Last message on previous page:
I think this is a rediculously stupid move.

Considering:

Nforce 590 series that they for AMD, I do hope "Intel Editions" come out soon.
SLI is supported on more AMD boards than Intel.
Crossfire is the opposite.
ATI is stuck with the underperformer for at least a year.

Well, looks like Nvidia and Intel are now gonna have some babies. AMD now has overwhelming control over GPU and chipsets from ATI, so they are stuck, while Intel can still make chipsets for both graphics companies.

These are all my personal thoughts, I'm not going to post proof or links cause it is exactly that, what I think.

I was called names for this same view

i dout this will happen, if it does then it looks like ill be still going Intel ATI..i dont care, its really dumb of ATI to do right now and ..the article is fromt eh INQ..so yea 50bucks says on Monday nothing happens

A merger like that wouldn't make sense at all if you think about it.

First they cover 2 different markets. Why would AMD or ATi want to have to focus on designing multiple chips i.e. a cpu and a gpu at the same time. (yes I know they do that now designing new chips already but at least it is one "type" ) Granted it would work to give tighter intergration between the gpu and the cpu since they could work together to improve throughput and communication between the two. Plus when you add in the cost of setting up a fab to produce the different chips I would think it would put a financial strain to have to set up 2 diff fabs one for gpu and one for cpu. Just building and getting one up and running costs hundred of millions of dollars if not more a piece. Even if you have the cash flow generated by each company going into the same pocket it would in turn I think cause AMD to have to spend more money getting a fab and a new chip out while at the same time having to worry about doing the same for a new gpu.

Second a merger like that would probally completely shut out nVidia from running cards on AMD systems, that would be like ATi using nVidia gpu's on their cards and vise versa. But the alternative is AMD and ATi could work together with mobo manufacture's to develop really awesome integrated video cards, so in the future you wouldn't need to buy a seperate GPU to game it would be all in one package although not as upgradeable as it is now. But from the news in the site today about the future of graphic cards in the future we very may well have a totally seperate box for your graphic processing altogether, unless like the artice said they can get the power use issuse undercontrol. I mean honestly can you imagine how much it would cost electricity wise to run a pc with a 1000w or 1Kw power draw would be. I mean hoestly that is more than some window unit A/C draw.

then you would have basically no choice as to what graphics card you want to use, if you want an AMD chip you have to have an ATi gpu not unlike what Intel did with Rambus Ram although we know how well that turned out. At least now you can pick and choose what parts you want but with a merger like that it would probally if not actually "lock" you into one technology or the other which is bad for us.

All in all I personally think the story is bogus, first it is from the Inquier with a less than stellar record and second of all with something as big as that it would have been picked up on long ago. I mean a merger like that is NOT something that can happen just spur of the moment. There is to much at stake. It would take months or years of thought and planning to pull it off and as I said it would be bad for us in the long run since more lokely than not you wouldn't have as much or possibly any choice at all other than AMD or Intel.

AMD doesn't have huge debts, they transfered most of that debt load over to Spansion when it was spun off, as a result -- the debt can be protected if Spansion falls ill and goes into chapter 11. The spin off was very good for AMD.

They have over 2 billion in cash on hand and about 600-700 million debt load, their balance sheet is actually quite healthy.

What I don't really follow is why AMD feels it necessary to grab up ATI --- it can't be just for chipsets because nothing is stopping them from doing chipsets on their own --- they are somewhat, not entirely, but somewhat trivial.

It's gotta be the GPU, there is something brewing in microelectronics land in terms of CPU/GPU/Physics that we don't know about, between both Intel and AMD.... Intel has the R&D resources to do something, it appears AMD is buying into it, what ever that 'it' may be.

Jack

Jack,

Whats your guess as to ATIs future quality, product development, and diversity if such a merger should occur?

If it is for real, I cant imagine AMD would do this simply to diversify their portfolio. I imagine the want to divert or redirect at least some of ATI's resources (both human and material) for their own interests, potentially leaving ATI short in some areas.

Peace

as a Canadian, I will officially not like AMD if they take over ATI. that may seem naive, but that's how I feel.

shame that we build up a successfull company only to sell it or have it taken over by a larger American company.

AMD doesn't have huge debts, they transfered most of that debt load over to Spansion when it was spun off, as a result -- the debt can be protected if Spansion falls ill and goes into chapter 11. The spin off was very good for AMD.

They have over 2 billion in cash on hand and about 600-700 million debt load, their balance sheet is actually quite healthy.

What I don't really follow is why AMD feels it necessary to grab up ATI --- it can't be just for chipsets because nothing is stopping them from doing chipsets on their own --- they are somewhat, not entirely, but somewhat trivial.

It's gotta be the GPU, there is something brewing in microelectronics land in terms of CPU/GPU/Physics that we don't know about, between both Intel and AMD.... Intel has the R&D resources to do something, it appears AMD is buying into it, what ever that 'it' may be.

Jack

Jack,

Whats your guess as to ATIs future quality, product development, and diversity if such a merger should occur?

If it is for real, I cant imagine AMD would do this simply to diversify their portfolio. I imagine the want to divert or redirect at least some of ATI's resources (both human and material) for their own interests, potentially leaving ATI short in some areas.

Peace

You know, this is a good question, and a good discussion to have --- there has been some enthusiast sites opining on this very thing -- xbitlabs did a piece, and several bloggers. I have my own opinions.

First, there is the platform. A great concept if you can pull it off. By this I mean, the backbone of the PC --- Intel mastered this with Centrino, and the vPro is most likely going to really take off. VIIV, eh... no body understands what it is really, so this is a toss up. Nevertheless, the concept of a 'platform' and 'stable, unchanging' is just music to the IT managers ears. Intel pulls this off because they control the key components of the solution -- chipset, CPU, communications (network). It is a strong concept, and Intel has pulled it off very well with Centrino. AMD has nothing to answer this since they rely on all others for everything but the CPU. That stability story that came out recently --- what crap, totally missed the point of SIPP or CISP concept --- perfect example of FUD/spin in a while.

The acquisition of a chipset company gives AMD immediate access to such capabilities, which is the only way AMD will make headway into the corporate commercial space (IMHO). Also, the trend in chipset design and stability has been favoring ATI recently, nVidia solutions are starting to show signs of complexity bugging and high power consumption so I think AMD is looking to wane itself away from nVidia regardless of the ATI outcome... why, well look at the CISP with nVidia and the fact that they later discontinued all 939 CPUs, odd but not unexpected if AMD is ready to dissolve that relationship in order to embrace ATI. AMD seems to be willing to peeve off nVidia for this concept to work well.

Second, the GPU --- something needs to happen with the GPU for better or for worst. In the next generation of performance platform the GPU is going to be the largest consumer and dissipation of power in the box. Why is this happening?? Long pipelines and subinferior processing in my opinion. Both nVidia and ATI use foundries where the process is less than stellar for high performance devices. The other point, which I am scratching my head on, is graphics in general --- is it going to integrate into the core? If so, how will they work with the ram and ramdacs. This is a little perplexing, but I am intrigued by the Inquirer (yes the Inquirer) mention of "AMD must acquire ATI or they will not survive" comment by Charlie D. While I don't care for his writing style, writings in general, nor his AMD biased slant --- he does seem to get hold of interesting gossip and rumor.... this may be hinting where the industry is heading.

Then there was the rumor that Intel may be getting back into the "GPU" game (aside from the crappy GMA). This all points to, in my opinion, something afoot in the marriage of GPU, CPU, and Physics API .... as such I also suspect we may see Havok or Aegia gobbled up by either Intel or AMD. This opens a whole new world of possibilities not gaming related.... such as HD interactive content (remember the HD-DVD from toshiba is really a linux driven PC so to speak), different embedded applications in digital entertainment. etc. etc.

Jack

You make a good point well points but if AMD wanted to get in the chipset game they could just as easily pair with another chipset maker (If there is such a thing or if chipsets are made part and parcel with the actual mobo, Im a bit ignorant on that subject) or mobo maker to develop their own chipsets to compete with Intel although that does bring in the added costs to said development, with out merging with ATI which is basically a GPU company.

As far as seeing a coming together if you will of gpu, cpu and physics processing I find it highly more likely that the 2 most prominent physics companies will merge with either ATI or nvidia. It makes more sense to merge the gpu and ppu onto one or maybe 2 cards than to try and fully intergrate everything together. The biggest hurdle with graphics processing is as you said POWER. The 2 big graphic companies I think should focus on making their whole set up what ever it may be more efficient. Granted part of the ineffeiciency comes from working seperate from other manufactures with respect to basically the entore rest of the computer system.

You can have more efficient communication between all parts of the system in regards to the cpu, gpu and ppu but IMO with the rates of change in designs, power and speed it make it difficult to make it all work together perfectly. Hence the reason home gaming consoles tend to work so effiecentily they are designed from the ground up for one purpose, which you can't do with a pc.

As time progresses the various componets do communicate better but thats what it takes is time, with as many provider we have for various components its never going to be perfect, but IMO having gpu's and ppu's working together more closely, however that has to happen, will be the next big thing. If AMD wants to get into the chipset game they can but I think they would be better served not looking to a primarilly gpu company to merge with if chipsets are what they are after. I think we as consumers would be better served if gpu's and ppu's stayed on one side and cpu's stayed on the other so to speak. Besides pretty much up until Conroe AMD held the performance crown I belive IMO simply because they weren't developing chipsets themeselves, it allows them to focus on what they are good at, and if in the future they would like to get in on the chipset market they could look for another company that focuses on that instead of one that does both like ATI or nVidia. Or like I said in my first post you could end up with having to pick sides AMD/ATI or Intel/nvidia, nVidia would pretty much have to merge with Intel since more likely than not they wouldn't be able to run on AMD systems very well or even at all. Because I would think granted I don't know and havn't done the research but I don't think you can run ATI gpu's on nVidia chipsets at all or very well. (I haven't done the reasearch so feel free to corrct me.

Hey I've been otu drinking. 8)

AMD is not merging with ATi. They cannot afford to lose nVidia. At most I can see a special chipset deal to screw Intel for throwing them out after the shortage was ove, but merger? 10-1 against.

Hmm, uhh what....uhhh

Sorry, I was momentarily distracted. Watching "The Spy Who Shagged Me"... the Austin Powers shag pad 60's scene. You know the one, that does the hard segue from Heather Graham gyrating sexily to Robin Swallows (maiden name Spitz) getting blown out the window.

You know Jack, I know what your talking about here. GPU power requirements are already out of hand and the future of GPU power requirements is indeed dim....from brown outs.

I came across this obscure link while researching for my next graphics card. It shows a pre-production R900 GPU "kit". From the accompanying documentation, apparently future power supplies will be unable to handle the R900 power demands, so its going to come with its own power source as well a specially modified case to accommodate the card.


Peace


>Click to expand<

LMAO

OK, humor off. (sorry, couldn’t resist the other post)

Interesting post with lots of interesting points.

In terms of the platform concept, yah I see your point and it makes sense to me
In terms of bringing a CPU manufacturers experience to a GPU maker, it makes sense if ATI was looking to absorb AMD and not the other way around, unless AMD is using this as a bargaining chip with ATI. I can see that point that too, it makes sense.

GPU and CPU die sharing? Well, I’ve seen a bunch of folks postulating on the inclusion of GPUs on die with CPUs. They all seem to be enthusiastic about the idea. Personally, I’m not.

With the exceptions of reduced power requirements by way of going to the CPUs reduced node, and a better pipeline, I don’t see why any retail consumer would be happy about this. Corporate seat purchasers and networks, yah it would make sense for them, especially in terms of platform consistency and reduced pricing.
Dell, HP and the like. I can see them liking the idea too. Simple good business sense: reduced component outlay.

Us, not so much. One phrase: Limited Options. “Da comrade, dis iz ze chip. Take eet or leefe eet”

The prospect of not being able to select, or upgrade individual components does not excite me. The prospect of have a good CPU and a flawed GPU, or vice versa, on the same die, does not excite me. I can only hope this does not come to pass.

EDIT: I knew I forgot something. The merger, if it is for real, could very well PO Intel. Like it or not, even the Fanboys have to admit that the majority of systems in operation today are Intel. I find it difficult to swallow that ATI could be so enamoured of the prospective merger that they would willingly put themselves in a position to lose that business.

What are your thoughts on that?


Peace

You know Jack, I know what your talking about here. GPU power requirements are already out of hand and the future of GPU power requirements is indeed dim....from brown outs.

I came across this obscure link while researching for my next graphics card. It shows a pre-production R900 GPU "kit". From the accompanying documentation, apparently future power supplies will be unable to handle the R900 power demands, so its going to come with its own power source as well a specially modified case to accommodate the card.


Peace


>Click to expand<



LOL..

It's funny, but the concensus has been that graphics cards were progressing, technology-wise, much faster than CPU tech. But if you look at the way they're going....they're following the Prescott path..namely much more power consumption/heat output. It is a shame that we are looking at lower power CPU's for quieter, more environmentally friendly computing, but the gaming industry is effectively putting the brakes on this endeavor. I know that probably 90% of computers aren't gaming machines, but when you consider what the GPU mfgr's are charging for their high-end parts, you would hope/think that you're getting the latest and best technology. Top-of-the-line graphics cards are as expensive as T.O.T.L. CPU's. I think that the GPU mfgr's need to take another look at the CPU industry, and get their act together...Pronto. /rant.