Slashdot Mirror
It's Official - AMD Buys ATI
FrankNFurter writes "It's been a rumour for several weeks, but now it's confirmed: AMD buys ATI. What implications is this merger going to have for the hardware market?" In addition to AMD's release, there's plenty of coverage out there.
Intel buys Nvidia. Let the war continue!
For Slashdot's AMD section?
Maybe we'll get some decent linux drivers now...
..if this is a good thing or not. It might be good for the development and cooperation. Better integration == better graphics/faster machines?
But on the other hand, this could split the market and get things like todays uncompatible browsers. (Which is VERY annoying somethimes)
And we have a psychic
My blog: http://www.redcode.nl
I don't suppose there is a chance for nVidia to make a counter offer is there? I know, wishful thinking on my part.
nVidia: "No! Don't buy them! We're better, and we'll sell to you cheaper!"
This is a pretty obvious question, but hopefully it means ATi gets their shit together re: linux support . Getting any of their latest gear working under linux is pretty painful.
this could be real good if AMD's acquisition of ATI allows them to produce full chipsets in the same fashion Intel has with its Centrino line. let the competition begin!
also, not official yet, as government regulatory bodies need to approve it.
Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. - Aldous Huxley
ATI linux drivers for AMD?
... But hopefully they'll kick the ATI driver team up the arse and get a decent set of drivers out (for Windows and Linux).
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
System on a chip or at least integrated GPU and CPU cool.
I just wish it was Nvidia.
"If you like Battlestar Galactica, you're probably a huge nerd." -Stephen Colbert
But I did.2 197
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=3
-Charlie
AMD combines with ATI and has announced a new name for their company:
DAAMIT!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
1) Adobe buys Macromedia
2) AMD buys ATI
3) Intel buys nVidia
4) We buy Adobe, AMD and Intel
- Microsoft
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33 219
*head asploded*
I'm getting the 'gist' of why this transaction needs to happen. AMD needs GPU functionality on the CPU. I think everyone kinda expected that to happen at some point. The Inq. then takes a left turn in the plot and mentions 'mini-cores' which are multi-cores with massive amount of threads. Sort of but not really like Intels' hyperthreading times 32x. Shitloads of threads.
Bottom line?
ATI will work on AMD's new cores. I don't know if they'll work on something that'll plug into a PCIe slot still like nVidia.
nVidia will still be around making graphic cards for AMD. Just won't necessarily be anything remotely similar to what's out on the stores today. AMD doesn't like closed technology like Intel does. So it'll be an open platform still which is a 'good thing' (tm).
Forget about GPU's and chipsets. The main innovation has to come from these new GCPU's.
ATI was going to lose its Intel chipset business anyway with or without this takeover. So no big loss here.
Intel has about a year lead on this tech and probably be first out to market with it.
CPU cores change radically every 5 years or so. With GCPU's, think more in terms of GPU's and radical changes every year to 18 months. Crazy shit.
Plenty of space at FAB 36 to build the new cores and the recently announced plant they are building in New York. So no more costly production runs in Taiwan.
If AMD didn't do this, they'd be out of business in 5 years. Period.
This will likely put a functonal end to the Intel processor + Intel chipset + ATI Video card systems I like to build.
It wouldn't be so bad if every nVidia based product I have ever tried to use hadn't been DOA.
Well... at least I can still stick with Intel chipsets... there is no way I am using a third party northbridge/southbridge I don't care if I can't use SLI.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Does this mean that AMDs will be the sole producer of ATI based graphics cards, or will ATI continue to licence their graphics tech to 3rd party chipmakers?
I can't see this being good for customers. As we all know, ATI's products tend to be miserably supported, though this hasn't been the case for AMD thus far. How will this affect the nForce line of chipsets? Given ATI's past I'd much rather have an nForce than whatever ATI kicks out.
On the other hand, perhaps AMD will drag ATI out of it's rut, but I think it's just as probable that ATI will drag AMD down, and that's good for nobody.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
OK, so not very close to reality considering what would be involved. AMD bought into ATI because it wants to focus on CPUs, not chipsets.
However, it does make for an interesting point of interest: the three primary components of PC architecture today are the CPU, GPU and chipset that bind the two together. AMD had two parts of the equation, and ATI has two parts as well, though one of these parts overlap. Now AMD is one company that has end-to-end solutions? There's got to be something interesting coming out of that marriage.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
Since (in my opinion) NVidia has taken the lead in GPUs, I hope that ATI will be boosted back into a competitive state and price wars ensue.
Again, to me this is nothing but great news for the end-consumer.
My work here is dung.
I wonder if this means no more ATI cards in Macintosh computers, seeing as how Apple uses Intel now? Or, even more interesting, could it mean Apple switching over to AMD?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
This will sorta relieve some of the high-stress factor from the "Intel has killed gaming" theory. In which, most business and "consumer" machines that come with fast intel processors but crappy integrated intel graphics is a joke. These users think "hey I got a Penitum 4, 3.2ghz, I am going to go play Half-Life 2, only to not meet the minimum requirements. With AMD releasing PC's combined with low-cost ATI chips imbedded into their "consumer grade" PC's this could have a strong uproar towards the PC gaming market. PC's will get cheaper, and more people will have a computer that is remotely possible of gaming (unlike in the past). I see this merger as a good thing. We know that ATI will continue to run neck and neck with Nvidia which is a good thing, because if ATI dropped out of the ball game, then Nvidia would hold the 3d graphics chip as a monopoly. (unless you consider Savage and Matrox competition)....
So, we'll see how this shakes out. If, as others have said, AMD forces ATI to produce better drivers, and good Linux drivers, that may be a good outcome...
The other interesting aspect is (as it often is) Apple. Now AMD gets an instant slice of the Apple pie (sorry) since ATI makes most current Apple graphics chips. Interesting development there... Intel can't be happy.
I suspect the tension level just notched up at NVIDIAs headquarters as well.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
This is a great deal when it comes to combining AMD processing with ATI gpu technology. Yet almost every avid gamer and linux fan seems to prefer nvidia over ATI. nvidia seems to have better overall support. It's the only gpu brand name i can use to get accelerated graphics on my laptop running BSD. It took me a while to get over the 3dfx buyout; I was a big voodoo fan, but i then accepted nvidia as my gpu of choice. Don't give up nvidia! you still have your supporters... -nawcom
blah blah blah Netcraft
Now that ATI is part of the AMD, the worst case is ATI division is given little attention, developers move to CPU core development, NVidia remains the only serious GPU vendor, and things go downfall from there.
A second worst outcome is Intel enters a pact with NVidia, so next gen NVidia cards are so integrated with Intel chipsets that they do not run well on AMD. If you buy an AMD platform, you can only buy an ATI video card. If you buy an Intel platform, you are bound to NVidia. This would suck bad as well.
I do not see good outcomes from this merger. Possibly better integration with AMD products is not something I as a customer would care about. ATI being focussed on GPUs only sounds much better for the customers than a division of a large computing devices company. At the very least, ATI is now somewhat concerned about Linux gamers, because it needs them. Who is to say that as part of a large and much more stable company, the ATI division will still give a rat's ass about Linux?
The best outcome possible - With the backing of AMD's large patent portfolio, ATI division opens up the specs to all of their GPUs. Programming manuals. Device driver instructions. Linux drivers improve in leaps and bounds. Linux users switch to AMD+ATI. Windows gamers switch to Linux. Microsoft crumbles under its own weight and withers. Sightings of Belzebub trying on skates are reported.
I think the marketplace has been very well-served by the two dualities that existed before this move: ATI and NVidia beat each other's brains out, as did Intel and AMD. This new dynamic with 3 players does not seem, to me, to promise anywhere near as many benefits for us, the customers. Will ATI become more AMD-centric? Undoubtably. Will NVidia (which has been a great AMD booster) become less supportive of AMD processors? Probably. As this plays out, it seems to me that NVidia will basically be an Intel graphics house (including Macs), and ATI will melt into AMD, becoming mostly an internal chipset house. In the end we lose a very healthy competition between NVidia and ATI. We gain, perhaps, a stronger AMD to keep Intel honest.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Well don't expect the same level of cooperation between AMD and nVidia that we've seen these past few years. For some reason I don't see nVidia getting terribly excited about making chipsets for their number one competitor.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
...for people like me who were in the AMD/nVidia fanclub? I've always had countless problems with ATI cards both at home and work, generally down to driver issues so I really don't want to switch to ATI, I'd personally rather go the Intel/nVidia route if this will have some adverse effect on using nVidia kit with AMD kit. I'm not sure this is good for the market either if there is some kind of lock in to ATI if you used Intel, it was kind of nice knowing you could choose between 2 processor manufacturers and 2 graphics chipset manufacturers, now it kinda feels like the choice has been dented somewhat in that you can't mix and match so well.
The wishful thinking is that now ATi are owned by AMD, they might produce 3D hardware which they publish the hardware interface so we can ave open source graphics drivers. But I'm sure it'll never happen.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The Wheel of time has turned again. GPUs are now general-purpose massively-parallel computers; they will be folded back into the CPU core, so that the general purpose CPU gains massive parallelism. Kind of like SIMD, but on the order of a million operations per instruction instead of 8.
The next 10 years will consist of a new type of external graphics hardware being built, which will of course, be folded into the CPU at the end of it.
See the entry in the Hacker's Dictionary / Jargon File for "Wheel of reincarnation":
-Mark
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What kinda nonsense theory is that? My Intel Core Duo LOVES gaming, and the nVidia card that came with it likes HDR lighting, too.
then they could have called themselves
ATMID
or
DAMIT
Sorry, that's the best I could come up with...
Summation 2
So maybe if they did buy NVidia, they'd go to fast-but-unreliable instead?
I've used only AMD CPUs and ATI graphics cards for 5-6 years now. This can only be good news.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
So, AMD's stock, up or down in the short-term? They've been taking a bit of a beating over the past 3 months.
Let's hope that AMD will make the smart move of opening up the specs of its ATI video cards, thus encouraging the development of GPL drivers. I am convinced that this could be a decisive step in the "war" with Nvidia...
What I'm really concerned about is whether we'll still be getting ATI graphics in Apples. I've always had better performance from the ATI cards in Apples. This could limit Apples to NVidia - bad if they fall behind.
Seems highly unlikely to me that they'd stick a GPU into the CPU. Modern GPUs are a similar size to CPUs (if not larger) and need much higher memory bandwidth... so you'd be doubling the size of your CPU and you'd need a 256-bit 1GHz+ memory interface. And then the 'high end' users would just go and buy a PCI-Express card when the next generation came out, making the whole thing a total waste.
I could see perhaps that they'd stick a cheap and crappy GPU into a cheap and crappy CPU for the low end of the market, but with Vista coming out with all its eye-candy that may not even be viable for rendering the Vista desktop, let alone games.
I'm looking at my AMD/nVidia dev machine and my Intel/ATI laptop and I'm thinking... oh crap.
Does this mean we actually might get a Nvidia powered MacBookPro? If so I actually may buy one.
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
I read thru most of the comments on this page, and several people came close to what I think the real reason for this deal is, but no one nailed it. To me, this is a simple example of business 101. AMD has always been a niche vendor. Recently they have begun to spread out, but it is obvious from all the comments on this page that they are still a "gamers" chip. Where Intel and Dell made it big was low-end, mass sale business computers. Intel has their crappy but good enough integrated video chipset which is a part of the vast majority of motherboards. In order for AMD to really be a big player, it needed to a) build it's own integrated chipset from scratch or b) buy a company that already makes integrated video chipsets. Option b won, and while it might cost more initially, it should pay off in the long term.
I believe this will not stop nVidia from making nForce boards, and it would be stupid of AMD to stop production of ATI 3d cards. I think this may increase the quality of ATI's support for Linux, but I don't think it will be anything drastic.
The linux crowd (or at least a vocal minority of them), don't want drivers, they just want documentation for the card, they'll make their own drivers.
On the other hand, releasing either open source drivers, or a combination of binary drivers, along with documentation (so those who want to write their own CAN), would certainly be the best of both worlds.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
From what I've heard, AMD tends to be pretty Linux-friendly, and very helpful to open-source developers who want to, say, implement AMD64 support and that kind of thing – so will this mean that ATI might start giving a damn about us too? I dunno, probably way too far-fetched, although I can't stand how my brand-new Athlon 64 box can't run 3D because ATI's stupid drivers pretty much don't work on my distribution... either way, though, so long as at least one of them keeps churning out good chips, more power to 'em!
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
You do know that AMD doesn't make PC's, right? Just because big-name PC manufacturers (Dell, HP, etc) use Intel chips in their machines with onboard graphics, it doesn't make it Intel's fault that the machines can't game. If the manufacturers were using AMD chips, they'd still have super-lame-o-vision onboard graphics. Manufacturers care jack-diddly about performance, they just want specs with high numbers. ATI + AMD won't do anything to make PC manufacturers go "Hey, let's make machines that actually perform well instead of just having 'ohmygosh specs'".
Anyone who wants to do high-graphic game can use their BRAIN and see that onboard graphics won't cut it... and there is a simple solution for them (if they don't want to build their own computer which is the smartest/cheapest way to go) -- it's called a graphics card; you can pick up a fairly decent one for $150, but if you're on a budget you can get ones cheaper that will still fit your need.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Before this deal, AMD had about $3bn in cash. The Register says that Morgan Stanley will loan AMD about $2.5bn to get the deal done. This will leave AMD with no spare cash to fight the long war against the onslaught of Intel Core processors and upcoming quad-core Xeons - due this year. Disclosure - I just picked up 600 Intel shares at $17.50.
Zen tips: Pay attention. Don't take it personally. Believe nothing.
Oh, great. Now it will be even more difficult to find a nice laptop with an AMD CPU and NVidia graphics chipset.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/01/163621 3
:)
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week
...that maybe this is a multimedia push? Maybe this has more to do with their tuners, their All-In-Wonders then with their R520's and R480's. Maybe this is a a response to VIIV, only not half-assed.
I have to admit, I am an nVidia fanboy, and have used their chipsets and graphics cards for a long time now. I went with the AMD athlon xp/nforce2 chipset because of the stability it provided, and it has been so rock solid that I haven't felt to need upgrade the processor/motherboard for nearly 4 years now (need some speed, up that clock a little bit!)
I wonder if this means that the combo made in heaven, amd processors with nforce chipsets, is going to be going bye bye thanks to this buyout?
I got nothin'
AMD is covering the remaining $2.5b of the deal with a commitment letter from Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, with the debt secured by "a pledge of the capital stock of certain material units of the company, accounts receivable and proceeds from any sale by Advanced Micro of its equity interest in Spansion Inc." The CFO is overly optimistic that the company can get rid of that debt "quickly," without layoffs, and with savings of $75m and $125m over the next two years. DJ Newswires says ATYT will no longer work with Intel, and the execs say that they can make up the lost sales with the severing of Intel-ATI ties. Pretty lofty goals, I'd say.
I am just the messenger here. I am only speaking on behalf of a lot of inside journalist and key-note speakers. Here are a few different sites speaking about the "intel has killed gaming" idea. 1. http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/12/epics-mark-rein- intel-is-killing-pc-gaming/
2. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/20 06/07/12/is_intel_killing_pc_gaming.html
3. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060712-7247 .html
What does this mean for us that have the NForce hardware and AMD chipsets? Will NVidia still build and release drivers for this platform or start to phase out this technology because of the ATI/AMD merger? I have a feeling I am stuck with orphaned hardware because of this.
ATI's motherboard chipsets will be sold to OEM's under the AMD label instead of the ATI label.
I think ATI's motherboard chipset business is what AMD really wants. This way, they don't have to wait for nVidia to come out with the latest nForce motherboard chipsets when it can be developed in-house using ATI's own technology.
However, expect the ATI name to remain for graphics card chipsets due to the name recognition factor of the ATI brand.
I prefer AMD over Intel. I prefer NVidia over ATI (better Linux support). This move likely means I won't be seeing any integrated nVidia on AMD boards in the near future, which truly sucks. So will Linux support for AMD boards suddenly become worse (due to ATI's stinginess on the specs), or will AMD make ATI be more liberal with its specs now? It would certainly be in its best interests to do so.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
The problem is that Intel's integrated graphics is utterly incapable of running games, it doesn't even properly support DX9. On the other hand both Ati's and Nvidia's IGPs are DX9 compliant and lightyears faster than Intel's IGP. Thus we come to the conclusion that Intel is hurting gaming with it's crappy IGP, because you can't buy a similarly crippled IGP for AMD even if you wanted to. Luckily the next version of Intel's IGP will at least support the DX9 spec properly, as it wouldn't be able to display Vista's Aero UI otherwise..
I personally think this is a stupid idea. Part of the appeal of AMD was that you didn't have just one source for your parts. I'm sure merging with ATI will piss of Nvidia [and possibly even VIA], maybe even to the point that they stop making AMD required parts. They better work hard to ensure that the customers are the ones who get to decide. Otherwise they're fundamentally no better than Intel. :-(
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
This makes it sound almost like a bad thing. Why not develop some new technology seperately so it can mature, then integrate it bake into the 'big core' for better efficiency, develop a new generation seperately, etc...? Not a bad thing as I see it, but a natural cycle of technology.
Incredible, one of the two major CPU companies buys one of the two major GPU companies, and slashdot is rejoiced because this will result in "better linux drivers"! Are you people nuts? The possible benefits of that are tiny compared to the havoc this deal might cause if AMD decides to play politics with its new toy.
Imagine if Intel bought NVIDIA and decided to axe the nForce chipsets. AMD would be fucked, being stuck with crappy via (or whatever) chipsets. Of course, Intel makes its own chipsets, so it's not exactly the same, but the potential of problems is there.
They borrowed $2.5 billion to pay for ATI. This is top of all the other debt that they owe, they still haven't payed off the massive cost of the 2 fabs in Germany and they also own a lot of stock in Spansion which itself is heavly in debt.
AMD has been loosing money for a lot of years (only in the last 2 years they started making profit)
Now they have a price war with Intel and they have to compete with Conroe, so they can't even count on making any profit from the next few quarters.
Looks like they are living on the knife edge.
The drawback would be a lockout for experimental 3D APIs. But it would be no worse than the binary driver situation we have now.
Intel makes GPUs and nVidia still makes chipsets for Intel motherboards.
ATI kinda sucks for linux support, and their drivers in general seem more unpolished and buggy
hopefully AMD gets things moving to provide better drivers and better linux support for their supposedly superiour hardware..
nvidia does a great job with their drivers. if intel bought them id be worried they screw it up with 'strategy' and crap, just give us the damn hardware
This could be one of the biggest mergers in computer technology, and all the comments I seem to find are OMFG ATI LINUX DRIVERS?!(not all... but you get the picture). This has nothing to do with linux. Honestly if you need the drivers THAT badly, go find a relative with a windows computer and an equally powered nvidia card and swap it. Dont buy ati products if you want to use linux. In reality, you wouldnt buy a moped to drive on the highway, so dont go bitching when it doesnt go past 80km/h on the linux highway. (Dont take this as ati products are slow, take in the "right tool for the job" lesson).
Taking into account all the fanboi anguish, let me point out the very simple fact that now ATI no longer directly competes with NVidia. You could say that the competition would be between AMD and NVidia now, but that's not quite right either. The fact is that the market has become so diverse that all these companies were already competing with each other, despite partnerships and deals.
...) The power and bandwidth demands for next gen GPUs are becoming more than expansion boards can handle. Instruction sets are becoming extremely CPU-like. Since the whole universe seems to be moving into Multi-processor designs anyway, perhaps we'll even see some kind of GPU-MMX style expansion of the x86 instruction set (call it v86 for now).
AMD, ATI, NVidia and Intel *all* make motherboard chipsets.
ATI, Nvidia and Intel all make video processors.
So do SIS, S3, and VIA.
Yet they all work (relatively) well with each other.
This isn't about marketshare, it's about technology. ATI does something that AMD wants, so AMD is acquiring the company for the tech. The market won't feel a thing, I promise you. Competition will continue, just like it did when Micron acquired Rendition (wipes a tear for his Verite v2200) and when NVidia bought out 3dfx (wipes another for his Banshee).
Since everyone's got their prognosticator's caps on today, I'm going to come out and say that, within 5 years, we'll be seeing GPU processors integrated into the motherboard, accessable to both ATI and NVidia (and Matrox, and S3, and
I think we're seeing a move back to specialization. We've already got separate Audio chips, separate networking chips, even chips to handle I/O for RAID and such. With the new market for Physics co-processors, I'm sure we'll only see more for tasks such as AI, and when the next big UI design is unleashed (either some kind of brain-reading technology, or a true 3d input system -- the WII is just the tip of the iceberg!) another co-processor will be made to handle that. With AMD's focus on integrating external processors with technologies such as HyperTransport, undoubtedly they'll be able to compete for a long time.
And the best part is, we get to choose from strong market competitors. As long as there is innovation, we win.
Will AMD's oft advertisied, and frequently proved, support for linux, drive the new ATI to support linux in the same timely manner as 'doze?
IMHO a much better - and cheaper - buy would have been that company (don't remember name) that has a really fast DirectX implementation in software. You don't even need a frame buffer any more, just put some circuitry in the north bridge that pulls data from main memory and spits it out over DVI-D. Let software on multiple cores take care of rendering.
For reference, I think we're still on track for software realtime raytracing by 2012. If we can do that, certainly software can rasterize polygons fast enough before then. The GPU as we know it is dead - good for ATI finding an exit strategy, bad for AMD spending so much money. What's nVidia's exit strategy? Intel already knows a lot about graphics.
A.) Xbox, Nintendo
Analysis.....Good move.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
They should have bought Nvidia instead. :)
Nvidia Fan
Nah, it's not a bad thing. It's just fairly reliable and easy to base predictions off of. Personally, I like to bring it up anytime somebody is insisting that the course of technology for a particular market is *perfect* and should continue marching forward unchanged.
It's Pfficial: AMD Buys ATI Pfficial?
NVIDIA has stated many times that even if they wanted to open up documentation to their cards, they can't.
There are cross-licensing issues that prophibits them from releasing the specs.
So they release closed binary drivers for linux instead.
Stop whining people, they are doing the best they can.
(P.S I can imagine ATIs situation is similar)
According to the merger telco. the only substantial argument for the merger from the company's side is that they want to get into the embedded device business. They hope to provide a platform for media processing on cell phones, TVs and the like.
The Q&A session is apparently already up at The Pirate Bay (though I didn't manage to download it yet): http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3506714
Interesting that they think they'll be able to continue having a good relationship with nVidia. I'd guess it's just PR speak though for "as soon as the merger is complete, you're unimportant to us".
The CEO Hector Ruiz went on and on like a drone, repeating the same fluff over again (like background noise) and it wasn't until those few moments where his minions were allowed to speak something intelligible was said.
In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
Wonder if AMD will force ATI's hand to Finlay release a decent ATI video driver for Linux now?
Sig
The problem is that Intel does support DirectX8 and 9 (depending on the chip). The issue with it is, it doesn't accelerate, it let's the processor take over it's work and it doesn't support OpenGL.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Would it be possible for ATI/AMD to produce GPUs for the latest CPU sockets (AM2/SoF)? That way you could just configure a system based on the performance you need - if you need more GPU power just load the sockets up with GPUs instead of CPUs. I know one company already makes AMD socket co-processors, any reason this couldn't be done with GPUs too?
Obviously you'll need somewhere to actually dump the video signal, but there's no reason that I can see for not providing a DVI socket on the mobo?
You'll also need some nice fast memory, but if you have a fair amount of on-die cache you could mitigate problems I suspect. HT would be better than PCIe/Crossfire/SLI from a bandwidth perspective wouldn't it?
Some of the reader comments are starting to make sense. We are headed for a full circle. For example, we've had this happen:
CPU -> separate FPU -> CPU w/FPU evolution
Now it seems like we have a:
CPU -> separate GPU -> CPU w/GPU evolution
What's next? Probably a:
CPU -> physics processing unit (PPU) -> CPU w/PPU evolution
So following this design trend, are we to assume that every design will come back to a mutated square one? It seems like we should have done this from the start, skipping the middle steps. Of course, in the real world, things work differently.
I have an ATI card and their remote wonder II. Their hardware is awesome. However, their software just plain blows. Their website is horrid and their support is disgusting. I got my card with a currupted driver disc. As there are things in there you couldn't download from the ATI site, I tried to get ATI to send me one. After being hung up on 3 times, calling an extra 4 times(note, this stuff ain't toll free), getting automated email responses etc... I finally got the damn CD.
On top of that, the RWII was a mail in rebate that came with the AIW card. Four months later, another nightmare because they had misplaced my application and receipt even though I tracked the letter straight to their offices.
Their products manuals blow, their site is uninformative, they have no linux drivers, they have no stereo drivers....yaaaaargh. I really hope this buyout causes some change in that regard.
Hello specialized Physics processors:
see: http://www.ageia.com/
Now tell me: why are the likes of NVidia and ATI keeping their products undocumented and their drivers closed?
Because, if they DO PROTECT THEIR IP, The OTHER GUY has to waste TONS OF MONEY on reverse-engineering teams and highly-qualified people to reverse-engineer the processor via electron microscopes.
It's not the EQUIPMENT that is expensive, it is the PEOPLE. And, as you Linux zealots know FULL WELL, reverse-engineering is EXPENSIVE in terms of PEOPLE and TIME.
If you publish the specifications of your latest graphics chip for all to see, suddenly your competitors don't have to divert staff from working on next-generation architectures just to reverse-engineer your system. Instead, they can analyze your documentation in a fraction of the time.
It's a two-way street, so stop deluding yourself that there's only one side to the story. Publishing full specs for your graphics chips is like writing your competition a blank check. Intel is the only one who doesn't have an issues doing this because their graphics technology is always following.
And to counter your argument: what happens in two years when ATI and NVidia decide your card is too old to support, and yet it still performs very well but you NEED the features in the latest kernel and latest x.org? Go ahead, buy a new video card.
Yes. There are still many well-supported video cards sold in AGP. In fact, you can still get well-supported video cards in PCI, a fifteen-year-old technology. They're not top-performers, but beggars can't be choosers.
The video card market is transitioning to PCIe with surprising speed precisely because they do not want another VLB fiasco. The PCI -> AGP transition was slow because PCI still had a future for other types of cards, but the AGP -> PCIe transition was rushed to avoid market confusion. You can still buy plenty of AGP cards, but the big players have made it clear: there won't be any more improvements for AGP.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
"AMD doesn't like closed technology like Intel does. So it'll be an open platform still which is a 'good thing' (tm). "
Actually Intel has been a big supporter of OSS. They helped port Linux the Itanium and have provided all the documentation to their video chips.
I think you are confusing Intel with Microsoft. Intel has been one of the most open hardware companies.
AMD has also been very good. ATI like nVidia.... Well let's say not so good.
I really don't get this.
AMD could use some good chip-sets but they have made their own for the Opteron so I don't see what they gain from ATI.
AMD could use a good low end integrated video solution for low end desktops and servers. Yes it is true but servers almost never use nVidia or ATI graphics cards. When I set up a server I only plug the monitor in when I do the install and if something really bad happens.
I have to think this comes down to laptops. AMD has not done well in that market and a one stop shop for a laptop solution like Intel offers might be a good solution.
I wouldn't hold my breath on the good open source ATI drivers for Linux. Of course if it happens I might dump my nVidia based motherboard and Video card. I have been buying nVidia just because of their better Linux support for years.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
If gamers want to game, they can splurge and buy a graphics card (a decent card is just as expensive as 2 of the latest games ~$120). I don't disagree that Intel integrated graphics are utter garbage, but it's not hard to circumvent poor onboard graphics with an AGP/PCI-e card. Even if there was a motherboard with amazing integrated graphics, I would pass it up because in another 2 years I would have to buy a whole new motherboard (with probably a different CPU socket, so a new CPU would be needed too) with the then-latest in gfx chips in order to play the latest games.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
See title, what more needs to be said?
I agree about the low cost integrated video chips but I have to add one thing.
Laptops.
AMD really lags behind Intel in the laptop market. With ATI on board they could offer a complete AMD laptop solution like Intel does.
You also left out the other place that low cost integrated video chips live, servers.
AMD does care about that market.
Now I have to wonder if we will see an integrated video solution from AMD that uses Hyper-transport to talk to the onboard video?
That could give AMD a leg up in the HD video market.
Lots of interesting things could happen.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The truth is that AMD needed to bring on a solid chipset and integrated GPU in-house. Intel has been moving in the direction of providing the whole package, most importantly CPU+Chipset+GPU that form the backbone of the system. By purchasing ATI, AMD has brought Chipsets and GPUs into their fold and can compete directly against intel's platform strategy.
ATI's Integrated GPUs are light years ahead of Intel's crap, Even though the specs look better on paper for intel's part, real world performance is another matter entirely. Game developers simply don't care whether or not their game even runs on intel's GPU, let alone at an acceptable rate. ATI, because their integrated chips are derived from their discreet parts, does not have this problem. ATI's current integrated chip is simply a two-pipelined version of the same architecture as its X800 GPU with their hyper-memory technology and, optionally, a 64bit bus to add dedicated graphics ram. It may not provide the best gaming experience, but it will run any modern title you throw at it.
I don't expect to see AMD integrating a GPU into their CPUs any time soon. It would add too much to the transistor count and the turnover in GPUs is too quick to be all that usefull. However, AMD has been pushing their multi-socket configuration as a strategy for the future and have opened up the hyper-transport spec to outside firms so that they can develop ASICs that plug directly into an AMD-based system. Its entirely possible that we may see a GPU in this form.
Sooner or later americans are gonna own EVERYTHING up here.
Not only that, they kill everything they touch. (Just ask everyone I know whose companies were bought by americans.)
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
If these morons mess with my ATI card's and I can't use them on my Intel boxes, I'm jumping to nVidia !!
They're in the process of finishing their death throes. Will this still be an issue when they're gone in 18 months? I hope not.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Knew this was going to happen. Now what happens to the AMD/nVidia relationship. It obviously gets broken because now AMD has ATI to make their motherboards and chipsets. Now nVidia will probably merge with Intel. If they don't nVidia beautiful drivers will die because ATI is going to have the edge in grafix cards. They will get new tech from AMD and improve their drivers like crazy. Also ATI will have super advanced technology that lets data from CPU to GPU travel 10x faster than now. That's why AMD + ATI are merging. Intel will merge with nVidia, because nVidia will not be selling sh*t and then they will be so happy to even get a deal from intel. nVidia will also be more than happy working with the Core 2 Duo. nVidia is also going to be making so much money since their grafix cards thar are in the PS3. Which will sell like crazy. So it's really going to end up like this. AMD/ATI vs Intel/nVidia = Intel/nVidia because you will have the core 2 Duo(best processor) and kik-but nVidia grafix, and nVidia will inherit the same technology that ATI is going to use to have fast travel speeds between CPU to GPU.
I didn't catch that in [my translation of] the press release - just the $75m.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Okay, here's what I know about the current AMD...
CPUs (okay they're still doing this one)
FLASH (spun out that business to Spansion w/Fujitsu, did IPO a couple years ago)
SRAM (they end-of-lifed all their discrete SRAM parts in 1999)
PLDs (spun out that business to Vantis, sold to Lattice in 1999)
Embededded Processors (sold Alchemy to Raza this year, Geode up for sale now)
Microcontrollers (I think AM186 devices are "not recommended" for new designs)
Ethernet Controllers and PHYs (although they still do sell these, mostly in niche markets)
I think you are remembering the "old" AMD, not the "new" niche-AMD we know now...
...that being open source-friendly is so important: The geek cred.
:)
No, seriously. Tell your friends
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Also ATI's hardware is actually better than nVidias its just they have no drivers. They will work on that now for sure.
i work at ATI. in the discrete ASIC front-end division (i.e. GPU)
you guys obviously have no idea what you are talking about when you speak of GPU + CPU
did you even think about the power dissipation of such architecture?
we are already proving the limit of power dissipated per die area
putting two chips together is not even remotely feasible at this point
This is because x86-64 is an open standard. AMD released it as open when they announced it, because it was the only way to gain industry acceptance.
Once AMD got Microsoft's cooperation building support for x86-64 into Windows, they hardped on about the open standard. This protected AMD from Intel, who were already secretly working on their own implementation of x86-64. Normally, once Intel realized how potentially powerful x86-64 was, they were sure to create their own incompatible version (ala SSE and 3DNOW!) to try and derail AMD.
But the open standard stopped Intel from doing this. Microsoft pointed to the open standard, and told Intel flat-out that they were not going to support two versions of 64-bit x86.
x86-64 is an open standard. AMD's copyrighted implementation of x86-64 is called AMD64. Inte;'s copyrighted implementation of x86-64 is EMT64.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
You may jest, but it was probably a viable option at one point. NVIDIA already produce their own chipsets, plus they've recently purchased ULI who also make AMD chipsets.
However, maybe AMD decided ATI could make better business orientated chipsets (NVIDIA is more "enthusiast" based and ULI have cornered the "cheap and cheerful" end of the market) and that was the reason for it. The long and the short of it is that AMD needs to produce their own chipsets for their server based parts, a-la Intel. Buyers for big business need to know everything is going to work well together.
I am NaN
I want AMD + Nvidia, especially on my laptop. I don't like Intel and don't like ATI. So, soon I won't be able to buy a laptop I don't hate. Bastards.
So they leave that out of the Free Software driver they release. Big deal.
You really have no idea how pervasive S3TC is, do you?
S3TC was released as part of the DirectX standard (now called DXTC). It was a dying gasp from S3 about 6 years ago. It was immediately picked up by card makers (Nvidia has supported it since the GeForce 2, and ATI since the Radeon), and has become an industry standard.
I guarantee EVERY GAME RELEASED today uses DXTC without even telling you...and you don't even notice it!
If you want perspective on what that means for users, how about this:
Doom 3 has an "Ultra Quality" mode, which uses the same resolution textures as the "High Quality" mode, but leaves them uncompressed. The "Ultra Quality" mode requires a SMASHING 512MB ram, and reviewers and players alike can't tell the difference between it and "High Quality."
The hardware difference? "High Quality" only requires 256MB of ram. THAT is why S3 / DirectX Texture Compression is so critical.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
I recall seeing a post about FPGA's in an Opteron socket, allowing fully customized coprocessors for the Opteron. I also see now that ATI is being bought by AMD.
Adding 1+1 gives me 3, otherwise equal to, make a GPU that fits an Opteron socket that you can replace just as easily as a normal processor, with its own memory in a similar way to normal outputs and a "videocard" reduced to about a RAMDAC.
I'm in.
I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing really. This may be a good thing because now ATI may be able to make way better drivers or Windows and Linux. Driver support for both systems have been terrible. Then technology growth may be faster and better since now you have two major power house companies working together.. Just one thing I hope does not die off... The Nforce chipset... I hope we don't loose the Nforce chipset...
Linux, because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
Bullshit, plain and simple.
As a games programmer who works on AAA PC titles I can tell you that it simple isn't true that the intel chipsets are incapable of running games. You can't treat them as if they're a new generation top of the line GPU but they run games just fine.
And unlike AMD intel are much friendlier towards helping games companies. Which company runs seminars and training on and off site on multi-core multi-threading for games? Which company sends out development machines to developers so they can test their games on the latest hardware? Which company builds performance and profiling tools and provides source code and samples to developers?
AMD do nothing for the gamer or the games industry apart from providing some processors that run floating point maths very well however Intel reaaly do make a difference.
You're 100% correct. And better yet, there's things looming on the horizon that few know about.
/., so those proclaimations are dime a dozen. But I strongly suspect that I'll /., so I'm not even going to expect you to believe a single thing I'm typing here
But hey, this IS
have some decent pull now on the driver front (LGP- I'm sure ATI can be convinced to fix things
so I'm not sitting here twiddling my thumbs on mostly 2D only game ports because the stupid driver
on my laptop doesn't perform worth spit...) and in 4-7 weeks, things are very likely to get MUCH
more interesting for all parties involved- and I'll have a bigger impact on these sorts of things.
(Again, this IS
because talking out one's behind IS the norm here...but I'll re-iterate, things look like they're
about to change very rapidly.)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
There is one obvious reason for the purchase, already stated by others. I'm just reiterating.
Next year, AMD will be shipping quad core Athlons and Opterons. But, if they wanted to they could replace one CPU with a GPU and have video on die. And if they wanted to they could replace a second CPU with sound, USB, SATA, Gigabit, wireless etc etc etc, and have an entire computer on a chip.
VIA has been trying to do this for years. AMD has the fab capacity to pull it off.
AMD could be the first company to enable the $150.00 PC to exist (by saybe 2009). Smaller than a mac-mini, dual core, and all you need to get it to run is slap some flash memory on board for a hard drive substitute, some DDR2, a cheap DVD drive and Voila! Instant computer.
Imagine a Dual Core Athy with a gig of ram, 20GB flash disk all in the form factor of about twice the size of an IPOD.
Oh you could put a screen on it too, DGMS.
This could be a great thing. My only advice for AMD / ATI is: Dedicate some resources to drivers, or better yet, open source the GPU API.
Raydude
GPUs tend to be more vector processing units, whereas standard CPUs are less fine tuned for this type of processing. Using a CPU as a GPU would suck.
Now, AMD has talked in the past about using a 939 (or I suppose AM2 now) socket for either a CPU or a GPU. The motherboard would have the hardware to plug in a monitor etc but a graphics card upgrade would be more of a graphics chip upgrade. Want 2 CPUs? Put in a more normal graphics card into a PCI-E slot.
They've brought it up a few times; I wouldn't be too surprised to see that happen in the near future.
I wonder what this means (if anything) for those of us with AMD/nVidia systems.
I don't use linux, I use openbsd. Obviously I have a windows machine for playing games. I make my hardware purchasing decisions, and the recommendations I make to everyone I know based on what companies are friendly towards open source. Companies that tell me I am meaningless and do not matter don't get my money. This is why I buy amd and not intel. And this could be why I buy ati/amd instead of nvidia, if amd is smart enough to force their friendly, open and helpful attitude onto ati with the aquisition.
I'm glad it wasn't ATI who bought AMD, otherwise we would have to use buggy proprietary CPU drivers...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
This is just another sign that traditional CPUs have their days numbered, with massively-parallel multi-core designs becoming the norm. Intel probably sees this too, and I wonder what they're doing to adapt.
Hey, xbox, baby! You look like you got a little AMD in you.
No, not that I know of.
Would you like one?
This week I don't hate AMD quite so much.
See, me and AMD have this love/hate sorta relationship, kinda like SGI. They're one of the good guys, or at least that's been everyone's perception, for the most part. They have so much wonderful technology, but a lot of it is kept just out of the consumer's reach.
But the quad core challenge is kinda cool, price cuts are welcome (though not quite enough w/o x2 3600+), and this ATI merger has some worried. I think ATI's quality and products have shown considerable improvement. Their Linux support is acceptable, and as long as everything works I dont mind integrated graphics. In fact, I love having a GPU available on a low end system for basic OpenGL when its necessary. Even my laptop's Intel chipset is useable. Anyway, AMD's recent announcements have calmed some of my fears that they've lost focus. I'm still concerned for AMD that it will be easy for me to get a $300 Conroe and overclock it to 2x 3.0 Ghz. AMD has no price/performance comparison to this, even after the cuts, that I am aware of. Maybe they're easy to overclock as well.. I haven't heard much about X2 overclockability, and 3.0 seems a bit high for the 90nm A64.
I wish AMD would not do things like the 939 Athlon vs. 940 Opteron, cpu clock multiplier locks, disabled chips to prevent multi-CPU functions, and other typical consumer practices that insult my intelligence. But they got rich shareholders to answer to. Shareholders that cost me $100s in new motherboard, memory and peripherial upgrades. Shareholders that probably own shares in motherboard, memory and peripherial manufacturers (Conspiracy, I tell ya!). While I'm at it, I wish Microsoft would GPL Vista, Intel make a HyperTransport Core 2 (for the benchmarks), and someone, for the love of God, please make 10ns Ghz DDR2. thanks
I'll try and be short here:
- AMD needed ATI to compete with Intel's larger product line. Intel ships more graphics cards than both ATI and nVIDIA because of their bundling.
- AMD has committed to maintaining ATI's entire Graphics line, including Intel products. Although word is that Intel is withdrawing ATI's license to do so
- ATI also has a core logic business AMD wants
- ATI has chips in consumer electronics - consoles, HD TVs, etc. AMD wants into these markets as well.
- Intel makes its own chipsets, and has end-to-end motherboards. nVidia still has chips for these, why wouldn't they have them for AMD as well when AMD starts making their own?
- Intel and nVidia will NOT be merging. There is too much overlap in their businesses because Intel covers such a large spectrum... which is the reason AMD is buying ATI - to compete.
- It is NOT official - the offer is official, the acceptance by ATI's board is official, but the actual purchase still needs regulatory approval... which will likely not be a problem.
This isn't JUST about jamming some low-end ATI GPU on an AMD chip.
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
AMD just destroyed the only competition that nVidia could possibly face. No other graphics company out there has enough IP that they could compete and survive an nVidia lawsuit. It also mean that nVidia no longer has to push it's development and release cycle and can somewhat sit on their ass as they rake in the money. You can't fight two wars on two fronts people. nForce for AMD is dead in two years. Hopefully ATI has enough talent onboard that they can shift from graphics card design and focus on chipset design. The only thing that's going to happen with ATI graphics is it being offered as builtin server video in comparison to intel integrated graphics. The only thing I can imagine is the video team working on slower "workstation graphics" and after five or more years being sold off.
They obviously have no idea how this is going to taste to all their previous fans. Party at Intels house tonight!
Whatever .. look at console vs. PC games sales (overall) and comparatively (Oblivion for 360 vs. PC) .. integrated graphics, granted, don't power games nowadays .. but it's a moot point when I can either spend $500 every 6-12 months to get all the bells and whistles out of my PC (and that's JUST the video card) .. or spend $500 on a console that does it cheaper (and with all the extra features on the new generation .. )
.. shouldn't ATI be considering who they're going to develop for on the next console hardware cycle? I don't see Microsoft abandoning Intel to play nice with AMD/ATI ... and Sony (I believe) has ignored both ATI/Nvidia to go their own way.
My question is: If the PC gaming market is shrinking, (unless Vista makes for huge demand for new graphics cards)
Hmmm probably not. CPUs are general-purpose processors; whereas GPUs are more specifically designed to do lots of math-intensive graphics work such as texture and vector calculations.
Now if one of the cores would do something like physics calculations on demand, and the other could do the logistics in a game, then I think it would be VERY cool. 8)
AMD will have a top of the line graphics chip that supports Coherent Hyper-Transport out the gate.
You will no longer have to buy video cards for AMD systems, you will buy GPUs and plug them directly in to the motherboard. It will share system RAM with the processor.
Imagine buying a board with 4(or more) sockets. You start with some basic on-board video technology, nothing fancy. Initially you just have one CPU (dual-core, whatever). Later you realize you miss your favorite 3d games. You go out and buy an A(MD/TI) GPU and drop it in the cHT socket. Voila, instant 3D gaming. It would probably be cheaper, too. No PCB, no extra RAM (though expect the "standard" amount of RAM on systems go to up to 2GB or higher.). A few years later you find the system getting a bit sluggish from the added Vista requirements that came with the newest "Service Pack". Simply slot in another CPU and GPU to "double" your performance.
This is what this means.
Once it is out the door and proven with ex-ATI GPUs, Physics co-processors, advanced 3d audio chips, or whatever specialty processor you can think of that will take advantage of this would be only as difficult as dropping the chip in. It gets the benefit of living very close to main memory on a fast BUS, no card overhead.
Another advantage of this is that we can start moving towards smaller form-factors for mainboards and systems overall.
A source reviled to me that Apple is now pulling all of their products off of the shelf. Ya can read more on http://paulmer2003.com/?p=117
I'm in the process of building a new gaming computer. I was planning to go with a 975XBX motherboard with a Core 2 Duo processor and ATI Crossfire, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea now. Nothing on Intel or ATI's site says anything about how this deal is going to affect their current Crossfire efforts.
Mass-market CPU's are scalar. GPU's are vector.
Today's scalar CPU's are NOWHERE CLOSE to being fast enough to do a GPU's worth of vector math.
paintball
Apples and oranges. Console games and PC games are marketed for different demographics. PC games for the old timers and console games for the kiddies and ultra-casual gamers. This is changing somewhat in certain markets where a certain game is ported from one to the other. So you end up with a compromise between the two such that neither the 12 year olds nor the 35 year olds are completely happy or totally frustrated.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Been this way for a long time. From a Windows standpoint I've been flying. I'm from from a "User" in Windows, and have never had an issue with an AMD/ATI combo. In fact, I prefer that over anything else. From a Linux standpoint I'm definitely a "User". Don't know my way around too well, but can generally infer thingsw well enough from various man pages, walkthroughs, and a few google searches now and again. While ATI's performance is certainly lackluster under Linux, it's not horrible, and tends to be more stable, at least for me, than nVidia. Perhaps I've the 1 in a billion HW config that works well under both Windows and Linux. *Shrug* Either way, seeing AMD and ATI jumping into bed together is very good. Regardless of whether or not you like the two companies, you have to acknowledge that BOTH of these companies have fostered a great deal of innovation over the years, and working together, will only foster more. There were ATI vs nVidia priuce/innovation wars some years ago, just as there was an ongoing AMD vs Intel war. In the end, it always benefits us, and ultimately, the companies involved (though one invariably has to come out losing eventually, change its tactics, regain some footing, and get right back in). I can't wait to see what happens when this powerhouse really starts ramping things up. I just hope that ATI's cards don't go away. There has been speculation of this helping AMD counter the Centrino type stuff. Admittedly, that'd be great, but when was the last time you saw an Intel Video Card up for sale? Certainly can't find them in retail stores. Hopefully ATI continues as a name, and producer, and simply adds their capabilities to AMD's dev teams, and vice-versa. My thoughts
I can either spend $500 every 6-12 months to get all the bells and whistles out of my PC (and that's JUST the video card) .. or spend $500 on a console that does it cheaper (and with all the extra features on the new generation .. )
Why do some people always claim this? I have never bought a videocard more expensive than 200e, and have never had any performance problems. I've never seen the point for 500e+ videocards (other than bragging rights for having poor economic sense) because they rarely are much more faster than their medium-end counterparts.
Sony uses an Nvidia chip in PS3, and Microsoft has already abandoned Intel, it's not an Intel CPU that powers the XB360.
Ok, what is the chance that tomorrow, we will hear that Intel did buy nVidia? Wouldn't this be great?
I read on the Fox News website that Nvidia and AMD will continue their CPU GPU cooperation even after the news of the AMD buyout of ATI. Nvidia and AMD are going to use the incorperation of ATI into AMD as leverage to unseat the leading chip manufacturer Intel. This could produce even better graphics performance than previous cooperations. AMD's buyout was to produce cheap, reliable, integrated chipset solutions for entry level users and to gain a better foothold in the market. These two juggernaut chip makers could very well put Intel out of business overnight, imagine that no more cheap crappy Intel chips and nothing but high quality chips at decent prices.
This fortells a huge shift that is coming in the PC industry and internals. Basically, huge and fast multicore processors will be the only major component of a PC aside from the chipset. It will run mostly software-based drivers for things such as the LAN/WLAN, Sound and Video. The reason we needed daugher cards for these things in the past is that the CPU was not fast enough or well-situated to run all these things in parallel without abysmal performance. But with the advent of multi-core processors one core can do graphics, one can do sound/network and one or two can run your app and it will all just fly. As the movement in the industry is already towards smaller, less components, less power and less heat this centralization was only a matter of time. The CPU manufacturers would love making processor performance truly the be-all and must have of performance again in this way. The video card manufacturers will be wounded with this increased emphasis on the CPU so the CPU manufacturers will merge with them and/or buy them.
The problem for open-source lies in the fact that a good portion of the actual video "card" product will lie in drivers and that they will not want to share the internals of their design in an open way to their competitors. Everything will be binary and everything will be closed. Linux desperatly needs to have a framework ready in the kernel/OS to accomodate this binary and closed driver reality or the manufacturers will not bother to support much of the community out of a few key distros at best.
I'm not entirely convinced that one struggling chip manufacturer purchasing another will really help either.
I live in Austin, Texas, where AMD has one of their fabs.
Back around '99 they layed off a bunch of people, some there for 20 years.
Now they're trying to build a new fab over a very environmentally sensitive portion of town (recharge zone for a huge aquifer that is the primary source of water for folks stretching all the way down to San Antonio. Austin itself gets water from other sources.)
This new fab has caused a great deal of consternation; some say building is inevitable, so just get over it, some say it doesn't matter how many buildings you have if there's no water for the occupants to drink.
Personally, after purchasing an AMD 64-bit-based laptop 1.5 years ago, I realized I jumped the gun as there's not enough software in the 'doze world to really make use of the chip. (Alas I must use 'doze for work, so a proper 'nix operating system is not an option for that machine).
I'd thought I was getting the next batch of technology and 'helping the home team', but with they way they want to trash the environment, my next purchase will definitely be Intel based.
Comments like this, this, and this shows how stupid some Slashdotters are. They made baseless accusations that the analyst was pumping the stock. Now they and those that modded them up know just how stupid they are compared to these analysts. No wonder their jobs are all being sent to India.
All the linux crackpots expecting driver extacy aside - does anyone else get the sick feeling that AMD is about to mediaGX themselvs?
Man you are just nuts.
Your right users don't want the latest version of every program on their system. They want the latest version of the programs they use all the time.
Yes users do want to go to Com-USA, BestBuy, Circute City, ZipZoomFly, or New Egg and buy the latest printer, digital camera, webcam, scanner, or wifi-fi card and have it just work.
Good grief. I showed you an example of FOSS that was available in a new version than what was in a distro's repository to show why a vendor written and supported driver might be newer than then on available from the disto. You said "Doesn't matter. People don't need the latest version."
Then I gave you an example of when a stable binary interface would be an advantage to an end user. Not even theoretical but one that actually happened to me.
You said, "Doesn't matter no user would want to use the latest hardware."
What takes the cake is "It sounds like you're saying that because there might be issues with compatibility between versions that it automatically means the community is completely incapable of providing any usable drivers at all?".
The 3Ware driver is in the kernel. Do you know who paid the programmer that wrote it? 3Ware did. A lot of the people that develop all those FOSS drivers work for the companies that sell the hardware! Even with a FOSS driver you can have lag between what is available, what is available in the Kernel, and what is available in the distro's repository. Any solution that involves using the command line, make, or menuconfig IS not a good solution for the vast majority of the desktop and laptop users. It is even a barley acceptable solution to experienced Unix/Linux admins.
Man you have almost convinced me that Microsoft is right. With an attitude like yours Linux will never be a good replacement for Windows. Good thing not every developer shares you attitude.
I will say that the Kernel developers have every right to not create a binary device driver interface. If I really wanted to and had the time I could fork the kernel and put one is. If enough people joined me and supported my version it would be the standard. That is what is great about FOSS. What ticks me off is them not flat out saying why the are not going to put one in and then make up excuses like, security, stability, and speed.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.