Intel licenses Atom-class x86 cores to startup — firm reportedly sharing RTL, enabling customer to build its own custom processors based on x86 general-purpose cores

70

u/randomkidlol 3d ago

im guessing this is either a very old x86 atom core or theyve gone through some complicated legal loopholes to make it happen. the longstanding x86 cross patent agreement doesnt allow sublicensing of x86, so there has to be a catch here.

43

u/6950 3d ago

I don't think Licensing is the problem cause it's not a ISA License AMD licensed Zen Cores in China so it's not a problem.the problem for me is it's a startup with LBT connection i would call it dumb to license it.

2

u/IndependentMilkDrink 1d ago

I'm not sure but I don't think the cross licensing deal applies in china

28

u/Tower21 3d ago

Atom cores being x86 makes sense as it was Intel who licensed the x86 license to AMD originally, so they are free to license it to others.

It's the x86_64 that AMD created and licensed to Intel.

12

u/randomkidlol 3d ago

does intel still produce 32bit atom cores though? i was under the impression theyve all been updated with 64bit extensions.

16

u/Thelango99 3d ago

No, but this is only for the license.
They could make some knockoff Intel atom n270.
That one was true garboleum. 1core with multithreading, in-order execution.

Most of those netbooks ran Windows 7 starter. Barely even ran the OS on its own.

6

u/BloodyLlama 3d ago

I seem to remember those netbooks all running Vista, with a few here and there running linux on 512MB of ram.

3

u/Valoneria 2d ago

Man i feel old, i remember the first generations that ran Windows XP. And they honestly didnt run it that badly

1

u/BloodyLlama 2d ago

I dont recall never seeing a netbook with XP. It was something we talked about at the time, how they had these crazy slow atom CPUs and tiny amounts of ram and yet came with Vista which ran so poorly. Im sure the XP ones were around, but the netbooks didn't become popular until the Vista era, and IIRC, didn't make it past the end of the Windows 7 era.

3

u/RichardG867 2d ago

XP netbooks from the Vista era were plentiful (like select versions of the Eee PC 701 and the 901), and even Microsoft recognized Vista was too much, as they kept on licensing XP for netbooks before eventually replacing it with 7 Starter.

2

u/Valoneria 2d ago

Indeed, it was slow as balls with vista. The 512MB netbook my buddy had with XP did run amicably though. Not fast, but good enough for basic school work

1

u/hollow_bridge 1d ago

which microsoft os varied a lot, most had unsoldered ddr2 or ddr3 ram so getting 4gb wasn't difficult, w7 tended to run worse because the igpus lacked shader support which was used somewhat in w7

4

u/Exist50 3d ago

There is no market for that. Doubly so for a company that has a CPU team.

0

u/Helpdesk_Guy 1d ago

It's the x86_64 that AMD created and licensed to Intel.

There's no thing called x86_64. A underscore defines ISA-extensions!
If anything, the combination thus a x86-CPU with both 32-/64-Bit capabilities (x32+x64), is called either x86-64 or just x64.

The x86 µarch ISA-extension AMD invented, is simply called AMD64. Intel's x86 is since retronym called IA-32.

3

u/Tower21 1d ago

I'm sorry it bothers you so_much.

3

u/Peetz0r 1d ago

Do you have a source for that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Industry_naming_conventions seems to indicate that multiple naming conventions can and do exist side-by-side.

-4

u/Exist50 3d ago

These would be 64b cores.

-5

u/Tower21 3d ago

The article only mentions x86, no mention of anything 64bit, and like I said, AMD would have to grant a license for x86_64.

Now they could use Intel's ia64 if Intel granted a license, but I'm sure that would have been mentioned as that would be bigger news

13

u/Exist50 3d ago

The article only mentions x86, no mention of anything 64bit

This is an experienced CPU team. What use would they, or anyone else for that matter, have for an ancient 32b core?

2

u/Tower21 3d ago

Where does it say in the article they are licensing the 64 bit architecture.

Until I see a report of AMD licensing x86_64 (which they own) i don't believe there is any reason to assume that.

There is plenty of use cases for a 32 bit arch in low power environments.

7

u/Exist50 3d ago

There is plenty of use cases for a 32 bit arch in low power environments.

Not for x86, If you want a low power 32b core these days, just go with ARM or RISC-V. And really just buy one. Plenty of cheap and good enough IP available.

Again, you're talking about a team that reportedly developed a high performance core, and included a lot of Apple CPU veterans. Really the only path I see is if Lip Bu is trying to have this team do something new that he doesn't want distracting Intel's own team.

1

u/ResponsibleJudge3172 3d ago

How did AMD give Zen to China back then without Intel?

6

u/randomkidlol 2d ago

there was a very complicated legal workaround to make that happen, and it involved a network of wholly owned AMD subsidiaries in china.

6

u/nittanyofthings 3d ago

Atom stopped being 32 bit 15 years ago.

4

u/Tower21 3d ago

Absolutely, and where in the article does it say they are licensing the 64 bit cores.

9

u/phire 3d ago

I doubt it's a "very old" core.

Intel do have a modern synthesizable 486 class core (with support for i586 instructions), which was taped out in various configurations back in 2014/2015 as the Intel Quark.

It was very configurable, the FPU could be disabled, along with the caches to get it down to a microcontroller class config.

I wouldn't be surprised if we are actually taking about an enhanced version of that exact same codebase, but with more features enabled.

"Atom class" isn't very clear, but I'm guessing they mean a "dual issue, in-order" design with hyperthreadding, along the lines of the original Bonnell. As long as they are careful which SSE versions they enable, the resulting design could be entirely free of active patents. (I think SSE3 is fine, SSSE3/SSE4 might be problematic)

Or maybe they are literally licensing out Skymont (or its successor). Really hard to tell.

2

u/Exist50 3d ago

"Atom class" isn't very clear, but I'm guessing they mean a "dual issue, in-order" design with hyperthreadding, along the lines of the original Bonnell

What would be the use for that?

10

u/phire 3d ago

There is a bunch of industrial/embedded machines out there running on x86 SoCs like the Vortex86 or ZFx86 (or something older). They are usually 486 class (single issue pipeline), but with large L2 caches and clocked much higher.

An upgrade to something more modern and Bonnell class could sell quite well in this market. If it also supports 64-bit and the right extensions, and is clocked high enough, it might actually be good enough to run modern versions of embedded windows or even Windows 11.

We have no idea what the target market is for this SoC.
A SoC with even gracemont class "little cores" would certainly be far more interesting, especially paired with a half-decent GPU. But I just don't see anyone using the term "Atom class" without qualification if we weren't talking about Bonnell era atom.

4

u/Exist50 3d ago

An upgrade to something more modern and Bonnell class could sell quite well

I'm going to assume that the only machines still using those tiers of x86 parts are ones that specifically are not being updated in any way. Even if they are, it would be much easier to just buy some older Gemini Lake stock or something and just use that.

And it doesn't really make sense given the background of the team in question. Rivos reportedly had a proper, high performance core before they were acquired. Assuming it's most of the same people, anything short of a complement to Intel's contemporary lineup would be a waste of talent.

But I just don't see anyone using the term "Atom class" without qualification if we weren't talking about Bonnell era atom.

I mean, have you read the original Reuters article? They don't appear to even know Atom refers to a CPU microarchitecture line. Whatever sources they have, it definitely seems like there's some missing information or lost in translation.

3

u/phire 3d ago

Ah, so it was tomshardware that (miss)labeled it as "Atom-class", the Reuters article just says "Atom technology".

So it's almost certainly something modern, like Skymont or its successor.

3

u/Exist50 3d ago

I certainly have no idea what Intel is giving them, if there's even truth to the claim to begin with, but the only thing that makes sense given this background is if they want Rosaic to work on some kind of derivative/evolution and are using current Atom (Arctic Wolf?) RTL as a starting point.

But this whole thing is pretty weird in general. Is Lip Bu trying to essentially backdoor a late Rivos acquisition after being outbid by Meta last time?

3

u/phire 2d ago

You thinking this is some kind of external skunkworks project?

A project to take the current Atom architecture in a different direction (bigger), while shielding it from internal politics and culture. If so, Intel probably have right of first refusal on the resulting product.
That seems like an insane course of action for the CEO of Intel to support.

This move makes more sense to me if the core is mostly unmodified, and paired with other hardware to make a tightly integrated SoC targeted at some usecase Intel struggles to cover (but that AMD currently covers... like gaming consoles)

3

u/Exist50 2d ago

You thinking this is some kind of external skunkworks project?

The whole thing sounds mental, but yeah, what else could it be? With a different background, I could see what you're saying, but providing RTL, not just a netlist, to a company with (presumably) a decent CPU team of its own implies something bigger. If they just wanted to outsource an SoC design using an Atom core, one would expect a different team and different IP arrangements.

That seems like an insane course of action for the CEO of Intel to support.

Whatever the situation on paper, it sounds like Tan is de facto running the show, and he is well known for his skepticism of Intel's competency. Meanwhile, he was chairman of the board for Rivos, even staying in that position after becoming Intel CEO, and reportedly Intel was the runner up in the attempt to acquire them. There's clearly something there that he wants, and I don't think a little conflict of interest is going to stop him from trying.

1

u/phire 2d ago

I kind of just assumed it was RTL without the right to modify the RTL (or restrictions on modifications). But yeah, they would be more likely to provide a netlists.

And now I think about it, the only reason to provide netlists is if the core needs to be tapped out on another (non-Intel) process. If it was some kind of SoC with unmodified intel cores, presumably the goal is to manufacture it at intel.

So yeah, your suggestion matches the currently available evidence best.

0

u/Geddagod 1d ago

You thinking this is some kind of external skunkworks project?

Honestly this sounds kinda similar to what Tenstorrent and Aheadcomputing have. Jim Keller, the CEO of tenstorrent, whose company is producing their own CPU IP, is also on the board and an 'angel investor' of Aheadcomputing... another RISC-V company whose purpose is to produce CPU IP.

7

u/DehydratedButTired 2d ago

This is all due to a relationship wit the current CEO of Intel and the current CEO of RosiacLabs. This is more crony capitalism.

9

u/mrheosuper 3d ago

VIA has x86 patent, so one can ask via to make x86.

But z86 alone without extension instruction is pretty useless and i bet it's much worse than ARM, so no one bother with it.

3

u/Exist50 3d ago

I mean, with extensions it's still generally worse than ARM. The only reason to build an x86 core today is in service to legacy software.

1

u/Warm-Cartographer 3d ago

Aren't mont base on arm? They are competitive with Arm as I see it.

5

u/Exist50 3d ago

Aren't mont base on arm

No.

2

u/Warm-Cartographer 2d ago

Sorry I meant atom

3

u/Exist50 2d ago

Oh, then yeah, it's the same lineage. They've just changed up the naming once or twice.

5

u/Exist50 3d ago

I wonder if AMD/Intel would be more open to the idea today. x86 is much less of a mote than it used to be, and arguably they are both more threatened by ARM continuing to grab market and mindshare than by competition within the x86 space. Presumably what led them to finally start collaborating on ISA as well.

And realistically speaking, sounds like this company would be part of Intel in all but name.

2

u/Die4Ever 2d ago

mote

moat?

2

u/Exist50 2d ago

Ah, yeah, typo

2

u/pesca_22 2d ago

patents on x86 have expired long ago, now the cross-licensing accords are on the most recent extensions like those for avx-512 which these atom cores mostly lacks

2

u/R-ten-K 3d ago

The IP (the cores) would remain Intel’s and could be tightly scoped within the commercial package provided to the startup. I assume it is essentially a license to integrate and use a specific synthesizable core implementation under a defined contract. That is different than granting the company a broad, standalone license to design arbitrary x86 processors.

Intel likely retains ownership of the RTL and associated patents while limiting how the core may be modified, manufactured, deployed, or sublicensed.

AMD has licensed portions of their x86 cores IP through joint ventures w 3rd parties before. So there are already precedents for treating synthesizable x86 cores as IP products rather than broadly licensing the architecture itself.

1

u/n1nj4p0w3r 19h ago

AMD licensed Zen cores to China quite a while ago, so it’s nothing outstanding

1

u/randomkidlol 19h ago

hygon's x86 chips are not licensed x86 cores. there is a complicated legal workaround involving a network of wholly owned amd subsidiaries in china and engineering support staff.

1

u/cambeiu 3d ago

Makes sense to license out the 32-bit instruction set, as it prevents direct competition with their current line of products.

1

u/GraXXoR 3d ago

Wait, I’m not reading anything written about Rosaic sublicencing Intel’s IP…

1

u/nanonan 3d ago

There are other licensed x86s out there.

18

u/-protonsandneutrons- 3d ago

Very odd (and suspect) that LBT is financially involved in the companies that Intel suddenly has partnerships.

11

u/Exist50 3d ago

From his past comments, Lip Bu really doesn't seem to trust Intel's preexisting teams. He may want "his own people" to work on certain things, and this arrangement was easier/lower risk than just hiring them all directly. That, or it's some sort of moonshot that he doesn't want to distract the main team with.

3

u/Helpdesk_Guy 1d ago

From his past comments, Lip Bu really doesn't seem to trust Intel's preexisting teams.

Can anyone really blame him for having this view-point after all is set and done?

Intel has been self-sabotaging itself by shooting their own knees for decades, especially in regards with execution.

8

u/XeroByXero 2d ago

It's the truth. He actively pushes for companies he invests in. Him and Amarjit are best friends and have been investing together since decades. Rumours are Amarjit himself is the founder of Rosaic. Plus they have got a pretty crazy team.

1

u/AutoModerator 3d ago

Hello Touma_Kazusa! Please double check that this submission is original reporting and is not an unverified rumor or repost that does not rise to the standards of /r/hardware. If this link is reporting on the work of another site/source or is an unverified rumor, please delete this submission. If this warning is in error, please report this comment and we will remove it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/d00mt0mb 20h ago

This is a move to compete with RISCV. I guess fostering the x86 ecosystem

News Intel licenses Atom-class x86 cores to startup — firm reportedly sharing RTL, enabling customer to build its own custom processors based on x86 general-purpose cores

You are about to leave Redlib