• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel buy ATI: Rumor Mill

S

Stupac

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
1,349
I thought I would join the forum with this.

As the AMD/ATI deal is not official for a few months. Intel may do a hostile takeover of ATI at $23 a share. AMD's price was $20.47. I think this is funny if its true.

Jul 25, 2006 (JAGfn.com via COMTEX) -- (ATYT) (INTC) (AMD) Rumor that ATI TECHNOLOGIES INC (ATYT) will get a $23 bid from (INTC) over current (AMD) bid.

From Fidelity.
http://eresearch.fidelity.com/erese...=NEWS.CBSMW.81585B6240384B068769.3EC55BFF2305

FORBES quotes an RBC analyst saying there is "little upside" to ATI's share price unless there are competing bids. (ie: Intel)
http://www.forbes.com/markets/bonds/2006/07/25/ati-amd-0725markets11.html
 
That'd be the ultimate in irony. Intel buys ATI with their pocket change just to stick it to AMD. Priceless.
 
It would make sense for Intel to buy out ATI. They have already invested some serious R&D into making mobos for Apple. Plus getting some new tech for their integrated chipsets is a plus too.
 
What sounds better for the industry

1) A company purchasing a top graphics company so they can work together to bring the masses a powerfull solution.

or

2) A company buying a top graphics company just so they can secure their market share with Dell and integrated chipsets.


Exactly, I bet you anything ATi will never allow Intel to buy their firm knowing full well what would happen to them. With AMD they will grow, with Intel they will be tossed aside.
 
|CR|Constantine said:
What sounds better for the industry

1) A company purchasing a top graphics company so they can work together to bring the masses a powerfull solution.

or

2) A company buying a top graphics company just so they can secure their market share with Dell and integrated chipsets.


Exactly, I bet you anything ATi will never allow Intel to buy their firm knowing full well what would happen to them. With AMD they will grow, with Intel they will be tossed aside.
Click to expand...

With AMD they will slowly die off now that Intel has finally given up the Mhz myth and the Netburst architecture.
 
|CR|Constantine said:
Exactly, I bet you anything ATi will never allow Intel to buy their firm knowing full well what would happen to them.
Click to expand...
Hostile takeover dude, ATI doesn't get a choice if Intel goes through with this.
 
NulloModo said:
With AMD they will slowly die off now that Intel has finally given up the Mhz myth and the Netburst architecture.
Click to expand...
you are just speculating
care to show some facts?

nobody knows how is going to turn out
 
Stupac said:
I thought I would join the forum with this.

As the AMD/ATI deal is not official for a few months. Intel may do a hostile takeover of ATI at $23 a share. AMD's price was $20.47. I think this is funny if its true.

Jul 25, 2006 (JAGfn.com via COMTEX) -- (ATYT) (INTC) (AMD) Rumor that ATI TECHNOLOGIES INC (ATYT) will get a $23 bid from (INTC) over current (AMD) bid.

From Fidelity.
http://eresearch.fidelity.com/erese...=NEWS.CBSMW.81585B6240384B068769.3EC55BFF2305

FORBES quotes an RBC analyst saying there is "little upside" to ATI's share price unless there are competing bids. (ie: Intel)
http://www.forbes.com/markets/bonds/2006/07/25/ati-amd-0725markets11.html
Click to expand...

Thats impossible. If you haven't heard they aready payed and merged. ATI is aready owned by AMD. Stop spreading lies. :rolleyes:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx
 
|CR|Constantine said:
2) A company buying a top graphics company just so they can secure their market share with Dell and integrated chipsets.

Exactly, I bet you anything ATi will never allow Intel to buy their firm knowing full well what would happen to them. With AMD they will grow, with Intel they will be tossed aside.
Click to expand...

ATI would stand to grow a lot more with the worlds largest chip maker that has an R&D budget FAR greater then AMD's and Intel controls the OEM market where ATI makes the largest portion of their money. Intel and ATI have always had closer ties with one another. There is a very good chance of this happening and i think Intel should do it to secure Crossfire on their boards. I would much rather see Intel get ATI and AMD stick with nVidia.
 
Intel Fam boys! :rolleyes: AMD Fam boys! :rolleyes: No difference. Always making up stuff and can't go by whats happening in the REAL news. *Shakes head* (Auto edit ta that) >_>
 
thunderstruck! said:
It's not as simple as buying a bag of chips.
Click to expand...

It might be. I'm pretty sure Semprons will be in vending machines soon.
 
Serge84 said:
Intel Fam boys! :rolleyes: AMD Fam boys! :rolleyes: No difference. Always making up stuff and can't go by whats happening in the REAL news. *Shakes head* (Auto edit ta that) >_>
Click to expand...

Merger doesn't go through till the end of the year. Intel can still place a higher bid and they have far more money to do it. Intel has reasons to to secure the ATI chipset and Crossfire on their boards. ATI and Intel have been sharing technology already. There is a chance it will happen.
 
that would be a pretty hard bitch slap to AMD.... ouch.....

but then again, maybe AMD would be better off without ATI.... seriously...
 
I think Intel have pretty much lost the plot at the moment. Over the previous number of years, Intel has been screwing their partners over and over again. Lets look back.

The Rambus Fiasco: with the i820 chipsets and trying to shift their. Luckily VIA made some decent SDR and DDR chipsets.

Prescott: The marketeers thought that clock speed was going to contiue to sell into the future. They tried to re-hash the netburst achitecture one more time. Looks like they got abit jaded. GHz means jack today.

BTX: An attempt to shift the industry becuase of the issues with precott and the netburst architecture.

Itanium: I really suspect this is the undoing of intel. The big f' up here is that is really has distracted them from improving there x86 platform. This has let AMD set the agenda for future x86-64 platform. Intel have this vision of a common platform of its processors. A common bus for its 9000 processors (IA-64) 5000 seires (Xeon) processors. Thats why you still see there damned FSB achitecture and the quick fix you see on the dual FSB xeon chipset platform.


Here are 5 things that i think will happen in the future.

1.) An increase in number of processor cores. (obvious)

2.) With the increase number of processors cores, we might see "processor" cores being dedicated for specific tasks. So, in a 8 core server, we might see a core dedicated for some compute intensive task like a JVM. The big problem with intel is that there interconenct between the chips is still stuck that FSB. (this has happened in mainframe, its going to happen in open systems, its going to happen in x86 especially with multicore processors)

3.) We will won't see a general purpouse processors core being used as a GPU for intensive graphics. The key issue being that writing the output to the frame buffer will take way too much I/O bus bandwidth. 5.2GiB per second for a 1600 x 1200 at 60fps !! Modern image enhancement techniques require loads of memory bandwidth too. A modern GPU has ~ 40GiB - 50GiB of memory bandwidth.

4.) #3 doesn't mean we won't see a processor die being equipped with a intergrated graphics section. In fact i am sure AMD will intergrate it into the processor die connected to the memory controller and CPU on its intergrated crossbar switch. Whats more they will intergrate the south bridge into it too. We will see system in a chip soon. Intel seem to be very flat footed here. Intergrate a graphics core into the CPU but still have your memory controller on your north bridge ? (no thats not going to work). A high performance system on chip will enhance AMD's position in the volume business PC and Value home PC market. I wonder why dell is now sleeping with AMD?

5.) Intel will NEVER again be the dominate company in computing architecture anymore. I think they have let AMD gain credability becuase of their screw ups. We will see new innovations being pushed forward. We will might see vhs-betamax wars sooner or later in the x86 market. AMD has basically got a foot hold into every tier one OEM now.
 
I really just can't see this happening. Granted Intel has the financial means of doing such a thing, but it'd be such a cheap shot to AMD that the PR for Intel would be a complete nightmare.

On the other hand, with the first batch of Intel boards supporting Crossfire, it does seem feasable that Intel would want to keep ATI out of the hands of their biggest competitor. I can't wait to see if ATI's RD600 will benefit Conroe over AMD due to the addition of a 3rd 16x PCI slot for another GPU for physics processing. Really getting rid of that GPU bottleneck might let the Conroe really shine.

Either way, I don't see this concerning anyone other than ATI/Intel employees until late 2007 or early 2008.
 
aldamon said:
It might be. I'm pretty sure Semprons will be in vending machines soon.
Click to expand...

Will those machines take quarters? I have some loose change I'm interested in using up.
 
NulloModo said:
It would make sense for Intel to buy out ATI. They have already invested some serious R&D into making mobos for Apple. Plus getting some new tech for their integrated chipsets is a plus too.
Click to expand...


What does Intel buying ATI have anything to do with the mobo's intel makes for apple?

the integrated graphics on say a MacBook are intel, not ATI.


Intel would not toss aside ATI, they would since be one company, use their technology to compete in the midrange / high end graphics market to take on NVIDIA.
 
Well, I don't think this is really going to happen. If it did, however, I think AMD would be very, very mad. It might give some substance to AMD's lawsuit against Intel, which is not something Intel wants.

But it might be a better thing than it seems at first glance. Intel and ATI have always gotten along, and a merger between them would make more sense than a merger with AMD. Together, they could really improve Crossfire. Intel has wanted to make some competitive integrated graphics chips, and ATI could help them do that.

Upon seeing the #1 graphics company join the #2 graphics company, the #3 graphics company (NVIDIA) would practically beg AMD to buy them. Since AMD and NVIDIA have always been good together, a partnership between them would work out better than one with AMD and ATI. Also, does NVIDIA have their own fabs? If so, that would be another plus for AMD.

So, everyone gets what they want. Intel gets a chance to get back into enthusiast graphics, and they take almost 100% of the integrated graphics market. ATI gets the well-needed stabillity of Intel. They both get to continue working on Crossfire. AMD gets the company that helped them get where they are today, and they get their favorite chipset as their own. AMD and NVIDIA continue to work on SLI.

Sounds like a good idea to me.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Well, I don't think this is really going to happen. If it did, however, I think AMD would be very, very mad. It might give some substance to AMD's lawsuit against Intel, which is not something Intel wants.
Click to expand...

Talk about anti-competitive practices. And a nice summary judgement for AMD. I hope Intel goes through with it, then. That would be classic.

Not only that, but intel could do a hostile takeover of AMD with the same pocket change. This entire thread is stupid.
 
mwarps said:
Talk about anti-competitive practices. And a nice summary judgement for AMD. I hope Intel goes through with it, then. That would be classic.

Not only that, but intel could do a hostile takeover of AMD with the same pocket change. This entire thread is stupid.
Click to expand...

Intel probably would do a hostile takeover of AMD if it weren't the fact that if AMD is gone then Intel will be the new monopoly and because the way our fun government is set up they will come in and split Intel up like they did Microsoft. Intel would stand to lose billions. Intel needs AMD to hang around.
 
It won't happen.

AMD has a lot more from purchasing ATI than Intel would.
 
Intel doesn't NEED amd to stick around. A monopoly is illegal only when anti-competitive or illegal practices are used. IF intel created some chip that was so powerful and cheap and AMD went out of business (just a hypothetical so unbunch your panties) the government really can't do anything about it.
 
evilmedic said:
BTX: An attempt to shift the industry becuase of the issues with precott and the netburst architecture.
Click to expand...

A lot of things that are way out there in your post, but not completely far fetched. However I do not think the acquisition of ATi is going to be end the all solution for AMD for theri woes an in intergrated systems. They are still a long long ways off to impress businesses to buy AMD PCs. Most companies just stick with Intel computers and thats that, maybe in 5 years time people will start opening up to AMD, but its a long ways off.

As far as BTX, I do not know if you noticed, BTX is an improvement over the current 12 year old ATX standard, and slowly but surely BTX will become the standard. As OEMs such as DELL are moving exclusively to BTX, the case makers who make their cases, also will allow them to trickle to the retail market. Which will be the slowest to move to BTX.
 
deeznuts said:
Intel doesn't NEED amd to stick around. A monopoly is illegal only when anti-competitive or illegal practices are used. IF intel created some chip that was so powerful and cheap and AMD went out of business (just a hypothetical so unbunch your panties) the government really can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...

That's good. It would really suck if the government could split up companies for being too successful.

I'm glad it seems the government has finally realized that standards are good in the computer market. Imagine if Apple had just as much market share as Microsoft. Redundancy and chaos are good words to describe it.

But yeah, buying your competitor just because you have enough money is pretty low. :rolleyes:
 
think Intel have pretty much lost the plot at the moment. Over the previous number of years, Intel has been screwing their partners over and over again. Lets look back.
Click to expand...

Well, they've also given us just about every add-in card interface since ISA, and Northwood was pretty good. Prescott was just that big engineering flop that all companies experience every now and then (i.e. FX series).
 
HOCP4ME said:
But yeah, buying your competitor just because you have enough money is pretty low. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Hmmm.... sounds like smart business to me. Of course... this can go against laws that we have set up, but this is really the goal of every company. If you are the only company you can set your price... of course, this isn't good for the consumer, hence the laws. Morals DO NOT apply to business... unless there are laws against that "immoral" behavior then the business will do it if they can turn a profit from it. Don't like it.... go back to russia during the 70s/80s. :D
 
Staples said:
It won't happen.

AMD has a lot more from purchasing ATI than Intel would.
Click to expand...

Like what? Intel is marketing Crossfire on their chipsets so Intel needs ATI or nVidia one if they plan to market a dual GPU solution. Intel is also likely to turn over the high-end chipset market to nVidia and ATI and Intel could benefit from ATI's chipset solutions.

deeznuts said:
Intel doesn't NEED amd to stick around. A monopoly is illegal only when anti-competitive or illegal practices are used. IF intel created some chip that was so powerful and cheap and AMD went out of business (just a hypothetical so unbunch your panties) the government really can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...

If AMD went out of business then there would be a huge lawsuit and AMD would blame it on practices by Intel. There would be investigations and Intel would likely be split up and lose billions. Why do you think AMD takes Intel to court all the time? Microsoft was split up for becoming a monopoly and the same would happen to Intel.
 
burningrave101 said:
If AMD went out of business then there would be a huge lawsuit and AMD would blame it on practices by Intel. There would be investigations and Intel would likely be split up and lose billions. Why do you think AMD takes Intel to court all the time? Microsoft was split up for becoming a monopoly and the same would happen to Intel.
Click to expand...

OK your arguments are a bit incoherent? AMD is already suing Intel so what difference does that make? And if they lost because of pure competition then who cares? You reinforce my point, they can blame intel, but my hypothetical says that Intel did NOT engage in anti-competitive behavior, they just had a superior product. AMD's suit would have no merit.

Microsoft was not split up for being a monopoly. In fact, was Microsoft even split up? AFAIK they are still one company. Microsoft was ordered to split (ordered but I don't think ever forced, it went to or is still in appeal) because they were ABUSING their dominant position in an anti-competitive way, such as bunding IE into windows without allowing a way to uninstall, etc. Your example as a matter of fact shows exactly how hard it is to break up a company. Microsoft is still in tact.

If AMD disappeared and INTEL was left standing, is it an absolute monopoly? No, you have VIA processor which sucks but it still works, and you have Apple. And how would you break up Intel? Would you split their desktop/server/big iron depts? How are they abusing one to advantage the other? If they aren't, there is no reason for a break up. Is their graphics/mobo division being abusive? Are we all scared of the big bad Intel Extreme Graphics? Don't tell that idiot Epic games dude.
 
It is very unlikely that Intel is going to bid for ATI. First and foremost, it would have to be a hostile bid, since ATI isn't advertising that their company is for sale. Secondly, since AMD and ATI are already in negotiations, and it could be argued are in an established business relationship, Intel sticking their noses in could very well amount to tortious interference, something Texaco did back in 1987 only to get slapped with a $10 billion judgment. Finally, if Intel were to go so far as to attempt a hostile takeover, there are a number of methods ATI could use to prevent that from happening (poison pill, designate AMD as a white knight, etc.). This doesn't even take into account the anti-trust hurdles Intel would have to clear since they would have 66-75% of the graphics market with such a takeover. In the end, this is just a rumor that doesn't have much merit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top