AMD-ATI Merger Looks Likely

samcurry

samcurry

Screwing with the code...
Staff member
Advanced Micro Devices may be looking to buy graphics company ATI Technologies, a move that would benefit the overall graphics industry, according to RBC Capital Markets.
"The synergies of this seem consistent with the recent announcements by AMD to significantly increase capacity over the next few-years," wrote analyst Apjit Walia in a note to investors Wednesday. "We believe ATI is a rare-buy in the semiconductor space right now given the near-term tie-up dynamics."
http://www.forbes.com/markets/economy/2006/05/31/amd-ati-technologies-0531markets10.html
 
Now that's interesting. Considering NVidia's move into chipsets, largely to support AMD platforms (Nforce, anyone?), this would probably be a harbinger of major changes to the hardware infrastructures used by AMD products overall.
 
As long as it doesn't indicate AMD is going to match Intel pricing. Maybe it'll lower ATI prices.
 
I love AMD ... I build my own computers and that's all I use. :cool4:
Fuck Intel and their overpriced crap! That's what I say! :finger:
 
My main machine has an Intel chip, but that's just because I got what was supposed to be a smokin' deal on the motherboard. It was supposed to be free after rebate... I bought it in September 2004 and I'm still waiting for the rebate. Hope it gets in before the post office quits forwarding mail from the old address to the new one.
 
Yeah. That's apparently Dell's opinion too. Gotta love how that quality leader Intel reversed course on 64-bit architecture, too. Real smooth business move, there.
 
Winky said:
Yeah if you can't afford the best
buy AMD
Click to expand...
Just because the price of an Intel processor is more than AMD does NOT mean it performs better. Go out and research for yourself. AMD processors out perform Intel processors when matched, type for type.
 
No problem your understanding of CPU micro architecture is evidently
so well versed that you completely understand everything

so is a Yugo better than a Mercedes because it is cheaper?

Hmm yeah must be...

Or a company that sells its products cheaper that is a tenth
of the size of its rival have greater resources to produce
a superior product

or do you realize how the introduction of Core Duo 2
is going to keep AMD solidly on the bottom of the performance heap
for the foreseeable future or...

Wait til Vista gets here and will you install an ATI card or NVIDIA
to git yer Aero glass...?
 
Winky said:
Wait til Vista gets here
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

I suspect you'll be waiting a significant amount longer for that.

It's amazing how some folks can't see it when the landscape changes. There was surely a time when AMD was an inferior product. That time is not now.
 
Fanboy Bah
If you were tellin' me that yer mid-range priced ferd or chebbie
was way better than my BMW or Porsche then it would be another matter
--------------------------

Summary And Conclusions
Again, we must emphasize that our testing situation was not optimal, because the Intel system had been preconfigured and didn't represent the final version. Even so, we were able to determine that not even AMD's top-of-the-line Athlon FX-62 CPU running at 3.0 GHz could clearly best the pre-release model of the Core 2 Duo (2.66 GHz Conroe) processor we tested. This comparison didn't even use the top-of-the-line Conroe processor, which Intel plans to introduce soon.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/
 
Wonderful! Their yet-to-be-released CPU can run with what AMD is selling now!

Color me terribly impressed.
 
hey silly (obtuse comes to mind)
this is an as of yet not released, middle of the road
non-overclocked cpu
keeping even with the top of the line chip
from the second place cpu maker

or some-such
 
i run both amd and intel. and from everything i have read so far, the intel has yet to have a "real" independant testbed. they have all been setup buy intel for the test, and they have been called on it.
Some of the so called heroics of the test was a supposedly OC to 4-4.6 ghz speed. My guess is that if they did really OC it that high they are gonna have a good thing, but with that is gonna coma a whole new cooling problem.
 
From my understanding on the procs out there right now is the real issue with Intel is the number of pipelines involved. With the increase in these the performance takes an inherent hit. Pumping up the core speed has little overall impact. Right now Intel procs, P4's and Celery's have 20 (I think it's 30+ for the Extreme) stages deep whereas the AMD runs at 10 stages (The Hammer has 12). At the cost of internal steps taken, Intel has taken the route of core speed. Great, core speed is up, but the number of steps is longer.

I read an article some time ago that Intel was going to be reducing the number of stages to 8 but I never really dug into when or how. I've yet to see any real performance boost of the Intel line to justify the significant cost increase at this point.
 
wheel the new deal is:

parallelism

the core duo 2 has shortened the pipeline depth
but of course has two cores
and so many other improvements
I haven’t been this excited about a new micro-processor architecture since the Pentium Pro

I can’t wait to completely upgrade all my hardware and run Vista!!!

Well I can wait cuz it will be next year at the earliest!
 
Aw C'Mon AMD-fanboys

if core duo is overclocking to 4+ gig before release
then this processor is going to be a monster

Oh and Sammy they have halved the heat dissipation on the
new cpu's so the extreme cooling techniques developed
for cooling the Prescott cores will really work on these babys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top