Intel to buy out nVidia for $10B!?!

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: RichUK
I don?t know what to make of this. Is this going to put the dampers on the AMD /ATI relationship or what. I mean Intel has a wealth of knowledge with IGP?s, and with the addition of nVidia's tech, well.... They could corner the HTPC market. And its not as if they need help creating chipsets, as does AMD, as Intel already produce the best.

I wonder what Intel?s hidden agenda is :evil:

Intel is just a big control freak. Wants everything, even going so far as to threaten ruin to other companies to make sure they stay on top (HP, for example, couldn't even touch free AMD CPUs for fear of intel's wrath). I don't mind big businesses, but what I do mind is when they throw their weight around.

because the point of business is to lose customers right? :roll:

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: RichUK
I don?t know what to make of this. Is this going to put the dampers on the AMD /ATI relationship or what. I mean Intel has a wealth of knowledge with IGP?s, and with the addition of nVidia's tech, well.... They could corner the HTPC market. And its not as if they need help creating chipsets, as does AMD, as Intel already produce the best.

I wonder what Intel?s hidden agenda is :evil:

Intel is just a big control freak. Wants everything, even going so far as to threaten ruin to other companies to make sure they stay on top (HP, for example, couldn't even touch free AMD CPUs for fear of intel's wrath). I don't mind big businesses, but what I do mind is when they throw their weight around.

because the point of business is to lose customers right? :roll:

I think the point was bad business practice. Or should I say unlawful business practice. Isn?t Intel getting sued over such things. I can?t remember now, although I think there was a thread about it a while back.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: RichUK
I don?t know what to make of this. Is this going to put the dampers on the AMD /ATI relationship or what. I mean Intel has a wealth of knowledge with IGP?s, and with the addition of nVidia's tech, well.... They could corner the HTPC market. And its not as if they need help creating chipsets, as does AMD, as Intel already produce the best.

I wonder what Intel?s hidden agenda is :evil:

Intel is just a big control freak. Wants everything, even going so far as to threaten ruin to other companies to make sure they stay on top (HP, for example, couldn't even touch free AMD CPUs for fear of intel's wrath). I don't mind big businesses, but what I do mind is when they throw their weight around.

because the point of business is to lose customers right? :roll:

I think the point was bad business practice. Or should I say unlawful business practice. Isn?t Intel getting sued over such things. I can?t remember now, although I think there was a thread about it a while back.

Bingo. Yeah there was a thread about it, but the search sucks so it isn't easily found.

 

[formulav8]

Intel actually has quite a few Class-Action suits against them. They must have really did some pretty bad stuff.

The EU is also about to put the smack down on Intel the last I heard.

Anyways, If this is true, I hope this does NOT make it through.



Jason

 

[Whitedog]

As long as Microsoft doesn't buy them... I'm cool.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Whitedog
As long as Microsoft doesn't buy them... I'm cool.

lol

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: RichUK
I don?t know what to make of this. Is this going to put the dampers on the AMD /ATI relationship or what. I mean Intel has a wealth of knowledge with IGP?s, and with the addition of nVidia's tech, well.... They could corner the HTPC market. And its not as if they need help creating chipsets, as does AMD, as Intel already produce the best.

I wonder what Intel?s hidden agenda is :evil:

I wouldn't worry about it...there is no possible way that Intel will be allowed to do it, whether they want to or not.

What makes you so sure? As I said in another post, Intel would cry foul and point at ATi/nVidia merger.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: RichUK
I don?t know what to make of this. Is this going to put the dampers on the AMD /ATI relationship or what. I mean Intel has a wealth of knowledge with IGP?s, and with the addition of nVidia's tech, well.... They could corner the HTPC market. And its not as if they need help creating chipsets, as does AMD, as Intel already produce the best.

I wonder what Intel?s hidden agenda is :evil:

I wouldn't worry about it...there is no possible way that Intel will be allowed to do it, whether they want to or not.

What makes you so sure? As I said in another post, Intel would cry foul and point at ATi/nVidia merger.

For a number of reasons (most listed in this thread...).
1. It would give Intel control of the largest supplier of AMD platform chipsets as well as giving Intel an even greater monopoly on overall chipsets
2. AMD + ATI still makes a 27% marketshare in graphics, but Intel (40%) + Nvidia (20%) creates one company with more than half the marketshare
3. The DOJ will tend to be conservative when at least one party to the merger is already in litigation specifically for anti-trust issues...

 

[MBrown]

this should be interesting.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Intel has hidden in Microsoft's shadows in the past; throughout the 90's if you said the word "monopoly" regarding computers then people immediately though "Microsoft". Which was true, MS levied their OS with monopoly tactics the whole time, but Intel infamously would lower prices to stamp out competitors, only to jack prices WAY up. Remember the Pentium 2 days? Intel was living large and the cheapest P2 you could get was ~$300-400 (at least when the original Celeron came out, the 300A, it could be clocked to 450 MHz and, due to its 128K on-die cache, performed similarly to the P2 450 with 512K of off-die cache).

Back from that tangent - if Intel does buy Nvidia, it's going to be a crazy war. Hopefully both companies stay around for a long time - competition in both the CPU and GPU field has brough tremendous progress the last 5 years!

 

[eelw]

Yeah, this is out of spite. Once this merger gets stopped by the government, it will also stop the other merger as a result.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: eelw
Yeah, this is out of spite. Once this merger gets stopped by the government, it will also stop the other merger as a result.

The AMD/ATI merger is already finished and sanctioned by the DOJ...

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Intel has hidden in Microsoft's shadows in the past; throughout the 90's if you said the word "monopoly" regarding computers then people immediately though "Microsoft". Which was true, MS levied their OS with monopoly tactics the whole time, but Intel infamously would lower prices to stamp out competitors, only to jack prices WAY up. Remember the Pentium 2 days? Intel was living large and the cheapest P2 you could get was ~$300-400 (at least when the original Celeron came out, the 300A, it could be clocked to 450 MHz and, due to its 128K on-die cache, performed similarly to the P2 450 with 512K of off-die cache).

LoL? wtf? Pentium-2 was the flagship product, similar to Conroe is today. The cheapest Conroe, the E6600 is at $330. The CPU prices havent changed much since the last 2 decades for Intel:

$600-$1000 = High End (Xtreme series/Conroe's/P4/P3/P2)
$300-600 = Mid End (Conroe/P4/P3/P2 of lower clocks)
$150-300 = Value (Allendale/lowest clocked P4/P3/P2's)
$150 and under = Budget (this is since the introduction of the Celeron in 1998)

 

[4dm]

Not to derail the subject, but the DoJ only considers something a monopoly if it has > 75% market share, it has nothing to do with price.

Back on topic, I really doubt there is any talk at all between Intel and Nvidia. These speculations usually occur when some analyst or stockbroker wants to cause some rapid inflation of a stock's value so they can make a few more bucks.

Intel wouldn't get 10B worth of value from buying out Nvidia. Intel would be much smarter to license SLI technology and incorporate it into its next gen chipsets. This would cause Intel chipset market share to rise, Intel's high end chipset profit margins to rise, and Nvidia to still make money while decreasing manufacturing costs (they don't have to build as many chipsets since Intel is making them)

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: 4dm
Not to derail the subject, but the DoJ only considers something a monopoly if it has > 75% market share, it has nothing to do with price.

Back on topic, I really doubt there is any talk at all between Intel and Nvidia. These speculations usually occur when some analyst or stockbroker wants to cause some rapid inflation of a stock's value so they can make a few more bucks.

Intel wouldn't get 10B worth of value from buying out Nvidia. Intel would be much smarter to license SLI technology and incorporate it into its next gen chipsets. This would cause Intel chipset market share to rise, Intel's high end chipset profit margins to rise, and Nvidia to still make money while decreasing manufacturing costs (they don't have to build as many chipsets since Intel is making them)

Ummm...not according to the transcripts of the microsoft case and every other anti-trust case I've reviewed. I'm willing to learn, so if you would kindly post a link for that 75% number, I'll gladly beg your pardon...
From what I've reviewed since AMD first filed their anti-trust (which is when I started researching), the DOJ has actually filed against many differing percentages...the key in every case was that they felt they could establish that the company was capable of creating a barrier to entry. As to refusing to sanction mergers, they have (IIRC) gone as low as the mid-40% range in the past (when they felt that the resulting company would be able to control the market).

As to what Intel would be able to get out of the purchase, the most valuable thing would be the ability to place a stranglehold on the supply of AMD chipsets and support from Nvidia...for that reason alone, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell that this thing could go through.

 

[Keysplayr]

It's only a matter of time (theory) before nvidia introduces a CPU of their own. Intel could see them as a potential threat in that market. I'm not saying that nvidia will come out with a CPU to conquer all. Snowballs chance in hell type of thing. They can introduce a decent performer initially and over the years become a real threat. I only say these things because it might be a logical step for Nvidia to go there next and many of us would agree that there probably isn't a more aggressive company out there than NV.. They already have graphics cards, mobo chipsets for both AMD and Intel, and audio. They could launch their own platform similar to Intels Centrino. All nvidia components.

Grain of salt? I'd say 50/50 chance. Nv might already be working on it. As far as Fabbing these things, well, there are a lot of fabs to choose from. IBM, TSMC, UMC, etc, etc.
Quantity? Small at first, as is anything.

 

[Cheex]

Nothing has yet been confirmed so let us all wait and see.

 

[4dm]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Ummm...not according to the transcripts of the microsoft case and every other anti-trust case I've reviewed. I'm willing to learn, so if you would kindly post a link for that 75% number, I'll gladly beg your pardon...
From what I've reviewed since AMD first filed their anti-trust (which is when I started researching), the DOJ has actually filed against many differing percentages...the key in every case was that they felt they could establish that the company was capable of creating a barrier to entry. As to refusing to sanction mergers, they have (IIRC) gone as low as the mid-40% range in the past (when they felt that the resulting company would be able to control the market).

You are correct, that is the most commonly prosecuted type of monopoly. Any corporation that creates a barrier to entry by using their market share is in violation of the Sherman antitrust act (and clayton act). I was referring to a legal monopoly though. Any company or corporation that owns greater than 75% of market share and that market generates revenues in excess of (I can't remember the number right now) is considered a legal monopoly and is often under the watchful eye of the DoJ. Microsoft and Intel are both examples of this, although Microsoft's antitrust lawsuit was due to the company's alleged practices of creating barriers of entry. Intel's lawsuit is of alleged behaviors of a similar manner, although in my opinion the lawsuit against Intel is more of a PR stunt.