Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD and IBM Working Together on Future Chips

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the smaller-hotter-more-expensive dept.

oogbla writes "There is a story over at news.com which says that AMD is teaming up with IBM for its sub-100 nanometer process and is de-emphasizing its previous relationships in that area. Also seems that the Silicon-on-Insulator (SOI) technology they were supposedly getting from Motorola isn't going too well and has caused at least one delay to Barton."

37 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. This should happen... by mschoolbus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am quite sure that IBM and AMD teamed together could easily give Intel a run for speed and technology. Alone IBM and AMD have some amazing technologies that have some amazing potential (like IBM's 64bit PPC chip coming soon).

    1. Re:This should happen... by nattt · · Score: 4, Funny

      All we need is Apple to put them in Macs....

      --
      -- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
    2. Re:This should happen... by spiro_killglance · · Score: 5, Informative

      There only collibrating on silicon chip processes not chip design. IBM, AMD and MOT already worked
      together on 180& 130 nm copper interconnect chips, so this is nothing new. Previously AMD
      was working with UMC to develope 65nm 12" wafer
      chips. But UMC have never been state of the art
      and IBM is much better bet as a partner.

    3. Re:This should happen... by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 4, Funny

      All we need is Apple to put them in Macs....
      Yes, wouldn't that be great? :) (I think so)

    4. Re:This should happen... by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am quite sure that IBM and AMD teamed together could easily give Intel a run for speed and technology.

      It's not that Intel doesn't know how to get more speed, it's that faster designs are unimplementable because of power consumption issues. The 3GHz P4 is pushing the limits of what's possible, and uses an outrageous amount of power. I'm sure we'll see faster P4s, but every 10% increase in speed will be paid for with a 15% higher power requirement. AMD is going to have exactly the same problem.

      To get significant gains, the complexity of the x86 needs to be trimmed way back, so much that it's likely easier to just start from scratch.

  2. I hope this doesn't mean... by intermodal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...that i'll never get a ThinkPad with a TransMeta chip in it. I love IBM laptop hardware, and Transmeta seems to have a grasp of what should be in a laptop processor, but whether or not it will ever become a reality one has to wonder.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  3. Motorola is Slow??? by SpamJunkie · · Score: 5, Funny

    What, Motorola caused a delay for someone it was supplying something to? That's crazy! Motorola is never *achem*G5*achem* late! I'm sure that it's just a big misunderstanding on AMD's side.

    Then again maybe it's the year of the Laptop for AMD too!

    1. Re:Motorola is Slow??? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Motorola is never *achem*G5*achem* late!

      You're only late if the product is shipped...

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  4. wow by greechneb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess this means, that there might actually be a big computer manufacturer that will back AMD. I'm sure AMD execs are drooling of the possibilities of having someone in their corner against Intel.

  5. good news/bad news? by herrd0kt0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to me, the most interesting part of the article is this: "The deal also marks a break in an alliance between AMD and Taiwan's United Microelectronics, a foundry that makes chips for other companies Earlier, AMD and UMC agreed to jointly develop 65 nanometer processes and build a fabrication facility together. AMD also said it would use UMC for excess factory capacity if necessary."

    at first glance, it might seem like it's bad that AMD is breaking business ties. but the last sentence indicates that the option to tap UMC is still available, which to me means that the relations between the two must not have soured that badly.

    looking at the big picture, it seems that AMD has made a pretty decent business move upwards, scaling up as they need, and acquiring a nice, big name to throw around as good PR.

    which is not to say that it'll make AMD successful. but you know how dippy people are when it comes to stocks. Joe Trader who was "like, wtf?! UMC? wtf UMC?" might be more like "miammiam, IBM. mmmn, juicy goodness."

  6. Good for everybody but Intel and UMC by Hadean · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's another link to the EE Times: http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20030108S0038 (care of [H]ard|OCP)

    Hopefully this means that the next CPUs out of AMD won't be able to warm up the apartment come winter.

    Generally this means that AMD won't be working with United Microelectronics (UMC) anymore... a contract that was just recently made (January). (EE Times hints that IBM has been "muscling in" on UMC's turf lately - ouch).

    The deal apparently marks an end to AMD's arrangement with United Microelectronics Corp., a Taiwan-based foundry with which AMD was to develop process technology and build a 300-mm fabrication facility in Singapore. Asked about that earlier partnership, an AMD spokesman said the two sides "are amicably winding up their joint development relationship."

  7. Exclusive? Not. by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Informative
    When I read about this, yesterday, the indication was that IBM and AMD would be working together, not against Intel or anything so interesting. It's a simple technology sharing arrangement, which benefits AMD, allowing them keep costs lower by using IBM or jointly developed materials technology. Where Intel can do it all in-house (at least for now).

    I certainly fell for the hype initially, thinking "AMD + IBM + Hammer?!?!?", alas, not to be.

    FWIW IBM also has similar arrangements with Intel.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  8. AMD vs Intel by Elbereth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's interesting how all the hardware sites lambasted Intel for the design of the Pentium 4, because it didn't have the raw speed of the AMD Athlon or Pentium 3. What made this all rather amusing to me, however, was that these people weren't around to see the evolution of the 386 vs 486, 486 vs Pentium, and, to a lesser extent, the 286 vs 386. In each of these situations, the previous generation of chip was able to eek a few more cycles over the next generation... in the beginning of the next generation's run! Intel has a very strong history of designing chips that ramp up very well (except for their one CPU engineering failure, the Pentium Pro, which was too ambitiously designed).

    I wasn't surprised when the AMD Athlon pulled out ahead of the Pentium 4, then fell very far behind. The Athlon was not engineered to ramp up well over 1 GHz. AMD was very foolish to race to that point, seeing as how long it took them to get working silicon at just 2 GHz.

    I'm not saying that I bought a Pentium 4, just that I knew it would eventually overtake the Athlon. I'm quite happy with a cheap Athlon, myself. Semiconductors is a soap opera for nerds. That's why I read The Register, not EE Times.

    My guess is that there's going to be a lot more consolodation in the semiconductor and memory world. I bet Micron, AMD, Motorola, and Apple are all going to end up merging, buying out, and/or disappearing in the next few months. Maybe HP will buy them all.

    1. Re:AMD vs Intel by cheezedawg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry to say that, but it is true

      No, thats not even close to true. It wasn't until Athlon that AMD could top an Intel processor in performance, and that didn't last very long either.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    2. Re:AMD vs Intel by binaryDigit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It wasn't until Athlon that AMD could top an Intel processor in performance

      I think that you're not going far enough back. Remember that AMD offered 386/40 when Intel stopped at 33 and AMD also had 486/120 when Intel stopped at 100. So AMD does have a history of offering higher performing processors (not necessarily faster clock for clock, but a part that is faster than anything that Intel had in the same family). I remember that someone also had a 286/20 when Intel maxed at 12, but I can't remember if that was AMD or someone else.

    3. Re:AMD vs Intel by sean23007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope you misspoke when you said Apple would merge or disappear. Apple isn't going anywhere, as can be seen by their repeated strong showings at their release party conferences and on Wall Street. Apple is a strong company that is in no danger of being purchased. The only thing I can foresee that resembles what you are talking about is if Apple were to buy out Motorola or Micron and so be able to manufacture their own processors and/or memory units. But the next revision of the PowerPC processor went to IBM, not Motorola, and IBM and Apple will not consolidate into one company. Perhaps if Apple bought Motorola (almost impossible), they would start making computers with and integrated G4 that perhaps isn't upgradeable, but runs cooler in less space than a socket processor. A good step for their iMacs and Powerbooks, if they don't do it already. They can't really do the same for memory, as people will always want to upgrade their RAM. They just can't do away with DIMM slots.

      In short, your vision of consolidation might not be wrong, but I think you have chosen the wrong companies. AMD and Apple have business alliances with IBM, a very strong company with little to no interest in consolidation with either company. Motorola is into too many things to be bought, but isn't doing well enough to buy anyone. Of all the options, they are the most likely to go under, but I wouldn't count on it. And Micron can continue to sell RAM as long as people continue making software that needs it. They probably aren't in that great a danger, especially in the next few months

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    4. Re:AMD vs Intel by Octagon+Most · · Score: 4, Funny
      "When a decent OS was stuck on it, it would fly."

      When will that be?

    5. Re:AMD vs Intel by RealErmine · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wasn't surprised when the AMD Athlon pulled out ahead of the Pentium 4, then fell very far behind.

      Did I miss something? When did AMD fall "far behind"? Last I checked, the Athlon XP 2800 was pretty on-par with the P4 2.8 GHz even beating it out on many common benchmarks, for example... (Athlon XP 2800 is 550Mhz SLOWER than the P4. That was a whole computer 3 years ago!)

      The prohibitive cost of P4's, especially the higher end ones, has pretty much kept AMD processors as the choice for home system builders. Any new super high GHz P4's aren't really in the picture for many people.

      Granted, tough times for the industry have hit AMD hard and their development schedule has suffered. For the most part their delays have not been due to poor scaling of the processor core but to financial or manufacturing issues. The previous transition from Athlon to Athlon MP and XP was pretty seamless.

      Also, both AMD and Intel have gone through multiple core revisions as the P4 and Athlon step up speed and performance. This pretty much takes revision history as evidence of poor foresight out of the equation also.

      The Athlon was not engineered to ramp up well over 1 GHz.

      What? That's exactly what it was designed for! The first Athlon, I believe, was either 500 or 600 MHz. This was the first generation which quickly gave way to 700-1000Mhz versions. With the introduction of copper interconnects and manufacturing processes for smaller transistors/dies the Athlon did pretty darn well up to speeds past 1.5GHz with regular introductions of new chips.

      For a company that, up until the Athlon, was pretty much a laughable CPU designer it's a nice feat to keep up with Intel over a range of 1.5GHz on the same basic layout. Need I point out that this same speed range was encompassed by BOTH the P3 AND P4 while the Athlon remained pretty much the same? Perhaps you meant to say 2GHz? Well, time will tell on that one but partnerships with the right companies, like IBM and the introduction of the Hammer line will hopefully make the argument a moot point.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    6. Re:AMD vs Intel by be-fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what I don't get about those people lambasting Intel for the P4 design. The long pipeline of the P4 was a *design decision* It had certain negatives (huge pipeline flush penalties, insane interrupt and system call latencies, high power consumption, etc) and certain positives (extremely high clock speeds, massive bandwidth and throughput). At the end of the day, what matters is the end result. The P4 is simply faster than any other chip in its class, and is very competitive with a lot of chips (50-70% the FPU performance of a Power4) that are way out of its league. This is how engineering works, plain and simple.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  9. Re:This should happen (more commentary)... by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    IBM, of course, will also benefit. The company rivals Intel in semiconductor research, but its chip sales are only one-eighth as large. Licensing its technology, and manufacturing chips for other companies, opens revenue streams for Big Blue.

    Licensing technology out to others is exactly what IBM should be doing in this case. It helps the industry and that will, in turn, help them. This is great for IBM in the short term and the long term.

    --naked

    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
  10. Uh ohh... Remember Cyrix? by tstoneman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know it's not exactly the same, but remember what IBM did to Cyrix? They licensed Cyrix's chips and then undercut them in price, which I believe led to the eventual demise of their chip.

    It seems as though making a deal with IBM is almost as risky as making a deal with Microsoft, although I guess dealing with Microsoft has an even worse track record (Sybase with SQL Server, IBM with OS/2, Sendo with their phone stuff).

  11. This alliance should work .... by mustangdavis · · Score: 3, Interesting
    IBM's services and technology don't come cheap, though. Companies typically hand over several million dollars--even hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the deal--to IBM under these alliances, according to sources.


    Even after paying hundreds of millions to IBM, AMD should still be able to undercut Intel's outrageous pricing and sell chips of equal or greater quality (ie, chips that have a detailed instruction set, not chips that just do nothing fast) and still make a decent profit .... although I'm not too keen on the idea of AMD's prices going up because of IBM charging them out the ying-yang for research ... but the positives definately outweigh the negatives ... especially if this could hurt Intel and insure that AMD will be able to compete with them for years to come ...

    Just my $0.02


    --
    HallmarkOrnaments.Com
  12. No by friedegg · · Score: 5, Informative
    From an AMD History page:

    Since 1969, AMD has grown from a fledgling start-up, headquartered in the living room of one of its founders, to a global corporation with annual revenues of $4.6 billion.
    --
    Google doesn't index user sigs, so stop trying to "Google Bomb" with them.
    1. Re:No by mgblst · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your quote doesn't metion whether they moved out of his living room?

  13. This is all about manufacturing by zealot · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think a lot of people are misreading (or in /. fashion, not reading) this. Or just not understanding. This does not mean IBM and AMD are working on some new type of processor together (ie no new processor architecture).

    What this means is that they will work together on having manufacting technoligies in the future. Fabs and fab equptment are extremely expensive and it is generally hard to move from one manufacturing process to another. This alliance should help shave costs and improve manufacturing quality on the process (I believe it said 0.65 micron) in question. Each will continue to design cpus separately.

    --
    He said, "You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you helped assemble the first NT supercomputer," and I cringed.
  14. AMD need to get the product out. by moduc · · Score: 5, Informative

    First, AMD must get their product out. 64, 32, whatever. They have to speed up the chip too. For a same number of model and mhz, I am not sure which is better in term of real speed (AMD vs. Intel), but I have a gut feeling that Intel chip can not be slower (but AMD could). So, that's bad for AMD.

    Then, they have to move to more advance manufacturer process quicker. That's how you save cost. Intel has higher mhz chip, has more advance (300mm) fab (translate to lower cost), move to smaller process quicker. What does all this means? In addition, they move faster products out to the market quicker and more frequently.

    I would be nervous if I were AMD. They miss the PDA chip space (I may be wrong on this). I think that's where money goes. Create a gig hertz pda then sell it. That's when handheld computer become reality. It's the convegence of wireless phone, pda, multimedia (mp3 player, video player), games, and anything you haven't think of. Ofcourse, it can do messaging, audio conference, and video conference.

    Hey, the future is there. Whoever get their first, and make it cheap enough (for all poor comsumer) will win. (technology won't become reality unless they're good enough, but also cheap enough).

    AMD is known for its competitive price. Use that war game.

    In summary, you can not compete if you can not bring a new, better product out (ok, and enough for us to buy, not just a demo one).

  15. IBM -- possible matchmaker by Quazi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple is consulting with IBM about the PPC970. AMD is consulting with IBM about a new fab process. So, with any luck from IBM, there's a chance that representatives from both Apple and AMD will be in the same room together! With any more luck, they'll be opposite genders (then again, that doesn't much matter these days), and they'll hit it off!! (..but we've got to see their offspring.. it will be wonderful!)

  16. Re:IBM slow... AMD... hot by binaryDigit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IBM is simply offering production services to AMD, this is not another AIM alliance or anything like that. So IBM mgmt slowness should not be an issue at all. AMD simply is another IBM Semi customer.

    As for IBM mgmt, well yes, in many ways IBM is the poster child for the slow and ponderous company. However, when they decide to do something (and do it right, well as much as can be expected) they can be the unstoppable force. RS/6000 and ThinkPad are two excellent examples.

  17. A better link for this story... by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 3, Informative
    AMD deal with IBM appears to end earlier alliances, but what worries me is that:
    • "AMD will relocate a substantial number of engineers to IBM's silicon development facility in Fishkill, N.Y., and joint development work will start later this month."

    That's always a good news/bad news type of thing. Still, the fact that IBM/AMD are going to concentrate on SOI tells me that perhaps the newers AMD's will require less power, which can ONLY be a 'good thing'(tm)

    Chuck Bucket

    --
    free ipod and free gmail!
  18. not true by dirvish · · Score: 3, Funny

    AMD and IBM Working Together on Future Chips

    I don't believe it. Time travel is impossible!

    --
    FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
  19. If You're Thinking "PowerHammer", "IBM Athlon"... by 0x69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're thinking "PowerHammer", "IBM Athlon", etc., then you REALLY don't get it. This is like GM and Ford cooperating on expensive research needed to meet new Federal safety & pollution standards:
    - An engineer who used a saw to cut GM & Ford airbags or catalytic converters open a few years later could see similarities in the technology.
    - Someone who was expecting to see a Pontiac Mustang or Lincoln DeVille would be SOL.

    --
    It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
  20. Pricewatch prices .... by mustangdavis · · Score: 3, Informative

    AMD:

    $319 Athlon XP 2700 333
    $280 Athlon XP 2600
    $274 Athlon XP 2600 333
    $173 Athlon XP 2400
    $130 Athlon XP 2200
    $86 Athlon XP 2100
    $71 Athlon XP 2000
    $70 Athlon XP 1900
    $62 Athlon XP 1800
    $52 Athlon XP 1700




    Intel P4:

    $635 - Pentium 4 3.06GHz
    $356 - Pentium 4 2.8GHz
    $271 - Pentium 4 2.6GHz
    $224 - Pentium 4 2.53GHz
    $182 Pentium 4 2.4GHz 533MHz
    $185 - Pentium 4 2.4GHz 400MHz
    $166 - Pentium 4 2.2GHz 400MHz
    $168 - Pentium 4 2.26GHz 533MHz
    $168 - Pentium 4 2.26GHz
    $146 - Pentium 4 2.0GHz Sock 478
    $171 - Pentium 4 2.0GHz
    $133 Pentium 4 1.9GHz Sock 478
    $192 - Pentium 4 1.9GHz
    $104 - Pentium 4 1.8GHz Sock 478
    $159 - Pentium 4 1.8GHz
    $114 - Pentium 4 1.7GHz Sock 478
    $132 - Pentium 4 1.7GHz
    $106 Pentium 4 1.6GHz Sock 478
    $130 - Pentium 4 1.6GHz
    $103 Pentium 4 1.5GHz Sock 478
    $119 - Pentium 4 1.5GHz
    $117 - Pentium 4 1.4GHz Sock 478
    $110 - Pentium 4 1.4GHz



    Hmmm ... only cheaper for the 2.6 .... no where else .... hmmmmm

    I'll stick with my earlier statement ...


    --
    HallmarkOrnaments.Com
  21. Not so sure it was a bad business move... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wasn't surprised when the AMD Athlon pulled out ahead of the Pentium 4, then fell very far behind. The Athlon was not engineered to ramp up well over 1 GHz. AMD was very foolish to race to that point, seeing as how long it took them to get working silicon at just 2 GHz.

    It gave AMD some very good credibility, having the fastest processors, not just being some copycat always behind. Without that credibility, they would never have gotten Athlon MP in on the market. Most likely they wouldn't get money for the investments they'd need (and still do) to keep up with Intel otherwise.

    It showed that Intel could be beaten, at least for a short while. Kinda like the gfx cards. Geforce, Geforce DDR, Geforce 2, Geforce 2 GTS, Geforce 3, Geforce 3 Ultra, Geforce 4... Radeon 9700! Ok Nvidia might strike back just as hard with Geforce FX, but it's the same thing.

    Besides, it's not like AMD is really far behind. I've seen AMD2800+ in the stores, Intel has 3.06GHz (assuming those PR ratings are still close to valid). Of course AMD is now playing pretty much every design trick in the book (FSB, additional layer, minor core improvements+++) to keep up, so they need SOI and/or Hammer fairly soon, but they're still in loop.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Re:IBM slow... AMD... hot by roguerez · · Score: 3, Funny

    And the PC, what a whopper that was!

  24. Re:IBM slow... AMD... hot by binaryDigit · · Score: 3, Informative

    Glad you bring those up, as those were two technologies that were superiour but because of actions by key players, weren't as successful as they could/should have been.

    OS/2 to this day is a better BASE OS than Windows could ever hope to be. The API was much cleaner and it actually made sense. Now there were certainly some UI issues (sorta liked it or hate it) and the config/setup was never a smooth as it could have been, but it was overall a superiour product.

    Ditto MCA, it was a higher performance, scalable, bus that didn't require jumpers to configure, a godsend at the time. If not for IBMs decision to close the arch. and charge royalties (creating the gang of 7 and EISA) we may all be on some variant of the MCA bus right now.

    Now don't get me wrong, OS/2 and MCA were not perfect, but they were significantly better than anything at the time and their demise/lack of overall success was not due to their technology.

  25. What AMD needs by brejc8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AMD has got a killer processor with trhe hammer but the current sample versions have a tiny cache. This is because AMD never had good luck with production flaws and their yeild is usually low (So I hear). So they are forced to making smaller chips. Now IBM have had some silly sized silicon experience. They are way way ahead of the others. especially as the hammer is a dual ISA chip so it would need a copy of each library for both architectures. Thus a need for a doubled cache.
    I remember a colegue coming back from Hot Chips and there being a presentation by some people of the so called giant chips they theoreticly could make and IBM just blew them out the water with some 8 metal layer 5x5 cm monstrosety (numbers are prob. way out).

    --
    Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego