Hacker News Reader

Comment by bee_rider | Hacker News Reader

Nvidia makes a lot more sense than AMD; it is better for the market (preserving some competition in x86), and at least Intel does something Nvidia doesn’t.

View on HN

China and the EU would never allow an Nvidia Intel merger, not under any scenario the US would find acceptable.

They'll barely allow Nvidia to acquire anybody at this point, no matter how small. See recent EU response to Run:ai. Intel would be considered 100x worse.

Why would China and the EU have input on a US merger?

Because Intel, AMD, etc have offices in EU and China, for sales, distribution and also R&D. If you intend to operate in those markets you need to comply with local regulations.

The same reason as anything else. If the merger goes ahead with opposition from foreign markets, those markets can impose import tariffs or outright bans. Smaller markets may be ones these combined companies are willing to piss off, but not Europe. Their opposition is defacto a deal killer.

They literally don't any serious homegrown alternative though, they'd be effectively forfeiting the AI race

China doesn't care. They are banned from buying western AI HW or making their own AI HW at TSMC/Samsung. They are pouring hundreds of billions to the semiconductor ecosystem.

Huawei is trying to make establish domestic Ascend/MindSpore ecosystem, but they are limited by the SMIC process (~7nm). Amount of defects is allegedly rather high, but they are the only "official" game in town (other than smuggled NVIDIA cards or outsourced datacenters in Middle East).

Then the point about China trying to block a Nvidia merger doesn't really sense if they will be going their own path anyways. It would exist to try to harm Nvidia before their homegrown alternatives ramp up.

Nvidia is only one side of merger. The other is Intel. Intel does sell processors in China. Only AI is banned, not generic CPU (except HPC).

> Why

Well they obviously would..

Also EU has promised various significant subsidies to Intel. They obviously has fabs in Ireland and building one in Germany and perhaps even Poland..

If this is a rhetorical question, just make your point instead.

If not, look up e.g. Microsoft 's purchase of Activision, both US companies.

They wouldn't, but companies at this scale are global, regardless of where their nominal headquarters or stock listing is.

Do they want to sell pentiums in China or EU?

What do they do that Nvidia doesn't (and that Nvidia would care about)?

They already do networking, photonics, GPUs, high speed interconnects, and CPUs. They are planning on selling their FPGAs (the Altera acquisition) to Lattice.

The only things left are their fab ops, thunderbolt/usbc, wifi, and ble.

Their fab ops would take over a decade of heavy investment to catch up to TSMC or Samsung and idk if even Nvidia is ambitious enough to take that on.

Wifi and BLE could be good additions if they wanted to branch out their mellanox portfolio to wireless. Thunderbolt/USB C also might be worthwhile.

But that IP is probably going to be cheaper to buy piecemeal so idk if it's worth it to buy the whole company outright.

I mean, ARM designs have had some wins lately, but x86 still does quite well in single-thread performance, right? Excluding Apple, because they are magic—Amazon, Ampere, these ARM CPUs make a reasonable pitch for applications that use lots of cores well, but that isn’t every application.

x86 CPUs.

Yeah I wonder if maybe the x86 license is the most valuable art of Intel at this point...

Unfortunately rights to the x86_64 license expire on the event of transfer of either company to a new owner.

License for what? The patents have expired.

The colliquial "x86 License" is the AMD-Intel Patent cross-licensing agreement. i.e. All patents related to x86 or any extensions of the ISA are automatically cross-licensed between the companies. While in the past the ISA patent story mostly was leaning in Intel's favor, since AMD64/x86_64 really took off, ISA innovation really became a delicate stack of cards interwoven between Intel and AMD.

So if Intel sells, everyone is fucked until whoever buys can renegotiate the terms of the agreement. And if that's Nvidia, they could just sit dead on the IP and starve AMD of the bulk of their CPU revenue (which is what is keeping the company solvent). And requiring they keep the agreement they currently have would mean requiring AMD to give Nvidia a pretty detailed look at the AMD secret sauce which would increasingly push AMD into the red until they become insolvent, again leading to a Nvidia monopoly.

The US government as well as the EU will not allow that to happen so however things slice, ownership of the x86 ISA patents would not be going to Nvidia.

So for the 2009 cross licensing agreement, change of control terminates the cross licensing for both parties[0]. Since there are far more Intel x86 patents in the last 20 years than AMD, sounds like AMD would be the one more at risk, which I think agrees with what you say. In practice, any anti-trust review if Nvidia is the buyer would prevent Nvidia from using it to harm AMD's business.

[0]https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/anton-shilov/amd-clar...

For the old stuff maybe, but they keep adding new stuff. AVX is from 2008, AVX2 from 2013.

How do you know those are encumbered? Intel invented them, after all....

X86 cores remain pretty good at branchy, lightly threaded codes, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com