-licensing disagreements, extending their cross-licensing agreements.[130][131][132]

But it seems that x64 patens expired in 2021, so even that is not really an issue. So, there's really nothing blocking somebody to buy Intel.

 

[GTracing]

But it seems that x64 patens expired in 2021, so even that is not really an issue. So, there's really nothing blocking somebody to buy Intel.

The cross licensing agreement also covers future IP. AMD has filed tons of patents in the past 20 years. Intel could be using any of them in its CPUs.

 

[dacostafilipe]

The cross licensing agreement also covers future IP. AMD has filed tons of patents in the past 20 years. Intel could be using any of them in its CPUs.

Yes, but IMO it has nothing to do with the x86 ISA:

If the cross licensing agreement automatically cancels, AMD can't make x86 CPUs either.

 

[GTracing]

Yes, but IMO it has nothing to do with the x86 ISA:

I don't know if you genuinely don't know, or are just being obtuse, but people use "x86" to refer to x86 architecture family all the time. That's obviously how mikegg meant it.

 

[marees]

Long article by Raja Koduri


"Creating an arm's length foundry relationship now risks crippling the only company theorectically capable of innovating across the entire stack – from fundamental physics (atoms) to software (python)."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892222720710152315

At its core, Intel's DNA is built on performance leadership – the relentless pursuit of benchmark-breaking excellence. Every aspect of its business model, from marketing to sales, is calibrated for being the undisputed leader in its chosen segments. NVIDIA shares this performance-first DNA, evident in their relentless pursuit of benchmark supremacy at any cost. "Performance DNA" companies also build products ahead of customers needs. They are always ahead of the curve. Neither company thrives as a "value or a services player" – they're not built to compete primarily value metrics like performance/$ or delivering services per customer requests. While value/service-oriented companies can be tremendously successful, transforming a performance-focused company into a value player requires major cultural surgery. The reverse transformation is far more natural. Running foundry service will be a challenging transition for Intel. Licensing partnerships with companies that are already in the foundry services business could be a more pragmatic approach.


The "spreadsheet & powerpoint snakes" – bureaucratic processes that dominate corporate decision-making – often fail to grasp the true cost of surrendering performance leadership. They optimize for minimizing quarterly losses while missing the bigger picture. These processes multiply and coil around engineers, constraining their ability to execute on the product roadmap with the boldness it requires. A climate of fear surrounds any attempt at skunkworks initiatives outside established processes – one misstep, and the bureaucratic snakes strike. This environment has bred a pervasive "learned helplessness" throughout the engineering ranks, stifling the very innovation culture that built Intel's empire. Learned helplessness is a set of behaviors where we give up on escaping a painful situation, because our brain has gradually been taught to assume powerlessness in that situation.

 

[Schmide]

I think a lot of the conjecture here is moot following the 2009 cross licensing agreement. (here)

Specifically

Termination Upon Change of Control. Subject to the terms of, and as further set forth in, Sections 5.2(d) and 5.2(e), this Agreement shall automaticallyterminate as a whole upon the consummation of a Change of Control of either Party.

Followed by a long winded legalese about the time frame, enforcement transfer, and obligations that mostly favor the non terminating entity.