ATI a takeover target?

[biostud]

clicky

time for some risky investment?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: biostud
clicky

time for some risky investment?

Holy crap, I guess even though some would have you believe "SM2b is 'good enough'" and "AIW products ownxors" ATI isn't doing so well.

What would be amusing to me is if nVidia bought controlling interest in them, because some people would take it so personally.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Guess all that money they saved sticking with outdated SM2 technology didnt help them really did it?

I would not risk money on ATI. When ALI chipsets are better than ATI's.. competance isnt really a debate anymore for these guys.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Would get "interesting" in the graphics area if Intel merged with ATI and nvidia merged with AMD...........


but i would rather see them keep their independence

 

[baddog121390]

if intel takes over ATI... ugh

 

[Lonyo]

Would be VERY interesting if AMD took over ATi, mainly for nForce chipsets.
But then the same is true for Intel, but possibly less so, since nVidia have a smaller share of the Pentium market.

 

[Gamer X]

If I were XGI I would be interested in them.

 

[fierydemise]

ATI is still strong, they were a little worse then nVidia last gen but still fine, this gen is just ATI's NV30, nVidia still exists despite NV30 so ATI can still do fine even if R520 doesn't turn out too well.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Would be VERY interesting if AMD took over ATi, mainly for nForce chipsets.
But then the same is true for Intel, but possibly less so, since nVidia have a smaller share of the Pentium market.

Nforce chipsets are NVIDIA produced. I think Microsoft should buy them, that way they can begin the conquest of the hardware market after they buy AMD.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Would be VERY interesting if AMD took over ATi, mainly for nForce chipsets.
But then the same is true for Intel, but possibly less so, since nVidia have a smaller share of the Pentium market.

Nforce chipsets are NVIDIA produced. I think Microsoft should buy them, that way they can begin the conquest of the hardware market after they buy AMD.

That's my point.
If AMD own ATi (who also produce chipsets), they could limit licensing to nVidia so nVidia can no longer make AMD chipsets, so that ATi can gain market share.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Would be VERY interesting if AMD took over ATi, mainly for nForce chipsets.
But then the same is true for Intel, but possibly less so, since nVidia have a smaller share of the Pentium market.

Nforce chipsets are NVIDIA produced. I think Microsoft should buy them, that way they can begin the conquest of the hardware market after they buy AMD.

That's my point.
If AMD own ATi (who also produce chipsets), they could limit licensing to nVidia so nVidia can no longer make AMD chipsets, so that ATi can gain market share.

Why would we want that? Competition is good for us

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Would be VERY interesting if AMD took over ATi, mainly for nForce chipsets.
But then the same is true for Intel, but possibly less so, since nVidia have a smaller share of the Pentium market.

Nforce chipsets are NVIDIA produced. I think Microsoft should buy them, that way they can begin the conquest of the hardware market after they buy AMD.

That's my point.
If AMD own ATi (who also produce chipsets), they could limit licensing to nVidia so nVidia can no longer make AMD chipsets, so that ATi can gain market share.

Why would we want that? Competition is good for us

Did I SAY we wanted that?

 

[ryanv12]

I don't want anyone to take over anyone else. The only reason technology advances as fast as it does is because of good ol' competition. Do you think that Intel would have rethought their netburst approach if it wasn't for AMD encroaching on their market share, proving that it's the architecture that counts over MHz?

Companies in dominant positions play the consumer instead of their competition. Meaning that if nvidia was in control, they'd try to sell products that weren't as good as what you are paying for. Having ATI around means that the technology stays bleeding edge and keeps the prices down.

I also don't think ATI is "weak" right now. They've stumbled, yes, but every large corporation has at one or more points without going under. They're still providing good products at competitive prices.

 

[Peter]

Regarding licensing on AMD chipsets: HyperTransport is an open standard. No licensing bull going on here.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: baddog121390
if intel takes over ATI... ugh

ATi Exxtreme graphics

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: Rollo

What would be amusing to me is if nVidia bought controlling interest in them, because some people would take it so personally.

I would take it personally, I don't want to pay 1000$ for graphics cards. Monopoly = bad news for us dude.

Besides, ATI has more market-share then nvida anyway. Just because one analyst says something doesn't make it true.

 

[Mrvile]

I wouldn't put any money into ATI stock...although they will probably do better with the release of the 360, I bet they'll still lag behind until they can get a stable next gen card out for PC.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: Rollo

What would be amusing to me is if nVidia bought controlling interest in them, because some people would take it so personally.

I would take it personally, I don't want to pay 1000$ for graphics cards. Monopoly = bad news for us dude.

Besides, ATI has more market-share then nvida anyway. Just because one analyst says something doesn't make it true.

More market share, but losing millions per quarter when nV is making millions per quarter? You can have 99.9% of the market, but all is not well if you're operating at a loss.

Anyway, you'll see $1000 graphics cards within 4-5 years if the trend of past 3 years keeps up: $400-9700P $500- 6800U/X800XTPE $600-7800GTX

 

[HDTVMan]

AMD doesnt have the cash.
Microsoft doesnt want hardware so that is out also.
IBM would ruin it like they ruin every company they buy.

Wouldnt it be funny is Sony bought them? Then sony would be making money from Xbox 360 sales.

Sorry cant see who would buy them.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Would be VERY interesting if AMD took over ATi, mainly for nForce chipsets.
But then the same is true for Intel, but possibly less so, since nVidia have a smaller share of the Pentium market.

Nforce chipsets are NVIDIA produced. I think Microsoft should buy them, that way they can begin the conquest of the hardware market after they buy AMD.

That's my point.
If AMD own ATi (who also produce chipsets), they could limit licensing to nVidia so nVidia can no longer make AMD chipsets, so that ATi can gain market share.

Why would we want that? Competition is good for us

Did I SAY we wanted that?

Sorry I misunderstood you

 

[Munky]

Big deal... Ati is not going anywhere. If nvidia survived during the nv30 days when they released a product delayed AND inferior, why would ati tank when they're gonna release a product delayed but probably superior to the competition?

BTW, I'm probably buying ati stock as you're reading this.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: Rollo

What would be amusing to me is if nVidia bought controlling interest in them, because some people would take it so personally.

I would take it personally, I don't want to pay 1000$ for graphics cards. Monopoly = bad news for us dude.

Besides, ATI has more market-share then nvida anyway. Just because one analyst says something doesn't make it true.

More market share, but losing millions per quarter when nV is making millions per quarter? You can have 99.9% of the market, but all is not well if you're operating at a loss.

Anyway, you'll see $1000 graphics cards within 4-5 years if the trend of past 3 years keeps up: $400-9700P $500- 6800U/X800XTPE $600-7800GTX

Did you read the interview with the BFG guys, I think it was on Toms. They basically said that they think $1000 single cards are definitely feasible right now, and that the market is already there. They referenced how they sold out on all of their 512MB 6800 Ultras.

Also, whoever said that ATi won't do that well until they get a stable next gen card out (which I'm assuming you're referencing R520). The high end market isn't the money maker for these companies. Sure its kinda like flagship car models, they help sell the lower end stuff, but the real money is in contracts like for the GPUs of consoles. ATi could probably become very well off if they dropped the video card market and focused on imbedded chip solutions. I'm not saying I want them to, but they could do that and be better off.

I personally would actually like a 3rd player in the video card market myself (I mean one that is directly competitive). People didn't think there was room for 3 companies in the console market, but there seems to be plenty, and that has led to a lot good developments and a lot of great games.

 

[hans030390]

Personally ATI has been a let-down lately. Nvidia has just kicked itself into gear...its not wonder that ATI is losing this "round"

i don't see ATI going anywhere though.

just a random thought, what if Nvidia bought ATI???

 

[PerfeK]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: Rollo

What would be amusing to me is if nVidia bought controlling interest in them, because some people would take it so personally.

I would take it personally, I don't want to pay 1000$ for graphics cards. Monopoly = bad news for us dude.

Besides, ATI has more market-share then nvida anyway. Just because one analyst says something doesn't make it true.

More market share, but losing millions per quarter when nV is making millions per quarter? You can have 99.9% of the market, but all is not well if you're operating at a loss.

Anyway, you'll see $1000 graphics cards within 4-5 years if the trend of past 3 years keeps up: $400-9700P $500- 6800U/X800XTPE $600-7800GTX

I have a 6800GT and even I could tell you that Nvidia with a monopoly is bad news, period. Why are you such a fanboy?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: Rollo

What would be amusing to me is if nVidia bought controlling interest in them, because some people would take it so personally.

I would take it personally, I don't want to pay 1000$ for graphics cards. Monopoly = bad news for us dude.

Besides, ATI has more market-share then nvida anyway. Just because one analyst says something doesn't make it true.

More market share, but losing millions per quarter when nV is making millions per quarter? You can have 99.9% of the market, but all is not well if you're operating at a loss.

Anyway, you'll see $1000 graphics cards within 4-5 years if the trend of past 3 years keeps up: $400-9700P $500- 6800U/X800XTPE $600-7800GTX

Also, if the trends continue, when cards cost $1000, you'll be the only person to buy a new graphics card, and you'll hate on everyone with cards from the previous generation. At least you'll have shinier pipes to look at .

Nvidia buying ATI would be bad news for everyone; it would be an end to competition in the video card market and the beginning of yet another monopoly in the computer industry. But hey, whatever floats your boat Rollo.