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

[deathkiller]

I wonder if AMD would be able to create a CPU powerful enought to emulate the Xenon cores without direct hardware compability. You can't count with great frecuency increments now.

 

[crystalcube]

AMD is not like Sony when it comes to pushing their own tech.

wouldn't that be matter of time now ? To push your own technology you have to be in a certain position.

 

[Platon]

I wonder if AMD would be able to create a CPU powerful enought to emulate the Xenon cores without direct hardware compability. You can't count with great frecuency increments now.

Doesn't MS own the IP for Xenon? If so I don't think there will be problems with using certain hardware aspects of it if needed to make future CPUs compatible...

 

[Powderkeg]

Since no one has posted this yet...


http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ati_merger/

The whole company, well the new company wants to give as much choice to its customers as possible, so if you want an Intel CPU with an ATI GPU then great, we’ll be happy with that. If you want an AMD CPU with an NVIDIA GPU then we’ll be very happy with that as well. Basically we want them all to compete equally and make sure that we give the best product to our customers. So really the onus is on Intel to show that they want to provide choice to their customers as well. If they want to allow a choice, then we’ll certainly continue to serve that market.
FiringSquad: Does ATI plan to continue to provide CrossFire support for use in Intel’s own chipsets?

Chris Evenden: Yes, we plan to continue that absolutely

Sounds like AMD/ATI will be happy to sell whatever they can to whomever they can.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I don't think there was ever a compatibility issue between GPUs and CPUs was there?

I mean, sure.. some benchmarks show some very small variances that could be called 'favoritism' for nVidia paired with PIVs (or whatever), but I'm pretty sure I can put either an nVidia GPU or an ATI GPU in my PIV machine.

The issue here is the mobo chipset. And I think it's already been confirmed that Intel pulled ATI's license to develop their chipsets.

Which means if you want an Intel CPU, you can buy a machine with either a nVidia chipset, or an Intel chipset, or a VIA or an SIS.. but not an ATI.

Now, you can still plug your ATI GPU into that system if you want.

I'm sure you knew all this already, Powder.. which is why I'm confused as to your message?

EDIT: Oh, were you referring to the part that ATI will try to attempt to get Crossfire to work with Intel chipsets so it's up to them to 'allow' ATI to do so?

I don't see that as remotely important. Why would Intel care which GPU consumers put in their computers? I would imagine that regardless of 'compatibility' most consumers would believe that Crossfire would work better with ATI chipsets, just as SLI would work better with nVidia chipsets.

 

[ElStupido]

They might release a console of their own? If say MS/Sony is leaving the buisness after this gen, they might release a console themselves or pair up with someone like Samsung or Panasonic or some other consumer electronics corp in a consortium to release a console

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

They might release a console of their own? If say MS/Sony is leaving the buisness after this gen, they might release a console themselves or pair up with someone like Samsung or Panasonic or some other consumer electronics corp in a consortium to release a console

I think it's far more likely that we'll see Sony competing with AMD/ATI in the chip sector than we will see AMD/ATI competing with Sony in the console sector.

Hmm.. What would a Sony/nVidia partnership do to the landscape?

 

[Powderkeg]

I'm sure you knew all this already, Powder.. which is why I'm confused as to your message?

I don't know what you would find confusing about my message, unless you were determined to try to read something into it that I did not say nor even imply.

My message said 2 things.

#1. Here is an interview about the merger which hasn't been posted.

#2. Sounds like AMD/ATI will sell anything to anyone. (ie. They aren't going to try to limit their technologies to their own products exclusively.)

That's it. Nothing more was said nor implied. So what's so confusing about that?

 

[Rolf N]

Well, there goes ATi mobos from Intel. :smile:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07/24/intel_pulls_ati_chipset_license/

How can they revoke such a license? What kind of contract is it that would allow such an action?

 

[Bobbler]

How can they revoke such a license? What kind of contract is it that would allow such an action?

I think the "revocation" part is a bit overstated for dramatic effect. Something tells me it's more of a "we're not renewing your license" situation rather than Intel actually pulling their license right now. Just a guess.

 

[Powderkeg]

Well, there goes ATi mobos from Intel. :smile:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07/24/intel_pulls_ati_chipset_license/

I wonder if AMD/ATI will do the same to Nvidia. No more AMD chipsets for Nvidia.

 

[Titanio]

I wonder if AMD/ATI will do the same to Nvidia. No more AMD chipsets for Nvidia.

AMD have fallen over themselves thusfar to say that this will not happen. They've even gone as far to say that they'll set up an information firewall between the ATi division and the rest of the company so that ATi does not benefit in terms of information and specs for chipsets any more than any of their external partners, to promote fair competition (that was a bit WTF to me, but that's what they're saying right now).

Of course, things could change going forward, but it remains in AMD's interest to keep nVidia as a chipset partner for now at least (nVidia supply to 85% of AMD's customers).

 

[Powderkeg]

AMD have fallen over themselves thusfar to say that this will not happen. They've even gone as far to say that they'll set up an information firewall between the ATi division and the rest of the company so that ATi does not benefit in terms of information and specs for chipsets any more than any of their external partners, to promote fair competition (that was a bit WTF to me, but that's what they're saying right now).

That seems to contridict what Jon Carvill says in that interview I posted earlier.

So we’re not really saying too much at this time on what’s going to happen with that integration because the deal still has to close within the next 90 days so there’s not too much we can disclose right now. But really what we can say about those two gentleman is that they’re going to be looking at making that integration go as smooth as possible across all the teams on all levels. So we’ll disclose more information on that as we move forward, but we really can’t go into much more detail than that right now.

 

[Bobbler]

I wonder if AMD/ATI will do the same to Nvidia. No more AMD chipsets for Nvidia.

I wouldn't count on it. Not only have they publically stated they wouldn't be assholes, they aren't nearly big enough to start being assholes. Intel's situation is vastly different, seeing as they are big enough to be assholes and nobody can do anything about it -- when you pretty much control a market you can do whatever you please, more or less...

Once AMD gets like 40%+ of the market, then I imagine they can start being an asshole if they wanted without many repercussions, otherwise they are just shooting themselves in the foot half way through a marathon. Nvidia is more of an ally than an enemy, even still, if you ask me -- they may fight ATI, but AMD's biggest concern is likely still trying to gain marketshare in the CPU world, and having variety and support in their chipsets only helps that. Closing down their chipset/bus/etc and disallowing Nvidia to produce chipsets would likely only hinder them in the short term. Maybe in 5 or so years if AMD actually has a competent chipset out that is considered the standard (now days Nvidia chipsets are more or less standard for AMD CPUs). Also, if AMD is still buddy buddy with Nvidia, all of a sudden you have one side that has both ATI and Nvidia giving a lot of support and the other side only having themselves and token support, if that -- it looks good from a marketing point of view.

Who knows though...

 

[Titanio]

That seems to contridict what Jon Carvill says in that interview I posted earlier.

It was puzzling to me, but that's what Patrick Moorehead of AMD said. I guess not all integration will necessarily be equal (and/or they'll be so open with regard to certain things like chipsets that they don't need to do anything beyond that to help their own divisions make the best possible product). Here's some quotes of relevance to the point:

But he made it clear that this would not be the only way that AMD delivered processors or graphics, and that the company would continue to make its interface specifications available to companies like nVidia, ServerWorks, VIA Technologies, and Silicon Integrated Systems, which all make chipsets that support AMD's Athlon or Opteron processors and which are now AMD's competitors thanks to the ATI acquisition.

To prove that AMD is serious, Moorehead says that the company will put an informational firewall around ATI such that it does not get preferential treatment from AMD corporate with regards to specifications and information. AMD knows that it cannot afford to alienate the chipset and graphics card suppliers that have helped make the Athlon and Opteron a viable alternative to Intel's Pentium and Xeon processors. "We know who brought us to the dance," he says.

Whatever AMD is going to do, it is not going to alienate nVidia, ServerWorks, SiS, or VIA. "We are not going to put up blockades or massive royalties," said Moorehead. "That would be dumb."

http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb072506-story05.html

Like I say, though, I do wonder. Longer term who knows what'll happen either as the landscape might change. But right now that's how things are.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I think the "revocation" part is a bit overstated for dramatic effect. Something tells me it's more of a "we're not renewing your license" situation rather than Intel actually pulling their license right now. Just a guess.

It was my understanding that the license isn't transferable and AMD isnt permitted to use ATI's license. So if ATI becomes AMD, then the license gets revoked.

PK: Who does AMD/ATI 'support'? Intel chooses to allow ATI to build chipsets for their processors or not, and it appears they are choosing to not allow it. Are you saying AMD/ATI will still allow nVidia to develop chipsets for the AMD platforms?

I'd imagine they'd have to. Aren't they the best? Haven't their nForce chipsets ruled the AMD landscape forever?

It's a bit different when you talk about Intel allowing AMD/ATI to develop chipsets. Essentially it goes back to the fact that ATI is a new comer in the chipset market, while nVidia and Intel aren't.

 

[Bobbler]

It was my understanding that the license isn't transferable and AMD isnt permitted to use ATI's license. So if ATI becomes AMD, then the license gets revoked.

Well, that'd do it. Makes sense contractually too. So it isn't even necessarily Intel actively revoking anything, it's just part of the deal that would happen with any company in the same situation -- so it's not necessarily big bad Intel being a jerk. Whether Intel will allow ATI to get another license is another story though (which would be up to Intel in that case).

 

[Arty]

wouldn't that be matter of time now ? To push your own technology you have to be in a certain position.

I doubt even after reaching a certain position, they'll be able to command that.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Well, that'd do it. Makes sense contractually too. So it isn't even necessarily Intel actively revoking anything, it's just part of the deal that would happen with any company in the same situation -- so it's not necessarily big bad Intel being a jerk. Whether Intel will allow ATI to get another license is another story though (which would be up to Intel in that case).

Ehhh... Well, my interpretation is that the contract language is fairly standard in terms of AMD not being able to assume the license from ATI, however AMD is showing signs they want to manuever in such a way not to violate the terms of the license (as noted in the confusion above with statements on one hand claiming integration and statements on the other hand claiming 'walls' of separation). Futhermore, big bad Intel is being a jerk because they are examining the contract language to make sure that an acquisition by AMD of ATI would put them in violation and revoke the license.

So essentially, AMD is trying to prove they aren't violating the terms of ATI's agreement and Intel is trying to prove that they are.

That's my latest understanding of the situation. Obviously, however, I haven't read the licensing agreement, so I can only go by statements from Intel/AMD and analysts intrepretations.

 

[Colourless]

I think You'll find that Intel doesn't need to look at the contract. They already know what can and can't be done. In the past Intel have gotten quite upset with transferring of Licenses due to corperate acquistitions.