AMD confirms ATI buyout - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 24th Jul 2006, 14:08

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07...ms_ati_buyout/

Bindibadgi · 24th Jul 2006, 14:10

Intel almost immediently revoked ATIs lisence for their CPUs too. RD600 will be the last Crossfire one avaliable.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of deal Intel stamps out with Nvidia: should NV want a lisence for Intel chips NV has to open SLI?

ch424 · 24th Jul 2006, 14:13

This is quite interesting.

Charlie Demerjian spews out so much crap that occasionally he's right...

ch424

Da Dego · 24th Jul 2006, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by ch424

This is quite interesting.

Charlie Demerjian spews out so much crap that occasionally he's right...

ch424

Charlie's pretty good...he just likes to cover his bases.

But he was right on with most of this while many of us thought him nutty as a loon.

DXR_13KE · 24th Jul 2006, 15:04

i wonder what will realy happen in the furure......maybe buying a conroe is not a good idea at all.
BAH!!! i will buy a new machine as soon as AMD sends out their new CPUs next year, then then i will see if i will buy a Intel or a AMD and if there are good mother boards and Graphic cards. the best one will win my money.

ch424 · 24th Jul 2006, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by DXR_13KE

i wonder what will realy happen in the furure......maybe buying a conroe is not a good idea at all.
BAH!!! i will buy a new machine as soon as AMD sends out their new CPUs next year, then then i will see if i will buy a Intel or a AMD and if there are good mother boards and Graphic cards. the best one will win my money.

So... you're gonna buy the best system you can, next year?

Thanks for sharing that

I might do the same, rather than spending money on a misinformed choice..

ch424

PrometheusCon · 24th Jul 2006, 16:29

I want SLI for intel chipsets. Conroe with hacked drivers for SLI is killing over at XS. Now we just need official ones. GOGOGOGO

TheColdLord · 25th Jul 2006, 00:20

I feared this would happen...Still I don't get it....why wouldn't nVidia make the choice to buy AMD, I mean there isn't much conflict between them, nVidia always made good chipsests for AMD. AMD dosn't want(this how I know it) to build mobo chipsets so what is the problem....SLI wouldn't have to open up to no1 and every1 is happy.
Either that or the 4 giants should be separate as before. There is pretty little to gain in this merger IMHO, not to mention that if Intel swallos nVidia, that would totally mean the end of high end GPUs.

In another orded of ideas, maybe there will not be much change, they will act as 4 separate companies, and each will provide optimisation even for the rival chipset\gpu, making performance grow. Only time will tell what this merger will bring I only hope it won't bring a clear domination of either of these chips.

RotoSequence · 25th Jul 2006, 00:36

X86 as we know it is going away, thats why. AMD is screwed unless they can gain a sufficient level of parallelism in their processors to compete with Intel's upcoming uber processor which will be fully capable of making GPUs obsolete. Thats my thought anyway.

specofdust · 25th Jul 2006, 00:50

I have to disagree with you there Roto. It's kinda like saying if we can make the car good enough we won't need lorries anymore. It's true, we can probably fit a sheep in a car, but the lorry is always gonna be better at it.

In the same way, graphics cards are designed for graphics, they have vertex and pixel shaders. CPU's are designed for maths, lots and lots of pretty simple maths. They're great at that, but for now a dedicated graphics processor is still by far the best option and I don't see even something like quad core changing that. I see it as possible that graphics chips get integrated into CPU's, but CPU's in their current form, I don't think they could compete.;

RotoSequence · 25th Jul 2006, 00:57

Which is why I dont see CPUs existing in their current form. Not as quad core, but as 32 or more cores, where many of them can function for graphics at any time.

specofdust · 25th Jul 2006, 01:04

It still seems a terribly inefficient way of doing things roto. 32 cores in the next few years surely means seriously high power consumption and heat. Going back to my car analogy, just because we could have 50 cars for ferrying sheep around, doesn't mean we want it, when 1 or 2 lorries would do just as good a job far more efficiently.

RotoSequence · 25th Jul 2006, 01:06

We're not talking about 50 ferrari spiders, we're talking about 50 model Ts with modern engineering principles; they dont need to be ultra-complex like today's processors.

specofdust · 25th Jul 2006, 01:18

You've lost me....

RotoSequence · 25th Jul 2006, 01:22

Intel has been pushing for parallelism for awhile now; past four cores, its pointless with current programming models and processor design schemes. Why push beyond that? To integrate more functionality and make it easier to design - kind of like cell, but with a more proven architectural base. Take 32 basic X86 processors that can execute instructions in parallel and dynamically allocate cores to tasks. Pack in 20 of them for the graphics of this fancy game and voila, youve got something that can process more pixels per second than a comperable video card, and you can still do other things with the other dozen cores.

TheColdLord · 25th Jul 2006, 09:08

As mentioned by specofdust, the thing with power consumption and overheating will surely be a seriouse problem. even if they'll change the fab process it is still a big problem to fit\cool 32 processors. Of course there will probably be configurabil packages, which will cost less and so on, yet they won't even get close to a stand alone GPU. Of course it will be cheaper even for mobo design, yet the performance will lack to come to better standart not to mention that, if either one of the 4 giants fail there will be seriouse drawbacks in perfomance for if only one will dominate than that means they will get very lazy.

ch424 · 25th Jul 2006, 09:26

Spec, if you don't get where Roto got his ideas from, read my link.

ch424

kickarse · 25th Jul 2006, 14:10

Wish I could get a loan for that much...

24th Jul 2006, 14:08	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	AMD confirms ATI buyout http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07...ms_ati_buyout/ __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

24th Jul 2006, 14:10	#2
Bindibadgi Richard Swinburne bit-tech Staff Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Omnipwntent Posts: 28,241	Intel almost immediently revoked ATIs lisence for their CPUs too. RD600 will be the last Crossfire one avaliable. It'll be interesting to see what kind of deal Intel stamps out with Nvidia: should NV want a lisence for Intel chips NV has to open SLI? __________________ Made you look, made you stare, made you clicked this in your underwear! Den of Geek!

24th Jul 2006, 15:04	#5
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,466	i wonder what will realy happen in the furure......maybe buying a conroe is not a good idea at all. BAH!!! i will buy a new machine as soon as AMD sends out their new CPUs next year, then then i will see if i will buy a Intel or a AMD and if there are good mother boards and Graphic cards. the best one will win my money. __________________ *Renegade X - 0.40 Release!* <---- CLICK!

25th Jul 2006, 00:20	#8
TheColdLord Multimodder Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: @ Home:D Posts: 204	I feared this would happen...Still I don't get it....why wouldn't nVidia make the choice to buy AMD, I mean there isn't much conflict between them, nVidia always made good chipsests for AMD. AMD dosn't want(this how I know it) to build mobo chipsets so what is the problem....SLI wouldn't have to open up to no1 and every1 is happy. Either that or the 4 giants should be separate as before. There is pretty little to gain in this merger IMHO, not to mention that if Intel swallos nVidia, that would totally mean the end of high end GPUs. In another orded of ideas, maybe there will not be much change, they will act as 4 separate companies, and each will provide optimisation even for the rival chipset\gpu, making performance grow. Only time will tell what this merger will bring I only hope it won't bring a clear domination of either of these chips. __________________ I'm my own futures smith. xxx

25th Jul 2006, 00:36	#9
RotoSequence Lazy Lurker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: 'States Posts: 4,527	X86 as we know it is going away, thats why. AMD is screwed unless they can gain a sufficient level of parallelism in their processors to compete with Intel's upcoming uber processor which will be fully capable of making GPUs obsolete. Thats my thought anyway. __________________ Technology Schmecnology

24th Jul 2006, 14:13	#3
ch424 Design Warrior Join Date: May 2004 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 2,511	This is quite interesting. Charlie Demerjian spews out so much crap that occasionally he's right... ch424

24th Jul 2006, 16:29	#7
PrometheusCon Stop! Hammertime. Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Hel...err Pennsylvania Posts: 159	I want SLI for intel chipsets. Conroe with hacked drivers for SLI is killing over at XS. Now we just need official ones. GOGOGOGO

25th Jul 2006, 00:50	#10
specofdust Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aberdeen, UK, EU Posts: 7,609	I have to disagree with you there Roto. It's kinda like saying if we can make the car good enough we won't need lorries anymore. It's true, we can probably fit a sheep in a car, but the lorry is always gonna be better at it. In the same way, graphics cards are designed for graphics, they have vertex and pixel shaders. CPU's are designed for maths, lots and lots of pretty simple maths. They're great at that, but for now a dedicated graphics processor is still by far the best option and I don't see even something like quad core changing that. I see it as possible that graphics chips get integrated into CPU's, but CPU's in their current form, I don't think they could compete.; __________________ Like marmite, only no-one hates it Mmm bop!

25th Jul 2006, 00:57	#11
RotoSequence Lazy Lurker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: 'States Posts: 4,527	Which is why I dont see CPUs existing in their current form. Not as quad core, but as 32 or more cores, where many of them can function for graphics at any time. __________________ Technology Schmecnology

25th Jul 2006, 01:04	#12
specofdust Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aberdeen, UK, EU Posts: 7,609	It still seems a terribly inefficient way of doing things roto. 32 cores in the next few years surely means seriously high power consumption and heat. Going back to my car analogy, just because we could have 50 cars for ferrying sheep around, doesn't mean we want it, when 1 or 2 lorries would do just as good a job far more efficiently. __________________ Like marmite, only no-one hates it Mmm bop!

25th Jul 2006, 01:06	#13
RotoSequence Lazy Lurker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: 'States Posts: 4,527	We're not talking about 50 ferrari spiders, we're talking about 50 model Ts with modern engineering principles; they dont need to be ultra-complex like today's processors. __________________ Technology Schmecnology

25th Jul 2006, 01:18	#14
specofdust Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aberdeen, UK, EU Posts: 7,609	You've lost me.... __________________ Like marmite, only no-one hates it Mmm bop!

25th Jul 2006, 01:22	#15
RotoSequence Lazy Lurker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: 'States Posts: 4,527	Intel has been pushing for parallelism for awhile now; past four cores, its pointless with current programming models and processor design schemes. Why push beyond that? To integrate more functionality and make it easier to design - kind of like cell, but with a more proven architectural base. Take 32 basic X86 processors that can execute instructions in parallel and dynamically allocate cores to tasks. Pack in 20 of them for the graphics of this fancy game and voila, youve got something that can process more pixels per second than a comperable video card, and you can still do other things with the other dozen cores. __________________ Technology Schmecnology

25th Jul 2006, 09:08	#16
TheColdLord Multimodder Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: @ Home:D Posts: 204	As mentioned by specofdust, the thing with power consumption and overheating will surely be a seriouse problem. even if they'll change the fab process it is still a big problem to fit\cool 32 processors. Of course there will probably be configurabil packages, which will cost less and so on, yet they won't even get close to a stand alone GPU. Of course it will be cheaper even for mobo design, yet the performance will lack to come to better standart not to mention that, if either one of the 4 giants fail there will be seriouse drawbacks in perfomance for if only one will dominate than that means they will get very lazy. __________________ I'm my own futures smith. xxx

25th Jul 2006, 09:26	#17
ch424 Design Warrior Join Date: May 2004 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 2,511	Spec, if you don't get where Roto got his ideas from, read my link. ch424 __________________ The Alligator Intel Q6600 @ 3GHz \| Asus P5QL-E \| 4GB x OCZ Platinum \| ASUS HD4850 \| Yuraku YV24WBH1 \| 2x 1TB Samsung F1 \| Vista Ultimate Dell Latitude D430 \| 1.2GHz 2MB Core 2 Duo U7600 \| 2GB x DDR2-533 \| 12.1" WXGA \| 80GB 4200rpm \| Intel 945GMS \| DVD/CDRW \| 64-bit Xubuntu \| Samsung Galaxy

25th Jul 2006, 14:10	#18
kickarse Ultramodder Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Holyoke, MA Posts: 1,281	Wish I could get a loan for that much... __________________ Top 5 Listening to Now - A Second To Last - Dying Against Your Will Rock Kills Kid - Paralyzed Zero State Reflex - I'm Splintering Hot Hot Heat - Middle of No Where - www.nerges.net