The REAL Reason ATI WANTED to be acquired by AMD

[Centurin]

You guys seem to miss the point of the article. The analyst believed that ATI market share will go down considerably because they will only be used on non-intel boards. Intel will block the use of ATI cards on Intel chipsets.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Its even more amusing how they will lap up ATI's PR statements, but disbelieve anything nvidia may have to say...

You do realize that all we have to do with your posts, is replace the letters "ATI" with "Nvidia" and we have your description. How can you be so smug against ATI fans, when you are the mirror image of everything you dislike?

 

[sandorski]

[wild conjecture]

AMD/ATI won't leave the discrete GPU Market, the Discrete GPU Market will soon cease to exist

[/]

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: sandorski
[wild conjecture]

AMD/ATI won't leave the discrete GPU Market, the Discrete GPU Market will soon cease to exist

[/]

not so wild . . . that is a more long-tern AMD plan

. . . and AMD is not so worried about intel . . . anymore.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: sandorski
[wild conjecture]

AMD/ATI won't leave the discrete GPU Market, the Discrete GPU Market will soon cease to exist

[/]

Discrete has the advantage of physical space available though. So integrated will certainly account for an increasingly greater share but there will "always" be a market for add-on 3D of some type for the greater flexibility and performance possible. I suppose integrated will at least eliminate the timing advantage of discrete from the box maker perspective (i.e. instant model update without redesign or paying twice for graphics -assuming that was even a viable option) and possibly even reduce the variety of base platforms necessary where the significant differences are in the core plug-in parts.

 

[razor2025]

We will still have "new" discrete GPUs from ATI for at least 1-2 more years. ATI won't dump R600 and they would have at least 1-2 refreshes of R600 before quitting, if they quit. Many of the posters on this thread goes flaming each other too easily to see the reason why ATI was bought by AMD. The OP's article certainly touches some logical explanations for the acquisition. I'll also put my thoughts on different reason.

If you've followed G80/R600 development (and now with real pics of them), you'll notice that we're close to a point where discrete GPUs are getting out of hand with their ridculous size and power requirements. There's nothing really "new" on the specs for the new cards. More pipes, more shaders, and fatter bandwith. It's like back in the Pixel Wars of early Geforce 1 & 2. There's hardly any "smart" performance enhancing features. I miss the days of Kyro II's tile-based rendering. Sure, the drivers were buggy, but it was refreshing to see a company that didn't just join the "more pixel" race. So, with that in mind, here's what AMD can do for ATI:

- AMD knows how to make things cool & efficient. ATI & Nvidia has been focused on simply pushing the next level of "pixel/sec" and pay little or no attention into efficiency of their GPUs. AMD can definitely use their skills to optimize ATI's GPU efficiency should ATI continues to play in discrete GPU market.

- With the increasing complexity of games and various addition of new logics, PPU and what not, AMD can certainly help ATI design their discrete GPUs to better "synch" with the rest of the system.

But here's two different outlooks. If rumor was true about Intel looking to get into high-end dicrete GPU market, then AMD-ATI move was the best choice for both companies. Here's the scenario:

- Intel won't have anything competetive for at least 1-2 years. Even with their massive resources, they'll need time to develop a new platform and product. However, once Intel comes on to market, Intel will DOMINATE (not performance wise neccesarily, just economically) over ATI & Nvidia. Why? Intel has their own fabs, and are continuing to improve/build new and smaller processes. ATI & Nvidia would still be relying on TSMC and other 3rd party for their chips. Thus with access to AMD's fab, ATI can easily shift their chip-making capability to its parent company, whereas Nvidia is still relying on TSMC.

- Another thing to consider is market focus. With introduction of Vista, we now have a transition point where a graphical upgrade is almost "must-have". It's great oppourtunity to crank out those IGPs. With AMD's development in Hyper-Transport, ATI can develop highly efficient IGPs that can trump Nvidia's IGPs. Sure, the raw performance will not quite up to par with high-end graphics, but "hardcore gamer" market is tiny compared to "casual gaming/user". Remember, IGP and low-end market is where GPU companies make their profits. High-end and mid-end are there to help them recuperate the R&D cost.

Hopefully, ATI won't exist the discrete GPU market, but logically, I wouldn't blame them.

 

[Rudy Toody]

AMD-ATI announced a new video card today, to be in stores near you by November 13.

One other area that hasn't been addressed is supercomputing. The partners that AMD is aligned with in the Torrenza Initiative include several supercomputer makers. The recent introduction by Folding@Home to provide work units that use the ATI GPU to offload their scientific calculations is an indicator of the direction that AMD could be headed. The F@H project could not use nvidia GPUs because of some architectural limitations. So, AMD buys ATI. ATI redesigns their GPU to fit the Torrenza socket (perhaps removing the graphics handling altogether.) Soon, we will see motherboards with AMD CPUs and ATI Numerical Co-Processors to create inexpensive Class II Beowulf supercomputers.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: razor2025
We will still have "new" discrete GPUs from ATI for at least 1-2 more years. ATI won't dump R600 and they would have at least 1-2 refreshes of R600 before quitting, if they quit. Many of the posters on this thread goes flaming each other too easily to see the reason why ATI was bought by AMD. The OP's article certainly touches some logical explanations for the acquisition. I'll also put my thoughts on different reason.

If you've followed G80/R600 development (and now with real pics of them), you'll notice that we're close to a point where discrete GPUs are getting out of hand with their ridculous size and power requirements. There's nothing really "new" on the specs for the new cards. More pipes, more shaders, and fatter bandwith. It's like back in the Pixel Wars of early Geforce 1 & 2. There's hardly any "smart" performance enhancing features. I miss the days of Kyro II's tile-based rendering. Sure, the drivers were buggy, but it was refreshing to see a company that didn't just join the "more pixel" race. So, with that in mind, here's what AMD can do for ATI:

- AMD knows how to make things cool & efficient. ATI & Nvidia has been focused on simply pushing the next level of "pixel/sec" and pay little or no attention into efficiency of their GPUs. AMD can definitely use their skills to optimize ATI's GPU efficiency should ATI continues to play in discrete GPU market.

- With the increasing complexity of games and various addition of new logics, PPU and what not, AMD can certainly help ATI design their discrete GPUs to better "synch" with the rest of the system.

But here's two different outlooks. If rumor was true about Intel looking to get into high-end dicrete GPU market, then AMD-ATI move was the best choice for both companies. Here's the scenario:

- Intel won't have anything competetive for at least 1-2 years. Even with their massive resources, they'll need time to develop a new platform and product. However, once Intel comes on to market, Intel will DOMINATE (not performance wise neccesarily, just economically) over ATI & Nvidia. Why? Intel has their own fabs, and are continuing to improve/build new and smaller processes. ATI & Nvidia would still be relying on TSMC and other 3rd party for their chips. Thus with access to AMD's fab, ATI can easily shift their chip-making capability to its parent company, whereas Nvidia is still relying on TSMC.

- Another thing to consider is market focus. With introduction of Vista, we now have a transition point where a graphical upgrade is almost "must-have". It's great oppourtunity to crank out those IGPs. With AMD's development in Hyper-Transport, ATI can develop highly efficient IGPs that can trump Nvidia's IGPs. Sure, the raw performance will not quite up to par with high-end graphics, but "hardcore gamer" market is tiny compared to "casual gaming/user". Remember, IGP and low-end market is where GPU companies make their profits. High-end and mid-end are there to help them recuperate the R&D cost.

Hopefully, ATI won't exist the discrete GPU market, but logically, I wouldn't blame them.

Quite true especially about the Intel conjecture. If Intel does indeed enter the discrete market with the intent to compete against AMD/ATi, then nVidia will be up sh_it creek without a paddle. With no fabs of their own, they will always be behind AMD/Intel in effeciency and core size. Unless IBM or some other company with its own fabs buys nVidia, this could be disaster in the making for them.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker


Quite true especially about the Intel conjecture. If Intel does indeed enter the discrete market with the intent to compete against AMD/ATi, then nVidia will be up sh_it creek without a paddle. With no fabs of their own, they will always be behind AMD/Intel in effeciency and core size. Unless IBM or some other company with its own fabs buys nVidia, this could be disaster in the making for them.

Nvidia at work on combined CPU with graphic - On 65nm in 2008

don't worry about nvidia . . . they are also planning ahead for intel's big move with one of their own
:Q


[at least to me . . . the 'picture' is getting clearer and more detailed]

 

[lopri]

Contrary to common belief, even if AMD withdrew from discrete high-end GPU market (not anytime soon), it wouldn't do any good for NV. (<-- my opinion)

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Centurin
You guys seem to miss the point of the article. The analyst believed that ATI market share will go down considerably because they will only be used on non-intel boards. Intel will block the use of ATI cards on Intel chipsets.

I think you mean crossfire. Intel wouldn't block the use of single cards regardless of manufacturer. That would be stupid.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: razor2025
We will still have "new" discrete GPUs from ATI for at least 1-2 more years. ATI won't dump R600 and they would have at least 1-2 refreshes of R600 before quitting, if they quit. Many of the posters on this thread goes flaming each other too easily to see the reason why ATI was bought by AMD. The OP's article certainly touches some logical explanations for the acquisition. I'll also put my thoughts on different reason.

If you've followed G80/R600 development (and now with real pics of them), you'll notice that we're close to a point where discrete GPUs are getting out of hand with their ridculous size and power requirements. There's nothing really "new" on the specs for the new cards. More pipes, more shaders, and fatter bandwith. It's like back in the Pixel Wars of early Geforce 1 & 2. There's hardly any "smart" performance enhancing features. I miss the days of Kyro II's tile-based rendering. Sure, the drivers were buggy, but it was refreshing to see a company that didn't just join the "more pixel" race. So, with that in mind, here's what AMD can do for ATI:

- AMD knows how to make things cool & efficient. ATI & Nvidia has been focused on simply pushing the next level of "pixel/sec" and pay little or no attention into efficiency of their GPUs. AMD can definitely use their skills to optimize ATI's GPU efficiency should ATI continues to play in discrete GPU market.

- With the increasing complexity of games and various addition of new logics, PPU and what not, AMD can certainly help ATI design their discrete GPUs to better "synch" with the rest of the system.

But here's two different outlooks. If rumor was true about Intel looking to get into high-end dicrete GPU market, then AMD-ATI move was the best choice for both companies. Here's the scenario:

- Intel won't have anything competetive for at least 1-2 years. Even with their massive resources, they'll need time to develop a new platform and product. However, once Intel comes on to market, Intel will DOMINATE (not performance wise neccesarily, just economically) over ATI & Nvidia. Why? Intel has their own fabs, and are continuing to improve/build new and smaller processes. ATI & Nvidia would still be relying on TSMC and other 3rd party for their chips. Thus with access to AMD's fab, ATI can easily shift their chip-making capability to its parent company, whereas Nvidia is still relying on TSMC.

- Another thing to consider is market focus. With introduction of Vista, we now have a transition point where a graphical upgrade is almost "must-have". It's great oppourtunity to crank out those IGPs. With AMD's development in Hyper-Transport, ATI can develop highly efficient IGPs that can trump Nvidia's IGPs. Sure, the raw performance will not quite up to par with high-end graphics, but "hardcore gamer" market is tiny compared to "casual gaming/user". Remember, IGP and low-end market is where GPU companies make their profits. High-end and mid-end are there to help them recuperate the R&D cost.

Hopefully, ATI won't exist the discrete GPU market, but logically, I wouldn't blame them.

My thoughts exactly! I don't see how Nvidia is going to compete if they are still using TSMC and I don't see them creating fabs of their own.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: razor2025
We will still have "new" discrete GPUs from ATI for at least 1-2 more years. ATI won't dump R600 and they would have at least 1-2 refreshes of R600 before quitting, if they quit. Many of the posters on this thread goes flaming each other too easily to see the reason why ATI was bought by AMD. The OP's article certainly touches some logical explanations for the acquisition. I'll also put my thoughts on different reason.

If you've followed G80/R600 development (and now with real pics of them), you'll notice that we're close to a point where discrete GPUs are getting out of hand with their ridculous size and power requirements. There's nothing really "new" on the specs for the new cards. More pipes, more shaders, and fatter bandwith. It's like back in the Pixel Wars of early Geforce 1 & 2. There's hardly any "smart" performance enhancing features. I miss the days of Kyro II's tile-based rendering. Sure, the drivers were buggy, but it was refreshing to see a company that didn't just join the "more pixel" race. So, with that in mind, here's what AMD can do for ATI:

- AMD knows how to make things cool & efficient. ATI & Nvidia has been focused on simply pushing the next level of "pixel/sec" and pay little or no attention into efficiency of their GPUs. AMD can definitely use their skills to optimize ATI's GPU efficiency should ATI continues to play in discrete GPU market.

- With the increasing complexity of games and various addition of new logics, PPU and what not, AMD can certainly help ATI design their discrete GPUs to better "synch" with the rest of the system.

But here's two different outlooks. If rumor was true about Intel looking to get into high-end dicrete GPU market, then AMD-ATI move was the best choice for both companies. Here's the scenario:

- Intel won't have anything competetive for at least 1-2 years. Even with their massive resources, they'll need time to develop a new platform and product. However, once Intel comes on to market, Intel will DOMINATE (not performance wise neccesarily, just economically) over ATI & Nvidia. Why? Intel has their own fabs, and are continuing to improve/build new and smaller processes. ATI & Nvidia would still be relying on TSMC and other 3rd party for their chips. Thus with access to AMD's fab, ATI can easily shift their chip-making capability to its parent company, whereas Nvidia is still relying on TSMC.

- Another thing to consider is market focus. With introduction of Vista, we now have a transition point where a graphical upgrade is almost "must-have". It's great oppourtunity to crank out those IGPs. With AMD's development in Hyper-Transport, ATI can develop highly efficient IGPs that can trump Nvidia's IGPs. Sure, the raw performance will not quite up to par with high-end graphics, but "hardcore gamer" market is tiny compared to "casual gaming/user". Remember, IGP and low-end market is where GPU companies make their profits. High-end and mid-end are there to help them recuperate the R&D cost.

Hopefully, ATI won't exist the discrete GPU market, but logically, I wouldn't blame them.

My thoughts exactly! I don't see how Nvidia is going to compete if they are still using TSMC and I don't see them creating fabs of their own.

With ATI ultimately using AMD's fabs, you would think that would free up a lot of TSMC resources, and I'm sure they would be happy to fill that gap and not only manufacture Nvidia's GPU's/chipsets, but anything else Nvidia can throw at them.

 

[Gstanfor]

I think people underestimate TSMC. Do you think they are going to be happy about losing the lions share of GPU production in the future? I'm sure TSMC and nvidia will come to a mutually befefical arrangement (not involving takeovers, mergers etc) that keep both parties quite happy.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
...When I get time I might check through my archives to see if I saved a local copy, but I don't think I did, (there was a lot from that era I should have preserved).

...like your mind.

I think I know why you hate ATi and any forum that supports them. You played a few rounds of Counter-Strike against some ATi employees, didn't you?

 

[josh6079]

We will still have "new" discrete GPUs from ATI for at least 1-2 more years. ATI won't dump R600 and they would have at least 1-2 refreshes of R600 before quitting, if they quit. Many of the posters on this thread goes flaming each other too easily to see the reason why ATI was bought by AMD. The OP's article certainly touches some logical explanations for the acquisition. I'll also put my thoughts on different reason.

If you've followed G80/R600 development (and now with real pics of them), you'll notice that we're close to a point where discrete GPUs are getting out of hand with their ridculous size and power requirements. There's nothing really "new" on the specs for the new cards. More pipes, more shaders, and fatter bandwith. It's like back in the Pixel Wars of early Geforce 1 & 2. There's hardly any "smart" performance enhancing features. I miss the days of Kyro II's tile-based rendering. Sure, the drivers were buggy, but it was refreshing to see a company that didn't just join the "more pixel" race. So, with that in mind, here's what AMD can do for ATI:

- AMD knows how to make things cool & efficient. ATI & Nvidia has been focused on simply pushing the next level of "pixel/sec" and pay little or no attention into efficiency of their GPUs. AMD can definitely use their skills to optimize ATI's GPU efficiency should ATI continues to play in discrete GPU market.

- With the increasing complexity of games and various addition of new logics, PPU and what not, AMD can certainly help ATI design their discrete GPUs to better "synch" with the rest of the system.

But here's two different outlooks. If rumor was true about Intel looking to get into high-end dicrete GPU market, then AMD-ATI move was the best choice for both companies. Here's the scenario:

- Intel won't have anything competetive for at least 1-2 years. Even with their massive resources, they'll need time to develop a new platform and product. However, once Intel comes on to market, Intel will DOMINATE (not performance wise neccesarily, just economically) over ATI & Nvidia. Why? Intel has their own fabs, and are continuing to improve/build new and smaller processes. ATI & Nvidia would still be relying on TSMC and other 3rd party for their chips. Thus with access to AMD's fab, ATI can easily shift their chip-making capability to its parent company, whereas Nvidia is still relying on TSMC.

- Another thing to consider is market focus. With introduction of Vista, we now have a transition point where a graphical upgrade is almost "must-have". It's great oppourtunity to crank out those IGPs. With AMD's development in Hyper-Transport, ATI can develop highly efficient IGPs that can trump Nvidia's IGPs. Sure, the raw performance will not quite up to par with high-end graphics, but "hardcore gamer" market is tiny compared to "casual gaming/user". Remember, IGP and low-end market is where GPU companies make their profits. High-end and mid-end are there to help them recuperate the R&D cost.

Hopefully, ATI won't exist the discrete GPU market, but logically, I wouldn't blame them.

That's a pretty good way to view it I'd say. Well put.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003


With ATI ultimately using AMD's fabs, you would think that would free up a lot of TSMC resources, and I'm sure they would be happy to fill that gap and not only manufacture Nvidia's GPU's/chipsets, but anything else Nvidia can throw at them.

Ya that's an angle I hadn't really looked at. How well do you think TSMC can compete with AMD or Intel's fabs? I mean TSMC hasn't really led the market on manufacturing tech have they?

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
...When I get time I might check through my archives to see if I saved a local copy, but I don't think I did, (there was a lot from that era I should have preserved).

...like your mind.

I think I know why you hate ATi and any forum that supports them. You played a few rounds of Counter-Strike against some ATi employees, didn't you?

I never have and never will play counter strike...

 

[redbox]

*breathes a sigh of relief*

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003


With ATI ultimately using AMD's fabs, you would think that would free up a lot of TSMC resources, and I'm sure they would be happy to fill that gap and not only manufacture Nvidia's GPU's/chipsets, but anything else Nvidia can throw at them.

Ya that's an angle I hadn't really looked at. How well do you think TSMC can compete with AMD or Intel's fabs? I mean TSMC hasn't really led the market on manufacturing tech have they?

Well, if AMD can get away with being constantly behind in a manufacturing process to Intel (65nm Intel, 90nm AMD) I don't see why Nvidia could not do the same thing and have a bit of success with TSMC. And TSMC's 65nm production is just around the corner according to some statements I read. And besides, TSMC doesn't manufacture tech. They manufacture other companies tech. The only thing TSMC needs to do is continually improve their manufacturing process, which they do, because that's all they do.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
I think people underestimate TSMC. Do you think they are going to be happy about losing the lions share of GPU production in the future? I'm sure TSMC and nvidia will come to a mutually befefical arrangement (not involving takeovers, mergers etc) that keep both parties quite happy.

It's an interesting counter-point. However, TSMC doesn't just produce GPUs. They make tons of other ICs for other companies, so Nvidia's chip might not be a "significant" portion of their total chip output. Does anyone know if GPU production is profitable for 3rd party fab like TSMC? If GPU isn't profitable for TSMC, they aren't bound to produce Nvidia GPUs.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
I think people underestimate TSMC. Do you think they are going to be happy about losing the lions share of GPU production in the future? I'm sure TSMC and nvidia will come to a mutually befefical arrangement (not involving takeovers, mergers etc) that keep both parties quite happy.

It's an interesting counter-point. However, TSMC doesn't just produce GPUs. They make tons of other ICs for other companies, so Nvidia's chip might not be a "significant" portion of their total chip output. Does anyone know if GPU production is profitable for 3rd party fab like TSMC? If GPU isn't profitable for TSMC, they aren't bound to produce Nvidia GPUs.

Nvidia and TSMC celebrate new milestone: 500million processors

I'd say TSMC's relationship with Nvidia seems to be pretty lucrative.

 

[apoppin]

about TSMC:

TSMC ... operates two advanced twelve-inch wafer fabs, five eight-inch fabs and one six-inch wafer fab. TSMC also has substantial capacity commitments at its wholly owned subsidiaries, WaferTech and TSMC (Shanghai), and its joint venture fab, SSMC. TSMC is the first foundry to provide 65nm production capabilities. Its corporate headquarters are in Hsinchu, Taiwan

BTW, i am impressed with you guys

this thread started out . . . well intentioned - if one-sided . . . turned into a flame fest . . . and then settled down nicely into a real discussion
:thumbsup:

Happy Halloween

 

[XNice]

Originally posted by: razor2025
- AMD knows how to make things cool & efficient. ATI & Nvidia has been focused on simply pushing the next level of "pixel/sec" and pay little or no attention into efficiency of their GPUs. AMD can definitely use their skills to optimize ATI's GPU efficiency should ATI continues to play in discrete GPU market.

Bullshit, nvidia is publicly known for their efficient power handling, especially on their last 2 generations of gpu's. Try again next time...

Originally posted by: apoppin
this thread started out . . . well intentioned - if one-sided . . . turned into a flame fest . . . and then settled down nicely into a real discussion
Happy Halloween

The "flame fest" was something you had a major part in from start to finish. I don't lean to one side or the other regarding NV/ATI, but out of everyone else, you are the most annoying fanboy. I hope people learn to ignore you and your female "emoticon" usage.

Lastly, it's a flipping ACQUISITION not a MERGER. ATI is gone, they were BOUGHT! Why do I keep hearing this stuff about marriage and all that. AMD ACQUIRED Ati to compete with Intel. There is a huge difference between Acquisition and Merge. Jesus....

edited for the snitches out there.... no one likes a rat.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: XNice

Originally posted by: razor2025
- AMD knows how to make things cool & efficient. ATI & Nvidia has been focused on simply pushing the next level of "pixel/sec" and pay little or no attention into efficiency of their GPUs. AMD can definitely use their skills to optimize ATI's GPU efficiency should ATI continues to play in discrete GPU market.

Bullshit, nvidia is publicly known for their efficient power handling, especially on their last 2 generations of gpu's. Try again next time...

Originally posted by: apoppin
this thread started out . . . well intentioned - if one-sided . . . turned into a flame fest . . . and then settled down nicely into a real discussion
Happy Halloween

The "flame fest" was something you had a major part in from start to finish. I don't lean to one side or the other regarding NV/ATI, but out of everyone else, you are the most annoying fanboy. I hope people learn to ignore you and your female "emoticon" usage.

Lastly, it's a fvcking ACQUISITION not a MERGER. ATI is gone, they were BOUGHT! Why do I keep hearing this stuff about marriage and all that. AMD ACQUIRED Ati to compete with Intel. There is a huge difference between Acquisition and Merge. Jesus....

i don't deny it . . .

and if i acept the blame i also accept the repsonsibility for helping getting it back on track

it looks like you want to fan the flames further

Ati is NOT gone ... they are part of AMD . . . the new AMD

and if you don't get it that is fine by me . . .

and if you don't tone it down .... i will make sure a mod gets to read your defeat of the language filter