Linux is free and dominates the server world where 32 core chips are marketed.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Zen Rumours Point to Earlier Than Expected Release
- Thread starter cageymaru
- Start date
I don't think that's the point; for example Oracle uses a rather complicated sockets*cores per socket*core rating formula to calculate license costs. AMD and Intel x86 are given the same rating, 0.5. So if one was to consider 2 dual socket machines, and for the sake of argument 2*8 cores in an Intel and 2*12 core in an Opteron, the Opteron is going to be 50% more expensive to licence. At $47,500 per enterprise licence, the AMD is $190,000 more expensive to licence. This makes any pricing advantage AMD had irrelevant, even though the two servers might produce very similar performance numbers. Oracle could adjust AMD's core rating to account for this, but they don't. Oracle isn't the only example of this.
That's a fair point, but I was responding to the above discussion of windows server. To your point there are a very large number of free and open source databases in use and oracle has a CPU of its' own which I'm sure it will favor in those cost breakdowns.
Edit: Here's a VP from oracle discussing the hardware
ecmaster76
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,150
Organizations that can afford a 32 core class chip often have support contracts for their Linux deployments. I can assure you that Red Hat Enterprise is far from free. Don't forget the middleware and application stacks - they love to charge per core as well.
I found this today.. released about 3 weeks ago.. April fools maybe?:
First AMD Zen Benchmarks Leaked, Summit Ridge CPUs On Par with Intel Broadwell-E Chips - TechFrag
Which originally came from this: First Zen benchmarks: the next AMD uArch is a major step forward
First AMD Zen Benchmarks Leaked, Summit Ridge CPUs On Par with Intel Broadwell-E Chips - TechFrag
Which originally came from this: First Zen benchmarks: the next AMD uArch is a major step forward
Last edited:
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
Wasn't that part of the leak that was on April Fools day?
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
It was April fools
Exactly. I used Oracles most expensive licence as my example, they have many less expensive options as well. But the end result is the same; Enterprise licenses that are per core punish AMD's 'more slow cores' architecture, making them non-viable.
The only mention of Zen in the earnings conference call yesterday was that the server version with be sampling to "priority customers" this quarter and will go into products in 2017.
Absolutely nothing was mentioned about the state of a desktop (or mobile) version. It was simply referred to as "future Zen-based processors" without even an estimated release date.
earnings call transcript said:
Absolutely nothing was mentioned about the state of a desktop (or mobile) version. It was simply referred to as "future Zen-based processors" without even an estimated release date.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
And since when do CEO ramble on about things not asked (in these sort of settings) the question was specific so was the answer ....
Spirit_Retro
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 468
Assuming Zen doesn't end up with a release date in October- I'm switching platforms.
Then again- I've got the flu and I'm really irritable.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
This is somewhat of a problem lots of people posting "information" about server side Zen (which is not the same as the desktop) and drawing the conclusion that it is the same as the desktop.
Server based Zen always was a 2017 product.
Desktop based Zen should still be a Q4 2016 product.
People misunderstanding what has been said on previous financial calls as well.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
I believe APUs are 2017 as well.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Aye
The CEO made statements about various products and the JV before the questions started. The first part of what I posted above was before the questions started. Absolutely zilch about progress on the desktop version, unlike the December investor conference call (where it hadn't taped out yet and was called a 2017 product).
BTW, when AMD's actual statements contract what inaccurate rumor sites report, it's not a misunderstanding of what was said in the conference call. The problem is not accepting a less than rose colored glasses view of reality, where Zen ain't coming out this year.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Then stop making up shit and post that quote ..
Post that the desktop version of Zen will not appear in Q4 of this year and get it from someone from AMD instead of abusing things that were not said and spin it if it meant delaying desktop release as you are suggesting ...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/396...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
What is more important than anything else from this conference call is that AMD is licensing their x86 licensee out to China. Guess what don't be surprised to a swift injunction by Intel to stop this. The contract for cross licensing the x86 and 64 bit patents is clear NO ONE outside of AMD can use the x86 license can product chips .
What is more important than anything else from this conference call is that AMD is licensing their x86 licensee out to China. Guess what don't be surprised to a swift injunction by Intel to stop this. The contract for cross licensing the x86 and 64 bit patents is clear NO ONE outside of AMD can use the x86 license can product chips .
Last edited:
Spirit_Retro
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 468
Can you provide documentation on this?
Patent Cross License Agreement
Even when AMD spun off GF, it caused a problem with Intel, AMD had to drop a lawsuit against Intel to be able to use GF as its foundry for CPU's. The contract is specific, only subsidiaries of AMD can have access to the the x86 patent, and I don't think the company is China or China's government (which ever it is) is a subsidiary of AMD lol.
Even when AMD spun off GF, it caused a problem with Intel, AMD had to drop a lawsuit against Intel to be able to use GF as its foundry for CPU's. The contract is specific, only subsidiaries of AMD can have access to the the x86 patent, and I don't think the company is China or China's government (which ever it is) is a subsidiary of AMD lol.
Last edited:
Gideon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,567
It only caused a problem cause the contract stated manufacturing facilities. When AMD sold the Fab off it created a issue but it was settled. They can have anyone manufacture their chip designs now, I doubt they would have done the deal if INTEL had a ability to challenge it. Unless your a lawyer I doubt you have read the entire agreement and understand it fully. Since INTEL has not sued AMD right away I doubt they will challenge it.
I can understand that contract in full, and yes I have a lot of law experience, as a producer I have to look at contracts as my primary job and negotiate contracts.
AMD can't share the x86 license outside of subsidiaries, The only part that was changed was Manufacturing, as you stated, at the cost of dropping anti competitive lawsuits in Japan and I think it was EU (a few billion dollars dropped there). But still the x86 license can't be shown or used by another company outside of AMD and its subsidiaries. It will be a breach.
And if you think the breach will only occur in China so it can be localized there, and the Chinese courts will throw it out because of national interests, that isn't the case a breach, is a breach of the contract in its entirety of AMD's obligations in any jurisdiction, and since Intel is a US company they will go for them here.
AMD can't share the x86 license outside of subsidiaries, The only part that was changed was Manufacturing, as you stated, at the cost of dropping anti competitive lawsuits in Japan and I think it was EU (a few billion dollars dropped there). But still the x86 license can't be shown or used by another company outside of AMD and its subsidiaries. It will be a breach.
And if you think the breach will only occur in China so it can be localized there, and the Chinese courts will throw it out because of national interests, that isn't the case a breach, is a breach of the contract in its entirety of AMD's obligations in any jurisdiction, and since Intel is a US company they will go for them here.
Last edited:
I am basically waiting to replace my 3930K with Zen. I really hope she delivers. I really hope so for competition reasons and to save AMDs rear end. And I have an Intel 750 400GB just sitting here in the box, it absolutely will not work with my Rampage IV, thus, I am saving it for a Zen system at the end of the year when it comes out.
Gideon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,567
Well if you are right then they will sue, but since Intel has not even mentioned it, I doubt they care or it's not a breach. Also it's possible a agreement was made between Intel and AMD about this deal with China. I will give it a week and if Intel does not object I doubt they ever will.
Well the way they talked about it in their financial call, AMD seems to have set up a company in China as a subsidary and that company is the company doing it, We don't know anything else, its going to take many weeks to get things rolling, law suits like this take time to write up because you can't have anything wishy washy for the judge to throw it out.
AMD Licenses X86 to China JV | EE Times
pretty much what I was talking about
AMD Licenses X86 to China JV | EE Times
pretty much what I was talking about
They've probably had their entire legal team working on this for months because the company's future depends on it, but you are a producer that looks at contracts and you know the definite answer regarding this issue.
There aren't enough rolleyes for this.
Yeah and when AMD stated the spin off of GF wouldn't breach the contract, but it did, and they got screwed because of it? You think their legal team didn't see that coming? They did, but they won't talk about it in a negetive light but that would kill their stock price.....
Meeho, if you don't know how business is done....
The deal still has to be OK by the US gov, you know that right? Its two hurdles not just one.
Meeho, if you don't know how business is done....
The deal still has to be OK by the US gov, you know that right? Its two hurdles not just one.
AFAIK they spun off and AMD still holds their x86 licence, so I would hazard a guess their legal team knows what they're doing.
My knowledge is irrelevant, AMD does and seems to know it well enough. I would also give them more credit to know what possibly is and isn't allowed, at least what could be argued for, than some random forum lawyer with definite judgements.
The spin off caused problems, which AMD had to forgo multi billion dollar lawsuits in EU and Japan for antitrust for Intel to agree to the changes in the contract allowing manufacturing to be done by outside fabs. A lawsuit they won in the US, so yeah I would say that was a pretty big trade off wouldn't you?
Its not definite I didn't say it was, reread my post,
Does that sound definite? Depending if the the Chinese company they are partnering up with has access to the x86 patent is what is pertinent. And this will be looked into both by the US gov and by Intel.
If you feel that is definite, well hell, I guess you just don't like hearing all the possibilities
Its not definite I didn't say it was, reread my post,
Does that sound definite? Depending if the the Chinese company they are partnering up with has access to the x86 patent is what is pertinent. And this will be looked into both by the US gov and by Intel.
If you feel that is definite, well hell, I guess you just don't like hearing all the possibilities
You're assuming they had to forgo it and you're also assuming that, even if they did, that they haven't planned for it. I think you're wrong on both assumptions.
"And if you think the breach will only occur in China so it can be localized there, and the Chinese courts will throw it out because of national interests, that isn't the case a breach, is a breach of the contract in its entirety of AMD's obligations in any jurisdiction, and since Intel is a US company they will go for them here."
This sounds like a definite conclusion that there is a breach of the agreement, but maybe I'm englishing wrong.
I know all the possibilities, I refrain from naively claiming to know something obvious that the parties involved haven't considered and for which they believe to have a case. I believe they either have a legal ground to stand on or have something else they believe will ensure this deal goes through, but only a result of a lawsuit, lack of one, or some new agreement announcement will give us a definite answer.
So you are telling me every reporter that reported this story, is mistaken? And this press release and cotranct between Intel and AMD which pretty much states the same, is also false?
AMD and Intel Announce Settlement of All Antitrust and IP Disputes
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/AMD_settlement_agreement.pdf
Well if you couldn't understand the above, I wouldn't even bother the rest of it.
Everything is in black and white and on paper, it isn't some unknown black hole, the unknowns that we don't know about is if the Chinese company was access to the pertinent IP's. If they don't AMD is in the clear, if not well they have issues.
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/AMD_settlement_agreement.pdf
No, I'm telling you there is no evidence that supports your statement that "AMD had to forgo multi billion dollar lawsuits in EU and Japan for antitrust for Intel to agree to the changes in the contract allowing manufacturing to be done by outside fabs". The end result may have ended somewhere along those lines, but the exact causality and legal options and rights regarding the original x86 agreement and the issue at hand were not determined. They chose to settle it with a new agreement outside the court ruling on the issue. You may speculate, but someone with your keen understanding of legalese should know to refrain from drawing superficial conclusions.
I understand it for what it is, I just don't read into it whatever suits my beliefs.
so you realize the influx of money from the Chinese company, if that didn't happen AMD would have not even equaled the streets lowly estimates? They would have missed it by quite a bit.... The 700 million in cash AMD has right now can't go much lower as they have to keep 500 million of that at hand when the bonds they have issues mature. What does that leave in operating capital when they aren't making profits?
Intel did something similar in the past, but they didn't set up a subsidiary in China, as they bought a portion of the Chinese company which gave them a direct way circumvent the issue, which was clearly stated when they first went into such a proposition. I don't know about you, but what AMD stated so far is tenuous because of the lack of information about what the Chinese company will do and avoiding such a topic precludes to things like this,
A) they are trying to find out ways to avoid such a situation
B) they haven't ironed out this portion of responsibilities (not likely as when money changed hands contracts are signed prior and everything is dotted and crossed)
C) they know there will be a possible breach and looking into what they can give to Intel for them to drop such an injunction, like Graphics IP the same IP that Intel has been paying nV for....
I think its A or C.
Intel did something similar in the past, but they didn't set up a subsidiary in China, as they bought a portion of the Chinese company which gave them a direct way circumvent the issue, which was clearly stated when they first went into such a proposition. I don't know about you, but what AMD stated so far is tenuous because of the lack of information about what the Chinese company will do and avoiding such a topic precludes to things like this,
A) they are trying to find out ways to avoid such a situation
B) they haven't ironed out this portion of responsibilities (not likely as when money changed hands contracts are signed prior and everything is dotted and crossed)
C) they know there will be a possible breach and looking into what they can give to Intel for them to drop such an injunction, like Graphics IP the same IP that Intel has been paying nV for....
I think its A or C.
Intel wouldn't beat their estimates either if it weren't for all the business they do 
You're right that there's not much info out there about the chinese deal, but from what I read it's a joint venture, which you could argue is a subsidiary. Add to that that this is china and that pretty much the only way to manufacture things there is to set up a joint venture and I think you've got a reasonable argument.
You're right that there's not much info out there about the chinese deal, but from what I read it's a joint venture, which you could argue is a subsidiary. Add to that that this is china and that pretty much the only way to manufacture things there is to set up a joint venture and I think you've got a reasonable argument.
Gideon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,567
Its the only way you can build and sell things in China, you have to give the Chinese 50% of the company AMD will retain the other 50% a joint venture. Intel wont challenge it, Id put money on it.
It isn't about who has control of the subsidiary. Its about who has access to the IP, a Chinese company can have controlling interest in a company but doesn't need access to the IP when manufacturing, that is ok. But if the Chinese company does have access to the IP, that will create problems. They can take that IP and start making their own chips to sell in China, they don't need to go world wide, and yeah we have seen China steal IP in many other markets without any consequences, this is why the FTC will look at it closely too (they will look at it anyways, but be more particular about it)
Spirit_Retro
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 468
Well, I'm not confident in your legal analysis, but I'll skip listing my differences since, unless it hits a lawyers office- it's all speculation.
However, you are right about doing business with China- it is problematic. If it were only a cheap labor issue we would not be having a conversation at all. Combine cheap labor with disrespect for intellectual property- well then you have a problem.
I'm tangentially involved in a business where the main manufacturing of the mass produced example of this product is made. Every innovation of the product has come out of crowd-sourcing (there are still patents involved). Mostly from the US/Canada/EU/Russia.
It takes about 6 months for the Chinese to copy any functional revision of the product- and return it to western markets at lower cost and seriously compromised quality. Where patents have been involved- they have simply ignored them.
So it's my opinion that moving any technology operation out of the west, specifically to China, is a huge mistake. Take it to Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea- but never China.
As an aside, I was involved with Apple computer in the 1990's, and was quite proud that when they began offshoring Ireland was the destination- a country that had cheap labor and IP protections.
These days- companies will eventually slit their own throats by doing business in China. They'll do the manufacturing, but the innovations will be stolen and and shot back into the western market. It's a bad deal.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Something funny
Not to sure about it but enjoy
AMD Eng Sample, ZS258045TGG54_34/25/20_2/16 @ 2.50 GHz
1 processor, 16 cores
Not to sure about it but enjoy
AMD Eng Sample, ZS258045TGG54_34/25/20_2/16 @ 2.50 GHz
1 processor, 16 cores