Apple main aim is performance per watt, which IMO K10 will be better at compared to C2D (current MacBook offerings). Once K8L is ready, they could switch over. The transition would be as simple as Core Duo -> Core 2 Duo.
AMD needs money?
- Thread starter INKster
- Start date
- Status
Not quite.
With the Core Duo -> Core 2 Duo, all it took was changing the CPU installed in the socket and a firmware update for the EFI.
With a switch to AMD, they would have to switch chipsets, add a 3rd party WiFi chipset (since AMD doesn't manufacture any, and Intel is starting to integrate that functionality into their own Southbridges, like in the future "Bearlake" family,) new GPU and/or IGP, slower adoption of Intel-backed standards (like PCIe/PCIe 2.0, perhaps USB 3.0, 802.11n, SSE4, DDR3 and beyond, etc).
Last edited by a moderator:
When was AMD slow with PCIe? When was SSE4 a standard? DDR3? What does DDR3 matter if you're using only one platform? It would be rather simple actually, some minor background changes from Apple and then AMD giving support for EFI. Otherwise all those standards you mentioned (which how AMD is slow on I'm rather confused and how some qualify as a standard I'm confused on as well) really would be but a small hurdle as AMD themselves are moving into the platform and of course those would come along later. You have to realize that we've yet to truly move into an AMD/ATi solid platform, there's a solid ground but the chips have yet to be built around each other.
But, with that said. I highly doubt Apple would want to buy AMD. Apple's computer business is simply not big enough to justify the purchase of AMD. Huge sectors of the company would need to be sold off unless Apple wished to move into the Windows market as supporting its movement and developing products such as GPUs for DirectX (Direct3D or whatever its going by these days) market. So, I would be extremely shocked if Apple did such a crazy thing. As much as Apple would like they say they've had a surge in the PC market, and sure it may have gained some share, it is still so small that AMD as of now supplies more chips than Apple would know what to do with.
PCI-Express 1.0/1.0a:
- Intel (i915/i925) -> 2003
- AMD (Nvidia Nforce 4) -> 2004
DDR2:
- Intel (i915/i925) -> 2003
- AMD (socket AM2) -> 2006
I'd certainly argue that DDR2 is not a real standard, nor should be considered one. AMD did not move over till they had a need too do so. Even to this day DDR2 has shown no benefit to AMD and prices are still aligned to the point that there's but a very small difference. Also, on PCI Express I would sure like to know the months on that.
Sure.
Intel launched in June/July 2003, while Nvidia had Nforce 4 SLI/Ultra out in November 2004, nearly 18 months later...
As for DDR2 not being a standard, well, then the IEEE must be wrong for a long time, now wouldn't it ?
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/ddr2-rmma/ddr2-rmma.html
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel it is a tad premature to announce a winner there; Penryn might be very interesting in terms of perf/watt given the process (high-k...), the smaller die and the extra cache.
My point was that if Apple buys AMD and refreshes their lineup with K8L, they wouldnt look bad compared to their existing line of Macbooks. (which have a C2D)
Penryn would become inconsequential because then there wouldnt be any Penryn based Macbooks.
MulciberXP
Regular
Can you link to a review of an pentium 4 motherboard using pci-e in july 2003? I certainly dont recall any until at least a year later.
That's what I was thinking, but I think history may be painted differently because at the time frame Intel did not have as good of a gaming platform as AMD and therefore the real movement to gamers came with AMD. Though it would be interesting.
http://www.digital-daily.com/motherboard/abit-aa8/
i know because i bought that very board a month later and its still functioning.
The date's wrong. i925 was released in 2004. At the beginning of 2004 I remember seeing that NVIDIA was showing off their 5900/5700 based PCI-E boards using HSI, and then the GF6 series was released that Spring. That would have also meant the i925 predated the Athlon 64 launch (which it did not). If you google other i925 launch articles, they are all around May/June of 2004.
MulciberXP
Regular
now now lets not argue semantics, he asked for a review dated July 2003, i delivered.
actually I DIDNT ask for one "dated" july 03, i asked for one IN july 03
so can we let go of the erroneous claim that AMD was 1.5 years late to PCI-E?
It would appear to be a curious trail of thought anyway, given the new alignment of AMD.
MulciberXP
Regular
Whats curious is why both those guys wanted to go OT to spread FUD about AMD.
The ATI purchase is looking stupider by the minute. Now that I've looked at AMD's financials, it's not looking good. They went from having over three times more cash than debt to now more than two times more debt than cash. $4bn of goodwill can't be a good thing either. If R600 does poorly, much of that goodwill value will vanish instantly, and AMD will be forced to declare a multi-billion dollar loss in the near future.
If K10 doesn't perform, they're in a for a world of hurt.
If K10 doesn't perform, they're in a for a world of hurt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah. Unless they begin turning in a massive loss, they don't have anything specific they need to spend that cash on, though. You've got fab CapEx, but as Fabtech.org noted, that is being mostly financed by the Saxony government for 2007. But what would be interesting is if they decided they couldn't afford to switch to 45nm as fast as they had hoped. This would further complicate their market position...
From what POV are you arguing that goodwill would have to vanish if R600 flopped? I might be horribly mistaken here, but I was under the impression that it would already have "vanished" by now. That's what the $400M+ in-process R&D charge was for: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/100902.asp
Indeed. My opinion so far really is that they are extremely dependent on their upcoming products. If both their next-gen CPU and GPU product families are shit, then they are pretty much toast unless they manage to transition to yet-some-more-new-products faster than I'd expect them to be able to. Now, on the other hand, if both CPU and GPU product families were very good, obviously, things would also be very different...
The debt itself has interest. That's where the worry about a cash crunch is coming from. And they're still paying for much of the cost of the fab themselves. They also have a fab being built in NY I believe too.
My financial knowledge isn't that great either, but I'm pretty sure the existing goodwill relates to products already released and hence can avoid being written off immediately. Unfortunately, that will never cover $4 billion of goodwill, and will require future products to sustain. The goodwill effectively represents the market value of the company they bought, aka they can sell ATI for that much and get their money back. Of course, if they can't sell it, and it becomes obvious from an accounting standpoint that they can't sell it, then much of the goodwill will have to be written off. See the AOL/Time Warner merger for how such a disastrous goodwill write-off can occur.
Agreed. While that was always true, they've dramatically reduced the amount of breathing room they have with the ATI buyout. Before, they could simply ride out a K10 flop. Now, K10 pretty much needs to succeed or they will be in deep trouble.
Last edited by a moderator:
... with a lot of financial support from the NY state government.
I wouldn't be too worried in the short to middle term: it's surprising how long big companies can survive, even when turning out a loss year after year. The important part is not to default on loans, but that's relatively easy to do: there are a lot of different ways to refinance debts.
No, that's not true. Goodwill is the amount above the tangible net asset value that was paid by a company to purchase another company. It could be for stuff like the perceived quality of the employees that may result in more business later on. Or the good reputation of the company. A bit wishy washy really.
When this intangible value never materializes (the employees weren't that good after all), a company can write it off. In that case, it will show up as a loss on the books, but it doesn't cost real money. It usually results in a drop in the stock price, because the write off effectively reduces the assets of the company.
So, no, it's not the complete market value. It's the additional value of the net assets.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
