AMD Buys ATI

[Ddeere2]

I read on Yahoo news, that AMD is going to buy ATI for 5.6 billion dollars. Some say that this will challenge Intel's new Core 2 Duo chips along with AMD's price cuts. AMD said this will not change them from using Nvidia graphics cards as well. This may challenge Intel, but we will see.

[VaKo]

Why would Intel (who make the current shit hot CPU's and have the largest share in the world graphics market) be threatened by the AMD-ATI merger?

[rFayjW98ciLoNQLDZmFRKD]

I always felt that AMD and Nvidia were "partners"

[stingwray]

Its been known for at least a month now.

It should be interesting to see what happens but we're not going to notice any difference for at least 2 years.

Why would Intel (who make the current shit hot CPU's and have the largest share in the world graphics market) be threatened by the AMD-ATI merger?

Because it makes AMD-ATi a much bigger force, considering how much of the market share AMD has already stolen from Intel, with the additional facilities it means AMD could have a bigger influence.

Also it will hopefully mean that there is some innovation in the sector with CPU and GPU working more closely together. Everybody knows that Intel's Graphics solutions are a joke and I think AMD wants to go back after the crown of making the best gaming CPUs along with best GPUs. There are even talk of CPU and GPU occupying single dies which would be excellent for mobile platforms from phones to laptops.

The other advantage is that it now means the AMD produce a chipset for their CPUs effectively, which makes it a lot more like Intel which has until only recently produced the only chipsets for their CPUs really.

I personally think that AMD should move more into the networking chip sector, they have produced some not bad wireless chips in the past and I would love to see wired Nics sporting AMD chips that were optmised for use with AMD-ATI chips.

[VaKo]

The chipset issue I deffinately agree on, its been one of AMD's biggest issues for a while now. There is no standard AMD platform along the lines of centrino.

As for graphics, intels graphics may be shit but if you don't game or use multiple monitors, there is very little point in upgrading. I sometimes think that the PC gaming market doesn't realise how much of a niche market it is.

I've always been an intel fan (i'm sitting in a house with 3 dead amd systems, and my working intel systems that are older than them all) but right now I think AMD needs to work on increasing its fab capacity and work on there own chipset designs.

[kickarse]

I think this is going to be good and bad. But we'll have to see what the bad is. As I can only forsee good right now :)

Think about it...

Intel produces chipsets, chips, video (while onboard w/no svid out)

Nvidia produces chipsets, video (their workstation region is okay, modelling is fairing well)

AMD/ATI produce chipsets (ATI and AMD), video (ATI VIVO is great!) and chips (if only pricing was competitive)

If AMD/ATI can help each other with chipsets/integration and VIVO onboard perhaps? Media powerhouse cheap!

----

I have to say I always thought of it as AMD/Ati and intel/Nvidia... wierd...

[stingwray]

As for graphics, intels graphics may be shit but if you don't game or use multiple monitors, there is very little point in upgrading. I sometimes think that the PC gaming market doesn't realise how much of a niche market it is.

Simple answer is Vista, people are going to want to run it in pretty mode and they won't be able to do that with Intel Extreme Graphics.

There is no standard AMD platform along the lines of centrino.

AMD have had mobile processors for along time, at least for K6 and K7 and now K8 architectures. It was only because Intel brought out a chip designed mainly for laptops which turned out to be better than their desktop processor AMD started having problems. They do now have and had for about a year the Turion processor which is the laptop model of everybodys favorite Athlon64. Its just gone dual-core to, although this was too late as Core Duo has been out quite a while before now.

but right now I think AMD needs to work on increasing its fab capacity and work on there own chipset designs

AMD have quite a lot of fab production now after they opened their new factory and they have another one in the final stages of being built. AMD arn't going to do their own chipset design because there is no need for it, they have ATi for doing that now, I just hope to see that the ATi chipset for AMD become very fast because they should know everything about the architecture.

I feel that AMD really needs to start a new architecture for they quad-core CPUs, something that will be better than the Core 2 architecture as Intel is planning on scaling that same architecture to more cores at the moment.

I also think the price being put of thermal efficency and power usage now they seriously need to think about making it very similar to a laptop capable CPU, as firstly this would allow a quick and easy port to the mobile side (which AMD serverly lacks in) and it would continue AMDs success in the server market.

[Haplo]

Meh, you have to give intel credit. They saw the problems in the p4 netburst design. Sure, their solutions aren't perfect, but the Core architecture does very well as far as PPW and heat. I think AMD buying ATI is mostly a BS move. Maybe something along the lines of how iPod saved Apple, they're hoping they can stay alive via graphics cards. I hate ATI though, their drivers and firmware are widely known to suck balls. Anyone I know who's had gfx card crashes and similar problems uses an ATI card. The newer the card, the worse the problems. I've never heard any such thing about nvidia.

[VaKo]

Simple answer is Vista, people are going to want to run it in pretty mode and they won't be able to do that with Intel Extreme Graphics.

I'm not sure how many basic users will bother upgrading there current PC to Vista. Since XP was released computers have moved from geeky things to something most people own, like a TV set. So most computer users back in the 95/98/ME days probally had a higher skill level than the vast majority of people who started computing after XP was released. I can see the vast majority of shmoo users just buy a new box.

AMD have had mobile processors for along time, at least for K6 and K7 and now K8 architectures. It was only because Intel brought out a chip designed mainly for laptops which turned out to be better than their desktop processor AMD started having problems. They do now have and had for about a year the Turion processor which is the laptop model of everybodys favorite Athlon64. Its just gone dual-core to, although this was too late as Core Duo has been out quite a while before now.

What are they like? Back in november I very nearly got a turion based laptop but went with an intel solution after I read some reviews about compartivly poor power consumption.

[cooper]

Meh, you have to give intel credit. They saw the problems in the p4 netburst design.

Here's where I call BS. Intel went with NetBurst because they thought they could out-market AMD and in the early stages that went really well. Then Rambus (remember them?) was found to be fucking the other parties in the JEDEC up the ass with their patents crap. Suddenly the expensive, hot Rambus memory that appeared to be the one thing that made a P4 tick became _REALLY_ unpopular amongst PC buyers. It was already the expensive choice, and they tried, through litigation, to get the other form of memory (DDR) up to their price range, and grab some royalties off of it while they were at it.

So there was Intel, trying to sell CPUs that ran on MoBo's whose chipset either required Rambus which nobody wanted, or with DDR memory which Intel really didn't want to make (or rather, couldn't due to the contract they had with Rambus. The first chipsets that allowed you to pair DDR with a P4 were from VIA). When they did eventually have a DDR platform it was shown that their i820 chipset had a serious flaw and the boards with them on it had to be recalled.

Time goes on, old wounds heal, but there's AMD. They worked out a way to be as effective at marketing as Intel was (by using a rating system) and at times even trumping them by reporting larger numbers than the Intel part because of some shrewd application of the rating system.

The two ramp up clockspeeds and suddenly people realise those Intel chips are running mighty hot, and the electric bill is going up while those comparable AMD parts are doing just peachy. But, having no other CPU ready for production use, Intel have no choice but to stick with it.

Then AMD out-innovates Intel with 64-bit CPUs and a much more effective multi-core design than what they were having on the tables.

And now, _FINALLY_ Intel found a part that worked really well and was relatively energy-efficient to boot in the Pentium M, worked it around and at long last introduced a new desktop chip that can once again do the business.

And you want me to believe that Intel deserves credit because "they saw the problems in the p4 netburst design"?

What have you been smoking?

And FWIW, I'm not an AMD fanboy. That new Intel chip looks SWEET though I'm not in the market for a new CPU right now. And I too have problems figuring out why AMD chose to buy ATI. Guess time will tell on that one.

[stingwray]

And you want me to believe that Intel deserves credit because "they saw the problems in the p4 netburst design"?

Well they did, if they hadn't then they wouldn't have changed from netburst architecture. Also netburst was bad at everything, it was and still is very good a video encoding, although Core 2 does beat it, netburst always beat AMDs range for video encoding.

What are they like? Back in november I very nearly got a turion based laptop but went with an intel solution after I read some reviews about compartivly poor power consumption.

Turions are ok, but they didn't do what AMD wanted which was compete with Core Duo, seeming until recently they were only single cored it was no compition. AMD do have problems with the mobile market so hopefully this will change with ATi's expertise.

I'm not sure how many basic users will bother upgrading there current PC to Vista.

True I don't think that large numbers of people will upgrade to Vista, unless MS force them to because they want/need vista only features. However people will always be buying new computers rather than upgrading them gradualy. New computers will ship with vista and they will want to run it in pretty mode. I like MS idea of ratings for different levels of prettyness and how much hardware you need, it should make things easier for people to understand, plus it will also mean that people will know what they need to spend more on to get more features. That one area is going to be graphics.

[Arvara]

I like MS idea of ratings for different levels of prettyness and how much hardware you need, it should make things easier for people to understand, plus it will also mean that people will know what they need to spend more on to get more features. That one area is going to be graphics.

Until you have to fix machines for a wide variety of a people and it's no longer a question of "Are you running windows XP or an earlier version?". What this means is that now to fix machines we have to learn the same operating system three different ways to be able to understand what is potentially generating a problem.

Okay, it isn't really a problem, it's just annoying.

[stingwray]

Until you have to fix machines for a wide variety of a people and it's no longer a question of "Are you running windows XP or an earlier version?". What this means is that now to fix machines we have to learn the same operating system three different ways to be able to understand what is potentially generating a problem.

Okay, it isn't really a problem, it's just annoying.

Vista is Vista, all the different versions ship on one disc, so you can unlock things by paying later for them.

Turning features off isn't going to be cause troubleshooters problems. There are hundreds of pretty features in XP, most of which I turn off, doesn't make it difference when fixing it compared to one that is turned on.

Someone using XP theme rather than Windows Classic theme is still going to have the same problem even if they switch. Just like Home and Professional XP have very few difference.

[Arvara]

Yeah, after a bit of reading up that I really should have done before posting that I realize how stupid I sound. I take it back.

[Haplo]

zzzz, the problem with netburst was only partly a problem of heat. The whole idea with netburst was "LET'S MAKE THE PIPELINE A FUCKING MILE LONG SO WE CAN CLOCK AT 5GHZ", which failed as soon as they figured out that at 90nm and below they were going to melt the chips before doing that. What we're now seeing in the Core architecture is what IBM and AMD have been doing all along. High numbers of instructions per clock rather than long pipeline low I/C and fast clock. That's why the CoreDuos and Core2Duos suddenly ship with a clock a full 2GHz below p4s and Xeons yet show up with higher performance. It's the same reason (although with some added garbage designs by both intel and AMD in their McPC solution) why G5s have and still do blow every other chip out of the water for floating point calculations. Long pipelines and good SIMD performance are mutually exclusive. You can see that, too, in the move from netburst to Core.

[cooper]

And it took them close to 6 FUCKING YEARS to come up with something better. They don't deserve ANY credit for sticking with a bad design for so long.