What will the AMD- ATI aquisition mean for future chipsets??

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by oddfellow, Jul 24, 2006.

  1. oddfellow

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South West England
    So, now that AMD owns ATI and all its IP, will we see AMD only using it's own chipsets (ATI) in the future??

    I mean, SIS and VIA don't pose much of a threat, and Uli are now nVidia owned, but if AMD were to grant nVidia future chipset lisences, it would potentially damage profits.

    Sure, more AM2 chipsets out there would help CPU sales, but it would directly hinder ATI's chipset and graphics card sales (think crossfire suport).

    Are we gonna see an "AMD + ATI" and "Intel + nVidia (and Intel)" situation on the motherboard front soon???
     
  2. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,183
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    Location:
    Finland
    Intel has always been "Intel+Intel ... .... ... .... .... .. .... (and possibly 3rd party)"
    And I'm sure AMD, even though probably majority of OEM's will start using AMD+ATI combos sooner or later, will continue to have stronger 3rd party chipset presence than Intel has.
     
  3. MistaPi

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Norway
    Could all this mean no Crossfire support if you want a Intel CPU and no SLi support if you want a AMD CPU?
     
  4. pascal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    Brasil
    Another question is what that means for future support of current products? I mean drivers and bios updates.

    Athlon-nforce
    Pentium-Xpress
     
  5. ANova

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    10
    Either way this is going to hurt nvidia's chipset department hard.
     
  6. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    218
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Well, from what I read of a Reuters article, nVidia might not mind so much:
    http://www.investor.reuters.com/Art...ING_comment_&_analysis&target=companyoftheday
    Thus, it might not necessarily be a bad thing for nVidia to de-emphasize the chipset market, or, alternatively, for them to emphasize the better margins of the high-end chipset market. I mean, losing their chipset market (if it does happen) would be more dangerous for them, but it might not be bad for their bottom line. After all, I fully expect their marketshare for retail GPU's to increase significantly after this merger, which, given the higher profitability of that market, might be a good tradeoff for losing some chipset marketshare.
     
  7. Slides

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    2
    Simon F and Moloch like this.
  8. lopri

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    1
    :?:
    NV was able to gain marketshare due to their platformization strategy. And they just lost it. Unless Intel let SLI chipset storm their motherboard market (which is very unlikely - look at the launch of Conroe. P965 boards are already available while SLI/Crossfire boards expected to be available 2 months later), NV will struggle. In other words,

    Before the merger:
    Intel CPU - Intel Chipset w/ slight advantage for ATI (CrossFire) - but basically free-for-all GPU market
    AMD CPU - Dominating NV Chipset w/ tiny ATI share - Hugely-favorable-for-NV GPU market

    After the merger:
    Intel CPU - Intel Chipset w/ tiny NV share (SLI) - probably free-for-all GPU market due to Intel not allowing NV to get big
    AMD CPU - AMD/ATI chipset and NV chipset - NV losing its advantage thus free-for-all GPU market

    That's how I see it. For mid-term future, if ATI gains any access to better manufacturing thus produces better products, that's another threat to NV. And I think it's a matter of time before Intel jumps in the discreet graphics market. What I'm saying is not that NV is a sitting duck, but the influence of platform (chipset) on GPU sales. I believe (and hope) NV will overcome any short-term difficulties and eventually stand up on its own.
     
  9. _xxx_

    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,008
    Likes Received:
    86
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Why couldn't nV build good AMD chipsets in the future? I don't think that AMD will hinder them in doing so, what's that got to do with the merger? :???:
     
  10. INKster

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Io, lava pit number 12
    The problem is not marketshare.
    It's profit margins.

    As ATI and Intel demonstrated, having a large marketshare is meaningless when it earns them a tiny profit for each integrated GPU sold.

    On the contrary, the high-end, where Nvidia (and ATI) compete is where the big bucks are, per unit sold.


    Also, consider that intel's latest roadmap basically has no follow-up to the i975X on the high-end (at least for the next 12 months), that ATI's RD600 won't be around much longer after initial introduction, that the Intel market is 4 times larger than AMD's, and what do you get ?

    Nvidia's NF570 SLI and NF590 SLI, sitting confortably alone at the high-end (of both AM2/AM3 and LGA775), enjoying the profits and the reduced/weakened competition.
    That's probably why AM2's NF550 probably won't even be crossing over to Intel camp anytime soon.
    Why bother with lower margin products, right ?


    Now imagine the fat profits of sitting alone in the throne of the high-end/enthusiast GPU market aswell.

    Sure, relatively low marketshare (compared to Intel like before, or also AMD from now on)... but having huge profits/lower development and marketing costs.
    That's all that matters in any company's bottom line.


    In the end, just like i said a few days ago, the GPU's will end up climbing the price "ladder" due to less competition (the 1000 dollar barrier, that Jen-Hsung was talking earlier this year, when refering that a top GPU tipically sells for half the amount of a top CPU -i.e., 7950 GX2 at about 500~550 US$, while a X6800/FX-62 sells for 1000+ US$).
    Only consumers will loose (if not on a technical level, at least expenditures-wise)
    That's the really sad and inevitable truth, IMHO.
     
    #10 INKster, Jul 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2006
  11. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    218
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I don't buy that. They were able to gain back marketshare they lost to ATI during the GeForce FX era because they put out a superior product with the NV40 (and derivatives), and were able to continue to erode that marketshare through the superior execution of the G7x product line.

    The platform may have added some amount of brand recognition that helped nVidia here, but it wouldn't have been a major factor. Just a contributing one.
     
  12. Fodder

    Fodder Stealth Nerd
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,112
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Sunny Melbourne
    Yet sales of bleeding edge parts are also miniscule compared to the rest of the lineup. Would it be wrong to assume that somewhere down in the performance midrange there's a sweet spot between volume and margins?
     
  13. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    218
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    From what I understand, the greatest amount of money comes from the lower range with OEM deals.
     
  14. _xxx_

    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,008
    Likes Received:
    86
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Midrange and low-midrange are the money makers. (EDIT: not per unit, that'd rather go for the high-end stuff)

    As for nV ruling the market alone, nope. I think we'll see at least one new (or returning) player in the high-end gfx in the next years. Just a logical consequence of the happenings and the way the market works.
     
    #14 _xxx_, Jul 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2006
  15. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    218
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Well, we'll see. That may happen, if nVidia slacks off, which there is some chance of, I suppose, but I see ATI continuing to put at least some amount of pressure on nVidia to stay on the ball.

    I imagine that you're talking about IMG Tech here, and they haven't shown any desire to enter the high-end GPU market since the first days of 3D graphics acceleration.
     
  16. Mark

    Mark aka Ratchet
    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Why would AMD+ATI exit the high-end market and just hand it to NVIDIA?
     
  17. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    218
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Because:
    1. The high-end market requires a very strong ability to react to the market quickly, to execute in a timely manner, and to provide leading-edge technology. The merger is going to make all of these things harder.
    2. I don't see AMD caring as much about the high-end 3D market as ATI did when they were alone.
     
  18. Mark

    Mark aka Ratchet
    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    That's looking at AMD like it's still a CPU company. It's not. The "new" AMD offers a complete platform: CPU, graphics, chipset. Why would they dilute an advatage like that (one neither NVIDIA or Intel has) by dumbing down one of the key components?
     
  19. Mark

    Mark aka Ratchet
    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    And ATI still exists as a division afterall. Their focus is graphics like it always has been, the only difference now is they got the support and resources of a $7B company.
     
  20. Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    82
    My thoughts exactly - why throw away one of the major reasons that you bought ATI in the first place?

    Everyone seems to think that "intergration" is going to mean ATI and AMD exiting the high end markets, but ATI and AMD have both been producing high end products for the last few years. They have to in order to drive the market to upgrade (in whatever segment you are addressing), in order to get trickledown of technology (which always starts from the cutting edge) and in order to get the halo marketing effect.

    One of the reasons both AMD and ATI are in the good positions they are in today are compared to 5-10 years ago is because they got better reputations by producing great high end products, which eventually became the basis for their mid and low end products, and enabled them to market themselve as major players in their chosen markets.

    There is simply no reason why AMD and ATI would join together to take on the market and then throw away the products that the market requires.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...