By: Anon (no.delete@this.thanks.com), February 26, 2021 3:54 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on February 25, 2021 10:11 am wrote:
> Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on February 25, 2021 9:17 am wrote:
> > That would likely only make the licensing deal even less profitable to AMD.
> > Look at what ARM revenue is. Now ponder that the business AMD would have would only be a fraction.
>
> Look at what AMD's revenue was when the best they had was Bulldozer,
> look at ARM revenue when the best they had were crap in order cores.
>
> AMD offering an ARM core would make sense to get that fat revenue that
> comes with high end cores and is not available to ARM right now.
Subject to ARM letting them play in their pool, which the ARM have no incentive to do. Why allow a competitor to their IP licensing model?
> Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on February 25, 2021 9:17 am wrote:
> > That would likely only make the licensing deal even less profitable to AMD.
> > Look at what ARM revenue is. Now ponder that the business AMD would have would only be a fraction.
>
> Look at what AMD's revenue was when the best they had was Bulldozer,
> look at ARM revenue when the best they had were crap in order cores.
>
> AMD offering an ARM core would make sense to get that fat revenue that
> comes with high end cores and is not available to ARM right now.
Subject to ARM letting them play in their pool, which the ARM have no incentive to do. Why allow a competitor to their IP licensing model?
