Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD-IBM merger or out right buyout around the corner?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 24, 2008 7:25:47 AM

so..
a few tech/financial sites are speculating that ibm and amd may merge or form a deeper partner ship of sorts some time soon.
amd has commented on the speculation with a "No Comment", tho i wouldent be saying no as it seems to be doing wonders for the stock price. :kaola: 

"A deal could see IBM's microelectronics division merge with AMD at some point, possibly in the near term," reported David Zielenziger in the Financial Times Wednesday afternoon, citing unnamed "industry sources."

i personally would see amd remain as an independent company, but the way that there in now seems to make it quite a viable solution rather then fight to the bitter end.

linkys,
http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSN23411...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fb1583da-c9b6-11dc-b5dc-00007...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/amd-shares-rise-s...
theres more but there just reporting the same stuff.
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2008 10:43:12 AM

Its about time someone got there act together and saved this company from going into the abyss.

I just wish they had done it sooner after the problems with the 4x4 platform that was embarrasing to say the least.....

AMD needs a cash injection now.

Then we will see something amazing as IBM are readying a 45nm process.
January 24, 2008 11:21:50 AM

Hellboy said:
Then we will see something amazing as IBM are readying a 45nm process.
And what will they cook up with that 45nm process? Not x86 compatible chips - AMD's x86 license is governed by a change of change of control clause that cancels the agreement on buyout or merger. That's one big reason why something like this has not happened sooner, and why I have some doubt that it's just around the corner.

I would expect a diligent suitor to have a new x86 agreement worked out with Intel prior to a merger (listen for rumors of closed door talks). I suppose the courts might be used to force a new arrangement after the fact, but that's quite reckless.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2008 11:22:00 AM

I think it is a real possibility.

This would see IBM's enormous R&D capacity bent toward X86 again ... after so many years away.

Plus their SOI fab superiority ... currently being applied to RISC.

I wonder how many of the old dogs from the original group who worked together way back then are still at Intel and IBM ??

Would be interesting.

Geriatric revenge a distinct possibility??

War with walking sticks !!!

Make no bones about it there is still an old score to settle there.

Post if you know what I am talking about ...

January 24, 2008 11:36:35 AM

From the reuter's article...
http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSN23411...
Quote:
An acquisition of AMD would be "a pretty low-probability event...
and
Quote:
"There's no rationale for that. Investors would just pound IBM's stock."
I don't see a merger/buyout happening any time soon, but a deeper partnership? Certainly possible, I suppose.



January 24, 2008 11:42:02 AM

Reynod said:
This would see IBM's enormous R&D capacity bent toward X86 again
Again, x86 is Intel property. IBM needs Intel's O.K. to make x86 product. Wishful thinking aside, what makes you think Intel will give them permission to play?
January 24, 2008 1:12:11 PM

spongebob said:
Again, x86 is Intel property. IBM needs Intel's O.K. to make x86 product. Wishful thinking aside, what makes you think Intel will give them permission to play?


IBM used to make x86 cpus back during the early pentium socket 7 days.



As far as I know their x86 license has never been revoked.
January 24, 2008 1:40:27 PM

This is where it becomes funny - the question is when is a chip x86. I believe IBM had Cyrix design the 6x86 (and 5x86) chips due to Cyrix's agreement with Intel. IBM did the mfg part, but Cyrix did the design. I don't know if IBM is allowed to design chips based upon the x86 architecture. Also, I don't know if that is what the x86 license specifies. Anyone have an idea?
January 24, 2008 1:51:29 PM

FFS, would you all read the articles before you start speculating?
January 24, 2008 1:58:25 PM

But I thought all the Fanboys said AMD was doing fine?

Sharikou, IN YOUR FACE!
January 24, 2008 2:00:11 PM

I believe IBM does have x86 license.

However, I really don't see this happening. IBM has just transformed from a hardware company to a software / service company, there is no way they'll go back to being a hardware company. Aside from that, they need to pay AMD's outstanding 5 billion debt, and restructure AMD's management. It'll be a year or so before AMD can start to be competitive again. By then, Intel would be so far ahead it wouldn't be funny anymore.

They do have the background, and the resources to do it. They just don't have a motive to.
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2008 2:17:32 PM

I seriously doubt this: IBM has systematically rid itself of nearly all of it's consumer-based offerings, the largest and most obvious example being the spin off/sale of IBM's PC/Laptop division to Lenovo. Sam Palmisano got rid of that stuff because they simply are not interested in low margin commodities. IBM works and profits best in a Business to Business, they know it, and there is no reason at all for them to take on AMD's debt and market position.

Makes for great rumors, but I don't see this happening at all.
January 24, 2008 3:58:09 PM

spongebob said:
And what will they cook up with that 45nm process? Not x86 compatible chips - AMD's x86 license is governed by a change of change of control clause that cancels the agreement on buyout or merger. That's one big reason why something like this has not happened sooner, and why I have some doubt that it's just around the corner.

I would expect a diligent suitor to have a new x86 agreement worked out with Intel prior to a merger (listen for rumors of closed door talks). I suppose the courts might be used to force a new arrangement after the fact, but that's quite reckless.




Isn't the key thing to make a CPU that can run Windows and Linux - even if it's not X86, MMX, SSE - 1,2,3,4. Heck, if anyone can introduce a new operating System with a suite of programs to go with the CPU's - IBM can. They can potentially release products to compete against Apple.


January 24, 2008 4:05:37 PM

sedaine said:
Isn't the key thing to make a CPU that can run Windows and Linux - even if it's not X86, MMX, SSE - 1,2,3,4. Heck, if anyone can introduce a new operating System with a suite of programs to go with the CPU's - IBM can. They can potentially release products to compete against Apple.


However, IBM doesn't have the history, the knowledge, or the reason to. They're perfectly fine in providing services to other companies.

Plus, if they were to create a new OS, it would at least take them 5 years to find the necessary engineers, train them, setting up a goal, misc. By the time they release the OS, unless they're very similar to Windows, and a lot more efficient than it, IBM is going to find themselves fighting against Linux.

To put it simply, IBM is doing very good business at the moment. They don't need to tread those water that would potentially lower their profitability.
January 24, 2008 4:25:32 PM

I don't think IBM would buy out AMD. The best option would more or less be to perform a soft merger. Basically each company would remain technically "independent and separate companies", But IBM would then have access to AMD's fabs and micro processor design teams. And AMD would have instant access to IBM's money and probably one of the best R&D groups that exist in the computer world.

Not to mention IBM would have instant access then to more or less free or at cost AMD processors for half of their blade server, business workstation lines.

This would also be the only way around the x86 license. Since AMD would still be managed by it's own people. And just to be sure, I think someone should post a link to said license so we all know whats actually true about what can and can't be done according to it. I see people all the time say oh that can't happen because of the license, but noone produces a viewable source of said license to quote from.

Besides if I'm correct IBM already has a x86 license, they just don't make much use of it since they stopped working too heavily on supplying their own processors. besides, neither AMD or Intel would like still exist today if it weren't for IBM introducing the computer to the business world. And if it weren't for Apple the PC probably wouldn't of proliferated so much in the home use market.
January 24, 2008 4:28:56 PM

yomamafor1 said:
... I really don't see this happening. IBM has just transformed from a hardware company to a software / service company, there is no way they'll go back to being a hardware company They just don't have a motive to.

Scotteq said:
I seriously doubt this: IBM has systematically rid itself of nearly all of it's consumer-based offerings, the largest and most obvious example being the spin off/sale of IBM's PC/Laptop division to Lenovo. Sam Palmisano got rid of that stuff because they simply are not interested in low margin commodities. IBM works and profits best in a Business to Business, they know it, and there is no reason at all for them to take on AMD's debt and market position. Makes for great rumors, but I don't see this happening at all.

I Agree completely. Basically, why would IBM want AMD?
January 24, 2008 6:57:53 PM

spongebob said:
Again, x86 is Intel property. IBM needs Intel's O.K. to make x86 product. Wishful thinking aside, what makes you think Intel will give them permission to play?



Monopoly Fear (law suits)
January 24, 2008 7:35:37 PM

spongebob said:
Again, x86 is Intel property. IBM needs Intel's O.K. to make x86 product. Wishful thinking aside, what makes you think Intel will give them permission to play?


What would give them permission to play? Why would Intel want to be the only chip company for notebooks and desktops? Intel is taking enough heat from their huge market share based on borderline agreements during the Netburst days. Why would they want more tsouris?

While I do not believe that anyone will buy out AMD, I can see Samsung or IBM investing, with as close an R&D relationship as possible. AMD will eventually pay off their debt and get back to their X2 market niche. I can't see them growing past Intel because Intel will always have more to invest in R&D.

All AMD fans can hope for as long as x86 holds is that Intel will slip up again, like during Netburst, but next time around without getting away with restrictive OEM rebates and other dubious business practices.

What I'd like to see is IBM research towards an architecture to replace x86 on the desktop, the Cell is a good start. Then they could buy AMD without much concern for archaic x86 license, but I doubt they'd even need to, unless the brand Phenom really takes off. :non:  I like the Stars based CPU's, but hate that Phenom name. Note to Hector Ruiz; fire the marketing department).
January 24, 2008 8:07:28 PM

Dunno how IBM would go about making an x86 CPU without having the license.
AMD cant just be bought without destroying AMDs business model (which conincidentally is x86), it will either get money by the government or be left bleeding out.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 24, 2008 9:06:53 PM

Just wondering, if IBM or Samsung buys AMD, would that be good for us or not really? The AMD/ATI merger was a lot of pain, and if they start all over again we might have to live with Intel/nVidia only for a long time.
January 24, 2008 9:08:46 PM

Mathos said:
I don't think IBM would buy out AMD. The best option would more or less be to perform a soft merger. Basically each company would remain technically "independent and separate companies", But IBM would then have access to AMD's fabs and micro processor design teams. And AMD would have instant access to IBM's money and probably one of the best R&D groups that exist in the computer world.


thats what im leaning to if these rumors have any truth in them at all.
January 24, 2008 9:54:34 PM

This is a non-event and likely just a rumor. It just doesn't make any sense for IBM to merge with AMD, they have sold all there Personal Computing segments except for the microelectronics... even still they are not in the PC business any more perse, so why would they want AMD, except for a partner?

As said in the first article link their stock would get pounded for such a tie. What does IBM have to gain by it?

IBM isn't where they are today by making poor choices, AMD is not a good fit for them..... guess again.
January 24, 2008 10:37:16 PM

Well, now that I've read what I could of the Intel AMD Cross licensing agreement. Some of it is censored out on the site I read due to suppose technical secrets.

Neither AMD or Intel can declare bankruptcy or enter into receivership or any judications of that kind, solvency issues etc, if they do, the license is void. Neither company can go threw a transfer of control such as a merger or buyout. There are some ways around the merger thing though. Such as if in the event of a merger, the company that takes control of AMD only increases their total value to 1 1/3 of its previous value.

The only other way around the license agreement, would be for AMD to assign their half of the agreement to such as IBM, and turn over all their patents to IBM, and then AMD would have to leave the x86 market permanently, or until they were able to work out another license. Otherwise, every time the license is renewed AMD and Intel have access to each others patents. Which is why some times after a certain amount of time, AMD processors pick up SSE instructions and such that Intel processors use. Note, that they also pay royalties on the sale of processors using said code.
January 25, 2008 12:39:44 AM

wolverinero79 said:
This is where it becomes funny - the question is when is a chip x86. I believe IBM had Cyrix design the 6x86 (and 5x86) chips due to Cyrix's agreement with Intel. IBM did the mfg part, but Cyrix did the design. I don't know if IBM is allowed to design chips based upon the x86 architecture. Also, I don't know if that is what the x86 license specifies. Anyone have an idea?



x86 is free for all - hence Intel changed name to Pentium to 'recreate' IP. So things like MMX, SSE are Intel IP, but not X86.
January 25, 2008 12:54:01 AM

Mathos said:
I don't think IBM would buy out AMD. The best option would more or less be to perform a soft merger. Basically each company would remain technically "independent and separate companies", But IBM would then have access to AMD's fabs and micro processor design teams. And AMD would have instant access to IBM's money and probably one of the best R&D groups that exist in the computer world.

Not to mention IBM would have instant access then to more or less free or at cost AMD processors for half of their blade server, business workstation lines.

This would also be the only way around the x86 license. Since AMD would still be managed by it's own people. And just to be sure, I think someone should post a link to said license so we all know whats actually true about what can and can't be done according to it. I see people all the time say oh that can't happen because of the license, but noone produces a viewable source of said license to quote from.

Besides if I'm correct IBM already has a x86 license, they just don't make much use of it since they stopped working too heavily on supplying their own processors. besides, neither AMD or Intel would like still exist today if it weren't for IBM introducing the computer to the business world. And if it weren't for Apple the PC probably wouldn't of proliferated so much in the home use market.


You requested more information on x86...

Wikipedia:

Following the fully pipelined i486, Intel introduced the Pentium brand name (which, unlike numbers, could be trademarked) for their new line of superscalar x86 designs. With the x86 naming scheme now legally cleared, IBM partnered with Cyrix to produce the 5x86 and then the very efficient 6x86 (M1) and 6x86MX (MII) lines of Cyrix designs, which were the first x86 chips implementing register renaming to enable speculative execution. AMD meanwhile designed and manufactured the advanced but delayed 5k86 (K5), which, internally, was heavily based on AMD's earlier 29K RISC design; similar to NexGen's Nx586, it used a strategy where dedicated pipeline stages decode x86 instructions into uniform and easily handled micro-operations, a method that has remained standard to this day.
January 25, 2008 1:00:54 AM

Anyway, if IBM can com up with a x86 replacement that is faster/better, and can run windows and Linux, then we are in for a ride.
January 25, 2008 1:02:21 AM

It'll be a while before IBM can muster enough brain power to take on Intel though...

But yeh, in the event that IBM achieved this, the current cheap-o-computer can be maintained...
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2008 2:18:07 AM

Are you guys thinking of an IBM CPU that would NOT require an x86 license? As in, incompatible? God, no, I hope that never happens. Just imagine, every piece of software will work on either Intel or IBM but not both. It would be just like Apple. And if it is successful, software companies will have to spend more on development and QA to develop two versions, even though the total number of customers stays the same. That would raise prices.
January 25, 2008 3:25:54 AM

Up until the summer of 2005, IBM produced chips for Apple... now they are intel. All those Xbox's (and 360) and Playstation 3s have IBM hardware also. I think its definitely possible for IBM to acquire AMD because AMD has done well in servers. IBM produces lots of hardware... anything from cash registers, self checkouts, gaming systems, to servers. Outsourcing to the AMD name like they do for Hitachi, Lenovo (basically IBM China) and other name brands is smart. IBM can definitely do x86... those who say they can't are speaking with speculation. IBM-AMD could be a likely scenario, just watch the headlines.
January 25, 2008 11:28:28 AM

aevm said:
Are you guys thinking of an IBM CPU that would NOT require an x86 license? As in, incompatible? God, no, I hope that never happens. Just imagine, every piece of software will work on either Intel or IBM but not both. It would be just like Apple. And if it is successful, software companies will have to spend more on development and QA to develop two versions, even though the total number of customers stays the same. That would raise prices.




The idea would be to develop something that could boot both Windows and Linux... IBM could work with MS to to ensure the CPU boots windows. IBM CPU's can already handle flavors of Linux.
January 25, 2008 11:31:40 AM

spet3r said:
Up until the summer of 2005, IBM produced chips for Apple... now they are intel. All those Xbox's (and 360) and Playstation 3s have IBM hardware also. I think its definitely possible for IBM to acquire AMD because AMD has done well in servers. IBM produces lots of hardware... anything from cash registers, self checkouts, gaming systems, to servers. Outsourcing to the AMD name like they do for Hitachi, Lenovo (basically IBM China) and other name brands is smart. IBM can definitely do x86... those who say they can't are speaking with speculation. IBM-AMD could be a likely scenario, just watch the headlines.




By the way, Lenovo is not IBM China - it's just Lenovo.
January 25, 2008 2:56:41 PM

Sedaine, just like Hitachi isn't IBM either... Its IBM's way of getting good quarterly numbers.
January 25, 2008 3:24:39 PM

spet3r said:
Sedaine, just like Hitachi isn't IBM either... Its IBM's way of getting good quarterly numbers.


Actually, IBM sold the entire notebook line to Lenovo, which is a complete different company. Hitachi was never part of IBM.

IBM is just a software and service company now, with only their Power series.
January 25, 2008 3:50:45 PM

spet3r said:
Sedaine, just like Hitachi isn't IBM either... Its IBM's way of getting good quarterly numbers.



You lost me - I thought IBM got rid of notebook/computer division to Lenovo? How do they make money from Lenovo - would Lenovo need IBM to design notebooks?

IBM knows the money is in service industry.
January 25, 2008 4:16:18 PM

Outsourcing is a wonderful thing. If you were to go to a IBM plant, you'd be surprised. IBM isn't a service company... its a computer company that provides services. Hardware is still manufactured... using outsourcing methods with IBM standards. Even the labor isn't IBM, they use temp workers. Its kind of confusing... but its the trend of companies that effectively use Supply Chain Management.
January 25, 2008 4:51:45 PM

IBM has hardly been a whiz in the desktop field. Hardware or software (OS2). They might bring cash but along with it the big brother overseeing at their typical monolithic Dinosaur speed. But they could always sell it to Korea when their sales met those of Cyrix.
January 25, 2008 4:52:37 PM

Ah, thank you for reminding me of that Sedaine. I almost forgot about all that with everything up until Intel hit the Pentium p54 line. x86 processor design, at it's base is indeed free for all, since you cannot patent anything that is named with a number, such as 2x86, 3x86, 4x86. Which is indeed why intel changed it's naming scheme when they released the Pentium line of CPU's.

Things that are covered under the cross license agreement are things like the Streaming SIMD Extention (SSE) that the P3 used, which was updated for the p4 and c2d, AMD x86-64, 3d-now is technically covered but, Intel obviously doesn't care to use it. The next time the agreement is renewed, you'll likely see AMD integrate Intel SSE 4-4.1 into their processor designs for example.

IBM does indeed still make and sell hardware. Like I said before, they still make their blade server line, as well as many linux and unix based servers, and business workstations. Not to mention, Type writers, cash registers, and a few other things I can't think of off the top of my head. They're also the company that designed and produces the Cell processor in the PS3. I wouldn't under estimate IBMs R&D ability, they're currently on even ground with Intel on process design.
January 25, 2008 5:40:07 PM

spet3r said:
Up until the summer of 2005, IBM produced chips for Apple... now they are intel. All those Xbox's (and 360) and Playstation 3s have IBM hardware also. I think its definitely possible for IBM to acquire AMD because AMD has done well in servers. IBM produces lots of hardware... anything from cash registers, self checkouts, gaming systems, to servers. Outsourcing to the AMD name like they do for Hitachi, Lenovo (basically IBM China) and other name brands is smart. IBM can definitely do x86... those who say they can't are speaking with speculation. IBM-AMD could be a likely scenario, just watch the headlines.



Seriously this is a pipe dream, IBM has been there done that. They use to produce more hardware than they do now. IE: Sold hard drive biz to hitachi / Sold PC biz to Lenovo as already mentioned.

So if they are selling off hardware parts what part of this puzzle would make AMD fit in? Because they have an agreement with IBM? There's side agreements all the time, doesn't mean they are going to swallow one another.


As far as this notion of IBM becoming the next Apple... they already been there done that too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

Quote:
Breakup "post M$FT / IBM alliance on OS/2"
The collaboration between IBM and Microsoft unravelled in 1990, between the releases of Windows 3.0 and OS/2 1.3. Initially, at least publicly, Microsoft continued to insist the future belonged to OS/2. Steve Ballmer of Microsoft even took to calling OS/2 "Windows Plus."[9] However, during this time, Windows 3.0 became a tremendous success, selling millions of copies in its first year.[10] Much of its success was due to the fact that Windows 3.0 (along with MS-DOS) was bundled with most new computers.[11] OS/2, on the other hand, was only available as an expensive stand-alone software package. In addition, OS/2 lacked device drivers for many common devices such as printers, particularly non-IBM hardware.[12] Windows, on the other hand, supported a much larger variety of hardware. The increasing popularity of Windows prompted Microsoft to shift its development focus from cooperating on OS/2 with IBM to building a franchise based on Windows.[13] Several technical and practical reasons contributed to this breakup:

Differences in culture and vision: Microsoft favored the open hardware system approach that contributed to its success on the PC; IBM sought to use OS/2 to drive sales of its own hardware, including systems that could not support the features Microsoft wanted. Microsoft programmers also became frustrated with IBM's bureaucracy and its use of lines of code to measure programmer productivity.[14] IBM developers complained about the terseness and lack of comments in Microsoft's code, while Microsoft developers complained that IBM's code was bloated.


It should be noted IBM's vision was more or less the same as Apple's is today... IBM sought to use their OS/2 to drive sales of it's own hardware, of which failed to catch on. Even Apple is lucky to still be here, although this day in age you'd never know it, unless you knew the history lesson.

IBM power processor..... they never could keep up with intel when they were supplying Apple, they were so far behind in fact that they had Motorola making the chip for them. It was partly Apple who got IBM to include Motorola in the 3 way alliance known as AIM.

Quote:
"Unwinding of the PowerPC" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC
However, toward the close of the decade, the same manufacturing issues began plaguing the AIM alliance in much the same way it did Motorola, which consistently pushed back deployments of new processors for Apple and other vendors: first from Motorola in the 1990s with the G3 and G4 processors, and IBM with the 64-bit G5 processor in 2003. In 2004, Motorola exited the chip manufacturing business by spinning off its semiconductor business as an independent company called Freescale Semiconductor.

Around the same time, IBM exited the embedded processor market by selling its line of PowerPC products to Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (AMCC) and focused their chip designs for PowerPC CPUs towards game machine makers such as Nintendo's GameCube and Wii, Sony's PlayStation 3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360. In 2005 Apple announced they would no longer use PowerPC processors in their Apple Macintosh computers, favoring Intel produced processors instead, citing the performance limitations of the chip for future personal computer hardware specifically related to heat generation and energy usage in future products, as well as the inability of IBM to move the 970 (PowerPC G5) processor to the 3 GHz range. The IBM-Freescale alliance was replaced by an open standards body called Power.org. Power.org operates under the governance of the IEEE with IBM continuing to use and evolve the PowerPC processor on game consoles and Freescale Semiconductor focusing solely on embedded devices.



And from the above paragraph, we find IBM selling more part off.......



Quote:
from the top link above

Fading out
Overall, OS/2 failed to catch on in the mass market and is today little used outside certain niches where IBM traditionally had a stronghold. For example, many bank installations, especially Automated Teller Machines, run OS/2 with a customized user interface; French SNCF national railways used OS/2 1.x in thousands of ticket selling machines. Telecom companies such as Nortel use OS/2 in some voicemail systems. Nevertheless, OS/2 still maintains a small and dedicated community of followers. IBM, unlike Microsoft, charged ISVs for the OS/2 development kit (Microsoft gave the Windows SDK away for free).[citation needed]

Although IBM began indicating shortly after the release of Warp 4 that OS/2 would eventually be withdrawn, the company did not end support until 2006-12-31.[24] Sales of OS/2 stopped on 2005-12-23. The latest IBM version is 4.52, which was released for both desktop and server systems in December 2001. A company called Serenity Systems has been reselling OS/2 since 2001, calling it eComStation. The latest stable version is 1.2, released in 2004, and version 2.0 was due for release early 2007.[25]

IBM is still delivering defect support for a fee.[26] IBM urges customers to migrate their often highly complex applications to e-business technologies such as Java in a platform-neutral manner. Once application migration is completed, IBM recommends migration to a different operating system, suggesting Linux as an alternative.



So if IBM was really interested in this why would they be suggesting Linux as an alternative OS?


You have to look really closely to facts, it's common knowledge AMD's stock is under pressure. People own this stock that have lost major $$$ and someone is trying to pump it up for all it's worth.

Remember the saying: "there's a sucka born every minute." I hate to tell you it's not IBM! It makes absolutely no sense for IBM to merge with AMD.
January 25, 2008 6:04:24 PM

Actually, it makes a lot of sense for IBM to be interested in AMD. IBM's largest and fastest growing market is Asia and it makes tremendous sense for them to acquire fabs and assembly lines close to their largest market. If this were to happen, I would expect AMD's fabs to be converted to producing chips for IBM's mainframes. IBM is not in the business of making consumer products (be it desktops, laptops, or aftermarket parts) so AMD/ATI would probably cease to exist as independent businesses. IBM wins getting new state of the art fabs in Asia and the AMD/ATI board wins by getting a large amount of IBM stock and a very golden parachute...stevenpchurch
January 25, 2008 6:11:43 PM

stevenpchurch said:
Actually, it makes a lot of sense for IBM to be interested in AMD. IBM's largest and fastest growing market is Asia and it makes tremendous sense for them to acquire fabs and assembly lines close to their largest market. If this were to happen, I would expect AMD's fabs to be converted to producing chips for IBM's mainframes. IBM is not in the business of making consumer products (be it desktops, laptops, or aftermarket parts) so AMD/ATI would probably cease to exist as independent businesses. IBM wins getting new state of the art fabs in Asia and the AMD/ATI board wins by getting a large amount of IBM stock and a very golden parachute...stevenpchurch



uh no it doesn't, If AMD wasn't over burdened in debt then it might. They wouldn't have to acquire AMD to make this happen. Given the relationship AMD has with IBM, they would just rewrite the terms of their current deal.

It in no way means IBM need to acquire. You're forgetting all the debt AMD has. It will never happen.
January 25, 2008 6:15:37 PM

Mathos said:
Ah, thank you for reminding me of that Sedaine. I almost forgot about all that with everything up until Intel hit the Pentium p54 line. x86 processor design, at it's base is indeed free for all

No, it's not. The names 80386, 80486, etc are free for any and all to use, as it was ruled they could not be trademarked. The x86 instruction set and extensions, on the other hand, are not available to any and all.

Anyhow, all the speculation about license transfer or not is really moot, isn't it? Any company with deep enough pockets could just produce x86 product and fight legal battles until Intel was forced to give them a license. No way is the gov't going to allow Intel to be the only company in the world that can produce x86 chips - that's *why* AMD has a license today.
January 25, 2008 6:45:14 PM

if IBM wants someone to make chips for them both Intel and samsung as well as many other Korean foundries are capable of doing it very efficiently, why the hell buy a foundering company? I applaud the dream but it is simply that. I do hope they pull thru and hold on though, it does keep prices down and technology moving more quickly.
January 25, 2008 8:08:21 PM

IBM will buyout AMD, I could tell you why but you won't believe me.
January 25, 2008 8:10:55 PM

pip_seeker said:
uh no it doesn't, If AMD wasn't over burdened in debt then it might. They wouldn't have to acquire AMD to make this happen. Given the relationship AMD has with IBM, they would just rewrite the terms of their current deal.

It in no way means IBM need to acquire. You're forgetting all the debt AMD has. It will never happen.




I think we need to remember that when we say AMD is now worth $4 Billion, this value takes into account the Debt.
January 25, 2008 8:48:52 PM

Actually, if you take a straight current liabilities vs current assets (a la the balance sheet) - AMD's only up 3 billion dollars, not 4. The liabilities for AMD decreased ~250 million as of Q4, QoQ, but the assets decreased ~1.4 billion dollars.

As a side note, AMD has 5 billion dollars of long term debt.

Intel, a much larger company (55 billion in assets vs AMD's 11.5 billion) has 2 billion dollars of long term debt. With 15 billion, Intel has loads more cash than AMD has in total assets. Just interesting information...
January 25, 2008 10:49:01 PM

aevm said:
Are you guys thinking of an IBM CPU that would NOT require an x86 license? As in, incompatible? God, no, I hope that never happens. Just imagine, every piece of software will work on either Intel or IBM but not both. It would be just like Apple. And if it is successful, software companies will have to spend more on development and QA to develop two versions, even though the total number of customers stays the same. That would raise prices.


I expect something along the line of the Cell to replace x86, not to have the two architectures sold side by side. Even Intel will have to go beyond x86 and when they do, a standard involving more companies than just two needs to be implemented.

IBM has done a great job implementing supercomputing with hybrid boxes sporting both AMD x86 and Cell processing.

http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/872363.html

Too bad a hybrid server with one 45nm Phenom and one Cell isn't in the cards for the near future. That would be an interesting mix, but there probably wouldn't be much in the way of non Linux software to support it.

fletch420 said:
if IBM wants someone to make chips for them both Intel and samsung as well as many other Korean foundries are capable of doing it very efficiently, why the hell buy a foundering company? I applaud the dream but it is simply that. I do hope they pull thru and hold on though, it does keep prices down and technology moving more quickly.


Intel was a foundering company during Netburst and they survived. Analysts were wrong about IBM recently because they didn't understand their business. I'm quite convinced that analysts are wrong about AMD too. It's not all about the alleged wizards of Wall Street, who are basically today's version of tea leaf readers.

It's not all about stock predictions or minor fluctuations. AMD will grow out of it's debt. IBM survived the mid Nineties and AMD will survive the first decade of the 21st century.
January 25, 2008 11:01:59 PM

yipsl said:
I expect something along the line of the Cell to replace x86, not to have the two architectures sold side by side. Even Intel will have to go beyond x86 and when they do, a standard involving more companies than just two needs to be implemented.

IBM has done a great job implementing supercomputing with hybrid boxes sporting both AMD x86 and Cell processing.

http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/872363.html

Too bad a hybrid server with one 45nm Phenom and one Cell isn't in the cards for the near future. That would be an interesting mix, but there probably wouldn't be much in the way of non Linux software to support it.



Intel was a foundering company during Netburst and they survived. Analysts were wrong about IBM recently because they didn't understand their business. I'm quite convinced that analysts are wrong about AMD too. It's not all about the alleged wizards of Wall Street, who are basically today's version of tea leaf readers.

It's not all about stock predictions or minor fluctuations. AMD will grow out of it's debt. IBM survived the mid Nineties and AMD will survive the first decade of the 21st century.


It could be cell. X86 has limitations - and if someone comes up with an architecture that is better, faster than x86 then I guess why not switch.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 26, 2008 1:12:48 AM

Because Diablo 2 won't work on the Cell, and if I can't get my daily fix of Diablo 2 I'll die. :)  :) 
June 11, 2009 3:41:55 PM

But what about the x64 architecture? An x64 processor is backwards compatible, right? Or at least windows has some build in tricks / emulation software to make 32-bits programs run on it. I don't know if Intel owns the x64 license as well.. correct me if I'm wrong.
a b à CPUs
June 11, 2009 5:02:27 PM

check the date before posting
!