Still no CEO for the company lol...soon it is going to be a one year mark!
with BD failing/delayed so badly right now you would need to offer me a shit ton of cash to take that job. Probably why its still vacant.
ATI was a failing company when AMD WAYYYYYYY overpaid for them. If AMD had spent that $5 billion on new cpu design then they'd probably be much more competitive with intel atm. IIRC, most of the senior ati employees left soon after the buyout.
My thoughts on the AMD acquisition of ATI has always been it was a good move but Ruiz overpaid. The actual amount paid was merely high but when you factor in the difficulties in integrating ATI into AMD it becomes extravagant. Then throw in that ATI's future solo outlook was less than rosy at the time.
There is so much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to begin. Firstly, I do agree that AMD panicked when they sold the Imageon tech, bad move.ATI would still have their imageon mobile line and might be riding high on it like qualcomm is. Imageon could have been ATI's tegra, a couple years before Tegra 2 made it big.
I don't remember ATI's finances being that bad either. AMD seemed like a far more unhealthy company, iirc.
Either way, AMD should have waited about a year before purchasing ATI and got them cheaper. On the other hand, Fusion may still turn out to be the golden egg that saves AMD. ATM, Fusion isn't providing much. AMD's platforms still need 2 chip designs and still rely on external memory for graphics, so it doesn't really matter which chip the GPU exists on right now. Eventually, Fusion will make sense, and AMD could never have developed it on its own. They took way too long to get it to market though, Intel developed their own fusion initiative in less time. If gen 2 of Fusion doesn't show some spectacular results, AMD is going to be in for a tough time...
AMD would not have to say or do anything, the buyout would never be approved, given anti-trust laws in the United States.I'm convinced they would buy NVIDIA outright if they [Intel] thought they could get it at a reasonable valuation and didn't fear AMD and others would make a huge antitrust fuss.
AMD would not have to say or do anything, the buyout would never be approved, given anti-trust laws in the United States.
Plus it's been mentioned many times, Jen-Hsun Huang will give up Nvidia over his dead body.
There is so much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to begin. Firstly, I do agree that AMD panicked when they sold the Imageon tech, bad move.
But wait to purchase ATI? No can do, look how long it took AMD to come out with Fusion as it is, you want that to be delayed another year? And there was a real risk that ATI would have been purchased by someone else. As for "Fusion not providing much", quite the contrary, AMD is selling every Fusion chip they can make, it's a big, big hit. Take a look at the number of shipping units out there, AMD has a mobile presence like never before, it's quite staggering. And this time OEMs are enthusiastically embracing AMD mobile tech, a first.
As for Intel, they don't have anything like Fusion, Intel just crammed their ancient GPU into a CPU die and called it a day. Sure they were first, but being first means next to nothing in this industry.
Has nothing to do with the merits of the chip itself. And remember, AMD is still digging themselves out of the financial hole they dug for themselves when they purchased ATI.AMD is selling every fusion chip...and still putting out disappointing financial results.
There is little interesting about Intel's "GPU". I don't know anyone that uses or cares about quicksync, I know many people that are interested in playing games.On the other hand, Intel's iX-2XXX series of cpus have a bit more interesting gpu. The quicksync technology is something actually useful for many people (and better than the competing technologies) and intel has achieved a pretty good level of integration with cpu+gpu both sharing the same L3 cache instead of relying entirely on system bandwidth.
Fusion got pushed back so many times, mainly because the fabrication tech wasn't there yet. Waiting a year to buy ATI may have been a more appropriate time.
AMD is selling every fusion chip...and still putting out disappointing financial results.
AMD's fusion chips are the result of AMD just 'cramming' the gpu onto the same die as the cpu. There's no meaningful communication between the gpu and cpu on AMD's current APUs.
Bobcat is fairly conservative, and its gpu performance falls about where a new IGP from AMD would have likely landed. It's a logical design.
Lllano gets its gpu performance by dedicating a massive amount of die space to the gpu, without the memory bandwidth to back it up.
On the other hand, Intel's iX-2XXX series of cpus have a bit more interesting gpu. The quicksync technology is something actually useful for many people (and better than the competing technologies) and intel has achieved a pretty good level of integration with cpu+gpu both sharing the same L3 cache instead of relying entirely on system bandwidth.
Very true, if there isn't a poison pill provision at NVIDIA Jen-Hsun would get one implemented at even a hint of a buyout offer.
He did agree for a merger with AMD , though , but he insisted
to inherit the CEO chair of the eventual new entity , so the AMD
staff get ATI instead...
Which was the single dumbest thing AMD ever did. The 8000 series made boatloads of cash for NV just when core 2 came out and made AMD suffer. Had nVidiAMD happened, I honestly think that AMD would be on much more even terms with Intel at the moment.
A friend and I used to argue continuously about this at work before I went to another job. His contention was much the same as yours, that AMD paid too much for ATI (undoubtedly true) and that it was going to bankrupt them.
I argued that it was a good thing they bought ATI, basically since the graphics cards were very successful and the only thing that they did well. I also thought Fusion would be an outstanding success.
Even now I guess we do not know which theory was right. Maybe if they had put the money into CPU design instead of ATI, they would have had a world class chip. But we will never know. And Fusion is less successful than I had anticipated, although I might have expected too much. It is an OK product for laptops, but nothing revolutionary in my opinion.
Actually, Intel did rush new development in their IGP. It's not just a rehash of their 900 series in fact I suspect they made that patent deal with NVIDIA because they copied some GPU tech and needed to acquire some legal cover.
I'm convinced they would buy NVIDIA outright if they thought they could get it at a reasonable valuation and didn't fear AMD and others would make a huge antitrust fuss.
He did agree for a merger with AMD , though , but he insisted
to inherit the CEO chair of the eventual new entity , so the AMD
staff get ATI instead...