Honestly, it probably wouldn't be so bad. There GPU division seems to be doing okay so it might be an okay idea to split off the CPU division. It's better that than close down

I hope they call the spun-off GPU division ATi again.

I still say ATi... old habits die hard I suppose.

It should split. AMD processors are a much better investment for the money, especially the cheap A10 series.
They need to have diverse technology in order to compete with other companies and also to create a standard them self's.

Lets not forget Russian processors as well. The more companies in the game = better for end user.

A big selling point of the amd cpu is the built in gfx, whats going to happen to that if the gpu division is seperate

It ain't happening for quite a while. The article says they are looking at their options, nothing more.

The main issue for AMD is that they have to share R&D funds with the GPU division. I don't know if this would be a good idea or not.

SquallStrife wrote:

I hope they call the spun-off GPU division ATi again.

I still say ATi... old habits die hard I suppose.

I totally agree with you on them naming it ATI Technologies Inc. again if the graphics division splits. I always say ATI as well when speaking of the Radeon graphics cards. Saying "AMD Radeon" to me just feels and sounds weird.

Why? At this point in time, AMD has been using the Radeon moniker roughly as long as ATi was using it.

Stojke wrote:

Lets not forget Russian processors as well. The more companies in the game = better for end user.

OMG don't kick the dead dog, Russian CPUs are based on 65 nm process, priced several times higher then top-end Intel CPUs and can't cope with Libre Office while running Linux. The way it works in Russia, billions are invested, 10% is used for development and 90% is stolen. Russia will never be competitive on CPU market, unless corruption stops being a major problem.

F2bnp wrote:

Why? At this point in time, AMD has been using the Radeon moniker roughly as long as ATi was using it.

Considering i'm 34, I've always known the original company as ATI. Many of us grew up knowing the company as ATI as well, which is the biggest reason why.

RacoonRider wrote:

Stojke wrote:

Lets not forget Russian processors as well. The more companies in the game = better for end user.

OMG don't kick the dead dog, Russian CPUs are based on 65 nm process, priced several times higher then top-end Intel CPUs and can't cope with Libre Office while running Linux. The way it works in Russia, billions are invested, 10% is used for development and 90% is stolen. Russia will never be competitive on CPU market, unless corruption stops being a major problem.

Not going in to politics: I do not think beeing competitive is the goal for Russias CPU (and other hardware) development projects. I think its more about the defense and information sector having access to hardware without "undocumented features" they do not know about.

Skyscraper wrote:

RacoonRider wrote:

Stojke wrote:

Lets not forget Russian processors as well. The more companies in the game = better for end user.

OMG don't kick the dead dog, Russian CPUs are based on 65 nm process, priced several times higher then top-end Intel CPUs and can't cope with Libre Office while running Linux. The way it works in Russia, billions are invested, 10% is used for development and 90% is stolen. Russia will never be competitive on CPU market, unless corruption stops being a major problem.

Not going in to politics: I do not think beeing competitive is the goal for Russias CPU (and other hardware) development projects. I think its more about the defense and information sector having access to hardware without "undocumented features" they do not know about.

Well, that's what they originally advertised 😀 They planned building the CPUs in Russia and I even heard rumors of them buying a complete outdated plant from AMD for this production. However, when the CPUs finally appeared, they were all manufactured by a 3rd party firm from Taiwan. Not exactly something I would do if I were paranoid about all the undocumented features. Besides, CPUs alone are not enough: the whole system has to be home-made, from mobo and memory to HDDs. Anything could feed precious information to The Enemy 😈

Anyway, all I meant to say was that these processors are far from being "in the game".

Skyscraper wrote:

Not going in to politics: I do not think beeing competitive is the goal for Russias CPU (and other hardware) development projects. I think its more about the defense and information sector having access to hardware without "undocumented features" they do not know about.

You mean so they can have their own set of "undocumented features"?

Russia doesn't have the economy needed for CPU production nor the vast amount of R&D money needed for design. If you look at the US only Intel can afford to make CPUs here in the US.

Anyway ATI was viable before the merger and they can split it off easily enough. The way patent sharing is done between AMD and Intel I don't think they can split off the CPU section under another company legally.

collector wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

Not going in to politics: I do not think beeing competitive is the goal for Russias CPU (and other hardware) development projects. I think its more about the defense and information sector having access to hardware without "undocumented features" they do not know about.

You mean so they can have their own set of "undocumented features"?

Well of course! 😀

By the way, our plant has Department #1, which protects national secrets. And they are only allowed to use mechanical typewriters. The thing is, "protected" computer would cost a lot of money and would have to be inspected over short periods of time, so why bother 😁

RacoonRider wrote:

By the way, our plant has Department #1, which protects national secrets. And they are only allowed to use mechanical typewriters. The thing is, "protected" computer would cost a lot of money and would have to be inspected over short periods of time, so why bother 😁

Typewriters 🤣
A lot of things you hear about Russia is apparently true. How much safer is a typewriter compared to a non-networked computer?

Give it some time, it will spark others to start producing as well.
In my opinion we should have all had 32core RISC processors by now if Amiga didn't die.

smeezekitty wrote:

RacoonRider wrote:

By the way, our plant has Department #1, which protects national secrets. And they are only allowed to use mechanical typewriters. The thing is, "protected" computer would cost a lot of money and would have to be inspected over short periods of time, so why bother 😁

Typewriters 🤣
A lot of things you hear about Russia is apparently true. How much safer is a typewriter compared to a non-networked computer?

Depends on how and where you store the paper and if you trust the person with the paper and if the agency has taken measures to prevent removal and\or capture of it.

http://hexus.net/business/news/corporate/8416 … icially-denied/

AMD has officially denied the rumours it seems.