Analyst Expects NVIDIA to Acquire AMD Despite Chances of Losing x86 License.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audiofreak

There are two options:

1. NVIDIA wants Xfire because SLI sucks
2. NVIDIA wants to be able to also forbid Xfire on Intel chipsets

Either way, if that happens I just wish for one thing -- for all the IT industry to go bankrupt. :mad:

---

Or none of those.

You see , back in 2004 , Intel had a revelation so to speak.After having problems with Prescott and mounting AMD pressure they had to act.
In typical Andy Grove fashion ( who said paranoia is dead within Intel ? :P ) the company decided to change the rules of the game :

-the future is multicore ( as in dozens/hundreds of simpler cores tightly interconnected )
-asymmetric and heterogeneous cores on the same die
-GPU and CPUs will converge
-x86 everywhere

The results are here :

-Intel Terascale chip ( 80 cores on a single die , TBs of BW)
-die stacking
-Silverthorne/Moorestown ( x86 into the smallest form factors )
-The minicore series ( Intel had 3 ongoing minicore projects Keivet, Keifer and Larrabee - the last was the most promising , the rest got the axe )

Larrabee is very versatile ; has a lot of x86 minicores with a vector core , all coupled to a lot of cache and huge BW.You can use it as a CPU , GPU , accelerator or whatever.
Nehalem has the entire NB on die ( unlike AMD which only included the IMC ) and will also incorporate graphics ( MCM 1st , single die later ).

AMD realized the threat and did the obvious : bought a GPU company in order to get know-how and try to cut Intel's lead by taking the short route. ( Intel builds a graphics team )

If you look at AMD slideware over the past 2 years you'll see where they are going ( same as Intel ) , they need to announce something comparable to Silverthorne and Larrabee.

And now NVIDIA : well , it lacks the most important thing , a CPU division.In other words , NVIDIA is with a gun at its head and has to act quickly and decisively otherwise they're toast.So , I do think NVIDIA will buy AMD.They have to.

By playing the antitrust game with Intel they will get an x86 license.Similarly , Intel will probably want graphic patents.

There is an interview with Fred Webber , former AMD CTO , guy who developed Opteron about all this.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...d_weber_scc13/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn.

Since when does anyone sane listen to an analyst?

---

true, true... and those people get payed for they BS, and get payed a lot!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whocaresbg

AMD: To Merge Or Not To Merge? :

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/...not/index.html

IBM is the logical buyer for me ;) .

---

Pretty good article, provides some back story about why it wouldn't be such a good buy for Nvidia, whereas it would be for IBM. Either way I'd be more interested in IBM buying them, of the two, that way the market wouldn't shrink to only two giant competitors and AMD would have some decent backing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schnulli

on day u'll get it :up:

---

You should check the rollercoaster stock price. Also nVidia is down compared to at "press time". I would rather use the average. And if nVidia would want to buy AMD. The price would rise fast.

And again, AMD still carry a huge debt nVidia would have to take on. nVidia would suicide itself if it tried to buy AMD. It would dwarf AMDs insane buyout of ATI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whocaresbg

AMD: To Merge Or Not To Merge? :

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/...not/index.html

IBM is the logical buyer for me ;) .

---

But IBM is not the logical buyer for IBM itself. AMD do not want to play with hardware unless they have a profitable niche. They wish to sell services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Or none of those.

You see , back in 2004 , Intel had a revelation so to speak.After having problems with Prescott and mounting AMD pressure they had to act.
In typical Andy Grove fashion ( who said paranoia is dead within Intel ? :P ) the company decided to change the rules of the game :

-the future is multicore ( as in dozens/hundreds of simpler cores tightly interconnected )
-asymmetric and heterogeneous cores on the same die
-GPU and CPUs will converge
-x86 everywhere

---

pfff revelation my ass! All they did is watch what AMD is doing! AMD preached x86 everywhere! Intel laugh and after that sold XScale to Marvel and designed Silverthorn.
AMD designed K8 for multicore future, and Intel only started with gluing Smithfield!
AMD reviled GPU+CPU plans a long, long time ago, and when they realize they can't pull of on they own, they snatch ATI...

Quote:

---

And now NVIDIA : well , it lacks the most important thing , a CPU division.In other words , NVIDIA is with a gun at its head and has to act quickly and decisively otherwise they're toast.So , I do think NVIDIA will buy AMD.They have to.

---

But they can't!

Quote:

---

By playing the antitrust game with Intel they will get an x86 license.Similarly , Intel will probably want graphic patents.

---

I guess you've calculated all scenarios for AMD's demise, and found perfect formula in NVIDIA's antitrust charges against Intel... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Would be great. Sad taht Intel doesn't agree. :(

---

Actually Intel wanted to move away to IA64. AMD wanted to keep x86 with x64. Now IA64 is for now in the big tin and stays there.

But yes, would be nice if we could "shake" the bowl. Maybe make some universal binaries that supports multiple CPU archs like PPC, x86 and IA64 plus futures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

AMD designed K8 for multicore future, and Intel only started with gluing Smithfield!

---

One word, Yonah. Or if you like, the "true native" dualcore :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

pfff revelation my ass! All they did is watch what AMD is doing! AMD preached x86 everywhere! Intel laugh and after that sold XScale to Marvel and designed Silverthorn.
AMD designed K8 for multicore future, and Intel only started with gluing Smithfield!

---

Get a clue on how long a CPU project takes.Silverthorne was started in 2004 and AMD has no reply whatsoever.
So what is AMD doing ? Where is the x86 everywhere stance except on power point presentations ?

You see , there is a difference between being vocal and actually getting the job done.Being the 1st to announce something doesn't mean you are the innovator , it's just clever marketing when you're empty handed and have nothing to show.Anyone with half a brain can grasp this.

As for multicores , gives us a break.Intel had Montecito , Yonah , Core , Tulsa all underway or taped out ( Montecito ) by the time AMD starting promoting multicore.

The funny part is that the 1st dual core x86 CPU was Intel Pentium D 840 Extreme Edition. ( launched April 4th while AMD X2s were launched a month later , May 9th )

Quote:

---

AMD reviled GPU+CPU plans a long, long time ago, and when they realize they can't pull of on they own, they snatch ATI...

---

You don't get it.When AMD revealed their plans , Intel was already well underway with such products.AMDs' plans were a reaction to Intel's work.

Read this http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ati-to-survive

and maybe a light bulb will turn on.

Quote:

---

I guess you've calculated all scenarios for AMD's demise, and found perfect formula in NVIDIA's antitrust charges against Intel... :rolleyes:

---

Simple economics.AMD's business model is fundamentally flawed and something has to change.

:down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

This would be a bad thing for us.

No competition in the GPU market means stagnant developments.

Even though intel has a much larger GPU share then both nvidia and ATI. It is solely on the low end.

---

It's going to be different soon though, after Nehalem, Intel will be able to compete in the high end GPU market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happychappy

It's going to be different soon though, after Nehalem, Intel will be able to compete in the high end GPU market

---

if you are so sure about the power of the ghost larrabee? pls give us some more details... even in very close NDA they are still very silent about actual design and performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starscream

So technically there is a chance that Intel would make an acception and would allow AMD to keep the license if someone bought AMD.
That or Intle would need to find another company that wants to make x86 CPus and give them a license.

---

Via?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Get a clue on how long a CPU project takes.Silverthorne was started in 2004 and AMD has no reply whatsoever.
So what is AMD doing ? Where is the x86 everywhere stance except on power point presentations ?

You see , there is a difference between being vocal and actually getting the job done.Being the 1st to announce something doesn't mean you are the innovator , it's just clever marketing when you're empty handed and have nothing to show.Anyone with half a brain can grasp this.

As for multicores , gives us a break.Intel had Montecito , Yonah , Core , Tulsa all underway or taped out ( Montecito ) by the time AMD starting promoting multicore.

---

so sure about that?

AMD opteron dualcore available from april 2005 (http://www.news.com/AMDs-dual-core-O....html?tag=nw.8)
The Core brand was launched on January 5, 2006 by the release of the 32-bit Yonah core CPU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core)
23 July 2005, Intel delays Montecino launch with 8 months (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel...ors-5299.shtml)
Intel Tulsa august 2006 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07..._7100_roadmap/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

The funny part is that the 1st dual core x86 CPU was Intel Pentium D 840 Extreme Edition. ( launched April 4th while AMD X2s were launched a month later , May 9th )

---

yes it was there first indeed, but pls don't mention the performance against k8 x2 it was even more :ROTF: then k8 against c2d

Yeah, generally speaking if this were to happen, then you'd have one maker of x86 CPUs (intel) and that's about it, provided the licencse didn't transfer. Oh wait, there'd be Via too, but lol. Then you'd have one maker of performance GPUs too...

my bets are on IBM, IF there will ever be a buyout. though I doubt they are interested in that. IBM has been concentrating on several fields for years now, selling many parts of their company. why should they now go to the other direction?

too bad Ruiz screws everything he gets his hands on. wouldn't it be great if we had seen a merger between AMD and NVIDIA? they would've been a good competitor to Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apokalipse

Via?

---

they have pushed themselves in the corner and would not stand a chance against Intel. Isaiah looks promising, but I think they will stick to what they're good at: looking unsuspicious and building cpus and mainboards for a very small market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

if you are so sure about the power of the ghost larrabee? pls give us some more details... even in very close NDA they are still very silent about actual design and performance.

---

I am not sure, it was purely speculation and my own opinion.:rolleyes:

what next? Corsair buying OCZ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apokalipse

Via?

---

Via actualy has a x86 license and are using it. But their market share in the total x86 market is very small.

Dunno if its true or if i remember t correctly but i think i remember reading some rumors of Intel wanting Via to give up its license.

Who actually holds the x86 patents, anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trans am

what next? Corsair buying OCZ?

---

Trust me, the only reason Corsair or Mushkin would buy OCZ is the satisfaction of killing the brand. I would think a more fitting analogy would be Micron buying Quimonda or Hynix, or Samsung's ram dividion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tulatin

Who actually holds the x86 patents, anyway?

---

Intel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happychappy

Intel

---

Well :banana::banana::banana::banana:. And they probably make cash off of every x86 CPU sold that way, too.

If Nvidia will buy AMD , than Intel will buy Nvidia and after that ..
nothing left to say .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lior307

If Nvidia will buy AMD , than Intel will buy Nvidia and after that ..
nothing left to say .

---

That'd explain how they were planning to get into the performance gpu segment : p :