There is away to stop ATI+AMD

[Cooler]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33265
Basically if Intel outbids AMD they could end up owning ATI. I am not sure if this is much better then AMD getting ATI. Intel's reasoning for getting ATI would be solely to stop the merger and keep ATI's chipsets flowing. With vista coming around this may be the key reason as their own integrated chips will not be ready for some time.

 

[Jules]

the ATI+ AMD Merger wont effect the flow of ATI Chipsets.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
Did you even bother to read the interview with amd about this?

Yes I did. But basically if Intel was to counter Bid ATI board will surely accept it as Intel has much larger market share. And flow of chipset they mean next two quarters thats all that it covers.

 

[Jules]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1899284&enterthread=y

 

[Hard Ball]

While the rumour seems possible, or even plausible from Intel's long term business goals, it has a number of problems.


More from the dailytech:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3511

Due diligence and LexisNexis to the rescue

Incredibly, The Inquirer has picked up another outlandish rumor that appears borderline fraudulent. Cher Price is the author of an article on the site claiming Intel could bid $23 per share in a separate takeover bid of ATYT, or ATI Technologies for us technical folks. The rumor is partially visible on Fidelity's AMD portfolio site here, claiming the following in its entirety:

Jul 25, 2006 (JAGfn.com via COMTEX) -- (ATYT) (INTC) (AMD) Rumor that ATI TECHNOLOGIES INC (ATYT) will get a $23 bid from (INTC) over current (AMD) bid.

JagNotes, for those who do not remember the dot-bomb era as well as I do, was a horrible example of what could go wrong with a dot com site. The site spun off JagFN.com, which was to be the network's live broadcast website with news commentary and analysis. Unfortunately, JagFN.com has been defunct for at least four years now, and JagNotes became a little more than a link aggregator during that time as well. JagFN.com and JagFN.tv are now a CPC link farms.

Yet that has not stopped whoever is operating JagFN.com to continue to submit news wires to feeds. The owners of JagFN.com, Popular Enterprises LLC, are also the proud owners of link farms located at web---sites.com and clickclickonline.com. Our friends at The Register have a few choice words Popular Enterprises.


JagFN.com has made a number of dubious claims over the past few months:

July 13, 2006: Johnson & Johnson will make a $35 bid for Bristol Myers Squibb
July 5, 2006: Microsoft will make a bid for RealNetworks
November 10, 2005: Qualcomm will make a $30 bid for Interdigital
June 23, 2005: Patterson-UTI Energy will make a $12 bid for Grey Wolf

For some people who actually track some of these companies, not only are these rumors unsubstantiated, they are downright asinine. Searching the Yahoo Financial forums for JagFN alone yields dozens of claims (none of which have been correct since 2002) of takeover bids -- the new owners of JagFN seem to only publish rumors with regard to takeovers. JagFN used to report these sorts of stories when it was a legitimate news outlet, but over the last two years it seems there is a clear indication that the JagFN "feed" is nothing more than a very small entity attempting to stir up headlines for its own purposes.


DailyTech attempted to contact JagNotes for any comment on the relation between JagNotes and the JagFN feeds, but we did not receive a reply from the company. The JagNotes front page has the ATI rumor listed, though we were not able to read the full article without paying the company $100, which we declined.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

this is a stupid idea. why would intel purchase ati for that reason? "to keep the chipsets flowing?". Intel obviously has no interest in ATI, why would they?

 

[Ulfhednar]

Inq. :roll:

 

[Henny]

Why would Intel want to stop it?

At least according to this analyst, it's an AMD Blunder in the making:

Text

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
this is a stupid idea. why would intel purchase ati for that reason? "to keep the chipsets flowing?". Intel obviously has no interest in ATI, why would they?

It's not like ATi's chipsets are a requirement for Intel to keep alive.
SiS, Via and nVidia can all produce chipsets, as well as Intel themselves...

 

[josh6079]

I thought if ATI didn't go through with AMD they would owe them X.X million dollars? What's next? Creative is going to buy ATI? What about Nvidia buying Dell? How many other take over rumors can we have?

 

[bendixG15]

All this stuff makes the grass grow green...

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Henny
Why would Intel want to stop it?

At least according to this analyst, it's an AMD Blunder in the making:

Text

That analyst sucks

ATI is fabless, meaning that the manufacturing of its chips is outsourced. That adds to production costs. It's possible that AMD will eventually bring that manufacturing of ATI's chips in-house to reduce those costs

AMD have also started to outsource some CPU production (to Chartered I think) to top up production. So a) they have no capacity really to manufacture ATi chips in house (at the current time, unless they eventually use old fabs which older processes), and AMD are outsourcing themselves. Which means they already have some production with "added costs".
Add in the fact that graphics chips usually take smaller steps (90nm -> 80nm -> 65nm (180, 150, 130, 110nm etc previously) instead of CPU's which did 130nm -> 90nm -> 65nm) and either AMD is going to have to make an 80nm fab, ATi is going to have to stop using middling processes, or they can continue to outsource.

As a result of the deal, ATI will not only lose the roughly $80 million to $100 million in quarterly revenue that it gets from doing business with Intel

Assuming Intel pulls licences (which so far they have not I think claimed they will do, although it makes eventual sense).

AMD's acquisition of ATI is expected to close in the fourth quarter. The company says the deal will be slightly accretive to earnings next year and "meaningfully" accretive in 2008, with operating expenses being reduced by $75 million.

So they will be reducing some of that potential (and unconfirmed) chipset loss.

There is no clear and unambiguous reason to believe that Intel has flipped ATI the bird, or better yet, that Intel is now hot on the heels of NVIDIA. Furthermore, if we take Ruiz's comments seriously, we shouldn't look at this as the end of NVIDIA and AMD cooperation, either. Intel, for instance, offers its own chipsets and yet currently also supports chipsets from both ATI and NVIDIA (although ATI was already expecting business from Intel to slow over the next few quarters).

 

[Nightmare225]

Well, we thought the Inq was wrong about the AMD-ATI merger.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225
Well, we thought the Inq was wrong about the AMD-ATI merger.

Once in a Blue Moon they are right, don't get carried away and believe everything they post now.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225
Well, we thought the Inq was wrong about the AMD-ATI merger.

The way they did it it would be impossible to not be right, they started out saying intel would buy ATI, then AMD would buy ATI, then a couple weeks ago AMD won't buy ATI then when other papers started reporting it AMD would ATI again, then stayed silent until the buyout was all but confirmed.