Friday, July 21, 2006

AMD and ATI merger may be a killer enterprise

Since Intel is out there trying to kill AMD, AMD's only way out is killing Intel. You are either quicker or dead, dead or alive.

Once AMD and ATI are merged, AMD can do a lot of interesting things in the GPU market

0) Use Z-RAM for graphics memory
1) Optimize ATI chips for HyperTransport (Torrenza)--You don't need GDDR3 anymore, just DDR2 via ccHT
2) Cripple ATI chips for FSB based technologies but keep them competieve against Nvidia ones
3) Charge lower price for Torrenza version which is higher performance and lower cost
4) Deny Intel licenses to ATI technology
5) Embed GPU functionality into the CPU, making GPU running at 2.8GHZ
6) Enable high end graphics on every AMD PC
7) Merge with Nvida too
8) Deny high end GPU to Intel market completely
9) Finish off Intel like the allies finished off the 3rd reich.

No one in the IT industry likes Intel. Nvidia certainly doesn't like Intel. Even the game developers hate Intel for pushing those crap Intel Extreme graphics to the market. With AMD+ATI tie up, I think it's just natural to make one step further and merge AMD+ATI+Nvidia. After that, all high end GPU chips will be either embedded or on Torrenza. Intel can enjoy 100% market share for GPU solutions for Intel platforms and become a monopoly of Intel graphics solutions. That will be happy ending for everyone.

There are some questions regarding this rumored merger.

1) Timing, why merge now? Possible reasons:

a) AMD needs a CPU+Chipset+Graphics solution to penetrate commercial market (DELL)
b) Intel was trying to acquire ATI, AMD had to prevent it
c) ATI has some great stuff for Conroe, so AMD decide to profit from the Conroe market

2) How can AMD afford the merger? Possible ways:
a) Borrow a lot of debt and pay cash
b) Pay the extra with cash, then do a stock swap
c) This deal will close in 4Q06 the earliest, HSR Act approval, shareholder vote, many other things, bet on huge 3Q06 earnings to prop the AMD stock through the roof.

Look at AMD's balance sheet, I found it very hard for AMD to take over ATI at this point.

So my guess is this: AMD will purchase a portion of ATI to do integrated graphics.

If AMD does take over the whole ATI, then AMD has shown its roadmap and plans to some rich dude, and the rich dude will put down $5 billion at 1% interest rate, convertible to AMD stock at $40 in 10 years.

98 Comments:

Anonymous vandexter@libero.it said...

I read some days ago that Intel was going to cut out ATI from producing chipsets for their mobos. Can't find the news right now but it sounded quite interesting to me. Looks like an AMD-ATI merger will happen for shure. Really hope this will come true.

9:12 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My stock price would sore like an eagle with anyone of the first 8

9:14 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous jsf said...

Xbit labs has a very good article on the subject. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/editorial/display/amd-atyt-merge.html

9:22 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would ATi deny high-end chips to the intel segment? Don't you think ATi want to deliver as many chips as they can?

ATi even makes motherboards based on intel chipsets, think again.

9:24 AM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger fcf said...

I don't think amd has the balance sheet to do a deal with ati, even if there are some arguments in favor of the deal strategically. ATI is a $4bn company. For AMD to pay a premium to ATI shareholders in cash would be impossible.

ATI's LT operating model would probably dilute AMD's numbers too much to make economic sense over the next year or two. Share issuance would crater AMD stock and would create a lot of angry shareholders.

Maybe if AMD were 2 or 3x larger than it is right now, they could do such a deal without impairing their numbers too much.

9:39 AM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger Bruno Dieter Chan said...

Wasn't Intel dreaming of trying to glue its intergrated gpu on it chips? Though, seeing how hot the current bunch of chips are I hate to see how cosy it becomes with the extra leg warmer.

"Why would ATi deny high-end chips to the intel segment? Don't you think ATi want to deliver as many chips as they can?"

So you will make bullets for your enemy so that may shoot you?

9:42 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If AMD actually carried out those suggestions, they would be committing anti-competetive acts far worse than anything Intel has ever done. Hell, they'd be descending to the level of Microsoft by doing those things!

Two Wrongs != A Right

9:44 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really home someone is documenting this spiral into insanity of yours. I've heard about people's blogs showing their steady descent into insanity.

Your comments amuse me. The fact is even if this happens ATI needs Intel, and the FTC/DoJ would never allow your ridiculous pipe dream of them "buying nvidia".

9:53 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While it is nice to put all sorts of good things down "on paper" about a merger, in the real world you will achieve much less.

For instance, the AMD-ATI merged company will still not have a "south bridge" after Nvidia's purchase of ULI.

What also comes to risk is Nvidia's strong support for AMD. If AMD loses Nvidia's support, there goes every single strong AMD motherboard, from high-end servers on down.

There is not a clearly defined market-driven problem with graphics today. So the merger is not solving some problem that can only be solved with a processor company and a graphics company under one roof.

One can make up some hypothetical solutions (i.e. Torrenza graphics) to hypothetical problems to describe some hypothetical benefits, but the number of IFs gets to be very large very fast.

Overall, a decision to purchase ATI is A DESPERATE MOVE by AMD and one they will regret for a long time.

The one thing that is clear from the merger is that it is 100% validation that AMD KNOWS it has lost the CPU war.

10:04 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Post yet?

Intel cut ATi out of some of its future MBs.

10:06 AM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger pointer said...

2) Cripple ATI chips for FSB based technologies but keep them competieve against Nvidia ones
4) Deny Intel licenses to ATI technology
7) Merge with Nvida too
8) Deny high end GPU to Intel market completely
9) Finish off Intel like the allies finished off the 3rd reich.


while other points look ok, the listed points above just prove that you are not from the industry.

computing-intensive

10:29 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why would ATi deny high-end chips to the intel segment? Don't you think ATi want to deliver as many chips as they can?

ATi even makes motherboards based on intel chipsets, think again."

This blog entry is about AMD taking over ATI. Since it wouldn't be ATI anymore does it matter what ATI thinks or wants? RCP (Read Comprehend Post.)

10:43 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm usually very open to Sharikou's viewpoints and opinions (as some of the time, he's on the mark... albeit a slightly biased mark). But honestly, this is the most rediculous set of predictions I've ever read. Let's see what we have here:

"2) Cripple ATI chips for FSB based technologies but keep them competieve against Nvidia ones"

This is definitely contrary to good business practices, and with all the issues surrounding the current lawsuit AMD has against Intel for unlawful business practices, it would surprise me if AMD turned around and pulled something so obviously unethical and illegal. Also, why would ATI want to be drug down along with AMD? It's already fierce competition in the GPU market, and I guarentee nVidia will eat ATI's lunch if they decide to "slow down performance" for the Intel segment (especially considering the Intel segment is by far the larger segment). Keep in mind also that Intel's FSB technology is only slated to be used for another year or two, as they also have their own point to point serialized interconnect system under development (although embedded memory controllers are still questionable).

"4) Deny Intel licenses to ATI technology"

How many technologies does Intel liscense from ATI? Intel already has an embedded graphics division, and has no need of liscensing such technologies.

"5) Embed GPU functionality into the CPU, making GPU running at 2.8GHZ"

This is possibly the worst idea I've ever seen. It's so beyond anything that is even remotely plausible, that I'm hoping you were just kidding when you threw that in there. Have you given any thought at all to thermal design issues, die size, the fact that graphics processing and central processing are COMPLETELY different?

"7) Merge with Nvida too"

I seriously just laughed my arse off when I saw this. Don't even know what to say.

"8) Deny high end GPU to Intel market completely"

Again, I doubt ATI is clamoring to direct it's products at only 20% of the market space. I wouldn't expect ATI to give up all hope of overcoming nVidia, even with an AMD merger.


Basically, Sharikou, I think you should have concluded with, "A merger with ATI would allow AMD to develop their own embedded graphics solutions, something they have been in serious need of for some time." The rest of those nicely numbered points are for all practical purposes just humorous dribble.

10:45 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

This is getting quite humorus...

1) Optimize ATI chips for HyperTransport (Torrenza)

Good idea.

2) Cripple ATI chips for FSB based technologies but keep them competieve against Nvidia ones

Very bad idea, they do this and then no one wants an ATI chipset for Intel, which would mean no sales.

3) Charge lower price for Torrenza version which is higher performance and lower cost.

If it could be implemented without affecting other sales, great, but Torrenze is enthusiast right?

4) Deny Intel licenses to ATI technology

That could happen, then Nvidia will fall into the cluthes of Intel.

5) Embed GPU functionality into the CPU, making GPU running at 2.8GHZ.

Long ways off.

6) Enable high end graphics on every AMD PC

Thats going to get expensive and quick.

7) Merge with Nvida too.

Not gonna happen, fairy tale world, monopoly, any of this ring a bell, those are the major graphics cards producers and who wants that kind of control, besides Intel.

8) Deny high end GPU to Intel market completely.

Sure, that will happen "and monkeys will fly outa my butt", again lose sales is never a good idea.

9) Finish off Intel like the allies finished off the 3rd reich.

Intel dies and the need for innovation dies as well, at least with competition the cycle is pretty short. You could believe that AMD likes you and isn't interested in making money, but they are interested in making money. They would have no reason to expand and do R&D if they were a monopoly.

10:48 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Sharikou,

I have to say I'm usually in agreement with your thoughts on some level, but on this matter I would say I would be in strong disagreement.

There is always this naive point of view that that one company + one company = super company. This is just not the case.

Wall Street always loves to see companies merge, why this is I'm not quite sure(they also usually occur towards the end of bullish markets). History has shown that most mergers are not successful. I guess on one level it can be nice for a big company to merge with a smaller company since a bigger company has a harder time growing their business. However, mergers of companies of roughly equal sizes are dangerous(which I say is the case with ATI and AMD).

One thing I don't like about the idea of this scenario is ATI and AMD arguably don't have compatible business models(plus it would be expensive for AMD to buy ATI). ATI is a closer partner with Intel and historically ATI's chipsets have done better on Intel systems then AMD's. If anything, the idea of Intel buying out ATI is actually a better idea, just by the fact they could synchronize easily. Especially, since Intel is a big lumbering company where trying to do a lot of development in house is very difficult. However, since we know that Intel has not been bringing in the money like it has before, buying out ATI is probably not a good idea.

Another risk is AMD could alienate one of its biggest partners , Nvidia. Nvidia has played a huge role in bringing more AMD based machines mainstream. Nvidia is a strong and dynamic company, and infighting between the small companies could be very dangerous for either AMD or Nvidia. Ironically, Intel could benefit a lot from this infighting.


The consequences of the merger can be very negative short term. The obvious are the restructuring and the efforts to get two completely different business together(i.e., having layoffs to cut costs, find where Intellecual Property and mutually benefit each other). One might argue, that's the price of the investment, which is true. However, let's take Nvidia for example. Nvidia bought out 3dfx around 2000. We haven't seen real benefits such as SLI until about what 2004-2005(4-5 years)? These are also two businesses in the same industry!! For AMD to pull off that kind of success for a different business would be very difficult.

There are other short term consequences that are dangerous. For example, AMD would inherit ATI's Intel's chipset business. So what do they do? I guess they could stop selling the Intel chipsets, but that would be very unwise. By buying out ATI and taking out Intel chipsets, Intel could just sell more of their own chipsets. Effectively, AMD would be spending money for Intel to sell more chipsets. Plus, by taking them off the market, they would lose the work ATI did to make the Intel chipsets. AMD selling Intel chipsets? I think it is pretty obvious why that is a dubious proposition.

I really wonder if these rumors are being perpetuated by Intel to sow discontent and fear with AMD and its partners. Or, is someone trying to influence stock prices? It's hard to predict the future, but I really have my doubts about this one.

10:54 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD moves away from Alchemy and Geode, but hints at more powerful embedded solutions...

Take 1 CPU then add a Torrenza chip with GPU + PCI-X + DRAM + FLASH + LAN + ...

Take some low-power HT I/O controller like ULi 1697 and the platform is here.

Can Intel do the same ?

10:59 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to you, AMD doesn't need to do those 1, 2, 3... things at all, the acquisition is not necessary neither because Intel's going BK in 5 quarters.

AMD can be the only CPU maker left in the world at the end of 2007. ATI and Nvidia will spend rest of their lives kissing AMD's ass. Isn't that your Utopian, Sharikou?

11:09 AM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger Michael said...

I hope they do merge, that would make for an exciting next year or so. It would give AMD a little something extra to help'em out with the fight against Intel.
CyberSurge

1:24 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Take some low-power HT I/O controller like ULi 1697 and the platform is here."

Nvidia owes ULi. The chances of Nvidia helping AMD-ATI are small, if not non-existent.

This merger is pure moronic thinking.

The more I see of what is happening, I believe Sharikou must be in AMD upper management.

Sharikou is full of his own megalomania, thinking his "strategies" can make up for the team that designed the Opteron... the team that left AMD three years ago due to a fallout with the idiots in management.

Meanwhile, AMD continues to sink under the ponderous weight of the idiocy of its management team...

1:29 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I really wonder if these rumors are being perpetuated by Intel to sow discontent and fear with AMD and its partners. Or, is someone trying to influence stock prices? It's hard to predict the future, but I really have my doubts about this one."

Huge +1 there, this has never made any sense to me from day one with current events in the CPU/GPU realm.

AMD's busy working deals on new FABs so I doubt they will be putting forth that kind of capitial while they are trying to get more FABs up and going. ATI's in pretty good with Intel doing chipsets and Nvidia is a major(if not principal) supplier of AMD chipsets.

For AMD to buy or merge with ATI would disrupt this entire currently well running eco-system in place within the CPU/GPU market and do AMD more harm than good IMHO. I call BS on this merger personally.

1:45 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This blog entry is about AMD taking over ATI. Since it wouldn't be ATI anymore does it matter what ATI thinks or wants? RCP (Read Comprehend Post.)"

In the spirit of (Read Comprehend Post) this speculation is a MERGER not an AMD purchase of ATI.

2:01 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD 2Q06 53% > 2Q05.
Intel 2Q06 57% < 2Q05.

Résults:

AMD (NYSE) Price: $18.26, Change: $-3.39, -15.7%.
INTC (NASDAQ) Price: $17.15, Change: $0.05, 0.3%.

Comments ?

2:14 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If AMD actually carried out those suggestions, they would be committing anti-competetive acts far worse than anything Intel has ever done. Hell, they'd be descending to the level of Microsoft by doing those things!"

What do you call Intel? They are by far the largest Graphic chips maker, they make chipsets, lan, etc...

Intel is already a monopoly... and looking to squeeze EVERYONE out so they can get 100% of the pie. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

It seems the Intel-fanatics are really irritated lately, and they have invited all their online friends to come on this blog to bash.

I take this blog as entertainment, and an occasional informative read.

If you don't like his blog, then go back to your circle jerk campfire with Netburst spaceheaters in the middle while you all dance around the "Intel is God" forums, blogs, etc. to embrace in all its glory.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/editorial/display/amd-atyt-merge.html

^ ^ ^ This was a great review of the pros & cons ^ ^ ^

2:47 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Comments?"

Stock price is about expectations and future performance not just current performance. You've also ignored the quarter on quarter results which show a bit of a different trend.

AMD Q2 earnings were below the analyst consensus while Intel was slightly above consensus.

A >53% revenue increase was already priced into the stock so when AMD came up a bit short on earnings the stock price takes a hit. Similarlry Intel's revenue decline was already priced in.

2:57 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you are saying that the whole goal of an AMD-ATI merger is to crush Intel once and for all then I can't agree to it. I don't think anyone will agree to it, especially regulators. All you are supporting is limitation on consumer choice and the creation of a monopoly around AMD instead of Intel. Now you can sing praises about the virtues of AMD all you want, but the fact remains that a monopoly is a monoply and in 10 years we'll probably be faced with the same problems.

2:58 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see the merger as a validation of the archictecture that AMD is promoting Hypertransport, IMC, DCA, terrenzo. ATI can see that it needs to join this revolution. As an enthusiast I like Nvidia and Ati for their innovation in boatherboards and GPU's equally I would hate to see no Nvidai chipsets for AMD considering that Nvidia uses the Hypertransport for communications to the AMD cpu already.

2:59 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finish off Intel like the allies finished off the 3rd reich.

You know, you're Intel-Nazi associations are getting tiring. If you really feel that way why don't you report to Washington that they have facists in their own country. Or even better, go out on Wall Street and tell the capitalists that. Either they'll truly crush Intel once and for all as you seem obcessed about or you'll find some interesting counterpoints thrown back at you. (Among other things)

3:03 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Intel is already a monopoly... and looking to squeeze EVERYONE out so they can get 100% of the pie. Why is this so hard for people to understand?"

So even if this was true, this would make it right for AMD to behave in a similar fashion?

I don't know if you read the blog correctly but Sharikou is proposing that ATI INTENTIONALLY "cripple" their products when working on Intel solutions and "Deny high end GPU to Intel market completely"

To me this would seem to be the definition of anti-competitive trade practices that Sharikou is (theoretically) crusading against.

3:03 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I see the merger as a validation of the archictecture that AMD is promoting Hypertransport, IMC, DCA, terrenzo. ATI can see that it needs to join this revolution"

So to join the revolution, you must merge with AMD? I though AMD was all about cooperation not consolidation. Sounds like the Borg to me.

If Nvidia can develop solutions without merging with AMD, why can't ATI do the same? Also wouldn't this put ATI into a situation where they are only innovating for one CPU supplier who owns 20% of market as opposed to 2 suppliers who have nearly 100% of the market? How does that help the industry as a whole?

3:08 PM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger mork said...

Let`s see here if I can straighten som things out...

*1) Optimize ATI chips for HyperTransport (Torrenza)*

Why? ATi stands to loose millions and millions of dollars worth of revenue. Unless you missed your daily class in reality, im gonna tell you something shocking now. AMD has 20-25% of the market. Why would it wanna lock out 75% of the other users?


*2) Cripple ATI chips for FSB based technologies but keep them competieve against Nvidia ones*

Are you beyond stupied? You have been condeming Intels monopilistic behaivor in like a trillion articles, and now you wish for AMD to do the same?


*3) Charge lower price for Torrenza version which is higher performance and lower cost*


Read my answer to your first stupied sugestion.


*4) Deny Intel licenses to ATI technology*


Its not Intel that needs to licensens ATis tech, but the other way around you moronic idiot.



*5) Embed GPU functionality into the CPU, making GPU running at 2.8GHZ*


Good luck with that one, come back when AMD is first able to get 65nm to work. That would require 32nm and like trillion dollars investment.



*6) Enable high end graphics on every AMD PC*


And whom are you propossing is gonna pay for this?


*7) Merge with Nvida too*


There you go again. Monopolistic behavior yet again. This just proves your not any diffrent from intel.


*8) Deny high end GPU to Intel market completely*


That will happen when pig fly.


*9) Finish off Intel like the allies finished off the 3rd reich.*

What? Are you tired on picking on the jews now? Stop making war analogys you wannabe Doctor

3:13 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you call Intel? They are by far the largest Graphic chips maker, they make chipsets, lan, etc...

Intel has a 75-80% market share in CPUs, about 60% in the chipset market and 35-40% in the GPU market. On the other hand, Sharikou is advocating one company having an almost-100% market share in those three markets? Anyone convinced that such a situation would benefit the customer is frankly delusional.

It seems the Intel-fanatics are really irritated lately, and they have invited all their online friends to come on this blog to bash.

You're quite wrong, I'm afraid. I happen to use an Athlon 64 in this computer, and a Pentium M in my laptop. The main reason why most people come here is to laugh at things like the frankly ludicrous suggestion that Intel is on the verge of bankruptcy, and every financial analyst in the world has failed to see this because they're either stupid or being bribed by Intel, and Sharikou is the one shining light of truth in this world!

If you don't like his blog, then go back to your circle jerk campfire with Netburst spaceheaters in the middle while you all dance around the "Intel is God" forums, blogs, etc. to embrace in all its glory.

Heh, I've always said that for some people, their support of hardware companies (whether their name be Intel, AMD, Sony, Nintendo or whatever) is like a religion, that the company they support is always right, virtuous and true; that their opponents are filthy, evil liars and anyone who fails to agree with them is obviously under the influence of the Great Satan.

You know, maybe Intel should come out one day and say that "Everything we say is a lie." Deciding whether or not to believe that should send poor old Sharikou into a nervous breakdown!

3:25 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, we still did not hear your side of why you were fired man.. Are you going to tell us?

3:54 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Questions:

1) If Intel sells and claims to be the largest grahpics vendor in the world, via its GMCH volumes, then how could AMD+ATI+NVIDIA be considered a monopoly?
- not that AMD+ATI+NVIDIA will happen

2) If AMD and ATI merge, that would mean AMD would have a license to FSB. Wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events?

3) Doesn't anyone find it very interesting that Dell has decided to use AMD processors JUST before the launch of the much anticipated and promoted Conroe?

4:00 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou,

You've broken down
Take care of what you still have now.

Good luck.

4:28 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"3) Doesn't anyone find it very interesting that Dell has decided to use AMD processors JUST before the launch of the much anticipated and promoted Conroe?"

No, not really. Why is Intel being sued by AMD?

Thats your answer.

4:33 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"2) If AMD and ATI merge, that would mean AMD would have a license to FSB. Wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events?"

I'm not sure this is true - depends on the licensing agreement and whether it contains a survivability clause.

Also what use would this be to AMD. Isn't FSB inferior to HT?

6:02 PM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

There you go again. Monopolistic behavior yet again. This just proves your not any diffrent from intel.

Pax AMD is different from Intel monopoly, like US being the sole superpower is different from the 3rd Reich. Intel is the 3rd Reich and the free world must unite under a single command to kill it off.

6:37 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I for one am now convinced that if Sharikou does have a Ph. D it is in psychology and that this site is just a huge social experiment.

7:03 PM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger nyx said...

Anyone that has read my previous posts knows that I hate Intel with a passion that is unexplainable in words. However, I still believe we need Intel. It is essential that competition exists for the sake of innovation. Competition such as: Nvidia vs ATI and AMD vs Intel, ensures that there is an incentive to innovate and improve in order to gain the greater market share. The niches which these corporations reside in is already devoid of any other real threat. If ATI ever merged or acquired Nvidia, if AMD ever merged/acquired/killed off Intel, or if any other combination of events took place which eliminated the opposing threat, we might witness a bloated corporation which could slow down progress to a snails pace so that they could increase profits and reduce expenditures due to research & developement and so on. I truly wish with all of my heart that IBM would step up and offer a motherboard chipset line and their PowerPC processors for mass distribution to compete with Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and ATI offerings, but it seems that IBM is content with aiding AMD in their research efforts. If it wasn't for IBM, AMD wouldn't even be where they are today. I can see why AMD extended their contractual agreement with IBM for another number of years towards research & developement to further expand architecturally. IBM has chosen to place more emphasis towards research and developement to help AMD, Sony, Toshiba, and so on achieve technological breakthroughs in the coming years. IBM seems to hate Intel almost as much as microsoft, though that is more speculation on my part from their actions over last 2 years. Apple turning its back on IBM for Intel processors couldn't have helped much either in the hatred between IBM and Intel. I don't know why IBM thought it was best to hand its computer desktop/notebook line to Lenovo and then only focus on designing newer chipsets and PowerPc processors for corporate large server based computers/supercomputers only (that seems to be the case anyway). There are are a few third party distributors which sell a VERY SMALL select line of PPC boards and PowerPCs, but I think it mainly involves existing lines which Apple used to use and that next generation lines won't be sold in the same manner. I check sites like terrasoftsolutions from time to time just to see whether IBM decides to step up and support individual users by pushing large quantities of next generation PPC boards and the next line of PowerPC multicore processors (above the existing 2.5 Ghz Dual Core rating).
Anyway, competition does help in innovation, reducing consumer costs for products, increasing quality of products (well it depends), improving customer support, and so on.....so it makes sense to wish that more corporations/companies would enter that sector of the market instead of wishing the demise of the few existing ones.

Sharikou rulz! F*ck Intel!

7:49 PM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger nyx said...

People better be buying enormous quantities of AMD stock right about now. If AMD does merge with ATI, the potential longterm gains financially is astounding. AMD is only around $18 right now too! I made some money off of the Intel hype when I bought into Intel options when the stock price was in the high $16 range and then skyrocketed to the mid $19 recently. I sold shortly before it collapsed during the earnings release. I can't imagine anyone stayed in to hear the results. Every indication was there that Intel was loosing money at an astronomical rate and couldn't move inventory. Hell, Sharikou has been telling you that. It was easy to see that people were going to buy into the Core 2 hype. You can see that plainly on Sharikou's blog site. It's obvious that Intel doesn't have a prayer, but people still blindly believe regardless of the evidence in front of them. I have told my friends in the past that I will only buy AMD or IBM based systems, but one has to realize that the majority of the populace are idiots and will be swayed by guerilla marketing and misleading adverts. Show some pretty benchmark scores and the world moves with joy. It's ridiculous. No one cares about the fact that these supposed benchmarks are gathered from biased sources who run these systems in a highly controlled environment. As a user, you don't run your computer in a tightly controlled environment (well most don't) and you don't have a team of Intel engineers tweak on your system personally to get that much more performance. Then people ignored the fact that quite a few of these Intel systems tested crashed and failed erratically during various benchmarks and burn ins. If it managed to survive one benchmark straight through, just record the reading and move on. Ignore the fact that it can't run the same benchmark several times or even last a X hour burn in. The numbers were all that mattered, along with Intel marketing team's fanfare about how the Core 2 line dominates. Now it's sweet because I can dump all my money that I earned from Intel (and then some) on a company I actually like. AMD is going to go up in stock price regardless. Even if the stock price slips a little more, it with eventually surge (past $ 25 at least guaranteed). Intel could gradually go up slowly over time, but they have f*cked their shareholders repeatedly. Everytime it looks like Intel is going to make a great push past $20 and on up to possibly $ 30, they go and blow it all away by showing an earnings report that couldn't have been any worse even with a crackhead as CEO. Anyway, this is all speculation as far as the movement of stock prices. Anything is possible in the stock market. I love playing the game, but there are always unpredictable outcomes. Money will shift either way depending on numerous variables which are too countless to even begin to mention in a short post. So far Intel's stock price reflects the state of the company at the moment....hurting. They need to quit hyping the Core 2, work out the bugs, and try to offer some real competition to an already winning line from AMD. If intel hypes up the Core 2 too much, people will only be frustrated as they discover quirks with it over time. They need to fix the issues they are currently aware of and allow the consumer to make the choice of which processor line is better, rather than declare out loud that the Core 2 is better in a desperate move to blind consumers into buying their processors.

8:38 PM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger nyx said...

It will be exciting to see what AMD turns out in the coming years if it merges with ATI. AMD has to tread lightly though with consideration to Nvidia. I personally don't see AMD buying out or merging anytime soon with Nvidia, but AMD has already established proven server solutions using Nvidia chipsets. I myself use Tyan's Thunder K8WE server board with Dual Core Opterons. Iwill, Tyan, and Supermicro have pushed some spectacular boards utilizing AMD processors and Nvidia nForce chipsets. AMD would have to really work hard over the next year in selling the concept of an AMD server solution with ATI chipsets. It's possible, but it would be in their favor to continue to fully support Nvidia in business and gaming board lines. I don't even want to consider AMD solely utilizing ATI chipset technology, while Intel embraces Nvidia on future boards (or buys out/merges Nvidia). If Intel turned towards using their own processors solely on ther own boards with their own graphics chips, that would definitely be the beginning of the end of Intel. There is no doubt in my mind that Intel would be eclipsed by the competition if that ever took place. This will be a very interesting year.

9:17 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To nyx:

you comments are too long to read, can you give a summary??

9:28 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no way regulators would allow AMD to buy up ATI and Nvidia, even if AMD had the cash. While the FTC and DoJ have lost their teeth to prevent anticompeditive mergers, the EU has become quite lively in blocking monopolistic mergers. A monopoly graphics chip firm isn't going to happen unless they're prepared to give up the entire European market. Of course, all this is a moot point because AMD doesn't have the money to buy ATI and Nvidia.

It'll be interesting to see how Intel reacts should AMD actually merge with/take over ATI. They might react by taking over Nvidia. Bye-bye NForce MBs for the AMD platform. Not good for AMD at all.


From a purely technology point of view, Torrenza HT linked GPUs are a very good idea that's been far too long in coming. CPU-GPU usage patterns in modern PCs are really that of asymetric multiprocessing. Bandwidth between the CPU and GPU should reflect this: sticking the GPU on the end of a glorified IO bus/port hasn't made sense for many years no.

9:30 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An Intel takeover of NVIDIA is the absolute LAST thing you want to have happen. Talk about destroying a good product and creating a monopoly.

Intel simply does not know how to buy/merge/integrate other companies as its track record has proven to the tune of 10Billion+

Doing so to NVIDIA would surely reduce the level of technology development in grahpics leaving only ATI left to push the envelope

9:41 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It'll be interesting to see how Intel reacts should AMD actually merge with/take over ATI. They might react by taking over Nvidia."

I don't think Intel will take Nvidia while laying off people and reducing costs. One thing for sure is Nvidia will leave AMD and embrace Intel, although it will take time for them to work together and make good products. Another consequence is that it's gonna hurt Torrenza defnitely. Nvidia, which has been a long time partner of AMD and helped AMD a lot on desktop products, was brutally hurt and dumped. They will focus more on Intel's technologies instead. Since the desktop market doesn't have much room to grow, AMD picked ATI instead Nvidia to take more share in mobile market. Successful stories like Centrino is what AMD want.

Above said, it's a very interesting year. Since this news is already on Wallstreet Journal, it's 90% true already. Let's see what's gonna happen in future.

9:52 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we look at this from ATi's perspective why would they want to do this?

It would seem like they are trading access to 100% of the market to get a leg up on Nvidia to service 20% of the AMD market (and alienate the remaining 80%), unless ATI thinks they will still continue to provide solutions to Intel?

It would seem as if they stay as a separate entity they have a chance at both markets.

The only thing I can see is if they need chip producing capacity, but they wouldn't see this until 2008-2009 at the earliest as AMD will need all of F30/38 and F36 capacity to produce CPU's.

Anyone have any thoughts from ATI's perspective? If you were a stockholder of ATI would you approve this and why?

10:23 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"0) Use Z-RAM for graphics memory"

Sharikou - your new addition makes no sense. If ATI wanted this they could license the technology just like AMD did. Z-RAM is not an AMD specific technology.

10:25 PM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Z-RAM is not an AMD specific technology.

Only AMD has the SOI skill to make it.

10:46 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Richard said...

fcf said...

I don't think amd has the balance sheet to do a deal with ati, even if there are some arguments in favor of the deal strategically. ATI is a $4bn company. For AMD to pay a premium to ATI shareholders in cash would be impossible.


http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/amd-ati.ars/3

AMD is in every position to be considering expanding their business and purchasing ATI.

Whether this in the long run is good for AMD or the industry, I don't know.

But at least I don't babble crap without evidence.

10:54 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Richard said...

Use Z-RAM for graphics memory

I believe AMD have patented a technology something along the lines of this or are in the process.

Can't find the article as I forgot exactly the information contained.

10:56 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous en said...

If AMD is so scared of ATI's chipset for Conroe, what does that tell you about there own chips, it sends a message of vulnerability. Did I spell that right?

To the doctor, what kind of performance increase could been seen moving to DDR3, for both AMD and Intel?

The merger/takeover will end badly.

10:57 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does everyone make Nviidia to be a victim here? Wasnt it Nvidia that turned to Intel when the NForce series of chipset were exclusive to AMD? Of course but people here have shrort term memory. Remember Quad SLI? When it was introduced was it not introduced alongside DELL and INTEL? I remember reading that on the INQ, and asking why not AMD first? AMD gave Nvidia there first big shot at the chipset market. I can see AMD feeling betaryed by such moves.

If you believe Mr. Rahul Sood's blog then you will realize there's still room for Nvidia, AMD, and ATI to get all cozy in bed together.

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/07/distant-rumblings-ati-amd-marriage.html#links

11:12 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

"Only AMD has the SOI skill to make it."

They got that skill from IBM, which is probably able to reproduce it, thus allowing ATI to go around AMD.

11:12 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been reading this blog for the past few months and I find it amusing... I guess many have forgotten what is a true performance enthusiast is... A true enthusiast doesn't care about theories, brands and technologies, he only cares about benchmarking. A year ago, I told my intel friend AMD has won the performance crown, he laughed and said intel is going 4GHz and i realised how severe fanboi-ism is. Now, with Core2 being launched, the fanboi-ism is spreading to the AMD camp, if everyone takes a look at what is happening, they be probably laughing at themselves. True performance matters and the performance crown switches hands. We do not support companies with the best technologies (Hypertansport/Hyperthreading etc) we should support only those with the best Current benchmark performance. I mean prescott has alot of technological improvements over Northwood, it turned out like crap. As for those futureproofing geeks, i was one of them too. 64-bits is future proofi was told, 2 yrs later, they are still hyping it with no marked progress in the desktop segment. And for those who want 4 cores, might as well run servers, the 2 companies AMD and Intel are just playing one group of fanbois against another, wake up to reality and stop predicting werid stuff like Intel will fall in 10yrs time and leave 75% of the world with no desktop processors. All in all, performance matters NOW not just some idiotic future-ware which would not be launched in 6 months time, maybe they gonna delay it to a yr? maybe 2? like vista. LOL!

11:20 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Only AMD has the SOI skill to make it."

I believe much of the AMD's SOI technology is from IBM.

Not sure what you are basing the above statement, other than your standard AMD bias. Or do you have a particular background and insight into SOI and ZRAM that can explain why AMD is the only one with this skill?

Let me guess - you don't have the time or I don't have the IQ for you to explain it to me, right?

11:55 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a) Borrow a lot of debt and pay cash"

How does one borrow debt? Do you mean borrow cash and take on more debt?

If not please let us know how one "borrows a lot of debt".

Your financial acumen is truly astonishing.

12:12 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People seen to think this merger will jeopardize the strategic partnership AMD has with Nvidia. I think you are off target - the reason why AMD is buying ATI is precisely because they already have such a good relationship with Nvidia - ATI is just the last peace of the puzzle. Following the merger, AMD-Nvidia alliances will control 95% of stand-alone GPU market and 100% of mid/high-end.

2:21 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Richard said...

Wouldn't it also be illegal for Intel to stop purchasing ATI stuff simply because AMD bought them?

Just like it is illegal for Intel to not allow their software to run on AMD machines. (part of the court case)

If I was an ATI shareholder, I'd say do it, my share price has already rose $1 in 24 hours and will even further when acquired by AMD.

You buy shares to make money, nothing else really. Only a fanboi would do otherwise. You need to be realistic.

5:59 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Sharikou,

"Look at AMD's balance sheet, I found it very hard for AMD to take over ATI at this point.

So my guess is this: AMD will purchase a portion of ATI to do integrated graphics."


I agree, this may happen to support Dell. Anything beyond this is very doubtful to me, though.


"I really wonder if these rumors are being perpetuated by Intel to sow discontent and fear with AMD and its partners. Or, is someone trying to influence stock prices? It's hard to predict the future, but I really have my doubts about this one."


I still think my take on this is possible. This whole thing smells like a rat. Since we are potentially seeing a transition here, look for Intel to use every tactic it can(I think I remember HardOCP or something quoting an Intel person on the possible merger). Or it could be just people trying to pump up stocks(or down). If it smells like a rat, looks like a rat, it probably is a rat.

6:57 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is not smart timing from AMD. They shouldn't spend 5.5 bln USD and have to figure out how to integrate ATI right in the middle of a price war coupled with the need to make capital investments. I can understand the long term need to deliver more hollistic tech solutions outside processors as ASPs head south and business models need to evolve. But why would they do this now...? I'm baffled...! If they lose market share in Q3 they could potentially slip back into the red. Having a 5.5 bln USD outstanding will tank the stock price.

7:08 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Even the game developers hate Intel for pushing those crap Intel Extreme graphics to the market"

Here's Why:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1452&page=6

7:43 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The National Post writes;

"AMD reportedly wants to buy Markham, Ont.-based ATI to beef up for a renewed assault on Intel Corp. The purchase would would allow AMD to bundle computer chips with ATI's graphic chips for lower prices, analysts said"

7:55 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My guess is, AMD & ATI know something we don’t. There must be a plan that makes sense in the works. Maybe ATI believes Intel will BK next year and they would still have the lion share of the market. Maybe some combination of merger, technology trade, some cash and stocks will pull the deal together. It’s plan to see ATI would be a big arrow in AMD’s quiver.

8:15 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All things Sharikou aside, an AMD + ATI merger/takeover would be a good thing. Right now Intel can supply the CPU, chipset, & graphics to OEM's by itself. With AMD + ATI, AMD will be able to supply all that to OEM's as well. The only difference is there will no longer be any ATI chipsets for Intel. You'd still be able to get ATI graphics for an Intel system.

As far as Nvidia goes, I don't expect it to be affected too much. They may lose some OEM deals but the retail market will be unaffected.

VIA would probably be hurt the most by this. Most of their chipsets for AMD are sold through OEM's. And I don't think they sell a lot through retail.

8:58 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of topic but this ones for you Doctor, print it if you have the courage!

I can't claim credit but it somes it up for the AMD boys.

Intel: "We're about to release a processor that uses much less power than the best AMD processor, and will beat it by 40% in benchmarks"
AMD: "Intel lies. Everybody knows that AMD has the best benchmark performance. That's why we're winning market share"

Intel: "We'll prove it. Here are some machines running a pre-production Conroe, and some machines running a top of the line AMD CPU. Watch the benchmarks. We win."
AMD: "Intel lies. The benchmarks were rigged by Intel's PR department. If those benchmarks were run in a fair configuration AMD would win hands down."

Intel: "Ok, we'll let a few of you run your own benchmarks. We win."
AMD:

Intel: "Ok, the chip is released. Now you can all try it. See? It's just like we said. We win by 40%. Every independant reviewer agrees. We told you we weren't lying!"
AMD: "Ah yes, maybe your benchmark numbers are better. But you clearly lied about your power consumption! If you measure power consumption the same way we do (but not the same way that the rest of the world has been doing it for years) we win hands down! You environmental terrorists! Your power consumption is robbing humanity of its future!"

Intel: "Uh, what the hell are you talking about? Independent reviewers already confirmed that our power consumption beats AMD when measured the way that it is usually measured. But now they went back and did it your way and we STILL kick your butt! So now everyone agrees that we win on both power AND benchmarks!"
AMD: "Benchmarks? Nobody pays attention to benchmarks anymore. That is SO 48 hours ago! Benchmarks haven't been relevant since we last had the best benchmark numbers. We phased out the use of benchmarks last week when it became clear that we were now losing. Can't you keep up?"

What's next? I'm guessing we will go to:
AMD: "Power consumption? Nobody cares about power consumption anymore! The REAL measure of the success of a processor is the fanboys/sale ratio"

The Doctor

9:44 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Graham said...

Anonymous coward wrote:I'm usually very open to Sharikou's viewpoints and opinions (as some of the time, he's on the mark... albeit a slightly biased mark).

SLIGHTLY BIASED? SLIGHTLY BIASED???!!! This blog is NOTHING but bias against Intel and for AMD. You need to read more carefully or maybe look up the definition of slightly...

11:20 AM, July 22, 2006  
Blogger SmartM0F0 said...

"It would seem like they are trading access to 100% of the market to get a leg up on Nvidia to service 20% of the AMD market (and alienate the remaining 80%), unless ATI thinks they will still continue to provide solutions to Intel?"

It's not truly 100% of the market. Intel's Integrated Graphics Chips consist of ~50%, with the rest of the ~50% consisting of standalone Graphics card.

So in reality, it's 30% Intel /20% AMD that NVidia/ATI are fighting for.

Intel with their platform strategy, is the epitome of an monopoly, and trying to squeeze that distribution of the standalone graphics card market smaller and smaller.

I can see NVidia/ATI worrying about the prospects of the future of their business... similar to the status quo of standalone sound cards.

11:51 AM, July 22, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

How does one borrow debt?

Sometimes you have to be creative with the language to deliver a message. I could have said "borrow money and incur debt", but that's too wordy. No one will misunderstand the words "borrow debt", just like no one will mistaken Hector's words "you ain't seen nothin yet"

11:52 AM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sometimes you have to be creative with the language to deliver a message. I could have said "borrow money and incur debt", but that's too wordy."

That response is just too funny! (That's my creative way of saying you are an idiot in fewer words)

12:23 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Sorry but you have set yourself up...

"just like no one will mistaken Hector's words "you ain't seen nothin yet""

Your right... no 65nm, no quadcore, no native quadcore (K8L), no 4x4... LMAO! We have seen absolutely nothing.

12:23 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"SLIGHTLY BIASED? SLIGHTLY BIASED???!!! This blog is NOTHING but bias against Intel and for AMD. You need to read more carefully or maybe look up the definition of slightly..."

AND YOU DON'T HAVE A BIAS AGAINST AMD???

Here's a amazing piece of insight for you Graham: EVERYONE IS BIASED TO SOME DEGREE IN THIER OPINIONS. GET OVER IT AND YOURSELF ALREADY.

Trust me, the sooner you realize this, the happier off and smarter you will be indeed. You can thank me later.

2:50 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>The main reason why most people come here is to laugh at things like the frankly ludicrous suggestion that Intel is on the verge of bankruptcy, and every financial analyst in the world has failed to see this because they're either stupid or being bribed by Intel, and Sharikou is the one shining light of truth in this world!

noone of analysts predicted Enron BK. a very few ppl can think above their matrix.

3:35 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Z-RAM is owned by Innovative Silicon. AMD just licenses it. Anyone who wants ro use Z-RAM just has to license it from IS and have access to a fab that can do SoI. Not a big deal.

3:35 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sharikou,

seriously, what did you get fired for?

5:28 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it seems to me that the move by AMD to buy ATI is pretty desparate given AMD balance sheet and what they committed to spend the money over the next few years.

Sorry, it does not make sense unless you are telling me that AMD wants to be a platfrom company, just like Intel..

5:31 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

looking at the road maps of Intel and AMD, and agreements between Intel and ATI , ATI board would sign up for the death of their future with this merger.

5:33 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talking crap about how Intel is treating their partners, What would this deal do to Nvidia?

5:35 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If this deal goes on, I can see Intel realigning itself with Nvidia.

By the way, I think if Intel wanted to buy ATI, they would have done so a long time ago. They can still spoil the party if they choose to.. THey have a lot of cash you know!

5:36 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So in reality, it's 30% Intel /20% AMD that NVidia/ATI are fighting for."

So people who have an integrated graphics chip don't buy video cards? I have a video card on a board that has an integrated graphics chip. My concern is they will be locking themselves out of both integrated chips and video cards on Intel systems, especially if they follow Sharikou's suggestion of denying high end GPU to Intel market completely.

7:15 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD will buy ATI with the money it gets from Intel (9-Billion) and have some change to throw a big party HahHah1

9:19 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Dr. Sharikou is a Genius said...

If the Good Doctor Sharikou and Mr Rahul Sahood feel its a good move for AMD then I must give them the benfit of the doubt. They have proven track records their predictions are pretty much on the bullseye. Here is a new blog post by Mr Rahul Sahood.

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/07/amd-ati-one-one-three.html#links

After reading Mr. Rahul Sahood's blog I am now more then ever convinced that this is a move for AMD to make money. XBOX 360 and Nintendo Wii. Even if it's for just a life span of a console system. Good things will be coming for AMD/ATI. Thats money in the bank ladies. Hmm...interesting AMD making a chip for Microsoft.....Microsoft supporting AMD 64 instructions.... are we seeing an AMD - Microsoft Alliance in the making? Apple and Intel. AMD and Microsoft. Interesting to just sit here and think of the what if's.
Sharikou keep blogging man. As crazy as some people think your ideas are most do come true.

9:57 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Richard said...

It's a done deal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3453

AMD Acquires ATI.

10:44 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nvidia is such a strong company that I could see it buying the remains of Intel when it goes bust

11:48 PM, July 22, 2006  
Anonymous vandexter@libero.it said...

Many of you forget that in future Intel-roadmaps there is no space for ATI-chipsets. Intel had some shortage in the production of their own chipsets and needed ATI to close this gap.
And another thought about integrated graphics: Do you really think your company is gonna buy a pc-system for you with a high end GPU inside if you're doing only word or excel? Common that's ridiculous. Most PCs selled worldwide don't have a good GPU inside, simply because it's not needed. Why else is it Intel that is the biggest player in the graphics market?

2:44 AM, July 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice work Sharikou, always a step ahead :P

www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3453

5:38 AM, July 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah i read that voodoopc blog yesterday.
the biggest potential just may be the benefits in the notebook market.

7:13 AM, July 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Sharikou is a Genius..

Not even close.

All, take a look at any of his posts.
The difference between being pro amd/INTEL or blind fan, or simply a lunatic.

1) PRO means a supporter, one who finds reason for why INTEL's or amd's actions are fair, correct, etc.

2) Blind fan, one who can't acknowledge that his competitor has the upper hand.

3) Lunatic.. that is Sharikou.

Come now look at the headlines.

INTEL to go banckrupt

INTEL is a Nazi organization that the world should unite to wipe of the face of the Earth. Is Sharikou no better than a Nazi himself. That kind of analogy does it come froma a Pro AMD, Fanboy or a Lunatic?

INTEL false claims of performance: Look no further then every major independent review recently of conroe. THey must all be conspiring with the Nazis

AMD ready to crush INTEL with a price war. Lets examine who has the most fabs to put out the units to supply the masses when lowest price wins and ships the largets volume. The PC market is hugely elastic. Drop the CPu price to 25 bucks and you'll soon see 199 PCs. Volumes will be 500million. WHo has the fabs and the ability to supply. AMD.. I don't think so.

Sharikou its no wonder you got fired. If you did your job at any profession with the silly prospective you show here any body would have fired you.

The Doctor

8:31 AM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Many of you forget that in future Intel-roadmaps there is no space for ATI-chipsets.

The minute AMD acquires ATI, all those ATI designed Intel chipsets will be sent to the dumpster.

11:39 AM, July 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Actually Id say They lied in performance
they were promising 40% of performance
the first cherry picked cpus were
of course 40%
but the reviews were extremely stupid , in short words.. "fixed" to show these.
the more we go into the "final phase for selling conroes"
the ratio of performance as reduced to 9% to 20%..

wheres your 40% in general then?

11:51 AM, July 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"AMD ready to crush INTEL with a price war. Lets examine who has the most fabs to put out the units to supply the masses when lowest price wins and ships the largets volume. The PC market is hugely elastic. Drop the CPu price to 25 bucks and you'll soon see 199 PCs. Volumes will be 500million. WHo has the fabs and the ability to supply. AMD.. I don't think so."

When Intel is selling CPUs at 25 bucks, Intel is losing money on every single CPU it sells. I could agree ONLY Intel has the fabs and the ability to supply, that means ONLY Intel is going to BK faster you can think.

Good arguments.

The doctor, can you balance your bank account? or do you ever have any bank account?

1:01 PM, July 23, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

"The minute AMD acquires ATI, all those ATI designed Intel chipsets will be sent to the dumpster."

You really are crazy... Throw all those chipsets away and not make money on them...thats good business,lmao.

Say goodbye to NForce chipsets for AMD.

1:52 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger Azary Omega said...

'''Sharikou its no wonder you got fired. If you did your job at any profession with the silly prospective you show here any body would have fired you.

The Doctor'''


Remember when in cold war era they were shooting monkeys into space? Well gee..... i think some of them came back...(The Doctor)

2:30 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger IntelFANboi said...

"Do you really think your company is gonna buy a pc-system for you with a high end GPU inside if you're doing only word or excel?"

In a word, yes. AMD is building for the future. What does the future hold? Video conferencing, everything will come to life. This is a great move.

3:34 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger IntelFANboi said...

There will be a future need for better picture rendering, and business is the main market. Why do you think amd is teammed up with dell and now ati? video conferencing is going to be a big money maker for companies working with business. these moves all make sense. dont underestimate how alive everything is going to become in the business world. Video conferences are the new thing for business, will revolution education, and will come into homes. integrated grahpics was just a way for intel to make a quick buck, and they hurt relations with graphics card makers, which is why amd has the upperhand for future growth. either, i still love INTEL!!!

3:38 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger pointer said...

Video conferencing, everything will come to life.

video conferencing, as of the image, only need encoding/decoding, and today's CPU can provide all the processing power needed. AMD or Intel do not need a GPU to help out on that.

7:01 PM, July 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its just the same BS all the time...

8:14 AM, July 24, 2006  
Blogger Bruno Dieter Chan said...

I think the real reason behing AMD purchase to use Torrenza so that they can truely shrink the size of the desktop pc to that of the size of a laptop. Think of it. Upgradability of a full desktop in something the size of a laptop. HDD sizes have shrunk but capacities have increased. Small hdds, attachable/removable lcd screen, ultra compact cpu/gpus. AMD this thinkng big by thinking small.

8:15 AM, July 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Intel is selling CPUs at 25 bucks, Intel is losing money on every single CPU it sells. I could agree ONLY Intel has the fabs and the ability to supply, that means ONLY Intel is going to BK faster you can think.

What is the cost of a mature 300mm wafer?

How many good die are on them.

I leave it to the "PhD" to tell us the revenue possible from a 300mm.

I don't need to balance my checkbook as I don't have any worries in that area. Nice situation heah!

The Doctor

9:15 AM, July 26, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home