What if MS bought AMD?

[mrgoblin]

Id LOVE to see amd's 64 bit architechture with a microsoft only os and intel begging microsoft to code one for them after amd gives them the finger on their 64 bit source. How much is it gonna be for a 64bit os? This would also kill the server market. Opterons AND microsoft server 2003 at a discounted price? I could see linus torvalds sweating already.

 

[pspada]

This would be the first sign of the apocalypse.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
MS buying AMD wouldn't destroy Intel overnight by any stretch. Even with MS'es resources, it still costs about 8 billion to build a fab. Intel has many many more fabs than AMD, who has like 2 now with 1 on the way? Even M$ can't justify spending that amount of money to build enough fabs to compete with Intel, epsecially condsidering that demand is low now and we are going to be facing excess capacity when the 90nm fabs come on line. The downside to shrinking the process you make your chips on is that you increase the global output of such devices hugely compared to what it was before, thus devaluing your output somewhat.

AMD's fabs are much larger than Intel's, though not large enough to out produce Intel.

It seems to me though, about a year ago(maybe less, maybe more) the Inquirer was reporting that Intel was going to buy AMD.

 

[aka1nas]

What is the size difference between and AMD and an Intel fab out of curiosity?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
What is the size difference between and AMD and an Intel fab out of curiosity?

I don't know that, but 1 AMD fab is worth a couple or more Intel fabs. Wingznut(he works for Intel) would likely know.

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

On the other hand, neither company can seem to make a faster chip than they are right now with their 130nm chips. So, it's either never make faster chips, or go to the 90nm process. You realize, don't you, that the smaller the die size, the less it costs to make a chip. In a year or so, when 90nm has been around for awhile, they should be even cheaper to make, therefore cheaper to buy. Who's that bad for? The chipmakers will be making the same amount of money, assuming their markup is the same, and we will have cheaper, faster chips!

Yes but the issue is that every time they make a new fab on the new smallest process they increase the output by a multiple of what is currently out there and they obviously must produce at full capacity to recoup the money they spent on the fab. I think it was Intels 90nm fab that I read about, that would nearly double the output of CPUs produced in the world as its on a smaller process and they are using larger wafers etc. If MS bought AMD and tried to ramp it up to Intel-like production level, it could very well cause such a huge supply glut that both companies could go bankrupt(Great for us while it lasts). This would be like what happened with RAM a year or so ago but probably more disasterous and severe as there are really only 2 viable real choices for x86 cpus(VIA doesn't count in this area), and thus the loss of either one would probably be bad for the industry. This doesnt happen now because one company controlls 80+% of the market and thus they decide when to retire their fabs and when to build new ones and AMD's contribution is relatively insignificant %-wise.

What you said makes sense if you're talking about the same core. But since new cores are developed it doens't really work. For example, a .09u K8 core is still larger than a .13u K7 core.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: aka1nas
What is the size difference between and AMD and an Intel fab out of curiosity?

I don't know that, but 1 AMD fab is worth a couple or more Intel fabs. Wingznut(he works for Intel) would likely know.

• AMD's Fab30 has ~150,00 square feet of cleanroom space. On their site, it states that they start 5000 (200mm) wafers per week. (While I can't speak specifics, that sounds low to me.)
• Fab15 in Austin, TX manufacturers flash memory products. (I don't know how large it is.)

• Intel's Fab11x in Rio Ranch, NM has 200,000 sq ft of cleanroom space, and uses 300mm wafers.
• Intel's D1C in Hillsboro, OR has 136,000 sq ft of cleanroom space, and uses 300mm wafers.
• Intel's D1D in Hillsboro, OR has 176,000 sq ft of cleanroom space, and uses 300mm wafers. (D1D is still a development fab, and not yet ramped up for full production.)
• The other 8 fabs aren't as large as AMD's Fab30, but they certainly aren't half (or less) the size.
  
  Hope that helps.
  

 

[pspada]

I thought AMD just finished a plant in Dresden?

 

[Frightcrawler]

Originally posted by: Necrolezbeast

Originally posted by: LawrenceHeffernan

and look where we are today.

Behind ATi?

True performance wise.....but to the average consumer, just as AMD vs Intel, Nvidia is teh better name and has more market share...although their products may be worse people buy things for the name attached to it because they are too lazy to do their research.

so what your saying is that nvidia is better in the eyes of consumers because of deceit and the assumption that most consumers are ignorants who dont do research?
sounds rather dishonorable to me. :frown:

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: pspada
I thought AMD just finished a plant in Dresden?

Fab30 in Dresden was built in 2001, and then was added on in 2002.

They recently broke ground on building Fab36 in Dresden. It won't be finished and running production wafers for another 3 years or so.

 

[MadRat]

If MS bought AMD then...

1. The price of the average CPU would increase 100% each successive quarter until all them were too expensive to buy first hand and most everyone would be forced to shop for pirated versions.

2. Intel would be forced to run MS processors in their boards.

3. The size of the MS core would blossom 400% while dropping 50% in performance and crashing 10% more often.

4. Their processors would require monthly security patches to fix new undocumented "features".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: aka1nas
What is the size difference between and AMD and an Intel fab out of curiosity?

I don't know that, but 1 AMD fab is worth a couple or more Intel fabs. Wingznut(he works for Intel) would likely know.

• AMD's Fab30 has ~150,00 square feet of cleanroom space. On their site, it states that they start 5000 (200mm) wafers per week. (While I can't speak specifics, that sounds low to me.)
• Fab15 in Austin, TX manufacturers flash memory products. (I don't know how large it is.)

• Intel's Fab11x in Rio Ranch, NM has 200,000 sq ft of cleanroom space, and uses 300mm wafers.
• Intel's D1C in Hillsboro, OR has 136,000 sq ft of cleanroom space, and uses 300mm wafers.
• Intel's D1D in Hillsboro, OR has 176,000 sq ft of cleanroom space, and uses 300mm wafers. (D1D is still a development fab, and not yet ramped up for full production.)
• The other 8 fabs aren't as large as AMD's Fab30, but they certainly aren't half (or less) the size.
  
  Hope that helps.

• 
  
  Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification/correction.

 

[buckmasterson]

It ain't gonna happen folks. Bill Gates sleeps alone!!!

 

[INemtsev]

YEah I think the chances are it will happen is 5%. I think though it will help amd since it will have a bigger budget to spend though...

 

[nergee]

it would be another money losing adventure for MS but then again, they do have a lot
of money and money is power after all................

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: nergee
it would be another money losing adventure for MS but then again, they do have a lot
of money and money is power after all................

Which "other" money-losing adventures are you referring to? WindowsXP, Word, Powerpoint, etc.? Microsoft was actually bringing in billions/year from DOS, a command-line OS with no real graphics. How much money do you think Linus Torvalds is making from his command-line OS, even though his is lightyears ahead? Microsoft would make huge profits selling ice to eskimoes...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: SpeedFreak03
It would be like having a mac.

Yeah, but a Mac that can use the software from the 10,000 or so (it seems, anyway) companies in the world who write software for PC's, instead of just what's written by Apple and Adobe!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: nergee
it would be another money losing adventure for MS but then again, they do have a lot
of money and money is power after all................

Which "other" money-losing adventures are you referring to? WindowsXP, Word, Powerpoint, etc.? Microsoft was actually bringing in billions/year from DOS, a command-line OS with no real graphics. How much money do you think Linus Torvalds is making from his command-line OS, even though his is lightyears ahead? Microsoft would make huge profits selling ice to eskimoes...

Perhaps he's referring to Xbox? Anywho, I can't fathom the reasoning that it would be a negative investment AMD already produces excellent products, and with the MicroSoft brand name recognition and the advertising media blitz MS would use AMD would gain market share and new OEM contracts in all likelyhood. The consumers are sheep, start with a good product, beat the consumer over the head with advertising for it until it's a household word and watch sales grow. It has proven a successfull formula for many years now at any rate. I believe the Celeron is a perfect example of what consumer trust/faith in a brand name can do for sales of even a lackluster product.

Buying AMD outright would be a negative from my perspective, but a large minority holding and some extremely favorable financing terms on a huge loan could do wonders me thinks.

 

[mroleg]

What if MS bought AMD?

Then next version of windows would be written specifically to utilize properties of AMD cpu's and MS would end up going to court again for antitrust thingy.

 

[MournSanity]

I would rather IBM buy out AMD...