AMD must block possible INTC-NVIDIA merger
AMD must file opposition with DOJ against INTEL-NVIDIA merger, which will create another monopoly in the graphics chip market. The waiting period for HSR Act is only 30 days, AMD must be prepared.
Nvidia controls 90% of the AMD64 chipset business. If Intel plays nasty, such a merger may cause disruption for AMD's business. By filing an objection and invite DOJ to perform an investigation, AMD can at least buy several months of time to ramp up ATI chipset production.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 10/05/2006 01:50:00 PM
66 Comments:
Hmmm....the stench of hypocrisy wreaks intensily on this blog site.
For once, you actually seem threatened by Intel;)
Grounds for your assertion?
ATI has substantial market share, how would Intel+NVIDIA (assuming it is more than a rumor) make for a monopoly?
Intel revoking ATI's license to make chipsets for Intel CPUs does not constitute monopolistic behavior- you don't have to provide that tech to your competitor. The only thing that would not be allowed would be to alter the standard interconnect for graphics cards so as to block ATI cards from working while others still work.
Personally, I don't see a lot of point to Intel acquiring NVIDIA anyway. Intel's low-end graphics solutions service the bulk of the market's needs, and that is reflected in the market segment share numbers. That platform approach is the primary reason AMD is buying ATI, not for gamers. High end video is a niche, and can be addressed through a strategic partnership with NVIDIA that results in "Intel-optimized" or customized Intel solutions. The approach would be cheaper, and still provide differentiation/competitive advantage over ATI.
My 2 cents.
Is this really happening? Does AMD even have a solid arguement against this now that they aquired ATI?
The American Approval by the DOJ doesn't matter, the European Union would die before they would allow such a purchase by Intel who they already have huge problems with now. Must I remind people of the GE-Honeywell merger? I should know, I had (still have) family working for these companies during this period.
Did Intel file opposition with DOJ against AMD-ATI merger?
isn't that just a rumor???
how is this any different to the amd-ati merger?
I guess we'll have to take the 'wait and see' approach. Personally, I don't really see Intel and nVidia merging. I can't believe this rumor still exists, but I'm willing to admit I was wrong if there is an announcement to the contrary.
That being said I'm not opposed to the merger and I don't think that there would be much ground for action in the form of a protest by AMD. When you look proportionally at at the number of chips ATI and AMD produced separately, the ration was about equal with to that of nVidia and Intel, and perhaps slightly less as Intel supplied their own GPU. I'll think more about this and pester you later. If AMD wanted to criple Intel they would have acquired the graphics chip maker that made MORE chips shich wasn't ATI.
I can see Intel and NVIDIA collaborating, Intel taking what it needs and letting NVIDIA die, but not buying it outright.
I don't think Intel will (and should) buy Nvidia. What's the point. 10 billion dollars is a significant chunk of money to pay for a company that does not bring too much to the table. Intel is already working on high-end graphics stuff (INQ has posted numerous articles regarding this). For one, that investment would be wasted. Second, Inted does not have a very good track record of acquiring companies and making them profitable. Shareholders won't be happy with a $10 billion goodwill charge. Third, it is lot cheaper to hire designers and driver writers than it is to purchase Nvidia. A team of 1000 people will be more than sufficient. Even at 200K pa, that amounts to about $1 billion in next 5 years. Spending about $10 billion to achieve similar (or worse) result would be, um, stupid.
Anonymous said...
For once, you actually seem threatened by Intel;)
I am a phd and I am outraged by this madness... :l
intel has more than 60% of the graphic market ( most of these controlled by the "onboard video" or discrete video controllers, thus
adding the 20% of nvidia means total monopoly.
Intel may have over 50% of graphics share, but I believe their revenue share is ~10%.
I don't see how that will help. They have to get clearance from the DOJ anyway, but if AMD protests the merger Intel has a pretty convincing argument: "AMD has bought one of the makers of high end GPUs. Intel makes only low end intergrated GPUs, so we are simply leveling the playing field."
Yo Pretender this post is worst then your INTEL CPU cause the fires.
AMD-ATI is okay but INTEL-NVDIA is not?
Whats the logic here? As usual you again show no logic, no ability to think logically and come to a logical deduction from the facts. Did I mention you have shown no logic in any of your post.
You get a PhD from one of these online universities?
DOJ wanted to stop Oracle from taking Peoplesoft over because it argued that would only leave SAP and Oracle as duopoly. DOJ's case failed because Oracle proved Microsoft and a host of smaller companies are also competitors.
The merger of Intel and Nvidia would be a different story because there are no third competitor in the graphics market after Intel-Nvidia merger, so if DOJ was concerned about duopoly before, it will certainly look at this.
The merger of ATI-AMD is different because it involved #2 AMD in cpu and #3 ATI in graphics: two much smaller companies.
Also it would still leave three graphics players in place.
I've already pointed out that Intel is in no position financially to aquire Nvidia, due to its current worth and other variables,
Is this using Sharikou style analysis?
Intel's market cap at today's close is $120B. That means a $10B stock deal could be handled with ~8% dilution. Not a small transaction, but not enormous either. Consider that Intel typically buys back $1-2B in shares per quarter that could be utilized towards the transaction instead with the same effect-reducing dilution. Now you have a part cash, part stock deal, with dilution in the 4-5% range, and no new debt. If you want to use debt, it becomes even more attractive to shareholders, and Intel would have no problems getting financing. Their balance sheet is still FAR healthier than AMD's, even if it hasn't been trending in the right direction, they still are lightly levered, and have top-rated debt ratings. AMD's are still quite low.
That all said, I still think that the deal wouldn't make sense.
You're grandstanding is boring. This merger is just a rumor and you're making some sad, boring attempt to make it some kind of example of the "big guy" trouncing on poor little AMD.
It's called a red herring. It's boring, as are the rest of your transparent ploys.
Nvidia is too smart to be aquired by a has-been company.. give it a year and Nvidia will buy Intel.
This seems like a very hypcritical post by the Sharifraud. But I don't expect any better.
Now with my ad-hominem out of the way, Intel isn't going to be buying NVidia. There is no synergy there. Too many overlapping businesses besides high end discrete graphics. HOwever, Intel is buying their way in to that market by hiring some of the best minds in the graphics business. If that happens I don't see much hope for NVidia. I also don't see much hope for AMD unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat and win the lawsuit against Intel. HOwever since that is set to commence in 2009 and with most of that case thrown out of US courts, I don't really see that happening either. I don't really know how AMD is going to weather the storm while they wait for their big pay-day in court but they better have some kick-ass technology coming out ASAP (Q2'07 latest) or else they are toast. That $3billion they borrowed to buy ATI is going to cause some hefty interest burden going forward and that is going to be a drag on R&D budget especially when they need to ramp up on 65nm and 45nm soon afterward. Things look pretty bleak for AMD.
There is no synergy there.
Intel folks hate AMD so much, it is not impossible that they will try hurt AMD's chipset source... You can't use common sense on the hateful intel.
I doubt Intel would buy NVidia:
1. To kill the 90% of AMD chipset supplied by NVidia, Intel could have bought it last year, they did not have to wait till now.
2. Intel is laying off people, selling off bizz, trying to save cost. Buying NVidia is totally opposite those three things.
3. The overlap is huge!
-Longan-
P.S. But if Intel wants to buy, they have the $$$ and the right to buy for sure.
Intel is in a corner facing declining sales and rising inventories with rising costs which result in more lay offs.
Eg. Asrock makes a 775Twins-HDTV R2.0 motherboard with a ATI chipset but they refuse to market it in the North America market due to intel arm twisting. So its no stretch to imagine intel trying to screw up nvidia for purely amd damaging reasons.
However due to intels massive inventories and massive operating expenses coupled with there continued declining sales figures, I dont think they have the necessary money left to buy Nvidia.
Intel is desperate so anything might be possible but probably not likely.
Nvidia is popular at the moment for AMD but still there is SIS,VIA,ATI-AMD, besides Nvidia-Uli.
Imagine if AMD-ATI bought Nvidia-Uli.
You didnt tell nvda to stop ati / amd deal, possible to lose amd chipset business for nvda ?
You are far off of journalism.
nyx said:
"sh*t Intel graphic chipsets"
Why is intel selling so many graphic chips if they are sh*t ?
Is a Athlon 64 sh*t compared to a Athlon FX ? Or is a Core2 E6300 sh*t compared to Core2 X6800?
Each of the above products addresses a market segment. Intel's graphics chips aren't cutting edge, but do very well for the mainstream PCs. That's why Intel sells so many chips.
Your abuse shows the bias in your comments.
IMPOSSIBLE!
You have admitted that AMD plays the game like a little bit**
OMFG!
I think Intel has done a good job in brainwashing the general public into thinking that their 65nm is on par with IBM/AMD's SOI 65nm (ditto with smaller lithography for non SOI and SOI process).
When AMD was at 130nm SOI, Intel had to push to 90nm to keep their thermals and power draw to match.
And now that AMD has 90nm SOI, Intel NEEDS to be at 65nm to maintain the same thermals/power.
We have one of those AcBel power supplies that measure the current drawn by 2 of our systems (4200+ and C2D 6300) both with integrated graphics and even at idle, the 6300 (rated at 65W by Intel, is chugging along with over 70+W (for total system). The 4200+ (rated at 89W) runs at a mere 50W.
You can bet it would be the same with SOI 65nm and Intel's 42.
And it will probably get worse in the future if Intel's game plan is to bulldoze through benchmarks (real world apps be damned!**) with larger caches which will undoubtedly spiral the power envelopes even further.
The single die Yorkie aka Core Quadro (the real thing, not the pretender that is Clovertown/Kentsfield) is expected to have something like 12MB of cache or something. At least until Intel gets around to putting in an IMC and CSI into their CPUs in 2009 (for Xeons).
** in case you guys missed it, here's the article related to one of the bigger Woodcrest deployments (in Korea), that was trumped up by Intel during the WC launch (NHN was a big Opteron installed base prior to this). The systems ended up overheating, and the customer encountered stability issues they never encountered during the benchmark and evaluation phase.
http://www.inews24.com/php/news_view.php?g_menu=020200&g_serial=225735
(ps it's in Korean)
From the Inquirer:
Subject: Letters: A Canuck's take on AMD, as of Late
Perhaps Hector would prefer an Irish Wake ?
It has been a solid four months since we saw the Intel Conroe 6600 best the AMD FX60 on virtually every benchmark, and some by a wide margin.
Couple this with the fact that the Intel piece is 1/4 the price of the AMD piece (www.ebay.com). Add to the mix the fact that Intel will be shipping quad cores in Mid November, i.e. ~ 5 weeks. If Intel can sink 9B $ US in new fabs, then they have very deep pockets indeed. More than enough green in the bank to subsidize Conroes, 'til whenever AMD capitulates.
I have been waiting for the prices to drop for a while now on AMD gear over here, but to no avail. The channel must have been stuffed to the brim. Since the vendors bought it at full whack and can't now give it away (and aren't wont to: "why should we take the hit damn it !? ), I'd say Hector's in a bit of a spot. Intel, playing the classic Grinch, has stolen Hector's Christmas. Who in their right mind would buy AMD when Intel is eight orders of magnitude the value? Fourth Quarters ( Jan 1-Mar 31 ) are historically dismal, so unless we see from AMD: 1) a quad core, 2) that can best the Conroe, 3) at a price of $ 200.00 USD or less, and 4) before Christmas, this company is history. What investment firm will let the company stock slide southward two quarters guaranteed, possibly four, only to face a diminishing market share? AMD screwed up big time. Perhaps they weren't paying attention. Perhaps they just weren't listening.
I own two AMD boxes, among four (yes, I'm a programmer). Pity the company will have to go under before I am finally offered the ability to upgrade them, at a remotely realistic price.
P.S. Thank you Hector for having nowhere on your website for people to respond, send comments, suggestions, or just sound off. Yet another affirmation that you people just don't want to listen. Farewell.
Mr. Magee, you indeed have a wonderful news source. Our team reads it every day.
Daniel Fitzgerald
Yo PhD pretender said...
"Intel folks hate AMD so much, it is not impossible that they will try hurt AMD's chipset source... You can't use common sense on the hateful intel. "
Actually I don't think INTEL hates AMD. They probably don't like their profits and stock price to be down due to getting their butts kicked. But no worries now. They got the benchmark leadership, they got the fabs to make it, they got the silicon technlogy to put in the fabs, they got the profits by the billions, they got the chipset design teams, they got the GPU design teams.
What does AMD have; slow bottom feeder parts, no silicon technology, foundry manufacturing, no profits, and yes ATI merge with billions of debt.
INTEL doesn't need NVDIA to hurt AMD. AMD is shooting itself in the feet.
Is it not sad that AMD hopes lie in a lawsuite? What kind of company is that sharikou?
"Intel folks hate AMD so much"
Oh the irony.
Look folks, it's as simple as this, READ UP:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.07/Nvidia_pr.html
Nvidia + Intel in a merger ain't happening in this plane of existance, or anytime in our lifetimes. This is effectively straight from Jen-Hsun Huang in 2002, "the man who plans to make the CPU obsolete". I will take note Huang used to work for AMD as mentioned in the article as well, so it's probably gonna be a very cold day in hell I suspect when he decides to cozy up with Paul-O.
Personally, I see Nvidia merging with/buying Via at some point in the near future before I see them merging with Intel. Nvidia's gunning for the CPU market and what better company that's cheap enough to scoop up to get them on the ground running. It would be VERY interesting to see a 3-way battle royale between Intel, AMD/ATI and Nvidia/VIA in a very aggressive CPU market.
AMAZING
The PhD pretender said..
"Intel folks hate AMD so much, it is not impossible that they will try hurt AMD's chipset source... You can't use common sense on the hateful intel."
Replace INTEL with Sharikou and AMD with INTEL and what does it say Pretender?
"Sharikou folks hate INTEL so much, You can't use common sense on the hateful Sharkou...."
Nvidia controls 90% of the AMD64 chipset business
Then the smart money would have been for AMD not to buy their competitor, no Dr.? Is it logical to buy the competitor of someone you rely so heavily on and then expect them to be happy about it? Do you really think that NVIDIA, regardless of Intel's intentions, is going to act with AMD's best interests in mind given that AMD is now their primary competition? If you do, I think you are absolutely certifiable. NVIDIA has no incentive to make AMD's life easier now. Yes, they sell chipsets for AMD, and yes, they make NVIDIA money. But those sales now go towards funding the success of the competition- NVIDIA is better served by starving AMD and taking a short term hit in revenue. Intel doesn't need to factor into this equation.
Sharikou,
It's hard to say what will happen in this one. However, I think the CEO of Nvidia Jen-Hsun Huang would be very hard pressed to sell his company. Of course never say never, but from what I have read about him, he is extremely competitive and would not want to sell his baby. The only outside chance he would do that, is if Intel paid a huge premium, which I still see as a long shot. It would be a pyrrhic victory for Intel.
-Matt
"Sharikou folks hate INTEL so much, You can't use common sense on the hateful Sharkou...."
I never said I hate Intel. Pat Gelsinger typed it aloud that he hates AMD. When someone publishes his hate, better watch out. Look at that guy who fired shots in the Amish school, he spoke out his hate, and then he did it.
It was pretty unprofessional, almost childish, for him to have done that.lord35
;)
So because you supposedly have never declared your hate for Intel, does that means you don't?
The pretender said "I never said I hate Intel. Pat Gelsinger typed it aloud that he hates AMD. When someone publishes his hate, better watch out. Look at that guy who fired shots in the Amish school, he spoke out his hate, and then he did it."
What accounts for your total lack of any logic on this site related to AMD and INTEL topic?
You got abused by INTEL in some prior live?
"S said...
"nyx said:
"sh*t Intel graphic chipsets""
Why is intel selling so many graphic chips if they are sh*t ?
Is a Athlon 64 sh*t compared to a Athlon FX ? Or is a Core2 E6300 sh*t compared to Core2 X6800?
Each of the above products addresses a market segment. Intel's graphics chips aren't cutting edge, but do very well for the mainstream PCs. That's why Intel sells so many chips."
The difference is that Intel
a. forces shit level graphics as mainstream parts using their VPro/VIIV/Centrino initiatives
b. doesn't exactly sell it cheap. You can get ATI or Nvidia embedded graphics chipsets with much better performance (which will come in handy for Vista) TODAY for less than what Intel charges for their mediocre (I am being generous here) embedded graphics chipsets.
I hate telling customers that their spanking new Intel boxes just won't cut it if Vista is in their plans (it is for a lot of them).
"Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...
Nvidia controls 90% of the AMD64 chipset business
Then the smart money would have been for AMD not to buy their competitor, no Dr.? "
There are 2 different things altogether here:
a. Intel and Nvidia would create a much bigger monopoly (not that I believe it would happen, financially as well as synergistically speaking, not mention the Nvidia CEO's own ego) that would be damaging to the industry.
b. AMD buying ATI isn't about gaining market share in the chipset arena.
If you ask me, where AMD is hurting the most is in the notebook arena and it ain't because of the CPU. AMD needs a more tightly integrated graphics chipset that can be BRANDED accordingly ala Centrino.
And getting ATI is the right decision IMHO since they are generally known for their low powered notebook chipsets. Nvidia's notebook chipset while good, consumes more power.
And for what it's worth, I believe getting ATI will help AMD deliver their next target in the Virtualization roadmap (IOMMU and IO Virtualization).
"anonymous said...
Is it not sad that AMD hopes lie in a lawsuite? What kind of company is that sharikou? "
I think it is sadder FOR ALL OF US who have stakes in the industry that Intel can blatantly use anti-competitive tactics to strong-arm everybody else that AMD NEEDS to use the lawsuit card.
What kind of industry is that?
So because you supposedly have never declared your hate for Intel, does that means you don't?
What I am against is what Intel stands for --- anti-progress, not Intel itself.
Sharikou,
May I remind you described Intel as Nazis? Was that out of love for them?
"When AMD was at 130nm SOI, Intel had to push to 90nm to keep their thermals and power draw to match."
So chip architecture/design wasn't the MAIN cause of this? Funny how Core2 on 65nm consumes less than Netburst on 65nm. The main difference in your comparison was chip architecture (just think about mobile products too!)
Idiot....
"Then the smart money would have been for AMD not to buy their competitor, no Dr.? Is it logical to buy the competitor of someone you rely so heavily on and then expect them to be happy about it?"
Nvidia's market cap is bigger than ATI - I doubt AMD could afford it (would mean bigger loan/debt and further drop in debt rating?)
"I never said I hate Intel. Pat Gelsinger typed it aloud that he hates AMD. When someone publishes his hate, better watch out."
But I thought you said that anything Intel says is a lie! Does that mean that Gelsinger really loves AMD and he's too embarrassed to admit it?
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34918
It's official. 4x4 sucks.
May I remind you described Intel as Nazis? Was that out of love for them?
Hate/love is a strong emotion. When you hate something, that's a obsessive attachment. I don't have such strong emotions for Intel. Sometimes, I pity them. That's all. Their fate is sealed. Their struggle will be futile. The time for AMD64 has come. Had Intel followed my advice last year, they could have escaped BK. But now that's inevitable.
Look at DELL today, it's hyping AMD64 like no tomorrow. Why? This tells me there is something in AMD that clicks. Intel is known to be oppressive and AMD is known to be cooperative. Intel hates everyone who is not exclusively Intel, like Nazis hate everyone that's not 100% Aryan. AMD is different.
"But I thought you said that anything Intel says is a lie! Does that mean that Gelsinger really loves AMD and he's too embarrassed to admit it?"
What a immature response! Can't you guys find anything meaningful to say anymore? So you really agree with Sharikou's every word literally, don't you? So when Otellini says, "Hi, my name is Paul Otellini," you will think he is lying, won't you?
Idiot.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34918
AMD goes to hunt Kentsfield with 4 x 4 using FX70, 72 and 75 ( 2.6 2.8 and 3 Ghz models )
"When AMD was at 130nm SOI, Intel had to push to 90nm to keep their thermals and power draw to match."
That makes no sense, Prescott sucked.
The dual 2.6, 2.8, 3.0 is still worse than Kentsfield on single threaded.
2.66*1.2[Core 2 advantage over K8] > 3.0 max.
On threaded apps, AMD has claimed 80% over dual core. 1*1.8=1.8
Intel has claimed 70% over dual core. 1*1.2[Core 2 over K8]*1.7=2.04
2.04 > 1.8
Dell likes AMD because AMD gives their chips away, you know that.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34918
It's official. 4x4 sucks.
is the poster really that stupid?
You know anything about this site?
Then a monkey said
"Look at DELL today, it's hyping AMD64 like no tomorrow"
Really all the dell adds I've seen are hyping something else. I must be in another world... And what world is that? One where INTEL owns 80% of the desktop and 90% of the mobile space. Where they have the best benchmarks, they have the best silicon technology, they hvae the best cost structure as I last looked INTEL made 1+ billion a quarter and AMD what did AMD make?
I like my reality... Sharikou can continue to believe INTEL is going BK and fires are started by CPUs. In that world you can't make real progress. Kind of like your fantasy world in the bathroom with your glamour magazine ( ala George Costanza )
Awesome. With 3Ghz QuadFather 4x4 AMD will reclaim the performance crown. Then K8L in Q2 07. Intel will be BK by Q2 08 for sure.
Sharikou - your comment that Dell is hyping AMD like no tomorrow is not correct. Dell is hypinh Core 2 Duo more than they are hyping AMD. AMD is being positioned as cheap and basic value for money. Core 2 is being positioned as the cutting edge of technology.
http://sharikou180.blogspot.com
(A more balanced POV)
"a. forces shit level graphics as mainstream parts using their VPro/VIIV/Centrino initiatives
b. doesn't exactly sell it cheap. You can get ATI or Nvidia embedded graphics chipsets with much better performance (which will come in handy for Vista) TODAY for less than what Intel charges for their mediocre (I am being generous here) embedded graphics chipsets."
Customers are paying premium for a single vendor solution. Business decisions are much more complex than a company being able force products onto its customers. A graphics which doesn't make sense to you may make much more sense to someone who is buying 1000s if not millions of such chips.
"Dell likes AMD because AMD gives their chips away, you know that."
Oh well, AMD would give their chips away when it doesn't have enough capacity (as 'claimd' by many people here)??? What's your logic?
Some people also say that Dell hypes Core 2 Duo more. Is is because Intel also giving away Core 2 Duo's to Dell?
The truth is, both Core 2 Duo and Athlon 64 X2 have their places at Dell. Core 2 machines are indeed faster, about 15%, than same-clocked X2, but they are also 50% more expensive.
The reason that Dell adopts and hypes X2 is simple: Intel's lineup has a virtual vacuum for the mainstream (especially at low-power configurations) until early 2007. Intel could not / will not move Core 2 Duo to mainstream when it accounts for less than 25% of Intel's total production.
So the near-term prospect of Intel is clearly grim. Unlike Sharikou, I don't know whether it will ever go Chapter 11, but until Core 2 goes mainstream (e.g., 50% production volume), Intel will be hurt only more by its new cores than AMD, because every one Core 2 Duo Intel sells means 3 Netbursts that it does not.
So Intel's last hope is to dump Netbursts to the 3rd world countries. Unfortunately, it is a bit late to do so, since Athlon 64 has already penetrated those markets such as China and Southeast Asia as early as late 2005 (right after the AMD-Intel lawsuit). The faster Intel dumps Netburst there the sooner it ruins the "Pentium" brand.
The end result is what we all see now. Intel is definitely pushing (dumping) Netburst, but it does so quite "conservatively": too fast and you have a ruined brand on saturated markets. Intel is also ramping up Core 2 Duo's, but these chips has no hope to go mainstream at Dell or HP or any first-tier PC seller until the turn of the year.
Now we all know that Windows Vista will be 64-bit capable. All these PC sellers are relying on that fact to sell more to the general public. You can easly see how much more Athlon 64 (and how much less Netburst) will sell simply because of this.
"That makes no sense, Prescott sucked."
Prescott sucks more power than Northwood not because Intel has bad 90nm but because Prescott has twice the cache size and more than twice the number of transistors than its predecessor.
In fact, moving to 65nm allows Intel to release a even cooler Cedar Mill (89W). So generally, yes, the smaller the feature size, the less power a chip consumes.
A few quick questions:
Is Intel still producing any CPU using 90nm at this moment? Probably not since Core 2 Duo was only for 65nm and the Pentium 90nm is aweful.
So they just keep selling from the huge inventory right? And what is Intel doing with the 90nm fabs?
-Longan-
P.S. I used to have a few friends working for Intel but they were all laid-off over time. My neighbor works for Intel and his contract got cut a couple months ago so I have no more info....
Sharikou:
do not worry about it, allow intel to buy Nvidia. with the amount of money they will have to pay for it, instead of intel going BK (chapter 11 I assume you mian) in 8 Quarters, they wil go Bankrupt in 6 quarters... And AMD wins.
Remember man, All your readers, contrarian or not, will hold you liable to that prediction...
Cheers
"Anonymous said:
So chip architecture/design wasn't the MAIN cause of this? Funny how Core2 on 65nm consumes less than Netburst on 65nm. The main difference in your comparison was chip architecture (just think about mobile products too!)
Idiot"
The 65nm Pentium Ds are so much of a joke, they weren't even in consideration, since they suck up sooo much power compared to Athlon64 and X2s on 90nm SOI.
But on the C2D 6300 I have (comparable to the X2 4200+ in the stuff I run), it runs (as I posted earlier) idles at 70+W, the X2 4200+ at 50+W.
Hence my conclusion.. idiot
"s said...
Customers are paying premium for a single vendor solution. Business decisions are much more complex than a company being able force products onto its customers. A graphics which doesn't make sense to you may make much more sense to someone who is buying 1000s if not millions of such chips."
So it makes sense for same customers to buy another 1000s of PCs when their current PCs can't run Vista properly next year?
It's a monopolistic-industry that allows such strong bulldozing by the vendor (you even used:"force its products on customers"), I am surprised no one even bats an eyelid anymore.
Tell me something - this 'ph.d.' of yours indicates doctor of philosophy, yeah? What was you thesis on?
Hypocrisy indeed. AMD acquires ATI (who makes Intel chipsets) and you say it's good, yet a RUMOUR comes around about Intel obtaining nVidia - you start screaming foul.
Tell me something else - you don't seem to want to merely keep your public informed, you actually seem to be out to cause damage to Intel. Congratulations - you've biased me irrevocably against Dell (in spite of numerous dell systems I've installed and supported over the years - not all of which were intel-based either) to the extent where I am now scrapping my faithful Inspiron 2500 and my poweredge 2300. Simply because I now get nausea when seeing dell. In addition, my barton 2800+ is now also going into the landfill so that I can play games on my intel-based workstation.
I'm sorry to have to introduce you to this painful little thing called 'reality' but it has to happen. AMD and Intel have been competing on who has the best silicon ever since Intel trademarked the Pentium brand and badged 80586 CPUs as Pentium. Guess what? ALL 486 CPUs, be it from Intel, AMD, Via, Texas Instruments or Sharp, used the Intel 80486 silicon inside. The differentiation ONLY started on the Intel P1/AMD X5 CPUs. Further, this competition has only been of BENEFIT to the end user ito performance & cost - sure, sometimes AMD is on top, then Intel takes over, then AMD takes over again... if your precious AMD becomes the SOLE CPU maker, they will then start gouging what they want to in terms of $$$. Ditto Intel...
the further thought occurs that I'm dealing with a bigot and that nothing I have to say - even if I be God, Allah, Buddah, Jehovah, George W Bush, Superman, the Immortal Emperor and Einstein rolled into one, never mind having my D.Eng (EE/2001) - will make the slightest damn difference, so go ahead, prove to the world that you have a ph.d. in BS - I've just finished writing my comment on your thesis. You pass with flying colours.
Mugz the Sane.
p.s. If your Ph.D. is NOT in BS but is in a real-world field, congrats - you are an embarrassment to your peers. MtS
Post a Comment
<< Home