Intel threatening to revoke AMD's x86 license

[Trooper110]

Intel, AMD in licensing brawl over GlobalFoundries - The Tech Report

[Skud]

hah

Almost considered buying an Intel for my next build...almost.

[DougBob]

I hope Intel wises up. I'm afraid this type action would drive me away from the Intel purchase also. I've been looking at the intel quad core, but I can always go with the AMD

[rusty99]

I hope Intel wises up. I'm afraid this type action would drive me away from the Intel purchase also. I've been looking at the intel quad core, but I can always go with the AMD

Buying an AMD chip might be difficult if they had to stop producing new chips, although there is always used chips on ebay... however, once supplies dry up, the prices would skyrocket.

That all said, I really doubt that Intel wants to kill AMD, seeing as it would only serve to prove the antitrust complains. They'll probably come to some sort of deal soon.

[Sirex]

Well if intel do pull amd's licence it will only serve to create a mac/pc situation with 32bit/64bit on computers.

[Duke{CLR}]

I say let the courts sort it out. Unless it's close the main decision to drop my $$ will be cost performance. If it's close I may decide to switch over an action like this. I just hope AMD stays in the game so we can all benefit from the competition.

[Ghost_Rain]

Well I'll Stick with Intel because my I7 cpu is just awesome and they is no AMD which Can come close to it

[Hammy]

Let's approach this differently.

What are the major differences in the two?

Honestly, I went back to Intel because 4 years ago, all the board manufacturers were giving the best attention to Intel, and the AMD boards were just crappy.

In a nutshell, to me there are no differences at all from my experience. Yes there are major differences, but overall to Joe User, you cant see the differences.

In 2001, the main difference was that AMD sold you a CPU that you didnt have unlock if you were into OCing your system.

In 2002, the main difference was that Intel was keeping up with the latest technology and AMD was several months behind.

In 2005, the last year I built a "ground - up" rig (today I will go find a rig on sale that has most of the components that I would want and then replace what I dont want), the difference was that Motherboard Manufacturers were giving Intel all the attention.

Other things I have noted over the years:

I have sent back more AMD CPUs and Motherboards than Intel. (gigabyte, MSI, ABIT, ASUS, and a few others in the Mobo Dept)

With Intel, I have never had that "ghost" problem (no pun intended) where you have an issue that only comes up randomly in your rig

So what are the differences today?

[WalkinTarget]

Well I'll Stick with Intel because my I7 cpu is just awesome and they is no AMD which Can come close to it

Hope that wasn't an HTPC build, because anybody that buys Intel for HTPC made the wrong decision. You are approaching this like its a race, when in fact PC builders buy based on more than pure speed for some builds.


Good read on Ars on this as well:
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news...-staredown.ars

Interesting points to be made:
AMD's x86 license is non transferable. If IBM/Nvidia/whoever bought them out, they probably would not be able to make x86 chips.

This is why AMD going out of business would be terrible for the consumer. It would essentially give Intel a complete monopoly, leaving on Via with partial x86 licensing.

Intel already have their own 64bit, its called IA-64. Sure it isn't anything like x86-64 but development there could be moved to x86 saving Intel time and money.

Intel owns the right of x86. But AMD owns the rights for 64-bit CPU's. So that means... if both pull out.... AMD won't make CPU's other than true 64-bit CPU's and Intel will return back to the 32 bit processors.

I highly doubt that Intel doesn't have a backup plan if they lose x86-64 but it is more likely that Intel is looking to renegotiate the x86 deal to favor them more.

[Ghost_Rain]

Hope that wasn't an HTPC build, because anybody that buys Intel for HTPC made the wrong decision. You are approaching this like its a race, when in fact PC builders buy based on more than pure speed for some builds.


Good read on Ars on this as well:
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news...-staredown.ars

Interesting points to be made:
AMD's x86 license is non transferable. If IBM/Nvidia/whoever bought them out, they probably would not be able to make x86 chips.

This is why AMD going out of business would be terrible for the consumer. It would essentially give Intel a complete monopoly, leaving on Via with partial x86 licensing.

Intel already have their own 64bit, its called IA-64. Sure it isn't anything like x86-64 but development there could be moved to x86 saving Intel time and money.

Intel owns the right of x86. But AMD owns the rights for 64-bit CPU's. So that means... if both pull out.... AMD won't make CPU's other than true 64-bit CPU's and Intel will return back to the 32 bit processors.

I highly doubt that Intel doesn't have a backup plan if they lose x86-64 but it is more likely that Intel is looking to renegotiate the x86 deal to favor them more.

No it wasn't an HTPC build it was based on the best Cpu on the market at the time because new Am3 Cpu by Amd are using a clone of the Intel 45nm cpu. So this is how I based my Build on.

[WalkinTarget]

Ghost, my point being ... without AMD what do you think you would have paid for that Intel CPU ?? Competition breeds price cuts, and I would say that it has NEVER been a better time to be buying either ATI or Nvidia. A freakin' 4870 1gb card for $150 ????



So its fine that you bought high end yet again, but Intel isn't always the best buy. I've bvought more AMD chips in the past year than I've bought Intel, and I sure as hell don't feel bad because of it. I buy for a specific purpose, so one AMD chip upgraded my Home Server, and another powers my HTPC. An Intel build would not provide low power consumption compared to either AMD chip, so that is why I continue to support AMD.

[Ghost_Rain]

I only paid $350 for my I7 and I bought an ATI 4870x2 card which died on me after 4 weeks.

[Hammy]

I only paid $350 for my I7 and I bought an ATI 4870x2 card which died on me after 4 weeks.

Not a bad price.
But the actual cost of an i7 includes a new Mobo, all of which require DDR3 memory- so add that, and that is your actualized cost of owning an i7.

[Ghost_Rain]

Not a bad price.
But the actual cost of an i7 includes a new Mobo, all of which require DDR3 memory- so add that, and that is your actualized cost of owning an i7.

The total cost of parts for my rig.

CoolerMaster Centurion 534 Plus Case ?40 (Black)
Asus P6T Deluxe V2 ?225
3 Gig Tri Channel DDR3 Corsair Dominator 1600mhz ?110
Akasa Nero AK-967 Intel LGA 1366, Heat Pipe cooler, 120mm PWM fan ?26
Gainward ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 "Rampage GLH" 2048MB GDDR5 ?329
Intel I7 920 2.66Ghz OEM ?200
Sohouse Floppy/Card Reader ?20

[Hammy]

The total cost of parts for my rig.

CoolerMaster Centurion 534 Plus Case ?40 (Black)
Asus P6T Deluxe V2 ?225
3 Gig Tri Channel DDR3 Corsair Dominator 1600mhz ?110
Akasa Nero AK-967 Intel LGA 1366, Heat Pipe cooler, 120mm PWM fan ?26
Gainward ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 "Rampage GLH" 2048MB GDDR5 ?329
Intel I7 920 2.66Ghz OEM ?200
Sohouse Floppy/Card Reader ?20

wow.
Thats more than I expected.
Here is what I mean when I say that the i7 costs more than just the processor
US Dollars=
$281 for the CPU
$316 for the Mobo
$154 for the mem

The cost of the new technology transition is $751USD

I'm sure it is more than worth it, especially if you are like me and are on a Core Duo with a 1.86 core.

I'm probably just going to hang back and wait for a game that forces me to do an upgrade. Very nice rig though.