Lord_Exodia
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,008
Intel Buys Nvidia 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Its official....AMD has bought ATI
- Thread starter defiant007
- Start date
- Status
These are just some things I was thinking about with regards to this merger.
I doubt we'll see any changes on AMD's or ATi's roadmap for the next 6 months. AM2 chipsets will probably look the same for a while, and the ATi R600 won't change at all. In the short term at least, this merger won't mean that much.
In the long run though I worry about it. I have a hard time seeing AMD buying ATi in order to enter the high end graphics market. If you look at the graphics market, Intel pretty much dominates it (they supply something like 50% of the graphics chips used in PC's around the world). Buying ATi, having them focuss on and produce a solid, in-house brand of chipsets with decent integrated graphics, and then using that chipset to move more AMD X2's seems more likely than the alternative. The alternative being: AMD buys ATi in order to get a good chipset, but ATi still focusses most of its time and resources on producing GPU's for the high-end entusiast market.
I don't know, it just worries me. I just don't see us gaming enthusiasts as being an important-enough market segment when compared to the millions of business users who just want stable, cheap, fast computers to word process on. I can very easily see AMD steering ATi to create ever better integrated chipsets to sell more AMD CPU's at the expense of ATi's GPU creation.
I guess it all comes down to this. If AMD can use ATi's engineers to produce a solid chipset, and that chipset will help AMD's market share increase by say 10%, but ATi has to divert attention from the enthusiast market, do you really think we'll stand a chance?
Course, more than likely I have no idea what I'm talking about because it'll be another year before we ever see any new technologies come out of this merger.
I doubt we'll see any changes on AMD's or ATi's roadmap for the next 6 months. AM2 chipsets will probably look the same for a while, and the ATi R600 won't change at all. In the short term at least, this merger won't mean that much.
In the long run though I worry about it. I have a hard time seeing AMD buying ATi in order to enter the high end graphics market. If you look at the graphics market, Intel pretty much dominates it (they supply something like 50% of the graphics chips used in PC's around the world). Buying ATi, having them focuss on and produce a solid, in-house brand of chipsets with decent integrated graphics, and then using that chipset to move more AMD X2's seems more likely than the alternative. The alternative being: AMD buys ATi in order to get a good chipset, but ATi still focusses most of its time and resources on producing GPU's for the high-end entusiast market.
I don't know, it just worries me. I just don't see us gaming enthusiasts as being an important-enough market segment when compared to the millions of business users who just want stable, cheap, fast computers to word process on. I can very easily see AMD steering ATi to create ever better integrated chipsets to sell more AMD CPU's at the expense of ATi's GPU creation.
I guess it all comes down to this. If AMD can use ATi's engineers to produce a solid chipset, and that chipset will help AMD's market share increase by say 10%, but ATi has to divert attention from the enthusiast market, do you really think we'll stand a chance?
Course, more than likely I have no idea what I'm talking about because it'll be another year before we ever see any new technologies come out of this merger.
Hoop said:
That's quite a prediction. I wasn't aware that buying profitable companies was such a bad deal.
We won't know jack about how this will work out in the long term until the long term gets a bit closer. At the moment, all we know is that ATI is now a part of AMD and that AMD would like to make bigger inroads into more fully integrated PC solutions (particularly notebooks). Considering that ATI has already been working on notebook solutions fo years now (perhaps most famously being the provider of chipsets for the popular Apple notebooks), I don't see any fundamental problems. The idea that AMD will integrate ATI into their operation and then throw out everything else that ATI has been doing just doesn't make a lot of sense.
There are pros and cons for both companies. Well start with pros.
ATI chipsets for AMD procs
ATI can use AMD fabs to produces gpus. Which means, we could be seeing mass release of new gpus for lower prices. Instead of the low release and high prices. Remember the release of the X800XT. Those days may be gone.
AMD gets better integrated graphics. Shoot, they can simply put the integrated graphics on the proc and have a low latency, high bandwith connection.
I'm sure there's more, just can't think of them.
Cons.
Well, Intel already pulled the plug on ATI chipsets for Intel. (Course didn't anyone even care about ATI chipsets for Intel?)
Nvidia could pull their Nforce chipsets from AMD.
Nvidia and Intel work more closely together and SLI only becomes available for Intel, minus the 7950GX2. (a pro for the Intel lovers).
It all depends on how AMD/ATI play this out. I can't see Nvidia pulling out their chipsets. It's just too big of a market for them to simply dump. Also making Intel only chipsets is going to be rough, as Intel has normally made the best chipsets for their procs. That's quite the competition to go up against. It's like having a fist fight against a brickwall.
I say that that AMD/ATI need to stay somewhat in their own fields, minus the fabs for ATI gpus.
ATI chipsets for AMD procs
ATI can use AMD fabs to produces gpus. Which means, we could be seeing mass release of new gpus for lower prices. Instead of the low release and high prices. Remember the release of the X800XT. Those days may be gone.
AMD gets better integrated graphics. Shoot, they can simply put the integrated graphics on the proc and have a low latency, high bandwith connection.
I'm sure there's more, just can't think of them.
Cons.
Well, Intel already pulled the plug on ATI chipsets for Intel. (Course didn't anyone even care about ATI chipsets for Intel?)
Nvidia could pull their Nforce chipsets from AMD.
Nvidia and Intel work more closely together and SLI only becomes available for Intel, minus the 7950GX2. (a pro for the Intel lovers).
It all depends on how AMD/ATI play this out. I can't see Nvidia pulling out their chipsets. It's just too big of a market for them to simply dump. Also making Intel only chipsets is going to be rough, as Intel has normally made the best chipsets for their procs. That's quite the competition to go up against. It's like having a fist fight against a brickwall.
I say that that AMD/ATI need to stay somewhat in their own fields, minus the fabs for ATI gpus.
Babbster said:
AMD turned a profit the last 2 years, and ATi the past 3. Before that they both had negative income. AMD had their best year in 2005. They're about $22 off their stock high for 2006. I'm sure these discussions with ATi started when their shares were at $40 and they had a lot of market capitalization. Half of that has been wiped out now that they're trading at about $18 a share.
I've never owned an Intel rig and the last Nvidia card I had was a ti4400 so it's not like I'm a Intel/Nvidia fboy, I just think the timing is horrendous. I think it's going to drag both companies down when the economy slows/goes into a recession. If the recession lasts 3-5 years AMD will be done as Intel has more cash to carry itself through hard times and AMD does not.
Edit: The first thing they'll probably cut to save money is R&D, so AMD might not ever be able to catch up to Intel. They should have stayed lean and mean like they were in the beginning, thats how they got the edge over Intel.
Thats just my financial predictions.
CrimandEvil
Dick with a heart of gold
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,670
NV does have the better IGP....
hardwarephreak
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,283
Will AMD now make better chipsets in the server market is all I want to know? Can AMD push further into the lucrative server market by making their own highend Opteron chipsets? I mean, look to any server board with onboard graphics, its all ATI Rage XL right now anyways, so AMD makes the Chips, the Chipset, and the onboard VGA.
There was a good deal of amazement by my rep at AMD. He didn't really know what to think, he said Nvidia had always been real easy to deal with compared with AMD, now he doesn't know what to think. I told him not to worry, gonna throw some more cash into AMD stock tomorrow.
There was a good deal of amazement by my rep at AMD. He didn't really know what to think, he said Nvidia had always been real easy to deal with compared with AMD, now he doesn't know what to think. I told him not to worry, gonna throw some more cash into AMD stock tomorrow.
UltimaParadox
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,243
petertew said:
Ding Ding...
Something I agree with 100%, I mean this is the only thing I can actually see happening out of this merger. In 5 years if they are still standing, Ati will be working for a better intergrated graphics solution to make the company largely profitable. IE chipsets for business
D-OveRMinD
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 111
Everyone remember when Michael Dell was caught courting Hector Ruiz here recently? AMD has been planning something big for quite some time. Does anyone else think that it's all too convenient that AMD has been the quiet little mouse in the corner all these years, then all of a sudden they:
SUE Goliath (Intel) for monopolistic/predatorial business practices
Used that to scare Dell (not to mention every other OEM worldwide that took handouts from Intel) into opening up talks with AMD (cause you know Intel was offering Dell DEEP illegal discounts to not use AMD)
The talks with Dell no likely ended with the following quote: "Tell you what AMD, figure out how to get us a complete solution. One that is powerful and cheap. One that includes everything except storage options. Something that will compete directly with Intels Viiv and Centrino platforms. Then you have a deal."
If you notice in the slide presentation Kyle put up earlier, AMD and ATI plan to completely rework the way processors are built and function by like 2009 or something like that. Guess what else that will coincide with? The end of the AMD and Intel cross-licensing agreement which stipulates that AMD must pay Intel royalties on their microprocessor architecture. Keep in mind this contract has been reworked like 3 or 4 times since like 1976. Each time, Intel takes something else out of the contract saying they can no longer use it. The last rework told AMD they could no longer use the same type of bus that Intel does to communicate with the board. Guess what that gave us? Hypertransport, which for all intents and purposes, is the wave of the future. Especially considering that now AMD can use it as a direct connect to the GPU at 2000+mHz
AMD has been positioning for a while. AMD has been in the lead for years now. You think Core 2 is a threat? Not hardly IMHO. AMD saw something NEW (first time for intel in a while) coming down the pipe and decided to wait it out. The K8L is just waiting in the wings. This new "super" chip from Intel BARELY beats same priced AMD's in real world tests. And we're talkin AMD's 3 year+ old architecture here.
So AMD slashes prices to ridiculous levels because it knows Intel has been hemouraging cash, and that it needs to get rid of the old P4 inventory, and that it won't have significant shipments of Core2's for a while. Especially with the whole Mac thing going on. Then right as Intel is about to saturate the market, BAM, K8L comes out on a 65nm process supporting sub 35watt performance, a TRUE quad core+ design, with external HT links and a bad ass inhouse chipset designed just for them.
Nvidia will not stop supplying AMD chipsets. They're not even threatened. I don't even think the target market is the same. ATI and Nvidia will continue with their high end, whilst AMD/ATI work on stable high performance server boards/chipsets. Most server boards are Rage 128's anyway...
Intel will not buy Nvidia, at least not ANY time soon. The shareholders would disown the company. Intel has been behind for years now and their shareholders know it. They have gone through a recent mass restructuring to cut costs and have put tons of R&D into a new architecture. They have also recently sold off certain divisions, fired upper management, and have had less than stellar quarters. Even though they have the fat sacks of cash to buy Nvidia, I don't think either company will benefit from it...much less be allowed to do it by shareholders.
Nvidia and AMD chips are like peanut butter and jelly. Both companies know this. So neither is going anywhere.
ATI will finally get a chunk of market that they had no chance of getting before because Nvidia owned it. But when you think about it.....it's not REALLY ATI as a seperate entity...just AMD. I don't think either side will be pissed. I think Nvidia would have been more hurt if AMD signed an exclusive licensing agreement with ATI rather than just flat buying them out. It looks like AMD is trying to get itself bigger to combat Intel, not play favorites against Nvidia.
What if we were to see a 6x6 design from AMD with dual core CPU's, dual core GPU's, and dual core PPU's, all connected with a 2000+ mHz HT link and direct access to RAM. Think that would change the way we compute? Think it would be fast? Think customers would want it? Think it could make laptop's easier to produce and faster? AMD does too and that's where this buyout came from.
This will slide them into the server arena faster, into bed with Dell better, and allow them to spend the next few years preparing to give Intel the finger on the cross-license. It's a win win.
Of course, I've been wrong before....
SUE Goliath (Intel) for monopolistic/predatorial business practices
Used that to scare Dell (not to mention every other OEM worldwide that took handouts from Intel) into opening up talks with AMD (cause you know Intel was offering Dell DEEP illegal discounts to not use AMD)
The talks with Dell no likely ended with the following quote: "Tell you what AMD, figure out how to get us a complete solution. One that is powerful and cheap. One that includes everything except storage options. Something that will compete directly with Intels Viiv and Centrino platforms. Then you have a deal."
If you notice in the slide presentation Kyle put up earlier, AMD and ATI plan to completely rework the way processors are built and function by like 2009 or something like that. Guess what else that will coincide with? The end of the AMD and Intel cross-licensing agreement which stipulates that AMD must pay Intel royalties on their microprocessor architecture. Keep in mind this contract has been reworked like 3 or 4 times since like 1976. Each time, Intel takes something else out of the contract saying they can no longer use it. The last rework told AMD they could no longer use the same type of bus that Intel does to communicate with the board. Guess what that gave us? Hypertransport, which for all intents and purposes, is the wave of the future. Especially considering that now AMD can use it as a direct connect to the GPU at 2000+mHz
AMD has been positioning for a while. AMD has been in the lead for years now. You think Core 2 is a threat? Not hardly IMHO. AMD saw something NEW (first time for intel in a while) coming down the pipe and decided to wait it out. The K8L is just waiting in the wings. This new "super" chip from Intel BARELY beats same priced AMD's in real world tests. And we're talkin AMD's 3 year+ old architecture here.
So AMD slashes prices to ridiculous levels because it knows Intel has been hemouraging cash, and that it needs to get rid of the old P4 inventory, and that it won't have significant shipments of Core2's for a while. Especially with the whole Mac thing going on. Then right as Intel is about to saturate the market, BAM, K8L comes out on a 65nm process supporting sub 35watt performance, a TRUE quad core+ design, with external HT links and a bad ass inhouse chipset designed just for them.
Nvidia will not stop supplying AMD chipsets. They're not even threatened. I don't even think the target market is the same. ATI and Nvidia will continue with their high end, whilst AMD/ATI work on stable high performance server boards/chipsets. Most server boards are Rage 128's anyway...
Intel will not buy Nvidia, at least not ANY time soon. The shareholders would disown the company. Intel has been behind for years now and their shareholders know it. They have gone through a recent mass restructuring to cut costs and have put tons of R&D into a new architecture. They have also recently sold off certain divisions, fired upper management, and have had less than stellar quarters. Even though they have the fat sacks of cash to buy Nvidia, I don't think either company will benefit from it...much less be allowed to do it by shareholders.
Nvidia and AMD chips are like peanut butter and jelly. Both companies know this. So neither is going anywhere.
ATI will finally get a chunk of market that they had no chance of getting before because Nvidia owned it. But when you think about it.....it's not REALLY ATI as a seperate entity...just AMD. I don't think either side will be pissed. I think Nvidia would have been more hurt if AMD signed an exclusive licensing agreement with ATI rather than just flat buying them out. It looks like AMD is trying to get itself bigger to combat Intel, not play favorites against Nvidia.
What if we were to see a 6x6 design from AMD with dual core CPU's, dual core GPU's, and dual core PPU's, all connected with a 2000+ mHz HT link and direct access to RAM. Think that would change the way we compute? Think it would be fast? Think customers would want it? Think it could make laptop's easier to produce and faster? AMD does too and that's where this buyout came from.
This will slide them into the server arena faster, into bed with Dell better, and allow them to spend the next few years preparing to give Intel the finger on the cross-license. It's a win win.
Of course, I've been wrong before....
D-OveRMinD said:
Excellent observations (except for the part where AMD is waiting to pounce on Intel with the K8L, it doesn't seem likely to me, I think they miss this cycle).
I'd like to add that if AMD survives the next 4 or 5 years (maybe after a Chapter 11 bankruptcy) and ATI is fully integrated into the company, THEY"LL be the ones to merge with Nvidia, not Intel. If not, Nvidia is the one who gets the hurt the most in the future, they'll be obsolete without AMD.
It seems the way this might pan out is AMD has the enthousiast section of the market (mobile and desktop) with high-end integrated solutions while Intel has the mid/business-end of the market. In the long run this sounds like excellent planning by AMD, in the short term, its not so good... the timing actually couldn't have been worse.
|CR|Constantine said:
Every ATI card I've ever owned, with the exception of my old Rage Pro Turbo speaks to the falsehood of your argument.
Something about ATI based cards has been absolutely attrocious in my personal experience, across several different operating systems, several different cards and chipsets, and numerous driver revisions (which are my biggest gripe). Nevertheless, ATI is the largest producer of graphics chips in the world. They're all about selling crap, or at least cheap, technology to the mainstream.
This isn't to say that they don't care about the enthusiast market. They obviously do, or we wouldn't have the XXX-ninteenmillion-XXXXTTTWWXXXOMGWTFBBQ Hibachi Extreme Edition cards.
@Whoever suggested the possibility of "dual core" GPUS:
We already have those. While there are some internal units of a GPU that are not duplicated, each pixel pipeline on a GPU can be considered a separate "core." The notion of extra parallelism through the use of another, segregated set of pipelines is folly, not because parallelism is ineffective for that task, but because the parallelism already exists, and further segregating it would not offer anything new.
Now, if they wanted to put some sort of gameplay physics hardware processing chip on my Xnineteenmillion WTFBBQ Edition, that would be pretty cool.
Fishflinger
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 8
I don't feel good about AMD buying ATI because I love the Nvidia chipsets for AMD processors, not to mention the Nvidia based video cards.
In the long run it could lead to Intel buying Nvidia.
In the long run it could lead to Intel buying Nvidia.
Fishflinger said:
Don't count on it.
nVidia chipsets will still be there for AMD processors. I think you've missed the point. nVidia is not threatened here. Why would they pull their chipsets off the market for AMD processors, which represents a HUGE cash cow for them... and let ati run free? Think it through man.
v6maro
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,552
D-OveRMinD said:
very very very nice post, I agree 100%
Remember when NVIDIA bought 3dfx? We were sad but thought that maybe next generation NVIDIA cards would be revolutionary. Years went by and nothing really happened. I feel the same RE: AMD/ATI. I dont expect anything extraordinary for at least 3 years, maybe more.
NOW
The original Inquirer article talked about the mini-cores from SUN and Intel and how this will revolutionize the CPU world. So I have few questions and would like your input.
If CPU will displace the need for a GPU, will the same be true for Physics?
Will the GPU eventually disappear and the only add on card that gamers will use become AGEIAs?
What will become of NVIDIA?
MMP
NOW
The original Inquirer article talked about the mini-cores from SUN and Intel and how this will revolutionize the CPU world. So I have few questions and would like your input.
If CPU will displace the need for a GPU, will the same be true for Physics?
Will the GPU eventually disappear and the only add on card that gamers will use become AGEIAs?
What will become of NVIDIA?
MMP
D-OveRMinD said:
Not sure why everybody is riding your sack on this one.... there are quite a bit of mistakes with it.... let's see if I can't clear some things up.
D-OveRMinD said:
LOL... I like this one. They picked a great time to sue since they started to gain market share, yet couldn't keep up with the demand. Effectively losing all credibility with their argument.
D-OveRMinD said:
It's no secret that dell gets a lot of money back from intel for advertising, and while this may or may not be illegal look at it from this perspective. AMD doesn't have the fab capacity to provide Dell with enough chips, nor could they beat Intel's price. You also have to look at the support that Dell, HP, IBM, etc. get from Intel. AMD doesn't have the resources to make dell happy. So from Dell's perspective they could go with:
Company A (AMD) - who can't provide the number of chips requested and will be charged more. A company that won't provide half the product support that is wanted or...
Company B (Intel) - who can literally shit out a million processors when ever it wants and do it at a cheaper price while at the same time bending over backwards (this is an understatement BTW) to help Dell get their product out in time for launch.
D-OveRMinD said:
Maybe... but that's what Intel has been doing for dell in the past. Leaving the Server market out of the equation you've got mobile and desktop PLATFORMS that come from intel which are powerful (way more than ost people need/use) and cheap. Not to mention that in the mobile market there is ZERO competition with centrino. I doubt we'll see anything truely competitive from AMD in this area anytime soon.
D-OveRMinD said:
Well they probably should be paying royalties. They have "recieved" their technology from Intel and should pay for it. AMD has a nifty history of taking stuff from others and calling it their own. Where do you think they got the design for their first IMC? Funny that AMD hired a bunch of designers from Intel after we scrapped OUR imc project and a year or so later... bam. AMD has an IMC. But I guess stuff like that is ok since it's against the big bad "goliath" right?
Shocking.... D-OveRMinD said:
First off the "real world" thing is BS. Of course the difference is minimal.... GAMES ARE GPU BOTTLENECKED. That's why for CPU benchmarking you take the GPU out of the equation by lowering framerates. The next gen cards, ran with those same tests will show a greater difference between the CPUs... mark my words.
Don't forget that "3+ year old architecture" gets slammed in ALL other tests which... BTW... 90% of the market cares about more than gaming. Most people don't play games. Most surf the web and read e-mail, while playing solitare. There is a reason that Intel's Integrated Graphics account for 50%+ of the graphics market. It's becasue most people don't care about games.
D-OveRMinD said:
LOL... Intel cut prices to get rid of inventory correct... but that has ZERO to do with the availibity of Conroe. There will be plenty to go around.... believe me.
D-OveRMinD said:
I love how you know so much about a chip that AMD has been VERY tight lipped about. I doubt that K8L will be the second coming like the !!!!!!s are praying for. And 1 fab pumping out 65nm chips, with low success rates, is not that great of a thing. Speculation of course.... time will tell on this one.
D-OveRMinD said:
Speculation on the first part for sure. We'll see what happens on this one... but to say that this won't hurt the relationship between nVidia and AMD (sounds like you are implying that it won't) is illogical. ATI is nVidia's direct competitor..... which means that AMD and nVidia are direct competitiors. You don't AMD and Intel working hand in hand do you?
D-OveRMinD said:
Agree with you here.... but a close relationship could form between the two. Again... time will tell and these desicions are made WAY above everybody here's heads. Speculation.,...
D-OveRMinD said:
Agree here... but again, with nVidia and ATI being direct competitiors I find it a bit tactless that AMD, who owes a HUGE part of it's success to nVidia. Without nVidia AMD might still be relying on VIA and SIS for their chipsets and at the very least would have had a few more years of bad press with their stability issues... possibly killing the company. It is business so AMD is doing what it feels it must. Can't blame them....
D-OveRMinD said:
LOL.... that's a board design nightmare. Possible? maybe.... likely that we would see something like that from AMD? Not at all IMHO.
D-OveRMinD said:
This is really the market where we've been getting slamed hard and it shows. The differences on desktop are really that noticable between AMD and Intel.... but the server market it is. Though this is changing. Right now intel makes a better DP product... and soon our MP product will be better. This is basically the wind up getting ready for the nockout that is coming with our next server platform. Initial reviews look to be VERY VERY promising. We have put a lot of focus into this market... and it will show in the next couple years.
UltimaParadox
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,243
D-OveRMinD said:
Right now no one really care about 4x4, it was laughed at by most of the market when it was introduced and still nothing has come of it, besides some demos.
I think a 6x6 design is just out of the question, that is why there is improvements in technology, because 99% of the user base does not want the cost or components that are required for the 4x4 platform, let alone the 6x6.
I think the 4x4 platform is really just a demo, and even it if makes it to the market will be very small percentages at best, when you consider the dual gpu market hardly makes up 1/100th percent of the actual PC market.
You know its small when they show steam numbers stating only 0.77% use a dual-gpu solution. If 1% of gamers use it, you can guess how small the percentages of the whole entire PC base is.
D-OveRMinD
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 111
v6maro said:
Hehe...sorry for the long posts guys. I normally don't write in forums but this is something that got my blood pumpin. It seems some people out there only look at the immediate. Like stepping over a $100 bill to pick up a penny because it's not in their direct line of sight. Maybe I should write industry reviews. Are you listening Kyle?
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33238
That translates to about $100 MILLION dollars.
That translates to about $100 MILLION dollars.
D-OveRMinD
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 111
Hey Poncho,
Not sure I would consider other people's opinion of my opinion to be a case of "riding one's sack," but ok.
Where to start? I appreciate your analysing each individual part and agreeing with some and disagreeing with others, but I think you are confused if not biased on a few of your points.
First of all, gaining marketshare doesn NOT make what Intel's doing any more legal. AMD has been held out of many markets due to Intels threats to OEM's. They've had to do something Intel's not very familiar with. Make a better product and hope it spreads by word of mouth. AMD doesn't spend the billions of dollars on marketing that Intel does, doesn't have the largest PC supplier on the planet on a short leash, etc. How are they gaining ground? The hard way. And they would be a much larger competitor if Intel would play fair. Again, them gaining ground just means now they have the funds to fight it. It doesn't disband their arguement at all.
I'm not even sure I see your point on the next comment. AMD is not trying to be the ONLY supplier to Dell. They just want a little bit. They don't have near the overhead Intel does and doesn't have near the capacity Intel does. They can sell less and still turn more profit than before. Your argument implies Dell switching to them entirely but not being able to supply enough chips. You are correct in that they would not be able to. But Intel would probably STILL have the majority seat at Dell....just not all of it anymore. Hell, 10% of Dell business is a boon to AMD.
The next topic you agree with, in theory, then make no point. AMD is trying to build exactly what Intel has been providing for years and more recently branded under the Centrino moniker. We already have R200 chipsets with AMD Turions doing a pretty good job at a lessor price with better graphics. How is that "not anytime soon?" Give them a few months and there will be a direct competitor with the Centrino platform that will blow it away.
On to the royalties. I whole heartedly agree with you that they SHOULD be paying royalties for things that Intel developed. That's only fair. But in all honesty, AMD chips are now their own design. With the K6 1, 2, and 3, they absolutely "borrowed" that design from Intel. But starting with the Thunderbirds and up, they have been working hard to make a better, completely different chip. Hypertransport? Onboard memory controllers? Dual Cores? Instructions per clock cycle? Lower Wattage? etc? These are all things and many more that AMD has brought to the table on their own. Nice condesending attitude towards the end there...you obviously missed the point...
On to Core 2. You seem to have a massive focus towards gaming benchmarks here when I mentioned nothing of them. I mean an overall real world analysis. And yes, the Core 2 does put a massive beat down on certain things, but not MOST. As you say, most users won't be playing games. But most users won't be encoding tons of video and mixing their next album in a studio either, which is mainly where the new intel shines. On office apps and general usage, no one will know the difference between a Core 2 Intel and a Dual Core AMD. Period. Slammed in all other tests? Yes I would call a 20% gain a slam. But when 20% equals a 1 second difference in mp3 encoding time, or 30 more FPS that is already over the 100FPS mark, who gives a shit? If I said I was gonna double your salary in exchange for a week vacation, would you take it? What if your original salary was only a dollar a year? Would you still give up that week for a 100% increase that only amounted to a dollar?
Your next point is moot. Intel has already stated they will not have massive shipments of Core 2 for quite some time. Move along.
I agree on your next point. It was purely my opinion here based off what I know.
And again, I agree. Time will tell. Intel has shot themselves in the foot here. They have purposely forced Nvidia and their SLI to the AMD platform by refusing to support it. Guess they'll be eating alot of crow here soon as they will NEED some sort of alliance with Nvidia to combat whatever AMD has up their sleeve.
On to the 6x6 quote. That was just a pipe dream for me. I just through it out as a possibility...and it is. AMD has been shopping Hypertransport around and showing it's ability to directly link to other parts of the system outside of the CPU for a few months now. I don't think something LIKE this is far off.
To finish up with your last quote, you seem to say "WE" quite a bit here. I haven't read your profile or any detective work like that, but it seems that you are very fond (biased) of Intel, insomuch as you might be an employee. Which explains some of your previous comments. AMD has $ for $ kicked the hell out of Intel on BOTH the desktop front and the server front. Intel has played off the stupidity of the general populous for years, making them think that higher gHz means better. They had an entire marketing campaign around debunking AMD's choice of "hiding" their true mHz by applying "ratings" to their processor descriptions. Upon still getting their ass handed to them, they decide to adopt the same method and no one thinks twice about it. WTF?! And don't get me started on the server market. This is the segment that performance matters and the people signing the check for the parts KNOW what they want. AMD has cleaned up here. At least, barring any illegal predatorial practices from Intel. Don't get me started on Intel's trying to force everyone down the Rambus and Itanium path. They've dug this hole they're in.
Now, FINALLY it looks like Intel has gone back to the drawing board to actually develope a better product. And good for them. Is it THAT much better? For them, yes. Compared to an AMD? Not really. And no, I don't know what the K8L architecture will bring. But I do know what history has shown us from new AMD designs.
I guess what really irks me the most is that Intel can be compared to Electronic Arts. The only difference is that EA's tactics were not illegal. EA was content with spitting out the same shit every year with updated graphics. Intel puts out the same shit with faster speeds. Both companies were losing market share to their underdog, smaller competitors. EA decides to completely stiffle inovation and customer choice by buying up exclusive licenses because they were afraid to compete. Intel used illegal discounts and threats to pull chips to keep people from selling the competitors better chip. Neither company wanted to do what the smaller companies did.....BUILD A BETTER FRIKKIN PRODUCT. Ever seen an advertisement for a 2K Games product? Ever seen an advertisement for and AMD product? Me neither. Yet they still won the hearts of millions just by word of mouth and a better product.
Take it for what you will...
Not sure I would consider other people's opinion of my opinion to be a case of "riding one's sack," but ok.
Where to start? I appreciate your analysing each individual part and agreeing with some and disagreeing with others, but I think you are confused if not biased on a few of your points.
First of all, gaining marketshare doesn NOT make what Intel's doing any more legal. AMD has been held out of many markets due to Intels threats to OEM's. They've had to do something Intel's not very familiar with. Make a better product and hope it spreads by word of mouth. AMD doesn't spend the billions of dollars on marketing that Intel does, doesn't have the largest PC supplier on the planet on a short leash, etc. How are they gaining ground? The hard way. And they would be a much larger competitor if Intel would play fair. Again, them gaining ground just means now they have the funds to fight it. It doesn't disband their arguement at all.
I'm not even sure I see your point on the next comment. AMD is not trying to be the ONLY supplier to Dell. They just want a little bit. They don't have near the overhead Intel does and doesn't have near the capacity Intel does. They can sell less and still turn more profit than before. Your argument implies Dell switching to them entirely but not being able to supply enough chips. You are correct in that they would not be able to. But Intel would probably STILL have the majority seat at Dell....just not all of it anymore. Hell, 10% of Dell business is a boon to AMD.
The next topic you agree with, in theory, then make no point. AMD is trying to build exactly what Intel has been providing for years and more recently branded under the Centrino moniker. We already have R200 chipsets with AMD Turions doing a pretty good job at a lessor price with better graphics. How is that "not anytime soon?" Give them a few months and there will be a direct competitor with the Centrino platform that will blow it away.
On to the royalties. I whole heartedly agree with you that they SHOULD be paying royalties for things that Intel developed. That's only fair. But in all honesty, AMD chips are now their own design. With the K6 1, 2, and 3, they absolutely "borrowed" that design from Intel. But starting with the Thunderbirds and up, they have been working hard to make a better, completely different chip. Hypertransport? Onboard memory controllers? Dual Cores? Instructions per clock cycle? Lower Wattage? etc? These are all things and many more that AMD has brought to the table on their own. Nice condesending attitude towards the end there...you obviously missed the point...
On to Core 2. You seem to have a massive focus towards gaming benchmarks here when I mentioned nothing of them. I mean an overall real world analysis. And yes, the Core 2 does put a massive beat down on certain things, but not MOST. As you say, most users won't be playing games. But most users won't be encoding tons of video and mixing their next album in a studio either, which is mainly where the new intel shines. On office apps and general usage, no one will know the difference between a Core 2 Intel and a Dual Core AMD. Period. Slammed in all other tests? Yes I would call a 20% gain a slam. But when 20% equals a 1 second difference in mp3 encoding time, or 30 more FPS that is already over the 100FPS mark, who gives a shit? If I said I was gonna double your salary in exchange for a week vacation, would you take it? What if your original salary was only a dollar a year? Would you still give up that week for a 100% increase that only amounted to a dollar?
Your next point is moot. Intel has already stated they will not have massive shipments of Core 2 for quite some time. Move along.
I agree on your next point. It was purely my opinion here based off what I know.
And again, I agree. Time will tell. Intel has shot themselves in the foot here. They have purposely forced Nvidia and their SLI to the AMD platform by refusing to support it. Guess they'll be eating alot of crow here soon as they will NEED some sort of alliance with Nvidia to combat whatever AMD has up their sleeve.
On to the 6x6 quote. That was just a pipe dream for me. I just through it out as a possibility...and it is. AMD has been shopping Hypertransport around and showing it's ability to directly link to other parts of the system outside of the CPU for a few months now. I don't think something LIKE this is far off.
To finish up with your last quote, you seem to say "WE" quite a bit here. I haven't read your profile or any detective work like that, but it seems that you are very fond (biased) of Intel, insomuch as you might be an employee. Which explains some of your previous comments. AMD has $ for $ kicked the hell out of Intel on BOTH the desktop front and the server front. Intel has played off the stupidity of the general populous for years, making them think that higher gHz means better. They had an entire marketing campaign around debunking AMD's choice of "hiding" their true mHz by applying "ratings" to their processor descriptions. Upon still getting their ass handed to them, they decide to adopt the same method and no one thinks twice about it. WTF?! And don't get me started on the server market. This is the segment that performance matters and the people signing the check for the parts KNOW what they want. AMD has cleaned up here. At least, barring any illegal predatorial practices from Intel. Don't get me started on Intel's trying to force everyone down the Rambus and Itanium path. They've dug this hole they're in.
Now, FINALLY it looks like Intel has gone back to the drawing board to actually develope a better product. And good for them. Is it THAT much better? For them, yes. Compared to an AMD? Not really. And no, I don't know what the K8L architecture will bring. But I do know what history has shown us from new AMD designs.
I guess what really irks me the most is that Intel can be compared to Electronic Arts. The only difference is that EA's tactics were not illegal. EA was content with spitting out the same shit every year with updated graphics. Intel puts out the same shit with faster speeds. Both companies were losing market share to their underdog, smaller competitors. EA decides to completely stiffle inovation and customer choice by buying up exclusive licenses because they were afraid to compete. Intel used illegal discounts and threats to pull chips to keep people from selling the competitors better chip. Neither company wanted to do what the smaller companies did.....BUILD A BETTER FRIKKIN PRODUCT. Ever seen an advertisement for a 2K Games product? Ever seen an advertisement for and AMD product? Me neither. Yet they still won the hearts of millions just by word of mouth and a better product.
Take it for what you will...
D-OveRMinD
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 111
Damnit...looks like my quotes from Ponchos article didn't take. Screw it. I ain't going back through it!
UltimaParadox
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,243
D-OveRMinD said:
It may not be far off, buts its definetly not going to see the light of day. Like I stated before if dual-gpu solutions only make up less than 1/100th of a percent of the current PC base, why would they waste their time on it.
4x4 is already laughable except to the extreme enthusiast, and I doubt it will make it past being a tech demo. As even if its hits the market its actual user base is going to be so small that AMD will wonder why it wasted its time for production, and just phase it out IMO
D-OveRMinD
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 111
UltimaParadox said:
That's funny. Not according to this: http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?...=article&sid=5801&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
When you have big names like Bioware, Cakewalk, Crytek, Havok, Irrational Games, Midway, NERO and Sony all on hand for your 4x4 demonstration....ALL of which said they are frikkin pumped about it, I don't call that laughable. On top of that, being able to buy the dual ship combo for under $1000 doesn't seem like extreme users only. Have you seen the prices on the Dell XPS line of desktops and notebooks? Have you ever been to Alienware's or VooDoo PC's website? Now THOSE prices are ridiculous. That and the fact it is already past being a tech demo and both AMD and Intel are working on similar products.
I think you must be confused...
PCMusicGuy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,222
D-OveRMinD said:
You call those big names?
UltimaParadox
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,243
D-OveRMinD said:
Huh, those are all just game developers, and of course they are going to embrace it. Funny no motherboard manufacturers were there. If you realize how small the enthusiast market is, you will realize why the 4x4 platform is already a dead end. Consumers want less components not more.
Plus the article is from AMDzone, of course they are pumping AMD products
Where is Intel's simliar product? And don't you remember when this was released everyone thought it was an April Fool's Joke.
D-OveRMinD
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 111
UltimaParadox said:
Ok so how about a few more:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6154654.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33268
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33269
Now not all of these reviews were sparkling, but there just wasn't enough info in the demo to infer much more than what already has been.
On to the quotable quotes:
"With Crysis, our flagship title, we are pushing the boundaries of game-physics, intelligent combat AI and cinematic visuals," said Cevat Yerli, President and CEO, Crytek. "Crysis will be an experience culminated in next-generation hardware when utilized with a multi-core system like AMD's highly anticipated 4x4 enthusiast platform."
"AMD's combination of HyperTransportTM technology and an integrated memory controller gives us the bandwidth we need to see impressive performance scaling on multi-core systems," said Curtis Palmer, senior vice president, chief technologist, Sony Media Software. "Because of Direct Connect Architecture, an AMD 4-core, multi-socket solution should help Sony Vegas 6 users edit high definition video with unparalleled responsiveness and use effects that would have been unthinkable on earlier hardware."
IMO, the only reason most applications are not multithreaded today is simply because the average job could not afford one. Now with dual cores running rampant, and 360's and PS3's having multicores, it's only a matter of time before you will NEED to multi thread your application if you are to survive in the market place.
Notice Sony's quote had squat ass to do with games.....
UltimaParadox
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,243
D-OveRMinD said:
Still a bunch of nothing, Gamespot is just an article talking about the technology, and I didn't even bother to read the inquirer articles.
Say what you want, but as far as it goes even if 4x4 hits the market, which I doubt it will. Probablly vaporware, its not going to see an outgoing response of people rushing to buy it.
- Status