If AMD goes bankrupt will INTEL have monopoly?

fugben

Distinguished
Mar 19, 2008
250
0
18,780
0
My question is what if AMD goes bankrupt and suddenly intel has 100 % marketshare on the computing industry. Will they raise prices of all their processors to 2000 $ each? Should we support AMD from going bankrupt by buying their chips even if they are slightly worse? Intel microsoft of the pc consumer.... Hope this doesnt happen and i feel every chip i buy from intel it speeds up the inevitable
 

Slobogob

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
1,431
0
19,280
0

As a consumer you should only be concerned about one thing and one thing only - that is price. In this case the best performance for a given price. Performance can mean different things like power consumption, computing power, etc.
If AMD bites the dust it will do so because it couldn't deliver. Survival of the fittest, if you want.
Once you bring other elements into the equation, like buying only from companies that have a monkey paw in their corporate logo, you cross over to the dark side of illogical beheavior and join religious fanatics, politicians, tv preachers, marketing people, fans and apple customers.
 

cisco

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2004
719
0
18,980
0
I would be surprised if the government would let them go under. Besides Bankruptcy doesn't mean the would go out of business, it just means they would flush their debt and reorganize the stuff they can't flush. So in short after their stock goes through the hit of filing BK, they should be in good shape because they will have much less debt. If they make it through the announcement then they would likely recover rather quickly.
 
I think the premise of the question is false.

AMD will not drop off the face of the planet and Intel will not instantly leap to 100% market share.

Even if AMD went bankrupt (very, very unlikely) they would continue to operate.


 

cisco

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2004
719
0
18,980
0
As for supporting them if they go to 2k a processor that would be a bit excessive. But I do think we win if we support them. Had they not been around the last few years with their 64 bit processors we wouldn't be enjoying the latest generations from Intel. We would likely be talking about rumors of the Pentium 3 is being replaced with a Pentium 4. AMD pushed Intel to pull out all the stops to gain back the performance edge. If AMD is not around Intel's R&D budget will likely shrink and we lose when that happens.
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
0
19,790
2
AMD will not go bankrupt. The worst would happen is AMD being restructured, and launch as a new corporation (at least on the management level). It will then release competitive CPU, and take on Intel again.

Its all part of the cycle.
 

cisco

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2004
719
0
18,980
0


I agree it's a reorganization of debt not a death sentence. Many companies that are still around filed BK at one time. I would be willing to bet that General Motors files BK before AMD does.
 

Grimmy

Splendid
Feb 20, 2006
4,431
0
22,780
0
Well... then AMD should buy out Via, they can take them down too while their are at it, and when Intel becomes a true monopoly, then the government will be force to split them up to have different companies to break the monopoly.

I'm pretty much at the point in.. who gives a frack? I want to be happy for a while longer for what I have, not have to buy something that will last 6 months, then wella... spend another fortune, whether its AMD or Intel just to run something smoothly.

I remember when I couldn't even afford to get a X2 4400+, not to mention I didn't even have a 939 MB which today isn't even supported, which prolly is a good thing.
 

Amiga500

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
631
0
18,980
0


If AMD were to cease to exist (not quite the same as bankruptcy) then Intel would have a virtual monopoly on x86 CPU sales (VIA are competing only in small niche markets).



Will they raise prices of all their processors to 2000 $ each?
Unquestionably. They have done it before when they had more competition than now but had a virtual monopoly, of course they would when they had less competition and an even stronger monopoly.


Should we support AMD from going bankrupt by buying their chips even if they are slightly worse?
I argued that point about 6 months ago.



Is it wise to pay $10 more for the same performance (from AMD) to save yourself paying $1000 extra 5 years down the road?

IMO it worth the 10 dollar hit now.



A lot of others seen it differently though.
 

Nik_I

Distinguished
Oct 12, 2007
1,139
0
19,290
3
even if amd's situation got very bad, i wouldn't be surprised if one or several companies step in to buy out amd to keep intel from becoming the only major manufacturer of cpu's.
 

royalcrown

Distinguished
May 31, 2006
2,614
0
20,960
71


Grimmy..I remember when the p2 pro's came DOWN from 2 grand to 1200, I started planning like mad ! Those really were the BAD old days before computers were a commodity item.

and that was just the CPU !
 

Amiga500

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
631
0
18,980
0



The x86 license forbids it.



The buy-out would require Intel to sanction it, and they wouldn't unless the buyout company was significantly smaller than them, or there was a court order.
 

royalcrown

Distinguished
May 31, 2006
2,614
0
20,960
71


that argument is such bulls%%%...if a company had a monopoly and the price of a chip went way up, people would stop buying new chips and upgrading so often, so the company sales would slump; and as far a s a 10 dollar difference..what anout when company b simply has no competitive product for top performance at ANY price ?! I am not gonna buy a phenom anything when quad 9750's exist if I want something badass.

 

Nik_I

Distinguished
Oct 12, 2007
1,139
0
19,290
3


wow that's so stupid...
 

Amiga500

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
631
0
18,980
0


Were you around during the Pentium Pro era then? :sarcastic:


and as far a s a 10 dollar difference..what anout when company b simply has no competitive product for top performance at ANY price ?! I am not gonna buy a phenom anything when quad 9750's exist if I want something badass.
Who said anything about top end? :sarcastic:






Learn to read stupid fanboy, and that applies to history as well as forum posts.
 

Amiga500

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
631
0
18,980
0


Well, from intels POV it is protecting itself, can't really blame them.


That is just the way it is - which is why talk of IBM or Samsung buying out AMD to compete in the x86 market is rubbish. It would take a significant change in the cross-license agreement to allow it.
 

speedbird

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2007
547
0
18,990
2
I wouldn't read too much into it, because both tech companies have had their down periods when it comes to the high-end performance lead. What most typical home buyers care about is performance at a mainstream price and both companies offer capable products.
 

royalcrown

Distinguished
May 31, 2006
2,614
0
20,960
71


I was around before the PPRo era..speaking of learning to read and fanboyism:

1. Read my reply to grimmy
2. I own an AMD "stupid fanboy", and they simply have no product to compete, so why should I subsidize their **** products vs intels good products ?

Yes, both cpu's being roughly equivalent, buy what you like, buy amd for 10 bucks more, no big deal. Don't forget to take into account platform changes if they apply as far as figuring the 10 bucks though.
 

Amiga500

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
631
0
18,980
0


Then do you suffer from short term memory loss?

if a company had a monopoly and the price of a chip went way up, people would stop buying new chips and upgrading so often, so the company sales would slump;
Equate that with Intel during the Pentium Pro era.

Now explain how Intel got away with $2K CPUs without killing themselves?




Oh, yes... because there was no widely known alternative. Guess what - exit AMD and there is no alternative never mind an underground one.




2. I own an AMD "dumbass", and they simply have no product to compete, so why should I subsidize their **** products vs intels good products ?

**** is within 5-10% performance at the same price point?


No. **** is 10% more performance for 200% the cost. (see GTX280 on release of 4870)






Yes, both cpu's being roughly equivalent, buy what you like, buy amd for 10 bucks more, no big deal. Don't forget to take into account platform changes if they apply as far as figuring the 10 bucks though.
Yeap. AM3 CPUs will work in AM2+ mobos.

Nehalem will not work in current Intel boards.


An AM2+ is definitely more future proofed than a 775. Whether future AM3 CPUs will be better than current 775 Penryns is another matter.
 

royalcrown

Distinguished
May 31, 2006
2,614
0
20,960
71
Okay AMIGA 500, my view of why they were 2000 bucks back then is simple,

1. computers were not the commodity item they are today..
a. the market wasn't saturated with everyone owning a computer.
b. The "wow" factor for even having a computer back then was much higher.
c. Manufacturing tech in general as far as cpu's was a newer field and more costly as far as gaining the knowledge and cost on a given process node.

there wont be another confluence of these things unless all of a sudden super ultra optical computers come out.

2. I believe it is more than a paltry 10 -15 percent except in various editing type apps. Yes..as someone who is tired of bang for the buck and wants to go with absolute performance once in awhile, i would pay an extra 200 bucks.

How can you possibly think that mainstream cpu's would go back up to 2 grand, do you really think the brunt of people would rush out to upgrade then (given the likelihood that it'd just be an incremental performance increase ?
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY