Best offers
|
Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor... | $349.99 Dell Home More info |
|
Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad... | $195.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Core i5 750 Qaud Core Processor... | $199.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Core i7 Extreme Edition I7-975 Quad... | $1195.70 PC Connection More info |
|
Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad... | $204.32 PC Connection More info |
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE: Same Speed, Less Power
Today AMD is introducing a revision of its flagship Phenom II X4 965 processor rated at 125W, replacing the 140W part, as well as a new 3.1 version of its Overdrive overclocking software. We take a quick look at both to see what advantages they offer. Read More
-
Overclocked On Air: Intel's Core i5-750
Intel's new quad-core i5 and i7 CPUs for LGA 1156 deliver plenty of performance and impressive efficiency. But how far can they be overclocked? We take the entry-level model Core i5-750 as far as it'll go with a modest air cooler and benchmark it. Read More
-
Does Turbo Boost Help Or Hurt Core i5/i7's Power Efficiency?
Intel’s LGA 1156 processors serve up terrific new levels of performance to the mainstream. Now it’s time to look at how efficiency changed from Core 2 Quad to Core i5/i7. We found Turbo Boost technology to be a potential issue, despite its clear value. Read More
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
More Mindless Violence
Basic shooting game, but still so powerful! Use the mouse to take aim and shoot at the little beasties before they get to you. Use Space to reload....
|
crazy :
Xiao Xiao 7
A great fight scene from the animation movies Xiao Xiao.
|
Sponsored links
Exclusive: Intel Tells Us Why AMD is Wrong
Next news- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (74) |
- Share
Tom's Hardware talks to Intel to find out more details about the cross-licensing water boiling between the two companies.
Earlier today we reported on Intel's threat to AMD, requesting compliance with the terms of the two's cross-licensing agreement or AMD must cease to sell or marketing x86 architecture products. AMD then responded to Intel's claims, indicating that it had done no wrong, and the circumstances of Globalfoundries is in compliance with the original terms of the agreement, specifically these:
3.8. Licenses and Subsidiaries.
-------------------------
(a) Intention for Subsidiaries to be Bound.
(1) Except as expressly set forth herein, the parties intend that
this Agreement shall extend to all of each party's
Subsidiaries. The parties agree that to the extent they are
not already bound, each party shall use reasonable and
diligent efforts to ensure that all such Subsidiaries are
bound by the terms of this Agreement.
(3) Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, both parties
understand and intend that there are circumstances in which a
party could reasonably agree in good faith with an independent
third party that the party would not have rights to license
and/or enforce Patents directed to inventions developed in
conjunction with employees and or contractors of
such third party. For example, both parties understand that it
could be reasonable under the circumstances for a party to
agree in good faith not to have rights to license and/or
enforce Patents directed to inventions that arise out of:
*****.
(4) Either party to this Agreement shall have the right to request
a written confirmation or denial from the other party to this
Agreement that a specific Subsidiary is (or is not) bound by
this Agreement. A party receiving such a request shall provide
such written confirmation (including a full explanation in
support of such confirmation or denial) within 30 days after
the receipt of the request.
The above is directly from the agreement signed between AMD and Intel back in early 2001.
According to AMD, it believes that Globalfoundries is a subsidiary, and thus, fully complies with the original terms. However, Intel says that based on public filings done by AMD as well as confidential ones, Globalfoundries is not a true subsidiary. Intel stated that the fact that AMD invests into building Globalfoundries does not make Globalfoundries an AMD subsidiary.
We were also told that there has been some left-handed funds transferring by AMD and ATIC. According to Intel, it did not agree to have more than one controlling parent company run the new corporate entity, and that AMD did not approach Intel in a reasonable fashion about this. Intel also mentioned that it did not agree to this from the beginning. The way that Globalfoundries is set up, allows ATIC and its subsidiaries to utilize x86 technologies. Intel says that even the public filing from AMD indicates evidence that Globalfoundries is not a true subsidiary.
Intel also points to AMD's FCC filing claims, which defer from AMD's public claims of what greater than 50-percent ownership means. On AMD's public filing, it claims that it invested $1.2 billion into the company plus assets to match, but there was a cutback from ATIC to AMD in the form of roughly $900 million, lowering AMDs cash investment down to just roughly $300 million. In AMD's FCC filing, it indicated that it only owns 34.2 percent, not the 50-percent that Intel says AMD is claiming.
In fact, Intel says that Globalfoundries has very powerful veto-power over decisions that AMD makes. Under some situations, AMD would have to go to Globalfoundries for approval on certain contractual IP agreements that it wants to sign with Intel.
From Globalfoundries' press release:
ATIC will invest $2.1 billion to purchase its stake in The Foundry Company, of which it will invest $1.4 billion directly in the new entity and the remainder will be paid to AMD to purchase additional shares in The Foundry Company. The Foundry Company will also assume approximately $1.2 billion of AMD’s existing debt. ATIC has committed additional equity funding to The Foundry Company of a minimum of $3.6 billion and up to $6.0 billion over the next five years to fund the expansion of The Foundry Company’s chip-making capacity beyond the manufacturing facilities initially contributed by AMD.
Intel's Chuck Mulloy also explained to us that AMD's threat of using other patent agreements to threaten Intel into stepping down is also a breach of their own. Mulloy told Tom's Hardware that AMD and Intel are at the table specifically to discuss the patent agreement signed in 2001, not about things to do with 64-bit architectures or integrated memory controllers. However, AMD stated that it would possibly terminate Intel's ability to use certain patents related to those technologies, if it did not retract its 60-day termination notice.
"x64, integrated memory controller, and such, have nothing to do with why we're giving a notice to AMD here," said Mulloy.
Michael Silverman from AMD refutes Intel's claim:
The terms of our Asset Smart transaction were crafted very carefully to ensure full compliance with the cross-license agreement.
The Cross License agreement states that a subsidiary is one in which a party owns or controls 50 percent of outstanding shares or voting rights; as well as owns at least 30 percent of the profit interest of the entity. AMD has 50 percent economic ownership and 50 percent management control (voting rights) in GLOBALFOUNDRIES; and on a fully-converted common stock basis (ATIC holds convertible notes, but they are not convertible at this time), AMD owns 34.2 percent of GLOBALFOUNDRIES. So very clearly, by definition, GLOBALFOUNDRIES is indeed a subsidiary in the Cross License Agreement.
A redacted version of the current cross license agreement is available here:
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
Source : Tom's Hardware US
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- Could it be? AMD chip possibly running at 5ghz and beyond!!
- WEIRD STUFF GOING ON AT THG's FORUMS
- Best processor and vid card combo for Photoshop
- Multi core fad??
- Should intel be sued?
- Would You Buy A Core 2 Duo System Today?
- Toms hardware makes a mistake?
- Quantity v's Quality
- 64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter?
- Seeking advice on Asus Mobos
- Home-Built Supercomputer for Scientific Computing
- Which PC should become my main system
- Save XP!
- Is pc gaming dying?







"x64, integrated memory controller, and such, have nothing to do with why we're giving a notice to AMD here," said Mulloy.
IT DOES NOW!!!!! YOU MORONS!
F****n Intel. Can't ever seem to handle a bit of fair competition. If Intel plays nice, I've not a problem buying their stuff or recommending it. When this sort of thing happens, I go back to AMD.
Meaning what? They can manufacture their own x86 chips and not just the ones that AMD designs? If this is true then I would have to side with Intel.
Intel has shot both AMD and itself in the foot if this goes through. AMD will undoubtably pull the plug on intel using a couple patents, flatlining the i7
If it is a breach on the agreement that AMD has its CPUs produced at GlobalFoundries then Intels resent agreement with TSMC can be considered the same. The Intel/TMC agreement concerns the Atom processor and Atom 230/330 uses x86-64.
- SaintPauli
This just seems like something that could be easily resolved in a meeting.
Both parties should stop cackling like a bunch of hens and get down to business.
instead of making better chips, they are pissing their time and money on this crap.
Kill each other then maybe a better company can emerge!!!!
Look like Intel really want AMD out of the market. I uses Intel's product but I'm rooting for AMD in this case.
Intel is just sour. Screw x86, lets go PPC!
Kill each other then maybe a better company can emerge!!!!
Intel and AMD kill eachother, and Via is the new king >_>
China is behind this. They will bring down Intel and AMD so their State sponsored "Dragon" CPU will be on top of the world.
So it sounds to me like the argument is because Intel doesn't want AMD to to be making decisions based off of GlobalFoundries influence over the company. AMD is saying that regardless of influence, Globalfoundries is a subsidary and falls under all the patent rights.
from the agreement it sounds Like Intel has a case here. but sense both companies hold patents from each other this could get messy
Meaning what? They can manufacture their own x86 chips and not just the ones that AMD designs? If this is true then I would have to side with Intel.
Agreed. While it may seem like Intel is being a bully, they are just protecting their patent. AMD is crossing the line here.
So it sounds to me like the argument is because Intel doesn't want AMD to to be making decisions based off of GlobalFoundries influence over the company. AMD is saying that regardless of influence, Globalfoundries is a subsidary and falls under all the patent rights.
No, Intel is worried that AMD trying to allowing another company to illegally product x86 products thought some devious paperwork.
Really dumb move by AMD. The fact of the matter is, they're already on the ropes, and then they decide to do this shady underhanded deal. Intel is just trying to protect what's theirs.
Lol why do people act like companies should compete nicely in a nice fair game where everyone wins? Welcome to the real world, the goal is to bury your competition so badly they can't recover.
Wow, does no one ever get it. Intel says that a DIFFERENT company cant make x86 chips, not AMD. This isnt about any patents Intel or AMD is using, its about a agreement about AMD only having the right to the patent given by Intel. Intel says that the other company they made is not part of AMD so therefore they dont own the patent. Id say 95% of the people reading it dont understand. (If you do im not talking about you then) oh and AMD cant pull the plug on the i7 patent whoever said that, Intel purchased that right, AMD cant take it back they sold it.
I'm now even more confused, but we really need to crack down on what's going on and really needs to know what is defined as a subsidary.
Intel is just sour. Screw x86, lets go PPC!
Agreed ... a much better architecture. Heck, Microsoft has written Windows for PPC before, they surely can do it.
PPC? didn't apple just ditch that for intel's x86 CPU's?
Wow, does no one ever get it. Intel says that a DIFFERENT company cant make x86 chips, not AMD.
Sorry, but you are the one who don't get it.
This isnt about any patents Intel or AMD is using, its about a agreement about AMD only having the right to the patent given by Intel.
It is all about the patents.
Intel says that the other company they made is not part of AMD so therefore they dont own the patent. Id say 95% of the people reading it dont understand. (If you do im not talking about you then)
If Intel's case is that Globalfoundries is different company, why they are going after AMD? They should go after Globalfoundries itself.
oh and AMD cant pull the plug on the i7 patent whoever said that, Intel purchased that right, AMD cant take it back they sold it.
By the way. Intel and AMD were ready for the whole thing long time ago. Recent quick move from both companies suggest that they are executing pre-planned game. It is like speed-chess. They are setting them self for upcoming negotiations. They have armies of lawyers and they have prepared ahead of time different scenarios.
This entire legal issue is stemming from one technicality: Are these new spinoffs truly in accordance with the agreement. I'm sure AMD thought of this beforehand, and because they went through with it, they obviously thought they'd win if a disagreement cropped up. If it really is the way Intel says it is (it's probably somewhere in between the two), then it could be interesting to see the implications of this - the extent of which I suspect none of us really knows.
However, AMD cannot just retaliate by withdrawing, say, x86-64. They signed a separate contract for that, and if there's no breach there, it still holds. They could opt to muck things up when it comes time to extend that agreement, but until there's a breach there, AMD can't use something like that as leverage.
If AMD could just pull the plug on something else, Intel wouldn't be this belligerent. They're not stupid, devious maybe, but not stupid.
I'm now even more confused, but we really need to crack down on what's going on and really needs to know what is defined as a subsidary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary
It's all about control. Does AMD control this company, or is it simply an investment?
PPC? didn't apple just ditch that for intel's x86 CPU's?
Yes, yes they did. Apple ditched it because IBM couldn't hit 3 Ghz with the G5 under exceptable heat and power consumption.
Agreed ... a much better architecture. Heck, Microsoft has written Windows for PPC before, they surely can do it.
Intel is already ditching x86 with it's new AVX instruction set. All of the old x86 instuction sets are simply being emulated on Sandy Bridge.
people think of it this way. the patent is like having a girlfriend (judging from some people in here they probably have a hard time getting one or never had one LOL) you enter into this relationship so you are the only guy for her. now here comes another guy your girlfriend has met and may influence your girlfriend to do things you only want your girlfriend to do with you
maybe the AMD fanboy's will understand this LOL
I'm never buying another Intel product, and I would encourage the rest of you to do the same. Any of you could be completely happy with a Phenom II 940, I promise.
I'm never buying another Intel product, and I would encourage the rest of you to do the same. Any of you could be completely happy with a Phenom II 940, I promise.
Why?
Because they aren't going to let AMD give their patent to anyone they give money to?
LOL well AMD just got another sucker onboard LOL
What if What Intel is saying is true? What if Globalfoundries releases the x86 technology to China? Then what? So I am assuming that all AMD AND Intel fanboys are okay with all the remaining tech jobs going to China, right?
wikipedia.com
wikipedia.com?
how credible is that these days?
Great now intel want to monopolize the cpu market. Say hello to the i7 920 for $500.