Now that ATI is out of the high end GPU market for Intel PCs, it looks like Intel has a chance to move into that market. The only competitor it will have will be Nvidia. So Intel/Amd will both have their high end GPU sollution for their respective platforms, while leaving Nvidia as the only alternative. Damn this is looking really $hitty for the consumer, as far as having choices goes.

If anything, the merger opens the doors for some other company to step into the GPU market. At least it's now a little easier to open than before.

Besides, there is no guarantee on where this merger will bring things. The companies' management styles may collide and cause all kinds of problems. If AMD essentiallly throws out ATI's management or some other "war of attrition" happens then both could seriously lose. Management has a tendancy to flee during mergers and if the wrong people leave there could be serious issues.

All I'm saying is that nothing is for certain. Lots of potential, but potential does not make for automatic success.

Intel is "improving" there onboard graphics and they are the #1 selling graphics card company(onboard as it is) in the world(not the fastest by a long shot)....I do not see Intel entering the graphics battle (I could be wrong tho)

I do think this merger(buy out) is a bad idea. AMD has great relationships with Nvidia right now, why ruin it? But AMD has pulled some tricks(good ones) before...this may just be another one. New X2 Radeon64 anyone?

Intel has no hope to compete with NVIDIA and ATI when it comes to GPU power. Sure, Intel sells millions of ultra slow "extreme" graphics chipsets, but don't expect Intel to step up and come out with a Radeon or Geforce killer.

IMO that is what is so sweet of a a deal for AMD. They get access to ATI's excellent mobile technology, they can leverage their knowledge in the high end GPU market, and they can also profit from the ultra portable and home media device markets. Not to mention AMD can now put forward an excellent integrated graphics platform. Honestly, Intel has no way to compete on all counts.

I think it is not a matter of hope but desire. Intel could compete in the long run if they chose to put resources in that direction, but I don't think they have the desire to. They make a lot more money (higher margins) with their processors than they do on chipsets or graphics chips. I think if Intel could they'd back out of the chipset market all together, but for now it is a way to sell processors.

I liken it to the console market. The more XBoxes Microsoft sells the more money they lose. They hope to gain it back in software sales but just because they are selling lots of consoles doesn't mean they are doing well. Same goes for Intel and chipsets. If they have to make chipsets to sell more CPU's then they'll do it, because they make more money selling higher volume of a pair of each for a reduced price than selling fewer CPUs without chipsets.

Wait... you say that Intel may move into the high-end GPU market - but this reduces choice in the marketplace?

I don't follow, you just contradicted yourself.

If Intel did decide to move into the performance GPU market then this would be an interesting decision that could only increase the variety in the marketplace.

Oh, and those people that keep saying that 'ATI is out of the high end GPU market for Intel PC's', what have you been smoking?

If Intel made this move to exclude ATI GPU compatibility from their CPUs/Chipsets then this would mean that the only hardware that supports the widest selection of GPU's would be AMD and its supported platforms.

Given the current graphics card climate (where nVidia and ATI take it in turns to be 'top dog'), when the polar behaviour of the graphics card swings towards ATI, Intel would be damaging its own market share. I personally wouldn't buy from a company that tried to dictate which graphics hardware I could use.

I certainly can't envisage AMD breaking compatitibility with nVidia GPU's for the same reason.

Not to mention that anti-trust laws would prevent Intel from breaking support with ATI graphics cards just because they were made by a company competing in another area. That would be like Microsoft preventing Firefox from working on Windows XP.

Wait... you say that Intel may move into the high-end GPU market - but this reduces choice in the marketplace?

I don't follow, you just contradicted yourself.

If Intel did decide to move into the performance GPU market then this would be an interesting decision that could only increase the variety in the marketplace.

Oh, and those people that keep saying that 'ATI is out of the high end GPU market for Intel PC's', what have you been smoking?

If Intel made this move to exclude ATI GPU compatibility from their CPUs/Chipsets then this would mean that the only hardware that supports the widest selection of GPU's would be AMD and its supported platforms.

Given the current graphics card climate (where nVidia and ATI take it in turns to be 'top dog'), when the polar behaviour of the graphics card swings towards ATI, Intel would be damaging its own market share. I personally wouldn't buy from a company that tried to dictate which graphics hardware I could use.

I certainly can't envisage AMD breaking compatitibility with nVidia GPU's for the same reason.

Not to mention that anti-trust laws would prevent Intel from breaking support with ATI graphics cards just because they were made by a company competing in another area. That would be like Microsoft preventing Firefox from working on Windows XP.

What I meant is that we will only have one idependent GPU maker, Nvidida. If Intel enters the high end market then they will only make them for their platforms. Amd will do the same, thus we only have Nvidia as an independent GPU maker. Oh and by the way I just ready that Intel has already cancelled Ati's license for chipsets. I think that from what I'm reading this deal is not going to make a new company called AMD/ATI or AMTI, but only one company... AMD. ATI will not be a separate entity but will be run by Ruiz, so I think it would be strange for them to make GPU's and more so chipsets that run on Intel platforms. They might, but I doubt the will make them shine.

As far as I was aware, Intel cancelling ATI's bus license was not confirmed, maybe this has changed. At any rate, this may just mean that ATI cannot build Crossfire motherboards for intel CPU's, I doubt it would mean that ATI graphics cards won't work with Intel CPU's.

I see your point, though, with nVidia being independent, but it must kinda suck from nVidia's perspective in some ways.

They have made ALOT of $$$ from the nForce series of motherboards and this may change in future if AMD begin to rely on an ATI/Crossfire solution instead of nVidia/SLI.

However, perhaps nVidia will land a big joint deal with intel and Apple if differences can be set aside?

While most of peoples here think only about gaming GPU, ATI is more than that. So, AMD did not buy gaming GPU at all, I'm pretty sure. I rather think they were after some kind of technology that ATI has and by buying them, they don't have to pay license fee to use them. If AMD would have made a deal with ATI, then competition could have done the same too, so it was not logical at all.

And since AMD (as well as Intel) is more than A64, then I guess that they have some plan for innovative devices and buying ATI would save them lot of negociation for licensing thing ATI already have and could be usefull in the future. While us consumer are still in the year 2006, AMD might already be planning for 2010 or more..

As they say, no real difference from the buyout should be see before 2008.. that leave plenty of time for technology to evolve and change...

This is a VERY bad comparison. This owuld be like Intel cutting off both NVidia AND Ati. And also firefox only runs on windows machines. If Apple bought out firefox and firefox was supported on all apple machines, i dont think there would be any anti-trust issues if MS didn't want firefox running on Windows.

The merger makes good sense. With multiple core CPU's coming there is an opputunity to utilize the extra CPU cores for physics processing or use them as additional graphics processors. Several obstacles need to be overcome but it is doable. It will lower the cost of the hardware and allow the hardware makers to reap more profit.

What are you talking about? My mac's run firefox just fine. And it also runs on linux.

Saying AMD is in the GPU market is a little bit premature I think. Undoubtedly, AMD will keep ATI seperate for at least a year. That goes for their staff too. It appears the only major thing that's going to happen w/ the merger in the next 6 months is AMD manufacturing ATI's GPU's, which was probably going to eventually happen anyways.

In the long run (2 years) I don't see a full AMD/ATI integration. AMD will likely keep the ATI name brand seperate. These are almost two completely different markets (CPU and GPU) that will require AMD to treat ATI as a quasi seperate entity. ATI will likely have its own set of Presidents for a long time to come. CEO will be out eventually of course (or moved to President). But CEO is mostly a figurehead anyways. Presidents do all the real work.

Undoubtedly AMD and ATI will share engineers, but I can't see that affecting the GPU market that much. Remember that nVidia bought ULi which had a ton of experience in chipsets, fabs, and CPU's. I think AMD-ATI move will push nVidia to finally enter the CPU market. If that happens, Intel will have a double threat on its hands and will be forced to compete in the high end GPU market to keep up. If it doesn't, it's revenue and market share in both markets will further erode. nVidia is an extremely successful company and has proven it can take on new challenges and succeed in them. Ironically, this merger might end up strengthening nVidia's position. (Let's not forget that nVidia does own a small FAB. It was originally owned and run by ULi). So nVidia making its own fabs is not entirely out of the question.

I think the clear loser in all of this is Intel. Though intel could theoretically afford nVidia, it would probably never be allowed by the FTC. Allowing Intel to purchase nVidia would effectively eliminate an entire market. So Intel IMO is now left with one clear decision: start competing in the GPU space OR form a very, very close relationship with nVidia. Close as in Intel fabs pumping out nVidia chipsets and GPU's. The later is probably the most likely. (please note I seperate IGP's and GPU's)

(Note: this is just my analysis and should not be taken as fact. So please don't flame my damned reply.)

I guess we'll know all the answers in 12-18 months. ;-)

I don't think nVidia will make CPUs as they don't have x86 license.

Intel will not make nVidia GPUs neither.