Slashdot Mirror
ATI and AMD Seek Approval for Merger?
Krugerlive writes "The rumor of an ATI/AMD merger/buyout has been out now for sometime. However, this morning an Inquirer article has said that a merger deal has been struck and that the two companies will seek shareholder approval on Monday of next week. In the market, AMD is down as a result of lackluster earnings announced last evening, and ATI is up about 4% on unusually high volume." This is nothing but a rumour at the moment, a point that C|Net makes in examining the issue. From the article: "AMD has always boasted that it only wants to make processors, leaving networking and chipsets to others. AMD does produce some chipsets, but mostly just to get the market started. Neutrality has helped the company garner strong allies."
NVidia would seek a partnership with Intel (Although some news articles reported that they felt that Intel
were holding back progress in 3D graphics performance).
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I always thought that AMD and Nvidia were the better combo. Besides the ATI Drivers suck for Linux, where a large percent of the enthusiast market's interests lie. Isn't AMD still more of an enthusists processor until it can get into one of the top vendor's machines?
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
As much as I like AMD, I have to say that if Intel and nVidia teamed up they would probably beat the crap out of AMD + ATi.
And if AMD and ATi merge.. It sort of seems like a punch in the face to nVidia. Leaving them wanting to talk to Intel. Leading to... what?
For a long time there have been two beasts in the CPU market and two beauties in the GPU market. AMD and Intel in CPUs, and ATi and nVidia in GPUs. If they marry respectively, the offspring might have the good qualities of neither and the bad qualities of both. I think overall the consumer would probably (more than likely) lose out.
So, I really kind of hope this is just a rumor.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
AMD
T
I
The market's view of this is visible from the fact that ATI is up and AMD is waaaay down.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Say goodbye to nForce chipsets for AMD.
I'm a big AMD fan. But I'd be really upset to loose the nForce line of chipsets. In my opinion, it's a must for any AMD user. And I think it would be very difficult to come up with a good replacement.
I also worry that chipsets for AMD based motherboards will not work so well with my nVidia video card. Not an ATI fan at all.
I'm going to be watching these guys very closely. This would sway me away from AMD.
As anyone familiar with the botched ATI graphics system in the Xbox 360 knows, whatever competence ATI may have had in the past is long gone.
The Xbox 360 is the first console ever to have PCs outperform it before the console has hit store shelves. In the past, consoles have had at least a year or so before PCs could touch them.
What the hell is AMD thinking?
AMD needs to come up with its own bogus SPEC score generating compiler to grow in the market, not a fucked up GPU maker.
What actually comes to me hearing about this is how incredibly much everyone hates Intel Integrated Graphics. I'm told that ATI and NVidia both have low-end cards that don't really cost any more than Integrated Graphics, but get used less often just because they're not what the system comes with. Mark Rein of Epic seems to think Integrated Graphics is slowly killing PC gaming.
I wonder, with AMD and ATI working together will they be able to present an alternative which meets Intel on price while beating them by far on performance. And if they do, will Intel have to improve their offerings to stay competitive...
Hooray capitalism
It's definitely going to be one of those positive situations where software is doctored to perform particularly well [when combinations are involved].
There is a company out there that has an FPGA in a 940 pin socket. What about putting a GPU in it? Dual channel memory, HT link to the main processor, HT link to a DAC from the GPU [make mobos with fixed DACs on the board].
That'd be hella cool.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Here I come Intel, if this is true. Just because ATI drivers are horsecrap on Linux. I'm not going to support that company. Especially that Intel looks quite good with that Conroe stuff...
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
ATI seems ahead in TVs, phones, and gaming boxes. Perhaps that's where AMD is going. In fact, consumer is the only thing that has been saving ATI's bacon, as their margins in the PC space are far behind nVidia. nVidia has made some recent aqquistions to broaden beyond high-end PC, but ATI is way ahead there. Perhaps AMD sees the ATI broad product offerings and nice tech since R300, and can run their divisions with better margins than Orton seems to have been able to do.
this would not be the first time ATi and AMD shot themselves in their respective foot.
AMD, like Intel, could be convinced to open up the specifications to their graphics hardware in order to sell more of their complement product, processors. The difference is that ATI Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) don't suck like Intel GPUs. AMD could have almost 100% of the Linux notebook market within a year and my guess is HP would be the big winner because they already have a business line of AMD notebooks with ATI GPUs: HP Compaq nx6125 Notebook for Business (New Zealand link since this Anonymous Coward is from NZ)
Nvidia makes the best chipsets for AMD. Why would they want to merge with second-rate vendor? I hope AMD doesn't become as unstable as ATI drivers.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Right now, just as Intel's jumping ahead of ATI, too.
Maybe it's a sign. Maybe Intel jumped ahead of ATI because ATI sucks so much that just the anticipation of such a merger was enough to cause problems for AMD? Mabye Intel is so awesome because they already are talking to nvidia?
Of course, I've got a better combo in mind already: nVidia, period. They always talk about how they hate the x86 architecture, and wish you could just do everything on their hardware. Well, maybe they should try that... Wouldn't be the first time, after all, the nForce chipsets often required severe OS hacks to get anything working on them.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
AMD and ATI to ask shareholders for merger approval
By Gary Niger: Friday 21 July 2006, 13:53
ACCORDING to an extraordinarily reliable source, AMD and ATI will on Monday pitch their shareholders with the proposition that the two companies merge.
It's an interesting idea - AMD doesn't quite have the shekels in the bank to buy ATI outright. The deal, subject to shareholder approval, may still founder.
If the deal goes through, Nvidia and its SNAP partnership with AMD will definitely be reconsidered and Nvidia will all of a sudden become a super underdog compared to the new juggernaut. It may also stop the endless bickering between ATI and Nvidia that's entertained the world+dog for some years now.
AMD will be glad to get its hands on ATI's very profitable handheld division. The firm needs good chipsets and will also benefit from a great consumer digital chip segment. It will also like the integrated graphics business and will now get a piece of this action.
They are not making same product, and neither will have relative monopoly even after merger.
AMD market share is at best 20%, ATi's at best 1/3 ( other third intel and nVIDIA), and again even with bundling their respective products they don't make any impact, it is not like that they couldn't bundle ATi shi*sets without merger.
As already has been said majority of nForce users will swing away. They are making easier for us to avoid them, as AMD+ATi will always come in combo, so if you don't like one, you don't get the other one; or makes it easier to avoid both while buying laptops (many intel based laptops have ATi graphics)
I think this is bad for AMD because ATI has crappy support, crappy customer experience, and crappy drivers.
Either this would vastly improve ATI or it could drag AMD down into mediocrity. If the merger does happen I truly hope that it is the former (ATI cleaning up its act across the board) but all too often with these sorts of mergers its the former that happens. ATI has a lot of great technology with fast GPUs, but when the drivers suck, customer service and support are nonexistent, and they absolutely refuse to document registers for folks (third party developers) willing to develop drivers for FREE, I have absolutely, positively NO reason to buy ATI products, even if they do offer superior products (like their All in Wonder series). I used to be an ATI fanatic (most of my machines - personal and business- are STILL ATI-equipped/crippled in the hopes they'll clean up their act) but on all new machines I've been choosing NVidia, and recommend NVidia to clients whenever it's possible.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
This would terribly upset me if it were to go through. I could nVidia then teaming up with Intel, and you'd basically be forced to either buy an AMD+ATI combo or an Intel+nVidia combo. Nooo thanks.
I am a hard-core AMD and nVidia fan. I don't have any Intel PCs in my house except those that I got as freebies, and I've never had good luck with *any* ATI card. I cringe in fear at what would (or at least could) happen to my gaming systems of the future if ATI and AMD merge. Yes, I can see some type of exclusivity where ATI cards are going to somehow be more advantageous than nVidia when it comes to gaming hardware for reasons other than plain, old competition.
Damn. This worries me
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Doesn't this story look like a Dilbert-ish situation - the companies themself don't even consider merging but because "the word is out" and "everybody knows they'll do it" it somehow becomes a reality?
-- Sig down
as an employee of one of these two companies (does it matter which one...?), i can say the office was buzzing today with talk about this. the concensus is that it's probably just a rumor, but if it is true, none of us would be very happy about it...
You need to bear in mind that the GPU is the critical component in most systems, but makes almost no money for the vendor and has a relatively low volume. There is precisely no reason whatsoever for AMD to want to merge with ATi or to buy them up. That would be expensive and earn them little. In fact, given how much they've made from their component-neutrality, sacrificing that might mean they'd actually lose money overall.
On the other hand, CPUs are high volume, high profit, and AMD is gaining market-share. It is an ideal target for a buy-out, particularly as ATi can't be doing that well in the GPU market. Buying AMD would be like buying a money-printing-machine, as far as ATi were concerned. Better still, AMD is a key player in bus specifications such as HyperTransport, which means that if ATi owned AMD, ATi could heavily influence the busses to suit graphics in general and their chips in particular.
(Mergers are never equal, as you don't have two CEOs, two CFOs, etc. One of them will be ultimately in charge of the other.)
If the rumour is correct, then don't assume AMD is the one instigating things - they have the most to lose and the least to gain - and don't assume either of them will be around when the mergers and buyouts finish.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
ATI and AMD shouldn't merge because ATI's drivers suck.
I think that's the concensus on here, certainly the linux drivers are apparently awful.
My AMD64 desktop machine has an NVidia graphics card which works much better than the ATI rubbish built into the motherboard. But I'm not using that machine to write this. In fact, other than for occasional gaming, that machine rarely gets switched on.
I tend to use my laptop. Which has a Centrino chipset.
You know - that one that Intel brought out for laptops? The one that's hugely, massively successful in one of the main growth areas of hardware sales? Everyone wants a laptop... or a home media centre based on a pc but doesn't run like one... Everyone is buying Intel. Why? Because to all intents and purposes all the laptops come with Intel centrino sets. It's dead easy - they're dead easy to support, all the bits work together, no conflicts. AMD? Sure nice chips but who makes Turion laptops? Acer... Asus... and... um... some other companies... Perhaps Alienware? HP make a couple, Fujitsu Siemens make a couple but these aren't their high-end desirable laptops. It's like "well if I spend money I get a centrino, otherwise it's a toss-up between Celeron - the cacheless wonder - and a chip that sounds like a sticky nut treat..."
Who makes Centrino laptops? Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Fujitsu Siemens, Samsung, Panasonic, whatever IBM are calling themselves now - oh and Acer and Asus and Alienware too but - oh yes, and one really important company who basically stuck 2 fingers up to AMD - Apple. I'll bet Apple choosing Intel hurt. But everyone's buying laptops with Centrino chipsets in... No-one's really buying AMD... because AMD don't provide a chipset and an easy way for manufacturers to just kind of put their machines together in a lego-style fashion.
Does it make business sense for AMD to tie up with the chipset and motherboard manufacturer that also happens to make graphics cards? Hell yes. Does it make sense for AMD to try to get into the laptop market in a meaningful way? Probably. Will their driver support get any better? We can hope...
Either this would vastly improve ATI and it could drag AMD down into mediocrity.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You think nVidia will stop manufacturing nForce for AMD chips? Unless they are dumb, they won't. It's money for them!
Also what makes you think also that AMD + ATI means Intel + nVidia? Nothing so far other than speculation . Nobody gave any real evidence about it.
ATI sucks on windows.
The drivers are horrible.
ATI lies to their customers.
The GPU may be solid, but that only half the battle.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Could it be, that this is just a way to keep our attention away from the new intel?
AMD has to do something to keep attention from the enthousiasts. Monday the price cuts will be given. So to me it seems like we are getting a whole bunch of 'events' trying to keep AMD in the spotlight...
---
Today I am a bunny. A very very drunk bunny. >>>> this is not really a sig
I don't understand all the comments saying ATI's Linux drivers suck. I've got a Radeon 9200, and I've never had a problem with 'em. I love the thing. I HATE NVidia. They're expensive as hell. I always recommend AMD and ATI. Of course, I don't think there's anyone here that would say AMD isn't good...heh. I've got my Athlon XP 2200+ overclocked from 1.35GHz to 2.09, and I've had it higher, but not all of my RAM is fast enough.
I can't wait for this merger if it's true.
The recent announcement by Apple that they are going to be partnering with Nvidia for future ipod use. This could be the first step in them getting ready to switch over to Nvidia for their graphics processors since they use Intel chipsets and ATI graphics cards currently. I'm sure AMD is bitter over Intel being picked instead of AMD for the new "Mactels" too, so I could easily see them withdrawing ati support if the merger takes place.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
At first glance, this is a stupid idea for AMD, but upon reflection, it isn't that bad. We've got to look at the 5 year picture for a deal of this size. What will AMD need to do to be more successful in 5 years than they are today? Well, despite what the teenage gamers will say, it actually doesn't mean having the highest FPS in Quake 5. The stable, highest volume, and generally profitable sales are in corporate servers and workstations. That's Dell, HP, and to a lesser extent Gateway, Lenovo, et al. So, what do they need from AMD or Intel? They want cheap, fast, reliable supply, few defects, and ease of integrating into the individual computers. After several years of the Athlon and Opteron, AMD is only now starting to get a toe hold in workstations and a reasonable share of server CPUs.
IMHO, AMD would be well advised to start shipping it's own chipsets, just like Intel. It just makes things easier for their most important customers, the big OEMs. They have one less vendor to worry about. There's less testing required, since presumably AMD would test the CPU and chipset together. And it's less risky for both customers and AMD since AMD has a very strong incentive to make sure that chipsets will be available for their platform on time, whereas third parties have different priorities.
Then there's the whole GPU angle. Why shouldn't GPUs be produced in company owned, i.e. tweaked for performance, fabs? They're every bit as complex and big and expensive as CPUs. Bringing that in house should give a nice bump to performance. And what is a GPU going to be in five years anyway? On the AMD platform, all the tools are in place to allow the GPU to work much more like a cheap DSP/co-processor than we've ever seen before. If the Opteron wasn't an Itanium killer, maybe a couple Opterons and a couple "GPU-DSPs" will do the trick. Even for regular workstations, imagine just plugging a GPU into a free socket on the MB? That would fit very nicely in the middle of the graphics market... way better than integrated, but way cheaper than an add-on card.
Lastly, AMD needs a way to use the last generation fab equipment a little longer. Making chipsets would let them use the fab equipment for an extra few years. They lost that cost efficiency when they spun off the flash business. Fab gear is expensive, so it's kind of a waste for them to be yanking it out everytime the minimum for a marketable CPU moves higher.
Five years ago AMD needed partners and an ecosystem to support their own platform and survive as a company. The next five years are about turning the CPU market into a duopoly.
I have a few shares of AMD. And I'd like to see this deal happen, but only at a decent price (from AMD's point of view). Hmm... this post turned rather long...
Just an interesting side-note is that Intel has been filling it's low-end motherboard lineup with ATI chipset-based systems./ index.htm
Check out the D101GGC: http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/d101ggc
I find it odd for Intel to use a third-party's chipset in their mobos, but it would be double-weird if that third-party was AMD.
AMD has Centrino envy. More specifically, they need a platform strategy.
Let's face it. CPUs are commodities. You buy price/performance.
Recently, Intel has been using the platform to differentiate itself.
Centrino is one example in the notebook world.
You can see other examples with "advanced I/O" in the newer server platforms.
Intel dictates the platform and can define it to suit their needs.
AMD has no platform strategy. It's at the mercy of various 3rd party chipset makers.
This is why this makes strategic sense.
AMD wants to control a platform and use that to differentiate itself from Intel.
Intel + AMD = LATE MIND
Intel + nVidia = EVIL DNA IN IT / DIVE IN AT NIL
AMD + nVidia = DNA VIA DIM
ATI + Intel = NIL ATE IT
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
And blow the awful pieces of shit ATI/AMD as well as Mudorola out of the fscking water. W007!
After that, Intel/NVidia can merge with Dell and Microsoft to blow Linusx and opensores out of the water. Then the faggot couple Fucktard Taco and BrokebackNeil can slit their god-damned wrists from depression and no more SHITDOT! W007! W007!
GO AHEAD, FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR WASTE YOUR G0D DAMNED MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!!!!!!!!!!
I'll add two more, so the list is at least 4: SiS and VIA both make GPUs. Does S3 still exist? Also, the MediaGX (rebadged to the Geode) has a GPU core built into the CPU, so that sort-of counts.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
We supported AMD during its long fight with Intel. We gave it its power. We can take that away in one mass consumer action.
It's been very clear for along time that ATI are rubbish outside the fanboy wars and that you get the best bang for your buck using AMD+nForce+nVidia GPUs. That is the combination I've bought for the last few years now and I've never regretted any of those purchases. If that were to change I guess my grassroots support for AMD may have to be realigned, although very painfully, to Intel. Hopefully the (major) shareholders in this company understand what they are playing with when they come to vote on monday if this rumour is true.
I ate your fish.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Could lead to a spin-off series... ATI M.D.
blah, blah, blah...
Stock trading volume on ATI spiked today and price went up. Volume tells you traders are looking to make some quick cash on the spread between today and the announced merger price. Increase in ATI price says people buying stock think it's a good deal for ATI.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
This is precisely what a marketing guy would come up with to get people to attend an otherwise boring announcement. Something is in the works but not a merger.
I dont care what all other comments say. This is good news.
The AGP slot has been getting faster and faster. The GPU has been getting bigger and has been doing more. There is an obvious need for a physics core and multicore CPUs. Clearly this is leading to adding the GPU to the CPU on the same chip, or at least very close to it, like the L2 cache on the slot1 Intel CPUs. After a certain AGP/PCIX bus speed, the AGP or PCIX slot will become less feasible, and it will be important to put the GPU as close to the CPU as possible.
Now think of the PS3. Its a revolution. Its not here yet, and its release is not being managed very well, but the ball on multicore CPUs (not just dual core) has gotten rolling. The Ultrasparc T1 has shown the world that multicores can be real and actually work. Not to mention the fact that most computers bought today at least has a mediocre GPU somewhere in it. This means AMD needs a GPU to add to its multicore CPUs as another core. They've already added the northbridge to it havent they? And that has saved us money hasnt it?
Intel has one-upped AMD recently with its Core chips, and AMD sounds like its really gonna one-up Intel with chips that should take the market away.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Long rant, short answer: you are one giant idiot! Disclaimer: I'm not Canadian.
As much as I'd hate AMD merging with ATI, it would lower the cost of low-end systems. An AMD CPU with integrated graphics solution from ati, as well as a chipset from AMD/ATI would be cheaper than say, a Sempron and a vendor having to go out and get a separate GPU. Same reason Intel has such a large graphics market share.
You are so out of the loop, it's not even funny.
I'm afraid it's you who is totally out of the loop.
- ATI hardware is utter bollocks: just enabling the ATI on-board graphics in a Dell 2800 causes bus lockup several times a day, regardless of which system is being run on the box, and regardless of what it's doing. Adding in an nVidia PCI card or a Matrox PCIe card solved the problem 100%, not a single crash in 9 months.
- ATI software is utter bollocks: I've lost count of the number of OpenGL games that glitch when running on ATI hardware, it's a perpetual support problem which just never goes away regardless of what updates ATI bring out. It seems that ATI simply never got it together for running OpenGL properly and have no interest in running a complete and solid implementation. And their support division is utterly unhelpful too, unless you run WinXP+DirectX.
So, it's just the opposite of what you say. If AMD merge with ATI, AMD will no longer have a flawless reliability record, and they will lose the support of people like me who have simply had enough of ATI crap.
I think the merger only makes sense for AMD. They could sell a very competitive platform with processor, chipset and much better integrated graphics than Intel for the upcoming Windows Vista.
But why should ATI be interested in a merger? They would probably lose all their Intel chipset business and a lot of the enthusiasts graphics card business on Intel platforms.
I give them about the same amount of credulity that I do to the supermarket tabloids screaming "I had Elvis' 3-headed alien baby!"
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I like the competition in the graphics as well as CPU sector.... now it's either one combo, or the other combo? No more mix and match? I hate the current trend in mergers and super big stores etc, etc. In the end, it always means less choice for the consumer. I can only hope that new competitors will come out of the woodwork, somehow. I know, I know, but a guy can dream, right?
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
Makes perfekt sense for AMD because of their new socket:/ 01/2056253
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06
"Now AMD is proposing another new socket that will be open for plugging in of 3rd party co-processors directly on the processor bus."
just imagine what cool stuff ATI could do with that technology...
All I have to say is that this deal probably will go down. Then AMD will still have their partnership with nVidia. This will be broken because now they will have ATI to make their ChipSets and here come more integrated graphics. nVidia will be left all by itself. I don't think they will let themselves die slowly. If they want to stay in this business they will team up with Intel. Then here come nForce 5 for Intel CPU's. Also there is talk that nVidia would not do this because Intel is usually not on the high end of graphics. Also nVidia will be more than happy to work with the new Core 2 Duo. This will mean great Intel CPU performance with high end nVidia graphics, while AMD + ATI will not suceed as much. - Sorry for bad grammar if there is any.
No shit, Sherlock? Lemme see:
- Dreamcast: had a PowerVR graphics chip that had been available for the PC too for a year or two. Not even the most powerful at that. It was the predecessor of the Kyro and generally a flop in the PC market. In the Dreamcast it had a whole 8 MB video RAM too, at a time when PC graphics cards were moving to 32 MB.
- XBox: basically had a predecessor of the NForce chipset, with integrated graphics. Look at some PC benchmarks for how much those suck. Hint: having half the buss width, half the memory speed, _and_ having to share that choked bandwidth with the CPU, doesn't exactly help with rendering speed.
- PS2: read some developper complaints from back then. It didn't have even half the fill rate or triangle processing rate that Sony had claimed. Trying to even replicate Sony's rigged demos was a failure as soon as you had more than one character on the screen or an even moderately complex background. It took a lot of low level work to get it to run fast enough, while on a PC even a mid-range card never needed such tricks to do its job. And even then there's a reason the vast majority of PS2 games never had more than a handful of characters on the screen at the same time.
Get this, Sherlock: what saved all 3 was that they just didn't have to render in higher res than 640x480. _That_ was their only saving grace.
And it was a saving grace in more ways than the number of pixels rendered too. Rendering in low res makes it ok to use lower resolution textures too (hence needs less memory bandwidth and uses the cache better), _and_ lets you get away with lower polygon counts. If you use the exact same models, the same triangle may be something 8x8 pixels in a console game, but 16x16 on a PC in 1280x1024. The same model may look horribly polygonal on a PC game in 1280x1024, but decently rounded in a console game in 640x480. So PC games had to compensate by using higher polycounts, and PC graphics cards had to be able to process those extra polygons.
So in a nutshell, oh please... pretending that any console from the last decade was actually faster than a high end PC, is just plain old false.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I just threw away a R300 series card (ATi 9800 XT) for an nVidia SLI.
I hope you are only joking about the "throwing away" part (or traded it up for the new one or something similar). Last time I was browsing free/open source projects concerning ATI drivers, I recall vividly that the developers seemed to have a shortage for two things: specification information was the first and foremost, but ATI hardware to test bang their code against was second up on the list. Your "old" R300-card might've helped as well. If Linux-snobs get free hardware (or are rich enough to pay for it ;), the *BSD projects would've liked the stuff (this from a Linux-snob ;). Oh, think of the baby-Theos!
I haven't read all 200 posts but in case it hasn't already been mentioned, to all those people speculating about an Intel nVidia merger, is that Intel is already the world's largest manufacturer of graphics cards.
Is this the beginning of another 3Dfx/STB fiasco? Where the merger of two highly successful companies produces something lesser than the sum of its parts?
3Dfx assumed that loyal gamers would follow them to buying directly manufactured video cards. Instead, by alienating their strongest allies, third party OEM graphics card manufacturers, 3Dfx ended up increasing the market dominance of nVidia. Granted, 3Dfx was already losing the performance crown when the merger happened, but the sudden shift in business plans couldn't have helped things.
And who is a more valuable ally to AMD than nVidia, producers of the NForce chipset? Does anyone foresee nVidia signing a deal with Intel to start producing chipsets for that platform?
AMD, IBM and Intel have a forum on OSDL.
It's something like "Is the real value of the hardware in the driver?" they talk to companies about the benefits of open sourcing the drivers,
AMD has 2 posibilities, opening ATI drivers, or receive tomatoes in the forum.
So i think it's a good thing for linux then.