Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel & AMD Decide To Stop Fighting

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Intel & AMD Decide To Stop Fighting

    Intel & AMD Decide To Stop Fighting

    Phoronix: Intel & AMD Decide To Stop Fighting

    Intel and AMD have jointly announced this morning that they have decided to stop fighting each other and have settled all outstanding legal disputes. These fights, of course, have been over anti-trust litigation, patent disputes, and other matters that have been burdening both companies for the past years. As part of this settlement, Intel will be paying AMD an amount of $1.25 billion USD and both companies have agreed to a new 5-year cross license deal...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzY5Ng

  • droidhacker
    replied
    I was always under the impression that hyperthreading existed only to help manage MS's really really crappy process scheduler by taking some of that process scheduling away from MS.

    Originally posted by RobbieAB View Post
    I don't. Hyperthreading is one of those concepts that sorta makes sense in theory, but in this era of multi-core systems, adds a lot of complexity for little gain in the real world use cases.

    On a single core system, it makes a lot of sense as it DOES help with perceived latency. On a dual core, it massively complicates scheduling, and the perceived latency benefits are reduced. There are also many benchmarks that show it slows down well tuned applications, even on single core. (This is completely ignoring the benchmarks where it brings a dual core down to 50% performance.)

    Hyperthreading is, in my opinion, best summarized on modern multi-core chips with it's first 4 letters... Hype.

    Leave a comment:


  • RobbieAB
    replied
    Originally posted by Zapitron View Post
    Make their patents public domain. Who doesn't want hyperthreading in their Athlon II or Nano? :-)
    I don't. Hyperthreading is one of those concepts that sorta makes sense in theory, but in this era of multi-core systems, adds a lot of complexity for little gain in the real world use cases.

    On a single core system, it makes a lot of sense as it DOES help with perceived latency. On a dual core, it massively complicates scheduling, and the perceived latency benefits are reduced. There are also many benchmarks that show it slows down well tuned applications, even on single core. (This is completely ignoring the benchmarks where it brings a dual core down to 50% performance.)

    Hyperthreading is, in my opinion, best summarized on modern multi-core chips with it's first 4 letters... Hype.

    Leave a comment:


  • NeoBrain
    replied
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    Why?
    fglrx should stick with embedded stuff since it can never offer any kind of benefits out-of-the-box (due to licensing issues).

    R600G is where the future is. And that is where the bulk of development must be pushed.
    Care to elaborate? AFAIK, Catalyst's license allows distributions to bundle the driver with them; it's just that most "mainstream" distros still keep their "only open source software enabled by default" policy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zapitron
    replied
    Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    I'm not sure how Intel could really be broken up in a way that diminishes its monopoly power.
    Make their patents public domain. Who doesn't want hyperthreading in their Athlon II or Nano? :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • droidhacker
    replied
    Originally posted by GreekGeek View Post
    Now, PLEASE hire some more software guys, so the FGLRX work can make progress faster.
    Why?
    fglrx should stick with embedded stuff since it can never offer any kind of benefits out-of-the-box (due to licensing issues).

    R600G is where the future is. And that is where the bulk of development must be pushed.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreekGeek
    replied
    Hi Yall,

    CONGRATZ AMD/ATI & JERRY, THIS DEAL HAS BEEN A *VERY* LONG TIME COMING. :-D

    Party happened, to mark this. :-)

    Now, PLEASE hire some more software guys, so the FGLRX work can make progress faster.

    Greekgeek :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • thefirstm
    replied
    Originally posted by b15hop View Post
    Maybe this is why MS doesn't buy out linux / mac os etc...
    You can't buy out linux.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ex-Cyber
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    If AMD dies, Intel will stop to exist as a whole corporation - it'll be torn apart by antimonopoly agencies.
    I'm not sure how Intel could really be broken up in a way that diminishes its monopoly power. It's not like Microsoft where the proposed breakup would have separated two product lines that were independently viable and already being sold separately, or AT&T, where a national monopoly could be broken up into regional monopolies.

    Leave a comment:


  • b15hop
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    You didn't get it right. AMD is in a deep sh*t right now, and Intel just helps its only competitor to stay afloat.

    If AMD dies, Intel will stop to exist as a whole corporation - it'll be torn apart by antimonopoly agencies.
    True, this is something that they must fear considerably. =/ Maybe this is why MS doesn't buy out linux / mac os etc...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X