Robert Myers wrote:
> On Oct 12, 11:31 pm, Del Cecchi <delcecchinospamoftheno...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 7:50 pm, Del Cecchi` <dcecchinos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 12, 3:00 pm, Del Cecchi <delcecchinospamoftheno...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>>> Fantasy. IBM helped AMD with fab projects and SOI, for which IBM
>>>>>> received considerable money.
>>>>> Forty-five million dollars. Chicken feed for the biggest coup in
the
>>>>> the microprocessor revolution. Without it, AMD was dead in its
tracks
>>>>> and Power was a dead duck right along with it.
>>>> The numbers I heard were way more than 45 million, and didn't have
>>>> anything to do with 64 bit architecture and chip design stuff that I
>>>> think you are referring to.
>>> The forty-five million number was discussed right here. Perhaps you
>>> were not a participant in that discussion, but this is not the first
>>> time that you and I have discussed IBM's pulling AMD's technical fat
>>> out of the fire. Timing was everything. The time that IBM bought AMD
>>> killed Itanium as anything more than a marginal player. You can tell
>>> me that it's all paranoid fantasy, if you like, but it all worked just
>>> too beautifully well for IBM. The self-righteousness of IBMdroids is
>>> galling. To say that IBM had no interest in the matter or that it
>>> didn't lean on the scale is ludicrous.
>>> I never said anything at all about the chip design. It's
>>> uncharacteristic of you to rebut arguments I never made..
>>> Robert.
>> OK, couple minutes with google....
>>
>> http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3412251
>>
>> "IBM and AMD have extended their chipmaking contract through 2008 in an
>> effort to make smaller and faster Us.
>>
>> Under the extended agreement, AMD will pay IBM between approximately
>> $250 million and $280 million to jointly develop new logic processes,
>> including 65-nanometer (nm) and 45nm technologies.
>>
>> The current contract was to expire at the end of the year. Sunnyvale,
>> Calif.-based AMD revealed the extension as part of a statement filed
>> with the Securities and Exchange Commission Wednesday. "
>>
>> It goes back to IBM making chips for AMD in 1998 (K6)
>>
>> and just now, to 2011 for another 400
Million.http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-9880862-64.html
>>
>> "This development follows a series of joint disclosures over the past
>> six years that highlight the crucial expertise that IBM provides to
AMD.
>> The two companies began cooperating on advanced chip manufacturing in
>> 2002, when AMD was having trouble with silicon-on-insulator technology,
>> or SOI. AMD got SOI to work with help from IBM and they have been
>> renewing agreements periodically since then. First, in September 2004,
>> to include development of technologies through 2008 for 32nm
>> manufacturing and then again, in November 2005, the agreement was
>> extended through 2011 for the 22nm process. In other areas, AMD is now
>> cooperating with IBM on "high-k/metal gate" transistor technology for
>> next-generation 32nm chips--a technology that Intel is employing in its
>> current 45nm chips.
>>
>> This kind of know-how is not cheap. AMD's 2007 10K form says the
>> following about the agreement that extends to December 31, 2011: "We
>> anticipate that, under this agreement, we will pay fees to IBM of
>> approximately $400 million in connection with joint development
projects
>> between 2008 and 2011."
>>
>> So it is not some trivial 45 million. That might have been some ETS
>> contract for design help (I knew some of the guy worked on that). This
>> is real money.
>>
> It was not money for design help. It was money for SOI process help,
> and, to all appearances, it broke the logjam for AMD; that is, it made
> Opteron work. That AMD *eventually* paid bigger money to IBM when it
> had volume problems is immaterial. It might be fair to argue (and I'm
> sure IBM would argue) that it was eying bigger money for IBM
> microelectronics if and when Opteron was successful. Since IBM was in
> a position to help *make* Opteron successful (and it did), that would
> have been a shrewd investment. Whatever the motivation, the critical
> poker chip laid down was a small one.
>
> I revisited this subject only because I was struck by the IBM chorus
> here. IBM made shrewd choices. What it's real motivations were,
> though, cannot be inferred from the big money contracts it eventually
> made with AMD.
>
> What might have been heard in hallways is not necessarily more
> reliable than what you'd read on Usenet, and no one from the executive
> suite is going to be candid about anti-competitive activity.
>
> I'm not interested in ba****ng IBM. On the whole, IBM is a good
> cor****ate citizen in the world of technology, as far as I'm
> concerned.
>
> In general, I'm dispirited about the way this country manages its
> resources in science and technology. One of *many* problems is to
> assume that free markets solve all problems, or that what customers
> want to buy the most at the moment (e.g. faster x86) is the right need
> to address.
>
> People here and in similar forums naturally have such a huge
> investment in the world of x86 that they barely notice the problems it
> causes. In retrospect, Intel bungled Itanium. Even if it were not
> such a good design (and it probably isn't, because of all the cruft),
> overturning the software world of x86 would have been a very good
> thing, by whatever means it was accomplished. It won't happen, and
> $45 million from AMD to IBM was a huge step in keeping it from
> happening.
>
> Robert.
I really ought to snip, but figuring out what to leave is complicated so
will leave it all. Sorry.
I will abbreviate the chronology since I perhaps wasn't clear. AMD has
had a long history with IBM, going back to 486 days when it was in IBM's
interest to have a second source to Intel for the PC.
In 1998, IBM did some manufacturing of K6 to help AMD out after Compaq
adopted K6 and orders exceeded capacity. Some time later, in the 2001
or so, AMD and IBM signed the first of a series of contracts related to
process development that all together approach a Billion Dollars (to one
significant figure anyway). This was all with Microelectronics Division.
In addition there was a small contract (by fab scale anyway) for E&TS to
do some work with AMD relating to design and characterization. That is
probably the 45 million you refer to, although I didn't see any
reference to it in my quick search and I don't remember the number.
I think attributing any anti-competitive motives is incorrect. Over the
course of many years with IBM I saw many stories in the trade press
about IBM decisions and how they happened and what they meant that were
totally incorrect. I would venture that any "kill Itanium" stories are
too, if only because IBM had already had a flirtation with VLIW and knew
the story.
You are upset that the Sheeple stick with x86 even though it is clearly
obvious to you that it is the wrong thing. And you are disappointed in
our country and the free market system for allowing it to happen. "Why
can't those fools see the correct answer to our problems"? I would
guess that most folks in this group have felt the same way at some time.
So, if you are not going to let the market decide the direction of
future microprocessor development, then who should? The undersecretary
of commerce for microprocessors? The House subcommittee on
Microelectronics? A vote among leading academics and other experts? Or
maybe a vote by everyone after they are shown the alternatives? Only a
dollar a vote.
del
|
