Would it be legal for Intel and AMD to do this?

[Geo]

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-257059.html

Are we sure AMD doesn't have their own rights here? I see a limitation there for using the same bus as Intel for AMD chips. . .don't see anything limiting them from doing it for Intel chips.

Nevertheless, I think that business is dead to ATI in the mid term anyway. Certainly as a high-volume proposition. It was going to largely be dead to ATI even without this deal. A big part of that volume was a short term arrangement due to Intel being caught short on volume as they were making their own transition. Intel was already ramping up to take it away from ATI before this deal was struck.

I could see them keeping up a CrossFire mobo business, maybe. But maybe not if Intel's own multi-slot mobos stay up.

The real news on the chipset side is ATI will be replacing that volume that was going away anyway with AMD volume, and the bunding with AMD cpus means that all that "why are the chipset margins so low!" whining will come to an end as well. As Dirk Meyer said in the call re the ATI Intel chipset business --"it's not a juicy business anyway!". Why do we think NV hasn't been in it other than for SLI?

But that's for new OEM business, of course, and actually has to materialize.

That was part of the synergy of this deal for AMD, no question. ATI's OEM relationships are much, much stronger than AMD's. ATI is comfortable with that business model and knows what it takes and how to play it. They are a darn good partner for AMD to attempt to crack that market with.

 

[Razor1]

AMD doesn't have (or even need) a bus license anymore, I think, pretty sure they don't use the same bus as Intel anymore. Actually I read an article just yesterday saying Intel was looking into if ATi's bus license would be valid after the merger, because AMD is barred from using Intel buses.

But AMD, under a different licensing deal with Intel, is not allowed to use that front side bus. "We are evaluating the deal, and have got a lot to figure out how it would fit in with our existing agreements with both ATI and AMD," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy says.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060725_893757.htm?chan=top+news_top+news

 

[INKster]

The real news on the chipset side is ATI will be replacing that volume that was going away anyway with AMD volume, and the bunding with AMD cpus means that all that "why are the chipset margins so low!" whining will come to an end as well. As Dirk Meyer said in the call re the ATI Intel chipset business --"it's not a juicy business anyway!". Why do we think NV hasn't been in it other than for SLI?

I agree with most points, but there's one thing that doesn't compute in that point of view:

Why Buy Uli ?
A chipset designer specialized in low-end products ?

Somehow, i tend to doubt the veracity of the easy explanation many outlets came with six months ago, that it was just to upset ATI...
It would've been a very expensive move (58 million) just for "bullying".

 

[Geo]

NV didn't know about this deal at that time, obviously. I think the conventional wisdom wasn't that they bought ULi to screw ATI; that was just the cherry on the cupcake.

What they said was it was about relationships in China, and probably --yes-- shifting low end kit for that developing market. But one assumes they had a partnership with AMD in mind for that long-term. And they will still have that partnership, AMD made that clear. But that's with one hand. With the other they will also be competing with them for that business, and with the power of being able to bundle and accept a much lower margin on the chipset itself than NV will find palatible.