This is in response to the article:
"AMD and ATI: Will their technologies merge as well?"
located here:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/27/ [...] e_as_well/
 
Make no mistake about it, this is definately a **BAD DEAL** for the consumer.  Up until now the consumer could mix and match AMD w/ ATI or Nvidia OR Intel w/ ATI or Nvidia.  But the day will be coming soon where ATI graphics cards won't work w/ Intel processors and Nvidia graphics cards won't work w/ AMD processors.
 
Ultimately this means a lot **less choice** for the consumer.
 

I think that it could make graphics faster, and I dont think they will do away with after market GPUs. you don't like the Idea of a GPU with a dedicated motherboard socket, I think that would be nuts.

A dedicated GPU socket has nothing 2 do w/ it.  It wouldn't make any difference if you had an AMD processor u would only b able to pick a GPU from **1 company**, ATI.  The competition and cosumer choice is ELIMINATED.  This is ultimately what is going 2 happen.
 
Then what happens when UBI and Activision and Blizzard start making exclusive deals w/ Intel and Nvidia OR AMD and ATI?  You won't be able to play the latest game if u have the other configuration.

In all honesty, I don't see AMD killing a profitable model unless they first decide to kill the research behind its development. Discrete GPU development trickles down to IGP development in many ways. Besides, being able to profit from the consumer even when they decide to choose your competitor's CPU (and your graphics card/IGP/chipset) means you win even when you lose.
 
Kill AMD's Intel business? No, I think AMD should, instead, develop the former ATI Intel business so that they are implementing chipset/IGP/graphics card business better than Intel can market. And then turn around and market the exact same technology with AMD processors for less than the Intel model. Could you imagine how much AMD would be able to clean Intel's clock if they were able to implement a Hypertransport bus with an Intel CPU (which is many ways superior to NetBurst)?
 
No, AMD should not kill Intel development. Rather, they should hone it to a fine edge and use it as yet another vector in gaining market share.

 
Personally i don't think that will happen unless AMD/ATI can come up with something better than can be offered with seperate cpu/gpu.
 
But if they do come up with something good, we might have less choices, but they will be easier to make, and between better choices.

 
Smart guy right here ^
 
I think the first boards you will see if they do go ATI would be to fight against intels onboard graphics market share, and now that DELL is buying AMD chips you may see alot more Dell comps with onboard ATI (if they merge)

You're right, they shouldn't kill it, but I think they will.  A dedicated GPU socket on the MB would work great if u could put any GPU n it, but this is not the direction things are going in.  If AMD and ATI eventually develop a "system on a chip" soloution, you won't have any choice but to use ATI if u want an AMD processor because it will all be intregrated into 1 part.

I wonder insted of putting the gpu on the motherboard AMD is aiming to put something like a video/ physics co-processor onboard to help with directX 10
and Vista when they are released. and make it compatable with both ATI and Nvidia cards

I can't see this going that far.  The merger is more about platform/chipsets than it is about AMD wanting to rule the graphics realm.  Check out their strategic vision:
http://www.ati.com/companyinfo/about/AMD_ATI_Strategic_Vision.pdf
 
Also, Nvidia isn't going to design for Intel only.  Remember that Intel is the king in the graphics realm right now - they only need Nvidia for the high end.  Add to that - Nvidia is the leader in the AMD chipset market.  Most AMD users have a chipset or card from Nvidia in their system.  AMD isn't going to isolate that market.

 
... netburst is a cpu type, hyper transport is a connection type... please think before you post!

 
accully it would be very good, because they simply won't do that, way to much heat.  but the merger is good for consumers because AMD now has a stable image platform, so companys like dell and system builders that don't like Intel can switch to AMD, more competition and more development in CPU's and GPU's.
 
If this was true, wouldn't Intel have done it already, they didn't TOO MUCH HEAT, not very efficent.

Isn't this an article about notebook platforms? They are developing a competitor to centrino, and if they do that, I am sure it will be much more powerful than current or even future generations of centrino.  
 
Even if it does migrate to the desktop (which I highly doubt) customers won't buy it. Lack of choice, especially with the enthusiast crowd usually means no purchase. AMD knows this and won't let that happen. After all, the enthusiast market is why they are where they are today. Same for ATI.  
 
Don't get all up in arms about this. Neither of these companies, either together or separate, are powerful enough to force something like that on the market. At best it will be an integrated system, much like VIA and a lot of their embedded systems. So chill out, and don't worry so much about your favorite companies becoming the devil, because it isn't happening.

 
I don´t believe in that. All the companies will have something to lose with that policies.

 
Absolutely.  It's mostly about performance, configuration options, etc.  AMD now has more tools, if they can work out the logistics.  
How much more can be put on the PCIe card form factor before it hits a performance wall that's best solved by a more substantial engineering change?  Even with smaller feature size there will be a limit driven by performance or cost.  Better yet, can one think of a new configuration/engineering change that makes your competitors current platform obsolete, forcing a change and trashing their investment strategy?  It's not all bad from our end...