Our Thoughts

Obviously each of the four companies we talked about today had their own take on the merger and no one here can really predict where things will go.  On the one extreme, this deal could completely change everything; the combination of AMD and ATI could result in a powerhouse finally able to really compete with Intel while at the same time taking serious market share away from NVIDIA.  On the other extreme, the combination could be a mess, resulting in a bloated company that is not much better off than before, with Intel and NVIDIA standing to reap the greatest rewards.  It's far too early to tell and with the deal not even closed yet, there's no sense in counting any chickens. 

That being said, there are some points we feel are worth discussing, and some analysis that can help give perspective to the whole merger.  A lot of what we've presented so far is the company line from the four major CPU/Chipset manufacturers, and clearly there is going to be some bias in how each views the situation.  It's far too easy to look at only one side of this story, so the following is designed to help examine the pros and cons of a handful of the facets of this merger.

Integrated Graphics is about to get Better

There's one definite outcome from the AMD/ATI deal, and that is an increase in the quality of integrated graphics.  Currently, Intel is relatively unchallenged when it comes to integrated graphics solutions; independent GPU manufacturers like ATI and NVIDIA offer better integrated graphics solutions, but at much higher prices to keep their margins high.  If AMD acquires ATI, we could in theory see an AMD platform with integrated graphics that would significantly outperform a similarly priced integrated Intel platform - hopefully this will force Intel to improve its integrated graphics. 

Taking things one step further: if AMD puts a small ATI graphics core on-die or at least on-chip, the performance expectations for integrated graphics solutions would go up once more.  Remember that one strength consoles have is the extremely low latency, high bandwidth interconnect between the CPU and GPU; a highly integrated CPU/GPU combo would be able to deliver that same performance advantage on a relatively low end PC. 

Cool Stuff is Coming

On the investor call where AMD officially announced its plans to acquire ATI, a common theme discussed was AMD's Torrenza strategy.  As AMD announced at its analyst day back in June, AMD plans on openly licensing its coherent HyperTransport bus allowing for companies like ATI or NVIDIA to develop GPUs and other co-processors that would plug into a Hyper Transport slot on a motherboard.  The benefit is a very low latency, cache coherent interface between the CPU and any other device that it needs to feed large amounts of data to.  With ATI operating under AMD's wing, AMD effectively guarantees that we'll see GPUs take advantage of Torrenza. 

Intel’s Position: The Silent Treatment Our Thoughts: Will AMD manufacture ATI GPUs?
Comments Locked

61 Comments

View All Comments

  • HopJokey - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link

    quote:

    The food in Intel's cafeteria is actually quite good :)

    I beg to differ. It gets old after a while:(
  • Regs - Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - link

    The distant future looks good. Though we yet to see any more green slides about new core technologies from AMD. It almost seems AMD will be making baby-steps for the next 5 or so years to try to compete with the performance Intel is now currently offering.

    For stock holders - lets just hope AMD can pull something off to gain revenue from other markets with the help of Dell and ATi. Their growing capital and recent acquisition need some definite profits to pay it off.
  • AnandThenMan - Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - link

    I think it's fair to say the article has a very strong pro Intel and NVIDIA slant. For starters, it needs to be pointed out that ATI is actually the #2 graphic maker, not NVIDIA. Saying that NVIDIA is #1 in the desktop space is only part of the market, so why state it that way? Trying to make NVIDIA look good of course...

    And this:
    quote:

    It really wouldn't be too shocking to see the whole merger evaporate and for ATI and AMD to just continue on their present, independent paths -- certainly no more surprising than the initial announcement.

    This statement is just dumb. Unless the planet is destroyed by an asteroid, the deal is pretty much done. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the deal will not happen.
  • defter - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link

    The desktop market is very important market since most of the profits are made in the high-end desktop market.

    For example ATI has much bigger overall marketshare than NVidia (27.6% vs 20.3%) and has lot of presense in other markets (consumer electronics, handhelds). Still, NVidia has bigger revenue, meaning that ASP of NVidia chips is much higher.

    If you look at profits, the difference is even bigger, during the last quarter, NVidia made three times as much profit as ATI. Thus high-end desktop market is definitely very important.

    Here are some GPU market share numbers for Q2:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/2006073...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/2006073...
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link

    quote:

    The desktop market is very important market since most of the profits are made in the high-end desktop market.


    Most of the profits are not made in the high-end desktop market, in fact the very high end probably struggles just to break even due to the relatively tiny number of units shipped compared to development costs. Most of the money in discrete graphics is actually made in the low-end discrete graphics segment, cards like the 7300 and the X1300.
  • defter - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link

    This is like saying: "most of the revenue is made on $100 CPUs instead of FX/Opteron parts..."

    The revenue can be higher on the low end of the market. But GPUs like 7300/X1300 are selling at $20 or less, profit margins for those can't very high. High-end chips like 7900/X1900 are selling for about $100 and the margins are much higher. (Compare the die size between 7900 and 7300, the difference isn't THAT big).
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link

    Hey, I'm a skeptic and you can blame me for the comment. Still, until the deal is well and truly done we have a proposed merger. Government interference, cold feet, whatever other setback you want... these things can and do happen. Do I think the deal *won't* happen? Nope - no more than I think the deal *will* happen. If you had asked me three months ago when I first heard the rumors, I think I would have been about 90% sure it wouldn't happen, so obviously I'm less skeptical now than before.

    As for NVIDIA and Intel slant, the NVIDIA perspective is their view. That doesn't mean it's correct, any more than the ATI, AMD, or Intel perspectives. However, ATI is #2 for the same reason Intel is #1: integrated graphics, specifically on laptops, and again we're talking about the underpowered, mediocre kind that will choke on Vista's Glass GUI. Wipe out all of the low-end GPUs, and NVIDIA has a clear lead in the market. Not in performance, necessarily, but in mindset and brand recognition? Definitely. We are an enthusiast website, and so we're looking at the stuff that moves the market forward, not just what suffices to run office apps.
  • AnandThenMan - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Intel is #1: integrated graphics, specifically on laptops, and again we're talking about the underpowered, mediocre kind that will choke on Vista's Glass GUI. Wipe out all of the low-end GPUs, and NVIDIA has a clear lead in the market.

    Being #1 in one market is not good enough anymore. NVIDIA NEEDS to be in the integrated graphics sector, the ultra thin mobile sector, the console market, the HD devices market etc. etc. This is where ATI is much more diverse than NVIDIA.

    The article is about the implications of AMD/ATI and how it affects Intel, NVIDIA, and the whole industry. I understand what you are saying about the discreet enthusiest market, and naturally this is the most interesting and desirable segment we all like to talk about. But the merger is about much more than that. IMO, NVIDIA has to re-invent itself to be capable of taking on AMD/ATI. NVIDIA has come out and bragged about how they are not the "last man standing" but this is marketing spin at best. NVIDIA is on the record years ago as saying they want to "be where ever there is a pixel" but honestly, AMD/ATI is far better positioned to deliver this than NVIDIA IMO.
  • defter - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link

    quote:

    NVIDIA NEEDS to be in the integrated graphics sector, the ultra thin mobile sector


    Care to elaborate? NVidia is doing fine financially, why it NEEDS to be strongly present on those sectors?

    quote:

    the console market


    NVidia has been in the console market since 2001.
  • Calin - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link

    NVidia IS in the integrated graphics sector - if you are referring to the "enthusiast" integrated graphic sector

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now