Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ati says "no comment" on AMD's takeover

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 11, 2006 12:06:26 PM

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32943


When you keep saying no comment to a big rumour...it means you were told you can't let te cat otf of the bag ...


when a rumour is ridicolous and can effect a companies share price...a company will shoot it down real quick.

Ati keeps saying "no comment" to this AMD takeover

however when rumours of INTEL taking over ATI...they shot that down the next day saying it was not happening..

not this time

seems like a done deal to me....
July 11, 2006 12:08:01 PM

Wow thats rock solid evidence there. Thats the sort of stuff you could take to court.
July 11, 2006 12:09:50 PM

no rock solid

more like solid like jello


while jello is very weak

it is still a solid in its final form
Related resources
July 11, 2006 12:11:48 PM

Its final form being dried up poo? Like his rumour?
July 11, 2006 12:12:53 PM

Not really hard evidence.. but still quite likely.
July 11, 2006 12:36:57 PM

AMD wont buy ATi. Why? Cause ATi is not 4free...
July 11, 2006 12:40:05 PM

Most companies have a policy of not commenting on rumors, true or false. I don't know if this is a sign of anything really.
July 11, 2006 1:17:56 PM

Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32943


When you keep saying no comment to a big rumour...it means you were told you can't let te cat otf of the bag ...


when a rumour is ridicolous and can effect a companies share price...a company will shoot it down real quick.

Ati keeps saying "no comment" to this AMD takeover

however when rumours of INTEL taking over ATI...they shot that down the next day saying it was not happening..

not this time

seems like a done deal to me....




Seems like a shot at nVidia to me. Thoguh why AMD would wnat to antagonize the company whose chipset got them where they are, I don't know.

This would be a bad move right now. AMD needs both chipset partners AND GPU partners. Not to mention all of the OEM that make mobos with both chipsets.

Maybe two years from now if ever but liek I kee syaing AMD is trying to make partners not destroy relationships
July 11, 2006 1:34:38 PM

Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32943


When you keep saying no comment to a big rumour...it means you were told you can't let te cat otf of the bag ...


when a rumour is ridicolous and can effect a companies share price...a company will shoot it down real quick.

Ati keeps saying "no comment" to this AMD takeover

however when rumours of INTEL taking over ATI...they shot that down the next day saying it was not happening..

not this time

seems like a done deal to me....



Or it could mean that ATI are thinking this could be good for share prices, big company like AMD buying em out and loads more money being invested, so why deny it outright, why not let peoples imaginations get the better of them.

Or, and this might seem a bit crazy but maybe they are telling the truth.

Or maybe it's true & then start producing graphics cards that are optimised to run better on Amd cpu's & worse on Intel cpu's and, and....there goes my imagination again.

It'll be good to see what happens either way
July 11, 2006 2:08:15 PM

Quote:
Seems like a shot at nVidia to me. Thoguh why AMD would wnat to antagonize the company whose chipset got them where they are, I don't know.


How again did nvidia's get AMD where they are now?? :roll:
AMD got themselves where they are now with great engineering, on top.

Maybe they plan to use their combined engineering skills to make their own chipsets and shut nvidia out. Although Im not sure if this is a smart idea, but think of the saving that could be had by not having to pay a 2nd party company for chipsets. Maybe this is the beginning of the end for video cards and a glimpse of gpu sockets.
July 11, 2006 2:10:48 PM

More like MrsDD.


Yeah, I don't see this as anything more than fanciful rumors.
July 11, 2006 2:15:10 PM

Baron..... you are not looking at the big picture

you think GRAPHIC cards will be around forever?.....

with all this talk of 50 core Cpu's in 2010

With AMD working on CO PROCESSING so hard...

how hard would it be to make a multi-core CPU/GPU/PPU sometime in the future

If INTEL does that....and offers a fast total system solution in one chip....how could AMD compete with that.... it would be over for them

AMD is looking down the line with a ATI buy...

I hope it happens.... AMD needs this to happen
July 11, 2006 2:16:50 PM

You should really work on your text formatting.
July 11, 2006 2:19:32 PM

my text formatting is fine..... this is not 10 grade english class...
July 11, 2006 2:21:50 PM

AMD already tried making chipsets and it was a pure humiliation :lol: 
July 11, 2006 2:30:17 PM

Also .... buying Ati shuts out INTEL users from using Crossfire.

Intel doesnt support nvidias SLI anymore.

would make things hairy for INTEL users for high end gaming...they would have a faste CPU....but less game performance on the high end
July 11, 2006 2:50:33 PM

Quote:
AMD wont buy ATi. Why? Cause ATi is not 4free...
A lot cheaper than Nvidia.
July 11, 2006 2:56:02 PM

I can't see ATI wanting to merge with AMD.

Right now, ATI has a large market helped by the fierce competition between AMD and Intel. ATI graphics would become the winning solution on AMD systems because they would have the resources to fine tune the entire system. But, if they merge with AMD, they will effectively limit themselves to a company with 10-30% market share. Intel-ATI cooperation would be severely limited. Intel will not be keen to help ATI develop chipsets when the IP will then be used to make AMD chipsets. ATI graphics cards would still be compatible with Intel but without close cooperation, it would be very difficult to optimize performance to win the benchmarks. Crossfire would probably be dead on Intel platforms as it requires even tighter cooperation between CPU-chipset-GPUs to optimize the performance enough to win the benchmarks.

ATI would also not want to merge with AMD right when Intel is about to release a new processor that looks like it will drive a frenzy of high-end system builds in the coveted gamer/enthusiast market.

Also, an AMD-ATI merger will force Nvidia to snuggle up to Intel. AMD pays for the merger while Intel gets Nvidia for free. The resulting Intel-Nvidia cooperation could wind up locking ATI out of Intel-based systems. The same reason that made AMD-ATI the best system combination after a merger would apply to Intel-Nvidia as well. Nvidia would get the lion’s share of the grapics market by virtue of Intel’s market share.

Maybe, AMD wants to buy ATI's chipset unit. That might make some sense. ATI graphics could continue to build for both AMD and Intel. Still, Intel would probably feel betrayed and might not be as forthcoming with technical support. Intel has immense validation and support resources that ATI would hate to lose.
July 11, 2006 3:05:07 PM

your post is dead on .... enjoyed the read

but i am on the thinking that graphic cards as wee know it are going away...

one stop shop chips....andor GPU sockets co processing are coming....

AtiAMD can make a super system that INTEL would not be able to touch in performance.... Amd is building new fabs.. Ati would have free access...

Intel is going one stop shop CPU ...dont think they not...


GPU and CPU's will be merging.... what company wants to be out on thier own alone when it happens?
July 11, 2006 3:14:35 PM

I have absolutely no idea if the rumor has any truth to it or not.
But I'm not prepared to ridicule poster LordPope over his speculation.
I hope all of you who are being so harsh and negative -- and so certain that it's NOT going to happen -- are prepared to apologize if you're proven wrong.
July 11, 2006 3:26:08 PM

this is just friendly discussion on the WHAT IF's if this does happen...

I think its very interesting talk...with alot of ramifications of it does happen...

people will attack certain threads because of fan boi-ism or agendas...but thats the nature of hardware forums....
July 11, 2006 4:00:18 PM

As for this "no comment" stuff, anyone remember the saying that "no comment" is a comment? I mean, if it was absolutely untrue, ATI would just deny it. Only if it was true, or at least negotiations were going on, but they didn't want to admit it, would they simply say "no comment".

We'll probably hear a lot more in the coming days or weeks, with the next round not being rumors, but confirmations. Then the speculations over what it all means and how it will affect future hardware production can really run rampant.
July 11, 2006 4:23:46 PM

If you look at the direction hardware is going I would think that the next evolution of chip is the integration of all processes on one chip. Think of how fast everything would run if all processes were on one chip. No more chipsets. You are saving money on the cost of continuously making better North and South bridges. Why not bypass that whole middle hardware circuit and just have everything on one chip? You could have a whole new generation of CPU's that only require one motherboard solution instead of worrying about which chipset to buy.

I also think one interesting thing that has happened is the Mac platform going to Intel. What is the primary graphics processor used in all Mac's today? ATI. Mac is gaining market share so ATI will have a contant growth in that arena. If they buy out ATI they will be able to not only create a revolutionary CPU but also continue to grow with the Mac platform. It would be interesting to see if Intel would try to squeeze Jobs into picking Nvidia if they have no choice but to join forces with Nvidia.

The Mac hardware solution is far superior to any PC platform simply because it is engineered hand in hand with the software and OS. Something that the PC platform will never be able to achieve. Intel knows this and that is why they partnered with Mac. Now they will always be alive no matter which way the market shifts.

On the PC side...if AMD makes an incredible solution it may change the PC industry and bring it to a whole new level. AMD does have incredible engineering power and I think they have more than smaller CPU dies on the horizon. They have probably been thinking about an integrated chip for years. Maybe they have finally decided to make the move towards a new way of thinking about the processor.

I really find all this speculation interesting. It is also fun to try and predict which way things will go. I follow hardware alot and sometimes I come up with ideas that may sound out to lunch by todays standards...but if you can't think outside the box then where are you going? Running around the box in any direction is way more fun!!!

Cheers!
July 11, 2006 4:34:36 PM

we are thinking along the exact same lines my brother.

The PC as we know it...is going away

With all the talk of MULTI-CORES

Having GPUPPUCPU north n south bridges....all one on die is coming

it may take 22micron or lower to achieve it cost effectivly

buts its coming

AMD wants to be ready... Ati in house would really push the dare i say

OPU

OMNI PROCESSING UNIT
July 11, 2006 4:40:31 PM

Why do you keep posting like anything in the Inquirer is believable?
July 11, 2006 4:50:22 PM

we are having the same discussion at the JUNGLE

when is the INQ credible.

the answer seems to be....which AGENDA are u pushing

pro amd news on the INQ to a INTEL FAN bois is crap
Bad amd news on the INQ to an INTEL fan is GOSPEL TRUTH

and vice versa
July 11, 2006 4:51:38 PM

All interesting to say the least, yet if it would come to investing in stocks based on these speculations, there might be few takers. Of course, those takers might end up very rich too. Speculating can be fun, as long as no hard money is involved. Whatever happens, I think the future will be interesting. At least I hope it is. I hate being bored.
July 11, 2006 5:35:58 PM

If we go to GPU within the CPU, what would happen to consoles? I sure as hell wouldn't buy a PS4 if I could build my own comp that had just as good graphics integrated into the CPU. Also, integrated CPU graphics could make it so that laptops had just as tite of graphics as desktops, no more huge card to try to fit in 8O

What do you all think? If someday its all integrated do we all play on kick @$$ laptops?
a c 99 à CPUs
July 11, 2006 5:52:23 PM

After AMD broke off from Intel with the whole 386 flap (at that time, AMD already had plans for the 486 and so they cloned those too) AMD made their independently-designed processors pin- and chipset-compatible with Pentium Socket 7 motherboards. Once Intel switched from Socket 7 to Slot 1 with the Pentium II, that broke AMD's compatibility with Intel's motherboards. Manufacturers responded with the Super Socket 7, which gave AMD a little more headroom on that platform, but AMD eventually needed to get a new socket and with that a new chipset. AMD could and did make some chipsets, but they needed their fab capacity to make CPUs more than chipsets, so they needed a second source. Intel pretty much told most every chipset maker that they would not be able to use or make Intel-compatible chipsets if they made AMD-compatible chipsets. NVIDIA was big enough and had the experience to flip Intel the bird and help AMD to launch the Athlon Classic in Slot A with their chipset support.
July 11, 2006 6:00:31 PM

Quote:
we are thinking along the exact same lines my brother.

The PC as we know it...is going away

With all the talk of MULTI-CORES

Having GPUPPUCPU north n south bridges....all one on die is coming

it may take 22micron or lower to achieve it cost effectivly

buts its coming

AMD wants to be ready... Ati in house would really push the dare i say

OPU

OMNI PROCESSING UNIT


While it is possible, I wouldnt count on it. If you remember 15 years ago, the CPU pretty much did everything, with graphics and audio cards being little more than output interfaces.

The advent of the GPU years ago (then called VPU) freed CPU resourses consumed by processing video data, which allowed for substantial performance increases as well as more complex program writing. It also lead to further separation of processes within systems.

While developing independant sub system processors does invariably lead to compatability conflicts, it also signifcant reduces component R&D costs and cycle times, while allowing experiance bases to be built a faster rate through specialization.

Additionally, I find it highly unlikely that any manufacturer would integrate CPU/GPU for desktop/server (though laptop, tablet, mobile etc are strong possibilities for the obvious space/power savings) as it would severly restrict custom system taylorability as well as significantly confine the possibility of individual component upgrading. You are right, it could increase efficency if implemented correctly, but people love the freedom of options and choices, dont you? Choose your own components and have it your way, or have it the only way one manufacturure says you can have it. Blaaa.
July 11, 2006 6:01:46 PM

meh... you're paraphrasing. what ATI really said was, "we don't comment on rumors."

besides, I think the bigger story is that nVidia's stock is at $18. WTF???? that is undervalued.
July 11, 2006 6:24:30 PM

Quote:
meh... you're paraphrasing. what ATI really said was, "we don't comment on rumors."

besides, I think the bigger story is that nVidia's stock is at $18. WTF???? that is undervalued.


that is cheap. i may buy some. I guess no one realizes nVidia wouldn't be very pleased and they did help AMD build to this point. I could see them (AMD/nVidia) merging but even then why piss off the other chipset/GPU provider?

Bad blood isn't good for business.
July 11, 2006 6:33:22 PM

Quote:
Additionally, I find it highly unlikely that any manufacturer would integrate CPU/GPU for desktop/server (though laptop, tablet, mobile etc are strong possibilities for the obvious space/power savings) as it would severly restrict custom system taylorability as well as significantly confine the possibility of individual component upgrading.


Kinda like we see with the console market now huh? Not saying its likely, but if it did all get integrated hypothetically you would have your AMD/ATi system or Intel/nVidia system, perhaps with each manufacturer offering different levels of gaming performance CPU
July 11, 2006 6:34:22 PM

this of this scenario

its 2012

AMD/ATI introduced ATHLON K10+ line

12 core top models has built in quad core Radeon x6000x GPU
8 core has dual core'd radeon x6000
8 core had dual core's radeon x5000
4 core has 1 radeon x6000
4 core has 1 radeon x5000

this could be something we would be looking it

power user...down to value segment

there will be no more SAPPHIRE or HIS or EVGA making Graphic cards however.....
July 11, 2006 6:47:05 PM

I doubt that the GPU will be incorporated into the CPU. The two are different enough that the pain of integration outweighs the benefits.

1) GPU design cycle is much faster than CPU
- Graphics feature set changes much faster than CPU
- GPU is obsolete much sooner than CPU

2) Modern GPU takes just as much silicon as the whole multicore CPU
- It's not just a matter of dropping the GPU in place of one of the CPU cores
- Maybe a value GPU core could replace a CPU core box, but nobody who knows the difference will want that. Maybe a 3 core Celeron/Sempron bundled with a value GPU core would make a super-cheap entry level system.

3) GPU likes to have a lot of wide, fast, dedicated memory access. The GPU will not want to share this with the CPU cores if it wants to maintain performance. Pin count on CPU just increased by 300-500. GRAM is now on motherboard very close to CPU. Board layout will be a nightmare. Motherboard is now tied directly to a specific CPU stepping.

The problems go on and on. The benefits are compromised by the problems so that the super CPU is worse than the current system.
July 11, 2006 6:56:56 PM

Quote:
this of this scenario

its 2012

AMD/ATI introduced ATHLON K10+ line

12 core top models has built in quad core Radeon x6000x GPU
8 core has dual core'd radeon x6000
8 core had dual core's radeon x5000
4 core has 1 radeon x6000
4 core has 1 radeon x5000

this could be something we would be looking it

power user...down to value segment

there will be no more SAPPHIRE or HIS or EVGA making Graphic cards however.....


Exactly what I was trying to say. Word.
July 11, 2006 7:50:30 PM

WOW, youre posting so much cr*p, I thought it was impossible to post such cr*p but youve proved me wrong.
July 11, 2006 7:52:48 PM

you make good points to counter mines....

appreciate the discussion.

what we dont know ..is what new tech will come out to make the high powered OPU a reality...

todays contraints may not be tommorrows
July 11, 2006 7:59:03 PM

ATI saying no comment to a possible AMD takeover doesn't make it a done deal. Far from it.

There are many reasons why AMD would not merge with ATI and many have already been mentioned. One for instance is ATI's close relationship with Intel after Intel agreed to allow some ATI chipsets to be branded under the Intel banner. The other, is ATI's relatively indifferent attitude toward AMD after AMD gave nVidia exclusive rights to their own 4x4 platform.

A great example of my points is here:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32915

Quote:
It is an Intel-only chipset and there are no signs of an equivalent PCIe 16x3 chipset for AMD. ATI wants to focus on Intel and wants to be early on the Conroe bandwagon so it can make some extra money.

Essentially, now that AMD has given nVidia their 4x4 platform, ATI is partnering with Intel to offer their own exclusive 16x3 platform. (Well, the marketing people are definitely working full out with these concepts.) It doesn't make sense for ATI to devote themselves to Intel while working on a contract with AMD. Certainly, Intel would never allow ATI to get this close to them if ATI was working behind their back. The fact that ATI is focusing on Intel also doesn't make a good starting place of mutual understanding for acquisition negotiations with AMD.

Quote:
its 2012

AMD/ATI introduced ATHLON K10+ line

12 core top models has built in quad core Radeon x6000x GPU
8 core has dual core'd radeon x6000
8 core had dual core's radeon x5000
4 core has 1 radeon x6000
4 core has 1 radeon x5000

Furthermore, this type of scenario with GPUs "built-in" to your CPU is completely ridiculous. There is no way you can offer a wide enough product matrix with combinations of CPU and GPU power as you can when the two are separate. Secondly, if that was really AMD's plan no one would ever agree to it. ATI would be completely reliant on AMD since cooperation is out of the picture and nVidia would never work with AMD again since they are completely cut out from the market. This on top of the fact that the thermals for such and integrated CPU/GPU solution would be through the roof regardless of what magical process you are on. This type of bundling is also anti-competitive just as Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with their OS is frowned upon.

Regardless, I cannot support any sort of CPU-GPU merger or acquisition. It doesn't matter who partners with who, all it'll serve is to split the market into camps say the AMD-ATI camp against the Intel-nVidia camp. Dividing the market destroys consumer choice and limits free competition and the survivability of the market in general. These recent platformization campaigns and AMD's lawsuit are already pooling people into camps and I can't say I like it.
July 11, 2006 8:08:16 PM

you too. good points. a lot of the things you said helped me to further my thoughts. only time will tell. peace
July 11, 2006 9:10:00 PM

Quote:
this of this scenario

its 2012

AMD/ATI introduced ATHLON K10+ line

12 core top models has built in quad core Radeon x6000x GPU
8 core has dual core'd radeon x6000
8 core had dual core's radeon x5000
4 core has 1 radeon x6000
4 core has 1 radeon x5000

this could be something we would be looking it

power user...down to value segment

there will be no more SAPPHIRE or HIS or EVGA making Graphic cards however.....

I doubt this scenario will ever come to light. However, you are not entirely wrong about the possibility of integrated video controllers, as Intel is going to try...again.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060615075534.html
It's mostly about the possibility of an IMC on Intel chips, but they say this towards the end:
Quote:
Rumours about Intel’s plans to incorporate memory controller into processor have been floating around for a couple of years now, even though no one knows what future memory chip from Intel will get the feature. At the same time this is the first time, when the company speaks about building graphics core – which would obviously result in increased die size, transistor count and power consumption of the CPU – into microprocessors after the failure or project code-named Timna, which contained Intel Pentium III core, memory controller and graphics controller on chip.

Obviously, a project that revitalizes the idea which is about eight years old may be targeted primarily at low-end personal computers. For example, it could enable very affordable systems for developing countries. However, such an all-in-one chip would never boast with support for latest technologies.
July 11, 2006 9:24:03 PM

How far do you think we will need to go before we make a video card or processor so powerful that it seeing one generation to the next is barely visible to the eye? If that were to happen what is the next step? A smaller version. 10 years is probably way to far forward to think about what the configuration might be but if CPU/GPU/whetever was so powerful from one generation to the next that even programmers could think of making something more realistic through sheer advances in programming technologies then the only thing to do is make it smaller.

Maybe the desktop will soon disappear and the laptop will become a standard piece of equipment...and the only one needed for even the fastest tasks. 10 years isn't far off towards having a totally flat integration of CPU/GPU/RAM/whatever. I think combining everything into one chip is just a matter of time. It has to start somewhere.

Think of the first computers that filled rooms. The same power is now in a desk calculator. I think the same thing will happen to the desktop PC.

Just a thought.
July 11, 2006 9:27:34 PM

I heard the Inquirer was being bought by 3dfx. The evidence of this is that they haven't posted a story denying it.
July 11, 2006 9:34:50 PM

One of the future advancements I have heard in recent months comes from USB flash drives and how they could replace mobile desktop computing in 10-15 years. Mind you, this is for people who need to check e-mail and do baisc office tasks, not game, but I still think it is interesting. The OS and all the user's data would be on the flash drive. The idea is that desktops would become commodity items and you would find them everywhere, like in hotel rooms, etc. One would merely plug in their drive and go to work. Basically, instead of having to remotely access one's desktop to do work while abroad, you would "carry your desktop" with you.

That's what I heard.
July 11, 2006 9:42:09 PM

Quote:
you think GRAPHIC cards will be around forever?.....


You're idiocy amazes me.

Quote:
with all this talk of 50 core Cpu's in 2010


You simply can not compare cpus to gpus for 3D graphics.

Quote:
With AMD working on CO PROCESSING so hard...


Yeah look at all the options.

Quote:
my text formatting is fine..... this is not 10 grade english class...


Christ man kindergarten is of higher quality then this.
July 11, 2006 9:52:39 PM

i sense that me and you may end up going at it shortly
July 11, 2006 9:58:15 PM

I sense that too but you left out the part of me handing your ass to you.
July 11, 2006 9:59:10 PM

Quote:
i sense that me and you may end up going at it shortly



VERSUS

$50 says it ends in a draw.
!