Without AMD (essentially an Intel Monopoly) What would CPUs cost?

[Scali]

Yes, I sweat the small things.

I deliberately did not put x86 in there, because even without it I think it is still true (anything not x86 is on a much smaller scale).

 

[Phynaz]

I deliberately did not put x86 in there, because even without it I think it is still true (anything not x86 is on a much smaller scale).

Think ARM. I'm pretty sure that Samsung for instance sells more $ and units of ARM cpu's than AMD sells of x86. TI sells a boatload of ARM based DSP solutions to name another.

If I recall correctly, after AMD sold off Spansion they fell out of the top ten of semi-conductor companies until they bought ATI.

I'll go look it up.

Edit:
From ARM's quarterly earnings report:
"Q2 processor royalty revenue came from the sales of 1.4 billion ARM technology-based chips"

That's a lot of chips.

 

[StarTech]

But on the bright side, if you worked in IT or in computer design/manufacturing or software development, you'd make a lot more money than you would typically make today.

That is if you where in India or China.

 

[Scali]

Think ARM. I'm pretty sure that Samsung for instance sells more $ and units of ARM cpu's than AMD sells of x86. TI sells a boatload of ARM based DSP solutions to name another.

I know ARM obviously, and I hate people who underestimate others, but I stick to what I said.
ARM is not a CPU manufacturer. ARM is an architecture, which is built by a number of CPU manufacturers, various of of which outsource their production to some of the large foundries in the world (and a foundry is not a CPU manufacturer either, obviously).

If we are talking about a single CPU manufacturer, as in a company that designs and manufactures (not outsources) CPUs, I think AMD is still the second-largest largest.

 

[jvroig]

I think the gist of the fight between "ARM is competition vs ARM is not competition to Intel/AMD" is:
While Intel, AMD, and ARM all design CPUs, Intel and AMD go one step further in that they actually manufacture themselves. They don't just sell microarchitectures and let other players license and manufacture them.

Cliffs:
CPU Design: Intel, AMD, ARM
CPU Manufacture: Intel, AMD, licensees of ARM uarchs.

x86 CPU Design: Intel, AMD
x86 CPU Manufacture: Intel, AMD

Now, whether one wants to group ARM or not when talking about "biggest CPU manufacturers" (and not just x86) depends on whether they think the term can also include even players that just design uarchs (probable reasoning for it: "in the end, those designs still end up as millions (billions?) of real-world processors in million (billions?) of electronic gadgets worldwide").

Personally, when it's a comparison between Intel and AMD, I intentionally keep a blind eye to ARM, because right now they can't just enter the fight between Intel and AMD, or even serve as competition. They've got no desktop offerings, and I don't think they can just enter the market at will (lack of patents/IP), and for it to make sense and be worth the RnD cost (and all IP-licensing costs involved), they'd need a dedicated partner to guarantee volume production (for example, convincing someone like Samsung to produce and sell those desktop processors), and for that to happen there needs to be a partner that has fabs at least at the level of GF (let's not get too excited and immediately aim at Intel-level) to be even remotely competitive (as opposed to just producing the chips but at costs that are nowhere near making any economic sense).

 

[Phynaz]

If we are talking about a single CPU manufacturer, as in a company that designs and manufactures (not outsources) CPUs, I think AMD is still the second-largest largest.

AMD doesn't manufacture CPUs, they outsource them. And if they did manufacture them they still wouldn't be second largest. But now I'm repeating myself so I will stop.

 

[Scali]

AMD doesn't manufacture CPUs, they outsource them.

AMD owns 51% of GF, last time I checked.

 

[Scotteq]

AMD owns 51% of GF, last time I checked.

My understanding is that was the original plan, but the Abu Dhabi group are the de-facto majority owner. And not by a small percentage, either.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrast...obalFoundries-Inks-STMicroelectronics-663107/

"AMD has a 34 percent ownership of GlobalFoundries, with an investment fund, Advanced Technology Investment, owning the other 66 percent."

 

[Scali]

Fine, the AMD-GF construction is the second-largest CPU manufacturer in the world.

 

[jvroig]

My understanding is that was the original plan, but the Abu Dhabi group are the de-facto majority owner. And not by a small percentage, either.

I believe that was one of the benefits AMD got when Intel settled, along with the 1.4B payoff. They are now free to become fabless, so they are not required anymore to own their fab (which was what necessitated the 51% ownership). What I was not aware of was that they already shed much of the ownership, although if I remember correctly divesting themselves was one of their priorities since the settlement.

 

[Obsoleet]

I say you are wrong. The Feds never broke up Microsoft. I doubt they would ever have broken up Intel, either.

MS has always had competition, but they personally invested in Apple to keep them from going under in the past (for the same reason Intel wants AMD to exist). Also, software and manufacturing are two completely different beasts when comparing markets.