Slashdot Mirror


AMD Sale to Dell Rumored

An anonymous reader writes "Advanced Micro Devices may be up for sale. AMD's shares were significantly up yesterday, apparently on rumors that Dell is interested in buying the American multinational semiconductor company. If AMD ends up being bought out, the purchase by Dell, or any other company for that matter, would be among the biggest the technology industry has seen. It would be of course bigger than when AMD bought ATI in 2006."

19 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. by intellitech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is Dell considering making a more integrated kind of product line? Talk about a change in strategy.

    And a damn good one it would be. I can't even begin to imagine the profits Dell could reap through the fruits inherited from an AMD buyout. It's much cheaper to manufacture products when you control every aspect of most of the primary components being used. And then also manufacturing facilities.. well, even more so.. wow.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe yes, maybe no. The big loser in this would be Intel. I'm not sure of the % of Dell computers that ship with AMD CPU's but it's certainly less than 25%. Dell is big enough to hurt Intel if they switch to AMD.

    2. Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. by sanosuke001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      AMD's net income was 471 million and Dell's net income was 1.4 billion; I have no idea where you get your information...

      Add this to the fact that using their own product to build all their systems would save them quite a bit on every CPU and video card they bundle in a sold system means that this could be a big deal for Dell.

      Now, all that aside, I don't know how I feel about Dell owning AMD/ATI. However, it could push AMD into more marketshare which means more R&D and as long as Dell still sells wholesale, too, it might not be so bad.

      --
      -SaNo
    3. Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. by altoz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Let's see. HP has a WebOS PC coming out. Dell buys AMD...

      My guess is they're both moving towards Apple's model. Could a real Dell-customized Linux desktop be far off?

    4. Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Informative

      Every measure but price? ok...
      They certainly use less energy for the performance.
      They certainly have higher maximum performance at the top end.

      AMD CPU's on the other hand beat most Intel models on price/performance and match Intel's best values (i7 920 and i5 750 last I checked).
      What that means is that at almost any given price point, the AMD chip is better than the Intel chip with only a few cases where they are equal.

      The only two reasons to buy intel are if you need to use less power or if you want the heavy lifting of a thousand dollar cpu for intense computation or benchmark ego masturbation.

    5. Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, Apple did the exact opposite: Dropped developing their own CPU/MB combos in favor of something that Intel offers and designs for them.

      If you look only at Mac computers, and not the iphone, itouch, iwhatever, then Apple is a company that *designs* computers and has created and maintains a popular operating system. They don't actually build the gooey innards for their boxes, ATI (AMD), and Intel do, as well as other parts suppliers.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. by eepok · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I considered such ratios when building my latest low-power machine... until I figured out that with the focus of "low-power", most of the time, it's just a wattage ceiling that I need, not a strong ratio. Once I realized that, it was just a filtering job of:

      hide all processors over 65w
      hide all processors with one core
      hide all processors over $125 (I'm a budget builder)

      Within that group, find the best relative computing power.

    7. Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lies. Cheapest core i3 2100 is ~$140, and you'd have to be buying from some potentially unreliable outlet at that, and in no way is its performance equivalent to a Phenom 2 X6 1100T. Look at some real bench aggregates, fanboi. You'll see it can outperform an i7-920 in many applications for fully half the cost. Even though it's a bit slower in games, is 5-10% more speed worth 200% the price? Not to most people.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    8. Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. by sustik · · Score: 3, Informative

      > If you want the lowest power consumption for the performance, you buy Intel[...]

      On newegg I see the following desktop processors:

      35W:

      Intel Celeron 430 Conroe-L 1.8GHz 512KB L2 Cache LGA 775 35W Single-Core Processor BX80557430 $43

      45W:

      AMD Sempron 140 Sargas 2.7GHz Socket AM3 45W Single-Core Processor SDX140HBGQBOX
      1MB L2 Cache $38

      AMD Sempron LE-1250 Sparta 2.2GHz Socket AM2 45W Single-Core Processor SDH1250IAA4DP 512KB L2 Cache $30

      AMD Athlon II X3 400e Rana 2.2GHz Socket AM3 45W Triple-Core Processor AD400EHDGIBOX
      3x512KB L2 Cache $100 (Currently out of stock.)

      AMD Athlon II X4 610e Propus 2.4GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM3 45W Quad-Core Desktop Processor AD610EHDGMBOX $140 (Currently out of stock.)

      Saying that Intel wins in low power appears to be too broad a statement.

  2. Can they actually do this ..? by Seggybop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My understanding is that currently there's something of an enforced equilibrium between Intel and AMD, wherein Intel needs AMD to exist in a somewhat healthy state in order to avoid being considered a monopoly. If Dell bought AMD, what would happen to that? Would Dell then sell AMD chips to other (competing) manufacturers?

    There might be something similar going on with ATI vs nvidia as well. =/

  3. Bad idea... by Junta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For Dell.

    We are talking about a chip design company that is at best second-place in most business concerns (GPU sometimes in an exception).

    In the CPU industry, you are talking about a move that would severely alienate Intel, a valuable partner in the server arena at the moment. Further complicating things is that a lot of consumer electronics are on the ARM platform, with an ever-increasing chunk, and I don't think AMD has licensed that platform.

    On the GPU front, they would be alienating nVidia.

    Either by choice or force, you'd see Dell's competitors stop selling AMD products, and maybe medium-term some AMD loyalists will follow Dell, but overall you'd see people giving up on AMD as an invitation for total platform lock-in.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  4. Re:Some relief at last? by Tr3vin · · Score: 3, Funny

    We would then have GPUs and CPUs with that world renowned Dell quality.

  5. Unsubstantiated rumor by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I seem to be in the minority, but I do not think the merger is viable

    1) Antitrust issues: Normally I would scoff at the U.S. gov't stepping in and stopping and anti-competitive merger. This, however, is very high profile and would impace Intel and U.S. business as a whole. I think the private sector would push hard enough that the gov't would have to act.

    2) This is antithetical to what has made Dell successful. Dell does not want to be in the business of owning production. They want to be a middle person, putting their brand on items, finding efficiencies in distribution and doing very well at it. Owning production is a different game altogether.

    3) Dell would damage their relationship with Intel. As long as Dell is independent they can negotiate hard with Intel and cooperate to ensure that product offerings integrate well with Intel's products. Intel is less likely to want to do business with Dell in a cooperative sense.

    Overall, I think this rumor is just a rumor. Course, I've been wrong before, and businesses have done some boneheaded moves.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  6. Re:Extremely Risky, won't happen. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not necessarily - average PC buyers do not buy on actual performance, and haven't for years. See: Pentium 4 sales - the NetBurst architecture that didn't perform anywhere close to as good as what AMD was offering at the time, yet everyone bought them because of the Intel brand at a higher price.

    Intel's been building a massive brand recognition since the 486, even though the vast majority of PC buyers couldn't even tell you what Intel makes other than "chips".

    It wouldn't be that hard for Dell to just sell the Dell brand, regardless of what's inside the box. They've already been doing that with their shoddy dielectric-bursting capacitors as it is.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  7. It doesn't make sense for any PC vendor. IBM maybe by guidryp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Any PC Vendor would risk putting itself at a performance disadvantage to it's Intel using competition.

    Not only that, it would make competing PC vendors leery of using AMD chips.

    This would be massive strategic failure for any PC vendor, hastening the slide of both the vendor business and the CPU business.

    There are few potential companies that might have a good fit. IBM might be one. IBM might have the silicon expertise, funds and neutrality to keep AMD viable in the CPU industry.

  8. Re:Extremely Risky, won't happen. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You do realize that Dell doesn't sell performance, they sell service and support, right? The whole reason most enterprises choose Dell is not because of the best hardware (it almost never is), but because Dell offers (generally) very efficient replacement of defective parts including but not limited to "free" (the cost is rolled into the retail and/or separate extended warranty) on-site service. It minimizes the enterprise's downtime and costs for internal IT support overhead. Corporate IT doesn't care that Intel offers 10% better performance than AMD at double the cost, they care whether they can keep all their systems up with minimal support overhead and downtime.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  9. Rumors by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how much it costs to start rumors like that whilst selling the stock short from another country.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  10. Re:The phone is the future anyways by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wont be long before we dock our cell phones in a station and work via KVM at our office desk.

    True. Everyone wants a phone with a half-hour battery life, and every company wants employees carrying their work around in their pocket.

  11. Re:Extremely Risky, won't happen. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly I think the only people who buy Dell for their personal use are idiots. Dell practically irrumates their corporate customers who are mid-size or better, not just because of the volume of systems, nor extended support packages, but because it's the corporate customers who buy the really big ticket items, the huge multicore servers with a dozen RAID SAS drives. They don't care about Joe Dipshit's $xxx budget desktop that has almost no margin, especially if he doesn't spring for some consumer-grade extended support package.

    Computer consumers engaged the market in a race-to-the-bottom, and they won--a market of cheap crap that will last a year or two. They got what they deserved. They put all the mom and pop's that actually cared about the parts they used out of business. I have no respect for any consumer that buys a major brand COTS. Even with laptops the better stuff is a matter of finding a good whitebox chassis and pairing it with quality drives/memory. But (quality) local computer builders are mostly a memory, the few that are left are usually unscrupulous and compete in the same race-to-the-bottom with the addition of retail space overhead.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit