The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Razor1 said:
What does have manufacturing capabilities have to do with this?
Click to expand...

Industrial machines are real objects, you can´t just erase their value like you do with stock nor their internal costs. They cannot be sold. If they are indeed sold, won't be able produce X86. Unless there is a really radical change in the nature of contracts with Intel. Well, you can wait until 2009 or 2010, when patents from agreements with Intel expires. But I am not certain right now if NVIDIA will be safe on lower nodes.

I feel this discussion about NVDIA buying AMD doesn´t make much sense, unless AMD bankrupts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MTd2 said:
Industrial machines are real objects, you can´t just erase their value like you do with stock nor their internal costs. They cannot be sold. If they are indeed sold, won't be able produce X86. Unless there is a really radical change in the nature of contracts with Intel. Well, you can wait until 2009 or 2010, when patents from agreements with Intel expires. But I am not certain right now if NVIDIA will be safe on lower nodes.

I feel this discussion about NVDIA buying AMD doesn´t make much sense, unless AMD bankrupts.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone was disagreeing with that, don't know why you are bringing that up.....
 
Razor1 said:
I don't think anyone was disagreeing with that, don't know why you are bringing that up.....
Click to expand...

I don't know either. The others were quoting me... And I was answering, lol. In Portuguese there is an expression for that "Conversa de Bêbado" (Drunken Chat).
 
Intel is bankrupting! :

Next Stops On Intel Chip Roadmap: Havendale, Gainestown

Chatter about 2008-2009 Intel processors, particularly of the Nehalem variety, is getting louder--and some of it is emanating from Japan's PC Watch, which has posted a plethora of data on upcoming Intel chips. The Havendale silicon appears targeted at the mobile space--which makes sense since it integrates the GPU (graphics processing unit) into the CPU core, about which Intel has talked openly this year. Other highlights include high-end chips boasting 8 CPU cores with 24MB of cache (which Intel has also addressed) and integrated memory controllers galore. It should be mentioned up front that the accuracy of the data cannot be verified because Intel will not comment on future roadmaps and some of the discussions on PC Watch appear to be conjecture and/or extrapolation. No to mention the fact that roadmaps change.
Mainstream Dual-Core Havendale/Auburndale: mobile Nehalem-based Havendale/Auburndale. Integrated GPU core. Two CPU cores with a shared 4MB cache connected, via a Quick Path Interconnect (QPI), to a Graphics Memory Controller Hub (GMCH), then to the GPU packing a DDR3 memory controller. Also: Thermal Design Power (TDP) under 95 watts (W), PCI Express Gen2 x16.
Octo-Core Nehalem-EX (Beckton): 8 CPU cores, 16 threads, 24MB shared cache, 90/105/130W TDP, 4 QPI links, QPI link controller, integrated memory controller.
Extreme-Performance Bloomfield: 4 CPU cores, 8 threads, 8MB shared cache, 130W TDP, DDR3, QPI link.
Quad-Core DP (dual-processor) Nehalem-EP (Gainestown): 4 CPU cores, 8 threads, 8MB shared cache, 60/80/130W TDP, DDR3 800/1066/1333 (memory), QPI link, integrated memory controller.
Performance Mainstream Quad-Core Lynnfield/Clarkfield: 4 CPU cores, 8 threads, 8MB shared cache, 95W, DDR3, PCI Express Gen2, integrated memory controller.

http://www.x86watch.com/news/intel-havendale-172.html
 
MTd2 said:
Competetion is already brigging the prices down! WOW!

Products: Intel QX9770 and X5482 processors
Website: www.intel.com
Find at: your local Intel distributor
Price: around US$ 1,400 upward per piece

2-socket board: Supermicro X7DWA
1-socket board: Asus Maximus Extreme


http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/30/first-inqpressions-intel-45nm
Click to expand...


Dude...chill. You'll blow a fuse or something. We get your point...it's wrong, but we still get it. Happy now?Want a hug?
 
INKster said:
Can't imagine why... ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot has changed in the last yeah and 3 months. You got to give it to Orton: he knew what he was doing. Can you imagine how happy ATI shareholders would have been with a stock-based deal now that the combined company is worth what AMD payed for ATI? I remember people calling him an idiot: "The new company will dominate, and $5.4 billion worth of AMD stock will turn into tens of billions. Why is he asking for 'straight cash, homey'?" It seems that Orton knew all along what that ship would do (and "float" was not it).

As for AMD... with their incredibly capital intensive business model, they sure could have used that $4+ billion in cash PLUS over a billion more taken in post-merger acquisition related charges PLUS hundreds of millions former ATI divisions have lost over the last year.
 
Geeforcer said:
Yeah, a lot has changed in the last yeah and 3 months. You got to give it to Orton: he knew what he was doing. Can you imagine how happy ATI shareholders would have been with a stock-based deal now that the combined company is worth what AMD payed for ATI? I remember people calling him an idiot: "The new company will dominate, and $5.4 billion worth of AMD stock will turn into tens of billions. Why is he asking for 'straight cash, homey'?" It seems that Orton knew all along what that ship would do (and "float" was not it).

As for AMD... with their incredibly capital intensive business model, they sure could have used that $4+ billion in cash PLUS over a billion more taken in post-merger acquisition related charges PLUS hundreds of millions former ATI divisions have lost over the last year.
Click to expand...

That's what's been irking me the whole time...WTF could've been the reason for getting ATi, who was a relatively fat fish and was bound to strain their not necessarily extensive resources. I hear ppl bandying around the platform argument...yeah, mmkay, then get SiS or Via, and build-up from there. Blowing a your entire cash supply to get a top GPU maker in order to achieve platformization capability seems silly, not to mention that they've suddenly opened another rabid battlefield, with nV by doing this. I'm not sure it's a comfortable position to have both Intel and nV as competitors.
 
Except that neither SIS nor VIA have shown an ability in recent years to produce a stable, performant chipset with decent and competitive integrated graphics. All of which are required if one wishes to take on Intel in the OEM market.

The only options available at the time would have been Nvidia and ATI. Ignoring the fact that Nvidia would have been a far more expensive purchase, ATI chipsets were at least as stable as Nvidia chipsets (some would argue more stable) with overall much lower power consumption.

For what AMD was after, ATI really was the only option available. They would be in far worse shape had they picked up either VIA or SIS.

I have a feeling that had Barcelona and Phenom performed as well as AMD was expecting, that everyone would be singing their praises for aquiring ATI even if it was only for the mainboard chipset expertise.

And lets not forget. Out of all of AMD's divisions ATI is the closest to going back into profitability. If they excute well on that front it isn't that far fetched to think that ATI might end up keeping AMD afloat long enough for them to be competitive in the CPU business again.

Will that happen? Who knows. Rv670 is promising. But is a sign of things to come and is it a sign that AMD at the helm of ATI will be able to keep them competive in the midrange while challenging for the high end?

Or will AMD hunker down with ATI and attempt to dominate the more lucrative mid-range hoping that superior/low cost mid-range parts will be able to offset the loss of a "halo" effect of dominant High End parts and the free advertising that brings?

After all prior to R300, that is how ATI managed to survive. By targeting the OEM market with low cost (production cost) low to mid range parts. Nvidia was more perfomant but ATI's chips were far far cheaper for OEMs.

Regards,
SB
 
AMD bought ATI purely to compete with where it thinks Intel is heading. It looks very likely that within a few years, both Intel and AMD will be producing their own chipsets, graphics, and processors. AMD can't match the big resources Intel is putting into graphics and chipsets, so the logical choice was to buy someone who could give them a leg-up, and that someone was ATI.

Both Intel and AMD are reaching diminishing returns and are going to go multicore for CPU/GPU to give them something to do with all those cores in lieu of simply being able to make bigger monolithic chips at smaller and smaller processes. ATI was AMDs way of competing with Intel's plans five years down the line.
 
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
AMD bought ATI purely to compete with where it thinks Intel is heading. It looks very likely that within a few years, both Intel and AMD will be producing their own chipsets, graphics, and processors. AMD can't match the big resources Intel is putting into graphics and chipsets, so the logical choice was to buy someone who could give them a leg-up, and that someone was ATI.

Both Intel and AMD are reaching diminishing returns and are going to go multicore for CPU/GPU to give them something to do with all those cores in lieu of simply being able to make bigger monolithic chips at smaller and smaller processes. ATI was AMDs way of competing with Intel's plans five years down the line.
Click to expand...

From what I remember, AMD had an on die graphics chip in its roadmap well before the ATI acquisition, though that's all the information I recall seeing about it. Perhaps AMD set up the ground work for gpu integration before the ati purchase (something modular that they could fit in many different gpus relatively easily) and worried about what gpu would be integrated after the ati purchase. Perhaps if that didn't go through, AMD could have partnered with someone or would have been forced to design their own graphics chip.
 
Fox5 said:
From what I remember, AMD had an on die graphics chip in its roadmap well before the ATI acquisition, though that's all the information I recall seeing about it. Perhaps AMD set up the ground work for gpu integration before the ati purchase (something modular that they could fit in many different gpus relatively easily) and worried about what gpu would be integrated after the ati purchase. Perhaps if that didn't go through, AMD could have partnered with someone or would have been forced to design their own graphics chip.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that AMD were courting ATI for about a year before they announced, and they were apparently also seriously looking at Nvidia before that.
 
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
AMD bought ATI purely to compete with where it thinks Intel is heading. It looks very likely that within a few years, both Intel and AMD will be producing their own chipsets, graphics, and processors. AMD can't match the big resources Intel is putting into graphics and chipsets, so the logical choice was to buy someone who could give them a leg-up, and that someone was ATI.

Both Intel and AMD are reaching diminishing returns and are going to go multicore for CPU/GPU to give them something to do with all those cores in lieu of simply being able to make bigger monolithic chips at smaller and smaller processes. ATI was AMDs way of competing with Intel's plans five years down the line.
Click to expand...

Ironically enough, that merger may be the reason why AMD will not have any plans five years down the line.
 
AMD CEO: All Innovations Come From AMD, Not Intel

AMD's CEO Hector Ruiz was either misquoted or having a bout of megalomania when he said to UAE-based GulfNews.com: "If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." Hmmm...Must be true if Hector Ruiz said it. Sarcasm aside, Ruiz's comments may point to some of AMD's PR problems. RCA laboratories invented the liquid crystal display but unrelated companies mass-produced it. Let's say for the sake of argument that AMD's "native" design is the first real quad-core processor. (As AMD has claimed ad nauseam.) Fine, but then you have to make the thing. Intel has had quad-core product for over a year. AMD for a few months. Maybe. (No products to speak of yet from Sun, IBM, Dell, or Hewlett-Packard.) And AMD's native design is not proving to be necessarily superior to Intel's. On another front, AMD's CEO is not taking any responsibility for his company's stock price woes, according to the report. "CEO Hector Ruiz blamed the current stock price on a nervous market," GolfNews said. "But I think things will have to settle down. That may take one or two quarters to occur," Ruiz added. --Editors (12/01/07)

http://www.x86watch.com/news/amd-ruiz-innovations-175.html

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/12/01/10171434.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
Dedicated gaming GPUs bottom of the priority list?
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Seanspeed
S
F
RDNA5 Speculation
Replies
2
Views
1K
Erinyes
E
T
Re-litigating Radeon market performance *spawn
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
Dictator
D
D
Intel, AMD, Microsoft & Others Team Up For Develop The “UALink”, Direct Competitor To NVIDIA NVLink
Replies
3
Views
841
pcchen
P
xpea
Datacenter GPU market supply and demand (2024)
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Erinyes
E
Back
Top