Associate
Intel just bought McAfee for 7.7 billion so it is highly unlikely that they would even consider nVidia...
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Prediction - Intel to buy Nvidia?
- Thread starter Freddie1980
- Start date
Don
Intel also just bought part of Infineon for $1.4b the other day as well.
Soldato
No more ATI remember guys.. Rebranded AMD Radeon. Its been very interesting since AMD and ATI fused together.. effectively pooling resources for both cpu and gpus, Intel stepping into the graphics arena now and still the dominate cpu manufacturer.. Really doesnt look too good for Nvidia if they dont step up their game. As someone said before the logical move is to take the market share from Nvidia squeeze them before any bids are on the table. Ray Tracing is on the horizon which is going be a massive shake up in graphics and computing (AMD slogan "The future is fusion"). So looks like Intel and AMD will be have fingers in both pies, making Nvidia the odd one out, unless they start producing CPU/GPU (APU?) in the future.
Just my 2 little pence
Some insightful information in this thread. Thanks for sharing
Just my 2 little pence
Some insightful information in this thread. Thanks for sharing
Last edited:
They are in the process of doing just that, unfortunately for them they don't have the required x86 license from Intel and aren't likely to get one anytime soon so it will most likely never see the light of day.
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/08/17/details-emerge-about-nvidias-x86-cpu/
Soldato
No you miss the point, there is no way anyone could just buy them, someone owns the commanding share, someone somewhere owns 51% of them at least, so that can't happen - its most likely shared between the board directors. No company anywhere would ever allow that to happen
Caporegime
Well ones things for sure he's either very passionate and/or plainly just has to much time on his hands, to re-write the bible every time you post takes some doing
LOL!!! +1
+1
Soldato
Agreed. Nothing like a good drunkenmaster rate. If you're going to cut him down at least give me a constructive agreement. I'm looking for an excuse to go green but the 480 I'm afraid is too little too late.
Associate
lol in any other industry AMD would have hit the wall years ago they hardly ever make a profit year on year. So I would hardly say they have smart business people.
Intel and the US government keep them in business to keep the illusion of competition going in the x86 market place.
Soldato
Hmmm, another one that needs to do a little research.
Probably any other company that faced the Anti competitive practices Intel put in place would have gone under, AMD used to have superior CPU's than Intel at one point but Intel used their huge market capital to bribe customers not to use AMD products so they didn't gain market share and profit.
If this didn't happen AMD would have been able to expand it's market share and profit and most likely would not have needed to sell off it's foundries.
It's quite miraculous they are even still around.
Please elaborate...
Associate
I have no axe to grand, amd certainly did have superior cpu's to intel and arguably have better gpu's then nvidia at the moment.
I have used cpus and gpus from both sides.
At last count AMD's debt was something like $4 billion. I cannot see how a business can still be afloat with such a debt without government help.
If I remember one of the reasons why intel was accused of anti competitive behavior was in the use of rebates, i.e. they gave dell money back for buying cpu's.
Most if not all business do this. I work for an Investment Platform. Fund Managers give us money back for putting their funds on the platform. So if it cost's a client 1.5% of their investment per year we will take from that 1.5% 50 basis points while the Fund Manager keeps the rest.
This is not unique to us all our competitors do it too.
However we receive better rebates than our competitors as we are the largest platform in the market.
This isn't anti competitive. The company worked hard for years to be in such a position where they could negotiate better terms. If our competitors did as well or reach the same scale as us then they could do the same.
I would argue that Intel were simply doing something similar to us. Using their scale to get a better deal. There was nothing stopping AMD doing the same thing.
A cynic would suggest that all these anti competitive motions which have hit intel, microsoft and others are just a way for governments to make a bit of cash from successful companies rather than designed to make the market a fairer place. By definition a market will always become scewed towards the most successful companies, this is the nature of competition and what success looks like.
But anyway thats only my opinion.
I have used cpus and gpus from both sides.
At last count AMD's debt was something like $4 billion. I cannot see how a business can still be afloat with such a debt without government help.
If I remember one of the reasons why intel was accused of anti competitive behavior was in the use of rebates, i.e. they gave dell money back for buying cpu's.
Most if not all business do this. I work for an Investment Platform. Fund Managers give us money back for putting their funds on the platform. So if it cost's a client 1.5% of their investment per year we will take from that 1.5% 50 basis points while the Fund Manager keeps the rest.
This is not unique to us all our competitors do it too.
However we receive better rebates than our competitors as we are the largest platform in the market.
This isn't anti competitive. The company worked hard for years to be in such a position where they could negotiate better terms. If our competitors did as well or reach the same scale as us then they could do the same.
I would argue that Intel were simply doing something similar to us. Using their scale to get a better deal. There was nothing stopping AMD doing the same thing.
A cynic would suggest that all these anti competitive motions which have hit intel, microsoft and others are just a way for governments to make a bit of cash from successful companies rather than designed to make the market a fairer place. By definition a market will always become scewed towards the most successful companies, this is the nature of competition and what success looks like.
But anyway thats only my opinion.
Soldato
Link please...
..................................................
It wasn't just Kick backs Intel pulled lot's of **** with compilers amongst other things etc.
With regards to the company you work for, is there more than two players in the industry yes or no?
Does your company deliberately go out of it's way to handicap your competition?
Does it have an overwhelming market share and is not simply the market share leader?
Is competition being stifled to a degree that it is harming the consumer?
With regards to the last question you may argue Intel did not directly harm the consumer but that is not the case. If AMD had been permitted to play on a level playing field, they would have had more cash for R&D, Intel could have used it's Bribe money for R&D instead also, and the consumer would probably be enjoying the fruits that comes with stiff competition i.e. increased innovation and technological advancement leading to better performing products that would no doubt offer much better value for money than the CPU's that are currently on offer today.
In all honesty I don't believe you have fully looked into the case of Intel Vs AMD/ FTC otherwise you wouldn't be taking your current stance, well not at least if you were a logical thinker.
Associate
Wow do you own shares in AMD?
I understand what he is saying also working for a investment bank...
Lets make it simple lets say you own a company lets say a match stick company... Now lets say you are the best cheapest etc match stick company in the all the land... You sell your match sticks for 1p each as they only cost you 0.5p to make.
Now a new guy comes to town and says hey I can sell them for 1p each but they cost me 0.9p to make.
Now please tell me why you wouldnt sell yours for 0.8p to price him out the market? Almost all companies do this look at supermarkets??
Goverments do this as a cash cow... The EU is worsest for it. Please tell me why microsoft cant budle IE with an operating system? if you asked 9/10 people on the street they would say it was just part off it! it is free for goodness sake but yet EU fine and fine again!
Soldato
This whole 'you must have shares or be a fanboy' thing is just tiresome...
M$ etc. and other cases are irrelevant to this case. While I do agree with your point about M$ however.
If you want to prove my argument incorrect then please shoot down the points I have made rather than going off on a tangent about matchsticks that offer no real relevance to the actual situation between Amd and Intel and only offer a loose resemblance to that particular scenario as nowhere did you mention that matchstick company A paying Shops to severely delay or not even stock matchsticks from company B. The Intel Vs AMD case was not as simple as Company A undercutting Company B.
Capitalism is a bit like the film Highlander, eventually with all the takeovers and mergers there can be only be one.
If this was to happen the shareholders at the top of the pyramid of the company remaining would be more powerful than any group or government and effectively would become a government, a world government if you will, imagine what that world would look like with a 1 commanding shareholder calling all the shot's with no one to answer to or compete with? he/she would effectively be king of the world at which point democracy would no longer exist (It's only an illusion anyway).
Hence this is why we have things like anti-competitive laws...
Last edited:
Perhaps because moving into the market themselves is not so simple, as witnessed by the problems Intel has faced with Larrabee?
Soldato
^^^
I think the biggest challenge Intel has is dodging the patent mine field...
My guess is I can't always take the most logical route.
I think the biggest challenge Intel has is dodging the patent mine field...
My guess is I can't always take the most logical route.
Associate
ok lets put it another way....
9/10 AMD motherboards only support Crossfire not SLI....
If this was intel/nvidia doing this it would be wrong as they are the bigger players... but yet it is fine for the smaller player to do so...
I know that the partners make the boards but lets be honnest AMD wont help or make it equal to support SLI...
9/10 AMD motherboards only support Crossfire not SLI....
If this was intel/nvidia doing this it would be wrong as they are the bigger players... but yet it is fine for the smaller player to do so...
I know that the partners make the boards but lets be honnest AMD wont help or make it equal to support SLI...
That's not AMD's fault, it's nVidia's, with their insistence on using their PCI-E chips/chipsets. That's why Intel boards that do SLi have an additional nVidia chip on them.
Soldato
Intel is paying out about 4bn in dividends every year, this is not a lot to them
Intel has billions in cash and could easily raise enough to buy nvidia. 5.5 is small in usa, its just a case of would this add value. Its a big enough purchase that intel would take flack if investors didnt like it.
I think intel is buying into wireless, going in different directions