It will take time for market pentration though. In that time lets say 6 months they will be without thier major chipset maker which makes 75% of thier chipsets
Intel to make bid for nVidia? **Reuters**
- Thread starter Razor1
- Start date
It will take time for market pentration though. In that time lets say 6 months they will be without thier major chipset maker which makes 75% of thier chipsets
Jawed
Legend
You think the supply of NV chipsets, if Intel bought NVidia now, wouldn't last 3 months?
In case you haven't noticed ATI's on the virge of its second generation AM2 chipsets, RS690...
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33645
Jawed
In case you haven't noticed ATI's on the virge of its second generation AM2 chipsets, RS690...
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33645
Jawed
As is Nvidia (actually, it's the third generation AM2 products, if you consider the NF4 mobos with AM2 sockets):
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4086
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4085
I'm not saying Intel would use nV chipsets for thier own use in the beginning, there would be no need for them at least in the short term, just that it will hurt AMD, just like AMD pulling out the Intel rv600 short term hurt, to slow the bleeding.
AMD right now has three variaties from nV a integrated gf 6, and which has just been upgraded to an integrated gf7, both of which have 4 pipelines, at perform better then the x700 and have more features, the x700 would be a step down for system builders, and finally the nf 4 and 5 brand names. ATi doesn't have the following in motherboards like they do with nV, so retail sales will be sluggish in the beginning. OEM's will also take note of that too, in the short term nothing will change, Dell and HP have a combined marketshare of 30% of the pc market, if AMD trys to push nV out (if the take over happens), will Dell and HP accept switching thier entire lines of AMD computers to AMD chipsets? If Intel puts a stop to nV's AMD production, Dell and HP won't have a choice they have to switch over, but at what cost? No more SLi for AMD, no more nf4 or 5 brandname, no more shader model 3.0 or faster IGP's. In turn that will hurt sales, as now AMD will be forced to sell lower performance chips (actually not really, price wise they compete well, but the way Intel marketing machine works (something we don't know is Intel's OEM prices for their chips)......) and selling lower performance IGP's.
AMD right now has three variaties from nV a integrated gf 6, and which has just been upgraded to an integrated gf7, both of which have 4 pipelines, at perform better then the x700 and have more features, the x700 would be a step down for system builders, and finally the nf 4 and 5 brand names. ATi doesn't have the following in motherboards like they do with nV, so retail sales will be sluggish in the beginning. OEM's will also take note of that too, in the short term nothing will change, Dell and HP have a combined marketshare of 30% of the pc market, if AMD trys to push nV out (if the take over happens), will Dell and HP accept switching thier entire lines of AMD computers to AMD chipsets? If Intel puts a stop to nV's AMD production, Dell and HP won't have a choice they have to switch over, but at what cost? No more SLi for AMD, no more nf4 or 5 brandname, no more shader model 3.0 or faster IGP's. In turn that will hurt sales, as now AMD will be forced to sell lower performance chips (actually not really, price wise they compete well, but the way Intel marketing machine works (something we don't know is Intel's OEM prices for their chips)......) and selling lower performance IGP's.
Wow!
Jawed
Legend
The enthusiasts who were buying NV chipsets because they were NV chipsets now want to buy C2D.
The market has changed... The impact on AMD of NV's chipsets disappearing (say, in 3 months' time) would be minor compared to the impact of C2D.
AMD bought ATI for chipsets and GPUs. AMD wants to sell platforms, not just CPUs. Guess what, NV doesn't figure in those plans. Dell will be quite happy to buy an AMD platform, not just an AMD CPU - why wouldn't they if it's cheaper and simpler to design and build, with one less supplier of a major set of components?
Obviously that isn't how things are now (existing contracts will run), but in 3-6 months?...
http://avs.amd.com/Home-Page/Best-of-Breed-Platform-Provide.aspx
Oh look ATI chipsets. etc.
Jawed
The market has changed... The impact on AMD of NV's chipsets disappearing (say, in 3 months' time) would be minor compared to the impact of C2D.
AMD bought ATI for chipsets and GPUs. AMD wants to sell platforms, not just CPUs. Guess what, NV doesn't figure in those plans. Dell will be quite happy to buy an AMD platform, not just an AMD CPU - why wouldn't they if it's cheaper and simpler to design and build, with one less supplier of a major set of components?
Obviously that isn't how things are now (existing contracts will run), but in 3-6 months?...
http://avs.amd.com/Home-Page/Best-of-Breed-Platform-Provide.aspx
Oh look ATI chipsets. etc.
Jawed
Well-said. Nvidia would never concede to a takeover, they having nothing to gain and everything to lose.
I dont know where I stand on this. The funny thing is my hardware allegiances were Intel in CPU's and ATI in GPU's.
So what do I do with these merged companies LOL? Whose the good guy?
Nvidia is screwed either way. Either they get bought and appear to have lost, or dont get bought and the ATI/AMD combo has more size to give them a hard time.
I just wish these damn mergers would stop it's bad for the industry. Frankly I blame ATi for all of it, they're the ones who stopped wanting to compete anymore and forced the first merger.
________
DeepImpression
So what do I do with these merged companies LOL? Whose the good guy?
Nvidia is screwed either way. Either they get bought and appear to have lost, or dont get bought and the ATI/AMD combo has more size to give them a hard time.
I just wish these damn mergers would stop it's bad for the industry. Frankly I blame ATi for all of it, they're the ones who stopped wanting to compete anymore and forced the first merger.
________
DeepImpression
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd argue it's just the opposite. Nvidia is in a great position to run away with it. They are a small, nimble, proven team unencumbered by a huge company, and at least for the next year or two, will be able to make moves faster than ATI/AMD. AMD values their relationship with Nvidia, and of course Intel wants to play nice with Nvidia too, so they are uniquely situated to play both sides.
If some sort of AMD/ATI hypertransport-like non-PCIe thing gets drummed up for performance benefits, then *maybe* there will be a little problem. That's a long ways away though, CPUs will always be a few memory tech generations behind graphics, so it's unlikely they will converge anytime soon.
"They" ?
What about the 10 bilion reward for the shareholders ?
What about the future growth of Nvidia dominating the GPU *and* CPU market, becoming a major competitor to AMD and Intel? It's not so crazy, give it 5 years. Shareholders know their potential payoff is way bigger if they hold out and stay independant.
I just look at the reason companies merge in any field is to have more resources to bring to bear on the competition. This goes for a telecom company or a CPU company.
ATI/AMD is just bigger, more employees, more money, more fabs, more engineers, more economies of scale, for Nvidia or Intel to fight than ATI or AMD alone.
________
Blckpoizen
Last edited by a moderator:
C2D motherboards will be adopted well but this will come down to who has the faster graphic card and CPU's and with AMD not going to support Intel CPU's it will cut out Conroe, and this is what enthusiests want, so already AMD made a stand and gambled, in the short term they will loose a little there but thier hope and in all likelyhood they will suceed if everything goes as planned cut Intel sales for Conroe because Intel will not be able to supply enough chipsets for Conroe and this gives a buffer for AMD to get thier next gen out before Intel can recoup. Now if Intel cuts nV well if nV has a faster card this generation then that is a double blow to AMD. It is a gamble and speculation. If ATi has a faster card things will go the same way at least with enthusiests as they are now, because you will end up with an equalizing factor.
In all likelyhood Intel taking over nV won't happen (you can see the trust busters on this one) but if it does, Intel will do the same to AMD and cut nV chipsets to AMD which will have a larger impact then what AMD did.
OEM's won't be happy if they can't sell the fastest processor with the fastest graphics card solutions to consumers, because then consumers will go else where. If this buyout happens it will split the market down in the center, the bigger half goes to Intel/nV, which both have higher respective markeshare % then AMD/ATi.
Last edited by a moderator:
I tell you another thing and this is the scary part, I dont believe a combined ATI/AMD can stand against a combined Intel/Nvidia over the long term either. Intel is the real powerhouse, and ATI and especially AMD have always existed on relatively shaky ground.
In other words, there will be one company left in this entire industry eventually if this goes down, I will bet you.
________
WEB SHOWS
In other words, there will be one company left in this entire industry eventually if this goes down, I will bet you.
________
WEB SHOWS
Last edited by a moderator:
There's some truth to that, however more resources aren't really the end-all. Just merging isn't going to magically let ATI take advantage of AMDs engineers, plus both ATI and Nvidia have been hiring all the best graphics people they can get their hands on, a merger isn't going to make talent available at a faster rate. The talented AMD architects will be busy with CPUs, as they always have been. It's true there will eventually be a benefit from fab space, maybe some process engineers, and layout/power people, but that will take a long time, and gives Nvidia plenty of time to prepare. It's not going to be easy, no doubt, but # of people isn't everything.
Similar threads
