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

Quote:

---

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

Doug Friedman, an analyst with American Technology Research, said that graphics chip maker NVIDIA Corp. could well acquire x86 microprocessor maker Advanced Micro Devices in order to “re-architect it”. The acquisition is considered to be useful due to the fact that roadmaps of AMD and Intel Corp. threat NVIDIA. The only problem for the graphics giant is that AMD’s x86 license is a non-transferable one. “We believe AMD [could] face mounting pressure from shareholders, to restructure the company with a focus on a change in leadership,” said the analyst. Indeed, shareholders of AMD are hardly pleased with the company’s performance in the recent quarters as well as issues with the launch of quad-core microprocessors and the release of DirectX 10 graphics processing units. Nevertheless, late last year AMD managed to secure $622 million from Mubadala Development Company, which means that there are those who believe in AMD. But despite the problems that AMD has had, its roadmap of integration graphics cores into central processing units (CPUs) threatens NVIDIA: not only because AMD increases its market share in the market of graphics adapters, but it transforms graphics solutions into commodity, which may potentially affect NVIDIA’s revenues going forward.


“The Intel/AMD roadmap of integration of the CPU/GPU could pose a risk to NVIDIA, and buying AMD propels Nvidia into a formidable competitor for Intel with the upside coming from Huang’s ability to re-architect AMD’s design,” said Mr. Friedman.

At press time, AMD’s market capitalization was $3.82 billion and it has $1.89 billion in cash. NVIDIA Corp.’s market capitalization at press time was $13.01 billion, besides, the company had $1.85 billion in bank.

Perhaps, Jen-Hsun Huang, the chief executive of NVIDIA, could re-architect Advanced Micro Devices in order to make it profitable. However, due to the fact that wide cross-licensing agreement between AMD and Intel, which is also believed to cover x86 instruction set, does not allow AMD to transfer any of Intel’s technologies to any third-party. As a result, if AMD is acquired by Nvidia, the new company will not have rights to produce x86 central processing units (CPUs) or utilize any technologies from Intel.

It is uncertain whether NVIDIA, or any other company that has no wide cross-licensing agreement with Intel that covers x86 instruction set, is interested in getting AMD and not interested in making CPUs. But what is almost certain is that various antitrust organizations would be against the two suppliers of discrete GPUs becoming one.


X-bit Labs


http://www.techpowerup.com/52573/Ana..._License..html

---

:up:

That could get very confusing and complex in a hurry. I still don't think it would happen, but you never really know.

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.

If this happens, then Nvidia would also own ATI. Then they would have no compition. Then they would release crappy products or be antitrusted.:mad:

this is nonsense...

Folks should be very afraid of something like this happening.......

I am afriad anti-trust... gulp

All competition in the CPU and GPU markets would be gone if Nvidia aquired AMD. No way this is going to happen.

NOT POSSIBLE.

Why? AMD owns ATi, nVidia acquiring ATi would violate anti-trust laws.

The end.

Na it can't happen at all.. thats all BS right there it wouldn't be feasable.

Truely, if nVidia bought AMD, really only thing they'd aquire is a few fabs and ATI since the CPU side would be useless to them unless nVidia has something up its sleeves in an actual CPU market product.

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.

---

Like Westside says Intel has a larger share than both nvidia and ati, therefore if they merged wouldnt intel still have more marketshare so there would be no anti trust?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Indes

Like Westside says Intel has a larger share than both nvidia and ati, therefore if they merged wouldnt intel still have more marketshare so there would be no anti trust?

---

Anti-trust would come in play with the CPU market though I think.

boo, nvidia has already shown how much they would slow down innovation when they have no competition. ie 8800

with the entry of larabee this could be feasible

although part of me hopes it is not true

technically, intel dominates both markets so anti-trust might not come into play at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAMMAN

technically, intel dominates both markets so anti-trust might not come into play at all.

---

imagine how expensive video cards would be especially if larrabee isnt all its cracked up to be.

bs haha

could be true though, we have to think radical here, but you never know... think about this, the computer as we know it may very well end soon for the majority of consumers. people have shown their dislike for large bulky desktops, and preference for mobility. linux has increasing merit in the industry, and microsoft's popularity is admittedly going down. this will suck for us, but it might not be too bad for amd and nvidia, they have a chance to create their own market. umpc is here, but its not taken on too well. with a good redesign, they might capitalize big on such a product. would blow for us enthusiasts though, will pretty much depend on intel to keeping it going... nvidia will then be able to capitalize on two markets, extreme pefromance servers and high mobility. plus, they could design a console. now, that would be a good lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deathman20

Na it can't happen at all.. thats all BS right there it wouldn't be feasable.

Truely, if nVidia bought AMD, really only thing they'd aquire is a few fabs and ATI since the CPU side would be useless to them unless nVidia has something up its sleeves in an actual CPU market product.

---

Wouldn't matter without a valid x86 license.

perhaps if nvidia kept the amd brand name and sold of ati this could work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAMMAN

technically, intel dominates both markets so anti-trust might not come into play at all.

---

Seeing Intel only delivers onboard solutions atm the anti trust organisations will treat the dedicated market as a seperate market.
Mainly cause it is very hard to enter this part of the market (the last few companies that tried failed) the anti trust organisations wont allow this entire part of the market to fall into the hands of 1 company.
(ps. i know Intel is going to enter this market but they havent yet so they dont count yet)

I can only see 1 way of this happening.
Nvidia announces a takeover and to avoid anti trust stuff immediatly announces that part of their plans is to immedialy sell ATI.

edit: another way would be that they have takeover talsk with AMD and int hose talks AMd agrees tos ell ATI before a possible merger/takeover.

I could see them buying parts or tech from AMD for mobile use but not the entire company. technically its possible but financially the risc for Nvidia is way to high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAMMAN

perhaps if nvidia kept the amd brand name and sold of ati this could work?

---

Buy AMD (without x86 licence) and sold ati? What do they keep? Hector?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

Wouldn't matter without a valid x86 license.

---

While im not a programer and all but what if they didn't need the x86 licence?

1. IF they had x86....
2. Intel going for High end GPU market this year, GPU competition remains. Now they would need that x86 and they'd be ready to go.

IMO Nvidia + AMD + ATI vs. Intel is awkward situation. Both companies would make their own chipsets, own CPU's, own GPUs. What if another company takes over the market? :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deathman20

While im not a programer and all but what if they didn't need the x86 licence?

---

Do you mean that what would happen without the licence? Basically Windows wouldn't run on Nvidia CPU's, those machines wouldn't be PC's at all. They would ened their own architecture, and try to make companies to use it = failure.

Since when does anyone sane listen to an analyst?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemrod

Buy AMD (without x86 licence) and sold ati? What do they keep? Hector?

---

as i was saying, perhaps keeping the amd brand name would allow nvidia to keep the x86 license.btw hector would quite literally be the first one to get kicked out if this happens :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn.

Since when does anyone sane listen to an analyst?

---

:up: true mostly cause most analists that make such comments about tech companies dont know jack snot about the hardware.

Btw who says that Nvidia would lose the license if they would buy AMD?
(i higly doubt nvidia would buy amd but i just want to argue :P).

Ofc legally if someone would buy AMD then AMD would lose the license seeing it isnt transferrable.
But if AMD would lose the license the only big company making x86 CPUs would be intel wich would basicly suck for all of us. ANd i doubt the anti trust organisations would like such a situation were you would only have Intel in the mainstream CPU market.

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.

FTC would not allow it to happen. no way no how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starscream

Btw who says that Nvidia would lose the license if they would buy AMD?
(i higly doubt nvidia would buy amd but i just want to argue :P).

---

6.2. Termination for Cause.
---------------------

(a) A party may terminate the other party's rights and licenses
hereunder upon notice if the other party hereto commits a
material breach of this Agreement and does not correct such
breach within sixty (60) days after receiving written notice
complaining thereof. In the event of such termination, the
rights and licenses granted to the defaulting party shall
terminate, but the rights and licenses granted to the party
not in default shall survive such termination of this
Agreement subject to its continued compliance with the terms
and conditions of this Agreement.

(b) A party hereto may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60)
days written notice of termination to the other party given at
any time upon or after:
/.../
(7) the other party undergoes a Change of Control. For
purposes of this Section 6.2(b)(7), "Change of Control"
shall mean a transaction or a series of related
transactions in which (i) one or more related parties
who did not previously own at least a fifty percent
(50%) interest in a party to this Agreement obtain at
least a fifty percent (50%) interest in such party, and,
in the reasonable business judgment of the other party
to this Agreement, such change in ownership will have a
material effect on the other party's business, or (ii) a
party acquires, by merger, acquisition of assets or
otherwise, all or any portion of another legal entity
such that either the assets or market value of such
party after the close of such transaction are greater
than one and one third (1 1/3) of the assets or market
value of such party prior to such transaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemrod

long story

---

Pls read the rest of my post.

If you had read my post you would know that i know that officially AMD would lose its license if someone buys them and if you had read my post you would alos know why i think there is a chance that Intel would make an exception.

edit:
Anyone have a realistic estimate of how much AMD in its current state would cost?

Not gonna happen.

Analyst must have gotten a really good supply of whatever he/she was smoking. Potent stuff it must be.

How would nVidia pay for this again? AMD got what, 7-8billion in debt, the company is worth 5-6billion. So make that 7-8 aswell for a buy.

And nVidia was worth what again? 12.5billion? Then thats settled. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starscream

Anyone have a realistic estimate of how much AMD in its current state would cost?

---

less than the ati aquisition i would imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starscream

Pls read the rest of my post.

If you had read my post you would know that i know that officially AMD would lose its license if someone buys them and if you had read my post you would alos know why i think there is a chance that Intel would make an exception.

edit:
Anyone have a realistic estimate of how much AMD in its current state would cost?

---

Intel make an exeption? I can hear the CFO laughing. Its quite cheaper to battle and fit any regulations and such if they could in average raise the price 10-20% as a monopoly. That would be some 5-10billion$ to deal with any "issues" a year.

No way in hell.

Also since AMD would legally be out of the battle. No foul play. Then there is nothing you can use against Intel to get someone to give nVidia a license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Intel make an exeption? I can hear the CFO laughing. Its quite cheaper to battle and fit any regulations and such if they could in average raise the price 10-20% as a monopoly. That would be some 5-10billion$ to deal with any "issues" a year.

No way in hell.

Also since AMD would legally be out of the battle. No foul play. Then there is nothing you can use against Intel to get someone to give nVidia a license.

---

tbh i wouldnt be so fast with saying things like ''no way in hell''

Like i said it would be fully legal of Intel to take away the license if such a thing happens but them making an exception is a possibility.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

Wouldn't matter without a valid x86 license.

---

and without that x86 license, intel would be a monopoly aka antitrust party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villa1n

and without that x86 license, intel would be a monopoly aka antitrust party.

---

Monopoly and antitrust party is not the same. Also there are ALOT of monopolies and they work fine. Some need some regulation now and then.

Antitrust is a whole other matter than being a monopoly.

Also Intel is already a monopoly with almost 80% of the market.

Forgot MS? They have 95% of the OS market, not even to talk about other segments.

Its an illusion to think Intel would be hurt in any way to only have VIA or maybe no competitor. The only thing that will happen is a forced regulation on price if they get too greedy. Or if they start to make nVidia GFX cards incompatible without a way for nVidia to make it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn.

Since when does anyone sane listen to an analyst?

---

Quote of the day.

Nvidia buying AMD is not a real option imo.

maybe we could finally move away from x86!!

dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKPolice

NOT POSSIBLE.

Why? AMD owns ATi, nVidia acquiring ATi would violate anti-trust laws.

The end.

---

^^^ +1.

It ain't happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qkjhfhaiguihfma

maybe we could finally move away from x86!!

dream.

---

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

to combat analyst..

my stepdad's buisness will buy amd...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemrod

6.2. Termination for Cause.
---------------------

(a) A party may terminate the other party's rights and licenses
hereunder upon notice if the other party hereto commits a
material breach of this Agreement and does not correct such
breach within sixty (60) days after receiving written notice
complaining thereof. In the event of such termination, the
rights and licenses granted to the defaulting party shall
terminate, but the rights and licenses granted to the party
not in default shall survive such termination of this
Agreement subject to its continued compliance with the terms
and conditions of this Agreement.

(b) A party hereto may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60)
days written notice of termination to the other party given at
any time upon or after:
/.../
(7) the other party undergoes a Change of Control. For
purposes of this Section 6.2(b)(7), "Change of Control"
shall mean a transaction or a series of related
transactions in which (i) one or more related parties
who did not previously own at least a fifty percent
(50%) interest in a party to this Agreement obtain at
least a fifty percent (50%) interest in such party, and,
in the reasonable business judgment of the other party
to this Agreement, such change in ownership will have a
material effect on the other party's business, or (ii) a
party acquires, by merger, acquisition of assets or
otherwise, all or any portion of another legal entity
such that either the assets or market value of such
party after the close of such transaction are greater
than one and one third (1 1/3) of the assets or market
value of such party prior to such transaction.

---

Good lawyer talk. Basically its a means to prevent a third party not within the licensing clause of getting the rights to the technology they wouldn't have rights to in the first place. This keeps out the possibility of a company allowing their selves to be bought out after acquiring a technology.

"They won't grant us the license but will grant you said license. Get the license and we will buy you and give you great benefits."

Also prevents situations that are being presented here. Makes sense when you think about it.

I think this guy sums it up best.

Another round of rumors has hit the media about Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) buying AMD (NYSE: AMD). Barron's quotes American Technology Research as saying a deal is possible. The reasoning seems simple enough. “The Intel/AMD road-map of integration of the CPU/GPU could pose a risk to Nvidia, and buying AMD propels Nvidia into a formidable competitor for Intel with the upside coming from Huang’s ability to re-architect AMD’s design.”

Dream on. Nvidia has a market cap of just under $15 billion. Its stock is down about 25% this year. Buying a loser like AMD would push its price so low that shareholders would storm the company's headquarters. Nvidia is about to announce earnings. A weak forecast could further eviscerate the shares.

In its last quarter, NVDA has operating income of $248 million on revenue of $1.116 billion. The company had a gross margin of 46% in that period. NVDA has a clean balance sheet with over $1 billion in cash.

Over at AMD the company sports a market cap of $3.8 billion, which makes a deal by Nvidia affordable. That is until Wall St. looks at the $5 billion in long-term debt on the balance sheet. AMD had revenue of $1.77 billion and an operating breakeven before write-offs of $1.6 billion for impaired assets.

Nvidia shareholders have a nice company. AMD is a boat anchor.

Douglas A. McIntyre

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...sh-nvidia.html

The government would not let this happen for shure. Atleast not anytime in the near future. Unless Intel takes off with their plans sometime soon. I almost dought this, they may try, but they will not succeed.

I also agree with the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

How would nVidia pay for this again? AMD got what, 7-8billion in debt, the company is worth 5-6billion. So make that 7-8 aswell for a buy.

And nVidia was worth what again? 12.5billion? Then thats settled. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!

---

Quote:

---

At press time, AMD’s market capitalization was $3.82 billion and it has $1.89 billion in cash. Nvidia Corp.’s market capitalization at press time was $13.01 billion, besides, the company had $1.85 billion in bank.

---

on day u'll get it :up:

Nvidia must make there own cpu's whit or whitout x86.

more competition in the cpu market better products en prices for us.

But if this happened Will nvida card work on other platforms ?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

How would nVidia pay for this again? AMD got what, 7-8billion in debt, the company is worth 5-6billion. So make that 7-8 aswell for a buy.

And nVidia was worth what again? 12.5billion? Then thats settled. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!

---

tbh it isnt that Nvidia isnt capable of buying AMD it is just very unlikely.

Yes in cash Nvidia doesnt have the resources todo so but it wouldnt be the first time that 1 company buys another with mostly loaned money.

Due to the fact that Nvidia has been making a good profit in the last few years and that their profit keeps going up and due to Nviidas high market value and AMDs current low market value in theory Nvidia is more then capable of buying AMD.
But cause they would have todo so with mostly loaned money and due to the huge debt that AMD has and ofc the fact that in the near future nvidia will get a new competitor in their main market (Intel) the financial risc in such an undertaking would be simply to high.
So it is possible but it is highly unlikely cause of the huge risc.

The only 2 safe ways for Nvidia to buy AMD is if they would do it as a joint venture with some other company (sharing the cost etc) or if it wouldnt be a takeover but would be a merger instead were Nvidia would be the dominant partner and ATI would be sold of.


And tbh Shintai like always you immediatly jump the gun and say things like ''never'' or ''no way in hell'' were nothing is impossible specialy not in the business world and even less in the tech industry.

AMD: To Merge Or Not To Merge? :

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

IBM is the logical buyer for me ;) .

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 :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKPolice

NOT POSSIBLE.

Why? AMD owns ATi, nVidia acquiring ATi would violate anti-trust laws.

The end.

---

Unless AMD would sell ATI to Intel

Yeah maybe nvidia can teach amd how to make a cpu that doesnt suck haha. :D

Seriously tho, this is BS, it would never be allowed to go down.

Here's my advise to Nvidia. Mortgage the farm to buy AMD, then make a deal with Intel. Nvidia/AMD (AMvidia?) will be allowed to keep making x86 products in exchange for AMvidia dropping the lawsuit. :D

if anything, id like to see AMD merge with IBM. they already share the same processing fabs and some product info; y not seal the deal

Well maybe Nvidia is thinking that the dedicated GPU market will die in the future together with PC gaming (come on let's face it it's not looking good) and only the Professional market will be left for them which is too small for them to ensure future growth. In this sense an Entry to the CPU market could be their ticket to future survival. Just some thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JargonGR

Well maybe Nvidia is thinking that the dedicated GPU market will die in the future together with PC gaming (come on let's face it it's not looking good) and only the Professional market will be left for them which is too small for them to ensure future growth. In this sense an Entry to the CPU market could be their ticket to future survival. Just some thoughts.

---

But even the CPU market is going to shrink in future years, people are already taking the performance of modern processors for granted and will just choose the cheapest

I think AMD + IBM would make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happychappy

But even the CPU market is going to shrink in future years, people are already taking the performance of modern processors for granted and will just choose the cheapest

---

Cheapest or not they will still buy one while many will not need an add on VGA card. The gaming market is also moving to consoles leaving PC game sales behind.

AMD & IBM - interesting !!!
Lets hope that things won't be worse !!!
I don't like the Company merges idea , beacause the competative is becoming small.

Computers and CPU's are increasingly becoming a commodity, meaning that they cannot command the same prices as they used to. The Dell's of today are shipping out cheap computers to the consumer market at high volume-volume being necessary to gain any significant profit. The scientific and web-enabling markets are the only ones that are requiring processors that can command a significant profit because of the higher binning and resultant lower supply, etc. IBM used to manufacture x86 cpus, as well as produce the hardware in their PCs and laptops. They sold all of these units off due to the low margins (and made a killing, sucks to be the buyers :p:) and have focused on CPUs for said high-profit markets, etc. Otherwise, they remain a service based company for things like websphere, etc.

Integrated GPUs are now commodity items. Again though, the money is made off of the discrete cards, much like the CPUs for the server market. Nvidia has little to worry about in terms of integrated GPU-CPU hybrids, as they will be little more than the standard integrated GPUs at first. Larabee is more of a threat, but the answer to this is increased innovation.

Neither IBM nor Nvidia will buy AMD. As I've said before, it does not make sense for IBM to go back into a market they bailed out of for no gain whatsoever. They don't need AMD for any tech, server market share, anything. It would be a waste.

Nvidia does not need AMD for anything either. Their focus has been on Intel chipsets, which, while not perfect, are still selling well at high margins. In terms of Graphics, they remain the leader (in terms of volume at least-the rest can be debated in some other thread). CPUs are expensive to make and although they have recently released one, it's essentially a stepping stone into getting into the handheld/cell market. High-volume and low cost is another avenue they have at their fingertips. AMD offers Nvidia nothing except debt, as well as some CPU expertise that would be of little use to them. Unless they managed to get hold of ATI technologies (which would likely not happen before the spinoff took place), they have absolutely nothing to gain. They are making good money off of technology that remains high-margin, and expansion into other avenues like the handheld markets holds far more promise then anything else at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xVeinx

Computers and CPU's are increasingly becoming a commodity, meaning that they cannot command the same prices as they used to. The Dell's of today are shipping out cheap computers to the consumer market at high volume-volume being necessary to gain any significant profit. The scientific and web-enabling markets are the only ones that are requiring processors that can command a significant profit because of the higher binning and resultant lower supply, etc. IBM used to manufacture x86 cpus, as well as produce the hardware in their PCs and laptops. They sold all of these units off due to the low margins (and made a killing, sucks to be the buyers :p:) and have focused on CPUs for said high-profit markets, etc. Otherwise, they remain a service based company for things like websphere, etc.

Integrated GPUs are now commodity items. Again though, the money is made off of the discrete cards, much like the CPUs for the server market. Nvidia has little to worry about in terms of integrated GPU-CPU hybrids, as they will be little more than the standard integrated GPUs at first. Larabee is more of a threat, but the answer to this is increased innovation.

Neither IBM nor Nvidia will buy AMD. As I've said before, it does not make sense for IBM to go back into a market they bailed out of for no gain whatsoever. They don't need AMD for any tech, server market share, anything. It would be a waste.

Nvidia does not need AMD for anything either. Their focus has been on Intel chipsets, which, while not perfect, are still selling well at high margins. In terms of Graphics, they remain the leader (in terms of volume at least-the rest can be debated in some other thread). CPUs are expensive to make and although they have recently released one, it's essentially a stepping stone into getting into the handheld/cell market. High-volume and low cost is another avenue they have at their fingertips. AMD offers Nvidia nothing except debt, as well as some CPU expertise that would be of little use to them. Unless they managed to get hold of ATI technologies (which would likely not happen before the spinoff took place), they have absolutely nothing to gain. They are making good money off of technology that remains high-margin, and expansion into other avenues like the handheld markets holds far more promise then anything else at the moment.

---

Well put :clap:

Nvidia don't have the money or the assets to secure enough funds to buy AMD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

this is nonsense...

---

couldn't have put it better myself.