AMD Buys ATI

[DIGITALgimpus]

Now that AMD bought ATI, what does this mean for IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads?

Intel pulled ATI chipsets already, so no more ATI/Intel combo's likely.

So will they go with Intel/Integrated? Intel/NVidia, or AMD/ATI?

Personally I thought Intel/ATI was superior of possible combo's.

Anyone have a guess at what we'll see next?

[dsigma6]

wouldnt nvidia be sort of pressured into climbing onboard with intel? what else are they going to do?

[jjesusfreak01]

wouldnt nvidia be sort of pressured into climbing onboard with intel? what else are they going to do?

That would be the coolest thing, and although I know every single low/mid level employee at both of those companies are thinking the same thing, its all up to the top level execs. It would be smart, in my opinion though. Intel could beef up their graphics and chipsets too, since from the news of the new Dell XPS, the nVidia chipsets are alot faster than Intels.

[Saml01]

wouldnt nvidia be sort of pressured into climbing onboard with intel? what else are they going to do?

That would be the coolest thing, and although I know every single low/mid level employee at both of those companies are thinking the same thing, its all up to the top level execs. It would be smart, in my opinion though. Intel could beef up their graphics and chipsets too, since from the news of the new Dell XPS, the nVidia chipsets are alot faster than Intels.

Wont happen. The way intel cpus are going, intel is designing its own northbridges to cope with the way the architecture is designed, meaning no onboad memory controller like AMD cpus.

AMD may have bought ATI, and that may only mean a much more powerfull video card that is more designed toward the type of architecture AMD cpus use.

Nvidia will continue supplying AMD its chipsets, and intel will do what it does best compete and try to dominate.


I am not a fan boy, please realize, I go with what is the better choice on the market.

[DIGITALgimpus]

IMHO ATI's are still better in terms of driver stability/compatibility/customization (customization if you go that way).

Somewhat sad to think this is the end of the line for ATI and Intel... at least for the foreseeable future, AMD doesn't have real good plans to compete in the mobile market (lets face it, AMD is gaining on server, and desktop, but their mobile platform, and plans are weak, and that's being kind).

[kulivontot]

Um... ok
So Intel doesn't need to buy nvidia. They are already the number one graphics provider. Ok, maybe not high end, but they don't have to be. AMD bought ATI because they have no integrated graphics solutions for themselves, so they have to come up with a way to cope with it. Think about it. High end products don't make up that much of the computer market. Corporations are the ones who make the most computer purchases and, intel already has that segment nailed down with their own chipsets. The secondary effect of the merger is that AMD can now make super advanced integrated CPU's/GPU's which intel may not be able to do. However, for the high-end segment NVIDIA is still present and competitive with ATI, so intel is not screwed.

[christopher_wolf]

Um... ok
So Intel doesn't need to buy nvidia. They are already the number one graphics provider. Ok, maybe not high end, but they don't have to be. AMD bought ATI because they have no integrated graphics solutions for themselves, so they have to come up with a way to cope with it. Think about it. High end products don't make up that much of the computer market. Corporations are the ones who make the most computer purchases and, intel already has that segment nailed down with their own chipsets. The secondary effect of the merger is that AMD can now make super advanced integrated CPU's/GPU's which intel may not be able to do. However, for the high-end segment NVIDIA is still present and competitive with ATI, so intel is not screwed.

Yeah, that is a point that has been made by other reporters as well. AMD never had an integrated graphics solution for its mobile chipsets, acquiring ATI is a quick, easy, and effective way to present serious competition to Intel Integrated Graphics without having to start from scratch, as it were.

Also, see; http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/24/amd_etc/

[dsigma6]

IMHO ATI's are still better in terms of driver stability/compatibility/customization (customization if you go that way).

dammit i just bought an nvidia.

[christopher_wolf]

I also prefer ATIs in my Thinkpads ever since, well, ever since I got horrendous problems out of a bunch of nVidia FX and Go cards. At their extreme high-end on the desktop, they are both pretty powerful.

[Dead1nside]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33230

ATI and AMD at first to me seemed like a bad decision. ATI does have the laptop market. AMD doesn't. AMD is being pressured by Core 2.

However, they will fight abck with K8L and K9.

nVidia should not be pressured into not making any chipsets for AMD. Since they are the best.

[christopher_wolf]

nVidia should not be pressured into not making any chipsets for AMD. Since they are the best.

Not in the general laptop market they aren't.

From what I have seen, the FX and Go cards had some significant issues (all of which I have seen on my older Dell laptops). It is either you get that or you pay, through various bodily orfices, for a really high-end gaming laptop that draws off of battery power like it is on AC with 2 graphics cards in it. In the latter case, you might want to go with nVidia. For more mainline performance, some more tweaking ability, and lower power usage the ATIs are pretty good; unless you are looking for huge power savings in which case you head for integrated graphics.

AMD is probably looking to get good performance out of an integrated graphics package from ATI; seeing as how they need every Watt saved they can get to compete with Intel's mobile platform. ATI was a choice decision in that matter. Giving AMD what it hopes is a quick boost.

[Dead1nside]

I totally agree nvidia, I have a hard time tracking down any GeForce Go powered laptops that aren't super high-end.

But this deal is not in fact for GPUs it's for technology. Intel is ahead in the small but many fast processors market, AMD wants to incorporate the GPU onto the CPU-die. The merger was necessary for it.

[christopher_wolf]

Yup; also, according to some, Intel is trying to come up with a graphics offloader that runs on one of the cores on a Core Duo setup. In effect, taking a load off the GPU and putting it back on the CPU....Whaa???

[TarzanBoy]

This bodes very badly for Nvidia. Both Intel and AMD are moving towards hardwiring graphics into the motherboard/processor.

From what things look like right now... Nvidia might go the way of 3dfx (who was the graphics king for a 2-3 year stretch until NVidia came along and re-integrated 2d adn 3d on the same video card with the TNT).

I still have a monster 2 in a box at home

[christopher_wolf]

[quote="TarzanBoy"]This bodes very badly for Nvidia. Both Intel and AMD are moving towards hardwiring graphics into the motherboard/processor.
quote]

And why not? From a business standpoint, especially Intel's, they will make more money if they keep coming up with good integrated graphics solutions and putting them into laptops. Intel Integrated Graphics already account for the majority of the graphics chipsets sold in laptops today and their market share is still growing (they have even managed to outcompete both ATI and nVidia in some areas). I can imagine that AMD would like to do that as well to get in on some of the action as well as having a good proto-platform at hand with pre-optimized power management due to a better integrated GPU rather than having to pay somebody, like nVidia, to give them a discrete GPU and then having to support extra drivers and OEM versions when it comes to putting it into various laptops. Those are just some of the reasons that Intel's Mobile Integrated Graphics have been doing pretty good thus far; I can imagine AMD wanting to do the same.

[DIGITALgimpus]

Intel would much rather use 100% their own chipsets rather than work with nVIDIA... it's as simple as keeping 100% of the price, or 90% of the price. Diff being 10%.

Intels graphic chipsets thus far really are crap for all but office use.

I really don't like where this is going. Either Intel needs to step up it's game (which is unlikely since there is little more for them to gain), or nVIDIA has to (which is unlikely because there's more profit in desktops where hardcore gamers exist, and people upgrade graphics cards).

Just looks like a bad situation for us laptop people.