"Will ATI Be Broken Up?"

[Geo]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2040971,00.asp

"After analysis of the options, we believe AMD could divest the discrete GPU business and still achieve the company's longer term goal to integrate a CPU and GPU onto a single silicon chip," Freedman wrote.

So presumably a "divested" discrete GPU business would have equal rights (licensing) to existing IP, and some subset of the engineering staff, under this scenario.

Personally, I don't see it at this point. Maybe if things don't go well, a few years down the road. If they were trying to raise cash, who would they be wanting to sell that too that they'd be willing to sell it to? If they are just spinning it off, it doesn't really save them anything cash-wise. Clearly AMD & ATI were making sounds like a large part of the attraction of the deal was NOT having the need to take an axe to either company to make stuff fit. I'd think the senior ATI people would feel ill-used if things turned this direction now, and that could have long term effects as well.

 

[Voltron]

That analyst seems to miss much of the real meat of the acquisition.

But he does have a point that AMD is unlikely to see Crossfire support on Intel CPUs and that could lead to some consumer dilemenas if AMD has only one of the best CPUs or GPUs among high-end customers. But considering the long-term aims of AMD, such hypothetical problems seem superfluous to me.

 

[INKster]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2040971,00.asp



So presumably a "divested" discrete GPU business would have equal rights (licensing) to existing IP, and some subset of the engineering staff, under this scenario.

Personally, I don't see it at this point. Maybe if things don't go well, a few years down the road. If they were trying to raise cash, who would they be wanting to sell that too that they'd be willing to sell it to? If they are just spinning it off, it doesn't really save them anything cash-wise. Clearly AMD & ATI were making sounds like a large part of the attraction of the deal was NOT having the need to take an axe to either company to make stuff fit. I'd think the senior ATI people would feel ill-used if things turned this direction now, and that could have long term effects as well.

That isn't very likely, i think.
The deal with AMD means that many of the former shareholders of ATI are now a large part of the new share structure of AMD itself.
Even Dave Orton is to become a Vice-President of AMD, if i'm not mistaken.

Would they really double-cross them knowing this ? Unlikely.


And then there's the business portion.
Why ditch the majority of the (former) ATI's profits ?

If AMD just wanted a Chipset and Integrated Graphics division quickly, VIA/S3 would be a much cheaper venture.

 

[Razor1]

That isn't very likely, i think.
The deal with AMD means that many of the former shareholders of ATI are now a large part of the new share structure of AMD itself.
Even Dave Orton is to become a Vice-President of AMD, if i'm not mistaken.

Would they really double-cross them knowing this ? Unlikely.


And then there's the business portion.
Why ditch the majority of the (former) ATI's profits ?

If AMD just wanted a Chipset and Integrated Graphics division quickly, VIA/S3 would be a much cheaper venture.

I won't say that its not a possiblity, if ATi doesn't do well the next year or two in the discrete GPU segment, it would be a wise choice for AMD to sell it off, AMD's core business is focused on CPUs and if they can gain from getting ATi (much better engineers then VIA/S3), also ATi's brand name recognition is there too, not to mention they have a very strong hold on notebook chipsets, which will fit very nicely with AMD's focus on making headway against centrino, ATi is a much better choice then VIA/S3 and for the price it was a steal. I think if AMD wanted ATi a couple of years ago, the cost would have been double.

 

[Rangers]

Who will they sell too?

Bet money it's Intel
________
Zoloft Lawyer

 

[_xxx_]

I think that article is spot-on, but it will take at least another 2-3 years to reach that point.

 

[R300King!]

After success with R300; ATI was working next big step R400 but then later it was cancel with later design of R500 - I believe" which became available to Xbox360. But instead they improved R300 and made R420.

I believe R520/R580 is just simplify apposite world direction of R500 for Xbox360. But R600 instead should be based of R500 for Xbox360 - but improved and design towards different approach in PC based system world.

Second: ATI will not make same mistake twice as example with R520 based 90nm jump. It would be unwise for R600 to follow same error steps and jump directly to 65nm right now (I don't think they could) it make sense to stay with more mature 90nm but slightly move to 80nm which is not that danger.

ATI made some money with Xbox360; so now ATI is free and can spend more time and sources availability to improve R500.

Whatever the reason R600 is delay after G80, it means it is more advance then G80 or ATI has screw-up with R600.

Well, there is NO ATI anymore...so don't expect all those resources to be used for anything in the furture. They may, but very well maybe not. I do agree with Hellbinder(don't hate on me) that it was a big loss for GFX consumers when ATI sold out to AMD (or if even to any company). Bad call, it was a bad call Ripley.

 

[Jawed]

http://www.freshpatents.com/Method-...e-configuration-dt20060309ptan20060051912.php



Anybody know if this sounds like R600 or is this Xbox related? Multiple dies within the same package.

Seems to be an optimisation aimed at very small devices, e.g. mobile phones, where stacked dice need to have minimal height.

Pretty doubtful that it has anything to do with R600/XB360.

Jawed

 

[AJ]

Personally, I don't see it at this point.

Geo, you are right. This article is speculation and not correct.

 

[jamis]

Whatever the reason R600 is delay after G80, it means it is more advance then G80 or ATI has screw-up with R600.

But aren't they both delayed? If I remember right the G80 was supposed to be out before R600, only thing is it was supposed to be out allready (in September or so) and the R600 about now. So, if R600 comes out in January, everything is going just the way they planned (both of them) just couple of months late.

 

[Shtal]

Well, there is NO ATI anymore...so don't expect all those resources to be used for anything in the furture. They may, but very well maybe not. I do agree with Hellbinder(don't hate on me) that it was a big loss for GFX consumers when ATI sold out to AMD (or if even to any company). Bad call, it was a bad call Ripley.

With best interest for AMD of buying out ATI is to continue focus/development/improvement with maximum ability to stay competitive with Nvidia and other compatiton.

 

[Jakob]

Makes no sense at all. Integrated and discrete graphics are not two separate teams. Integrated gfx are the same graphics cores and designed by the same people. Spin off the discrete graphics biz and you kill your future integrated parts. Makes zero sense.

 

[Shtal]

But aren't they both delayed? If I remember right the G80 was supposed to be out before R600, only thing is it was supposed to be out allready (in September or so) and the R600 about now. So, if R600 comes out in January, everything is going just the way they planned (both of them) just couple of months late.

You could be absolute right!

Also it could be because ATI had MS-Xbox360 deal and because of that Nvidia pulled ahead with manufacturing cycle time frame.

 

[R300King!]

With best interest for AMD of buying out ATI is to continue focus/development/improvement with maximum ability to stay competitive with Nvidia and other compatiton.

AMD has not much to lose by giving up on the high end video side. ATI had everything to lose and it looks like they did, sell out. Let's just call it what it is. ATI CEO's and sharholders gave in to money rather than to grow and better their company. Do you think the mission statement plaque on ATI's wall was to sell out to a reasonably high bid? What happened to all that, "We aim to give our customers the best video products and highest innovation for future generations"?
So please people, don't say this buyout(not merger) is in the best interest of graphic card enthusists. It's simply not!

 

[INKster]

No semiconductor company survives on the wishes of enthusiasts alone.
Neither ATI nor Nvidia have done so, and for so many years now.
That segment is a very tiny, yet loud and mediatized, minority.
Not unlike Apple Mac users.

To believe otherwise is to be naïve, to put it lightly.
Corporations and shareholders exist to make money for themselves. A takeover is just a different (and faster) way to do so.

 

[R300King!]

ATI did not become great by making cards for midrange and low end products. See those other lesser graphics card companies if you don't know what I mean.

No one is saying companies don't want to make money. Neither I or any sane person would say so, however, how does a company become big and make that money? They make products that customers want. And to keep those customers they need to continue to make those products that the customers want. Simple. AMD never promised to keep all of ATI's drive for better and innovative video cards when they take over. This is what I'm talking about. And although the graphics card market is "tiny" as you say it is a "huge" perception when it comes to leadership in the development of video cards AND to anything else they make. It's a branding name that keeps them going. Now it looks to have faded into history and given up that healthy and sobering battle with Nvidia which kept it striving for ever better graphic solutions. So long ATI.

 

[INKster]

AMD never promised to keep all of ATI's drive for better and innovative video cards when they take over.

AMD needs to promise something ?
This is a quote from the very first official announcement from AMD following the merger agreement:

AMD’s acquisition of ATI will position the new company to deliver innovations that fulfill the increasing demand for more integrated solutions in key market segments while also continuing to develop “best-of-breed” discrete products that empower customers to choose the combination of technologies that best serves their needs.

http://www.amd.com/gb-uk/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~110899,00.html

I don't know about you, but that sounds just like they're not going to leave the enthusiast market anytime soon to me.
There's no cause for panic.

 

[Shtal]

I don't know about you, but that sounds just like they're not going to leave the enthusiast market anytime soon to me.
There's no cause for panic.

Amen, 100% percent with you.

 

[R300King!]

First off, I never said AMD needs to promise anything. I said they are not. If you read what AMD said further, you will see exactly what they plan to do. It's right there in black and white.

"Best-of-breed" means jack diddley squat!! That's for 2007(R600) which is already made. Did you even read the whole thing? It says in 2008 they're going to start intergrating graphics with microproccessing. So how are you suppose to get your "best-of-breed" graphics with an Intel microprocessor? You don't!

In 2008 and beyond, AMD aims to move beyond current technological configurations to transform processing technologies, with silicon-specific platforms that integrate microprocessors and graphics processors to address the growing need for general-purpose, media-centric, data-centric and graphic-centric performance. Thus, the combined company intends to empower its customers to create their own unique products and solutions within an open-innovation ecosystem free from artificial barriers to customer success.

Translates to: We'll keep with ATI's views for graphics(R600) thru 2007, then after that...we're combining our graphics with our processor technology with no more separate graphics cards. You can either conform to our new standards or not at all. That open-innovation ecosystem bit is marketing speak imo.

Who knows exactly how they plan to intergrate everything. There are many ways they can do this, however, I do believe you will no longer be able to drop your favorite video card onto your favorite motherboard using your favorite processor.

The merger was bad for consumers I truly believe.

 

[Monty]

"graphic-centric performance"

To even be considered as a good graphic centric performer it will have to compete with what nvidia will have out at that time, and I really doubt they will be able to make a fully intergrated processor which can compete with even a low range discrete nvidia card.

It does say 2008 and beyond, the way I see it is they will continue to do graphics cards for quite a while yet.