Ive never had an issue with AMD overheating, Ive been using them since 1998.I should have rephased that intel is stealing from AMD but heres the low down.
"Current events (1999 till now) ...
Now lets take a look at where lil' ol' AMD has lately managed to out-engineer its much larger rival and where Intel has been forced to follow (copy):
First - AMD64 (a.k.a. X86-64). When AMD first announced its intention to extend the venerable x86 architecture, Intel derided the idea and refused to even acknowledge that it had a parallel effort afoot - just in case. It feared, and as it turned out, reasonably so, that a viable x86-64 would detract from its most favoured child - Itanium. What was even worse is that at the same time AMD had forced Intel into a performance race: Athlon v. Pentium. This was the last thing Intel wanted or needed. The result being Intel no longer had the performance gap it needed between IA32 and IA64 to drive the adoption of the Itanium. Intel relented and copied AMD64.
Second - a multi-core architecture, which AMD had designed into Athlon/Opteron from the beginning with a memory controller intended to support the multiple cores. Only when AMD had reached a mature 90nm processing technology was it able to reliably implement dual-core parts. Intel, of course, couldn't allow this to go unchallenged and introduced a "dual-core" Pentium that was in reality simply two dies packaged together. Of course, this design had limitations: core-to-core communication had to go off chip, via the FSB. And, as is usual with Intel, this required yet another new chipset (i.e., motherboard). In contrast, the dual-core Athlon/Opteron architecture uses a crossbar switch for core-to-core communications (never leaving the chip) and required only an BIOS upgrade - it pays to think ahead.
Third - an integrated memory controller (IMC), which of course Intel criticised as "not as good as" its FSB architecture. As recently as June 2006 an Intel presentation contained such critiques of an IMC as: "Tied to specific memory technology", "Requires more pins per CPU", and "Increases CPU die size and power". Well somehow Intel overcame these objections and once again decided to follow in AMD's footsteps and add an integrated memory controller into its CPU roadmap. The interesting question is, will Intel follow AMD and adopt NUMA (vs. SMP) in its upcoming architecture?
Fourth - a high-bandwidth, low-latency, chip-to-chip interconnect - HyperTransport. When it first appeared in 2001, Intel was coincidentally introducing 3GIO (a.k.a., PCI-Express [PCI-e]) and, not surprisingly, dismissed HyperTransport as unnecessary and proprietary. PCI-Express, primarily a board-to-board (backplane) interconnect, would prove HyperTransport redundant. Yet again, Intel relented and announced the "Common System Interface" (CSI) as part of its Nehalem micro architecture. And you guessed it, Intel's CEO and perpetual pitchman Paul Otellini assures us it will be better than the original - HyperTransport: faster, lower latency, "It slices! It dices! It makes julienned fries - whatever those are!" etc., etc.
And, finally, fifth - AMD's Torrenza Initiative and Intel's "pump fake" - Geneseo. In 2004, the HyperTransport Consortium announced HTX, a HyperTransport I/O expansion slot for high-performance systems. These slots used the same mechanical connector as an x16 PCI-e slot but only offers a fraction of HyperTransport's full bandwidth: 41.6 GB/s v. 6.4 GB/s. (PathScale's InfiniPath HyperMessaging HTX adapter offers a low latency cluster interconnect for MPI applications.) Expanding on this concept, in June AMD released its Torrenza Innovation Socket, a plan to open up its Opteron socket specification, allowing third party developers to offer co-processors. As part of this, AMD released a detailed description of a two-socket motherboard with an Opteron in one socket and a co-processor in the other. With the high-bandwidth, low-latency, and cache coherency offered by HyperTransport - the era of co-processing has effectively returned.
Not to be outdone, Intel cobbled together a quick response - Geneseo - based on PCI-e adaptors. But if you are, 1) designing a co-processor that works closely with the CPU and hence requires cache coherency, or, 2) targeting applications which require minimum latency (e.g., MPI adaptors), then Geneseo ain't it. A more general question to ask is, who would develop a co-processor - "accelerator" - which fails to offer the maximum acceleration? Geneseo is best seen as an effort by Intel to freeze the competition's momentum, giving it time to complete development of CSI and then offer a CSI-based Torrenza.
With the acquisition of ATI, AMD now as the potential to offer its own GPUs to fill those co-processor sockets, ushering in a more practical, commonplace use of CP-GPU based application development. Eventually, the GPUs could be offered as addition cores on the Opteron/Athlon die.
Not surprisingly, Intel has of late been trying to bolster its own in-house digital-graphics talent. And there are the reports (rumours) Intel is interested in acquiring Nvidia. Yet again reacting to AMD.
"It's a bad idea until we copy it, then it's a great idea!"
Given these trends and the Andy Grove, Machiavellian mentality which permeates Intel - who cares who invented it, only who's selling it. After all,
copying others is ultimately practical and, maybe for Intel, ultimately a successful strategy
The joint-chip foundry, Globalfoundries, calls for the government's Advanced Technology Investment Co. (ATIC) to own a majority 55.6 percent stake, but AMD and ATIC will hold equal voting rights. The deal officially closed earlier this month."
"Advanced Micro Devices announced Monday that Intel plans to pull its 2001 cross-licensing patent agreement in the next 60 days, unless concerns surrounding AMD's joint venture chip foundry are addressed.
Intel's warning is an escalation of concerns it expressed more than five months ago, following AMD's announcement it planned to spin off its manufacturing assets to a joint venture with the Abu Dhabi government.
Under the 2001 Intel-AMD patent cross-licensing agreement, restrictions exist regarding the transfer of licenses and patents. That agreement is in place until 2010, when it expires.
Intel said its opposition stems from a belief that Globalfoundries is not a subsidiary of AMD, under the terms of the chip companies' 2001 agreement. As a result, Intel does not view Globalfoundries as having licensing rights to its patents.
Bruce Sewell, Intel general counsel, said in a statement:
Intellectual property is a cornerstone of Intel's technology leadership and for more than 30 years, the company has believed in the strategic importance of licensing intellectual property in exchange for fair value. However AMD cannot unilaterally extend Intel's licensing rights to a third party without Intel's consent.
AMD, however, views Globalfoundries as a subsidiary of AMD and sees Intel's latest warning is an attempt to box in its rival, said Harry Wolin, AMD general counsel.
He added that ATIC, through the joint venture, will provide AMD with the capital needed to have state-of-the-art manufacturing technology, posing a greater competitive threat to Intel and its foundries.
AMD also views Intel's actions as a means to distract the public's attention from its recent antitrust battles with the European Commission, as well as in Japan, Korea, and the U.S.
For AMD, the 2001 Intel agreement allows it to manufacture chips using Intel's x86 design, while providing Intel access to its chip patents.
The companies have had a long-standing patent and licensing relationship, going back to 1976.
But this latest turn of events could result in a change in that relationship. AMD, in its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday, said Intel sent it a letter that alleges AMD "committed a material breach of the Cross License through the creation of the company's Globalfoundries joint venture and purports to terminate the company's rights and licenses under the cross license in 60 days if the alleged breach has not been corrected."
AMD notes that the parties seek to resolve the issue through mediation and that both are currently taking the stance that the other has materially breached the 2001 agreement.
Under the 2001 deal, a party that has been found to be in material breach of agreement will no longer have access to the patents and licenses.
AMD, in its filing, stated that it "strongly believes that the company has not breached the terms of the cross-license and Intel has no right to terminate the company's rights and licenses under the cross license."
AMD shares rose 5.56 percent to $2.66 a share in morning trading, on a day when the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up."
Log in to comment