[Partial]

Does this mean a shift back to Nvidia? If so, do you think they'll realize a chipset for the intel makes for an SLI configuration? It would be very, very dissapointing if the Mac Pro didn't have dual-graphics card capability!!

[jdcfsu]

Because mergers take so long to actually effect the market place, I don't think we'll see any change with the upcoming revisions though the next round in 6 months or so might. Though I could be wrong.

[Windowsrookie]

Another ATI/AMD thread?

[Partial]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie Another ATI/AMD thread?

Correct, however this one is in the appropriate forum with a legitmate question posed. If the merger has been officially approved this morning, that could mean that AMD may not want future ATI cards in apple computers because they are using Intel chipsets/processors.

I think it'd be pretty foolish to tie down ATI to AMD boards (make them all ATI chipsets) exclusively. I wonder if they'd do that.

Primarily, I am concerned about these custom Intel boards that they are using. If Intel is developing the chipset themselves, as I understand it they would not have the Crossfire/SLI compatibility, because that is built into the Nforce and Ati chipsets. Am I incorrect in this notion?

edit - and yes, I searched the forum, and yes, most of the threads on this topic were locked due to it being overkill speculation. It's official now. I say its fair game to discuss. Bradley, if I am wrong good chap, please lock, no need to ban.

[Engine Joe]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 f the merger has been officially approved this morning, that could mean that AMD may not want future ATI cards in apple computers because they are using Intel chipsets/processors. I think it'd be pretty foolish to tie down ATI to AMD boards (make them all ATI chipsets) exclusively. I wonder if they'd do that.

Doubtful - they'd be shutting themselves out of too much of the PC market if they won't let ATI cards/etc work with Intel boards.

[Windowsrookie]

I don't think AMD will want to lose millions of dollars just because Apple went Intel.

[blakbyrd]

^ I agree.

[chucker]

They'd be stupid to do that. They'd also have to discontinue all of ATi's Intel-specific chipsets, which I'm sure would hurt revenues a lot — needlessly.

[Partial]

Alright, so i'm not an idiot in thinking that would be a poor business move.

I suppose this thread really isn't as useful as I thought.

[Barto]

I can see ATi's intel chipsets being discontinued. I can also see a coherent hypertransport GPU from ATi.

But I can't see AMD/ATi/Locutus of Borg discontinuing support for Radeons on Intel, that's just crazy talk.

[blakbyrd]

Originally Posted by Barto but I can't see AMD/ATi/Locutus of Borg discontinuing support for Radeons on Intel, that's just crazy talk.

I love that nickname.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Barto I can see ATi's intel chipsets being discontinued. I can also see a coherent hypertransport GPU from ATi. But I can't see AMD/ATi/Locutus of Borg discontinuing support for Radeons on Intel, that's just crazy talk.

It is official that once January first, 2007 hits, no more Intel/ATI chipsets (no cross fire ) will be made. This is on Digg right now

[Windowsrookie]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 It is official that once January first, 2007 hits, no more Intel/ATI chipsets (no cross fire ) will be made. This is on Digg right now

Digg is always right.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 It is official that once January first, 2007 hits, no more Intel/ATI chipsets (no cross fire ) will be made. This is on Digg right now

It doesn't make business sense to do that. ATI's IGP wasn't particularly popular to begin with, and them exiting the Intel market is a win for both NVidia and Intel. So they'd be dropping business before having a secure footing in the AMD64 market...

[Banana]

Agreed. I'm now kind of stumped as to why they'd do that. I can see AMD buying ATI to use it as mean of making revenues that would be lost if someone bought a Intel over AMD but used ATI card, but by dropping Intel like a hot potato, they've just polarized the market even more and that's not a good thing for consumer.

BTW should the three threads be merged?

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Eugene It doesn't make business sense to do that. ATI's IGP wasn't particularly popular to begin with, and them exiting the Intel market is a win for both NVidia and Intel. So they'd be dropping business before having a secure footing in the AMD64 market...

but if their cards ever become significantly better you'd need to buy amd to unlock all the beauty of them? Who knows. Seems like a dumb decision to me too.

[Jerman]

And dumb to me... I have always like Ati's stuff over Nvidia for my Mac, so I hope this doesn't affect that too much... Need to do some more reading about all this, but I am sure I will have more thoughts about it soon.

[Ghost2]

Although I'd rather have nvidia gpu's in mac rather than ati, the move still seems rather dumb, also I read that AMD is trying to create some weird cpu/gpu hybrid thing.

[washington mac user]

shit ATI is owning right now and this next year with graphics FUCK! their mobile chips are owning Nvidias and ATI is going with unified shaders and Nvidia said they were going to wait with unified shaders even though Microsoft is recommending unified shaders.... for Vista. I dont want an Nvidia graphics card in my laptop who would?

[washington mac user]

well Nividia is happy about it

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1993560,00.asp

Nvidia, however, said it was pleased with the deal. "Today's news about the acquisition of ATI by AMD is a positive development for Nvidia," the company's director of public relations, Derek Perez, said in a statement. "We are now the only graphics processor and core logic company that supports both Intel and AMD processors. We will continue to execute on our strategy, which is to develop industry-changing GPU and platform technologies, extend the use of the GPU into new applications, and expand its reach into all computing devices - from PCs to servers to phones."

But AMD also signaled that the company wasn't holding out hope that the ATI-Intel relationship would last. ATI's Intel-specific chipset revenue totaled between $80 million to $100 million per quarter, according to AMD chief financial officer Bob Rivet, so the company is assuming that the line will be phased out. Still, Rivet said, "we'll support the product line until customers say no."

Third, there is the question of how the rest of the industry – including Intel, but also ATI rivals like Nvidia – will react. Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy declined to comment on the deal, saying that any comment would be premature until the company had made a thorough evaluation of the deal. ATI currently holds a "bus license" allowing it to make chipsets that connect to Intel microprocessors. ATI executives, however, indicated several times that the Intel-specific chipset business produced low margins, relatively low revenue, and that the company was prepared to phase out the product line if necessary.

just a little info for you guys

I said earlier that there were no press releases on the other thread about this so it was still a rumor. Now though on AMD's site there is this:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/V...110899,00.html

[Banana]

Well if the above post is accurate, my hypothesis of AMD milking some money out of Intel+ATI configuration may be wrong after all.

Color me totally confused as to why AMD and ATI merged at all.

[McSandwich]

ATI (AMD) will continue to produce chipsets for Intel, see:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/90650/am...-benefits.html

Whether or not Intel cease support of ATI graphics chipsets (cross fire, etc.) or dissuades Apple using ATI graphics are other issues. It's my opinion that unless Nvidia and Intel come to some special arrangement then there is no reason for Intel to abandon ATI.

[washington mac user]

yes there is ATI is part of AMD so if intel supports ATI they support AMD

[McSandwich]

yes there is ATI is part of AMD so if intel supports ATI they support AMD

Both Sun and IBM, who produce their own CPUs, have and still use Intel/ AMD processors in their respective product lines. Intel would be foolish to ignore market requirments for prides sake.

[spotcatbug]

That article posted to digg said that Intel pulled ATI's chipset license. It was something that Intel did, not AMD/ATI.

[crock]

There are a lot of interesting things will flow from this deal. Here is what I know so far....

This is a tip of the hat to Intel's "platform" strategy. AMD is now planning to follow with complete chipset platforms like Intel has done with Centrino. Given how lackluster the 965 graphics core is, some more competition in this space is very welcome.

For the long term, this points to much greater CPU/GPU integration. I'm not exactly sure where the path will lead, but it will certainly be interesting. We may see a PC architecture that looks more like a console in a few years. In many ways, AMD/ATI looks to be the eventual technology leader given what their hardware teams have achieved in the K8 and Xbox2.

[washington mac user]

This is making me mad.... Just thinking about it. Dont aquire ATI! Leave ATI they are moving along way faster then Nvidia. OR if they do aquire ATI they better let ATI keep making highend shit to compete with Nvidia or else Nvidia will raise their prices and become a monopoly for highend GPU's!!!! and we wont have a choice on highend gpu's....ATI's R600 is going to own G80. Everybody is suprised that nVidia is not using unified shaders. Wouldnt AMD want to make more money? Let the ATI section keep making highend chips!! or use an AMD CPU on an ATI chip so it runs as fast as hell!!!! raise the speed to FUCKIN 1.5 Ghz and blow nVidia out of the water!!! The new nVidia and ATI chips are supposed to be between 700-800 MHz. I suggest everybody reread this forum. it has a lot of good info....

http://forums.applenova.com/showthre...light=graphics

[BizMac]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33281

Dell/AMD/ATI.....vs.....Apple/Intel/NVidia

Coming Soon (2007)!

[Banana]

Though the Inquirer is a questionable source, let's take it at the face value:

If that is what going to happen, I honestly think this is very bad thing; I do not want to choose between two giant conglomerates. I'd rather have the ability to choose among full-line product provider (e.g. Apple), Mary and Jane supplier (e.g. Dell), DIY suppliers, with large degree of flexiblity. The way things could head, it'll turn into seller's market and may hurt the customers and the progress of technology.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

[PB PM]

Yes, there needs to be another independent GPU maker, 3fxs,Voodoo cards come back from the dead? Also there is no reason to believe that just because Dell is expanding its deal with AMD, they will stop selling Intel based machines.