diglow~Flow
Member
+32|6928|British Columbia, Canada
okay i did some research and i think this is gonna kill Intel once again...

SAN FRANCISCO -- Advanced Micro Devices plans to pay $5.4 billion for top graphics chipmaker ATI Technologies, a bold move that could help the world's No. 2 maker of PC microprocessors match -- or even exceed -- the capabilities of larger rival Intel.

The acquisition would instantly turn AMD into a leading supplier of graphics chips, which render images for computer games and internet video, and so-called chipsets, which connect a PC's processor to other system components. Intel, which in the past year has lost ground in microprocessors to AMD but is showing renewed vigor, has long supplied both.

Shares of ATI rose almost 18 percent on the news, while AMD's stock fell almost 6 percent.

The acquisition of ATI "would make AMD a bigger player with a more diversified portfolio," said Nathan Brookwood, an analyst with research firm Insight 64. It "would certainly put AMD on a more equal footing relative to Intel."

Markham, Ontario-based ATI, which also supplies semiconductors used in cell phones and high-definition TVs, will also help AMD expand its reach into consumer products, executives said. Intel, which recently sold a division that makes chips for handheld devices, has been trying to break into those markets for years, with limited success.

Under terms approved unanimously by both companies' boards of directors, Sunnyvale, California-based AMD will pay $4.2 billion in cash and 57 million shares of its own stock to acquire all of ATI's outstanding stock, the companies said on a conference call with analysts.

The deal, which is subject to approval by ATI shareholders and U.S. and Canadian regulators, is expected to be completed by year's end, AMD executives said.

Based on AMD's closing share price of $18.21 on Friday, the deal valued ATI's shares at $20.47, a premium of almost 24 percent compared with ATI's Friday closing price of $16.56 on the Nasdaq Stock Market. ATI shares surged $2.79, or 17 percent, to $19.35 in morning trading on the Nasdaq. AMD shares fell $1.11, or 6.1 percent, to $17.15 on the New York Stock Exchange.

AMD, which has been shelling out billions of dollars to add factory capacity so it can better compete with Santa Clara, California-based Intel, will pay for the acquisition with the help of a $2.5 billion loan from Morgan Stanley.

AMD expects the acquisition to contribute "slightly" to earnings next year and "meaningfully" to 2008 profit, Bob Rivet, AMD's chief financial officer, said without adding more detail. The purchase will save the combined company about $75 million by the end of 2007 and about $125 million by 2008 not including costs for the acquisition, he said.

By having more chip categories in its portfolio, AMD wants to offer packages that bundle microprocessors with other types of computer components. Platforms that integrate the functions of several different chips will be more attractive to many customers than offering each component separately and requiring customers to put them together, Ruiz said.

AMD, which over the past year has taken about 5 points of market share from Intel, is betting the strategy will allow it to gain even more share, particularly in the market for notebook computers, AMD executives said. One percentage point of share translates to about $300 million of revenue.

Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, said he doesn't expect the deal to lead to "significant" work force reductions.

The deal also puts competitive pressure on Nvidia, the other dominant maker of graphics chips. Santa Clara, California-based Nvidia has competed against Intel in selling chipsets and graphics chips while counting on AMD for sales of those products. Nvidia shares rose $1.17, or 6.6 percent, to $18.94.

Here is the link: http://wirednews.com/news/wireservice/0 … wn_index_4
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7018
AMD wont kill intel, they never did... intel kept their marketshare even when AMD proved to the world that netburst was inferior. AMD has nothing to come up w/ core 2 duo, i wonder what ATI would produce to increase AMD's stock prices
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
diglow~Flow
Member
+32|6928|British Columbia, Canada

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

AMD wont kill intel, they never did... intel kept their marketshare even when AMD proved to the world that netburst was inferior. AMD has nothing to come up w/ core 2 duo, i wonder what ATI would produce to increase AMD's stock prices
Thats true... But

AMD outbeat intel performance wise not Stock prices... not only that AMD bought it anyways.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7018

diglow~Flow wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

AMD wont kill intel, they never did... intel kept their marketshare even when AMD proved to the world that netburst was inferior. AMD has nothing to come up w/ core 2 duo, i wonder what ATI would produce to increase AMD's stock prices
Thats true... But

AMD outbeat intel performance wise not Stock prices... not only that AMD bought it anyways.
thats a thing of the past, intel now has new strategies. Intel now plans to have a completely new architecture every 2 years, and a die shrink every 2 years. AMD simply does not have enough money to keep up unless they do really shock every1
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
specialistx2324
hahahahahhaa
+244|6990|arica harbour

diglow~Flow wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

AMD wont kill intel, they never did... intel kept their marketshare even when AMD proved to the world that netburst was inferior. AMD has nothing to come up w/ core 2 duo, i wonder what ATI would produce to increase AMD's stock prices
Thats true... But

AMD outbeat intel performance wise not Stock prices... not only that AMD bought it anyways.
Took the words right out of my mouth.

you dont See AMD putting a crap load of commercials on tv. every computer commercial on tv revolves around one noobish processor: Intel.. Dell will never in this lifetime have AMD processors.

scan the anadtech forums abount AMD processors. They have a better track record than Intel. Intel is way too expensive, inefficient, and for gods sakes it overheats like a microwave cooking rubber.

Intel makes its money with their claim that they have a faster clock speed...blah...blah blah. but who has more calculations per seccond: AMD. who has more pipelines: AMD, do the research people.

Ask any pc videogamer out there and  9 times out of 10, they would go fro AMD.. and that is something you can take to the bank....
diglow~Flow
Member
+32|6928|British Columbia, Canada
did you see what there putting into that Chipset *also buying ATi* and the fact of the matter is that Graphics Proccesing Is gonna be outstanding...
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7018
err dell does have AMD cpus... they will distribute them sometime, theyve already signed a contract w/ AMD. AMD's only true powerful architecture is the K8. athalon XP's were only better than intel cpu's coz of the price cut. i ask you how long have you been on anandtech forums? anand said himself that conroe is the most powerful CPU he has ever saw in his life.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
diglow~Flow
Member
+32|6928|British Columbia, Canada
okay... well intel will nerver be good at gaming so i guess it will be good for video editing and can handle Big Programs.
Capt. Foley
Member
+155|6889|Allentown, PA, USA
Intel ftw.

Last edited by Capt. Foley (2006-07-27 10:17:10)

Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7018

diglow~Flow wrote:

okay... well intel will nerver be good at gaming so i guess it will be good for video editing and can handle Big Programs.
Never good in gaming my ass...
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
diglow~Flow
Member
+32|6928|British Columbia, Canada
yeah i cant wait till AMD comes out with another CPU. Maybe they'll make a FX-80 that runs 3.0Ghz..
AveryHawk
Member
+6|6995|Sacramento,CA

specialistx2324 wrote:

diglow~Flow wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

AMD wont kill intel, they never did... intel kept their marketshare even when AMD proved to the world that netburst was inferior. AMD has nothing to come up w/ core 2 duo, i wonder what ATI would produce to increase AMD's stock prices
Thats true... But

AMD outbeat intel performance wise not Stock prices... not only that AMD bought it anyways.
Took the words right out of my mouth.

you dont See AMD putting a crap load of commercials on tv. every computer commercial on tv revolves around one noobish processor: Intel.. Dell will never in this lifetime have AMD processors.
Actually they already have AMD processors in their Alienware division Strike one ...they also have them in their server line in the Large business  group Strike two


scan the anadtech forums abount AMD processors. They have a better track record than Intel. Intel is way too expensive, inefficient, and for gods sakes it overheats like a microwave cooking rubber.
Have you been under a rock lately? AMD FX60 and FX62 chips are up at 125watts and did you forget the t-birds and their heat problems? Strike 3


Intel makes its money with their claim that they have a faster clock speed...blah...blah blah. but who has more calculations per seccond: AMD. who has more pipelines: AMD, do the research people.
Are you comparing current AMD to Netburst P4's? the current Conroe chips are completely destroying the "enthusiast level" (FX series) parts from AMD and to quote the "spirit" of AMD's PR rating marketing strategy "it isn't about the Ghz  it is about what they do for you" Again the current tech shows Intel on top in the "desktop" market.

Ask any pc videogamer out there and  9 times out of 10, they would go fro AMD.. and that is something you can take to the bank....
Well seeing as PC video gamers don't make up but about 1/10th of the CPU market I would much rather take the other 9/10 to the bank.... AMD has only bested Intel in sales in the "desktop" segment for just about 6 quarters (1.5 years). AMD has never had higher than 9% total CPU market share. Intel has taken HUGE steps to fix their internal structure and has taken their "lumps" and is now on their way back to the top.
Capt. Foley
Member
+155|6889|Allentown, PA, USA

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

diglow~Flow wrote:

okay... well intel will nerver be good at gaming so i guess it will be good for video editing and can handle Big Programs.
Never good in gaming my ass...
Intel FTW!!!
taxi2you
Member
+22|6946|Missouri
Having a family member in the business, AMD is at least 4 years behind the technology Intel has.  Intel is just releasing new processors as the market sees fit.  Intel's R&D team is working in 86-128 bit quad cores.  AMD won't have that until 2012.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7018

diglow~Flow wrote:

yeah i cant wait till AMD comes out with another CPU. Maybe they'll make a FX-80 that runs 3.0Ghz..
no. just no. they will come out w/ K8L, which has to be able to keep up w/ a 45nm quad core nehalem
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Brasso
member
+1,549|6932

No, no!  Buy nVidia!
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
diglow~Flow
Member
+32|6928|British Columbia, Canada
yeah for now and somewhat good report. lol
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7018

taxi2you wrote:

Having a family member in the business, AMD is at least 4 years behind the technology Intel has.  Intel is just releasing new processors as the market sees fit.  Intel's R&D team is working in 86-128 bit quad cores.  AMD won't have that until 2012.
i dont know where you got that from but i have to say... what the hell... 128bit cpus... worthless today...

on topic: it took AMD a long time to get SSE working properly though..
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
AveryHawk
Member
+6|6995|Sacramento,CA

diglow~Flow wrote:

yeah i cant wait till AMD comes out with another CPU. Maybe they'll make a FX-80 that runs 3.0Ghz..
My my my....AMD fanboys who have always beet their chests to the tune of it doesn't matter how many GHZ are now rationalizing that GHZ = Superiority of performance.... LOL

the same thing they have been beating on Intel for for the last 4 years after they lost the Ghz war and "adopted" the "PR" standard......
diglow~Flow
Member
+32|6928|British Columbia, Canada
when i build my next computer ill give conroe a try ill probably get the X6800 and see how that runs...
_j5689_
Dreads & Bergers
+364|7018|Riva, MD
Just a quick alert, Newegg has the conroe for sale now: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6819115001

Edit: Already out of stock, lol.

Last edited by _j5689_ (2006-07-27 10:26:04)

diglow~Flow
Member
+32|6928|British Columbia, Canada
if im mistaken but isnt Duo the word for Laptops?

Last edited by diglow~Flow (2006-07-27 10:26:43)

AveryHawk
Member
+6|6995|Sacramento,CA

diglow~Flow wrote:

if im mistaken but isnt Duo the word for Laptops?
Duo refers to All Intel dual core processors.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7018

diglow~Flow wrote:

if im mistaken but isnt Duo the word for Laptops?
yes...

intels yonah cpu series called core duo and core solo, when the word core 2 duo came out as the official name for conroe... a lot of ppl said it sounded retarded, whats next? core 3 octo?
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
diglow~Flow
Member
+32|6928|British Columbia, Canada

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard