NVIDIA might ACTUALLY be EVIL... - WAN Show December 11, 2020
- Thread starter badsykes
- Start date
- Status
SuperGeil,
I offered Intel, meaning for x86 and Amd , meaning for x64, both companies.
Then you're offering there is nothing that Amd can do about x86 and remembering Amd sub licensing x86 technologies to a Chinese firm for like 200 million.
The initial mocking was uncalled for though.
I offered Intel, meaning for x86 and Amd , meaning for x64, both companies.
Then you're offering there is nothing that Amd can do about x86 and remembering Amd sub licensing x86 technologies to a Chinese firm for like 200 million.
The initial mocking was uncalled for though.
acroig
Just another Troll
This.
I'm trying to break this logic circle with you.
I still stand by AMD not being able to do anything about it. It's not feasible to license out IP to people who want to give up majority share of their company while still assuming the liability just to by-pass an agreement and with none of Intel's instruction sets that AMD gets to enjoy. Which is why I'm annoyed, I truly think you are being difficult.
Can you answer point 3 being contradicting to point 1?
They don't require it, but to receive a founders sku may be important based on the Aib derivatives may be available at a later date and you have nothing to offer as other sites are offering founder reviews. I don't think the free matters to the sites but the timing.
Here is the article on Amd sub licensing:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15493/hygon-dhyana-reviewed-chinese-x86-cpus-amd
A fascinating read if one hasn't read it.
I'm trying to break this logic circle with you.
I still stand by AMD not being able to do anything about it. It's not feasible to license out IP to people who want to give up majority share of their company while still assuming the liability just to by-pass an agreement and with none of Intel's instruction sets that AMD gets to enjoy. Which is why I'm annoyed, I truly think you are being difficult.
Can you answer point 3 being contradicting to point 1?
This is getting circular. Obviously, Amd had to go through hoops, but doesn't change the point that Amd had a sub licensing x 86 agreement and received monies from it.
English is 2nd to me and I already read enough to know that both of your statements are proven false in this article about AMD not wanting to license x86 and being able to license it. Ignoring my question and then posting articles as you google your logic out.... (
passive aggressive I don't really own these words face, therefore, don't hold me to scrutiny)
Bill, bud, you don't trust them already!
oh i trust the Jacket
as far as i can throw him
any why i need and want independent reviewers
not yes men
Last edited:
This is why I said before .... ugh... there is no single sub licensing agreement between Intel and AMD on x86.
I'm going to ask again and I will leave, I promise.
is point three contradicting to point one.
-you stated that why don't they open up x86? (let's admit, this was you being clever and difficult)
-I stated they can't
-you stated they can because China
It's blatantly obvious why they don't license x86.
I'll even use a text from your article...
Last edited:
I never offered that, the sub license was with Amd and the Chinese company.
I offered Intel, x86 and Amd x64,
Only Intel can open x86 obviously, but I presented the sub licensing point as Amd can do something wth x86 and did to counter your word can't.
Amd can and did sub license
Amd sub licensed, .
This is a tedious, semantic, circular debate but I answered them out of respect. We can agree to disagree and move forward.
Nagorak
Well-known member
Unfortunately, thinking that way is how you usually end up with a monopoly, and high prices and poor product innovation overall.
We have two examples of this recently: 1) the stagnation in CPUs when AMD was not competitive, and the massive gains made since they have been, and 2) the overpriced RTX 2000 series when AMD was not competitive, and the suddenly reasonably priced RTX 3000 series now that AMD is.
The problem is if you don't support the weaker competitor when they are down, then they will go out of business, and you're stuck with the lack of competition environment permanently. So, I do think consumers should think about more than "just what's best for me", but most don't.
Nagorak
Well-known member
I'd argue that just because a company's goal is pursuing profit, that doesn't mean it can't be more good or more evil. There have been some companies that have done some horrible ****, like pollute people's water, and lie about it, resulting in the people drinking it getting cancer and other health problems. Not all companies are bad, but some companies are bad.
Companies have different corporate culture/character. Some are definitely more cutthroat than others. So, while the good/evil comparison is kind of an exaggeration, I think it's more than fair to judge a company for its actions.
Are you completely ignoring things? This is not some subjective disagreement about picture quality or etc. This is an objective fact, they cant sublicense x86, period.
from your own article...
Licensing Core IP is Different to Sub-Licensing x86
A lot of confusion was made when the creation of the THATIC joint venture happened. The big overriding question was if AMD had somehow licensed the full x86 (and x64) architectures to a Chinese company, allowing them to build fully capable custom x86 CPUs and push both Intel and AMD out of the market there. This is not the case with the joint venture.
acroig
Just another Troll
Yes but this is not the case here and I agree that this is all an exaggeration.
Are you completely ignoring things? This is not some subjective disagreement about picture quality or etc. This is an objective fact, they cant sublicense x86, period.
from your own article...
Licensing Core IP is Different to Sub-Licensing x86
A lot of confusion was made when the creation of the THATIC joint venture happened. The big overriding question was if AMD had somehow licensed the full x86 (and x64) architectures to a Chinese company, allowing them to build fully capable custom x86 CPUs and push both Intel and AMD out of the market there. This is not the case with the joint venture.
This is all semantics again.
article said:
Last edited:
These kind of semantic debates are evil. I will refrain and move forward.
acroig
Just another Troll
Thanks bud.
Why debate corporate ethics when people already made up their mind? Don't want to upset you and be a sjw.
- Status