IBM buying AMD?

I read the IBM rumor on another site as well as a recent rumor of a failed takeover by NVidia. I don't know how valid any of these rumors are but the IBM rumor makes a lot of sense on several levels. I believe we will be hearing much gossip (whether true or not) this year regarding AMD's future in light of its precarious financial state. I wish it were otherwise.
 
Nope, I don't think there is any truth to this one. Why would IBM dump all of its hardware business and then jump into it in a rough spot between Intel and Nvidia?
 
jbzx86 said:
Nope, I don't think there is any truth to this one. Why would IBM dump all of its hardware business and then jump into it in a rough spot between Intel and Nvidia?
Click to expand...
To have a stab at the potentially lucrative x86 market perhaps?
 
jbzx86 said:
Nope, I don't think there is any truth to this one. Why would IBM dump all of its hardware business and then jump into it in a rough spot between Intel and Nvidia?
Click to expand...

Intel and Nvidia? Nvidia is a non player in this. In 5yrs, Nvidia will either not exist, or it will be part of another company.

Two players, Intel and AMD and it's not about the CPU's anymore, it's going to be about the platform. That is why nVidia is not a player.

I like the part at the end of the article:

“A deal could see IBM's microelectronics division merge with AMD at some point, possibly in the near term,” mergermarket.com correspondent David Zielenziger wrote, citing “industry sources.”
Click to expand...
 
I read an interview with a big wig at IBM a few years ago, he said in the next decade the only two real competitors in the processing manufacture business will be intel and IBM. Take it with a grain of salt.
 
stealthy123 said:
I read an interview with a big wig at IBM a few years ago, he said in the next decade the only two real competitors in the processing manufacture business will be intel and IBM. Take it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Was that before or after the opteron hit? Also I wonder if he could have meant x86 and power.
 
It's a logical acquisition and one that doesn't have the controversy of a Samsung buyout. Of all the purchase scenarios, it's my preferred outcome.
 
APOLLO said:
To have a stab at the potentially lucrative x86 market perhaps?
Click to expand...

The x86 market is lucrative, but why jump into a sinking ship up against a giant squid?

Also, what would come of ATI given the merger? IBM would only take AMD and leave ATI to its own devices? That is why I said they would compete versus Nvidia in this aspect. In 5 years I suspect Nvidia will still be kicking. Even if ray tracing takes off, they will not stand idle and let them selves be surpassed by Intel who doesn't have a discreet graphics solution on the market and won't for another two years at least.
 
So whenever AMD's stock went up, it must be related to a buyout :rolleyes: ? The stock price also went up 11.5% the day after AMD reported their quarterly earning.
 
jbzx86 said:
http://www.hardforum.com/images/editor/menupop.gif[/IMG]967780]The x86 market is lucrative, but why jump into a sinking ship up against a giant squid?
Click to expand...
For the reason others mentioned. The platform.
menupop.gif

Also, what would come of ATI given the merger? IBM would only take AMD and leave ATI to its own devices? That is why I said they would compete versus Nvidia in this aspect. In 5 years I suspect Nvidia will still be kicking.
Click to expand...
Can't say much about NVidia, but ATi would benefit IBM in respects to the overall package as a combined product.

Even if ray tracing takes off,
Click to expand...
It's inevitable raytracing will take off, give it some time.

they will not stand idle and let them selves be surpassed by Intel who doesn't have a discreet graphics solution on the market and won't for another two years at least.
Click to expand...
Just enough time for IBM to get the ship and its crew back in order, wouldn't you say?
.
.
 
Didn't IBM lose their processor business (from Apple) to Intel before they sold off that division? I'm sure that Apple only accounted for a fraction of IBM's overall revenue, but they probably still miss that money.

It could be that with reduced interest in the Power architecture IBM wants to purchase a (somewhat) successful player in the x86 market.
 
I though IBM got out of the PC business for good like 10+ years ago. Why would they want back in?
 
Psience said:
Didn't IBM lose their processor business (from Apple) to Intel before they sold off that division? I'm sure that Apple only accounted for a fraction of IBM's overall revenue, but they probably still miss that money.

It could be that with reduced interest in the Power architecture IBM wants to purchase a (somewhat) successful player in the x86 market.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I highly doubt they miss that money. Tiger was the first version of OS X that didn't suck, and PowerPC never didn't suck. Apple really took off huge after they switched to Intel and matured the Tiger. Apple's money was a drop in the bucket for IBM.

After all the work IBM has done with Cell, I have to wonder why they would be dabbling in x86. They've really pushed Cell hard, and spent a huge amount of money developing it, I can't imagine them just dropping that market to run over to x86.

That being said, IBM is just what AMD needs right now. :)
 
they are talking about extending the relationship and talks of a FAB in Malta. a buy out is not going to happen. depending on how well their relationship develops with fabrication facilities, there could (down the road) be a merger of the two. limited to their common financial interests, but not a buy out from either company.
 
ElektroDragon said:
You're being sarcastic I hope. IBM got out of the x86 market years ago and sold it all off to Lenovo, who are more likely to buy AMD than IBM, methinks.
Click to expand...
No, I wasn't and if memory serves, IBM got out decades ago. This is a different world now. Lenovo?? Now who's being sarcastic?
 
No way IBM would buy AMD. They don't want to be in that type of business. The "new" IBM business plan is line the pockets of the execs using cheap labor and flashing "DO" commercials. :D
 
Honestly, the only way I can see IBM buying up AMD/ATI is to dump their manufacturing and stick with development.

APOLLO, you keep touting about the platform, and the more I think about it, the more I can see that as a possibility. The end decision, whether we make sense of it logically or not, comes from the executives. If a buy-out were to happen, I suspect now is the best time, looking at AMD's stock prices.
 
jbzx86 said:
APOLLO, you keep touting about the platform, and the more I think about it, the more I can see that as a possibility. The end decision, whether we make sense of it logically or not, comes from the executives. If a buy-out were to happen, I suspect now is the best time, looking at AMD's stock prices.
Click to expand...
Actually, others mentioned the platform before I did, and this is but one possibility. Who knows if there's any truth to the rumor at all, and if there is IBM probably has other interests. What they may be at this point is anyone's guess.
 
IBM Caters to the big businesses and loves to prove how efficient and powerful they are, which is exactly what AMD does, i would not be surprised... IBM has alot of money and i dont see why they wouldn't do this.
 
DimFilter said:
No way IBM would buy AMD. They don't want to be in that type of business. The "new" IBM business plan is line the pockets of the execs using cheap labor and flashing "DO" commercials. :D
Click to expand...



Agreed,with heavy emphasis on the 'lining pockets' part :p
 
I think its a great Idea that IBM( Big Blue) buys AMD and give Intel(Chipzilla) some competition. As for Nvidia, I would like Intel to buy them out. Inovation from both company's would skyrocket. Let the buying begin!!!!
 
IBM is probably the only outsider to have a very good look at where AMD is heading product-wise. That IBM hasn't even taken a small stake in AMD should serve as a big clue that they are not even considering buying AMD. The cash in the AMD-IBM alliance is flowing one way -- from AMD to IBM.

IBM was in the x86 CPU competition many years ago and dropped out for a good reason. :p
 
InorganicMatter said:
Interesting. So basically, Intel owns x86, and AMD and only AMD is allowed to make x86 compatible parts. If AMD gets bought, they forfeit their right to make x86 parts. Well now, that kinds of terminates the sense in buying AMD now, doesn't it? :p
Click to expand...

National Semiconducter is or was liscensed for x86. They bought Cyrix which ended the legal trouble Cyrix was looking at being in for reverse engineering x86. National Semiconductor sold off Cyrix to Via, so now Via is liscensed for X86. Via bought Cyrix for nothing more than that liscensed, as Via's CPU's are based on the IDT Centaur CPU's instead.
 
Met-AL said:
National Semiconducter is or was liscensed for x86. They bought Cyrix which ended the legal trouble Cyrix was looking at being in for reverse engineering x86. National Semiconductor sold off Cyrix to Via, so now Via is liscensed for X86. Via bought Cyrix for nothing more than that liscensed, as Via's CPU's are based on the IDT Centaur CPU's instead.
Click to expand...


Why do I recall IBM making x86 CPUs at one time, and why do I connect them with Cyrix?
 
nonameo said:
Why do I recall IBM making x86 CPUs at one time, and why do I connect them with Cyrix?
Click to expand...


I think it was IBM building CPU's for Cyrix and as part of the deal, IBM getting to market them as their own as well. The IBM 486SLC was a rebadge Cyrix design.

They were not licensed x86, but instead reverse engineered. I had a friend that had one, 50mhz one, it was a screamer. But, I also recalled him having issues with a few pieces of software that wouldn't run on them as they were not 100% fully x86 compatible.
 
nonameo said:
Why do I recall IBM making x86 CPUs at one time, and why do I connect them with Cyrix?
Click to expand...
Because the IBM 486SLC had the same name as the Cyrix 486SLC, but were not directly related. Both were 386sx class CPUs with a 16-bit external/32-bit internal data bus. Both chips were slugs, with price the only redeeming value. I think IBM's 486SLC was a licensed Intel design, with changes. edit: wikipedia says the IBM 386SLC was Intel licensed, and the 486SLC was an improvement on the older core.

I will give the old days credit for having a lot more players than there is now.
 
pxc said:
Because the IBM 486SLC had the same name as the Cyrix 486SLC, but were not directly related. Both were 386sx class CPUs with a 16-bit external/32-bit internal data bus. Both chips were slugs, with price the only redeeming value. I think IBM's 486SLC was a licensed Intel design, with changes. edit: wikipedia says the IBM 386SLC was Intel licensed, and the 486SLC was an improvement on the older core.

I will give the old days credit for having a lot more players than there is now.
Click to expand...



Ahh, yes I stand corrected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/386SLC It was the 6x86 that IBM got into with Cyrix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top