Administrator DKT27 Posted March 18, 2016 Administrator Share Posted March 18, 2016 When it comes to processors for computers, Intel and AMD are considered rivals, but in the GPU market, that battle is between AMD and NVIDIA. However it seems that Intel could be getting a boost in the GPU department in the future, according to a report from Bloomberg which seems to have suggested that both Intel and AMD are in talks about potentially licensing GPU patents. In this case it would be obvious that Intel will be the one licensing the GPU patents from AMD, who several years ago acquired GPU maker ATI. It is unclear as to what Intel will want from this licensing deal, but as it stands, the company is already licensing NVIDIA’s GPU patents, a deal that is said to be worth $1.5 billion and is expected to come to an end March 17, 2017. It has been reported previously that Intel might not be interested in carrying on their licensing deal with NVIDIA, which might explain why they could be considering NVIDIA’s rival AMD instead. It has also been speculated that maybe AMD could be more flexible with regards to the licensing terms. It is unlikely that we will start seeing Intel producing GPUs of their own in the future, or start incorporating AMD’s patents and technology into their integrated graphics, but it does seem like an interesting development all the same. Either way do take it with a grain of salt for now. View: Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesDDI Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 So AMD itself will contribute to reinforce an already existent monopoly (Intel). Well done. The world is crazying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WALLONN7 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 Original article links to "anywhere"... Anywhere links to "somewhere"... In every linked page I open, all I see is speculation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator DKT27 Posted March 18, 2016 Author Administrator Share Posted March 18, 2016 1 hour ago, jamesDDI said: So AMD itself will contribute to reinforce an already existent monopoly (Intel). Well done. The world is crazying... I find it funny that AMD will agree to something like this. Reason is that they are thinking Zen is going to be a big thing. It seems that AMD wants money, that's why it may agree to it. 1 hour ago, WALLONN7 said: Original article links to "anywhere"... Anywhere links to "somewhere"... In every linked page I open, all I see is speculation... I think the original article was probably deleted, I cannot find either. Everywhere I tried to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WALLONN7 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 28 minutes ago, DKT27 said: I think the original article was probably deleted, I cannot find either. Everywhere I tried to do so. I also tried to find such "negotiation" on the Bloomberg's website ... Unsuccessful ... So I was emphatic in saying that is nothing more than speculation. Who does not remember the AMD be "for sale"?!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator DKT27 Posted March 18, 2016 Author Administrator Share Posted March 18, 2016 42 minutes ago, WALLONN7 said: I also tried to find such "negotiation" on the Bloomberg's website ... Unsuccessful ... So I was emphatic in saying that is nothing more than speculation. Who does not remember the AMD be "for sale"?!... Same. Speculation, yes, that's why the title, but it has some substance to it. As you might have read in other articles, some are mentioning that Intel recently is not following nVidia's way, like, supporting FreeSync instead of nVidia's G-Sync and such. The idea is that Intel is trying to or getting comfortable with AMD. But yes, all this means nothing unless it happens or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 6 hours ago, jamesDDI said: So AMD itself will contribute to reinforce an already existent monopoly (Intel). Well done. The world is crazying... Intel will remain a monopoly only thing i ever bought besides one PC with AMD and they drooped support for drivers for windows 10 for it as soon as it came out. You end up stuck with legacy drivers for computers that came with Windows 8 and even there dropping catalyst for Linux long before they have the new Hybrid drivers ready and the ones they have now are not fast enough . Always with Linux when a new release with a new kernel you have to wait to get full performance . So i have to put off installing new versions of Linux on my default drive . People who use Intel never have these problems . I'm surprised there still in business. Only thing kept them in business is because they sell cheap stuff and we thought we were getting a good deal but in 2015-2016 we seen that saving a dollar one year well cost you many dollars a few years latter for a upgrade years before the HW stops working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WALLONN7 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 3 hours ago, DKT27 said: Same. Speculation, yes, that's why the title, but it has some substance to it. As you might have read in other articles, some are mentioning that Intel recently is not following nVidia's way, like, supporting FreeSync instead of nVidia's G-Sync and such. The idea is that Intel is trying to or getting comfortable with AMD. But yes, all this means nothing unless it happens or so. Do not get me wrong... Nothing I've said so far has referred to you, even less when we consider that only now you expressed your point of view about the article, and as much I wanted to, I do not read minds, nor foresee events... that said, I hope to have broken any possible misunderstanding in our dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vibranium Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 AMD used to be so good, so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylence Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 10 hours ago, DKT27 said: Same. Speculation, yes, that's why the title, but it has some substance to it. As you might have read in other articles, some are mentioning that Intel recently is not following nVidia's way, like, supporting FreeSync instead of nVidia's G-Sync and such. The idea is that Intel is trying to or getting comfortable with AMD. But yes, all this means nothing unless it happens or so. It's all about the money after all, technology seems to be the 2nd priority for these companies. no surprise right. btw it's probably only speculations, AMD is doing good both in hardware and software parts. at least if they wanted to post some fake news they could've make it believable a little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylence Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 4 hours ago, vibranium said: AMD used to be so good, so good. Used to? what makes you think it's not good anymore? I've had both GPUs for 3 generations of PC upgrades and every time AMD (a.k.a ATI) beat Nvidia's a$$ in terms of overclocking capability and gaming performance. now AMD is more stronger than any time. P.S if you try to compare GPUs of Nvidia and AMD using this website, just don't. it's not that realistic as you might think. you can clearly see this by this example: http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-FURY-X-vs-GeForce-GTX-TITAN-Z apparently they tried to compare Fury X vs Titan Z, (single GPU VS dual GPU, Lol) anyway, look at the Effective Memory Clock Speed, and how they compare a HBM memory clock with GRRD5 memory clock, (1k Mhz of Fury X VS 7k of Titan-Z). and didn't mention that that 1k of a HBM memory is a LOT more effective than that old GRRD5's 7k clock, yet they show it in the chart as if HBM is weaker than GDDR5. another, just look at the Pixel Rate on the right, it shows Fury X has 67.2 GPixel/s, whereas the Real number is 146GPixel/s. like what the hell?! Spoiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator DKT27 Posted March 19, 2016 Author Administrator Share Posted March 19, 2016 12 hours ago, WALLONN7 said: Do not get me wrong... Nothing I've said so far has referred to you, even less when we consider that only now you expressed your point of view about the article, and as much I wanted to, I do not read minds, nor foresee events... that said, I hope to have broken any possible misunderstanding in our dialogue. Well, I never thought so. It's all fine. I know you were not referring to me personally. What I'm saying is that while posting an article, it is a kind of my responsibility that the article is not misdirecting readers and it contains some base to it. That is why I prefer not to post hearsay articles, somehow, which this one may come into it. The reason I'm giving an explanation in my post above is that yes, I cannot provide more proof the back to claims, but the claims does have some base to it and even if it may not become so in real, it is something we should not ignore, I think. But finally, I completely agree to you on it, it's complete speculation. Again, this is not against what you were saying, it's just me saying my view on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.