The Rumor Is Back That Future Intel CPUs To Use Radeon Graphics

[schmidtbag]

Intel has been licensing Nvidia patents for years but obviously an Intel IGP is not the same thing as an Nvidia GPU.
I think that Intel will license from AMD as insurance from getting sued, but that doesn't mean that all Intel graphics will suddenly be using the same GCN architecture as AMD's parts.

This is exactly what I was thinking. There's no way in hell Intel would "surrender" to AMD, and regardless of Zen's success, AMD would be completely destroyed if they handed over their only leverage to Intel. Intel is merely trying to protect themselves with their own GPU designs, and just might be implementing some AMD tech.

[Mark625]

Correct about IA-64, my wordings were unfortunate. Intel was already working on IA-64 before x86-64 by AMD64. And incorrect about saying x86-64 is AMD64. That is a misnomer, its a branded name for the architecture when they were copying what intel was doing to Itanium to compete with it.

No, you were completely wrong on all counts. The IA-64 instruction set was the native language of the Itanium processor, which was Intel's preferred route to 64-bit computing. The IA-64 instructions and binary code were completely incompatible with x86 processors, and Itanium processors could not natively run x86 (32-bit) code. Intel wanted to force the entire x86 industry to use this new proprietary IA-64 instruction set and Itanium architecture for all 64-bit computing needs. They specifically did NOT want an x86 compatible 64-bit instruction set.

AMD saw an opening and came out with their Opteron processors, which could natively run x86 code to boot a 32-bit OS, and could also boot into 64-bit mode and natively run x86 code under a 64-bit OS. Naturally, AMD called this instruction set AMD64, and it also became known as x86-64. Intel finally threw in the towel and decided to release their own implementation of x86-64, called EMT-64, when Microsoft made it known that they had no interest in IA-64 and were moving forward with AMD64. To this day, Microsoft code and documentation still refers to x86-64 as AMD64.

Other than a few privileged mode instructions, EMT-64 is completely binary compatible with AMD64. AMD64 (and EMT64) have nothing in common with IA-64 whatsoever. The success and pervasiveness of the AMD64 instruction set is AMD's crowning achievement. Radeons are great, but AMD64 rules the computing world.

[rlarkin]

The original specification, created by AMD and released in 2000, has been implemented by AMD, Intel and VIA. Various names are used for the instruction set; prior to the launch, x86-64 and x86_64 were used, while upon the release AMD named it AMD64.[3] Intel initially used the names IA-32e and EM64T before finally settling on "Intel 64" for its implementation. Some in the industry, including Apple,[4][5][6] use x86-64 and x86_64, while others, notably Sun Microsystems[7] (now Oracle Corporation) and Microsoft,[8] use x64. The BSD family of OSs and several Linux distributions[9][10] use AMD64, and so does Microsoft Windows internally

^^that's from wikipedia , here's more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T#History_2

I didn't find it, but a -very- long time ago Intel tried to check in code using the label em64t , but Linus wouldn't allow it, saying the architecture is actually amd64 and Intel may not pretend it's different to protect it's ego.

Summary: Intel put *a lot* of effort into spinning em64t as it's own thing but it is *literally* amd64.

Edit: found a discussion from 2004 disscussing the referenced thread on lkml. Includes a the quote from Linus ( he didn't actually dissallow the em64t label, but he did threaten to).

http://www.yqcomputer.com/689_1194_1.htm

[microcode]

AMD64 is a brand name for x86-64 not an architecture and it was called IA-64 by intel.

IA-64 is Itanium. Intel implemented AMD64, and later called it "Intel64" after "IA-32e" and "EM64T". Ultimately it is AMD's ISA. Why argue if you have so little information?

[Adarion]

Yes, maybe it is about some patent things. An intel CPU with radeon on top would still be somehow unattractive to me since intel is quick to invent new digital restriction management and features against the user. It is good that there are still 2 (and a fraction) of players on the x86 market.
I'll go and support the underdog. Besides, a computing unit is always measured in regards to the planned purpose and use.

[Passso]

It was already "monopolization" on x86 gaming even without this rumor... more does not mean near total, just in total x86+gaming it is more of course read small letters down there

True, if you count the consoles market where AMD has a monopoly today.

And it may soon be false, because Nintendo will switch(tm) from AMD to NVidia next year.

[darkbasic]

they were copying what intel was doing to Itanium to compete with it.

LOL, nobody ever had to compete against Itanium. It died by itself.

[c117152]

its a branded name for the architecture when they were copying what intel was doing to Itanium to compete with it.

Ha? In what way are the AMD64 extensions can be considered as "copying" Intel's Itanium? AMD licensed x86(IA-32)+SSE/2 from Intel and extended it to create AMD64. Intel then licensed AMD64 from AMD and modified it to create IA-64e/EMT/EMT64/Intel 64.

Apart from the Itaniums being inconveniently named IA-64, how are the two ISAs remotely similar?

[darkbasic]

And it may soon be false, because Nintendo will switch(tm) from AMD to NVidia next year.

Nintendo will be a fiasco, so nothing will change.

[darkbasic]

Apart from the Itaniums being inconveniently named IA-64, how are the two ISAs remotely similar?

He doesn't know what he is talking about, don't waste your time.