AMD Hires Bank To Explore Sale Options 226
Dainsanefh tips this report from Reuters:
"Advanced Micro Devices has hired JPMorgan Chase & Co to explore options, which could include a potential sale, as the chipmaker struggles to find a role in an industry increasingly focused on mobile and away from traditional PCs, according to three sources familiar with the situation. ... Some investors believe part or all of AMD could be bought by a technology company that might want to emulate Apple Inc's tight control of software and components, a strategy credited in part for the success of the iPad and iPhone. Microsoft Corp, Google Inc, Samsung Electronics, Intel Corp and even Facebook Inc have been suggested by Wall Street analysts as potential suitors that could benefit from some of AMD's chip business, including its graphics division, PC processors and server chips. Others say AMD's most valuable asset may be its deep bench of engineers or its patents."
Update: 11/14 01:44 GMT by S : In an emailed statement, an AMD representative said the company "is not actively pursuing a sale of the company or significant assets at this time."
Oracle? Sony? (Score:4, Funny)
Oracle? So they can make some sense out of Niagara... :-D
Sony? So they can make another poor decision...
At Least (Score:2, Insightful)
They hired the most mercenary company they could find in order to salvage what is left of their shareholder's wealth. I'm sure they've already parted with whatevery IP allowed them to compete to date. I wonder what J Pee Morgan will be able to find in this pile of smoking rubble...
Their real estate and facilities must be worth something. Too bad they don't own clear title to their employees. Chatel used to sell well, back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be ideal for a Chinese company to buy AMD, giving China complete PC manufacturing capability.
China is why we can afford computers. More power to them.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
there are already several locked down Android devices out there, remember Android is based on GPL V2 and NO GPL V3 is allowed, that is so they can "TiVo trick" your ass.
Actually pretty much everything that makes up Android is Apache 2.0 licensed. It's only the patched Linux kernel which is GPLv2 - just like the regular kernel. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, since Google is completely powerless to relicense the kernel. Go yell at Linus and the other kernel devs as they've pretty much all rejected the GPLv3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So they won't be able to make 32 bit x86. But they own the 64 bit x86_64 architecture. If Intel wants to keep making x86_64 chips they will cross license with whoever buys AMD. Otherwise they would have to fall back on Itanium and no one wants that. Not consumers not, Intel, not Microsoft, not Apple, and most Definitely not Oracle because they would contractually be forced to create Itanium code indefinitely further weakening their Spark architecture. I would not be surprised to see Oracle buy AMD just to
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope AMD sticks around.. their IGP solutions tend to be far better than Intels, and the all around value tends to be better at the low end, or when you need m
Samsung (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the Chinese.
China's Loongsoon CPU (funded by the state run Chinese Academy of Sciences) is currently nowhere near the performance level of AMDs offerings. They clearly want x86, the newest Loongsoon3 includes some hardware x86 emulation, they just need better performance.
The Chinese Academy of Sciences tends to fund buyouts of tech companies if it's in their national interest. They had a hand in the buyout of IBMs laptop division, they helped buy out defense research company Magnequench, and t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You fail to realize how big a bargaining chip that is. Intel would lose the ability to ship ANY of thier current non-itanium chips. Losing the X86_64 license would bankrupt intel in short order.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple (Score:2)
They want their own CPU and intel wont give the flexibility they want. Apple would gain their own GPU to tinker plus with bulldozer (or whatever they call it now) can have a nice APU for thei MBAs or IPADS with the x86 port replaced with an ARM.
Of course that would suck for us as I am typing this on an all AMD/ATI phenomII from Asus. But good for Asus investors since it looks like they wont survive this new recession that is starting.
Come up with your own line of home servers. (Score:2)
Somewhere between Arduino, Raspberry Pi and the $279 HP PC I use for a media server, there's a fertile market.
People need small machines to use for everyday tasks, from automating other machines, to serving data, to experimental purposes in a lab.
Make yourself a custom chip-set, AMD, and install your own flavor of Linux on it.
Truly bring (computing) power to the people.
Re: (Score:2)
They have their own chipsets, and every time Ive used one Ive regretted it. Im about to make another attempt in a week or so, but I have a feeling its going to come back to bite me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Newegg sells "book PCs". Most of them geared to thin HTPC market. Thesebare fairly capable machines and can get one without RAM or HDD for ~$150-$200.
deep bench of engineers ? (Score:3)
That's worth something only if employees are bound serf-like to AMD, as opposed to being able to move to a different company if they don't like the new owner.
Similar post-sale exoduses happened when DEC sold itself off chunk by chunk.
Nonsense (Score:2)
...AMD's most valuable asset may be its deep bench of engineers or its patents
Engineers profoundly hate to be sold along, as if they were pieces of equipment, with the company they work for. Moreover and ipso facto, it is nigh impossible to sell what engineers have in their heads: resourcefulness, the capacity to come up with ever-new ideas.
Patents ? Mebbe. Valuable for patent trolls, yes. Valuable for Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, Oracle ? Doubt it.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, maybe. Think about the following scenario. Let us say you are a chip design firm that wants to get into server chips – we will call it ARM. You have 2 choices.
The first is to build your team up from scratch. Search the world over, recruit the engineers, move them to your headquarters (or wherever.). Hopefully you get the right mixture of people.
Or you could buy AMD. They already have design teams set up. Sure, you may lose 10% in a well-executed buy out – but that will leave enough core pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Engineers profoundly hate to be sold along, as if they were pieces of equipment, with the company they work for.
i really doubt anyone cares about "being sold". companies get bought. these things happen. what matters is if they like the new position / compensation.
Just wow... (Score:2)
... I thought these people were supposed ot be experts in thier fields and stuff. I think even the most casual observer saw the market interest changing. Personal computing is evolving. They should have been evolving along with it. And what's intel doing? They remain quite relevant... not so much on the mobile end I guess... their Atom processor ain't quite it you know?
Still, for home appliances, Atom is pretty good stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lol wut
Re: (Score:2)
They should have been evolving along with it. And what's intel doing? They remain quite relevant... not so much on the mobile end I guess... their Atom processor ain't quite it you know?
ever heard of medfield? it's already shipping in phones, and by most accounts meets or beats performance and efficiency of ARM chips.
on the other hand, heard anything about ARM's desktop / laptop / server chips? even a prototype?
"Wall st. analysts" have suggested Intel? (Score:2)
This statement is either false, or "analysts" are even dumber than I expected.
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably the time to mention that the qualification to be a 'Wall St Analyst' is to be standing on Wall Street and wildly waving one's arms like they're in the background of the Today show.
The fact that no specific analyst is being mentioned implies they couldn't even find that.
IBM (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM, so they can definitely revenge themselves for their humiliation at the hands of Wintel.
Intel? (Score:2)
Intel Corp ... suggested by Wall Street analysts as potential suitors
I realize it says "Wall Street analysts", but what utter moron even among that crowd of utter morons could possibly think having effectively all desktop CPU production controlled by a single company would be a good idea?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Intel would also decline the offer, even if AMD paid them and charged everyone else. Only because Intel knows they got in trouble for having monopoly power before, that acquiring AMD would be equally stupid and tha
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolies are not illegal (though they are frowned upon) abuse of monopolies is illegal they could buy it assuming that the federal trade commission approved it, they could own the PC market as long as they kept the price point low they would still make more money than they are now as long as they realize getting to greedy would bring to DOJ and FTC down on their as as well as push PC manufactures to look to ARM MIPS and PowerPC again.
If only (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Given AMD's crashing stock price, that might actually be feasible.
RE:If only (Score:2)
Of course if you buy the company, you also buy the debt. AMD currently has $2B in debt, $1.5B in liabilities (e.g., accounts payable) with only $1.3B in cash in the bank.
Of course AMD also has operating cash flows (e.g., receivables ~$700M) other misc assets (e.g, goodwill~$700M, inventory~$750M, property~$700M, etc~$500M), totaling about $3.3B, but many of these other things are only fully valued if you keep everything running as they are today (e.g., goodwill generally resets to zero and inventory is pen
*Those* are your suggested options? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Microsoft Corp, Google Inc, Samsung Electronics, Intel Corp and even Facebook Inc have been suggested by Wall Street analysts as potential suitors"
Intel would never buy AMD. Face it - right now, Intel is *winning* in the market, pretty much legitimately (not 100%, and they used to cheat like mad, but right now they're winning more-or-less fairly). But they need a competitor to avoid a massive antitrust investigation. They need AMD as an enemy more than they need it as an asset.
Facebook would not, and could not, buy AMD. They may be riding high on the Web 2.0 Bubble, but they're an absolutely terrible match. Facebook's made it a point of using off-the-shelf hardware and open-source solutions. They have very little experience with hardware (besides setting up networks and racks), and gain nothing from producing their own hardware.
Google doesn't need them. They're doing fine running on commodity servers for their web stuff, and trying to produce their own mobile chips would anger their hardware partners for Android. It might give them a slight edge in the long run, but the short-term harm seems to outweigh that.
Microsoft *might* work. They need some special edge in the tablet war they just jumped into, and AMD is a good match with their successful Xbox line. But AMD isn't known to be particularly good at low-power chips. Perhaps they just haven't tried yet, or some older design could be successfully adapted into tablets (a single/dual-core, low-power K8 paired with a good Radeon design might be a good A6 competitor, especially if Microsoft tries to bill itself both as an 'enterprise' tablet *and* a 'gaming' tablet). But really, although it makes sense for Microsoft to buy some hardware company, AMD isn't the best choice. NVidia might make a better one, but I don't think they're looking to sell out right now.
Samsung might buy parts of the company, but they wouldn't want the whole thing. I imagine they would love the graphics section, maybe some of the CPU engineers, but I doubt they want to enter the full-on CPU market.
You know who might make more sense? Cray, or maybe IBM. AMD stuff is popular for supercomputers, both their Opterons and their FireStream/FirePro cards. IBM isn't too likely (they have enough good hardware people already), but Cray or one of their competitors seems at least more plausible than any of the other suggestions.
Another idea is some gaming company. AMD has a somewhat-competitive graphics division, and a compute side that could handle gaming loads well with some tweaks. Sony is really the most likely - they've *never* been good at the hardware side, only lucking into success with the PS1 and PS2 after some clever business decisions. But I also doubt Sony is smart enough to try to do that, especially since buying AMD might hurt their (Intel-focused) laptop business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Microsoft Corp, Google Inc, Samsung Electronics, Intel Corp and even Facebook Inc have been suggested by Wall Street analysts as potential suitors"
Intel would never buy AMD. Face it - right now, Intel is *winning* in the market, pretty much legitimately (not 100%, and they used to cheat like mad, but right now they're winning more-or-less fairly). But they need a competitor to avoid a massive antitrust investigation. They need AMD as an enemy more than they need it as an asset.
I can see Intel tossing a few hundred million at AMD to keep them alive as a competitor, much the way Microsoft did to Apple back in the mid-90s.
Re: (Score:2)
But they need a competitor to avoid a massive antitrust investigation.They need AMD as an enemy more than they need it as an asset.
With Qualcomm recently surpassing Intel as the most valuable chip maker by market cap and Apple announcing that they're considering moving their macs to ARM, I would argue that Intel no longer needs to allow AMD to survive like they used to.
Re: (Score:2)
Another idea is some gaming company. AMD has a somewhat-competitive graphics division, and a compute side that could handle gaming loads well with some tweaks. Sony is really the most likely - they've *never* been good at the hardware side, only lucking into success with the PS1 and PS2 after some clever business decisions. But I also doubt Sony is smart enough to try to do that, especially since buying AMD might hurt their (Intel-focused) laptop business.
Sony did end up buying Minolta for their camera busi
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard/Activision/EA could buy AMD though, make their own consoles.
Not really likely. If you want to break into the console market, you want to buy makers of prebuilt computers, operating systems, input peripherals. You can easily make a console using someone else's chips (I don't think anyone's made one off their own chip design, actually). In-housing the parts is a move an established console maker would do to gain an edge, not something a first-timer would do.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be Apple's chance to bastardize the hell out of x86 and the PASemi guys could probably help out a bit on the power efficiency side of things. Apple also has oodles of cash in the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd also get ATI out of the deal wouldn't they?
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you think the processors in those "commodity servers" come from? Intel only keep their chips at reasonable prices because they have AMD to keep them honest.
Plus, Google has so many damn servers, and a completely custom, in-house workflow, that they'll spend millions and millions for a percent efficiency improvement here and there... Being able to steer a chip-maker towards more cores, higher IPC, better
Re: (Score:3)
Google? (Score:2)
I only see Google buying them, or at least the ATI division, only if they want to do something like they did with WebM/VP8, push for open GPUs. can I dream right?
Re: (Score:2)
Hire back Linux Kernel Devs... (Score:3)
Hire back Linux Kernel Devs and focus on servers.
The fact is that AMD's Opterons are very competitive perfomance and feature wise vs Intel Xeons. The price puts them over the top, though.
You can build 64 core, 1U servers for ~$5000 with moderate DDR3 ECC RAM and HDDs (you'd probably want a SAN though). Fully maxed out still less than $10K.
I respect AMDs cheap desktop and mobile lines but Intel is a juggernaught in this space. They have better contracts with more manufacturers.
Remember the X2... (Score:2)
Then Intel came out with the Core series, the Core2 providing a dramatic improvement over the X2's.
AMD responded with Barcelona, and it was all down hill from there. I promptly bought a Core2 based system and have been using Intel again ever since, AMD never became truly compet
Re: (Score:2)
I love that AMD makes current gen processors that fit in previous gen mb, so I can do a cheap mid-life upgrade. Athlon X2 to Phenom 2 X4 (945) chip; AM2 mb. Awesome! Cheap. It will be a sad day if AMD goes away, left with only Intel expensive for homebuilds.... Only AMD has made sense for me, pretty much every time I was building a machine. Their cost-performance was the best for complete machine builds, not withstanding the cheap mid life upgrade bonus above.
andy
Probably looking for quick cash (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Except when you say 'AMD', you really mean 'ATI'. High GPU profits won't much help if the CPU side keeps burning money.
Re: (Score:2)
Also wasn't there an article a few weeks ago that AMD was looking to sell ARM based servers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...intel processors soundly trump AMD in almost every conceivable metric that matters...
I am a big fan of AMD. I really don't want to see them disappear. The /one market/ they have is cheap, high core density servers and they fucked that up when they laid off their Linux kernel devs.
I was in the process of speccing out some new 32-core (dual socket, 16-core CPUs) 1U servers and when I heard that I shifted gears... now I am lost trying to figure out what to do now...
Re:i don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
...intel processors soundly trump AMD in almost every conceivable metric that matters...
I am a big fan of AMD. I really don't want to see them disappear. The /one market/ they have is cheap, high core density servers and they fucked that up when they laid off their Linux kernel devs.
I was in the process of speccing out some new 32-core (dual socket, 16-core CPUs) 1U servers and when I heard that I shifted gears... now I am lost trying to figure out what to do now...
And the terrible thing about that is that if you want a high density server, 16 cores per socket for instance, your choices are AMD for a reasonableish price, or Intel... oh.. wait... no.. no you can't. Because there don't seem to be any 8+ core Intel CPUs.
So, AMD 16 core part for $519 per socket for Intel for over $1000 for an 8 core. Plus far more expensive motherboards and such. AMD going down will likely end up a disaster for anyone wanting lots of cores and not wanting to spend $1000 - $2000 per socket.
Re: (Score:2)
And the terrible thing about that is that if you want a high density server, 16 cores per socket for instance, your choices are AMD for a reasonableish price, or Intel... oh.. wait... no.. no you can't. Because there don't seem to be any 8+ core Intel CPUs.
That's a shock, because I have a bunch of them here, bought over the counter from a server OEM. They run sixteen threads per CPU and they're stonkingly fast.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They run sixteen threads per CPU and they're stonkingly fast.
Hyperthreading is not the equal of a full-fledged core. On the other hand, an AMD bulldozer core is only half of a floating-point core. But, on the third hand, if FP is a big part of your workload you are probably handing it off to gpus anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Hyperthreading is not the equal of a full-fledged core.
Which is why I said sixteen threads, not sixteen cores. The original claim was that Intel had no CPUs with 8 or more cores, which merely proves the poster has no clue about current CPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
And the terrible thing about that is that if you want a high density server, 16 cores per socket for instance, your choices are AMD for a reasonableish price, or Intel... oh.. wait... no.. no you can't. Because there don't seem to be any 8+ core Intel CPUs.
That's a shock, because I have a bunch of them here, bought over the counter from a server OEM. They run sixteen threads per CPU and they're stonkingly fast.
Unless you've got a magic source, you've got an 8 core CPU which runs 16 threads in softcores. Hardly the same thing. As a bonus for those not 16 cores, you got to pay twice as much as the AMD solution. I hope you're twice as happy. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel makes chips with more than 8 cores.
10 core Xeon: http://ark.intel.com/products/53580/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8870-30M-Cache-2_40-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI [intel.com]
Granted, it's incredibly expensive (as you point out) and I've only seen them in blade applications. But, they do make them. It's also worth pointing out that on the whole, one intel core gives far superior performance than one AMD core of the same clock speed (see http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html [cpubenchmark.net]). Moreover, Intel's hyperthreading can b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Measuring $/core or $/CPU Cycle is not a very accurate way to gauge price/performance.
When you're looking to build up a virtualization environment I'd wager the cost per core will tend to beat most other metrics. After all, what you want most to avoid is core contention. They do make 10 core CPUs, but even if you can get them the cost of one of them will likely outweigh the cost of the rest of the an entire blade. In fact, I know some people who are standing up an ESX system with AMD based blade servers. Each blade server, the entire thing with 16cores and gobs of RAM cost less than Intel C
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, recent tests of current-generation (desktop) processors showed Intel processors to be twice as fast and four times as energy-efficient on a per-core basis.
Even if it really is twice as fast, which I admit I doubt, if you're talking desktop CPUs then you're not likely going to 16 cores or even 8. So even if your point is accurate, it isn't relevant to this thread.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know that Intel has better engineers. They doubtless have more engineers. Intel also has fewer constraints on their engineers. It harder to build a low power chip on a larger process. Its going to be hard to beat, on instructions per watt, the highly competent engineers at Intel who have access to 22nm process when your fabs can only do 28 and larger, even if you put together an engineering dream team.
Re:i don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
intel processors soundly trump AMD in almost every conceivable metric that matters
Except price/performance.
Re:AMD was better (Score:5, Informative)
All Bulldozer-based processors and future generation AMD processors have hardware accelerated AES. Intel usually doesn't, but frequently they don't even specify it.
http://ark.intel.com/search/advanced?AESTech=true [intel.com] Right down to the first-gen Core i5's
AMD processors all support ECC memory, while Intel usually only supports it in the Xeon processors (which can cost thousands of dollars).
http://ark.intel.com/search/advanced/?s=t&ECCMemory=true [intel.com] Even i3 CPU's support ECC.
AMD was also committed to Coreboot for a while, which was great for our freedom. (Unfortunately, they haven't released the required specifications for their more recent chips.)
You mean they not only failed to promote your freedom, they also reneged on a promise?
Re: (Score:3)
Even i3 CPU's support ECC.
To be fair he did say "usually" it's only on the Xeons. Those i3's listed are a minority of all i3's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are either stupid or you are being deliberately misleading. I can see 7 i3's launched all the way back in... Q3 2012. Nothing before that, and no mainstream i5/i7's. All the other Core CPUs in that list are for laptops (sockets BGA1288 and FCBGA1023).
In contrast, every single one of the AMD CPUs supports ECC and that has been the case since AMD64 launched.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Misleading facts with citations are still misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i3 CPU's are used on low power servers, hence the ECC. Google [supermicro.com] found Super Micro make a bunch of ITX sized server motherboards with the i3/i7 ECC CPU's
The Atom N2800 supports 4GB
Re:AMD was better (Score:5, Informative)
Only for a small, random smattering of chips. The vast majority of i5s and i7s you find on Newegg and the like don't, and most systems that ship also don't include CPUs with ECC support. It's certainly not universal across all products, while AMD has made things like VT-x, VT-d, and ECC common to all their processors.
Re: (Score:2)
AMD processors all support ECC memory, while Intel usually only supports it in the Xeon processors (which can cost thousands of dollars).
While there are some very expensive xeon processors they aren't the ones that are relavent here. The relavent ones are those that have ECC support but are otherwise comparable to the desktop parts.
Intel does charge a bit more for xeon processors than equivalent desktop processors but the difference isn't massive as you imply. For example looking on newegg an "i7-3770K" is $319.99 while a "Xeon E3-1275 V2" is 356.99
The main downsides of going the xeon route ar lack of overclockability and needing a server bo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
8 core processor on my desktop for $120? Yes please. "Not enough oomph"-- except on my desktop, where I have the ability to massively multitask while simultaneously nesting ESXi instances, all in a box that will cost under $500....
Seriously, what on earth does the average desktop user (those of us still alive) need with an Ivy Bridge processor? Lower power usage-- who cares? Faster single threaded performance-- except its already fast enough for 90% of desktop apps.
Re: (Score:3)
AMD wasnt "doing well independently", why do you suppose they spun off GlobalFoundries? Theyve been getting stomped since ~2006 when the core2 came out and dominated AMD's lineup.
Re: (Score:2)
AMD wasnt "doing well independently", why do you suppose they spun off GlobalFoundries? Theyve been getting stomped since ~2006 when the core2 came out and dominated AMD's lineup.
One should also remember that wasn't it about that same time that Intel was paying server manufactures not to use AMD chips?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was money both times. AMD lacked the money to advertise properly and Intel both times tapped their huge war chest to literally PAY PC manufacturers not to use AMD chips.
Re: (Score:2)
AMD and ATI should have never merged. The companies were doing well independently, but together they're like oil and water.
No they weren't. AMD was already for a mugging victim of Wintel for many years and ATI was desperately in need of better process technology.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary. Their graphics division is what's keeping AMD's head above water right now, and is still turning out competitive hardware. Also we wouldn't have had Fusion, which is more attractive than any of Intel's offerings for cheap laptops.
Despite this, sadly the end is near for AMD. People have always said that Intel needs AMD to survive to avoid any anti-monopoly action but I'm not so sure now. The battle lines have been drawn for the next chip wars and ARM is much better equipped to take on the mi
Re: (Score:2)
You can't see why anyone might be interested in acquiring their vast patent portfolio, x86 license and cross-licensing agreement with Intel?
Let's all just hope they don't do a Lucent and the patents end up being held by a mysteriously well funded holding company...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They will never beat Intel because intel is a generation ahead and has their own foundry, which means they have better parts, better economies, and better sales, which allow them to maintain their own foundry and stay a generation ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
The new one in NY is rumored to have 22nm capabilities. Supposedly its development has taken a turn towards ARM but I'd be VERY interested to see what a piledriver core on 22nm can do considering what it does against intels offerings on the windows 8 scheduler currently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If AMD left that market completely, it would be devastating to the industry. Intel's CPU innovation would cease, and prices would shoot up sky high in the mid and low segments of the x86_64 market.
And that would be the end of the x86 market. Arm would most likely take over and there are many Arm manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. ARM is Intel's biggest competitor these days, not AMD.
Re: (Score:2)
Those programs are being ported over to the web.
No really, for real this time, honest.
Re: (Score:3)
Modern gate-mapping, placement, and routing algorithms are quite sophisticated these days (and improving all the time), and computers are incredibly fast, relative to a human mind. Could a really good layout engineer do a full-custom 64b carry-lookahead adder that is smaller, faster, less power than an automa
Re: (Score:2)
/b/ never was good.