Log in

View Full Version : IBM Describes Xb0x 360 Chip And Makes A Surprise Announcement


Jeremy Charette
10-27-2005, 03:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2005/10/ibm_describes_x.html' target='_blank'>http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2005/10/ibm_describes_x.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"IBM is announcing today that it has brought aboard Chartered Semiconductor as a second source to make the PowerPC microprocessors for the Xbox 360. Microsoft asked IBM to find a second source as part of its agreement to use IBM's designs in its new console instead of Intel's. Those who are old enough to understand the importance of second sourcing should recall the original IBM PC. Back in 1981, IBM asked Intel and Microsoft to provide the heart of its new computer. Microsoft was the sole developer of the operating system. We all know the consequence of that decision. But on the chip side, IBM asked Intel to find a second source for its microprocessor. Intel turned to Advanced Micro Devices, and the artifacts of those big decisions are still around today. It's why Intel has a competitor in the x86 microprocessor business. The deal with Chartered is reminiscent of the concerns that IBM had in the old days, but now Microsoft is the one that wants a second source. There's some rich irony in this new IBM-Microsoft alliance."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/Photo4347.jpg" /> <br /><br />History repeats itself. It will be very interesting to see what Chartered Semiconductor learns from its' partnership with IBM, and how it takes that experience to other customers. It has the potential to be a very beneficial relationship for Chartered. On another note, as the details of the Xbox 360 CPU come out, it stands to be one of the most powerful processors ever produced. In terms of raw processing power, it surpasses even the fastest Pentium 4 processor on the market today. This should ensure an incredibly smooth and transparent user experience, even when playing back high-definition video files.

jlp
10-28-2005, 03:39 AM
...
Back in 1981, IBM asked Intel and Microsoft to provide the heart of its new computer. Microsoft was the sole developer of the operating system. We all know the consequence of that decision. But on the chip side, IBM asked Intel to find a second source for its microprocessor. Intel turned to Advanced Micro Devices, and the artifacts of those big decisions are still around today. It's why Intel has a competitor in the x86 microprocessor business.
...

AMD was NEVER a second source to Intel, at least for the CPU's. AMD used to make coprocessor chips at a time when the arithmetic unit was a separate chip (287 coprocessor of the 80286, aka 286). I'm pretty sure the AMD 287 was not under licence either. Intel had one or more second source in Japan... up until the 286.

By the time Intel developped the 386 (aka 80386, henceforth I'll drop the leading 80) they realized they'd better keep the whole pie to themselves.

AMD did some clean room reverse engineering to produce their AM386. Cyrix, then a US fabless developer (later sold their activities to an Asian chipset maker) did the same with lesser success.

Up until now, AMD have always had inhouse developped x86 chips. That's why they can't use Intel's trademarks and have their own: Duron, Athlon, etc.

Felix Torres
10-28-2005, 07:02 PM
From Wikipedia, among many other sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD

"In February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of the 8086 and 8088 processors. IBM wanted to use the Intel 8088 in its IBM PC, but IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips. AMD later produced the 80286, or 286, under the same arrangement, but then Intel cancelled the agreement in 1986, and refused to hand over technical details of the i386 part. The growing popularity of the PC clone market meant Intel could produce CPUs on its terms, rather than IBM's.

"However, AMD challenged this decision, and subsequently won under arbitration. A long process of legal dispute followed, that ended in only 1991, when the Supreme Court of California finally sided with AMD, and forced Intel to pay over $1 billion in compensation for violation of contract. Subsequent legal disputes centered on whether AMD had legal rights to use derivatives of Intel's microcode. Rulings were made in both directions. In the face of uncertainty, AMD was forced to develop "clean room" versions of Intel code. In this fashion one engineering team described the function of the code, and a second team without access to the source code itself, had to develop microcode that performed the same functionality.

"Jerry Sanders could have closed the company and retired at this point; instead in 1991 AMD released the Am386, its clone of the later Intel 80386 processor. It took less than a year for AMD to sell a million units. AMD's 386DX-40 was very popular with smaller, independent clone manufacturers. AMD followed in 1993 with the Am486. Both sold at a significantly lower price than the Intel versions. The Am486 was used by a number of large OEMs, including Compaq, and proved popular, but again was just a clone of Intel's processor technology. But as product cycles shortened in the PC industry, cloning Intel's products became an ever less viable strategy for AMD, as it meant their technology would always be behind Intel.

"On December 30, 1994 the Supreme Court of California finally formally denied AMD rights to use the i386's microcode. Afterwards AMD and Intel concluded an agreement, the details of which remain largely secret, which gave AMD the right to produce and sell microprocessors containing the microcodes of Intel 286, 386, and 486. The agreement appears to allow for full cross-licensing of patents and some copyrights, allowing each partner to use the other's technological innovations without charge. Whatever the exact details, no significant legal action has resulted between AMD and Intel since (until the 2005 antitrust suits in Japan and the U.S.), and it evidently provided a form of "clean break".

jlp
10-29-2005, 02:51 AM
Thanks for correcting the first part of my first paragraph.

Next time I'll be more cautious :? and add "correct me if I'm wrong" 8)

If I remove the first tiny phrase, the rest is 100% correct :D.