Apple ready to embrace AMD?

[Chad Boga]

I know they won't. Apple would have bought AMD a year ago at much cheaper cost if they had been able to. In fact, just about anybody could have bought AMD a year ago at a rock bottom price.

Not without losing the x86 licence.

AMD is worth too much to the industry to be bought out by a self-serving company. If apple can buy AMD, why can't IBM? IBM would lose a fortune on paying for server chips if Apple took over AMD - a lot more than what it would cost them for a simple buyout.

What makes you say this?

AMD is kinda protected on a few different levels because of them being the alternative to intels monopoly high pricing. Governments throughout the world would send a very serious frown towards any company looking at a hostile takeover, and I doubt anyone would be allowed to.

Whilst I don't think Apple will buy AMD, what makes you think it would have to be a hostile takeover?

 

[jennyh]

The x86 licence still might not be transferrable, we just don't know the exact details of it.

If it was though, more companies than just apple would be looking at AMD. Microsoft would be one of them - if only to stop apple getting them first (whilst knocking out nintendo's supplier of chips too).

IBM would spend hundreds of millions more every year on AMD's server cpu's because Apple would raise prices to suit them. If IBM stopped buying apple chips, intel would just...raise the prices of theirs. It's a bad situation for companies like IBM to be in, therefore an independent AMD is a lot better for them.

AMD wouldn't sell at the companies current worth. They were over $40 a few years ago and they believe they will be again. On the eve of fusion and bulldozer, it would take a monumental offer to sell up, and not even Apple can afford it.

 

[yannifb]

Yeah.... Apple buys AMD means I get out of PCs for a loooooong time. It would be a very sad day.

But Apple won't buy AMD, so, it's a non-issue.

Whoa whoa... They didn't mean Apple would buy AMD. They just meant that Apple would use AMD chips. The title of that article is worded funny.

PS: When the author said "Apple is thinking about ditching intel and going AMD" that kinda gave it away that they didn't mean an acquisition, since Apple didn't already own intel last time i checked.

 

[Chad Boga]

The x86 licence still might not be transferrable, we just don't know the exact details of it.

Whilst this is true, it looks like the US Govt would be much more open to the idea than they were before(which is why your statement of Apple buyng them earlier isn't valid), considering they are trying to strong arm Intel into giving Nvidia a x86 licence.

Apple at least is as American as Apple Pie.

If it was though, more companies than just apple would be looking at AMD. Microsoft would be one of them - if only to stop apple getting them first (whilst knocking out nintendo's supplier of chips too).

I think this Microsoft as the White Knight of AMD is quite silly, yet has been persistent amongst the AMD faithful for quite a few years now.

I guess you want to believe that AMD and "friends" can match it with Intel.

IBM would spend hundreds of millions more every year on AMD's server cpu's because Apple would raise prices to suit them. If IBM stopped buying apple chips, intel would just...raise the prices of theirs. It's a bad situation for companies like IBM to be in, therefore an independent AMD is a lot better for them.

My understanding is that IBM don't sell a lot of AMD based systems.

You look at the special chipsets they make for 8P and above systems and they are only Intel based, even when Intel didn't have QPI.

AMD wouldn't sell at the companies current worth. They were over $40 a few years ago and they believe they will be again. On the eve of fusion and bulldozer, it would take a monumental offer to sell up, and not even Apple can afford it.

If it is a merger, then the sick fantasy of a return to a $40 share price wouldn't be such an impediment.

However this is just all idle speculation as I don't think AMD and Apple are that good a fit, so I don't see this happening.

 

[jennyh]

Yes yanni but there has been even more recent talk of Apple buying out AMD. 😉

 

[jennyh]

I think this Microsoft as the White Knight of AMD is quite silly, yet has been persistent amongst the AMD faithful for quite a few years now.

I guess you want to believe that AMD and "friends" can match it with Intel.

I think you're very confused if you believe the 'AMD faithful' think of M$ as being White Knights.

My understanding is that IBM don't sell a lot of AMD based systems.

You look at the special chipsets they make for 8P and above systems and they are only Intel based, even when Intel didn't have QPI.

They also have a bunch of Opterons in a bunch of supercomputers. Feel free to count how many chips it is overall, then figure out how much that would cost with an apple-tax on top of it.

If it is a merger, then the sick fantasy of a return to a $40 share price wouldn't be such an impediment.

AMD will be $17-$18 by this years end, and that's a 'gaurantee'. 😀

 

[jennyh]

It's not quite like that. x86 was intels original instruction set, AMD improved upon it and now both use AMD-64 (x86-64).

interestingly, from wiki

AMD licensed its x86-64 design to Intel, where it is marketed under the name Intel 64 (formerly EM64T). AMD's design replaced earlier attempts by Intel to design its own x86-64 extensions which had been referred to as IA-32e. As Intel licenses AMD the right to use the original x86 architecture (upon which AMD's x86-64 is based), these rival companies now rely on each other for 64-bit processor development. This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company refuse to renew the license. Should such a scenario take place, AMD would no longer be authorized to produce any x86 processors, and Intel would no longer be authorized to produce x86-64 processors, forcing it back to 32-bit x86 architecture. However, the agreement[29] provides that if one party breaches the agreement it loses all rights to the other party's technology while the other party receives perpetual rights to all licensed technology. The only current 32-bit x86 Intel processors are versions of the low-power Intel Atom processor.

 

[jennyh]

You could invent anything you wanted.

The problem is....good luck getting microsoft to support it in windows. There are much better chips out there than x86 chips, but because of windows, nobody wants to move on.

It's a sad story of monopolies dictating and holding back progress.

 

[Chad Boga]

I think you're very confused if you believe the 'AMD faithful' think of M$ as being White Knights.

The AMDZone losers always give Microsoft a free pass, but constantly shatty their pants about Intel being a monopoly.

Plus a few years ago when Barfelona revealed itself to be a dud, there were heaps of fanboys eagerly speculating that MS would buy AMD, get 100% behind all it's extensions and rule the world.

They also have a bunch of Opterons in a bunch of supercomputers. Feel free to count how many chips it is overall, then figure out how much that would cost with an apple-tax on top of it.

Other than Blue Gene, what other IBM supercomputer has been sold recently?

IBM like to gouge people for their services and software and if you are price sensitive(i.e. like AMD), you will also being steering clear of IBM.

That is why IBM ships Mainframes and servers with it's own chips and Intel server chips predominantly.

They no longer move much AMD server gear, HP on the other hand is probably AMD's best friend in server.

AMD will be $17-$18 by this years end, and that's a 'gaurantee'. 😀

That is still a long way short of $40 and by no means 'gauranteed'. 😀

 

[Chad Boga]

Ha, not if there is a cpu at 5-7 Ghz. People, including Microsoft, would want that cpu to work!

Does it make any more money for Microsoft?

Unless that processor can enlarge the overall market(as opposed to just getting a slice of it), then there is no incentive for Microsoft to spend the development dollars making their software run on it.

 

[jennyh]

The AMDZone losers always give Microsoft a free pass, but constantly shatty their pants about Intel being a monopoly.

Plus a few years ago when Barfelona revealed itself to be a dud, there were heaps of fanboys eagerly speculating that MS would buy AMD, get 100% behind all it's extensions and rule the world.

As I don't frequent AMDZone forums or anywhere else, I wouldn't know. I personally wouldn't look to M$, Apple, IBM or anyone as a 'saviour' of AMD.

That is still a long way short of $40 and by no means 'gauranteed'. 😀

AMD was $17 in 2003, $40 in 2004.

 

[Chad Boga]

As I don't frequent AMDZone forums

Why not? You would find some like minded people there. 😗

That is still a long way short of $40 and by no means 'gauranteed'. 😀

AMD was $17 in 2003, $40 in 2004.[/quote]
Do you think it likely that Intel is going to produce another Prescott?

 

[Chad Boga]

As I don't frequent AMDZone forums

Why not? You would find some like minded people there. 😗

AMD was $17 in 2003, $40 in 2004.

Do you think it likely that Intel is going to produce another Prescott?

 

[Chad Boga]

Well, It will, unless ther is a new technology that gets the conumers attention and Microsfts as well.

The deal would be is a new thech that will reduce the cost of the OS and CPU itself.

How does it reduce the cost of the OS?

 

[jennyh]

Why not? You would find some like minded people there. 😗

No point in preaching to the choir Chad. This is where my help is most needed.

Do you think it likely that Intel is going to produce another Prescott?

It doesn't matter what intel does legally. AMD is a better company, with far superior people. So long as it's fair and legal, AMD can never lose to intel. That is why intel had to resort to underhand tactics before.

If you think AMD is the same company that naively let intel walk over it 5 years ago, you are in for an unpleasant surprise.

 

[uncfan_2563]

I think that would be the end of Windows if it had to support another cpu architecture. They already struggle with 64 bit and I just don't think they could use the same OS

 

[Chad Boga]

No point in preaching to the choir Chad. This is where my help is most needed.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

It doesn't matter what intel does legally. AMD is a better company, with far superior people. So long as it's fair and legal, AMD can never lose to intel. That is why intel had to resort to underhand tactics before.

Intel's tactics as you refer to them I suspect came about largely as a result of having produced a dud in Prescott.

If Intel remain dud free for the next 6 years, AMD will be doing very well to hang around.

If you think AMD is the same company that naively let intel walk over it 5 years ago, you are in for an unpleasant surprise.

The only unpleasant thing for me would be if AMD disappears, but it wouldn't be a surprise.

I also think you have little to no idea on the role capacity constraints played in keeping AMD in their box, and there is as yet no evidence to suggest that Global Floundries is embarking on ramping up capacity that would be suitable for AMD to supply 35% of the market, so where and when will the game change occur?

 

[Chad Boga]

Let us get back on track for Apple+AMD Macs, please.

AMD and Apple in many ways would be a match made in Heaven, especially amongst their fans.

It would even give AMDZone a shot at not being the most ridiculous x86 PC based website in the history of the internet. 😀 :lol:

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Whoa whoa... They didn't mean Apple would buy AMD. They just meant that Apple would use AMD chips. The title of that article is worded funny.

PS: When the author said "Apple is thinking about ditching intel and going AMD" that kinda gave it away that they didn't mean an acquisition, since Apple didn't already own intel last time i checked.

ROFL - exactly what do you think the term "acquisition" means in the below link??

Analyst: Apple Could Be Weighing AMD Acquisition

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/ [...] 69816.html

"Yeah, yeah - let's go out and acquisition a bunch of AMD CPUs to use in our new Macs"..

A lack of comprehension skills is a decided disadvantage in any intelligent conversation, just FYI.. 😛

 

[jennyh]

I also think you have little to no idea on the role capacity constraints played in keeping AMD in their box, and there is as yet no evidence to suggest that Global Floundries is embarking on ramping up capacity that would be suitable for AMD to supply 35% of the market, so where and when will the game change occur?

Why that would be around about now..

http://www.semiconductor.net/article/print/453306-Dresden_Fab_Transformation_Underway.php

The Dresden fab complex is doubling its capacity, from 30,000 to 60,000 wpm. It is transitioning from being a dedicated MPU fab, owned by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD, Sunnyvale, Calif.), to being a foundry with multiple customers. And the Dresden fab is moving to a fast ramp of a high-k/metal gate process at 32/28 nm design rules.

Do you remember what I said about AMD's increasing capacity a few months ago?

Good old Chad, you can always be depended on to set up more good news for AMD with a silly ignorant statement.

 

[jennyh]

ROFL - exactly what do you think the term "acquisition" means in the below link??

Analyst: Apple Could Be Weighing AMD Acquisition

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/ [...] 69816.html

"Yeah, yeah - let's go out and acquisition a bunch of AMD CPUs to use in our new Macs"..

A lack of comprehension skills is a decided disadvantage in any intelligent conversation, just FYI.. 😛

I don't think you need to be a genius to figure out that yanni hadn't read Chad's link before reading dekasev's. 😗

 

[Chad Boga]

Why that would be around about now..

http://www.semiconductor.net/article/print/453306-Dresden_Fab_Transformation_Underway.php

Good old Chad, you can always be depended on to set up more good news for AMD with a silly ignorant statement.

Jenny, please don't be ridiculous.

A single 32nm fab isn't enough to supply more than 35% of the PC market.

When will AMD have 2 or 3 or 4, 32nm(or whatever the latest process size is) fabs at once?

See Jenny, you didn't even understand the scope of my question and in your haste to try and make a cheap shot at my expense, made yourself look stupid, again.

 

[jennyh]

When will intel have 2 or 3 or 4 32nm fabs at once? Do you really think all of intels fabs are churning out 32nm chips lol? 😀

Intel is at the peak of its 45nm production. According to its internal plans, 45nm CPUs make up 87 percent of its total desktop processor production.

 

[jennyh]

Not really. They both are, I believe, Building the new fabs.

This will be cool: i7 980x vs. FERMI

Buy both and get Duke Nukem Forever free. 😀

 

[Chad Boga]

When will intel have 2 or 3 or 4 32nm fabs at once? Do you really think all of intels fabs are churning out 32nm chips lol? 😀

Intel is at the peak of its 45nm production. According to its internal plans, 45nm CPUs make up 87 percent of its total desktop processor production.

Otellini announced 3 more 32nm fabs were coming online this year at the Q1 Conference Call.

Thus you fail again. :lol:

Oh and BTW if you had read and understood your link about Dresden, you would see that their extra capacity is largely due to Dresden becoming a foundry for other products and a good deal(if not all of it) will not be 32nm.

Thus double fail for you Jenny, double fail. :lol: