The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tell my how could NVIDIA possibly have the money to buy AMD?
Ever heard of stock-based purchases? For an acquisition of that size, though, it would require some seriously good justification - and I can't see much of that here.
Besides, the near future of NVIDIA is not good. They are having problems with 65nm, like AMD, and they are already suffering delays in their production.
Neither NVIDIA nor ATI had 65nm/55nm production troubles. Do you even have any idea what you are talking about?
 
Ever heard of stock-based purchases? For an acquisition of that size, though, it would require some seriously good justification - and I can't see much of that here.

Interesting intellectual question --when are you worse screwed at the platform level? When you can't use anything but an AMD processor, or when you can't use anything but an Intel graphics engine? :p
 
actually I think they are worth over 12 billion now if I remember correctly, if not more, might be closer to 13-14 billion....

Current Nvidia market cap (i know, i know...) -> 17.11 B
Current AMD market cap -> 5.63 B


*In theory*, Nvidia could buy AMD largely with its own stock, but there are, as you know, a lot of obstacles after that.

The competition watchdogs all over the world would want to look closely at it first, delaying everything and creating investor uncertainties -dragging the stock value below desired levels which in turn would be bad news for the stock swap deal in the first place, making it instantly more expensive when effectively done-.

Then there would be a lot of trouble integrating engineering teams and projects (many of them working on very similar, but ultimately competing -and incompatible- products), patents would need to be sorted out, there would most likely be another wave of lay-offs (potentially hurting the new company remaining employee's morale), right when Intel is about to enter the fray of the "actual" real-time 3D graphics rendering market with Larrabee or something else.
Certainly not the best timing they could ask for...


Yet, i'm thinking more in the sense of if they wouldn't be interested in taking a minority stake in AMD, like that investment firm from Dubai's government did a few days ago.
That would guarantee first-look access to future CPU and HTT samples and patents, influence to a certain degree its board of directors and perhaps even enable broad joint project development in order to reduce R&D costs.


Even Intel teamed with IBM on Geneseo, and Sony teamed with Toshiba on Cell, despite their other aggressively competing business units.
Why couldn't Nvidia and AMD do the same now ? Just because the later bought a competitor of the former ?
That would be an emotional response, and the market does not condescend with such attitude when investors are loosing money...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neither NVIDIA nor ATI had 65nm/55nm production troubles.

Not for the 55nm process hired by ATI. But there is a generlized for the 65nm process, for both Phenon/8800. It is just that NVIDIA hype machine is at full force because their glorious year.

Check this out:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/hardware.ars/2007/11/27/nvidia-may-delay-new-geforce-8800gts

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=642018&page=27

http://www.aria.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=29857

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1866/nvidia-8800gt-crysis/

http://www.google.com/search?num=10...&ct=result&cd=1&q=8800GT+availability&spell=1

NVIDIA is unfortunantely treated almost as a joke with their new line. Maybe it's just a psychological consequence of high demand. But I've seen somewhere, I can't remember, that the production output is really low.

As for the data provided in the link, I consider the market value has a lot of inflated or deflated values. So, I think, when buying a company that has most of its value based on industrial value, real objects, you should consider something more real than market value.

Besides, NVIDIA profits are too low to buy AMD. They would barely be profitable. In case that their production is indeed subpar, they won't have the necessary conditions to this.

PS.: Just as Geo said above, Intel is already making their systems a bit uncompatible with Nvidia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not for the 55nm process hired by ATI. But there is a generlized for the 65nm process, for both Phenon/8800. It is just that NVIDIA hype machine is at full force because their glorious year.

Check this out:

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=642018&page=27

http://www.aria.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=29857

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1866/nvidia-8800gt-crysis/

http://www.google.com/search?num=10...&ct=result&cd=1&q=8800GT+availability&spell=1

NVIDIA is unfortunantely treated almost as a joke with their new line. Maybe it's just a psychological consequence of high demand. But I've seen somewhere, I can't remember, that the production output is really low.

As for the data provided in the link, I consider the market value has a lot of inflated or deflated values. So, I think, when buying a company that has most of its value based on industrial value, real objects, you should consider something more real than market value.

Besides, NVIDIA profits are too low to buy AMD. They would barely be profitable. In case that their production is indeed subpar, they won't have the necessary conditions to this.

PS.: Just as Geo said above, Intel is already making their systems a bit uncompatible with Nvidia.


I think you are way off in a number of things.

Fact one: Nvidia is making a profit. Going at a 1B US$ a quarter now, from a steady rise since 2004.
When was the last time that AMD did that too ? ;)
Besides, as i said, they could buy them with a part cash (which could be loaned in full or with a combination of their "war chest" and some 3rd party equity fund), part stock deal.
AMD did that to go after ATI, despite the fact that their stock was not that good already by that time (and now it's even worse, having lost more than 50% of their nominal value in just 12 months).


Fact two, i haven't seen a single shred of evidence that Intel is deliberately hurting Nvidia. Not one.

In fact, if anything, the mere expansion of the Nvidia chipset product line on the Intel front to include IGP's (DX9 -MCP73- and soon DX10 too -MCP79-), mobile (i945PM/i965PM actually have a licensed Nvidia SLI mode, how else do you think there would be those 17 inch "monster" laptops from Alienware, Rock and Clevo with two 7900's or two 8800M GTX'es ?), DDR2 discrete (650/680/780), DDR3 (790), official SLI support in Intel's flagship platform "Skulltrail", etc, is the clear signal they intend to fight hard for a place in that market.
All this after they started from nothing with a relatively weak nForce 4 Intel Edition less than 3 years ago...
You can't do that without Intel's blessing for long (look at VIA now, struggling in the low-end chipset market, with all the trouble Intel has in fact caused to them -through sheer competition and also through strong legal action-).


Noticed how, after the launch of the 790i SLI, they'll be the only ones competing in the DDR3 market head-on with Intel ?
That's a halo product right there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fact one: Nvidia is making a profit. Going at a 1B US$ a quarter now, from a steady rise since 2004.

I didnt say they were not making a profit. I said they wouldnt be able to pay for AMD with so low profits. And it wasnt 1$ billion of profit, but revenue. Their gross profit was 500mil and the net income about 250mil. I dont think it is a nice idea to buy AMD.

Not hurting?

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7070.html

among others
 
I didnt say they were not making a profit. I said they wouldnt be able to pay for AMD with so low profits. And it wasnt 1$ billion of profit, but revenue. Their gross profit was 500mil and the net income about 250mil. I dont think it is a nice idea to buy AMD.

Not hurting?

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7070.html

among others

what are you talking about AMD purchased ATI when they were in the hole :rolleyes:.

I don't think nV will do it nor will they even think its a good idea to buy AMD, but they can if they really want to, if its allowed.

They could buy AMD just by cutting thier stock by 1/3 but then they have to take a 6 billion dollar debt, which they can put cash down to cut that down to 4 billion, hmm they could even give some stock up to cover the rest of AMD's debt of they really wanted it, nV is in a position they can aquire AMD at no problem at all. Is it viable, I don't think so, but stop kidding yourself.

BTW Intel owns a nice share of nV stock, so hurting nV on purpose is hurting themselves directly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2 different situations. You cant compare clearly ATI acquisition with this proposed scenerio.

As for what you said afterword, it is a corollary to my observations.

Hurting themselves a little is nice.
 
PS.: Just as Geo said above, Intel is already making their systems a bit uncompatible with Nvidia.
I didn't see where Geo said this though maybe it was on a previous page. I don't know if Intel is deliberately making thing incompatible with Nvidia, but Nvidia is definitely making SLI incompatible with Intel chipsets.
 
2 different situations. You cant compare clearly ATI acquisition with this proposed scenerio.

As for what you said afterword, it is a corollary to my observations.

Hurting themselves a little is nice.

Its the same type of scenario, you think ATi would be alive right now if AMD didn't take them over, they might be but pretty much would be in a similiar situation that AMD is right now.

Look at it this way, SLi is an nV only thing, nV has how much % of multiple GPU systems? They hurt nV's sales, then what happens to those buyers, well they either go to crossfire or they get AMD based systems. Either of these, hurt Intel directly and help their main competition, Intel doesn't want to do that, doing that gives AMD leverage you think Intel exec's are stupid enough with the court case and the position AMD is at right now, to stop pushing and stop eating away at AMD and hurt a company that really doesn't have much to do with AMD at this point?
 
I didnt say they were not making a profit. I said they wouldnt be able to pay for AMD with so low profits. And it wasnt 1$ billion of profit, but revenue. Their gross profit was 500mil and the net income about 250mil. I dont think it is a nice idea to buy AMD.

Not hurting?

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7070.html

among others


Ok, a report about a bug because of info not changing hands, bugs being fixed, things are on track and this is bad news how? Also AMD 6B in the hole, Nvidia with 1.85B on hand cash. Market caps also has Nvidia more than double AMD current. Just curious, but are you here as the other guys counter to AMDs doom and gloom?
 
Ok, a report about a bug because of info not changing hands, bugs being fixed, things are on track and this is bad news how? Also AMD 6B in the hole, Nvidia with 1.85B on hand cash. Market caps also has Nvidia more than double AMD current. Just curious, but are you here as the other guys counter to AMDs doom and gloom?

On the contrary. I am stating with all of this, that AMD can't be saved. As for the bug, I save myself the doubt of paranoia. After all, I am really burying AMD.
 
One more thing. One crucial difference between AMD and ATI/NVIDIA it is that AMD actually has 2 industrial complexes, the others, nothing like this.
 
I don't think Intel feels the same as you, they won't give AMD a dime no matter what the situation is at this point.

What does have manufacturing capabilities have to do with this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top