Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is Intel thinking?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 25, 2006 3:02:48 AM

I know, another AMD-ATI related thread, but I felt like expression my point of view and I think this is different from most other threads.

What has peaked my interest up to this point is what has Intel been doing all this time. First, months ago when an AMD-ATI acquisition was only rumours Intel was already making rounds with it's partners telling them to prepare for an ATI takeover. From the way it was expressed, it seemed like Intel was almost hopeful for the deal. They certainly didn't do anything to discourage it. The question is why?

I suppose it may have been a move to try to bid up ATI's stock in order to discourage AMD, but obviously that didn't work out well.

The thing is, those rounds point out to the fact that Intel knew a merger was coming months in advance. The problem I'm having is that their response is completely out of wack.

For example, they didn't release a new high-end chipset. Instead they are relying on ATI and nVidia to provide them. They know AMD is going to buy ATI, and they let ATI be their launch flagship? What makes even less sense is the ease at which Intel could have released their own high-end chipset. They didn't even need to design a new one. Just take the i975X, tighten the validation specs a bit and you can easily achieve a 1333MHz FSB and DDR2 800 or DDR2 1067 specs. 1333MHz FSBs are already present in Bad-Axe's BIOS, and DDR2 1067 is in ASUS's i975X boards. It would have required virtually no effort on Intel's part at all. Just set the specs. What's more, all motherboard makers already had to redesign the boards to make it compatible with Conroe. A minor chipset update would have fit into the revalidation process perfectly. It would have just been like the i925X to i925XE transition. Instead, with the flagship RD600 going to AMD, Intel did nothing.

Looking at the rest of Intel's chipset situation is even worse. ATI's chispet revenue is going to go to Intel, and Intel is taking their sweet time introducing the P965. The G965, Q965, and Q963 barely even exist. i946 chipsets are also slow to market. Again, they are relying on nVidia and ATI when they knew the situation months in advance.

This leaves me to wonder what Intel's plan really is since they've put themselves in a very awkward situation?

In the short-term the obvious thing is to distance themselves from ATI. I think we'll see that with the Conroe launch on July 27th. Little things go a long way like possibly greating ATI's deligation with lower level executives. The speaking order will probably be rearranged to feature nVidia more prominantly. I have no doubt most of the systems will have nVidia graphics cards and Quad SLI on the nForce 590 will be the new "ultimate gaming solution".

Intel is obviously trying to get SLI licensing worked out and nVidia may be more receptive now since they want to be "much more intimate" with Intel.

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/10416

The easiest way to feature nVidia prominantly is to include nVidia GPUs in Apple's product line instead of ATI's currently. Apple is Intel's flashy trend setter so that will certainly get people's attention.

Ironically, I think the thing to watch for from Intel is not Conroe, but actually the GMA X3000. If it is actually a competitive IGP, ie 8 unified shaders or something like that, then things are certainly looking up for Intel. If they really wanted to get into the GPU game again, all they would then need to do is slap the thing on a daughter card with some memory and they'd have a decent low-end graphics card. Once they have unified shaders, high end graphics cards are easier since it's just more shader iterations.

Anyways, I've gone on too long. I have more to say but I've lost my train of thought, but I'd be interested to here from others why they think Intel's been so passive about this AMD-ATI business up to now and what they think Intel's going to do next.

More about : intel thinking

July 25, 2006 3:26:51 AM

Intel has it's own highend chipset for C2D. You just dont know about it yet :wink:
July 25, 2006 3:56:26 AM

All I can say is Torrenza. With all of the industry saying Go, AMD, it's no wonder that Intel's isolationist policies are doing them harm.
Even if AMD rebrands ATi - which is like renaming Angelina Jolie or Jenna Jameson, or even AlienWare - Intel needs the support of GPU companies.

AMD may have "hard feelings" with this purchase but in the long run they need to have the glueless high end to keep their momentum. Just K8L with nForce X won't cover a 16,000 core data warehouse.

Intel's reaction has been kind of ho-hum. I always felt that Intel was too stand-offish to OTHER billion dollar companies. No one expects them to admit they aren'tthe number one CPU manuf and inventor of x86, but just a wireless mobo with chip do not a PC make.

Some humility is required. Intel's corporate stance is not one of humility. They were due to bleed money before this, but now

8O 8O 8O


Have you researched how many available mobos there are for Core 2? It is a real headache that Core 2 is not compatible with the older - not so - chipsets.

Without Ati 1100, they are without Vista Premium unlessthey use nVidia G80 IGP. Of course considering X3000 isn't up to the task. Rotating DX10 text is not a trivial matter.

Dell has to bet even more on it. I complain enough about Intel IGP. If MS does a good marketing campaign, business may adopt quickly, and MS would want Aero-Premium capable graphics on Vista Business Premium.

I figure a good 8-12 pipe chip will do it, but the emphasis is on good. I did hear that Intel bought some little GPU shop but I hope their timing was right.


Though MS, in my opinion held back somewha on X64 Pro because Intel wasn't ready. Again, they aren't ready for the next OS bump. Itanium Windows Pro was cancelled for lack of interest.

I guess I can end with, What WAS Intel thinking....?
Related resources
July 25, 2006 4:32:35 AM

I want to know what you're thinking when you post all your BS.
July 25, 2006 4:42:41 AM

Quote:
I want to know what you're thinking when you post all your BS.

The only thing you ever post is, "hey your post sucked, what were you thinking"

Try harder.
July 25, 2006 4:47:01 AM

Quote:
intel already does graphics. if discrete graphics are needed i am sure intel will address that and start working on it.


You better cut back on the beer and candy. Intel cannot just jump in and start making a competitive discreet graphics card. Period. End of story. To design and build such a product takes years, especially starting from basically scratch. Intels "extreme" graphics is slower than a 3 year old card. How do you expect them to even attempt to make something that will compete with NVIDIA or ATI's best.
July 25, 2006 4:51:03 AM

Quote:
There is a small feud going on within the forums recently.

You don't say LOL
July 25, 2006 4:55:27 AM

Quote:
New take on the situation, I'll bite ....

Though this has been rumored for months, I have not really thought the implications through completely.... so forgive me, my opinion today may change tomorrow as more and more data comes in, and it may take several months before I know exactly what I think of this deal.

On to Intel's reaction, basically there was none.... I can think of a couple situations:

1. Intel wanted the deal to transpire. In this scenario, Intel knew the cash burdon it would put on AMD, and the fact that it would dilute AMD's focus not sharpen it. Under this guise, this give Intel much more leverage to push AMD back, perhaps even force them under on a fair playground and take their chances with the anti-trust probes that would result. Who knows, perhaps. In any event, the AMD will be spending all it's cash reserves, barrowing and diluting the share base to purchase what -- a new fab, nope.... a factor for assembly, nope.... a set of design engineers and a install base of hardward manufactured at foundaries. Huge, but not worth driving the buying company into the ground. Intel understands the pain of expensive acquistions, this is similar to Intel's purchase of Dec/StrongARM --- looks great on paper, great new market, but they found it harder to compete than originally thought. As such, a finanically weakened AMD is easier to beat back.

2. Intel is working on it's own graphics solution and can forge other deals with nVidia (I actually see nVidia as a big winner in all this ultimately if they play their cards right). Intel has the upper hand in this regard as they have the design team and resources --- Charlie D. seems to think for AMD to ultimately compete they had no choice but to go out shopping. Jon Hannibal of Artechnica seems to be thinking along the same lines. So Intel develops a rippin' great GPU (perhaps not suprassing ATI/nVidia, but sufficiently competitive). They work to integrate this well within the x86 platform. AMD really does the acquisition as a longer term 'head em off at the pass' move with has strategic implications.

I could understand that ultimately what you will see is a stronger Intel/nVidia relationship open up --- where Intel develops entry, mid range SLI solutions and leave high end enthusiast solutions. Or event joint development between Intel/nVidia. Right now that seems far fetched, but 6 months ago when the AMD buying ATI rumor surfaced I thought it far fetched as well, and well, here we are.

Jack


Jack,

Interesing post, as always.

On point one, Im sure you know, but the deal for the AMD fab in NY has been struck, as of 23/26 June. (depends which article you read)

http://www.computerwire.com/industries/research/?pid=89...
http://www.fabtech.org/content/view/1624

AMD really has no idea what they're getting into there, but they will find out soon enough, once the NYS taxpayers find out thy're footing almost 1/3 of the $3B fabs cost. While the "deal is done", I suspect its far from done. This is interesting, because it leaves AMD to come up with $2.1B I think this throws a very dynamic variable into AMDs financial situation, not to mention possible changes to its plans for the NY fab

On point 2, much as I hate to admit it, Charlie made some really good/interesting points. I havent read Jon Hannibals take yet. Thanks for pointing it out.


Peace
July 25, 2006 4:58:55 AM

Shut up noob.
July 25, 2006 4:59:10 AM

I think everyones response is "ho hum" right now. Nobody really knows what they will come out with, and nobody really knows whether this is good for either company. Only time will tell.

Ooooh, really sucks to be intel right now. I would hate to have the best chip on the market on the verge of release. Then potentially losing a chipset maker so that consumers have to buy more chipsets from me. Oh and it really sucks that I currently make the most graphics chips in the world (onboard counts). Oh, and we will have quad core before them, tis such a shame, we already made them lose profits from AM2. Gaa I hate profits.
July 25, 2006 5:22:47 AM

Quote:
All I can say is Torrenza. With all of the industry saying Go, AMD, it's no wonder that Intel's isolationist policies are doing them harm.
Even if AMD rebrands ATi - which is like renaming Angelina Jolie or Jenna Jameson, or even AlienWare - Intel needs the support of GPU companies.

AMD may have "hard feelings" with this purchase but in the long run they need to have the glueless high end to keep their momentum. Just K8L with nForce X won't cover a 16,000 core data warehouse.

Intel's reaction has been kind of ho-hum. I always felt that Intel was too stand-offish to OTHER billion dollar companies. No one expects them to admit they aren'tthe number one CPU manuf and inventor of x86, but just a wireless mobo with chip do not a PC make.

Some humility is required. Intel's corporate stance is not one of humility. They were due to bleed money before this, but now

8O 8O 8O


Have you researched how many available mobos there are for Core 2? It is a real headache that Core 2 is not compatible with the older - not so - chipsets.

Without Ati 1100, they are without Vista Premium unlessthey use nVidia G80 IGP. Of course considering X3000 isn't up to the task. Rotating DX10 text is not a trivial matter.

Dell has to bet even more on it. I complain enough about Intel IGP. If MS does a good marketing campaign, business may adopt quickly, and MS would want Aero-Premium capable graphics on Vista Business Premium.

I figure a good 8-12 pipe chip will do it, but the emphasis is on good. I did hear that Intel bought some little GPU shop but I hope their timing was right.


Though MS, in my opinion held back somewha on X64 Pro because Intel wasn't ready. Again, they aren't ready for the next OS bump. Itanium Windows Pro was cancelled for lack of interest.

I guess I can end with, What WAS Intel thinking....?


Actually it has been run on an 865PE before.
July 25, 2006 6:18:58 AM

Quote:
Intel has it's own highend chipset for C2D. You just dont know about it yet

That's what I'm hoping for. Supposedly the i985 was on Intel roadmaps before, but it was pulled a while ago. All I really want is a i975X refresh with 1333MHz FSB and DDR2 1067 brought from unofficial status to official status. I'm hoping that this Bad-Axe 2 Intel is working on will provide, but reports from Anandtech that it's been cancelled isn't reassuring.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3374

Anyways, the best time for Intel to introduce a new high-end chipset would be at the July 27th Conroe launch before RD600 can get on the market and steal the show.
July 25, 2006 6:41:07 AM

Quote:
I want to know what you're thinking when you post all your BS.


I want to know how BM goes from saying such a merger is a disaster on friday to it's all good for AMd on monday.
July 25, 2006 6:46:44 AM

Changing positions faster that John Kerry. Quite an accomplishment.
July 25, 2006 6:51:00 AM

In terms of Intel wanting to dwindle AMD's free cash, I always wondered whether Intel would make a counter-bid. They obviously wouldn't want to acquire ATI, but it would serve to bid up the price. However, ATI saying that they have had no negotiations with Intel on this front makes it unlikely. This kind of goes back to Intel's indifferent approach. You'd think they'd at least look into the possibility of acquiring ATI if AMD is doing it.

On another note, I'd be interested to know what products Intel is currently manufacturing using the P1265 process. That's the low power 65nm process. I'm thinking it was probably used in the Core Duo ULV processors which would explain how the 1.2GHz dual core U2500 could have a 9W TDP. Obviously, the P1265 process was for XScale, but now that division is sold. Since the P1265 process has very low leakage at the cost of reduced transistor performance I'm thinking that that would be the perfect process for Intel to make discrete GPUs if they wanted to. 600MHz-800MHz clock speeds should be achievable at lower power consumption and heat than today's top end graphics cards. If Intel is moving in this direction they'd probably need to convert over another Fab though, since although they'll have 4 65nm Fabs by year end, 1 will be converting to 45nm dropping it down to 3. With chipsets also transitioning sooner or later, if Intel is also producing GPUs, Itaniums (always seem a process generation behind), and legacy processors 3 Fabs may not be enough.
July 25, 2006 7:19:04 AM

Just another thought to throw out there:

With the 5.4b purchase price, AMD could have built another two fabs. Maybe Intel did this to undercut AMDs ability to mass-produce CPUs. This may not be a big deal now, but how will AMD now keep up with Intel pushing their "new CPU every two years" process? They don't have the manufacturing throughput to keep up now. With a smaller volume of chips being produced, it will drive AMDs revenue down as ASP goes down and volume goes up (cheap CPUs = more available markets to sell them in). This obviously isn't the only reasoning behind Intel seeming to "want" this to happen, but it could have played a part in it. What do you guys think?
July 25, 2006 7:20:26 AM

I think this whole thing is basically crap.

AMD can't develop a platform on their own, so what do they do, buy a gpu manufacturer. sounds alright, but really I think they're going to hurt a good chunk of consumers. AMD can now make a platform to sell to the oem's, but they've also just pulled one of the two gfx makers into their bed, and put a big rift between ATI and intel.

are ATI/intel combinations going to be hurt from all this? what about nvidia/AMD? AMD claims they won't stifle out nvidia, but if they're capable of replacing nforce with their own in-house (more profitable) solution, why would they want anyone buying nforce? they've contradicted themselves completely by turning their back on the whole "choices", "multiple companies working together" thing they've talked up in the past.

consumers now have less choice as there's going to be a lot more "politics" involved in what's developed and what works best with what in the cpu/gpu market. AMD gets to make more money, we all get ****ed a little.

imo.
July 25, 2006 7:26:17 AM

Quote:
In terms of Intel wanting to dwindle AMD's free cash, I always wondered whether Intel would make a counter-bid. They obviously wouldn't want to acquire ATI, but it would serve to bid up the price. However, ATI saying that they have had no negotiations with Intel on this front makes it unlikely. This kind of goes back to Intel's indifferent approach. You'd think they'd at least look into the possibility of acquiring ATI if AMD is doing it.

On another note, I'd be interested to know what products Intel is currently manufacturing using the P1265 process. That's the low power 65nm process. I'm thinking it was probably used in the Core Duo ULV processors which would explain how the 1.2GHz dual core U2500 could have a 9W TDP. Obviously, the P1265 process was for XScale, but now that division is sold. Since the P1265 process has very low leakage at the cost of reduced transistor performance I'm thinking that that would be the perfect process for Intel to make discrete GPUs if they wanted to. 600MHz-800MHz clock speeds should be achievable at lower power consumption and heat than today's top end graphics cards. If Intel is moving in this direction they'd probably need to convert over another Fab though, since although they'll have 4 65nm Fabs by year end, 1 will be converting to 45nm dropping it down to 3. With chipsets also transitioning sooner or later, if Intel is also producing GPUs, Itaniums (always seem a process generation behind), and legacy processors 3 Fabs may not be enough.


If Intel made a move to buy ATI, wouldn't that pretty much be suicide in the courts? I mean, buying out half of the GPU market would certainly not sit well when trying to defend monopolistic practices. They were pretty much up against a wall and the only choice was to let it happen.
July 25, 2006 7:30:59 AM

Quote:
In terms of Intel wanting to dwindle AMD's free cash, I always wondered whether Intel would make a counter-bid. They obviously wouldn't want to acquire ATI, but it would serve to bid up the price. However, ATI saying that they have had no negotiations with Intel on this front makes it unlikely. This kind of goes back to Intel's indifferent approach. You'd think they'd at least look into the possibility of acquiring ATI if AMD is doing it.

On another note, I'd be interested to know what products Intel is currently manufacturing using the P1265 process. That's the low power 65nm process. I'm thinking it was probably used in the Core Duo ULV processors which would explain how the 1.2GHz dual core U2500 could have a 9W TDP. Obviously, the P1265 process was for XScale, but now that division is sold. Since the P1265 process has very low leakage at the cost of reduced transistor performance I'm thinking that that would be the perfect process for Intel to make discrete GPUs if they wanted to. 600MHz-800MHz clock speeds should be achievable at lower power consumption and heat than today's top end graphics cards. If Intel is moving in this direction they'd probably need to convert over another Fab though, since although they'll have 4 65nm Fabs by year end, 1 will be converting to 45nm dropping it down to 3. With chipsets also transitioning sooner or later, if Intel is also producing GPUs, Itaniums (always seem a process generation behind), and legacy processors 3 Fabs may not be enough.



a) how do you know the process name p1265?
b) It's the part you're worried about :lol: 
July 25, 2006 7:51:31 AM

This is alot to absorb and everything that we are saying is really pure speculation. I don't think that AMD would venture into such a huge acquisition without thinking strategy months, years, in advance.

This is all interesting dialogue but it is so late here in New York, after putting in some extremely late hours, the only thing I am going to remember from all this is BaronMatrix's mention of Angelina Joilie and Jenna Jameson.
July 25, 2006 8:00:10 AM

Quote:
This is alot to absorb and everything that we are saying is really pure speculation. I don't think that AMD would venture into such a huge acquisition without thinking strategy months, years, in advance.

This is all interesting dialogue but it is so late here in New York, after putting in some extremely late hours, the only thing I am going to remember from all this is BaronMatrix's mention of Angelina Joilie and Jenna Jameson.


Never speak those 3 names in the same sentence again. Blasphemer.
July 25, 2006 12:06:17 PM

Quote:
I want to know what you're thinking when you post all your BS.



I'm thinking your'e not the boss of me.
July 25, 2006 12:53:22 PM

Quote:
Changing positions faster that John Kerry. Quite an accomplishment.

Or George W. Bush
July 25, 2006 2:15:56 PM

Quote:

Jack,

Interesing post, as always.

On point one, Im sure you know, but the deal for the AMD fab in NY has been struck, as of 23/26 June. (depends which article you read)

http://www.computerwire.com/industries/research/?pid=89...
http://www.fabtech.org/content/view/1624

AMD really has no idea what they're getting into there, but they will find out soon enough, once the NYS taxpayers find out thy're footing almost 1/3 of the $3B fabs cost. While the "deal is done", I suspect its far from done. This is interesting, because it leaves AMD to come up with $2.1B I think this throws a very dynamic variable into AMDs financial situation, not to mention possible changes to its plans for the NY fab

On point 2, much as I hate to admit it, Charlie made some really good/interesting points. I havent read Jon Hannibals take yet. Thanks for pointing it out.


Peace


AMD isn't going to have this fab up until at least 2009 - and that's only if AMD steps up it's shrink schedule (Intel has said this is the time when they are going to 32nm and AMD has said the same thing - look at the gap today - either AMD will do older than 32nm tech here, or they will delay this fab). 2009 is an extremely bloated schedule if they started today. Expect them to break ground next year in the summer IFF (if and only if) they get taxes handled with NY. 1billion in breaks might suddenly disappear when they break ground :) .

So they have a year to knock down some debt from this ATI deal (assuming they close it quickly). I agree, this could line up to be very hard on AMD cash-wise, while Intel continues to hammer them with superior products for cheaper prices. AMD eeked by with 89 million in profit this quarter, they might not be so fortunate in the future.

I say good luck AMD. They should come out of this (I'm not predicting bankruptcy), but how they come out of it is what's in the air.
July 25, 2006 3:19:30 PM

Qoute:
"The thing is, those rounds point out to the fact that Intel knew a merger was coming months in advance. The problem I'm having is that their response is completely out of wack."

Yes it is...
It's also a symptom of a company where top management strategy lies elswhere. One business unit produces a state of the art product, and then the marketing guys price it rediculously low. Another unit (chipsets) is not on the same page and suprise, no Conroe specific motherboards. AMD and ATI merge, and Intel is looking the other way. Employees are being shuffled around if not just layed off altogether. The CEO talks about ViiV and home entertainment as big growth areas. "Intel Inside" is dumped in favor of new logos too numerous to mention (let alone remember).

Have you ever worked for a company that grew so large it "forgot' what made it great? This is the kind of stuff that happens...
July 25, 2006 3:42:51 PM

Quote:
I want to know what you're thinking when you post all your BS.


Basically, BM is reacting idiotically knee jerk reaction just like the stock market.
July 25, 2006 4:06:39 PM

Quote:
I want to know what you're thinking when you post all your BS.


Basically, BM is reacting idiotically knee jerk reaction just like the stock market.

I agree the market is a hmmm sometimes over reactive :)  but I also think AMD may be biteing off more then it can chew... From what I understand when two companies merge it takes a whole product cycle before there is any benifits. Maybe this will be good but I dont expect it to be good for quite some time :( 
July 25, 2006 5:23:48 PM

Quote:
intel already does graphics. if discrete graphics are needed i am sure intel will address that and start working on it. i wouldnt worry to much on this ati thing. the real comparison is the part that makes the most profit. can amd really compete with intel/conroe? if so please link the benchmarks
other wise save the hot air for someone else who will listen



uoy kcuf.
July 25, 2006 5:27:25 PM

Quote:
i didnt say they could make it tomarrow i said they will probably start working on it if needed. dont forget intel has made a discrete graaphics card before. they left that market after realizing most of the profit is with IGD systems



Too bad they sucked as much as you. Hot air that.
July 25, 2006 5:33:02 PM

Quote:
I want to know what you're thinking when you post all your BS.


Basically, BM is reacting idiotically knee jerk reaction just like the stock market.


Is that English? I though you got off the special bus.
July 25, 2006 5:39:07 PM

Quote:
I want to know what you're thinking when you post all your BS.


Basically, BM is reacting idiotically knee jerk reaction just like the stock market.


Is that English? I though you got off the special bus.Is this English?

Quote:
uoy kcuf.


From your post #33. :wink:

You were at the back of the bus.
July 25, 2006 5:41:49 PM

Quote:
I want to know what you're thinking when you post all your BS.


Basically, BM is reacting idiotically knee jerk reaction just like the stock market.

I agree the market is a hmmm sometimes over reactive :)  but I also think AMD may be biteing off more then it can chew... From what I understand when two companies merge it takes a whole product cycle before there is any benifits. Maybe this will be good but I dont expect it to be good for quite some time :( 


I admittedly didn't think much of this merger but this is unique in that most mergers are two different companies. This mergeris between two companies that compliment each other's products. When MS purchases something MS usually gets less out of it than the com purchased.

In htis case AMD automatically gets a bucnh of chipsets. Look at AienWare/Dell. They hav enot skipped a beat becaus ethey are still separate companies. AMD should make ATi a wholly-owned subsidiary. That way the brand stays the same. that's very important.

Intel is in a bad way right now because of this. They need to be more receptive to partners. Every partner they've had is now pissed at them for one thing or another even Dell.

Even I can't exist in a vacuum.


Hoepfuly Otellini will take AMDs cue and share the wealth. there is more than enough to go around. Intel cannot be expected to employ even half of what they have.

I'm sure the axe will fall on many more jobs before next year. It's unfortunate because a little live and let live would serve them well right about now.
July 25, 2006 5:47:43 PM

Quote:
I admittedly didn't think much of this merger but this is unique in that most mergers are two different companies. This mergeris between two companies that compliment each other's products. When MS purchases something MS usually gets less out of it than the com purchased.
You mean like KY-Jelly and Trojan condoms compliment each other??? They're both used to screw you. :wink:
July 25, 2006 6:18:19 PM

Quote:

I admittedly didn't think much of this merger but this is unique in that most mergers are two different companies. This mergeris between two companies that compliment each other's products. When MS purchases something MS usually gets less out of it than the com purchased.

In htis case AMD automatically gets a bucnh of chipsets. Look at AienWare/Dell. They hav enot skipped a beat becaus ethey are still separate companies. AMD should make ATi a wholly-owned subsidiary. That way the brand stays the same. that's very important.


Yeah, but the key is that ATI is now cut out of supplying INTC chipsets (low end or not, it was a nice source of revenue).

Heading into the future, I suspect Intel will favor Nvidia both for any chipsets it may need. Does intel even has to provide info to ATI on what's needed to make future chipsets? If not, then the entire intel MB market becomes closed off to ATI/AMD.

Given intels current market share position and the fact that even in a best case scenario AMD will have 50% of the market (give or take), that's not a positive. So maybe for that reason there's no downside to AMD as far as Nvidia is concerned.

Frankly, I don't know why they needed ATI for chipsets. As I recall, it was AMD that originally released the chipsets (and possibly MBs) for the Athlons (and/or Athlon 64s).

I hope this is a good move, but I'm less than convinced.

Quote:

Intel is in a bad way right now because of this. They need to be more receptive to partners. Every partner they've had is now pissed at them for one thing or another even Dell.


We'll see. If over the next year Dell is selling 30-50% amd chips, then I agree. If it's 10-20%, it's certainly a loss for intel, but it's not the end of the world by any stretch. It really just means that Dell has caught up with all the other vendors.

But no matter, I don't see how this merger negatively affects intel over the next year or 2.
July 25, 2006 7:07:31 PM

Quote:

Have you researched how many available mobos there are for Core 2? It is a real headache that Core 2 is not compatible with the older - not so - chipsets.

I guess I can end with, What WAS Intel thinking....?


I don't know. How would have the Core 2 Arch turned out if they made it backward compatible with some of the older chipsets. Yes Intel has been working on it for some time. But I rather get a new product that is a major leap in profamce for a great price. Then get something that is backwards compatible and doesn't have such a leap in tech. Got to remember this is a new arch all together. Tho a little bit based of the core arch. But major changes where made to it.

AMD on the other hand try and leave a lot of room for upgrades. While this is good. It hurts the market at the same time. Chipset markers and MB makers need to get there new boards and chips out there. If everything is backwards compatible with older chipset and boards. Then how do they make a profit.

I strongly believe Intel went the right way with the core 2 arch. They aren't forcing people to upgrade to there new arch. But they brought them out with low prices. Which I don't think I've ever seen from anyone. Intel hasn't gotten to where it is today because of pure luck. They are great at marketing there products. AMD is lacking in this field very much, they depend to much on word of mouth from fans ( not saying fanboys) because they did have a much better processor on there hands at the time. But to the adv consumer. They buy what they see on TV, and thanks to Dell/Blue Man Group(BMG commercials where just funny) and many others this worked great for Intel.

AMD really needs to get a good market team going. Who every is doing there marketing, PR and there spin jobs should be fired and hire some new people. AMD could easily can more shares in the market if they got more advertising out there. I see them all over LAN's, but most people there already have AMD systems. So they are trying to reach the wrong people. They have to go after the same guys, the people that don't know what a PC really is and doesn't spend a hour to a few hours a day on the net reading up what is happening in the industry. That is a big market, but AMD can't tap into that market because they don't market towards that market. The only market to the people that do spend time looking up and reading up on this stuff and most of them already have AMD systems as is.

That is AMD's major down fall I strongly believe, they have had good archs and very bad ones just like Intel. But Intel has found out early enough that a good marketing team can bring in large amounts of sells and market share.
!