What does AMD's acquisition of Ati mean for Microsoft?

[bbot]

This TheInquirer article suggests AMD will design microcore cpus with gpu functionality built in. So does that mean that Microsoft and also Nintendo won't have Ati to depend on for the design of future gpus for their future game consoles?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33219

 

[one]

So does that mean that Microsoft and also Nintendo won't have Ati to depend on for the design of future gpus for their future game consoles?

Why do you think so? I don't think NVIDIA will stop manufacturing nForce mobo for AMD CPUs.

 

[bbot]

Given the bad blood between Microsoft and Nvidia over the pricing of the XBox1 gpu, do you really think Microsoft will come begging Nvidia to design future game console gpus?

 

[Skrying]

What does it matter? Could actually be good for MS and Nintendo if they want to go with AMD/ATi in the future, they could get a cheap all around package.

Also, I believe that is one of the best written articles on the Inq ever. But, is that really saying much? lol

 

[Titanio]

It's an interesting analysis.

I do wonder what happens in 5 or 6 years if you go to AMD and ask them to collaborate with you on a CPU from someone else (e.g. IBM), in terms of integrating some graphics acceleration or providing software/IP or whatever for your one-big-monster-cpu/gpu combo. I've a feeling the answer would be no, followed by an invitation to look at their own solutions. It could really limit the options of some, since you don't have the same flexbility as before. A one cpu/gpu-future means you may have to buy it all together from one place, which may not suit.

I guess it's good for Sony that they aligned with nVidia though. Although who knows, maybe nVidia could be bought up in the interim too.

 

[Guden Oden]

I don't think this will have any impact at all on either current (or near-so), nor on future consoles either. As if ATi will say no to more money by designing GPUs for console manufacturers just because they get bought up by AMD...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I presume this is more a deal of convenience and extra income. Intel's integrated grahics are doing pretty well - AMD want one of their own. Partner up with an effective GPU maker, who can still manage the graphics side proiftably, and develop some combined development for CPU+GPU combos, especially for the likes of portables, and it's good to go all round. Other offers to work with ATi would probably come on a per-basis consideration. If IBM wanted to work with ATi for integrated CPU+GPU, they might come unstuck, but it'll likely be business as usual elsewhere.

And I do see parallels with the nVidia+Sony talk of wanting to work closely together. Are we approaching the age of integrate processors rather than discrete processors (the opposite of PCs with CPU, GPU, PPU and audio)? A future of devices that all one big pool of RAM and one processor that can turn it's hand to graphics, computing, and everything else, would make for a simple system for devs. I can see it's appeal.

 

[Titanio]

I think it depends on how things develop. For further-future consoles - I don't want to put a timeframe on it.. - if we're at a point where CPUs and GPUs have merged and a discrete GPU no longer has a role, then asking AMD to co-operate with another partner on your own merged CPU/GPU solution would be akin to asking AMD now to help Intel make a CPU for you.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Have ATi lost all autonomy? Though owned by AMD, I presume they're a seperate entity that companies can approach. There might be caveats about jobs they can't do, but in something like a CPU+GPU hybrid with Intel for XB9999, if the processor is limited to only that application and Intel can't use the ATi tech elsewhere, I can't see a reason to say no. AMD would pitch their own CPU+GPU system, and if that gets turned down, wouldn't rather get half the money providing the GPU solution than no money and let nVidia or someone get that half of the contract instead?

 

[Titanio]

But under this scenario, part of bringing ATi on board would be in order to compete in the future when you have one processor in the system. AMD would want that processor to be theirs, not Intel's or IBM's or whatever.

 

[inefficient]

On the very real possibility that AMD would not allow ATI to be coupled with a IBM Power CPU again in a console. This brings to mind a very relevant quote CEO of Xerox Anne Mulcahy made last week.

"The big companies and the big brands [don't] necessarily have the assumed power they thought they had. Besides, the real power isn't in scale; it's in alignment. And that's really hard for big companies to achieve."

ATI is giving up a big advantage in the market place by becoming less flexible. By joining with AMD they are going to find it harder to align their goals with other major players - like MS for instance. Simply because their goal shifts from 1) Selling the most competitive products in their sector, to 2) Being as competitive as possible without confilicting with AMD's goals.


Of course, if the outcome is that AMD is able to sell MS or Nintendo a CPU & GPU for the next next-gen, then maybe it could be seen as a win. But I think Mulcahy's point still stands.

 

[Titanio]

They're making some relevant comments on this right now in the conference call - longer term they see mixing of different processing elements into one processor, targetted at specific application domains (not necessarily general mixing those into one processor to fit all applications). They used the analogy of FPUs being seperate at one point, before becoming an expected part of the CPU.

Game consoles may be one such application domain. Although if GPUs remain discrete, then there would remain the opportunity for a consumer to mix and match with other companys' technology, presumably. But would that be the desireable or most competitive route to take in time?

 

[Platon]

But under this scenario, part of bringing ATi on board would be in order to compete in the future when you have one processor in the system. AMD would want that processor to be theirs, not Intel's or IBM's or whatever.

No doubt they would want an AMD CPU to go with that ATi GPU in future consoles, but if that means that they will loose a deal supplying millions of consoles with a GPU in case they deny Nintendo, MS, Sony? a GPU only deal, I think they would hardly reject a bussines proposal that will use only the GPU, in the end they want to make money...

 

[Titanio]

Like I said above, where the business involves taking a discrete GPU, I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem.

But if the customer was requiring them to collaborate with another on something more tightly coupled - ultimately, say, a single all-in-one processor - I don't know if AMD would so happily facilitate..more particularly if they have existing solutions, I guess, or existing experience along those lines. And certainly if by that time it was the case that CPUs had generally assumed the responsibilities of GPUs, in most or all markets.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If their own all-in-one has been turned down, and the integrated project would be for a fixed device and not to be used elsewhere (that is, Intel couldn't then market a CPU+GPU hybrid using ATi's work from XB9999), why wouldn't they do it?

 

[Titanio]

If their own all-in-one has been turned down, and the integrated project would be for a fixed device and not to be used elsewhere (that is, Intel couldn't then market a CPU+GPU hybrid using ATi's work from XB9999), why wouldn't they do it?

In a future where CPUs generally were GPUs also - across all markets - that would be akin to asking why Intel wouldn't help IBM make Xenon after their own solution was turned down. You'd be talking about a scenario where 'CPU' and 'GPU' no longer existed discretely, at least in most cases, and where AMD was simply making 'processors'. I'm talking about a very tight level of integration that penetrates across their markets. It'd be like asking Intel if they'd put their FPUs into a CPU from AMD or whatever..it just wouldn't be on.

I'm not sure when we'll get to that point. In the mean time if AMD is making platforms with distinct components that are reasonably tightly coupled but not wholly one chip, and/or continue to make seperate dedicated GPUs, then there remains flexibility.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Let's suppose that MS just really, really likes what IBM can do for them in the CPU space and considers the big graphics players to be more or less equal in terms of what they can put out. What do you think AMD would rather do:

1. Sell graphics chips to MS for their next IBM-powered console.

2. Sit by and watch nVidia sell graphics chips to MS for their next IBM-powered console.

"Buy the whole package with extras you don't want or don't buy anything" isn't a good strategy when you have competitor with lots of vitality.

 

[London Geezer]

It's clear that "the whole package" MS would buy would not be a completely off-the shelf package, but something that woudl be built for MS with MS's needs in mind, much like happened with X360 or all other consoles.

 

[Powderkeg]

It's an interesting analysis.

I do wonder what happens in 5 or 6 years if you go to AMD and ask them to collaborate with you on a CPU from someone else (e.g. IBM), in terms of integrating some graphics acceleration or providing software/IP or whatever for your one-big-monster-cpu/gpu combo. I've a feeling the answer would be no, followed by an invitation to look at their own solutions.

I have an extremely hard time picturing AMD/ATI turning down a job that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars just because their potential customer only wants a GPU and not a CPU/GPU combo.

I rather suspect things will be business as usual there. The purchase of ATI will give AMD the ability to develop more integrated solutions, allowing them greater access to the OEM market, but I doubt their retail products or non-PC related operations will change at all.

 

[Titanio]

Let's suppose that MS just really, really likes what IBM can do for them in the CPU space and considers the big graphics players to be more or less equal in terms of what they can put out. What do you think AMD would rather do:

1. Sell graphics chips to MS for their next IBM-powered console.

2. Sit by and watch nVidia sell graphics chips to MS for their next IBM-powered console.

"Buy the whole package with extras you don't want or don't buy anything" isn't a good strategy when you have competitor with lots of vitality.

No, in that scenario AMD would certainly sell a discrete chip to MS (if it was still making such chips). But that's a slightly different scenario than I was considering..

I have an extremely hard time picturing AMD/ATI turning down a job that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars just because their potential customer only wants a GPU and not a CPU/GPU combo.

Again, different scenario. If you just want a GPU, and they're still making them, sure, they'd do that. But I was addressing a different requirement in a different context.