http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13077.
Builds on info from here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13066.
Builds on info from here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13066.
What if MS bought AMD?
- Thread starter klah
- Start date
yes it would.
Bios message,sorry the system cannot boot,you'll need to activate your cpu,contact microsoft right away.
The BSA would then figure out a way to go after people selling remarked CPUs
AMD would then have enough money to come out with stuff on a more timely basis
Intel might play catch-up a little more often
As long as MS only provided funding, I would be all for it.
AMD would then have enough money to come out with stuff on a more timely basis
Intel might play catch-up a little more often
As long as MS only provided funding, I would be all for it.
" it would be scary. "
scary is MS buying Intel or Apple.
" buy a generally money losing chip company? why? "
If MS were to give them funding, they could advertise more, let normal computer users know that speed isnt everything. I would also think that they could then come up with even better cpus since they have more money for research and such.
Perhaps MS see what could be a mind gold if AMD was given the chance.
Be kinda like MS buying/funding nVidia back in the 3dfx days, everyone thought Nvidia was poor, cheap under powered products compared to 3Dfx and look where we are today.
scary is MS buying Intel or Apple.
" buy a generally money losing chip company? why? "
If MS were to give them funding, they could advertise more, let normal computer users know that speed isnt everything. I would also think that they could then come up with even better cpus since they have more money for research and such.
Perhaps MS see what could be a mind gold if AMD was given the chance.
Be kinda like MS buying/funding nVidia back in the 3dfx days, everyone thought Nvidia was poor, cheap under powered products compared to 3Dfx and look where we are today.
Won't happen for a lot of reasons, perhaps the biggest is that both Intel and Microsoft are the darlings of Nasdaq and that each is very much aware of their importance to that market. Look to Amd (NYSE) to stay where they are.
If such a thing were to happen then the marketing possibilities could ruin the Intel name.
For example "Look for the Microsoft Athlon 64 processor to unlock amazing features of windows whatever!"
For example "Look for the Microsoft Athlon 64 processor to unlock amazing features of windows whatever!"
Okay, if MS bought AMD only one good thing would happen. The hardware guys wouldn't be able to say it was the software and the software guys wouldn't be able to say it was the hardware, because they would both be MS.
Other than that, it would mark the end of innovation as we know it.
Other than that, it would mark the end of innovation as we know it.
Just because it loses some money at the moment doesn't mean that couldn't be turned around with the strength and experience of a massive corporation with almost unlimited funds like Microsoft. Imagine the cash they could plug into R & D! Their profits and turnaround make Intel look like a corner shop. Even if they took over AMD and it lost money for a few years, their annual profits, even the interest them make off their billions, would be more than enough to cover it. If Microsoft buying AMD would save the company from a slow demise, then i'd support it, although it would p|ss me off out of principle, seeing as it's Microshaft.:beer:
When will people learn to stop reading/believing The Inquirer's "Fresh out of the rectum" articles?
If MS bought AMD they could easily increase their cpu market share to 90%+ with a single move: Longhorn performing 200% better on AMD than Intel cpus. What could Intel do? Sue? After years of litigation MS would be forced to pay a small fine.
MS buying AMD wouldn't destroy Intel overnight by any stretch. Even with MS'es resources, it still costs about 8 billion to build a fab. Intel has many many more fabs than AMD, who has like 2 now with 1 on the way? Even M$ can't justify spending that amount of money to build enough fabs to compete with Intel, epsecially condsidering that demand is low now and we are going to be facing excess capacity when the 90nm fabs come on line. The downside to shrinking the process you make your chips on is that you increase the global output of such devices hugely compared to what it was before, thus devaluing your output somewhat.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
On the other hand, neither company can seem to make a faster chip than they are right now with their 130nm chips. So, it's either never make faster chips, or go to the 90nm process. You realize, don't you, that the smaller the die size, the less it costs to make a chip. In a year or so, when 90nm has been around for awhile, they should be even cheaper to make, therefore cheaper to buy. Who's that bad for? The chipmakers will be making the same amount of money, assuming their markup is the same, and we will have cheaper, faster chips!
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
If MS were to only provide funding, we would be in fantasy land. MS will always go for maximum business advantage with moves it makes.
But I believe this Inq stuff is BS.
True performance wise.....but to the average consumer, just as AMD vs Intel, Nvidia is teh better name and has more market share...although their products may be worse people buy things for the name attached to it because they are too lazy to do their research.
On the other hand, neither company can seem to make a faster chip than they are right now with their 130nm chips. So, it's either never make faster chips, or go to the 90nm process. You realize, don't you, that the smaller the die size, the less it costs to make a chip. In a year or so, when 90nm has been around for awhile, they should be even cheaper to make, therefore cheaper to buy. Who's that bad for? The chipmakers will be making the same amount of money, assuming their markup is the same, and we will have cheaper, faster chips!
Yes but the issue is that every time they make a new fab on the new smallest process they increase the output by a multiple of what is currently out there and they obviously must produce at full capacity to recoup the money they spent on the fab. I think it was Intels 90nm fab that I read about, that would nearly double the output of CPUs produced in the world as its on a smaller process and they are using larger wafers etc. If MS bought AMD and tried to ramp it up to Intel-like production level, it could very well cause such a huge supply glut that both companies could go bankrupt(Great for us while it lasts). This would be like what happened with RAM a year or so ago but probably more disasterous and severe as there are really only 2 viable real choices for x86 cpus(VIA doesn't count in this area), and thus the loss of either one would probably be bad for the industry. This doesnt happen now because one company controlls 80+% of the market and thus they decide when to retire their fabs and when to build new ones and AMD's contribution is relatively insignificant %-wise.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter