Rumor: Intel may be in talks to license graphics tech from AMD

As Nvidia and Intel's patent-licensing agreement begins to wind down, it appears Intel may be looking to create a new graphics IP licensing agreement with AMD. Analyst responses to an apparently private Bloomberg report circulated by Barron's suggest that the two former rivals are in talks to make a deal, but details of what patents or technology would be involved in that agreement weren't disclosed.

The biggest win for AMD in any potential deal may be cold, hard cash. Intel agreed to pay Nvidia $1.5 billion over the course of the companies' five-year cross-licensing agreement, so a similar deal with AMD would give the red team an infusion of capital after several quarters of losses.

In return, analyst Christopher Rolland told Barron's that Intel might gain some defensive patent ammo against Nvidia if the two companies return to hostilities after their current patent-licensing agreement ends. Given the performance of Intel's latest integrated graphics solutions, it seems unlikely we'd see Radeon branding on an Intel CPU any time soon.

Comments closed
    • BaronMatrix
    • 4 years ago

    I’m reminded of the sene in GOODFELLAS…

    And you believe it this prick asked me to christen his kid… $5B a year I charged him…

      • ronch
      • 4 years ago

      Check spelling.

    • Musafir_86
    • 4 years ago

    -Hmm, maybe this time Intel is eyeing contract wins for next gen consoles? Intel CPU & AMD GPU on a single die?

    [url<]http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/an-upgradable-xbox-one-think-this-one-through-microsoft/[/url<] [url<]http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/report-sony-working-on-upgraded-4k-capable-ps4/[/url<] -If it's true, then AMD *must* refuse this firmly as they would lose the contract from Sony, Microsoft, and possibly even Nintendo! Regards.

    • dikowexeyu
    • 4 years ago

    Intel simultaneously doesn’t maintains his drivers with the frequency done by nVidia/AMD, and does not publishes the information needed to effectively program his integrated GPUs right to the metal.

    As consequence, you can’t squeeze all the performance from Intel processors, and there are not compilators (for example for Visual Studio) allowing reasonable abstraction for parallel processing using GPGPU on Intel processors.

    Dealings with AMD will surely exactly restrict that information, so what’s the point?

    Historically, publishing that information was key for making Intel processors one of the most successful architectures. You knew all, and it didn’t impeded Intel from being the dominant manufacturer. To the contrary, it made Intel the dominant one.

    So, the obscurity of nVidia/AMD makes his GPUs less valuable and less useful. It doesn’t make sense, and yet, you can bet that if Intel uses AMD tech, it will also use AMD obscurity.

    • AJSB
    • 4 years ago

    Meanwhile…Unreal Engine 4 starts to have support for Vulkan:

    [url<]http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Vulkan-Code-UE4[/url<] Vulkan also have "Async Compute" (which is driving mad NVIDIA Fanboys in Dx12) and Khronos already said that want pass some of its functionality to future OpenGL 4.6... ...i wonder if that includes "Async compute"... Interestingly, DOOM 2016, which is offcially a OpenGL 4.5 game, seems also have support for Async Compute with AMD GCN GPUs....so , i wonder if DOOM 2016 is a hybrid OpenGL4.5/Vulkan game.

    • Unknown-Error
    • 4 years ago

    Intel will be giving AMD a lifeline. The price is probably going to be a bargain compared to what nVidia might charge in the future.

      • ronch
      • 4 years ago

      It’s sad how AMD is so desperate for cash that they’ll take $500 for $500 million worth of IP.

    • ronch
    • 4 years ago

    Do you think this has anything to do with Polaris? Maybe Polaris is shaping up to be a killer piece of silicon that Intel is paying attention?

    • ronch
    • 4 years ago

    Former rivals? Why, are they no longer rivals? AMD may have fallen behind but they intend to make a comeback.

    Also, I hope AMD doesn’t give away too many crown jewels. I’m also afraid AMD might ask too little. They’re very good at getting the short end of the stick, whether they’re buying or selling. Then again I think Lisa is one tough chick.

      • Klimax
      • 4 years ago

      They are not in position to be too picky. And comeback has yet to happen. Never (again) trust AMD promises and PR.

        • ronch
        • 4 years ago

        Even when they were in a much better position they almost always got the short end of the stick. Nexgen, ATI, sale of IP to Qualcomm, etc. Buy high, sell low.

    • albundy
    • 4 years ago

    so will this lead to intel absorbing all of Radeon tech and leave AMD to perish?

    …what? it’s almost april 1st. one can only dream.

    • DavidC1
    • 4 years ago

    Now don’t anyone be mistaken thinking this will lead to Radeon Intel GPUs. That’s not how things work.

    AMD/Nvidia worked on enhancing GPUs first. They probably pioneered on lot of GPU technologies. At some point when developing a competitive GPU, Intel can’t avoid licensing them.

    Remember AMD licensed x86 from Intel and made a top notch CPU. While initially it may have looked similar, nowadays they have little in common.

      • Klimax
      • 4 years ago

      In a way, it is a pity Intel abandoned their GPUs in early 00s. It could have been more interesting space. (They would have at least more expertise for Larabee project)

    • Thbbft
    • 4 years ago

    The future of graphics is untethered AR and VR where AMD currently has the premiere IP and hardware and the graphics space AMD is focusing it’s resources on.

    Intel is WAY behind in that space. Makes all kinds of sense for them to team up with AMD and it’s OPEN ecosystems to get a foothold in that space.

      • Klimax
      • 4 years ago

      AMD doesn’t exist in AR. IIRC that’s dominantly custom developed like is case with Hololens. In VR NVidia got there first including SW kits and initial support in Maxwell. So far AMD’s offering is not really tested (“premiere” moniker is currently nothing more then PR marketing) and there is no independent data available on true state of market. (I don’t trust PR announcement we saw recently)

    • UnfriendlyFire
    • 4 years ago

    AMD’s Vega GPU arch + Intel’s Ice Lake CPU arch + indium gallium arsenide or 7nm silicon + HBM2 + L4 cache = Iris Pro APU on steroids

    That would pretty much force Nividia out of the low and the mid-range desktop/mobile GPU market…

    Although in reality, Intel probably just want to protect themselves from IP-related lawsuits, either from big boys (ex: Nividia) or the patent trolls swarm.

      • Thbbft
      • 4 years ago

      AMD GCN + Intel GCN + a comprehensive open ecosystem = Nvidia who?

    • AJSB
    • 4 years ago

    …or is it possible that this ends up with a PARTNERSHIP between INTEL and AMD to make a MOBILE APU ?

    [url<]http://www.fudzilla.com/news/graphics/40257-amd-has-not-given-up-on-mobile-gpu[/url<] A partnership that makes a chip with a Intel CPU core with AMD iGPU inside for the Mobile market ?

      • Klimax
      • 4 years ago

      I don’t think Intel needs AMD for that. They already cover things by mobile Iris.

        • AJSB
        • 4 years ago

        …that is c**p in comparison.

        Intel have the best CPU as for performance goes with the lowest power drain but their iGPUs, in special bellow the top tier, sucks big time…not to mention drivers quality that much woese than AMD drivers.

          • Andrew Lauritzen
          • 4 years ago

          That’s just factually incorrect… why do I keep having to point this out to people. You’re relying on weird brand loyalty and marketing here instead of facts.

      • maxxcool
      • 4 years ago

      You will never see amd branding on an Intel CPU ever .. however you may see asynchronous compute being imported into the Intel GPU in the near future… ** that I can totally see **

        • AJSB
        • 4 years ago

        Me too….right now only AMD have true Async Compute, NO ONE ELSE, NVIDIA really f****d it up.
        I bet that Intel want that tech more than anything.

        The thing is….if AMD licenses its hardware solution to Intel, it will loose its advantage over Intel in the iGPU market….this will hurt its APU market potential BAD…Intel already proved that can make fast iGPUs but it’s expensive because needs lots of eDRAM, Async Compute could allow Intel make very fast iGPUs (faster than anything from AMD) at lower price tags.

        I believe that, unless AMD is really desperate for money, they SHOULD NOT licence it.
        It’s in the best of AMD interests NOT to do so, because that its their only edge over Intel right now in iGPU market.

        iGPUs are usually scorned about by Gamers but the truth is that, IIRC, MAJORITY of Steam players use…iGPUs :”)

          • VincentHanna
          • 4 years ago

          UNLESS AMD is really desperate for money?

        • Meadows
        • 4 years ago

        Actually, an AMD gaming PC with an “intel inside” sticker would be hilarious.

    • Meadows
    • 4 years ago

    This is simultaneously a great opportunity for a little extra revenue for AMD, and an admission from intel that they probably don’t want to bother with GPUs despite all their recent advances.

    It is that second part that intrigues me. I wonder if it’s true or if there was a more elaborate reason behind this.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 4 years ago

      They probably just need patent licenses so they aren’t infringing on Nvidia or AMD.

        • Meadows
        • 4 years ago

        Just so I get this clear: they still want to bother with graphics, but in order to improve it any further they’re going to have to invoke other companies’ patents and they don’t see a quick way around that?

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 4 years ago

          No, in order to keep making the GPUs they’re making now they are using patents of Nvidia. They need access to either AMD’s or Nvidia’s patents to keep producing what they have now.

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            So… if this is not news, then why is it news?

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 4 years ago

            They’re going to pay AMD instead of Nvidia. That’s the news.

            • nanoflower
            • 4 years ago

            It’s news because it’s gets people looking at the site that originated the news which brings them more income. Much like many of the things discussed in the news isn’t unexpected but they have to provide new content so they make do with what they have. Just look at your 24 news channels and see how much truly new content they have in a day. At best it’s usually no more than an hours worth but they manage to fill 24 hours every day.

            • Klimax
            • 4 years ago

            Correct. Back then they tried to get around Nvidia’s patents. Performance was subpar, because Nvidia got best implementations of technology in DirectX 9-11 covered. That’s also reason why Intel was able to improve IGPs so much.

            IIRC it happened around or after Sandy Bridge.

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      Intel needs a patent license and paying AMD (who Intel doesn’t see as much of a threat) is nice for 1. the patent pool; 2. Keeping AMD afloat in a way that doesn’t draw suspicion.

      People always think that it’s AMD vs. Intel, but in some ways Nvidia is out to get Intel a lot more than AMD is.

        • w76
        • 4 years ago

        I think you nailed it. Nice way to float AMD a subsidy, because the End Times for Intel would be a total AMD collapse and leaving them the monopoly. The EU would demand enough to fix their immigration mess, China would just feel justified in stealing everything they could, and the US wouldn’t know if they should protect Intel from those two or join in and beat them up too.

        All I wonder about is if the real intent is communicated through side channels (probably illegally, but certainly part of human nature) or both parties just have to understand/hope the other side is on the same page in terms of the game theory going on?

      • hescominsoon
      • 4 years ago

      Intel’s graphics drivers have always sucked..maybe with team red doing their graphics now Intel will be relevant in the graphics world with decent drivers.

    • AJSB
    • 4 years ago

    …and if AMD DOESN’T license (part of) its GPU tech to Intel ?

    With Intel loosing access to NVIDIA patents in Q1’17, what will happen in this case to Intel APUs ? (for all purposes, Intel CPUs w/iGPUs *are* APUs, IMHO, YMMV).

    Will Intel be forced to halt their production ?
    Will Intel be forced to disable the iGPU inside their APUs and sell them as normal CPUs ?

      • nanoflower
      • 4 years ago

      Nothing will happen because one of the two companies will end licensing their IP to Intel. Perhaps Intel will have to loosen the purse strings a bit but one of them will be forthcoming. There’s too much at stake with their other deals with Intel to try and force Intel out of the business. After all the AMD stockholders would riot if they knew Intel came to AMD with a big offer for the IP and they refused it. Plus if it came down to Intel could just make an offer to buy the IP and license it back to AMD. (I would say they would buy the company but that probably wouldn’t get past the FTC, but buying the IP would be fine with the FTC.)

        • AJSB
        • 4 years ago

        In the past i already discussed here and in other forums that *if* AMD was going bankrupt, Intel could acquire the Graphics division from AMD and would allow NVIDIA to acquire the AMD x86 license (that license is NOT transferable in any form or shape UNLESS Intel agrees with).

        That way, both Intel and NVIDIA would acquire what they really want and NONE of them could be accused of dominant position. Both would have a graphics IP and a x86 license with enough weight in each category to avoid such accusations.

        • UnfriendlyFire
        • 4 years ago

        Intel could argue that ARM and ARM-based manufacturers (ex: Qualcomm) are a bigger threat than AMD, and that ARM expressed interest in expanding into Intel’s server market, their bread-and-butter that funds much of their R&D.

        The mobile/desktop CPUs allow Intel to justify having so many fabs and investing in their fab processes.

      • maxxcool
      • 4 years ago

      AMD cannot afford to make a deal with Intel.

    • Deanjo
    • 4 years ago

    Under the current cross-licensing agreement, Intel already has access to AMD’s graphics IP. Since Intel doesn’t require to license x86-64 under the current agreement that is soon to expire this is actually cutting down what the current one offers to AMD.

    • NoOne ButMe
    • 4 years ago

    Why does everyone keep thinking the 1.5b is for licensing? It’s under licensing because Nvidia was smart, or lucky. Probably a combo of both.

    The 1.5b comes from the settlement to stop Nvidia’s lawsuite. And Nvidia is paying Intel money per quarter for some patents. If Intel values Nvidia’s license at over $10 (5*) million a quarter I would be surprised.

    Any money AMD can get would help it though.

    *nvidia is paying Intel 5m/q currently, so if Intel values Nvidia’s at 10m and Nvidia Intel’s at 5m the net per quarter is 5m going Nvidia’s way. Nvidia values their graphics patents at 40-50m/year last I heard for context.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 4 years ago

    As long as they don’t use AMD drivers we’ll be in business. AMD has great hardware design, they have historically succeeded in spite of their driver issues because of their fairly consistent hardware superiority. Nvidia sort of throttles in and out of awesomeness every 3 generations, but their drivers are always rock solid.

      • 223 Fan
      • 4 years ago

      Except when they aren’t. Like the last one that caused my co-worker to reinstall Windows to get his computer to work again.

      • tipoo
      • 4 years ago

      You want…Intel, to write graphics drivers, rather than AMD?

      I’ll tell you first hand, Intels graphics hardware came a long way, so did their drivers, but they’re not in the same ballpark as AMDs or Nvidias. I’ve had very little problem with AMDs in the last few years, but Intels are always breaking games and not recognizing themselves. And just being way behind on the per-game optimizations/fixes , if they ever come.

      Intel – fab, CPU
      AMD – GPU IP, graphics drivers, now that would be a good APU combo

        • ronch
        • 4 years ago

        Yeah. Intel is tops when it comes to CPUs, fab tech, and chipsets. Graphics are so-so at best.

        AMD is not really bad at graphics save for power consumption relative to Maxwell, but they intend to fix that problem with Polaris which is a bleeding edge GPU design. Bulldozer has also given them a hard time but they have Zen coming out which is an incredible undertaking. Drivers have also been getting better and better (although I personally haven’t had any complaints with AMD GPU drivers). All this from a cash-strapped little company with no fabs. Something has to be said about the quality of people working at AMD. Working at Intel is hard, but you gotta be 2 times as tough when you work for AMD because you don’t sit on bajillions of cash to burn if you shoot yourself in the foot.

          • swaaye
          • 4 years ago

          Intel wasn’t taking graphics particularly seriously until a few years ago. Probably starting with Sandy Bridge. I think they’ve made a lot of progress since then. Haswell and newer are quite capable of playing games. Their control panel even has customizable game profiles now.

          That’s a nice bit of crazy in your second paragraph. I don’t know what attracts engineers to stay at or work at AMD but it’s probably not “working extra hard for the red team is more rewarding”.

          • Kretschmer
          • 4 years ago

          [quote<]you gotta be 2 times as tough when you work for AMD [/quote<] Or have half the execution standards. Let's not lionize companies.

      • thedosbox
      • 4 years ago

      You clearly haven’t tried using Intel’s graphics drivers

      [url<]http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/03/review-much-improved-iris-gpu-makes-the-skylake-nuc-a-major-upgrade/[/url<]

      • ronch
      • 4 years ago

      I applaud AMD for stepping up their driver efforts though. They know drivers have been their soft spot for a while but they are burning the midnight oil to address this issue. Gotta give them big points for that.

        • nanoflower
        • 4 years ago

        Yet they seem to have lost all interest in improving their DX11 drivers and are putting all their effort into DX12. Much like Nvidia talks about how they can do asynch compute but still haven’t implemented in their drivers.

          • Pwnstar
          • 4 years ago

          DX11 is the past. Let’s focus on the future.

            • Klimax
            • 4 years ago

            Wrong. DX 11 is past, present and future. DX 12 is parallel not replacement.

          • ronch
          • 4 years ago

          I think we’re both akin to the two polarities of a battery.

      • ET3D
      • 4 years ago

      NVIDIA’s drivers are rock solid as long as you like your GPU’s being fried, all old DX8 games not working, or any other major shit they bombard you with occasionally. Most Vista crashes early on were a result of NVIDIA drivers.

      In my experience, AMD drivers tend to have more small niggling issues, but the really big screwups are NVIDIA’s.

      (An anecdote I like mentioning, probably from 2003, I was working on a game and found a bug in a certain area in both ATI and NVIDIA drivers when reading very small render targets. AMD returned wrong results, NVIDIA caused Windows to hang. I find that typical.)

    • Thbbft
    • 4 years ago

    Simple 1+2=3 equation.

    1 The next gen consoles will be VR and 4K beasts.
    2 The next gen consoles will contain AMD Zen/GCN processors and middleware.
    3 Nvidia graphics IP will lose it’s usefulness to Intel into the future.

      • arbiter9605
      • 4 years ago

      just like they were suposed to be 1080p 60fps beast’s?

        • Thbbft
        • 4 years ago

        My heart soars like an eagle to see a techie living in the past.

          • Klimax
          • 4 years ago

          Zen is still just PR promises nothing more and GCN in low TDPs is barely able to compete with Intel’s IGP…

            • Spunjji
            • 4 years ago

            Not a fair comparison given the process tech deficit AMD and nVidia have suffered. The really interesting comparison will be Polaris.

          • maxxcool
          • 4 years ago

          Given amd’s track record for underperforming and under-delivering for the last several years he’s not wrong to say that

      • Meadows
      • 4 years ago

      Never mind the next gen, the current one could already use an overhaul and it hasn’t even been 3 years yet.

        • Thbbft
        • 4 years ago

        Matter of timing. The PS3 and Xbox 360 required a very long life cycle to recoup the up front losses. By the time they HAD to be upgraded, 14nm and HBM was known to be the future but were not yet ready, so AMD offered an very cost effective interim solution that would tide them over until 14nm on advanced architectures coupled with affordable HBM memory made 4K and VR gaming doable and cost effective.

          • K-L-Waster
          • 4 years ago

          Either that, or both MS and Sony wanted to keep their component costs down and AMD was the only supplier willing to cut their own throat on margins.

      • ace24
      • 4 years ago

      2 Seems like a pretty bold prediction. Given that Xbox 360 -> One was an 8 year timespan, claiming to know what hardware brands will be in an ~5 year off, unannounced, possibly not even in the design phase console is a bit silly.

      Neither Sony nor Microsoft has ever used the same core hardware vendors 2 consoles in a row.

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 4 years ago

        They used ATI/AMD twice in a row with the 360 GPU and now the XBO GPU.

          • Klimax
          • 4 years ago

          Yet no impact on Intel’s decision to license Nvidia’s patents. (Killing 3rd point)

        • Thbbft
        • 4 years ago

        You’re right of course, and wise too. In tech most of all experience shows the past predicts the future.

        What was I thinking???

      • Klimax
      • 4 years ago

      It didn’t happen before, unlikely to happen today. Console CPU didn’t matter before, unlikely to matter this time.

      AMD is in consoles for long time yet Intel wanted Nvidia’s patents before.

      • hescominsoon
      • 4 years ago

      considering how atrocious intel’s graphics drivers have always been this would be a great improvement.

        • swaaye
        • 4 years ago

        I’ve had pretty good luck with their drivers when messing with some games on Haswell and Broadwell chips.

      • southrncomfortjm
      • 4 years ago

      4K or high end VR costs way too much for console to consider them even in the next generation. You can’t even buy a 4K capable video card for the price of a console, much less an entire computer.

      Next gen, especially if Pascal and Polaris really deliver, we might actually get consoles where every game is 1080p60fps. Maybe.

      • Coyote_ar
      • 4 years ago

      next gen consoles?? like in another 3 years? thats waaaaaay too long to make predictions, thats ages in tech.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 4 years ago

      Point 1 — you have any proof of this?

      Point 2 — you have any proof of this either?

      Point 3 — it’s been donkey’s ages since NVidia has been in a console, yet Intel had more interest in their IP than in AMD’s. What’s different this time around?

      Not to mention that having all those console wins hasn’t exactly kept AMD from losing money faster than a drunk at a casino….

    • south side sammy
    • 4 years ago

    I can see the next generation of consoles now. And if Microsoft throws some money at this…??? the possibilities.

    I’ll add: something the size of a NUC with the graphics capability of a $1 gpu and 16core high end CPU…. for around $600 U.S.

    • Leader952
    • 4 years ago

    Just the latest PUMP piece to drive AMD shares higher.

    When this does not come to be (like so many other rumors) the stock will deflate.

    It’s called PUMP n DUMP.

    • DPete27
    • 4 years ago

    Why does Intel need to do this? (with either AMD OR Nvidia) Furthermore, it seems that if they switch from Nvidia to AMD, they’d have to “re-do” some aspects of their IGP tech they borrowed from Nvidia to steer clear of patent infringements?

      • Flatland_Spider
      • 4 years ago

      AMD still has better graphics tech then Intel, and they’ve been working on integrating GPUs and CPUs longer then Intel has. This places Nvidia as the odd man out, and they need to follow Intel and AMD because that’s a huge chunk of market there. AMD gets some cash, and Intel still has a high profile x86 competitor to keep the lawyers at bay.

        • mganai
        • 4 years ago

        Not an apples to apples comparison exactly. Intel’s been using a smaller portion of the die for their iGPUs in contrast to AMD’s 50/50 split APU solutions.

          • NoOne ButMe
          • 4 years ago

          Depends on which die you look at for Intel. If you compare 2 Intel Skylake cores with 2 AMD modules than this has been untrue since Broadwell I think.

        • Klimax
        • 4 years ago

        Not really. Since Haswell IGP are fairly matching APUs. The only thing saving AMD is Intel’s unwillingness to put powerful IGPs on cheaper CPUs. Otherwise Iris (Pro) would be cleaning up AMD from last market segments…

      • SoulSlave
      • 4 years ago

      These license agreements are more about the legal stuff than the tech stuff. I bet Intel is more interested in AMD’s patents than their technology.

    • chuckula
    • 4 years ago

    Bear in mind that this doesn’t mean that Intel graphics == Radeons all of the sudden. Intel already has licenses from Nvidia but obviously Intel’s IGP != Maxwell or some other Nvidia architecture.

    It could be useful for spreading technologies that AMD wants to push to a wider set of platforms, and of course AMD sure wouldn’t complain about a nice chunk of change from Intel either.

      • Flatland_Spider
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<]It could be useful for spreading technologies that AMD wants to push to a wider set of platforms,[/quote<] I think this is the main point. Intel would rather send some cash to AMD rather then spend engineering hours reinventing stuff. It's a win all around, except for Nvidia who would have to follow Intel and AMD.

        • Klimax
        • 4 years ago

        They actually already tried once to reinvent stuff to avoid patents held by Nvidia. Performance was not good. IIRC late GMA and first HD gen. (aka Sandy Bridge)

    • torquer
    • 4 years ago

    Because what the world needs is AMD tech hampered by literally the worst drivers on the planet.

      • Flatland_Spider
      • 4 years ago

      If you’re trolling, check the performance figures for AMD’s catalyst driver. 🙂 It’s not exactly a shining example of what a driver should be.

        • torquer
        • 4 years ago

        You ever use Intel’s drivers?

        I haven’t owned an AMD product in years, so I’m far from a fanboy. Intel’s drivers suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck way harder than AMD’s.

          • Flatland_Spider
          • 4 years ago

          On Linux, yeah. They work well.

            • torquer
            • 4 years ago

            And the other members of the 1.4% of the market are probably happy too, but for the rest of us Intel’s drivers suck. Not only are they crash happy, but you often have to use the BS “custom” OEM drivers which get updated as often as Krogoth is impressed by something.

    • DancinJack
    • 4 years ago

    Why do people think Intel is going to put AMD GPUs on their chips? Where is that notion coming from?

      • Duct Tape Dude
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<]a potential deal would enable the company to boost the graphics performance in their own chips, or perhaps to use high performance GPUs in areas of data center.[/quote<] To me, this sounds like putting something Radeon-esque into an Intel IGP. Sorry if I misinterpreted that.

        • DancinJack
        • 4 years ago

        No need to apologize to me. Think about it though, it’s not like Intel produces/uses anything Nvidia branded now do they? It’s just to get the IP so they can keep building legit iGPUs.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 4 years ago

      The headline. It’s pretty clickbait-y.

      It could’ve easily read, “Intel may be in talks to license graphics patents from AMD,” or., “Intel may be in talks to license graphics IP from AMD.” Patents and/or ip are much less sexy.

      Instead, it used the vague “tech”. I assume most commenters simply read over the weird “tech” and saw, “Intel may be in talks to license graphics from AMD.”

    • adampk17
    • 4 years ago

    The plot thickens….

      • Visigoth
      • 4 years ago

      I’ll play along.

      So what “plot” would that be?

    • dragontamer5788
    • 4 years ago

    The issue with AMD’s APUs is their lack of memory bandwidth. AMD Fans have hypothesized that GDDR5 mobos or even HBM APUs would solve the issue.

    But if instead Intel-AMD cross-licensed Crystalwell/Radeon L4 Cache came to fruition first, I might have a nerdgasm.

    • DancinJack
    • 4 years ago

    Highly, highly doubt a licensing deal with AMD could garner 1.5B/5 years.

    • nanoflower
    • 4 years ago

    From what I’ve seen the thought is that this is more of a negotiating tactic for Intel to use in their negotiations with Nvidia. It’s doubtful that Intel intends to do anything more with GPUs than they are doing now so even if Intel licensed IP from AMD it would be just to insure they can continue making their integrated GPU with the Haswell/Broadwell/Skylake/Cannonlake processors.

    • Duct Tape Dude
    • 4 years ago

    Man that’s interesting. On one hand, an Intel chip with Radeon graphics would make an awesome gaming laptop SoC, on the other, it could easily sink APUs.

      • the
      • 4 years ago

      It wouldn’t happen through Intel or AMD themselves but they both license IP for SoC designs. Not beyond possibility that a 3rd party could get the Atom core from Intel and graphics from AMD and put them together. However, this is highly improbable and the Frankenstein SoC would be shunned by both companies.

      • DancinJack
      • 4 years ago

      They aren’t going to be using AMD GPUs. It’s just so they can continue to use some of the technologies inherent to GPUs in their own products.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This