AMD Announce Partnership w/ Samsung

[GoodBoy]

This is interesting.... around a year ago it was rumored Samsung was working on its own GPUs. Around the time Apple made clear they where dumping imagine and doing their own thing.

So ya the question is....
1) Has Samsung been working AMD for a year already ?
2) Did Samsungs in house design fall apart... so the easy quick fix was to find someone to licence from
3) Did Samsungs in house team step all over AMD patents ?

The first one doesn't seem super likely but perhaps.
The third one also doesn't seem to likely to me... AMD wouldn't have known patents where being infringed and if Samsung knew they where infringing early they would have had time to adjust.
So that perhaps leaves 2.... either Samsungs internal efforts where not going well. Or perhaps they are simply further out then they would like so licencing AMD for the next few years makes sense until their own in house stuff works properly..

Or
4) AMD's patents were cheaper than nVidia's..
5) nVidia patent deal fell through
6) nVidia didn't want to license to potential competitor of its Tegra chip, so no deal was possible

 

[GoodBoy]

Don't forget NVidia licensed it's GPU IP to Intel for 1.5 Billion dollars spread over 6 years. If you are willing to pay you can licence NVidia tech.

That would come out to exactly $1 per cellphone sold if Samsung made the same deal... they sell ~250 million phones a year (maybe more). Spread over 6 years, $1 each = $1.5 Billion.

Considering the cost of Samsung phones these days, that would only be 0.1% of the selling price. Drop in the bucket.

 

[ChadD]

Intel didn't licence Nvidias tech for 1.5B. They paid them in a legal settlement that also included a time limited exchange of patent usage... and NV agreed to give up the licences they had that they claimed allowed them to create x86 chipsets.

It wasn't really a licence. Intel wasn't selling APUs with Geforce chips in them. NV through their purchase of 3DFX came into ownership of the patents of Real3D the company Intel had partnered with to create their 740 AGP video card. Real3D was spun off from Lockheed Martin who wanted to make a consumer product our other 3D simulator tech developed with the US military. NV and Intel where suing each other back and forth in those days. Intel was upset NV was making x86 chipsets... and worried they may try to apply their aquired licences (or worse buy a portfolio from via or something) and become actual x86 competition like AMD. NV when they picked up 3DFX realized they now owned the patents Intel used to create all their GPU products including their CPU integrated stuffs. So they sued over Intels graphics.

So there was no licence... Intel developed their own tech with the help of Real3D and the US military. (turns out 20 year old US military tech wasn't as good as Intel hoped) The payment was part of a larger deal intended to keep NV from getting any crazy ideas like say buying up Via or Transmeta or some other porfolio they could argue had a valid x86 licence. NV agreed as long as they got paid. NV was able to basically stay in the black for years thanks to pure profit quarterly Intel settlement payments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real3D
To be clear NV took advantage of an Intel mess up... I guess the patent troll issues where not as massive then and I guess Intel though they would be ok. It was sort of their own stupid. Still make no mistake there are people still at Intel that blame NV for being slimy.

" By 1999 both relationships were ending, and Lockheed Martin was focussing on its military assets. On 1 October 1999 the company closed, and its assets were sold to Intel on the 14th.[4] ATI hired many of the remaining employees for a new Orlando office. 3dfx Interactive had sued Real3D on a patent basis, and Intel's purchased moved the lawsuits to the new owner. Intel settled the issue by selling all of the intellectual property back to 3dFX. "

So ya it was their fault NV was able to buy up the patents they where using in basically every GPU product they sold. The Intel legal guys first allowed 3DFX to pick up all the patents they where currently using.... which I guess makes sense if the cost of licencing them back was less then settling. However no one thought when 3DFX was in trouble and ripe to get bought... perhaps we better pick them up. Instead they let NV who they where already involved with in legal fights over chipsets get them. Big mistake on Intels part. As NV didn't hesitate to file suit for patent infingment on all intel GPU products... which as I said before takes some balls. They sued Intel for using tech Intel developed and or bought from Lockheed. NV buying 3DFX had little to do with anything 3DFX was actually doing... mostly they saw an opportunity to grab patents they hoped to hold over Intel to wiggle out a x86 licence. They settled for a payout.

 

[Snowdog]

Intel didn't licence Nvidias tech for 1.5B. They paid them in a legal settlement that also included a time limited exchange of patent usage... and NV agreed to give up the licences they had that they claimed allowed them to create x86 chipsets.

It wasn't really a licence. Intel wasn't selling APUs with Geforce chips in them. NV through their purchase of 3DFX came into ownership of the patents of Real3D the company Intel had partnered with to create their 740 AGP video card. Real3D was spun off from Lockheed Martin who wanted to make a consumer product our other 3D simulator tech developed with the US military. NV and Intel where suing each other back and forth in those days. Intel was upset NV was making x86 chipsets... and worried they may try to apply their aquired licences (or worse buy a portfolio from via or something) and become actual x86 competition like AMD. NV when they picked up 3DFX realized they now owned the patents Intel used to create all their GPU products including their CPU integrated stuffs. So they sued over Intels graphics.

So there was no licence... Intel developed their own tech with the help of Real3D and the US military. (turns out 20 year old US military tech wasn't as good as Intel hoped) The payment was part of a larger deal intended to keep NV from getting any crazy ideas like say buying up Via or Transmeta or some other porfolio they could argue had a valid x86 licence. NV agreed as long as they got paid. NV was able to basically stay in the black for years thanks to pure profit quarterly Intel settlement payments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real3D
To be clear NV took advantage of an Intel mess up... I guess the patent troll issues where not as massive then and I guess Intel though they would be ok. It was sort of their own stupid. Still make no mistake there are people still at Intel that blame NV for being slimy.

" By 1999 both relationships were ending, and Lockheed Martin was focussing on its military assets. On 1 October 1999 the company closed, and its assets were sold to Intel on the 14th.[4] ATI hired many of the remaining employees for a new Orlando office. 3dfx Interactive had sued Real3D on a patent basis, and Intel's purchased moved the lawsuits to the new owner. Intel settled the issue by selling all of the intellectual property back to 3dFX. "

So ya it was their fault NV was able to buy up the patents they where using in basically every GPU product they sold. The Intel legal guys first allowed 3DFX to pick up all the patents they where currently using.... which I guess makes sense if the cost of licencing them back was less then settling. However no one thought when 3DFX was in trouble and ripe to get bought... perhaps we better pick them up. Instead they let NV who they where already involved with in legal fights over chipsets get them. Big mistake on Intels part. As NV didn't hesitate to file suit for patent infingment on all intel GPU products... which as I said before takes some balls. They sued Intel for using tech Intel developed and or bought from Lockheed. NV buying 3DFX had little to do with anything 3DFX was actually doing... mostly they saw an opportunity to grab patents they hoped to hold over Intel to wiggle out a x86 licence. They settled for a payout.

Why are you going off into the weeds with this same rant, yet again?

It's still blatantly off the mark.

Intel has, in fact, a license to all NVidia patents.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/40...reement-nvidia-will-continue-well-beyond-2017

Under the patent cross license agreement... NVIDIA has granted to Intel and Intel's qualified subsidiaries, a non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide license... to all patents that are either owned or controlled by the parties at any time that have a first filing date on or before March 31, 2017...

The term of the patent cross license agreement continues until the expiration of the last to expire of the licensed patents...

Intel doesn't just have license to a few old Real3D patents you keep ranting about, it has license to every patent NVidia filed until March 31, 2017, and can use them in perpetuity.

That is the whole mother-load of NVidia patents. They could build a GPU with every Patent used in Pascal and likely Turing as well.

Guess what Intel is doing right now, building a new series of GPUs including GPU cards. Those patents are going to be very useful, and all they need to cover their new GPUs on the IP front.

 

[odditory]

Back on topic, I had always hoped we would see AMD lean in heavily to Vulkan and find a way for their GPUs to have an advantage in Vulkan enabled games - since it's part of their heritage with Mantle as predecessor. Because theoretically then Samsung using Radeon tech in their phones and tablets would be able to synergize with it for mobile gaming superiority, since Google has standardized Android on Vulkan going forward.

I guess I was way too optimistic.

 

[ChadD]

That is the whole mother-load of NVidia patents. They could build a GPU with every Patent used in Pascal and likely Turing as well.

Guess what Intel is doing right now, building a new series of GPUs including GPU cards. Those patents are going to be very useful, and all they need to cover their new GPUs on the IP front.

Intel isn't using any NV tech. Currently and they never have.

There new cards are likewise NOT using anything at all developed by NV.

There is a massive difference between licencing a patent.... so if your memory controller shares a specific feature you don't get sued. And licencing actual designs.

No Intel DOES NOT have the right to create an intel version of Pascal or Turing or even Geforce256s. They have a licence on patents not designs. That would be like saying AMD could make their own Core2duos cause they have an x86 licence.

 

[Uvaman2]

From the announcement:

• AMD will license custom graphics IP based on the recently announced, highly-scalable RDNA graphics architecture to Samsung for use in mobile devices, including smartphones, and other products that complement AMD product offerings.

"Highly scalable"
This means invisible mGPU confirmed for RDNA, and Half Life 3 confirmed.

 

[Snowdog]

Intel isn't using any NV tech. Currently and they never have.

There new cards are likewise NOT using anything at all developed by NV.

NVidia has thousands of patents, and no one without deep understanding of the patent pool and intels current and future GPU technology at an extremely detailed level could make claims like that. You think that's you?

No Intel DOES NOT have the right to create an intel version of Pascal or Turing or even Geforce256s.

Hey, captain straw-man. I only said they could use the patents, don't alter my position to provide yourself with an argument you can win.

They have a licence on patents not designs. That would be like saying AMD could make their own Core2duos cause they have an x86 licence.

Finally, At least you now admit they have a license... Think of the saved time, if you just admitted that from the start.