It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Especially considering AMD has a vested interest in GPU manufacturing. Hopefully they put out some real hardware.
GPCPUs will never be anything more than budget devices. It reduces the cost of the platform and slightly improves GPU performance by eliminating the bus, but spatial requirements insist on a very simple GPU. Relative to what we have now, you can expect similar performance.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited February 2009
Perfect for mainstream laptops, for which the majority of users won't know the difference, but who will notice the trend of modest prices. This should also reduce motherboard complexity, again helping keep laptop and budget desktop prices low.
No. AMD would rather the GPU market not mirror the CPU market. AMD has some fantastic IP but Intel is an $80B gorilla.
Intel may be a gorilla but it needs its AMD monkey around for it to keep pounding its chest. The only reason there is an AMD in processors is because AMD took intel to court and and intel was forced to share x86 info with AMD. This was after AMD produced cpu's for intel. The moment AMD goes under, you can have a lot of other companies taking intel to court the same way AMD did with allegations of being a monopoly. So the short is, having a little AMD is in Intel's best interest.
Also, before AMD bought ATI, there was talk between AMD and nvidia to merge but Hector would not step down as CEO. Jen-Hsun Huang wanted to be the CEO. The reason I bring this up is because there is communication and long term planning between these companies.
Nvidia is pissed at being slowly backed into a corner. They can't lash out at AMD, that would just make them look pathetic, but they can sling mud at intel.
Nvidia and intel are in a war where we won't see a winner for another 4 or 5 years. Just because you have 80billion doesn't mean you walk away from 1 or 2 billion a year extra.
AMD never took intel to court to produce CPUs. It simply bought a cross-licensing agreement in 1976. The most recent renewal occurred in 1996 and lasts until 2010. There was no forcing.
Secondly, AMD did not take Intel to court for being a monopoly. It took Intel to court with allegations of anti-trust. There's a big difference, there. It accused Intel of using its market size to coerce unreasonable/exclusive loyalty through extortion. "If you don't sell our chips, you'll quickly find you don't have any Intel chips to sell." AMD argued this successfully in the EU, but this is not an accusation of monopoly.
Lastly, the whole CEO business you're spinning is only partly true. The other, more important part of the equation, was that NVIDIA only had $2.4 billion in assets to leverage in an acquisition. To acquire AMD it would've had to pony up $5.4 billion to clear AMD's debt, in addition to the actual value of the company. In effect, NVIDIA would have had to pay approximately 10 times the amount of money they actually had to purchase to AMD. If anything, AMD was in a much better position to assume NVIDIA than vice versa. AMD had a market cap worth more than twice that of NVIDIA's.
At the end of the day, the debt/equity ratio for AMD would have killed NVIDIA in an acquisition. It was very much less about egos than it was simple economy.
As for AMD/NVIDIA partnerships, they once had SNAP, but this partnership has almost entirely evaporated since AMD acquired ATI (for half NVIDIA's price at the time). NVIDIA continues to develop for AMD products only because Intel is icy towards NV for attempting to buy into x86 through a failed VIA acquisition.
I was more or less talking about the California's supreme court forcing Intel to share its micro code with AMD. But you are right, it was a long battle, of many battles, that ended in 94 in AMD's favor. But if it wasn't for that where would we be?
I never said anything about Nvidia acquiring AMD. If Nvidia were to do that then AMD would have to give up the rights to a lot of its intel derived tech. AMD would have to acquire nvidia for it to have work. But Victor stood in its way and AMD ended up with ATI.
There is a reason no one is taking over AMD. As soon as they do AMD becomes worthless.
One last thing to say about AMD, we'd like to think AMD is a real pioneer but really, a lot of it is just reworked and optimized intel R&D. Grant it, they do it through a clean room, but they still and have always rode on the coat tails of intel in regards to cpu development. 64bit was out of necessity to stay in the game.
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
Bad economy outlook for the next 2 to 3 years and you stop product development on something that'll be cheaper and will sell more?
Maybe, just maybe, AMD gave a little GPU goodness to Intel in regards to the recent Foundry woes and as a trade for some intel tech for AMD.
Nvidia is pissed off. Amd is in a weak spot. And at the end of the day AMD and Intel will profit a lot more with less Nvidia products in the market.
No. AMD would rather the GPU market not mirror the CPU market. AMD has some fantastic IP but Intel is an $80B gorilla.
Intel may be a gorilla but it needs its AMD monkey around for it to keep pounding its chest. The only reason there is an AMD in processors is because AMD took intel to court and and intel was forced to share x86 info with AMD. This was after AMD produced cpu's for intel. The moment AMD goes under, you can have a lot of other companies taking intel to court the same way AMD did with allegations of being a monopoly. So the short is, having a little AMD is in Intel's best interest.
Also, before AMD bought ATI, there was talk between AMD and nvidia to merge but Hector would not step down as CEO. Jen-Hsun Huang wanted to be the CEO. The reason I bring this up is because there is communication and long term planning between these companies.
Nvidia is pissed at being slowly backed into a corner. They can't lash out at AMD, that would just make them look pathetic, but they can sling mud at intel.
Nvidia and intel are in a war where we won't see a winner for another 4 or 5 years. Just because you have 80billion doesn't mean you walk away from 1 or 2 billion a year extra.
Secondly, AMD did not take Intel to court for being a monopoly. It took Intel to court with allegations of anti-trust. There's a big difference, there. It accused Intel of using its market size to coerce unreasonable/exclusive loyalty through extortion. "If you don't sell our chips, you'll quickly find you don't have any Intel chips to sell." AMD argued this successfully in the EU, but this is not an accusation of monopoly.
Lastly, the whole CEO business you're spinning is only partly true. The other, more important part of the equation, was that NVIDIA only had $2.4 billion in assets to leverage in an acquisition. To acquire AMD it would've had to pony up $5.4 billion to clear AMD's debt, in addition to the actual value of the company. In effect, NVIDIA would have had to pay approximately 10 times the amount of money they actually had to purchase to AMD. If anything, AMD was in a much better position to assume NVIDIA than vice versa. AMD had a market cap worth more than twice that of NVIDIA's.
At the end of the day, the debt/equity ratio for AMD would have killed NVIDIA in an acquisition. It was very much less about egos than it was simple economy.
As for AMD/NVIDIA partnerships, they once had SNAP, but this partnership has almost entirely evaporated since AMD acquired ATI (for half NVIDIA's price at the time). NVIDIA continues to develop for AMD products only because Intel is icy towards NV for attempting to buy into x86 through a failed VIA acquisition.
I never said anything about Nvidia acquiring AMD. If Nvidia were to do that then AMD would have to give up the rights to a lot of its intel derived tech. AMD would have to acquire nvidia for it to have work. But Victor stood in its way and AMD ended up with ATI.
There is a reason no one is taking over AMD. As soon as they do AMD becomes worthless.